What's a concubine?

[_beastie]

This talk reminds me of the times I have seen bits and pieces posted about Mormon Royalty. When I have inquired about it, I nevered received any specific information. I am uncertain if people really believe this but are keeping mum or if this is just Mormon urban legend.

I think there's little doubt early LDS leaders believed in a form of Mormon royalty. They were the ones in that counsel in the pre-existence, and it was their right and obligation to obtain as many wives and children as possible to continue that ordained blood line.

Whether or not most Mormons today believe this is a different question. I do not believe they do, although some old-timers may. I think the idea was too tied up in the theological defense of polygamy for it to thrive in the modern LDS church.

Of course, GAs are *treated* like royalty.

[_Ray A]

My impression from Bible commentaries is also that a concubine was the servant of the wife, but her duties included sex with the husband, hence bearing children.

I was always confused by the D & C scripture that seemed to sanction this. It almost reminds me of Bennett's accusations that polygamy entailed a caste system of wives.

Modern society also entails a caste system of wives. There's the legally, lawfully wedded wife, and about 20 secret lovers, some paid for by credit card. Which planet do you live on, beastie? Have you read Kinsey?

[_Ray A]

Extra-marital sex

Kinsey estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives.[8] Among the sample, 26% of females had had extramarital sex by their forties. Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 10 females from age 26 to 50 were engaged in extramarital sex.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

[_moksha]

Extra-marital sex

Kinsey estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives.[8] Among the sample, 26% of females had had extramarital sex by their forties. Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 10 females from age 26 to 50 were engaged in extramarital sex.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

Have the Kinsey reports ever been introduced in defense of polygamy? At least for the last Century they could indicate a propensity away from strict monogamy.

[_Ray A]

Extra-marital sex

Kinsey estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives.[8] Among the sample, 26% of females had had extramarital sex by their forties. Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 10 females from age 26 to 50 were engaged in extramarital sex.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

Have the Kinsey reports ever been introduced in defense of polygamy? At least for the last Century they could indicate a propensity away from strict monogamy.

I am not aware of that, Mok. But some LDS women in the 19th century did use that defence, and of course Brigham Young also used it, not Kinsey, but the idea that monogamy was problematic because of the "reality" of human nature. The modern Church has shifted from these ideas, but still retains vestiges of polygamy, at least "in principle", but certainly not on the grounds of male or female sexuality. This was a secondary argument for polygamy, the idea that males could not be "contained", and had nothing to do with the original idea of polygamy in Mormon doctrine. It was employed only to point out the impracticality of monogamy. But as pointed out in Kinsey, many females are also not "monogamy-oriented", and my observation is that this trend has increased among females, who are far more proactive today than they were in the 19th century, in practice, if not in "mainstream perception".

From a purely practical viewpoint, monogamy may not be ideal, but this has nothing to do with "eternal principles", or even the Book of Mormon concept of "sporadic polygamy" to "increase or multiply seed". There is a biological basis to this that has nothing to do with gospel principles. We share 99% of our genes with apes, and apes are not monogamous. Nor are most species, for that matter. Using Kinsey to defend LDS polygamy would, in effect, make little sense. I haven't used it in that sense. I have used it to show that the "tribal" nature of humans, and the animal nature of humans, is real. Going beyond that does not require a justification of polygamy, but a higher "law", which enables us to move beyond "animal instinct". I think this is where the modern Church is heading, and it seems more in tuned with the "ideals of Christ", who taught that love, not sex, is paramount. Sex is only the "by product" of love, but among humans, especially those without real love, it can become the "main product". That would not be conducive to what the modern Church stands for - family unity. And I think they understand this, hence the repudiation of polygamy, at least in practice. The modern Church is more in harmony with the "ideals of Christ", and less with the ideals of Abraham or the Patriarchs.

[_beastie]

Modern society also entails a caste system of wives. There's the legally, lawfully wedded wife, and about 20 secret lovers, some paid for by credit card. Which planet do you live on, beastie? Have you read Kinsey?

Does God approve of this behavior, because he approves of concubines - and that was the entire point of my post.

[_Chap]

There's the legally, lawfully wedded wife, and about 20 secret lovers, some paid for by credit card.

Goodness, you must be a busy man! It is a wonder that you have the time and energy to post here.

[_truth dancer]

From a purely practical viewpoint, monogamy may not be ideal, but this has nothing to do with "eternal principles", or even the Book of Mormon concept of "sporadic polygamy" to "increase or multiply seed". There is a biological basis to this that has nothing to do with gospel principles. We share 99% of our genes with apes, and apes are not monogamous. Nor are most species, for that matter. Using Kinsey to defend LDS polygamy would, in effect, make little sense. I haven't used it in that sense. I have used it to show that the "tribal" nature of humans, and the animal nature of humans, is real.

A few things... (sorry to get off topic for a sec Beastie), :-)

First, research has shown that given equal opportunities for promiscuous behavior about 50% of both men and women engage. This is world wide and historical. Read, Helen Fisher. (Of course when women have no access to other men the numbers go down which is why the numbers were off in the Kinsey report and why the numbers are going up today).

Secondly, engaging in an affair is much different than having a harem.

In addition, it is indisputable that monogamy (pair bonding), is what has evolved in the human. There is really NO question about this. The research is robust and clear. Why? Because humans survive better when parents are bonded. Period.

The fact that various species have developed different forms of mating does not speak to what has evolved in humans.

Polygamy is RARE in our species. I have posted the research before on various boards ... polygamy has been/is reserved for the wealthy and powerful. And research is showing that even in those species that utilize a harem form of mating, the females are often visiting other males. In other words, they attach to a dominant male but have sex with other males.

If I recall correctly, Ray, I previously discussed the research and provided quotes by David Buss, Jared Diamond and others supporting this.

Polygamy not only is harmful to children (they obviously do not survive as well as children in a pair bonded family), but it is clearly harmful to society. Society does not do well when a significant number of its men do not have a partner.

This is so clear and obvious.

All rates of crime go up.. not just rape, but virtually all crimes. Robert Wright speaks in depth of this in, The Moral Animal.

I tire of hearing the false notion that men are primitive animals that can't be committed husbands and fathers.

:-)

Just clearing up a few things!


~dancer~

[_beastie]

No problem TD, and I want to add something - polygamy usually can only be sustained in cultures with a very powerful central leader who can squash any uprising of unhappy, mateless males.

[_Chap]

No problem TD, and I want to add something - polygamy usually can only be sustained in cultures with a very powerful central leader who can squash any uprising of unhappy, mateless males.

Precisely.

You cannot have a society in which ALL adult men practice polygamy, unless there is a heavy mortality amongst males which does not affect females. It is typically a right claimed by older, richer, more powerful men, who thereby deprive younger, poorer, less powerful men of partners (not to mention depriving young women, who typically have little choice in polygamous societies, from having partners of their own age whom they would prefer). Since marriage is in all societies an important factor in the socialisation (or just plain civilisation) of young men, bad social consequences inevitably follow in the long run when polygamy is general.

Of course TBMs know that too - and that is why they have to go through that ludicrous acrobatic trick of claiming that polygamy will do just fine for the celestial kingdom, and no-one will get left out - because there will be more women that men in the CK in view of the superior moral behaviour of women. So that's all right.

If you want to see what a society is like when young men are excluded from marriage because of a shortage of marriageable women, keep your eyes on China. A by-product of the government's one-child policy has been selective abortion in favour of male fetuses, and as a result there are now 120 boys being born for every 100 girls. The result will not be pretty ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508