What's a concubine?

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:01 am

Ray, you've spent a lot of time talking about human nature, but haven't address what it is, exactly, that God was condoning when he approved of concubinage.

Gaze,

So do you believe that God approves of a wife-caste system?

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:02 am

Ray A wrote:
harmony wrote:
Excuse me, are you saying that your riders, the people in your cab, confide their inner most secrets to you? They tell you that they're cheating on their wife/husband? Pardon me, but that's worthy of shovel.

Absolutely. They don't even try to hide it. You sound very naïve. The only other "workers" who know what really goes on are prostitutes, and I've talked to dozens of them (naturally, because of the nature of my job), and they all tell me that the majority of their customers are married men. And in case you're not aware, I also transport many males to and from brothels, every night. You ought to hear some of the conversations, and I've done this for nearly a year now. They think we are just robots who turn steering wheels.

I have something to say on this.... and don't care who knows.
<snipped>

Actually I do care.

Many, many men cheat. More would cheat if given the chance.

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:03 am

beastie wrote:Ray, you've spent a lot of time talking about human nature, but haven't address what it is, exactly, that God was condoning when he approved of concubinage.

Gaze,

So do you believe that God approves of a wife-caste system?

I think MEN approve of a wife-caste system. It's disgusting that women can be treated as sexual luxuries to satisfy the lust of men.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:04 am

beastie wrote:Ray, you've spent a lot of time talking about human nature, but haven't address what it is, exactly, that God was condoning when he approved of concubinage.

I don't approve of concubinage, or polygamy. If God thinks differently, we might have to have a chat when I get to the other side.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:04 am

Thanks for the answer, Ray.

Charity, do you have any comments? Gaze, how about you?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:56 am

You are looking at a Caste system in an inappropriate light.

There is a Caste system in Heaven, is there not? Is not the Father above the Son? Are there not Angels, and Spheres of Influence?

In our own households, there is the firstborn, and the children who come after, are any of them loved any more or less than another?

Plural families are no different.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:57 am

You are looking at a Caste system in an inappropriate light.

There is a Caste system in Heaven, is there not? Is not the Father above the Son? Are there not Angels, and Spheres of Influence?

In our own households, there is the firstborn, and the children who come after, are any of them loved any more or less than another?

Plural families are no different.

Why the need for a completely different label? If it's just a matter of first wife versus second, they could all be wives. And this type of "caste" system obviously existed in the LDS church, which contradicts the very explanation you earlier offered.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:19 am

So a woman who carries the name of an exalted man, who is sealed to him and enters into the Celestial kingdom, who lived worthily and upheld her covenants and nutured and raised a righteous generation, will be referred to as a secondary Goddess?

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:21 am

I have no idea, Gaze, I'm asking you. God condoned concubinage. You, via BRM, do not believe it has the same meaning as the historical meaning of the word, which is basically a servant or a slave who also performed sexual duties for the master. BRM said it was not used in this dispensation due to the caste system referred to not existing. So what, exactly, is God condoning when he condones concubinage?

Please don't answer with another question. Try to answer the question directly.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

beastie wrote:I have no idea, Gaze, I'm asking you. God condoned concubinage. You, via BRM, do not believe it has the same meaning as the historical meaning of the word, which is basically a servant or a slave who also performed sexual duties for the master. BRM said it was not used in this dispensation due to the caste system referred to not existing. So what, exactly, is God condoning when he condones concubinage?

Please don't answer with another question. Try to answer the question directly.

My understanding of the apologetic stance was that God approved of concubines for Abraham, etc. in the Old Testament times because the concubines, were, in essence, wives, and treated as such. They were only labeled as concubines because of their social standing based on the caste system that existed during that time period. Abraham and the other prophets, being righteous men, did not treat these women any differently than other wives, and they were entitled to the same privileges and standings within their individual households.

The modern quotes that have been pulled on this thread, I had never heard of before. I had no idea that the actual term, "concubine", held any meaning in the restored Church.

That thought makes me physically ill.

So, yes, I would like to hear an explanation from Gaz, Charity, or any other apologists on the board who can shed more light on how the term, concubine, fits into modern Church practice and polygamy.