Jump to content

News on Plural Marriage


nuclearfuels

Recommended Posts

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 1:10 PM, california boy said:

What do you think the importance of taking the name of the man would be without marrying them?  If they can provide for themselves, and are not in a sexual relationship, why wouldn't they just stay single?

For convenience we refer to Temple sealings as marriages.  But they're not.  At least not necessarily.  But it does confer the name of the man.

 

Link to post
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Could this be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the last days that says "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel

Or maybe importing chinese men who are way more plentiful than Chinese women?

15 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

For convenience we refer to Temple sealings as marriages.  But they're not.  At least not necessarily.  But it does confer the name of the man.

 

I was responding to Calm's post where she said

Quote

However, the description is not of a plural marriage as we think of it as it is simply taking his name only and the women caring for themselves as described.  A shortage of men might lead the Church to reinstating, but I would be cautious in making that jump.

A Temple Sealing would be the same as a plural marriage.  It would also mean that sexual relations would be allowed.  So they would not JUST be taking the name of the man.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I was responding to Calm's post where she said

A Temple Sealing would be the same as a plural marriage.  It would also mean that sexual relations would be allowed.  So they would not JUST be taking the name of the man.

The ceremony would be the same. The expected level of companionship probably not, though from what I have read, there were some cases in early Utah or the colonies it almost amounted to that, at least after setting up the wife and kids in a home.  But is also happen at times in no polygamous marriages when the husband went on missions for long periods.

 I meant as far as any support in terms of lifestyle from the man, it would just be his name. Sex would also be allowed of course if only for having children, possibly for fun as well. Not sure if they would want the latter or if the women just wanted enough children to be seen as having significant value  for/standing in the community without the risk of being pregnant all the time.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

If you want evidence of plural marriage in the last days and possibly even weirder stuff there are better sources:

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Lorenzo Snow

:vader: 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you want evidence of plural marriage in the last days and possibly even weirder stuff there are better sources:

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Lorenzo Snow

:vader: 

Source?

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Source?

Diary of Abraham H. Cannon, an apostle. He also had quotes about concubinage from President Woodruff and George Q. Cannon (his father) in his journal.

Could it be in error? Possibly. It is also worth noting that based on the date Lorenzo Snow was not yet the Prophet and was probably the President of the Twelve when he said it.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Diary of Abraham H. Cannon, an apostle. He also had quotes about concubinage from President Woodruff and George Q. Cannon (his father) in his journal.

Could it be in error? Possibly. It is also worth noting that based on the date Lorenzo Snow was not yet the Prophet and was probably the President of the Twelve when he said it.

Interesting.

Abraham's Hagar was a concubine, and after Sarah's death he took Keturah as either a concubine or wife -- both terms are used in the OT.

Isaac, Abraham's son, had one wife and no concubines.

Jacob, Isaac's son, had two wives and two concubines.

I suspect that the term concubine is as near to wife as makes no difference, and perhaps indicates only a secondary importance as compared to a wife, but I don't like it in any case.

 

Link to post

In more depth, "Female slave who functioned as a secondary wife and surrogate mother. The Hebrew word for concubine (pileges [v,g,lyiP]) is a non-Semitic loanword borrowed to refer to a phenomenon not indigenous to Israel. Babylonian and Assyrian law codes regulate primary and secondary marriages more specifically than do the Old Testament laws. Exodus 21:7-10 has been appealed to as regulative of some aspects of concubinage, but that only implicitly.

Concubines are mentioned primarily in early Israelite history — during patriarchal times, the period of the judges, and the early monarchy although some later kings also had concubines. While concubines did not have the same status as wives, they were not to be mistreated ( Exod 21:7-10 ) nor could they be violated by other males ( Gen 35:22 ) with impunity ( Gen 49:3-4 ). They seem to have received higher status if they bore sons, or at least they are remembered by name ( Gen 21:10 ; 22:24 ; 30:3 ; 36:12 ).

The sons of some concubines were treated as co-heirs with the sons of wives. Was this facilitated by the wife accepting and naming the child as her own, or was the father's act of "adopting" the son required? Paucity of information prevents us from answering this definitively. In at least one case the inheritance potential of the concubine's son seems to present a threat to the primary wife and her son ( Gen 21:10 ). Abraham eventually gives the full inheritance to Isaac, and only gives gifts to his concubines' sons ( Gen 25:6 ).

The story of Judges 19-20 suggests that the terminology used of relationships in a regular marriage are also used in a concubinage relationship. The man is called the concubine's "husband" ( 19:3 ; 20:4 ) and the woman's father is referred to as the man's "father-in-law" ( 19:9 ). Some evidence suggests that royal wives (concubines?) were inherited by succeeding kings ( 1 Sam 12:8 ). Thus approaching the royal concubines ( 1 Sam 16:21-22 ) or even requesting the king's female attendant for a wife ( 1 Kings 2:13-22 ) can be understood as the act of one attempting to take the throne away from its designated occupant ( 1 Kings 2:22 ).

The practice of taking concubines as "wife" was used to provide a male heir for a barren wife (cf. Gen. 16, 35, 36). In addition, the practice provided a social safety net for poor families who could sell their daughters in dire times ( Exod 21:7-10 ; Judges 19:1 ). It seems plausible to suggest that the practice of taking concubines was perpetuated to meet the sexual desires of the males and/or to cement political alliances between nations. Nevertheless, the paucity of sufficient internal data requires dependence on comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence for these conclusions. Multiplying children through concubines would not normally complicate the inheritance lines, but would increase the available family workforce and the family wealth."

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/concubine/

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 7/9/2020 at 3:53 PM, Stargazer said:

Isaac, Abraham's son, had one wife and no concubines.

Not according to D&C 132.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Isaac teaches us good lessons.  One, always stay close to home: he does not leave Israel.  According to the OT, two, he has one wife who bear his only children.  His name is never changed, demonstrating an eternal nature of his character, his personality.

He has always been my ideal of a man on his covenant path to God.

 

Link to post
On 7/18/2020 at 10:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

Not according to D&C 132.

OK, but that's what the Bible says. I'm pretty sure that the details of the lives of these people are very little known in any case. The Bible, for example, does not constitute a full biography of any person living at the time. What did Abraham have for breakfast on a particular date?  Breakfast is never mentioned, but it's certain he ate in the morning.  

If the D&C adds details, who am I to object?

Link to post
On 7/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Stargazer said:

Source?

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Lorenzo Snow

Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, April 5, 1894, v. 18, p. 70

  • Like 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

I doubt that the women of the church will accept the re-introduction of plural marriage in the present day or of concubinage.

President Snow spoke in a time where women were still valued heavily for their children and had hard lives when unmarried or familyless. Nowadays women find value in other things pretty easily and are independent just fine in most cases, at least financially, though many want children so badly they put themselves through very difficult and expensive treatments in order to have them. So if the Church continues to refuse to accept in vitro of single women (which is likely imo), I wouldn’t be surprised if some women went that route if there were too few men to marry monogamously. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

I stand corrected, Calm. 

But you think those women would be in the small minority, don't you? 

And would others in an even smaller number be willing to live the principle because it is the principle?

Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

President Snow spoke in a time where women were still valued heavily for their children and had hard lives when unmarried or familyless. Nowadays women find value in other things pretty easily and are independent just fine in most cases, at least financially, though many want children so badly they put themselves through very difficult and expensive treatments in order to have them. So if the Church continues to refuse to accept in vitro of single women (which is likely imo), I wouldn’t be surprised if some women went that route if there were too few men to marry monogamously. 

This almost sounds like surrogacy.  Maybe we have concubinage already in the modern world?  We just call it surrogate birthing now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

I stand corrected, Calm. 

But you think those women would be in the small minority, don't you? 

And would others in an even smaller number be willing to live the principle because it is the principle?

Since the Church promises all blessings eventually, I suspect the number would be small. But if our culture had a massive enough change there weren’t enough men around for women to marry even if not their first or third choice, then all bets are off imo. That had to be a major Catastrophe, not just a cultural trend. 
 

As far as the Principle...if made a commandment, I don’t know. If not, likely not many.  But again if massive cultural change...

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, webbles said:

This almost sounds like surrogacy.  Maybe we have concubinage already in the modern world?  We just call it surrogate birthing now.

There is no marriage or long term support/protection. contract with surrogates, so not really.  Plus women would be keeping their own children, not giving them to others. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
19 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no marriage or long term support/protection. contract with surrogates, so not really.  Plus women would be keeping their own children, not giving them to others. 

The word concubine is used to describe many different arrangements but one is a kind of matrilineal temporary marriage. In essence the woman would marry a man for a limited duration and the children were hers by descent. When the marriage ended and the wife rejoined her clan or family she took the children with her and they were part of her family. It could be more like that form than it would seem at first glance and that does seem to fit best with the quotes about it. More likely though it is not happening at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 3/12/2020 at 5:38 PM, Stargazer said:

... I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with annoying and perplexing one wife at a time. I am sufficed, and more than sufficed. But if the Lord were to call upon me to make more than one similarly annoyed and perplexed at the same time, I would obey.

Well, as a wise man once said (we know what's coming, Ken!  How many times have you said it? :huh:), "Ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!" ;):D

Link to post
On 7/21/2020 at 3:06 PM, JamesBYoung said:

I doubt that the women of the church will accept the re-introduction of plural marriage in the present day or of concubinage.

That's kind of a sweeping generalization.  Has there been a poll done?

My late wife once said that if the Lord wanted to bring it back, she would accept it. She also told me that if that happened, she would be the one to choose any new recruits. I suppose I would have trusted her judgement. Incidentally, my current wife also told me that she would accept it, if the Lord re-introduced it.  I'm not going to claim that this constitutes a general ringing endorsement.

But I'm too old these days to seriously worry about it, myself.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That's kind of a sweeping generalization.  Has there been a poll done?

My late wife once said that if the Lord wanted to bring it back, she would accept it. She also told me that if that happened, she would be the one to choose any new recruits. I suppose I would have trusted her judgement. Incidentally, my current wife also told me that she would accept it, if the Lord re-introduced it.  I'm not going to claim that this constitutes a general ringing endorsement.

But I'm too old these days to seriously worry about it, myself.  

This has been my experience. Most women say they would not like it and it would be hard but most of the faithful are not of the “never gonna happen to me” school of thought. Of course it is hard to tell one’s true feelings when it Is all hypothetical. 

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This has been my experience. Most women say they would not like it and it would be hard but most of the faithful are not of the “never gonna happen to me” school or thought. Of course it is hard to tell one’s true feelings when it Is all hypothetical. 

The younger me didn’t have a problem with it. I figured as long as I liked her, I could adapt to it. Older I get, the more I realize how hard it would be to do so.
 

 I also want my relationship with my husband to continue to mature and this requires us to face our difficulties and work them out. I noticed when we were first married and living by his family, when there was conflict my husband would often retreat to spend time with siblings and parents. And the conflict would be gone when he got home only to repeat the next time the same circumstances occurred. When we moved out of state, it felt like we really became a couple then. He might go for a walk, but he would be more likely to discuss issues where it was easily avoided before. I can see if there is an additional relationship he can retreat to, this might enable him to retreat more...which prevents conversation happening when it should and just draws out the difficulties, maybe for years. Just to be fair, I do my own form of retreating and he noticed once I tend to be more issue oriented after I talked to my family (who are all problem solvers, it is how we relate the most), so I am not saying he was the only one hampering our efforts for our marriage to grow. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's kind of a sweeping generalization.  Has there been a poll done?

My late wife once said that if the Lord wanted to bring it back, she would accept it. She also told me that if that happened, she would be the one to choose any new recruits. I suppose I would have trusted her judgement. Incidentally, my current wife also told me that she would accept it, if the Lord re-introduced it.  I'm not going to claim that this constitutes a general ringing endorsement.

But I'm too old these days to seriously worry about it, myself.  

That's kind of a sweeping inquiry, is it not?  I am sharing my opinion, based on family and friend anecdotes among women relatives and friends, as you seem to be.

Yes, I understand the age thing, too.  One wife has ever been enough for friendship etc.

 

Link to post
On 7/24/2020 at 3:19 AM, The Nehor said:

This has been my experience. Most women say they would not like it and it would be hard but most of the faithful are not of the “never gonna happen to me” school of thought. Of course it is hard to tell one’s true feelings when it Is all hypothetical. 

In my life in the church I have run into exactly one woman who said that she wouldn't mind it. I am certain that even among those women of the church who say they would comply if the Lord restored the practice and they were asked to participate, they would darned well rather not participate. Who among them would be glad about it? I'm betting heavily against it.  Heck, I wouldn't want to participate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...