Isaiah, the Lord's order of marriage, and 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030 per Morgan Stanley.

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

He said the scripture verse is women only helping out which would imply the author of the verse sees this as some novelty and typically women just sit around and do nothing to provide for the family.  Why would it be noteworthy that they were willing to do this if it was the SOP?

 

I'm sorry, I still don't see the problem. It isn't the SOP, that's why it's noteworthy. That's all @ZealouslyStriving was saying, or rather, providing a hypothetical quote from a hypothetical woman who had asked for the favor of being called in the hypothetical man's name. It even sounded like a paraphrase of the scripture.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m thinking that the sense of reproach depends on the culture in which the women are living.

Are you assuming the writer of Isaiah had this concept in mind or are you likening the scriptures (which I approve of, btw as long as we don’t confuse it with some original intent).

[ZealouslyStriving]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

He said the scripture verse is women only helping out which would imply the author of the verse sees this as some novelty and typically women just sit around and do nothing to provide for the family.  Why would it be noteworthy that they were willing to do this if it was the SOP?

 

You seem determined to put the worst possible interpretation on anything I write. It's mildly entertaining. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's all @ZealouslyStriving was saying, or rather, providing a hypothetical quote from a hypothetical woman who had asked for the favor of being called in the hypothetical man's name

Perhaps zealously can clarify if he meant only the name and was not drawing any conclusions of the husband helping out just like the wife said she would.  I may be drawing conclusions based on other conversations about this verse I have had in the past.  Anyone who appears to see it as a positive or neutral arrangement has assumed the husband was acting as any husband would, he was just being reassured he would have to support all the women on his own, that the eight of them would work together to support the family.

Edited April 3 by Calm

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't see that we're disagreeing here. 

The original post was addressing the scripturally proposed case where there were too few men to partner with all the women, who then felt obliged to seek an arrangement that provided at least a modicum of social nicety in the marital department -- even if they had to support themselves. 

You seem to be trying to go beyond the premise into territory not covered by the scripture in question, which was clearly dealing with a situation outside the normal.

In this post-apocalyptic hellhole world it will be considered a reproach not to have children to the point women will sleep with any man who provides nothing but sex just to have them?

I have my doubts.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You seem determined to put the worst possible interpretation on anything I write. It's mildly entertaining. 

Absolutely not.  We have just had some topics we disagree on.  I will be happy to agree with anything we agree upon and given your past history, I assume there will be plenty.

And I try hard to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in my readings.

This is my standard approach to this verse probably since I took the Isaiah class at BYU back in 1978.

If you go back and look at any other discussions I have had about 4:1, this interpretation that the women just want the name and sperm of the man so they can be married mothers in their community has always been my interpretation based on what I have read from scholars and I have always challenged anyone who has tried to present it more like plural marriage or even secular polygyny.

Isaiah was written in a time where polygamy was acceptable and women contributed to the household through working in the field, making cloth, etc, so this catastrophic event has to be different than just simple polygyny.

If this verse was a justification for polygyny, that would be great in my book.  I would love to see more scriptural support for plural marriage.  I point to levirate marriage as a possible scriptural commandment for polygyny.

I don’t believe it’s a good idea to distort what scripture says though.  Even though I am all for likening it however we are inspired to.

I may be interpreting the “only” too sctrictly.  I am hoping some friends who are versed in Hebrew will help me out.  I will let you know whatever they say, even if I am wrong.

Edited April 3 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In this post-apocalyptic hellhole world it will be considered a reproach not to have children to the point women will sleep with any man who provides nothing but sex just to have them?

I have my doubts.

Sex and their name.  They were essentially taking on a similar role to a widow with children and no inheritance from her husband.  Not a great financial situation, but respected in the community.  Added:  however as the commentary reminded me, not protected unless they have an older son.  So they need his name to warn off bad guys who see the unmarried women as easy targets, the assumption being I guess even if he gets to skip paying bride price and financial support for his wives, he will still defend his honor and therefore them…or other men in the community will respect that the women belong to him.

Edited April 4 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps zealously can clarify if he meant only the name and was not drawing any conclusions of the husband helping out just like the wife said she would.

I don't know how I could be any clearer. 🤔

I believe that the women are approaching righteous men with a solicitation of marriage based on the egalitarian notion of sharing the workload.

I personally believe the "reproach" has to do with their previous childlessness, thus implying romantic relationships in the newly formed marriages.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Absolutely not.  I will be happy to agree with anything we agree upon.  And .I try hard to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

This is my standard approach to this verse probably since I took the Isaiah class at BYU back in 1978.

If you go back and look at any other discussions I have had about 4:1, this interpretation that the women just want the name and sperm of the man so they can be married mothers in their community has always been my interpretation based on what I have read from scholars and I have always challenged anyone who has tried to present it more like plural marriage or even secular polygyny.

Isaiah was written in a time where polygamy was acceptable and women contributed to the household through working in the field, making cloth, etc, so this catastrophic event has to be different than just simple polygyny.

If this verse was a justification for polygyny, that would be great in my book.  I would love to see more scriptural support for plural marriage.  I point to levirate marriage as a possible scriptural commandment for polygyny.

I don’t believe it’s a good idea to distort what scripture says though.  Even though I am all for likening it however we are inspired to.

I may be interpreting the “only” too sctrictly.  I am hoping some friends who are versed in Hebrew will help me out.  I will let you know whatever they say, even if I am wrong.

Remember those verses *seem* to occur during the Millennium.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I think the idea beats the sleep with 7 different men, have their babies, and live off child-support and the government, that we have now.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think the idea beats the sleep with 7 different men, have their babies, and live off child-support and the government, that we have now.

Yes, because that is what the majority of women are doing.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Yes, because that is what the majority of women are doing.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Because that is totally what I said...

🙄

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I personally believe the "reproach" has to do with their previous childlessness, thus implying romantic relationships in the newly formed marriages.

And I wish it said that and if I can get someone I trust who interprets it that way, I will be happy.  Unfortunately sex and motherhood does not inherently imply romance to me.  Rape can result in both.

But how would this be different than the polygamous marriages that were happening prior to the disaster?

Edited April 3 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Remember those verses *seem* to occur during the Millennium.

 

What?  Where does it indicate it is the Millennium?  I don’t see a problem with assuming tribulations before the Millennium, but during?

Edited April 3 by Calm

[Calm]

From the current commentary sitting on my shelf:

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

What?  Where does it indicate it is the Millennium?  I don’t see a problem with assuming tribulations before the Millennium, but during?

*Seems*

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. 3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 5 And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. 6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain."

[Calm]

Also from the NRSV Cultural Background Study Bible.  This includes the possibility that these women had children but no father due to being raped in war and they wanted the children to be made legitimate by being claimed by a man as legally theirs.

Edited April 3 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

*Seems*

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. 3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 5 And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. 6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain."

This works if you assume 4:1 is the beginning of the rest of the chapter rather than a division artificially imposed on the text and it is really attached to the latter chapter.

I can also see it as a bridge, the time between the war and the restoration of all that is good, though I think the scholars are right as the tone of it fits better with the latter part of Chaper 3 imo  

Got to go, got an MRI to do, fun times!  Hopefully I will get or fine a good resource later, but it could be several days. 

Edited April 3 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Calm said:

This woks if you assume 4:1 is the beginning of the rest of the chapter rather than a division artificially imposed on the text. 

Which I do.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which I do.

Then it is highly unlikely we will agree on this because I don’t.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Calm said:

Then it is highly unlikely we will agree on this because I don’t.  

Cool. I guess that means we can both move on from endlessly debating the topic with each other. 😸

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Because that is totally what I said...

🙄

“I think the idea beats the sleep with 7 different men, have their babies, and live off child-support and the government, that we have now.”

So very few are doing it but it is the ‘idea that we have now’?

Also the 1980s called and they want their welfare queen strawwoman back.

[Calm]

I want to just post this from the Jerusalem Bible. They do a beautiful job with formatting imo. The content just makes so much more sense to me in style and tone than grouping it with what comes after. 
 

[juliann]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

It’s estimated that 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030, according to a study by Morgan Stanley. 

With the modern dating market, nearly half of women in their “childbearing” years will be without a companion. 

https://medium.com/hello-love/study-predicts-45-of-women-will-be-single-by-2030-1fbc99bad6a8

This is tragic and sad, IMHO. I'm sure there are many, many causes, reasons, both men and women being at least partially responsible.

It seems correlated to what Isaiah prophesied, to me anyway.  

Isaiah 4:1

And in that day ^aseven women shall take hold of one ^bman, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy ^cname, to take away our ^dreproach.

Institute Manual (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-13?lang=eng)

 

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”

Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

- Our cultural hypersensitivity to polygamy seems to have influenced the Manual's content on this verse, no?

- I could be wrong but I don't believe that women "eating their own bread and wearing their own apparel" is contrary to current Church teachings and doctrine. I'm not aware of this being a problem, is it? Is it contributing to the 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030? I don't know. 

- Isaiah's dualism, to me, seems to be prophesying about the Babylonian Captivity as well as the latter days trails, wars, tribulations, etc. (why else would Nephi include this chapter and verse?) If my view on his dualism is correct, does that not suggest that Isaiah 4:1 predicts and prophesies plural marriage's return (not only in the recent past, and NOT in the present) but possibly in the future? 

 

 Ah, we have another polygamy advocate misinterpreting scripture that has nothing to do with today. Seriously? Being childless or unwed is a reproach for women? Live in the real world much?

Have you just been biding your time to get to this topic? 

[Stargazer]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In this post-apocalyptic hellhole world it will be considered a reproach not to have children to the point women will sleep with any man who provides nothing but sex just to have them?

I have my doubts.

I would, too, but I was aware of a situation which was very similar to that described in the quoted scripture. I posted about that real-world example earlier in the thread. You probably missed it. I'll reproduce it here:

An interesting situation that developed in Paraguay as a result of the War of the Triple Alliance in the 1860s some of which turned out to resemble that which was prophesized by Isaiah. That war was brutal, with dire results to the male population of Paraguay.

"A 2012 piece in The Economist argued that with the death of most of Paraguay's male population, the Paraguayan War distorted the sex ratio to women greatly outnumbering men and has impacted the sexual culture of Paraguay to this day. Because of the depopulation, men were encouraged after the war to have multiple children with multiple women, even supposedly celibate Catholic priests. A columnist linked this cultural idea to the paternity scandal of former president Fernando Lugo, who fathered multiple children while he was a supposedly celibate priest." -- from the Wikipedia article about the war.

Another result from the war was a great improvement for the rights of women in Paraguay:

"Paraguayan women played a significant role in the Paraguayan War. During the period just before the war began many Paraguayan women were the heads of their households, meaning they held a position of power and authority. They received such positions by being widows, having children out of wedlock, or their husbands having worked as peons. When the war began women started to venture out of the home, becoming nurses, working with government officials, and establishing themselves into the public sphere. When The New York Times reported on the war in 1868, it considered Paraguayan women equal to their male counterparts."