Where are my concubines?
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Where are my concubines?
Did the Lord make a mistake when he chose the introduction to one of his holiest doctrines?
In the very first verse of Section 132 the Lord seems to title the name of the doctrine in this section as "the principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines". He does not start the section off with any other name or title. So, this is the Lord's title.
Why does this principle and doctrine include concubines? Wouldn't the Lord exclude this as part of the doctrine?
Shouldn't we expect the Lord to be against concubinage and any tiered caste system where people are less than? Granted, not all concubines are sex slaves, but many indeed are. Some concubines in some cultures are male. Perhaps this is a foot in the door for homosexuals, but that is another topic.
But wait......concubines are indeed righteous, when given by the Lord.
"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"...
So, why was only half of the principle and doctrine restored?
The answer is obvious: When the marvelous work and a wonder resumes and the heavens open up again, the Lord will reinstate this doctrine in its fulness. All things will be restored, and it again will be the doctrine of concubines.
In the very first verse of Section 132 the Lord seems to title the name of the doctrine in this section as "the principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines". He does not start the section off with any other name or title. So, this is the Lord's title.
Why does this principle and doctrine include concubines? Wouldn't the Lord exclude this as part of the doctrine?
Shouldn't we expect the Lord to be against concubinage and any tiered caste system where people are less than? Granted, not all concubines are sex slaves, but many indeed are. Some concubines in some cultures are male. Perhaps this is a foot in the door for homosexuals, but that is another topic.
But wait......concubines are indeed righteous, when given by the Lord.
"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"...
So, why was only half of the principle and doctrine restored?
The answer is obvious: When the marvelous work and a wonder resumes and the heavens open up again, the Lord will reinstate this doctrine in its fulness. All things will be restored, and it again will be the doctrine of concubines.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2298
Re: Where are my concubines?
An Israelite concubine, or pilegesh, is not what people think it is. It is similar to the European idea of a morganatic marriage, and not anything like sex slavery.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 3:59 pm Did the Lord make a mistake when he chose the introduction to one of his holiest doctrines?
In the very first verse of Section 132 the Lord seems to title the name of the doctrine in this section as "the principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines". He does not start the section off with any other name or title. So, this is the Lord's title.
Why does this principle and doctrine include concubines? Wouldn't the Lord exclude this as part of the doctrine?
Shouldn't we expect the Lord to be against concubinage and any tiered caste system where people are less than? Granted, not all concubines are sex slaves, but many indeed are. Some concubines in some cultures are male. Perhaps this is a foot in the door for homosexuals, but that is another topic.
But wait......concubines are indeed righteous, when given by the Lord.
"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"...
So, why was only half of the principle and doctrine restored?
The answer is obvious: When the marvelous work and a wonder resumes and the heavens open up again, the Lord will reinstate this doctrine in its fulness. All things will be restored, and it again will be the doctrine of concubines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10819
- Location: England
Re: Where are my concubines?
A concubine is just a wife taken without a ceremony, and generally without a sealing.
George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow and others thought concubinage would be a good way for plural wives to join a family in secret, to avoid persecution.
George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow and others thought concubinage would be a good way for plural wives to join a family in secret, to avoid persecution.
- Sarah
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6737
Re: Where are my concubines?
Imagine the Lord giving a revelation to Abraham entitled, the "principle and doctrine of sacrificing your son." It must be an eternal principle and doctrine or else the Lord wouldn't have commanded Abraham to do it, right?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 3:59 pm Did the Lord make a mistake when he chose the introduction to one of his holiest doctrines?
In the very first verse of Section 132 the Lord seems to title the name of the doctrine in this section as "the principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines". He does not start the section off with any other name or title. So, this is the Lord's title.
Why does this principle and doctrine include concubines? Wouldn't the Lord exclude this as part of the doctrine?
Shouldn't we expect the Lord to be against concubinage and any tiered caste system where people are less than? Granted, not all concubines are sex slaves, but many indeed are. Some concubines in some cultures are male. Perhaps this is a foot in the door for homosexuals, but that is another topic.
But wait......concubines are indeed righteous, when given by the Lord.
"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"...
So, why was only half of the principle and doctrine restored?
The answer is obvious: When the marvelous work and a wonder resumes and the heavens open up again, the Lord will reinstate this doctrine in its fulness. All things will be restored, and it again will be the doctrine of concubines.
These are principles of sacrificing others, or oneself, and of giving and receiving, with a giver and a receiver, laws that allow for the unequal treatment of people based on the principle of giving, receiving, and sacrifice. Our Father in Heaven treated his Only Begotten differently than his other children you might say. He commanded his son to lay down his life and the son obeyed, and we didn't receive the same commandment (at least not yet and in the exact same way). It's not fair on the surface, but we know the son receives a reward for offering his life to his father. Same with the women who lay down their lives for their husband, except the reward is hidden and veiled.
You can say that both Jesus and Isaac GAVE their lives so that their fathers could RECEIVE glory and honor and see their other children saved. Did Isaac have a choice in the matter? We'd like to think he did, but he may not have. The concubines of Sarah, Leah and Rachel perhaps didn't have a choice. The Lord compared taking more wives to Abraham sacrificing Isaac. The women in these stories, GAVE to their husband, offering a sacrifice, so that the husband could RECEIVE more posterity, fulfilling part the Law that allows the giving and receiving of spouses, and to fulfill the promise of multitudes/nations springing up from Abraham.
So, in summary, a concubine indeed is low on the totem pole when we look at her status and the treatment she receives, but the Lord promised all the good blessings and inheritances to the meek, poor, and those who sacrifice. The test for the giver is to give freely for the right reasons, out of love for God and man without feeling entitled to anything in return, and for the receiver to learn how to receive correctly, with appreciation, and not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a desire to bless and give back to the giver.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
The Lord doesn't provide a definition in the revelation so by default we use the definition at the time from the 1828 Webster's dictionary.
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.
But the definition isn't what the topic was, which you seem to have avoided completely. Care to explain why?
- FrankOne
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2942
Re: Where are my concubines?
Years ago, I tried to study this subject out. My takeaway was that our modern idea of a concubine is not really what they were at the time. I tried to get into the depth of what the original practice was, but it was a difficult endeavor.
My personal conclusion, albeit more of a undefined opinion than anything else, is that a concubine is not a wife in any legal sense and does not have the rights of a wife. She basically has no power at all. She is not given rights of inheritance. We must keep in mind that the choice to be a concubine was just that, a decision made by the woman out of her own free will.
Now, going to the all powerful internet, it appears that concubinage was practiced differently by different cultures, so my above opinions are only half correct. A business associate of mine was from China. He was the son of a concubine and he related to me his story and it was not a good one. It more resembled slavery.
My personal version of it is somewhat flowery in that I see a concubine as a woman that is in need , and in that state of need, she chooses to become a part of a family with ample sustenance that is willing to take her in. She isn't regarded as a wife in public, but she is treated as a wife by the man. It's a humbling role and a time of learning.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
I already included in the OP that not all concubines were sex slaves, so further explaining isn't really necessary beyond that. Besides, what does posting a definition do? It's not saying anything at all. You have made a point to make no point. Care to engage in what was actually posted?Artaxerxes wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 4:07 pm An Israelite concubine, or pilegesh, is not what people think it is. It is similar to the European idea of a morganatic marriage, and not anything like sex slavery.
- h_p
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2811
Re: Where are my concubines?
I'm sure the women would be lining up in droves for that privilege. Sheesh.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2298
Re: Where are my concubines?
Further explaining is necessary because you still don't seem to understand. The D&C generally uses biblical terms with biblical meanings. Since you still were discussing the fact that some, but not all concubines, were sex slaves, it seemed necessary for you to understand what the term actually means, not what it means most of the time.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 5:34 pmI already included in the OP that not all concubines were sex slaves, so further explaining isn't really necessary beyond that. Besides, what does posting a definition do? It's not saying anything at all. You have made a point to make no point. Care to engage in what was actually posted?Artaxerxes wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 4:07 pm An Israelite concubine, or pilegesh, is not what people think it is. It is similar to the European idea of a morganatic marriage, and not anything like sex slavery.
Posting a definition clarifies an issue, particularly when a post is obviously done in ignorance.
- FrankOne
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2942
Re: Where are my concubines?
For me, your opening lines did give me a pause. Yes, the wording was obviously chosen by God with a definite intent. So, I went to the section and read through it ...again. Interesting.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 3:59 pm Did the Lord make a mistake when he chose the introduction to one of his holiest doctrines?
In the very first verse of Section 132 the Lord seems to title the name of the doctrine in this section as "the principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines". He does not start the section off with any other name or title. So, this is the Lord's title.
Why does this principle and doctrine include concubines? Wouldn't the Lord exclude this as part of the doctrine?
The salient point for me is.... "Why would God make a class of distinction at all?" . Here in this modern day, why have concubines and why is it in a scripture which goes on about eternal progression? Could concubinage be a sort of stepping stone for women even in an eternal existence? Interesting.
Since I posted on LDSFF on the subject of Isaiah and the excess number of women when the end comes, I have read several noteworthy prophecies ...again...which give the same report that the number of women will far exceed the number of men in the last days. Concubinage may come into vogue.
- FrankOne
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2942
Re: Where are my concubines?
I'm beginning to take note that Artaxerxes is highly prone to arguing on most every thread that he engages.Artaxerxes wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 5:40 pmFurther explaining is necessary because you still don't seem to understand. The D&C generally uses biblical terms with biblical meanings. Since you still were discussing the fact that some, but not all concubines, were sex slaves, it seemed necessary for you to understand what the term actually means, not what it means most of the time.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 5:34 pmI already included in the OP that not all concubines were sex slaves, so further explaining isn't really necessary beyond that. Besides, what does posting a definition do? It's not saying anything at all. You have made a point to make no point. Care to engage in what was actually posted?Artaxerxes wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 4:07 pm An Israelite concubine, or pilegesh, is not what people think it is. It is similar to the European idea of a morganatic marriage, and not anything like sex slavery.
Posting a definition clarifies an issue, particularly when a post is obviously done in ignorance.
Good luck to you and your predisposition.
- FoxMammaWisdom
- The Heretic
- Posts: 3796
- Location: I think and I know things.
Re: Where are my concubines?
You're gonna have to pull a Handmaid's Tale to gather up the women for that movement.
- Baurak Ale
- Nauvoo Legion Captain
- Posts: 1068
- Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)
Re: Where are my concubines?
It helps point out that the subject is not as salacious as you imply by leaving out further definition.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 5:34 pmI already included in the OP that not all concubines were sex slaves, so further explaining isn't really necessary beyond that. Besides, what does posting a definition do? It's not saying anything at all. You have made a point to make no point. Care to engage in what was actually posted?Artaxerxes wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 4:07 pm An Israelite concubine, or pilegesh, is not what people think it is. It is similar to the European idea of a morganatic marriage, and not anything like sex slavery.
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10819
- Location: England
Re: Where are my concubines?
I haven’t avoided anything. If you want me to answer a question just restate the question.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2022, 5:27 pmThe Lord doesn't provide a definition in the revelation so by default we use the definition at the time from the 1828 Webster's dictionary.
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.
But the definition isn't what the topic was, which you seem to have avoided completely. Care to explain why?
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
YES!!!! Exactly! The Lord links the Celestial Kingdom with class distinction while telling us if ye are not one ye are not mine. Interesting indeed!
If you read Sarah's post, she basically said some do have to make sacrifices in order to elevate others.
Regarding Isaiah, I think that one man is Christ, the only one we can take hold of for refuge. The seven women are the seven churches. This is a prophecy that all churches will take hold of Christ and return to true doctrine.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
- NeveR
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1252
Re: Where are my concubines?
There you go Luke, this is your way in! The hard part is over.
Now all you need to do is find some woman who wants to be your concubine!...
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
It doesn't help when everybody already knows that concubines ranged from second class wives to sex slaves. Anybody taught about David and Soloman in primary can figure that out. What it helped was intellectual dishonesty, meaning both of you completely avoiding the main point. So let me ask you directly: Are you ok with a celestial law including class distinctions?Baurak Ale wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 8:48 am It helps point out that the subject is not as salacious as you imply by leaving out further definition.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
How do you feel about a celestial law including class distinction? Is this concept antithetical to becoming one?
If section 132 states we have to follow it or be damned once it is revealed to us, then why did we only implement a portion of it when we know it includes concubines. Are not all who practice it damned because they are not living it as revealed?
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10819
- Location: England
Re: Where are my concubines?
I don't believe that concubines are part of the celestial law since there is no sealing involved.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 11:43 amHow do you feel about a celestial law including class distinction? Is this concept antithetical to becoming one?
If section 132 states we have to follow it or be damned once it is revealed to us, then why did we only implement a portion of it when we know it includes concubines. Are not all who practice it damned because they are not living it as revealed?
- FoxMammaWisdom
- The Heretic
- Posts: 3796
- Location: I think and I know things.
Re: Where are my concubines?
I don't think you want to hear my perspective on this one.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4719
Re: Where are my concubines?
So why include concubines in the title of the doctrine? Why is it the "principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines"?
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10819
- Location: England
Re: Where are my concubines?
Because the point of the revelation was to explain to Joseph why it was okay for them to have concubines.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 3:26 pmSo why include concubines in the title of the doctrine? Why is it the "principle and doctrine" of having "many wives and concubines"?
- Baurak Ale
- Nauvoo Legion Captain
- Posts: 1068
- Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)
Re: Where are my concubines?
I don’t know why you’re accusing me of intellectual dishonesty when I was responding to YOUR question to Artaxerxes: “What does posting a definition do?” I was in no way attempting to engage the OP. Anyone who reads a forum can figure that out.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 11:36 amIt doesn't help when everybody already knows that concubines ranged from second class wives to sex slaves. Anybody taught about David and Soloman in primary can figure that out. What it helped was intellectual dishonesty, meaning both of you completely avoiding the main point. So let me ask you directly: Are you ok with a celestial law including class distinctions?Baurak Ale wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 8:48 am It helps point out that the subject is not as salacious as you imply by leaving out further definition.
Now that I hope you can see why I posted what I did, I can address your new question: am I okay with a celestial law including class distinctions? Yes, I am.
I was shown my mansion (or world) in heaven in a dream once, and I was impressed by the love my servants, butlers, concubines, etc., had for me and my family who were the royalty. They loved to see us and to serve us because we made room for them and provided for them.
If you’ve watched Downton Abbey you’d have a closer idea of the full order of heaven than if you watched Saturday’s Warriors.
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10819
- Location: England
Re: Where are my concubines?
Yes, the question about class distinctions is strange, since we know there are many mansions and ministering servants in Heaven.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 3:53 pmI don’t know why you’re accusing me of intellectual dishonesty when I was responding to YOUR question to Artaxerxes: “What does posting a definition do?” I was in no way attempting to engage the OP. Anyone who reads a forum can figure that out.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 11:36 amIt doesn't help when everybody already knows that concubines ranged from second class wives to sex slaves. Anybody taught about David and Soloman in primary can figure that out. What it helped was intellectual dishonesty, meaning both of you completely avoiding the main point. So let me ask you directly: Are you ok with a celestial law including class distinctions?Baurak Ale wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 8:48 am It helps point out that the subject is not as salacious as you imply by leaving out further definition.
Now that I hope you can see why I posted what I did, I can address your new question: am I okay with a celestial law including class distinctions? Yes, I am.
I was shown my mansion (or world) in heaven in a dream once, and I was impressed by the love my servants, butlers, concubines, etc., had for me and my family who were the royalty. They loved to see us and to serve us because we made room for them and provided for them.
If you’ve watched Downton Abbey you’d have a closer idea of the full order of heaven than if you watched Saturday’s Warriors.