12 Tribes, from the different wives.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/16/2008 8:33:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
childish behavior |
Posted on 06/27/2008 5:08:56 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The irony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) wading into California’s same-sex marriage debate is too delicious to ignore.
Earlier this week, the church sent a letter signed by its president, Thomas B. Monson, to all Mormon bishops in California. The document refers to the California Marriage Protection Act on the November 4 ballot, a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit the legal recognition of same-sex unions so recently won by a California Supreme Court decision.
The letter is to be read aloud during June 29 services. In part, it states, “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to ensure that marriage in California is legally defined as between a man and a woman.”
The document stops short of explicitly telling church members how to vote on the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Mormons probably can slide by on a technicality should the IRS ever inquire as to whether their church is engaging in political activities banned by its non-profit exemption status. (Not much danger of that, however. In the current administration, the IRS tends to investigate only those religious institutions that voice opposition to President Bush or his policies.)
This latest LDS political missive also declares that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God.” A man and a woman, singular. A fascinating declaration from the one Western religion notorious for polygamy. That is, marriage between one man and one woman and one more woman and yet another woman, etc. The LDS church flip-flopped on this issue only when it became clear that Utah would not gain statehood without such a reversal.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Well, civilization will at least continue with a system of one man and a lot of women, unlike one man and one man.
I hope they use their millions to propagate this well, and get the courts to see, that the GOVERNMENT of this counry, traditionally was subject to the WILL, of WE THE PEOPLE.
Mormon-bashing, Catholic-bashing, Jew-bashing — don’t people ever get bored of these little hobbies?
Even a marriage between one man and many women is more in line with Biblical teaching than a man marrying a man.
Can’t find a story in the Bible where a homsexual marriage was ordained or celebrated.
But I thought that polygamy was a very small sect of the LDS church these days? This article makes it sound mainstream for the entire LDS.
Why are you giving exposure to this third rate lesbian hack?
In general, it’s “moral absolutes” bashing.
Same reason that the Arabs hate Israel.
By comparison, it reminds them of how “gutter” their society or lifestyle is.
Everyone has, written in his soul, the same notion of right and wrong, which, when reminded, causes us to feel uncomfortable about choosing that which we know is wrong. Better to remove the reminder than to feel “uncomfortable” from a nagging conscience.
Oh, it’s just the homos trying to justify that which they know to be wrong by pointing out another wrong.
Well, since Jesse Jackson wants to add to the New Testament a book of Obama, whoever writes it can just throw one of those homo stories in. Then they can say....see, see, see, there it is!
She gets to attack the Mormons and Bush. That is a twofer for the left. She just could not help herself I suppose.
Simply keep repeating the Biblical/Christian position on Biblical marriage; keep repeating the Scriptures condemnation of all sexual sins, including sodomy.
Keep repeating the Scriptures teachings relative to the demise of nations that reject the counsels of God.
“Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34) “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” (Psalm 9:17)
They should preach the Christians’ responsibility to stand on Biblical grounds in all of their civic rights and prerogatives. This, of course, would include their VOTING.
The specific proposition on the ballot does not even have to be referred to, as the newspapers, the radio talk shows, and the Internet will be chock full of the subject of the California Nov. 4 proposition to ban sodomite marriage from now until that date.
The pulpits can be HOT, HOT, HOT with preaching on the subject without actually telling anyone how to vote.
If the church members haven't the brains to put 2 and 2 together when they go to the polls, they flat deserve to live in a state where their neighbors to the left and to the right are sodomites living together with state sanctioned “marriage” (which we know it really aint!)
If the church members can't figure out how to pull the correct lever, or push the correct button, or fill in the correct circle, or punch the correct place on the card, I say it is because Christian pastors have been derelict in the performance of their calling for a very long time already.
Speaking to 501c3 church pastors, I would say that this one is a no-brainer. There are a dozen ways to exhort the congregations to stand for the truth in the voting booth without violating your church's very unfortunate contract with the IRS and the federal government; I men the one the church signed (actually unnecessarily and rather unwisely in our opinion) thinking that your church is being done great favors through the 501c3 scheme.
If the churches had looked down the road in 1951 just a little bit, and done some reading and research, they would have en mass rejected the 501c3 option, and the IRS would have had to abandon the idea of the churches being any part of it. The churches would have remained NON-TAXABLE without having to apply for tax EXEMPTION, which is not the same thing.
“ADAM and EVE” not adam and steve.....
Marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman to come together to unite and bear children....could you tell me how ONE man and another man could bear children???? I don't mean adoption, or any other means but the old fashioned way....becoming pregnant, going 36 weeks of developing a child/children and then labor of having said child/children.....????????
ADAM and EVE....THE ONLY WAY!!!
Can’t find a civilization that thrived with homosexuality as its basis either.
Also, the logic of this person and others like her making fun of ‘alternate lifestyles’(i.e. polygamy -which is no longer part of the larger Mormon church anyway) to support her alternate lifestyle does not add to its legitimacy. I know y’all know this-it’s just frustrating!
Yep, lets take MORE shots at people who strongly support the conservative movement. If we work really hard, we can completely destroy the conservative coalition.
>>”Mormon-bashing, Catholic-bashing, Jew-bashing — don’t people ever get bored of these little hobbies?”<<
I see that the Mormon-haters “group leader” has been pinged. They’ll be here in droves any minute now.
Yawn.....they are getting boring with their constant chanting that the LDS is the same as the FLDS.
Even the lame-brained idiot author points out that the LDS banned polygamy over a hundred years ago!
Their (Mormon-haters) ego’s were deflated when Texas was forced to follow the Constitution and return the kids they illegally ripped from their parents arms.
Some people just refuse to learn. The saying that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks appears to be true when applied to this group. I wonder if this applies to all old canine’s...???
Just wondering, that’s all.
Since the Mormon church of the present day has long rejected polygamy, then I don’t see that their endorsement of marriage as one man and one woman is hypocritical. This just seems to be mindless Mormon-bashing.
"many women?" Who besides Solomon & a few others not known for their godly character? Solomon (700 wives). Solomon was going directly against Deut. 17:17, which promised a led-astray heart to such a person...and that's exactly what came about according to 1 Kings 11:4: "his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God."
Sorry, but you're wrong. It's not "biblical teaching."
Is Candace Talmadge a descendent of the LDS apostle-author of the same last name?
Lived-out EARTHLY plural marriage has been “long rejected” by the mainstream Mormon church; but perhaps, according to one of their apostles from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, Bruce R. McConkie, soon to be accepted:
"Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966 edition, p. 578) [This book version was approved by LDS “prophet” Harold B. Lee and his First Presidency, with later-to-be named LDS “prophet” Spencer W. Kimball serving as McConkie’s personal mentor and readying the revision of his earlier book.
Oh, and note that McConkie referenced “polygamy” as a “holy practice” without any hue & cry from mainstream grassroots Mormons or editing from the First Presidency of the Church. (So much for the common refrain about the church rejecting the concept)
(Better get those plural wives lined up again)
Even the lame-brained idiot author points out that the LDS banned polygamy over a hundred years ago! [panaxanax]
It was banned for time, but not for alleged Mormon ”eternity.”
Even a deceased LDS woman can be sealed to all of her earthly husbands (if she had more than one on earth): “A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime and later: A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.” (p.73) LDS Church, Church Handbook of Instructions, (LDS Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1998), page 72-73, “Sealing Policies”
(For non-Mormons, sealed = married for eternity as part of a temple ritual)
…polygamy -which is no longer part of the larger Mormon church anyway [madameguinot]
If a Mormon does that, they’re ex-communicated…And how does she attack Mormons? By bringing up something over a century old. [CaspersGh0sts]
They’re ex-communicated if they take on more than one earthly at a time. But serial Mormon monogamists are regarded to be eternal polygamists:
Let’s look at some specific LDS leaders as sourced from one descendent of Brigham Young: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsleadersbelievepolygamyinheaven.htm
Three more contemporary LDS general authorities are Howard W. Hunter, LDS apostle Russell M. Nelson, and LDS apostle Dallen Oaks? According to Sandra Tanner, quoting LDS publications:
While church leaders no longer allow the practice of polygamy here on Earth, they do allow a living man to be sealed to another woman after the death of his wife, or after divorce. This leads to the obvious situation of establishing multiple sealings on Earth that, according to Mormonism, will necessitate polygamy in heaven. Writing in 1897 LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose stated: [my note: please note that 1897 is a "post-end polygamy manifesto year"]
In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT).
According to Tanner: This doctrine was reaffirmed in October of 2007 at the funeral for the second wife of President Howard W. Hunter, the fourteenth President of the LDS Church. The Deseret News reported: President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery. Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).
Tanner: Another example of plural sealings is Apostle Russell M. Nelson 's marriage in 2006 to a BYU professor. The BYU NewsNet for April 7, 2006 announced the temple marriage of Apostle Nelson, age 81, to Wendy Watson (see [link]). His first wife died in February of 2005 and this was the first marriage for his new wife. This would mean, according to LDS beliefs, that Nelson has two wives sealed to him for eternity.
Tanner: After being widowed, Apostle Dallen Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing: When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side. (Dallin Oaks, "Timing," speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002,) I know that when my grandfather remarried after the death of my grandmother, the family certainly believed that the new wife, sealed to him in the temple, would be an equal wife with my grandmother in heaven.
But I thought that polygamy was a very small sect of the LDS church these days? This article makes it sound mainstream for the entire LDS. [Silverleaf]
Well, people just need to make up their own minds how “mainstream” polygamy is. Certainly…
...LDS leaders adhere to a future polygamy--when Jesus returns + the afterlife for many--but not all--Mormons...
...that LDS leaders regard earthly polygamy with dual lens--as a practice deserving of ex-communication yet as I cited McConkie, a "holy practice..."
...and why do they still regard it as a "holy practice?" (Because they believe marriages are forever & that polygamists on earth are still polygamists in heaven)
...finally, even serial monogamists who are LDS prepare for what they think will be eternal polygamy...hence if they were married to more than one wife...and are sealed to each "for eternity," they think polygamy awaits them.
For the benefit of all of the readers of this thread, exactly what did Colorfornian say that was untruthful and/or bashed Mormons?
I forgot to ask the same questions raised in the above post to you.
Perhaps you could also provide some insight in the matter.
Thanks.
/Zak
Oh my, there were so many personalities in the Bible who had multiple wives, and/or multiple wives and concubines, that it is beyond the realm of this discussion to name them. The fact that changing these mores was discussed in the Bible is a sign of how widespread a social system it was among God’s chosen people. Even when it seemingly was proscribed by the refinement in defining God’s laws, there were still plenty of loopholes,
Having multiple wives was an accepted family structure in that culture in those times, certainly for Kings like Solomon and David, patriarchs and scions of wealthy and influential families such as Moses (had 2), Abraham ( had 2 or 3), Jacob (had 2), Esau (had 2), etc etc etc etc etc and is still practiced by nomadic tribes who roam the region, among others such as muslims .... and is - and was - far from being a sign of an “ungodly” character.
Yegads!
At issue here is whether committed adult homosexual couples should have parity legal rights and responsibilities of inheritance, medical decisions and so forth with regard to one another. I think whatever civil gov't can do to encourage its citizens to pair off "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health" is a positive thing.
Committed couples tend to engage in less risk taking and perhaps this can turn the tide of homosexuals, like Ted Haggard, getting into heterosexual marriages and feeding their homosexual desires through secret affairs and anonymous sex in public places.
Typical obfuscation-of-what-you-originally-said-tactic (nice subtle "word switcheroo" of what you originally wrote). Won't work: Go back to post #7: YOU SAID: Even a marriage between one man and MANY women...
I was addressing THAT specific Biblical family context you were describing. So what did you come back with? You switched the word from "many" which certainly has an implied meaning of more than "two" with the word "multiple" -- which means more than one.
Oh my, there were so many personalities in the Bible who had multiple wives, and/or multiple wives and concubines.
Then what did you do for added effect to get your original statement "off the hook" for being off-base? Why you added the phrase "and concubines" (which wasn't there in the original). Listen, if "concubines" were the same thing as "wives" then it would have been redundant and superflous for the author of 1 Kings 11:3-4 in the Bible to make any distinction when he noted Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Having multiple wives was an accepted family structure in that culture in those times, certainly for Kings like Solomon and David, patriarchs and scions of wealthy and influential families such as Moses (had 2)...
Go back again to my original statement. I contended the Bible doesn't talk about the "many" wives of biblical figures. Moses didn't have "many" wives; he had two--of which the Bible gives us no timetable as to when he married the second (for example, the second marriage could have come after his first wife died). Your argument from silence even fails to prove your new addendum point.
...Abraham ( had 2 or 3)...
Well, I'm glad you recognize, based upon this figure, that his one-time sleepover with "the help" didn't constitute "wifehood"...And Genesis makes it clear that Abraham's marriages sandwiched between that event was serial monogamy...Sarah died, and THEN he took Keturah as a wife.
...Jacob (had 2)...
Jacob's 2 wives does NOT equal "many" wives--my original point. (You are the one who has now slipped in MULTIPLE)
Egads what will you do next to cover your imprecise language from a previous post? , Jacob (had 2), Esau (had 2), etc etc etc etc etc and is still practiced by nomadic tribes who roam the region, among others such as muslims .... and is - and was - far from being a sign of an “ungodly” character.
Having multiple wives was an accepted family structure in that culture in those times, certainly for Kings like Solomon and David...
I already mentioned Solomon. As for David, there's no doubt he had "many/multiple" wives--as well as concubines plural. But it's not clear how many of these wives were simultaneous. Nor is it clear how many of these concubines were ones he slept with. Some of his partners were "inherited" -- they were already part of the king's kingdom that he took over. (And certainly during that era --David & the next two generations -- it wasn't simply a "changing mores" issue as much as a royal alliance issue...tribal heads would give a daughter or another member of that tribe to another king as an issue of being part of a peace pact).
Is Candace Talmadge a descendent of the LDS apostle-author of the same last name?
Thank you for the explanation.
Even a third rate lesbian hack can be a useful tool in attacking another's religion.
12 Tribes, from the different wives.
Isaiah 4:1 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.
James E. Talmage
Candace Talmadge
I disagree. The record calls her a wife, even though she was also "the help"
(King James Version)
Genesis 16:3
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Commentators have been divided over Isaiah 4:1. Some take it figuratively about the spiritual haughtiness of Zion...context is with Isaiah 3:16 where these women of Zion are “haughty…flirting with their eyes…ornaments jingling on their ankles…” with the response from the Lord being bringing sores on the heads of these women followed by balding scalps (Isaiah 3:17). What you will notice is that both Isaiah 3:18 and 4:1 start off “In that day…” And so, you need to ask, what are the “7 women” like “IN THAT DAY?”
Well, according to Isaiah 3:16-23…these supposedly “polygamous” women are
(a) haughty;
(b) flirtatious;
(c) balding;
(d) jewelry-laden;
(e) well-perfumed;
(f) nose-ringed;
(g) well-dressed.
(Does that sound like either an LDS polygamous heritage OR a potential future LDS polygamous future to you? (It doesn't to me...LDS need to stop wrestling Isaiah 4:1 totally out of its context!)
Furthermore, if you do insist on taking it literally, note this comment from Steve Cooper of the Idaho Statesman, citing a Richard Van Wagoner book, Mormon Polygamy: A History:
During its practice from the 1850s to the 1880s, Van Wagoner estimates no more than 40 percent of Mormon marriages were plural. A 1956 study revealed 66 percent of polygamist men had only two wives; 21 percent had three; seven percent had four, and only 6 percent had five or more.
We know then that...
...5% or less—probably much less—of Mormon polygamists had exactly 7 wives;
...94% of them had 4 or less;
...and I’m sure of the remaining 6%--probably at least 5% had 5, 6, or 8 or more.
Besides, all true believing Mormons, whether they be fundie or ex-fundie (mainstream), don't believe the prophet Isaiah's plain later words in his book--like Is. 44:8 & 43:10. So why should they attach themselves to obscure and less plainly obvious words like Is. 4:1?
[What I mean by this is these following passages from Isaiah:
Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8) [If Isaiah's God doesn't know of any gods besides Him, that's good enough for me.]
In the chapter before that, Isaiah gives a testimony whereby he knows of no gods formed before him or after him (Isaiah 43:10). [Either the Mormons have a totally dunce god, a god who hit his head & suffers amnesia & can't forecast the future, or "Oops!" Smith stumbled over following thru on his read-the-bible-thru-in-a-year course and missed those verses prior to his book of the dead "Book of Abraham" & his King Follett sermon.]
The reference to 7 women come after the “sinful” list you mention in chapter 3. Different matter. At the 2nd coming, the more righteous of the people will remain. So it makes sense that there will be more women than men. Men are by nature, pigs and more carnally minded than women. Plus, with all the many wars at the end, that’s another reason for a men shortage.
OK, we’re further afield of where I was going when I responded to Silverleaf's comment about supposed “many-wife” fellows in the Bible. But since...
...you want to take the word of Sarai, who wasn’t trusting in God at that moment to yield a child in her womb (not acting in faith, which the book of Romans says anything not done in faith is a sin)...
...and her word alone pre-bedtime only seems to count in your book (versus her post-bedtime comments later which seem to be totally disregarded)...
...and this one utterance seems to serve as the lynchpin of your contention, then allow me to address that:
(1) God never told Abraham to sleep with Hagar for a night. The Angel of the Lord--whom most commentators think is the pre-incarnated Son of God, told Hagar post sleepover to return to her mistress (master Sarai) and to submit to mistress Sarai. (He never said to return to "your husband, Abram"...see Genesis 16).
(2) Hagar, even after sleeping with Abram once (that's all that's mentioned) continues to be labeled as a servant/slave by none other than…
…Abram,
…Sarai,
…the Angel of the Lord (who some say is the pre-incarnated Son of God),
…Moses (Gen. 25),
…even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31),
…and Hagar herself.
Sarai labels Hagar as a gift as a "wife" to Abram, but I question if a woman has the authority to "consent" on behalf of a slave.
Hagar was considered a slave both "before" and "after" sleeping with Abram. Why does the "before" matter? Just as a minor cannot "consent" to sex, a slave is in no better situation to "consent" to--or deny--her master's commands for sex. And in this case, the command didn't come from her husband, Abram; it came from her mistress (female word for "master"), Sarai (Sarai is twice referenced as "mistress"--Gen. 16:4,8).
Why does the "after" matter?
Because it shows she didn't become a "transformed" person--from slave to wifely status! Gen. 16:6,8,9; 21:11; 25:12; and Gal. 4:21-31 all are still referencing her as either a "slave" (twice in 21:11), "servant," or one who was told by the Angel to submit to her mistress (female word for "master"). By Gen. 25, Abraham is married to Keturah with no mention of Hagar (25:1) and is then buried with Sarah (25:10).
So, if we were to call all the key witnesses to the stand, and hear what they have to say:
Q Hagar, after Sarai gave you to Abram and Ishmael was conceived, did you still acknowledge Sarai as your "mistress" in your conversation with the Angel of the Lord? [female master]
A Yes. (Gen. 16:8)
Q Sarai, when you were in your early nineties when Isaac was a toddler, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Abraham, Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac. (Gen. 21:10)
Q Abraham, after Sarah gave you Hagar and you slept with her, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Sarah, as mistress (master) of her servant, Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best. (Gen. 16:6)
Q When Sarah began to mistreat her servant, Hagar, did you intervene like what we might expect a husband to do?
A No. Hagar was Sarah's servant.
Q Angel of the Lord, when you called to Hagar after she conceived Ishmael, how did you reference her?
A Servant of Sarai (Gen. 16:8)
Q And when you conversed with Hagar, did you, Angel of the Lord, acknowledge that she was released from her servant role to Sarai?
A No. In fact, I told her Go back to your mistress and submit to her. (Gen. 16:9)
Q Moses, since you wrote Genesis, how did you identify Hagar in her last reference of that book? Did you link her to Abraham?
A No. I identified her as "Sarah's maidservant" (Gen. 25:12).
Q So in that same passage, you link Ishmael to Abraham, but you link Hagar only to Sarah?
A Yes.
Q Apostle, Paul How did the Holy Spirit lead you to interpret the Old Covenant as expressed through Abraham?
A For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother...Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)
Sarai isn't talking in first person here. It's a 3rd person narrative, written by Moses, gleaned from whatever records and revelations he had. And at the very least, it would have been Abraham that would have kept a record of his family, not Sarai.
So I'll repeat it, remember this is Moses writing these words, not Sarai.
Genesis 16:3
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Why would Abraham or Moses say she was Abrams wife if she wasn't?
Abraham knew what he was doing, he was a prophet of the Lord.
Sometimes modern Christians really bag on Abraham for lying to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister. In reality, she was, but from another mother.
Again, the context of my comment to Silverlead was "many wives" as in simultaneous many wives.
Zilpah and Bilhah were surrogate servants to two women. They are never labeled as "wives" until Rachel is dead and Leah is no longer mentioned. (For all we know, Leah was dead too when these two were referenced as Jacob's "wives").
My point here is that it can be easily argued that Jacob never had more than two wives at any time -- meaning that he was never the husband of many simultaneous wives.
And why is it OK for Abraham to have a handmaiden as a “wife” simultaneous to his normal marriage, but Jacob isn't allowed to have his wives handmaidens called wives? He clearly had 4 simultaneous relationships with women who bore him children, and it was acceptable to all. Even if I agree to your terminology, that's still 2 “wives” by your definition.
it's a semantics game, or so it appears.
Agreed, that large numbers of wives or even concubines were not the norm, but even David was given Saul's multiple wives to him by Nathan the Prophet. There were all called wives, and they were specifically mentioned as being sanctioned of the Lord.
2 Samuel 12:7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,...
Gen. 37: 2
These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.
Yes, we agree this is "third person narrative" and no, my premise isn't inherently flawed. Here's why not:
Moses was also giving a third-person narrative in Genesis 21, and in v. 10, did Moses reference Hagar as Abraham's wife? (No. He labeled her as "...this bondwoman..." twice in v. 10, plus "...the bondwoman..." in v. 13).
More importantly, though, to get back to Gen. 16:3, even a third-person narrative will describe the intent of the person acting. And that's all Moses was doing. He was simply saying that Sarai's intent was not for Hagar to be Abram's "shack-up cohabiting honey" from then on. Rather, Sarai genuinely gave Hagar as a surrogate "wife" to bear the child she felt she couldn't. Her motivation was surrogacy. In an era when no technology existed to do this outside marriage, she felt this was her only option. But it was a humankind-based option; not a divine one. And you can see that on my next post as I delve more into Galatians 4 in response to your statement where you attribute "unseemlyness" to a comment I made.
Clearly bondwoman, servant, concubine and wife are all terms Moses used to describe Hagar. It’s not one or the other. They all work.
Which is why he uses the term.
Similarly, the two servants that bore Jacob children were both called by those same terms.
If they were offensive terms to them, they wouldn’t have used them. Our modern understanding and sensibilities would be laughed at, were we to have this argument with Moses, IMHO ;-0
That's like saying that the pre-Paul "Saul" knew what he was doing when he was persecuting Christians!
Have you not pondered that a name-change is a common occurrence when God begins the transformation process? Saul became Paul. Simon became Peter. John Mark became just Mark. Sarai LATER became Sarah. Abram's transformation to Abraham didn't occur til Gen. 17. And nowhere is the old "Abram" listed as a "prophet"; only the new Abraham! (Gen. 20:7)
...considering the promises made to Abraham by the Lord about his seed...we know that this was no accident.
OK, now you're getting me to chuckle over the irony of such a statement. Put aside Hagar & Ishmael for a moment. Imagine making such a statement about the birth of Isaac. (Of course Isaac's birth was no accident of an elderly husband who happened to hit the right timing of his elderly wife's infertile womb!) My point here is that even if there was no Hagar & Ishmael, that Abraham's monogamy with Sarah--despite being sanctioned under a monogamous umbrella--was not man-based righteousness in action that attracted divine favor! (Abraham believed even before Hagar showed up...Gen. 15:6, as also cited in James 2:23-24). The type of husband-wife relationship & the righteousness of it is not the only determinant for what God will do. If God waited for man's righteousness to act, He would have never sent His Son to die. (There wouldn't have been any need).
So my point here is that God acts both in spite of and sometimes because of our sinful nature--not because our righteousness or Abraham's righteousness was so attractive to God.
...and considering how the angel of the Lord intervened to save Hagars life,...
So? Jonah intervened in the life of the Assyrians of Ninevah & they were wiped out less than a century later.
...and considering how the angel of the Lord intervened to save Hagars life, promising her that Ishmael would become a great nation, we know that this was no accident.
Interesting angle you take, Seven. One that ignores the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon. Here, you seem to say God will sanction something we frown upon if it contributes to the end result of what He promises.
Well's let apply that paradigm to the Book of Ether: And it came to pass that Riplakish DID NOT DO WHAT WAS RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD FOR HE DID HAVE MANY WIVES AND CONCUBINES... (Ether 10:5).
Now what is interesting about the book of Ether is that an incredible promise is given to these people by the Mormon god in Ether 1:43, but none of it came about, for the book of Ether is about a people who were destroyed. What did the Mormon god promise them seed-wise?
"And there will I bless thee and thy seed, and raise up unto me of thy seed, and of the seed of thy brother, and they who shall go with thee, a great nation."
Hey, if the Mormon god was willing to commit a false prophesy in Ether 1:43 because of "many" wives & concubines, heavy taxation, rebellion, warfare, and all the rest, then it's not like the same god would be prone to honor these same kind of things if Abraham was doing them.
...and that he too, like his brother Isaac, would begat 12 princes, (Genesis 17:20).
Royalty isn't always pedestal-proof. Look at Dan, one of your "princes." In Gen. 49:17, he's described as a "serpent." By Rev. 7, the tribe of Dan is absent from heavenly consideration.
Trying to place the blame and consequence solely on Sarai is unseemly.
Would it be "unseemly" for me to point out that Sarai's actions in Gen. 16 both before & after handing over her maidservant in Gen. 16 wouldn't qualify for the "Hall of Fame" of faith?
Would it be "unseemly" for me to mention Sarai "despised" Hagar (Gen. 16:4) and then "dealt hardly" with Hagar (Gen. 16:6)--causing her to flee and putting both her and her pre-born baby at risk.
Would it be "unseemly" for me to mention that the apostle Paul attributes oppressive persecution of the children of promise at the hands of Ishmael's descendents (Gal. 4:29)?
Would it be "unseemly" for me to mention that the children of Ishmael are referenced in the apostle Paul's allegory as those in spiritual bondage? (Gal 4:24-25)
I know that. But that's the first time. Up until then they are referenced as "handmaids" and "concubine."
So let's "rewind" the tape prior to Gen. 37. Go back to Gen. 35:19: "And Rachel died..." Now at the time of Rachel's death, what do you think was the role of Bilhah? Was she a "wife?" Gen. 35:22 says she was "his father's concubine..." And what was this "concubine" doing? (She was sleeping openly with Jacob's son Reuben--another "princely" fellow, I might add.)
So what? Do you think Jacob's wives just went around openly sleeping with stepsons at will? (Or do you now see that concubines did more of these kinds of things -- whereas it would have been unheard of for a wife to sleep with her stepson...For another example, see Absalom sleeping with his father David's concubines openly in 2 Sam. 16:22).
It's not so much "offensive" as the difference between a bondwoman--a slave (as the apostle Paul points out Gal. 4:21-31)--and a free woman. (Let's just say a slave didn't have a choice as to who she had to sleep with...and my post in #48 gives at least three examples of concubines who slept with the adult sons of the men they belonged to!)
As that post shows, no, it's not just semantics. Concubines were treated in ways unthinkable than would wives have been.
Yet another example of how the Jewish men treated concubines is in Judges 19. Here you have a host welcoming a male visitor and the local bi-sexuals wanted him. "...the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning..." (Judges 19:24-25)
Well, she died that morning! What man would have let his "wife" out to be gang-raped all the night when he himself was not threatened??? Yet he allowed his "concubine" to suffer gang-rape (he just didn't think it would result in death).
(Yeah, I bet you told your elementary math teacher that the difference between 2 & 4 was "semantics" -- and you got an "A" right? :) )
Well, again, I was responding to a specific comment in this thread. Silverleaf said "many" wives was a biblical teaching. I said, "no it's not." Even with Jacob, nowhere can you point to where it was God who told him to take a total 4 wives/concubines. Deception was the source of wife #2, and we both know God is NOT the author of deception. Right?
They are also at times called Jacob's concubines, as well as wives. At what point or at what number is multiple wives practiced by OT prophets acceptable to you?
Again, Jacob's 2nd wife was deception-based and Gen. 30 shows him sleeping with both their handmaidens was pregnancy-rivalry based (see Gen. 30:1 and following)...it could hardly be described as a healthy household at that time.
Abram sleeping with Hagar was lack-of-trust-in God based--they didn't think God would come thru on His promise in a supernatural way...they fenced God in via the natural way. As Paul says, the "natural" way "is he that was born after the flesh"--who wound up "persecuted him that was born after the Spirit" (Gal. 4:29).
And why is this coming down to what is acceptable to me? (Isn't this an issue of what is acceptable to God?)
For example, why don't you even adhere to what the Mormon god conveyed? [Do you mean you reject these and other Book of Mormon passages that describe polygamy and concubinage as less "righteous" (Jacob 3:5), an "abomination" (Jacob 2:24) with concubines "zeroed" out? (Jacob 2:27; 3:5)]
"...concubines ye shall have none..." (Jacob 2:27)
"Behold, the Lamanites...are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers--that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none... (Jacob 3:5)
And why is it OK for Abraham to have a handmaiden as a “wife” simultaneous to his normal marriage, but Jacob isn't allowed to have his wives handmaidens called wives?
Again, who said it was "OK" for Abraham? It seems to me after the episode in Gen. 16, God got tired of an uncovenanted, sadly imperfect Abram. It was time for transformation:
"...the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I WILL make my covenant between me and thee, and WILL MULTIPLY TEE EXCEEDINGLY. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou SHALT BE A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. Neither shall thy name ANY MORE BE CALLED ABRAM, BUT THY NAME SHALL BE ABRAHAM; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE. and I WILL MAKE THEE EXCEEDING FRUITFUL, AND I WILL MAKE NATIONS OF THEE, AND KINGS SHALL COME OUT OF THEE. AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THEE AND THY SEED AFTER THEE IN THEIR GENERATIONS, FOR AN EVERLASTING COVENANT, TO BE A GOD UNTO THEE AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE. (Gen. 17:1-7)
He [Jacob] clearly had 4 simultaneous relationships with women who bore him children, and it was acceptable to all.
Right.
"Rachel envied her sister..." (Gen. 30:1)
Jacob got angry with Rachel as she blamed him for lack of children (Gen. 30:2).
So it was in that kind of an emotional free-for-all that Rachel (not God, not Jacob) told him to sleep with Bilhah, "the help."
What do you think was Rachel's response when Bilhah gave birth to Dan? Joy? "God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan." (Gen. 30:6)
(Oh, yeah, God "judging" us outside of Christ is a joyous day! NOT!!!!). She felt God's judgment. Dan was later referenced as a "serpent" (Gen. 49:17) and his tribe is ommitted from the heavenly tribes referenced in Rev. 7.
By verse 8 of Gen. 30, Rachel says she has "wrestled with her sister"...Wow...what a harmonious household you've propped up for us, Seven!!!
Even if I agree to your terminology, that's still 2 “wives” by your definition. it's a semantics game, or so it appears.
Well, again, I wasn't focusing initially on this thread on the general concept of an extra wife...but upon "many" wives. Specifically, tho, as it pertains to Jacob, he was "deceived" into taking on a wife he didn't want & could not in that culture throw the fish back into the virgin pond. (A fish that swallows the hook & is thrown back won't survive)
Agreed, that large numbers of wives or even concubines were not the norm, but even David was given Saul's multiple wives to him by Nathan the Prophet.
Very good. I'm glad you referenced the source of David's wives & concubines -- they came with the kingdom David inherited...and Solomon likely took some of these from David (many folks don't realize this, so kudos to you for knowing this).
There were all called wives, and they were specifically mentioned as being sanctioned of the Lord. 2 Samuel 12:7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,...
Please review 2 Samuel again. The "wives" that are referenced in 2 Sam. 12:7 are the same "wives" referenced 4 verses later in 2 Sam. 12:11 when Nathan the prophet prophesies that they will "lie" with another. When did that take place? It took place when these women slept openly with Absalom, 2 Sam. 16:22. What does 2 Sam. 16:22 call them? ("Concubines")
The Hebrew word for "wives" was also used for "women" in these passages...and we know this same word was used for the "concubine" I described in the previous post in Judges 19. (This same word was even used for animal mates boarding the ark in Gen. 7...and we know these animals didn't have "wives").
Finally, I am curious as to why BoM passages like the ones above...like Ether 10:5...like Mosiah 11:2,4...like the ones below...are seemingly outright ignored by LDS when discussing OT characters...especially when discussing David & Solomon. Why? Look closely at these BoM passages:
...the people of Nephi...began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son...Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (Jacob 1:15; 2:24; see also Ether 10:5 for specific "many wives" reference)
You would think these would be "clincher" passages for Mormons. But no.
I have had many discussions with LDS...and not only is it hard for LDS to cite these passages (you have cited Jacob 2nd & 3rd chapters to me in the past, but not Jacob 1:15; nor Ether 10:5; etc.) -- but rare the Mormon is who even brings up these passages -- ALSO, it seems even harder for them to look at David through these words above. Instead, almost every Mormon I've talked with about plural wives & the OT soundly & roundly defend David -- except the Bathsheba affair...and defend the principle upon which Solomon took 700 wives. Why is that?
How can the BoM call David's practices as "wicked" and "abominable" and yet I can't find a Mormon David critic anywhere???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.