Replies

Now since I answered your questions answer this: ...So are you denying that the Bible teaches that Hagar was given by Sarai to Abram as a "wife"?

Let me answer that in two ways.

(1) The Bible is clear on respect of all authority--even in situations where the "authority" is a slave-holder. But that doesn't mean that authority is absolute. So I think there's still an open question here--and legitimately so--considering we're talking about a female slaveholder having the questionable absolute authority to order a slavegirl to sleep with her husband...whether or not the title of "wife" is mounted on the bedpost.

I mean, after all, to get back to the main thrust of this thread, isn't that already what we're talking about? With 19th century LDS and 20th & 21st century fLDS, what do we see? We see parents & church leaders coercing young girls into unwanted marriages. How is a mistress ordering a maidservant/slave woman into "wifely" surrogacy responsibilities any different from a coercement standpoint other than a slaveholder has even more authority to wield!!!

(2) Please see my post #1,862 -- the Q&A section. All five "witnesses" involved--Hagar, Sarah, Abraham, Angel of the Lord, and Moses--all five still reference her as nothing but a servant girl or slave girl or one who should submit to her mistress...and they do this after the conception!

The Bible uses the same word for Wife to describe the relationship between Hagar and Abram that is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve and Abram and Sarai.f

P, that's generally a good starting point--to compare contexts of word usages. However, you apparently looked @ 2 passages & perhaps stopped there when a broader survey of passages is needed. Let's do a quick rundown of how "issah" (wife, or woman is the translation) is used, context-wise.

Since "issah" is translated as "bride" in Gen. 29:21 and Deut. 20:7, you'd think (like what you say in your question), that we'd have a pretty safe understanding that we're talking only about a wife, right? (Wrong)

"Issah" is also translated as "concubine" in Judges 19:26. To make matters even more confusing, issah is even translated as a female mate of animals for Noah's ark in Gen. 7:2.

You and DelphiUser aren't going to start claiming that the mates (Hebrew underlying word--issah) of male clean & unclean animals are eligible to become plural wives, too, are you? :) [I think if I was the owner of a cow, and gave her as a "wife" (issah) to somebody already married, and if he had sex with the cow, I don't think we could jointly conclude that this man was a polygamist even if I did call the cow his "wife"!!!...which, BTW, is quite distinct from calling his wife his "cow"!!!:)]

I believe that Sarai, giving Hagar to mate with Abram, is not a wedding ceremony, is not recognized by that society as a legal marriage, was certainly never referred to by God as a marriage of his wife.

God indeed, recognized the legitimacy of Sarah’s marriage to Abraham and the illegitimacy of his relationship to Hagar,when He referred to Issac as his son, his only son.

Nowhere does He refer to Hagar as being Abraham’s wife. This is just a stretch and twisting of the truth in a desperate attempt to justify polygamy, something not supported Scripturally.

I wonder. If the LDS states that polygamy is wrong, why are so many people going through such contortions trying to justify it?

If God approves of it, what’s the LDS leadership doing condemning it?

If the LDS leadership and God condemn it, what are so many people doing trying to defend it?

U Said: whether or not the title of "wife" is mounted on the bedpost

Right there, you have lost this argument. IF the title of wife means nothing to you, then marriage is a sham and means nothing as well.

U Said: You and DelphiUser aren't going to start claiming that the mates (Hebrew underlying word--issah) of male clean & unclean animals are eligible to become plural wives, too, are you? :) [I think if I was the owner of a cow, and gave her as a "wife" (issah) to somebody already married, and if he had sex with the cow, I don't think we could jointly conclude that this man was a polygamist even if I did call the cow his "wife"!!!...which, BTW, is quite distinct from calling his wife his "cow"!!!:)]

This hysterical overreach, shows how bankrupt your arguments are. Nowhere did I even approach the idea of sex with animals, nor marriage to them. Your sick mind has led you here, and I leave you in your personal Gomorrah, may God have mercy upon your soul for even suggesting this.