- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I didn’t wasn’t to hijack the “Coming Out” forum with this question, so I will ask it here. In times of old (Old/New Testament), what was involved in a marriage? Was it a legal agreement? A formal, or informal, arrangement between parties?
Yes, to all three questions – and more that could have been asked. There were marriages as we experience them now; there were political alliances; there were arranged marriages; there was monogamy; there was polygamy; there was about anything imaginable.
Thanks, more specifically, did they need to be legal marriages to be recognized in the eyes of God? Or was it more informal then? Is the idea that God only recognizes sex as a legitimate act when a legal ceremony of some sort occurs first, a modern construct? Who married Adam to Eve? Cohabitation was enough. A ceremony and maybe a party.
Look up concubinage on wikipedia. There is a whole section on the [Pasted below] Bible.
Quote:Among the Israelites , men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such
women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. [8] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries , while concubines did not. The concubine may not have commanded the
same respect and inviolability as the wife. The
Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly
translated as “wife”, is distinct from the
Hebrew word that means “concubine”.
(However, on at least one other occasion it is
used to refer a woman who is not a wife – specifically, the handmaid of Jacob’s wife. [9] ) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse
between a man and a wife of a different man
was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved. [10][11] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a
man and another man’s concubine, and none of
them result in capital punishment for either party, [12][13][14] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship. [8] For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonored when his
concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom .[15] Since it was regarded as the highest blessing
to have many children, legitimate wives often
gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at
least in part, if they were barren, as in the
cases of Sarah and Hagar , and Rachel and Bilhah .[8] The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife; [8] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine. [16] Later[8] biblical figures such as Gideon, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many
childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. [17]
And people are worried about the deterioration of the traditional family? Sounds like the majority of modern society understands the concept of fidelity better than those who we base all our rules on. At least most people who cheat on their spouse understands it is wrong. Society sucks and is the most evil of all time right now – except for most aspects of every civilization that came before this. :shh: 😈 Basing anything on the old testament is a no-win scenario in my opinion, either for or against something. I personally try not to use anything that predates antibiotics as a rationale. That being said, I agree that saying the Bible supports (or doesn’t support) a particular type of marriage doesn’t prove anything. LDS who say the Bible is proof of God’s will wont get far.
Now, I think I’ll go get me some concubines.
I was taught that God himself married Adam and Eve…at the temple alter. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I’m OK with that idea, cwald – IF“the temple altar” is figurative and the marriage was performed in the pre-existence. 
:silent: 
cwald wrote:I was taught that God himself married Adam and Eve…at the temple alter.
God himself married Adam?!? And Eve?!!? Sounds like polyandry to me….
But seriously, I don’t think there has ever really been the kind of marriage we now have in the history of world. A man and a woman coming together to equally share assets and responsibilities? And not of whiff of “property” or “chattel”. Men married to women who can vote, and own property, and can be nearly anything they choose to be? I know it’s not perfect, but it seems we’ve never had anything like what we have today (in America). Things seem to be better than they have ever been.
So what does “traditional” mean? Leave it to Beaver? The Brady Bunch? Three’s Company? (j/k on the last one!)
turinturambar wrote:But seriously, I don’t think there has ever really been the kind of marriage we now have in the history of world. A man and a woman coming together to equally share assets and responsibilities? And not of whiff of “property” or “chattel”. Men married to women who can vote, and own property, and can be nearly anything they choose to be? I know it’s not perfect, but it seems we’ve never had anything like what we have today (in America). Things seem to be better than they have ever been.
So what does “traditional” mean? Leave it to Beaver? The Brady Bunch? Three’s Company? (j/k on the last one!)
You make a great point here. If we lament the decline in the values of traditional marriage, then the zenith is not too distant behind us. There were a whole lot of crappy arrangements, outcomes, laws, policies and traditions surrounding marriage in our past. I’m not sure anyone from the 21st century would be very excited about living an eighteenth century or nineteenth century version of marriage, let alone something from the dark ages.
I think the only reason the divorce rate is so high now, is that women couldn’t ever leave before without being wholly shunned by society. It’s only really been an option for about 30-40 years. But you can be sure there were plenty of terrible marriages. Brown wrote:I think the only reason the divorce rate is so high now, is that women couldn’t ever leave before without being wholly shunned by society. It’s only really been an option for about 30-40 years. But you can be sure there were plenty of terrible marriages.
This. My very strict and traditional Mormon mom, back when I thought temple marriage was the pinnacle of everything you were worth(hey that’s what I was taught). Noted to me on several occasions when I talked triumphantly about the temple marriage success rate. Went on as well as my grandmother(both married in temple) that the only real reason why it appears higher is because you feel trapped in a system. Not because temples triaged were genuinely
Overall more happier and successful. But like other countries, like the
Philippines, we also were in a system that made women
Feel trapped and unable to seek happiness if they wanted too(if they were unhappy).
Making divorce very difficult or at times impossible scews the numbers a lot in any region or country or religion.
That being said, there never was a “1” type of traditional marriage. There were many, they evolved as we did. What we call “traditional marriage” has existed for less then 3% of our
Time on earth. In the future it will also continue to change as we do.
We are a ever evolving changing children of god. Our customs and cultural
Have always changed and will continue to do so as we evolve. There really isn’t any “traditional” culture, customs out there.
They have all gone through many, many changes. Just as their is no old civilizations now. They died out, humanity grew and changed and morphed into what was then unknowable. Marriage will continue to evolve into a unknowable as our civilization dies out as our ancestors did and ours will in time into a new one we can not predict now.
Just has history has shown repeatedly with all civilizations and nations
Though-out history.
Moral of the story, we are ever changing children of god. Marriage as with all other “traditions” in our history will change with time. But “tradition” is often a misused word, in the same way people refer to their historical ancestry line as “pure” Latin or pure European. Yes they were taught that, but doing a genealogy test will
Show that we are all mixed and have mixed since the dawn of our creation. Tradition become
A word for “a very short period in time during our existence that we adjusted to or practiced something in a certain way before changing numerous times before and after”.
No idea who Beaver is, or why I should leave it to him/her… 😆 but I do see various negative changes…Firstly – a lot of people are so self-absorbed that they tend to live alone, and if they go out, they gather in groups. This allows little one to one contact with potential spouses, little individual expression etc. The atomization of society is not good for marriage.
Secondly – people think of themselves a lot and not of families. That is partly why certain sections of society are dying out without realizing it. We’re already paying for this.
Thirdly – labor saving devices have made a big change, meaning that while housewives had a genuine job to do, there is a shift in balance. Add women in the labor market, and things are even more complicated. This is partly a a change in gender role, but more complex than that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.