Close Topic Options

Law Of Concubinage

The Law of Concubinage

Now here is something new that I did not hear of before... Law of Concubinage. I knew Abraham and Jacob were given their wives' handmaids to marry, but I did not think there was a modern-day need for it. Basically it allows that a 'type' of marriage takes place so that Plural Marriage can be accepted. Was there really such a desperation to take women during the period? Could this mean that the Law of Concubinage is still practiced today?

Concubinage Law

I don't think it is practiced in the Church today. But I suspect that good men will do so once again in the near future.

I would refer, once again, to Isaiah 4:1,

Rather off topic, but...
Did you notice the date when Wilford Woodruff is reported to have made that statement?

Message Edited...
JB: Quote tags added.

Law Of Concubinage Studies Doctrine Mormon

Yes after the manifesto. We do mention in the main Plural Marriage Thread here: Source 4 that Plural Marriages were STILL commonly performed after the Manifesto including one prophet decades after - no doubt about that. I read somewhere that the Manifesto was not even writen by the Prophet, just signed by him. It was just fancy words to keep the US government quiet.

From what I gather Members of the time believed that Plural Marriage would NEVER be taken from the earth and so they continued to practice it secretly and basically lied to the government in order to 'fool' them into believing it was stopped. I find that disturbing really. It begs to ask the question of how far a lie should go in order to keep a belief. Ironically only to have David O. McKay come later and basically abolish all aspects of it and start rigorously excommunicating Members for practicing it.

Thus back to the Law of Concubinage, if there was a need for this in order to save Plural Marriage then is the Church in damnation for not carrying it out? It then asks us to focus on how it all started. When Emma caught Joseph in the barn doing his thing with a Concubine - was that the start of a righteous ordinance? Was this supposed to be the way Plural Marriage was to be? Was it to be continued in secret even if it meant lying to the government? If so then how come leaders today venomously deny it all and seek to destroy anyone uttering it?

Concubinage Law

What I see about concubinage is that during the tribulations as economies and governments fall, there will be righteous men, probably gathering together in small groups, who will accept women who seek out those groups for protection. The men will provide Priesthood, comfort, and companionship to these women. Perhaps, as time goes on, they will become plural marriages, but not at the beginning.

I tend to think that the Church is under some condemnation for rejecting all of the Law of Abraham, as plural marriage was frequently described. If concubinage was the "lesser" part of the Law, as President Woodruff's quote indicates to me, then our total rejection of it could certainly have great consequences. It is possible that the condemnation will be upon individual members who know that the Law is correct but are afraid to live it, or who reject it.

Maybe concubinage doesn't mean that a man has a sexual relationship with his concubines, or at least not necessarily. Perhaps it means that he takes a divorced woman or a widow, under his care, and he provides love, emotional support, and physical sustenance, as well as a strong family structure.

Without a lot more information, I really could not make a determination.

Concubinage Law

I understand your position about the Law of Concubinage, my main problem is the lie behind it - The convenience of it for earlier Brethren and the absurdity of it for the current Brethren. I am not saying it is your lie, but living in an underground of secrecy is like living a lie.

Let me explain: You, like many others, believe Plural Marriage was never to be taken from the earth as you have expressed many times, and you feel that the current Church is trying to change early Doctrine for one that better suits the world's eye or "Babylon" as you like to say. However you keep that in the back of your mind and do not express it - isn't that like living a lie? How can you attend meetings and accept assignments / callings from the same entity that tries it's best to quash any recognizable or familiar Doctrine about Celestial Marriage / Plural Marriage to the point they are willing to excommunicate you for it?

It is either Joseph was inspired to bring Plural Marriage about or it is all just a lie since it is clear that the early Church held these laws as serious as the first baptism. Brigham was willing to conceal it against the US Government by throwing up loose terms that made it look as though the practice was given up, but it was not. Today's version does not even want to recognize it as part of her history let alone talk about it. Plural marriage is considered a mistake. Logically if Joseph could make such a big mistake then how could he have been the chosen Prophet? Today's Church hides the teachings that the early Brethren regularly preached and when it is discovered by a Member (thank goodness for the openness of the internet) puts it down now to being a matter of the early Prophet's opinion. With that in mind then are we saying that what is said to us now is just a matter of our living Prophet's opinion? Is what all the early pioneers followed just opinion?

Keep in mind this is not an attack on you at all. I am illustrating a point that the Church actually encourages more enlightened Members to stay quiet or lose their Salvation by being excommunicated when they become vocal. It has reached the point of "Don't Ask That". Those who do not know better or do not bother to study already live a lie because they do not really know the core beliefs of the Church. They think it is Baptism, Holy Ghost, Family Home Evening, and Seminary, but these things are only the outer part of the Church.

Just think... We have a Mature LDS Board here... Why... Because were these things made public for all then people will as the Church says - "...lose their testimony". Why should someone lose their testimony if something is the Truth? Unless it is a lie and they believe that opening up these things will only further the lie. The early Brethren were unafraid to share these things save for the first nine years when they kept it hidden - something I cannot find a gratifying answer for - another example of doing things but isn't it in face a lie? Is lying justifiable? This may all seem off topic but it really isn't... Through study I see that the more I read the more I see a wide gap between the early Church and Church today. Such a difference in beliefs and the way things are done. Looking forward to your reply.

Law Of Concubinage

Good questions. Unfortunately I don't have any good answers. I don't even discuss the history any more, except with a very few specific people. That is because it has become a case of "casting pearls before swine" in that the discussions always end up causing a lot of discomfort.

As for Church activity and accepting callings, I firmly believe in the Restoration, and that all will be made right. I do what I can, where I can, or at least try to do so. I see God's hand in so many things about the Church membership that I have to accept that He is working through that membership to spread what is available.

I am not even slightly worried about my salvation concerning this subject. If I were ever to be excommunicated for believing, or even practicing this Law, then I would not consider it to be under God's direction. However, I also don't see any possibility of such a thing happening since there is such firm opposition in my family to its practice that I cannot discuss any of my deeply held beliefs at home any more.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I think most who believe in Plural Marriage would probably say the same thing. If they are excommunicated because of their beliefs, then it is only separation from the organization, and has no effect on their eternal welfare.

Law Concubinage

Doesn't that concern you? I mean, you do not have any good answers for critical questions that the Church chooses to keep secret or deny? This is one of the amazing parts of the Membership that I find strange. It is like with Blacks and the Priesthood... Just imagine that a Prophet of the Church said that Blacks were representatives of Satan yet some Blacks knowing this continue their Membership. The Law of Concubinage is outside the Temple Sealing but yet it is acceptable because the leadership of the time says it is... It almost seems like a blind following - no not blind - like a membership that has become so comfortable that they then start to deny things happened. Concerning.

Law Concubinage Mormon Doctrine Studies

When did we change places?

Of course it concerns me. You know how concerned I am about the things that are hidden and denied. I just look forward to the time when the Church is set in order, and try to improve my own actions. I also try to learn what is available about these subjects.

I think that the "Law of Concubinage" is a valid subset of the what I have read to be the "Law of Abraham" with a corresponding "Law of Sarah". I know little of the Law of Sarah.

From what I read that you posted earlier, it appears that concubinage is a way of providing for displaced women and children that also supports and prepares for Plural Marriage. Notice that it is a prediction, possibly even a prophecy.