The Inferiority of Women

[FunkyTown]

And you may be right, Pam. He might be a class a genius, but I frankly can't remember a word he has said.

Regardless, the difference is that he is not our teacher and we are not here to pay attention to him. He is

not the Prophet, an Apostle nor has he ever talked in conference(i'm certain i'd remember his style.

A simple apology from him and the humility to treat others with respect and dignity and he won't even need you defending his indefensible attitude.

[Vort]

Snow,

In rereading our correspondence, it seems our point often gets lost beneath dense layers of verbiage and goes down a rathole here and there. Let me try to cut to the chase.

You seem to be saying, in effect: "Look at thus-and-such scripture claiming that God (or someone else) did or said such-and-such a thing. Obviously, this is a bad and evil thing. Therefore, this proves that not everything the scriptures claim (or that God's prophets claim) is actually true."

I object to this line of reasoning, but my objection is perhaps a bit subtle. In point of fact, I do not believe that the scriptures are a flawless record of God's will or actions; in principle, at least, I'm willing to accept the idea that the scriptural record might be mistaken, as I'm sure it is in any number of places. (Note that Mormon explicitly admitted this.) I also do not believe that prophets are perfect men, incapable of error.

My problem comes in taking these two general statements of truth and using them to "disprove" any given scriptural story or account or prophetic act. Case in point: Nephi killed a drunken Laban. Why, that's MURDER!! So therefore the account is wrong, God didn't tell Nephi to do that, and Nephi committed murder.

No. Wrong. False.

Just because something looks like murder doesn't mean it is murder. Specifically, if God actually did command Nephi to kill Laban, then it wasn't murder. And Nephi, whom we know to be a prophet of God, says God did command him to kill Laban. So by what reasonable process do we second-guess a prophet telling us something? Where is the humility, the desire to come to know God through his revealed word, if we simply ignore his prophets whenever we don't like what they say?

On the other hand, we might respond, "Whoa, that's strange. God commands Nephi to kill a drunken man? What does that mean? What does it say about God? Why didn't God just give Laban a stroke or hit him with a bolt of lightning or a meteor?" Then we can think and meditate about that, and perhaps arrive at some surprising insights about the nature of our Creator and Father.

I tend to reject out of hand any argument that starts from the premises, "The scriptures are imperfect, prophets are only men, and I don't like what this scripture says." Such reasoning is an example of us trusting our own judgment above God's and putting our trust in the arm of flesh.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Vort

[Faded]

Stories in Genesis relate woman’s status of property of men and such is sanctioned by God. For example, when the men of Sodom as going to rape Lot’s visitors, he eagerly offers his virgin daughters up to be raped instead. Unmarried young women were the property of the father until they became the property of a husband. Even after Lot’s outrageous and evil behavior, Lot is still considered righteous. (Gen 19)

If we look at the Joseph Smith Translation of this chapter in Genesis we see something completely different.

GENESIS 19: 9-15

(Lot resisted the wickedness of Sodom. Compare Genesis 19: 5-10)

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.

10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

This comes from lds.org: Joseph Smith Translation: Gen. 19: 9-15

Lot does not offer his daughters, in fact he tells the men they can have neither his daughters or the "angels" who have come to visit him. This is why he is still considered righteous.

The post above was probably the most instructive and useful response to the original post so far, and here is why:

Question: Why did this passage of scripture get mangled to begin with?

Answer: History has been full of so many examples of extreme bias in favor of Men and against Women, it probably seemed logical to a lot of people.

There is a significant undertone in the Bible that speaks in favor of the Theory that Snow is putting forward here: That God has commanded his children to be male chauvinist pigs. The truth of the matter is, that has been the social norm for humanity through all of History. Male predominance and Female subservience have been commonplace in every society. To a certain degree, this status falls in line with the cursing of Eve when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden. But was the woman inferior and subservient BEFORE the fall? Well, Eve certainly didn’t act like a submissive, subservient woman. I see nothing in her behavior (insofar as we know of it) that would indicate that she was Adam’s personal slave and property.

After the fall, woman was placed in the position that she has been in for all of human history. But did God intend it to always be that way? We cannot possibly use the example of God’s dealings with us in this lost and fallen world as an indication of th eternal destiny of women. I don’t believe women are under the same curse in the eternities. I think that the modern age is seeing the beginning of the lifting of the curse of Eve.

[Faded]

Incidentally, I think that Snow really enjoys sparking controversy and getting an argument started. That is disappointing but that is Snow's choice.

[beefche]

Enough. No more attacks or defenses of individual posters. Either continue the discussion of the topic or this thread will be closed.

[Hemidakota]

As a woman this passage makes me feel very unloved and inferior.

D&C 132:64-65

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

My understanding is that the "law of Sarah" is getting permission from the first wife for other wives. If permission is refused the man is at liberty to take another wife anyway. Oh, and the first wife gets destroyed.

Yeah, and concubines are slave wives.

In section 132 Emma Smith was encouraged to submit to the will of the Lord pertaining to her husband—to yield her heart to the mind of God with regard to the matter of plural marriages. Obedience would lead to glorious blessings; disobedience would lead to damnation, for the covenant people are to abide by this "law of the priesthood" whenever it is specifically given to them by new revelation through the living prophet.

132:64 If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power. The reference is to Joseph Smith, who held the keys referred to here (vv. 7, 45-47). If a man holding the keys of this power teaches these principles to his wife and she chooses to oppose him, she will lose the Spirit of the Lord. If she remains unrepentant, she will eventually destroy her own soul and lose her own salvation.

132:65 He is exempt from the law of Sarah. In the context of the principles announced in the previous verses, it is lawful, if a wife does not receive this law, for her husband to receive all things that God chooses to give him. In that case his wife would be the transgressor, and thus her husband is exempt from the law of Sarah who gave heed to Abraham when the Lord commanded him to take Hagar to wife. The principle is certain: Those who follow the commandments of the Lord and keep their covenants will be blessed; those who refuse to do so will not share those blessings. A woman can still lay claim to the blessings of the sealing power given to her in the temple even if her husband chooses to pursue a path that leaves him unworthy of them. Similarly, if a man or woman dies without having had the opportunity to enter into a particular covenant in this life but was worthy to do so, that privilege and blessing will be granted to that person in the world to come (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, 138).

[TruthSeekerToo]

Thanks, Hemi, that still makes the women inferior.

[Vort]

Thanks, Hemi, that still makes the women inferior.

No, it makes the woman filling a different role from the man. Superiority/inferiority don't enter into the discussion. I am convinced that until we get past the carnal impulse to classify everything as higher or lower than something else, we will not be able to understand or enjoy the life God lives.

[Hemidakota]

[TruthSeekerToo] No. [summarizing this story] Unless you understand the framework, even Joseph Smith, a few years earlier asked the question about plurality while translating Abrahamic scrolls. Joseph loved Emma Smith deeply and knew if he presented this revelation, she would be totally defiance with Joseph. Joseph already had enough problems with disloyal members of the church which was causing allot of havoc in both Illinois and Missouri. So he kept it in his coat pocket or pant pocket for that time until Emma found it. Emma vehemently opposed it from the start and burn the paper which contain the revelation. Joseph was told after a council session from a messenger of the Lord to begin the practice or he would be removed [by death if necessary] It was a warning to Emma if she did not change her way.

Now, if anyone thinks that women are inferior, you will never understand the rib story or how we began. The man is useless without the woman and the woman is useless without the man in a eternal perspective.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Maxel]

Thanks, Hemi, that still makes the women inferior.

When I read D&C 132:64-65, I try to keep in mind two things:

1) A quote from Brigham Young:

"I have counseled every woman of this Church to let her husband be her file leader; he leads her, and those above him in the Priesthood lead him. But I never counseled a woman to follow her husband to hell."

Lightplanet

2) D&C 121:41-46:

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

Ideally, only a righteous man will take a second wife when allowed. If a righteous man's wife seeks to stop him from taking another wife, it is accounted to her for unrighteousness and she becomes the transgressor. If the man is unrighteous and seeks another wife, then I believe he is not justified under the law and, therefore, his wife's rebellion against his unjustified action would not be condemned under the same law (especially if the wife were righteous).

[TruthSeekerToo]

I believe I do understand quite a bit of the history surrounding church history.

Having no say in the matter makes her inferior and does not place her in equal status as her husband.

You think concubines are equal??? Nope. They are slaves and often raped because they have no choice. If God endorses concubines then slavery is okay by him.

Does anyone have a first hand account of the angel with the flaming sword? As it stands, I believe it is heresay. Why would God kill Joseph over polygamy (which he never publicly taught) and keep Hitler around??? I know this is veering off topic, though.

Oh, and why would a righteous man want another wife?

[Maxel]

Oh, and why would a righteous man want another wife?

I can't speak as to why a righteous man would want another wife- currently I'm sitting at 'zero' wives and hope someday to get to 'one'- but I do know that a righteous man follows the commandments of God. We are told in Jacob 2:27-30:

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

A righteous man will follow God's commandments, and God sometimes commands his people to live the law of plural marriage for the purpose of raising seed unto Himself.

[beefche]

Maybe if we step away from polygamy, we might be able to see how the scripture quoted by truthseeker can show its meaning.

I liked the parable by Elder Packer from a long time ago. LDS.org - Ensign Article - For Time and All Eternity

Once a man received as his inheritance two keys. The first key, he was told, would open a vault which he must protect at all cost. The second key was to a safe within the vault which contained a priceless treasure. He was to open this safe and freely use the precious things which were stored therein. He was warned that many would seek to rob him of his inheritance. He was promised that if he used the treasure worthily, it would be replenished and never be diminished, not in all eternity. He would be tested. If he used it to benefit others, his own blessings and joy would increase.

The man went alone to the vault. His first key opened the door. He tried to unlock the treasure with the other key, but he could not, for there were two locks on the safe. His key alone would not open it. No matter how he tried, he could not open it. He was puzzled. He had been given the keys. He knew the treasure was rightfully his. He had obeyed instructions, but he could not open the safe.

In due time, there came a woman into the vault. She, too, held a key. It was noticeably different from the key he held. Her key fit the other lock. It humbled him to learn that he could not obtain his rightful inheritance without her.

They made a covenant that together they would open the treasure and, as instructed, he would watch over the vault and protect it; she would watch over the treasure. She was not concerned that, as guardian of the vault, he held two keys, for his full purpose was to see that she was safe as she watched over that which was most precious to them both. Together they opened the safe and partook of their inheritance. They rejoiced for, as promised, it replenished itself.

With great joy they found that they could pass the treasure on to their children; each could receive a full measure, undiminished to the last generation.

Perhaps some few of their posterity would not find a companion who possessed the complementary key, or one worthy and willing to keep the covenants relating to the treasure. Nevertheless, if they kept the commandments, they would not be denied even the smallest blessing.

Because some tempted them to misuse their treasure, they were careful to teach their children about keys and covenants.

There came, in due time, among their posterity some few who were deceived or jealous or selfish because one was given two keys and another only one. “Why,” the selfish ones reasoned, “cannot the treasure be mine alone to use as I desire?”

Some tried to reshape the key they had been given to resemble the other key. Perhaps, they thought, it would then fit both locks. And so it was that the safe was closed to them. Their reshaped keys were useless, and their inheritance was lost.

Those who received the treasure with gratitude and obeyed the laws concerning it knew joy without bounds through time and all eternity.

I bear witness of our Father’s plan for happiness, and bear testimony in the name of Him who wrought the Atonement, that it might be, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

To me, when I apply this parable to the scripture in D&C I see that if the woman refuses the key or refuses to use her key, then she is under condemnation. The key can represent any commandment from God.

Edited April 30, 2009 by beefche
forgot to add the source of the parable.

[TruthSeekerToo]

I can't speak as to why a righteous man would want another wife- currently I'm sitting at 'zero' wives and hope someday to get to 'one'- but I do know that a righteous man follows the commandments of God. We are told in Jacob 2:27-30:

A righteous man will follow God's commandments, and God sometimes commands his people to live the law of plural marriage for the purpose of raising seed unto Himself.

Well, I hope you find a wife, too.

Statistics show that polygamous relationships result in fewer children born. It appears that JS had no children from any of his polygamous wives-although he was certainly able to have children.

And I'm wondering if anyone will be willing to admit that concubines are inferior. Concubines are slave wives. Is anyone gonna touch that one?

[Hemidakota]

Did I mentioned the sword was flaming? :)

[Maxel]

Statistics show that polygamous relationships result in fewer children born.

That surprises me; it goes against common sense (then again, common sense doesn't dictate all things). Do you have any resources that I can look into that?

It appears that JS had no children from any of his polygamous wives-although he was certainly able to have children.

I have heard this other places. I've never seen any conclusive evidence, but I wonder if Joseph's role in taking multiple wives was to set the precedent among the Saints and not necessarily to have children. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that, either.

And I'm wondering if anyone will be willing to admit that concubines are inferior. Concubines are slave wives. Is anyone gonna touch that one?

I'm not sure how the law of plural marriage deals with concubines. I'll touch the topic- to show I don't fear it (I'm such a manly man!)- but I don't really have anything substantive to offer.

In Jacob 2, Jacob relay's the Lord's message that David's and Solomon's "many wives and concubines... was abominable" before the Lord. In Genesis and the Doctrine and Covenants, Hagar (Abraham's second wife) is portrayed as being given to Abraham by Sarah as a wife. Additionally, the accounts I can find of Jacob's multiple partners are all described as his wives.

[Hemidakota]

Anything that dealt with this vision was referring to a sword being 'drawn' vice flaming.

The most detail account was President's Snow:

"IT was at the private interview referred to above, that the Prophet Joseph unbosomed his heart, and described the trying mental ordeal he experienced in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings, the natural result of the force of education and social custom, relative to the introduction of plural marriage. He knew the voice of God—he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward—to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and prepossessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world stared him in the face; but God, who is above all, had given the commandment, and He must be obeyed. Yet the Prophet hesitated and deferred from time to time, until an angel of God stood by him [ 70 ]with a drawn sword, and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his Priesthood would be taken from him and he should be destroyed! This testimony he not only bore to my brother, but also to others—a testimony that cannot be gainsayed.

From my brother's journal: "At the interview on the bank of the Mississippi, in which the Prophet Joseph explained the doctrine of Celestial Marriage, I felt very humble, and in my simplicity besought him earnestly to correct me and set me right if, at any time, he should see me indulging any principle or practice that might tend to lead astray, into forbidden paths; to which he replied, 'Brother Lorenzo, the principles of honesty and integrity are founded within you, and you will never be guilty of any serious error or wrong, to lead you from the path of duty. The Lord will open your way to receive and obey the law of Celestial Marriage.' During the conversation, I remarked to the Prophet I thought he appeared to have been endowed with great additional power during my mission in England. He said it was true; the Lord had bestowed on him additional divine power.""

[Tarnished]

Did anyone read Post #49 where Snow is attempting to explain the reason for this thread? He gave the rest of the story. But no one has responded to it. I think Snow makes a point here. Instead we want to continue with the attacks on both sides instead of getting to the REAL reason he posted this thread. I think it's a valid thread and worth discussing. Just my opinion. But he has gotten me to thinking how not everything in the Bible is attributed to God. That Christ turned some thinking around on the status of women. How our own modern day Prophets continue to promote the worthiness and importance of women.

Snow wants you to think outside the box. He has always done this. But let's stop the personal attacks on both sides and actually think about the reasons for posting threads. It's to make us think. It's to challenge us.

Pam, though it may not seem like it, in my previous post I in effect responded to post #49, I see it as a continuance of the “Disbelieving the Scriptures” thread. In that thread Snow brings up the idea that people “disbelieve” certain scriptures that do not fit in with their belief system, or rather they disregard these scriptures. Whether this is valid or not, he does bring up a similar issue here with the scriptures on the inferiority of women. And considering the scriptures that he cites in post #49 we see Christ turn the Old Testament scriptures on their head, thus in effect “proving” these scriptures to be in error.

What I think we must keep in mind is that the Bible, though inspired by God, is incomplete in many ways. There are many writings that we do not have, and there are parts, as we have seen from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), that are translated incorrectly thus giving us an incomplete story. As we read in the 8th Article of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” This is not to say that the entire Bible is not translated correctly, but as the JST shows there are definitely parts of the Bible that have not been translated correctly. I think we must take this into consideration when we read the Bible.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Maxel, I can look for where I found that statstical jazz, but in case I can't find it lets just look at BY.

He had 56 children by 16 women. Ten of them only bore him 1 child.

All of my pioneer ancestors who lived at the same time period in Utah had families of 10-16 children each.

As for the concubines....

D&C 132:37-39

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

These scriptures seem to be saying that God approves concubines.....

[Hemidakota]

The key here is the phrase "because they were given unto him". It was not Abraham asked for them, it was the Lord doing.

[TruthSeekerToo]

The point here is that it makes them inferior. That is the only issue I am trying to discuss (even though it is hard to seperate it all out).

Concubines are treated inferior because they are slave wives.

[Dove]

Many parts of the Bible clearly teach that, in many ways, the woman is inferior to man. It starts at the beginning of Genesis and continues up through the New Testament. That is not to say that there are not also passages that show women as equal to men but this thread will focus on the passages that show the female species derogatorily. This is not an exhaustive list, merely a sampling. I know this there is a thread about poster’s opinions of men and women but this thread is an examination of the biblical record or part of the biblical record on women, and grows out of another thread where women's status in the bible was discussed.

It starts with Genesis where woman was created out of man - that is - woman’s creation is dependent upon the man. This does not explicitly say that woman is inferior to man but immediately sets up the pecking order. (Gen 2)

Then we learn that woman comes the story of the serpent and Eve is portrayed as the one who was deceived and that God would multiply woman’s sorrow and from then on man would rule over her (Gen 3)

Stories in Genesis relate woman’s status of property of men and such is sanctioned by God. For example, when the men of Sodom as going to rape Lot’s visitors, he eagerly offers his virgin daughters up to be raped instead. Unmarried young women were the property of the father until they became the property of a husband. Even after Lot’s outrageous and evil behavior, Lot is still considered righteous. (Gen 19)

Leviticus shows women’s natural cycles as unclean and unholy (Lev 20)

After a woman has given birth, she is unclean. If the baby is female, she is unclean for twice as long than if the infant were male. (Lev 12)

If a woman came to the defense of her husband who was fighting with another man but in aiding her husband by grabbing the genitals of the other man, she was to have her hand cut off. (Deut 12:11-12)

Man is the head of the woman and woman was created for the man’s glory ( 1 Cor 11)

If a woman is represented to be a virgin but upon marriage consummation she does not bleed, then the woman is to be taken outside and the other men of the city are to throw rocks at the woman until she is so injured that she dies.

Women are to be silent in Church and if they want to know something, they are to ask their husbands at home, (1 Tim 2)

Women are the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7)

11. Women are to be trained to be subservient or subject to their husbands. (Titus 2:4)

Snow,

Thank you for bringing this up as a topic. I've yet to read everyone's posts in reply to your original post; however, I feel this is a very valid topic.

I just wanted to make you aware of a JST in reference to Lot offering up his daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom. According to the JST translation, this is not actually what happened. Here is the JST~

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

The patriarchal order is a stiff topic for me, as I have witnessed a lot of abuse occur in the name of being "the head of the household," "the father," and the "man of the house." So, for now I would prefer to remain silent on this topic, only to say that yes, because of the patriarchal order, I seriously doubt woman, in general by men of the church, are seen as a viable equal. By this I mean that our voice really isn't acknowledged or listened to. We are treated as a sexual object to be avoided rather than a sibling to be loved. (I say that from several personal experiences I've had with leadership/brethren avoiding me as a single woman of the church.) We are definately in a subservient position, no matter how much protest is made to the contrary~

Dove

[Just_A_Guy]

Concubines are treated inferior because they are slave wives.

Not necessarily.

Approval within the D&C of one form of concubinage (in the past, not in the present) does not imply approval of all forms of concubinage.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[TruthSeekerToo]

Not necessarily.

Approval within the D&C of one form of concubinage (in the past, not in the present) does not imply approval of all forms of concubinage.

In which "form" is a woman not inferior---and her children? Sorry, but your link just proved that concubines are inferior.

[Hemidakota]

The point here is that it makes them inferior. That is the only issue I am trying to discuss (even though it is hard to seperate it all out).

Concubines are treated inferior because they are slave wives.

Do you think Abraham would treated them 'inferior'?