Not really. An engagement was a legal contract of intent to marry. when a father agreed to the marriage proposal for his daughter of a suitor, the suitor had to put down a cash deposit on the legal contract. If the daughter eventually calls off the engagement, the suitor gets his deposit back. If the suitor reneges/calls off the engagement, he forfeits his deposit. If the suitor was particularly dastardly, the girl's father could sue for breach of contract. The engagement ring today is the substitute for that deposit on the contract. And again, if the man breaks off the engagement, she keeps the ring. If the girl breaks off the engagement, she has to return the ring. The first diamond engagement ring was given to Mary of Burgundy by the the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in the imperial court of Vienna in the 15th Century and started a trend for diamond rings amongst the nobility. Diamonds were not easily accessible until the late 19th Century when diamond mines were discovered in South Africa, production increased and diamonds became fashionable. Diamonds were still too expensive for most, and engagement rings could be any nice ring presented by the suitor. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, diamond prices crashed and DeBeers started marketing diamonds for engagement rings and it was not until WW2 was over that the diamond became so closely associated with the engagement ring especially in the USA.
Great lectures, i’d love to hear your take on divorce and remarriage, and the more recent interpretation that it is the “putting away” (i.e. not writing a bill of divorcement) that God and Jesus were opposed to. If that lecture already exists and someone can link it, i’d appreciate it
Professor John Hamer, I am extremely impressed with your discourse on marriage. Ironically, my church who first opened up the prophet Joseph expansion of Victorian era marriage switched and eventually pursued a very discriminatory, bigoted degrading other forms of human bonding. For example, when I was on my mission we spoke to a young women who related according to her , her story. She and her boyfriend were regularly having sex . Her parents were outraged and pushed the Bishop to excommunicate her. She said her parents also kicked her out of the house. So she ended up living with her boyfriend which her bishop believed was grounds to excommunicated her. At the time, I felt it was ludicrous and so do now. This was in the early 1970s. My branch of the LDS has increasingly become more and more corporate and regulated as to at times destroy the innovative charisma of the prophet Joseph, in favor, of a continuous movement toward a regulated corporate system. However, lately, under President Russell Nelson the corporate mechanizations are being put aside step by step. I am also bewildered by the unmarried couple who maintain a well provided for, well organized family . And yet, the church use to harass these families rather than recognize them and embrace these families as successful. For example, the case of the excommunication of the apostle John Taylor Jr. Apostle John Taylor Jr was alienated from his first wife who stopped talking to him and stopped have sexual relationship with brother Taylor. Apostle Taylor met a young immigrant and hired her. They began to have a secretive affair for years. Brother Taylor maintained and administered to both wives and sets of children. He was summarily excommunicationed. To me, another form of moral bullying rather than a refined pursuit of justice. I was impressed to learn of President Wallace Smith decision regarding polygamy. That was an intelligent and insightfully fair exercise of prophetic discretion. I am very impressed by the Smith leadership at the Reorganized Church. I have also been impressed with Hyruma descendants in my church. Thus, I am beginning to understand that many of the Smiths in both churches exercised extraordinarily good judgment. Nonetheless, Emma got her revenge, Lol , her great great grandson stepped up to exercise fair and equitable judgment as to foreign polygamist families but the SLC church unfairly imposed a policy to do exactly what our of church had done to it earlier, the epitome of hypocrisy. I am glad I am not ignorant of this fact but I am disappointed my Church leaders did not exercise equity , tolerance and fairneß and
The marriage ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer was taken by Thomas Cranmer from the York Rite...already in English....with very few changes...In the bride's vow, Cranmer added "love and cherish", " "obey" (from the Old Sarum Rite...also in English....instead of "serve", used in the York Rite). This formulation replaced that from the York Manual that read, "to be bonny and buxom in bed and at the board". The Old Sarum and York marriage rites are among the oldest forms of English Liturgy in the vernacular.
It still makes no sense to go on about modesty if the woman is going to be walking up a church aisle with her virginity out. Symbolic or not, it's weird. And another thing, where does that leave SA survivors?
Almost all cults end up with the leader, and sometimes leaders, creating a harem. Often the leader even takes his high subordinates’ wives. Some call it charisma, some call it coercion, some call them manipulative sociopaths. They use those powers to create their cults, in general, and drag in the easily manipulable with fantasy full stories that enforce their own divine authority, giving themselves the justification for taking multiple women.
@@brokinsage7138 From the looks of this organization, they won't touch it. I plan to start making videos and will put it on my to do list. Thanks for the suggestion.
This greatly downplayed the primary role of marriage - to form a stable family unit under which children will be raised. This is no easy feat. Recognizing this raison d'être of marriage is essential when evaluating its structure, traditions and modern changes.
Concerning the “gender roles” data…why wasn’t the question of who contributes more income to the household factored in? Or who works more hours? It was left at “in households where both work full time”. 40 hours a week is “full time”. But so is 70 hours a week.
Along those lines, we must not factor any positive contribution made by men. We must only speak in terms of oppressed and oppressor. The gospel according to newspeak.
Men didn't take "ownership" of his wife as much as take responsibility for her. He was bound to provide, protect, and even pay for debts and crimes that she committed. Your explanation is decidedly distorted by representing only the idea of ownership. Women were not normally obedient to their husbands, and furthermore husbands rarely could do anything about it. Female power has always been enormous, though hidden, throughout history.
Marriage according to the Bible is that girls /women are the property of men. Not sure how you missed that in the Bible. It’s mentioned so many times in many different ways…
( as to 1st children born to unmarried couples, is not uncommon fot them to marry after weaning / losing pregnancy weight / total dependency age of the baby )
Women work outside the house AND are expected to do all the housework…. There’s not a whole lot of women who are SAHM especially during this economy so I’m not sure what you’re implying in your comment 🙄
the Diamond Engagement Ring was totally a Cold War Era invention, by DeBeers who got diamonds from Apartheid ZA
◇ ◇ ◇
Not really. An engagement was a legal contract of intent to marry. when a father agreed to the marriage proposal for his daughter of a suitor, the suitor had to put down a cash deposit on the legal contract. If the daughter eventually calls off the engagement, the suitor gets his deposit back. If the suitor reneges/calls off the engagement, he forfeits his deposit. If the suitor was particularly dastardly, the girl's father could sue for breach of contract. The engagement ring today is the substitute for that deposit on the contract. And again, if the man breaks off the engagement, she keeps the ring. If the girl breaks off the engagement, she has to return the ring. The first diamond engagement ring was given to Mary of Burgundy by the the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in the imperial court of Vienna in the 15th Century and started a trend for diamond rings amongst the nobility. Diamonds were not easily accessible until the late 19th Century when diamond mines were discovered in South Africa, production increased and diamonds became fashionable. Diamonds were still too expensive for most, and engagement rings could be any nice ring presented by the suitor. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, diamond prices crashed and DeBeers started marketing diamonds for engagement rings and it was not until WW2 was over that the diamond became so closely associated with the engagement ring especially in the USA.
Rev. Giddings here: this looks to be very interesting. Some topics are inherently controversial, of course.
Great lectures, i’d love to hear your take on divorce and remarriage, and the more recent interpretation that it is the “putting away” (i.e. not writing a bill of divorcement) that God and Jesus were opposed to. If that lecture already exists and someone can link it, i’d appreciate it
Professor John Hamer, I am extremely impressed with your discourse on marriage. Ironically, my church who first opened up the prophet Joseph expansion of Victorian era marriage switched and eventually pursued a very discriminatory, bigoted degrading other forms of human bonding.
For example, when I was on my mission we spoke to a young women who related according to her , her story. She and her boyfriend were regularly having sex . Her parents were outraged and pushed the Bishop to excommunicate her. She said her parents also kicked her out of the house. So she ended up living with her boyfriend which her bishop believed was grounds to excommunicated her. At the time, I felt it was ludicrous and so do now. This was in the early 1970s. My branch of the LDS has increasingly become more and more corporate and regulated as to at times destroy the innovative charisma of the prophet Joseph, in favor, of a continuous movement toward a regulated corporate system. However, lately, under President Russell Nelson the corporate mechanizations are being put aside step by step.
I am also bewildered by the unmarried couple who maintain a well provided for, well organized family . And yet, the church use to harass these families rather than recognize them and embrace these families as successful. For example, the case of the excommunication of the apostle John Taylor Jr. Apostle John Taylor Jr was alienated from his first wife who stopped talking to him and stopped have sexual relationship with brother Taylor. Apostle Taylor met a young immigrant and hired her. They began to have a secretive affair for years. Brother Taylor maintained and administered to both wives and sets of children. He was summarily excommunicationed. To me, another form of moral bullying rather than a refined pursuit of justice.
I was impressed to learn of President Wallace Smith decision regarding polygamy. That was an intelligent and insightfully fair exercise of prophetic discretion. I am very impressed by the Smith leadership at the Reorganized Church. I have also been impressed with Hyruma descendants in my church. Thus, I am beginning to understand that many of the Smiths in both churches exercised extraordinarily good judgment.
Nonetheless, Emma got her revenge, Lol , her great great grandson stepped up to exercise fair and equitable judgment as to foreign polygamist families but the SLC church unfairly imposed a policy to do exactly what our of church had done to it earlier, the epitome of hypocrisy.
I am glad I am not ignorant of this fact but I am disappointed my Church leaders did not exercise equity , tolerance and fairneß and
The marriage ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer was taken by Thomas Cranmer from the York Rite...already in English....with very few changes...In the bride's vow, Cranmer added "love and cherish", " "obey" (from the Old Sarum Rite...also in English....instead of "serve", used in the York Rite). This formulation replaced that from the York Manual that read, "to be bonny and buxom in bed and at the board". The Old Sarum and York marriage rites are among the oldest forms of English Liturgy in the vernacular.
But the focus was for the landowning classes as they needed to be able to define legitimate heirs. The grovelling classes would not be bothered.
It still makes no sense to go on about modesty if the woman is going to be walking up a church aisle with her virginity out. Symbolic or not, it's weird. And another thing, where does that leave SA survivors?
Almost all cults end up with the leader, and sometimes leaders, creating a harem. Often the leader even takes his high subordinates’ wives. Some call it charisma, some call it coercion, some call them manipulative sociopaths. They use those powers to create their cults, in general, and drag in the easily manipulable with fantasy full stories that enforce their own divine authority, giving themselves the justification for taking multiple women.
Read Unwin's "Sex and Culture." Some of the posturing here is absurd.
Should do a lecture on that book.
@@brokinsage7138 From the looks of this organization, they won't touch it. I plan to start making videos and will put it on my to do list. Thanks for the suggestion.
Can we have citations to support this information? I am really interested because of a course I'm currently doing.
This greatly downplayed the primary role of marriage - to form a stable family unit under which children will be raised. This is no easy feat. Recognizing this raison d'être of marriage is essential when evaluating its structure, traditions and modern changes.
I'm not married yet but I want a Robin hood prince of thieves, or beach wedding
Concerning the “gender roles” data…why wasn’t the question of who contributes more income to the household factored in? Or who works more hours? It was left at “in households where both work full time”. 40 hours a week is “full time”. But so is 70 hours a week.
Along those lines, we must not factor any positive contribution made by men. We must only speak in terms of oppressed and oppressor. The gospel according to newspeak.
Men didn't take "ownership" of his wife as much as take responsibility for her. He was bound to provide, protect, and even pay for debts and crimes that she committed.
Your explanation is decidedly distorted by representing only the idea of ownership. Women were not normally obedient to their husbands, and furthermore husbands rarely could do anything about it. Female power has always been enormous, though hidden, throughout history.
Marriage according to the Bible is that girls /women are the property of men. Not sure how you missed that in the Bible. It’s mentioned so many times in many different ways…
Saludos desde Chile 😎🇨🇱
( as to 1st children born to unmarried couples, is not uncommon fot them to marry after weaning / losing pregnancy weight / total dependency age of the baby )
Demon's are unclean why would you ask them anything, we are told to watch what spirits we listen to.
What. M6 flooring?
Thanks
Thank you for supporting the channel!
Thanks!
Thank you for supporting the channel!
Women do more housework, but men do more overtime.
I think it all evens out at the end, both contribute but on different aspects.
Definitely. The bias here in this presentation is very obvious.
Women work outside the house AND are expected to do all the housework…. There’s not a whole lot of women who are SAHM especially during this economy so I’m not sure what you’re implying in your comment 🙄
@@iaminevitable_ That still does not measure for the magnitude of work. A single men washing his own clothes and takes two jobs... where is his price?
Chi-mo alert!!!!