I disagree with the Toad in his article at SSM’s place, and I’m going to tell you why in a bit. But first, his suggestion has some merits in a time when society has fallen, and only in that time.

It would be in the church’s best interests to encourage these women to get together in groups of 3 or 4, consolidate their housing, put their house in order and find themselves a man who is acceptable to all of them. One of the women works within the home and the rest work outside the home. This results in three or four incomes coming into the same household with a significant increase to the standard of living and economic security. Everyone has their sexual needs met and the children would have a man in the home to discipline them and possibly in time, father them.

A cohabitation agreement (Marital Covenant) would spell out the obligations, rights, duties and responsibilities of all involved. All incentives are arranged to preserve this marriage because the State won’t recognize it as a marriage and there is no way for Cupcake to get into divorce court to nuke the marriage. All she can do is leave. With three or four women available, there is no way the husband is going to be sentenced to sexual starvation. The women will be in competition with one another for their husband’s time and he will be dominant because their competition. That dominance will help with their attraction to him and the wives can meet their emotional needs with each other so the alpha/beta balancing act isn’t as necessary.

What I’m describing is what the Prophet Isaiah predicted, speaking about the Millennial Kingdom:

For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying,

‘We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!’ Isaiah 4:1.

My answer to polygyny is simple I do not want the hassle. I have enough. I have to deal with the mother of my children. I have to consider my many female colleagues. And having a buncha women in the house? Well, I have read the patriarchs, and every one of them was driven spare by the competition of their wives. Enough on that. The Papists correctly condemn this.

This post is a great example of Protestantism going off the rails. God did indeed give us what we need: the Apostolic Church.

Um, Zippy, thanks but John Calvin described the consequences of this time in referring to the same text (Isaiah 4:1) thusly

He pursues the same subject, and unquestionably this discourse is immediately connected with what goes before. This verse certainly ought not to have been separated from the preceding. By this circumstance he describes more fully the nature of that desolation and calamity which he had formerly threatened against the Jews; for hypocrites; unless the threatening be conceived in strong terms, either disregard or palliate warnings, so that God’s severity never produces its proper effect upon them. From the effect, therefore, he describes the appalling nature of the approaching calamity, that they may not indulge the hope of making an easy escape. As if he had said, “Do not imagine that it will be of moderate extent, lessening your numbers in a small degree; for utter destruction awaits you, so that hardly one man will be found for seven women.”

The phrase take hold of conveys the same meaning. It is, no doubt, inconsistent with the modesty of the sex that a woman should, of her own accord, offer herself to a man. But the Prophet says, that not only will they do this, but that seven women will, as it were, lay hands on a man, and keep hold of him; so small will be the number of men. The greatness of the calamity is likewise denoted by what immediately follows: we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; for as it is a duty which belongs to a husband to support his wife and family, the women ask a husband for themselves on unreasonable conditions, when they release him from all concern about supplying them with food. Very great must, therefore, be the scarcity of men, when a great number of women, laying aside modesty, are not only constrained to solicit one man, but do not even shrink from the agreement to procure their own victuals, and request nothing more from a husband than to receive them within the bond of marriage.

Let thy name be called on us. It may be rendered, Let us be called by thy name; for when a woman passes into the family of her husband, she is called by his name, and loses her own, because the husband is her head. (1Co 11:3.) Hence the vail is a token of subjection, and Abimelech said to Sarah,

Thy husband Abraham shall be a covering to thy head. (Ge 20:16.)

But if she remain unmarried, she is concealed under the name of her family. That this is the true meaning of that mode of expression is sufficiently evident from what Jacob says when blessing his grandchildren,

Let my name, and the name of my fathers,
Abraham and Isaac, be called on them; (Ge 48:16;)

that is, “Let them be reckoned as our descendants, and let them be partakers of the covenant, and never excluded from it, as were Esau and Ishmael.” In the same manner also do heathen writers speak; as, in Lucan, Marcia, wishing to return to Cato, says: “Grant me only the bare name of marriage; let permission be given that it may be inscribed on my tomb, Marcia the wife of Cato.”

And take away our reproach. Their reason for saying so is, that women are sometimes treated with disdain, when they do not obtain husbands, not only because they appear to be despised as unworthy, but because among the ancient people offspring was reckoned an important blessing, and therefore the Prophet says that they will be desirous to wipe away this reproach, and will employ every argument for that purpose. Lastly, he declares that the calamity will be so great, that almost all the men will be carried off.

… which brings us to the main point — where have all the men gone? For Calvin is correct about the duties of a man around providing for each other, but the women have to provide for themselves as so great has the disaster been that there literally are no men.

This is a text, therefore of a genocide. It is not a time when many men have dies — as after a war: there were not multiple wives after WWI and WWII: it is greater. The men have left. They literally do not care. And this brings me to a discussion with the son.

For the school has just had its senior ball, and it was a disaster. Only half the boys bothered turning up. (My son did not — he told me it was on after it had happened). Those who did not turn up did not dance, and apparently all the alcohol for the afterparty was not drunk (and had been stolen by the next morning). Young men are looking at what happens to older men if they romance and saying they would rather play Xbox. This is why the toad thinks we need polygyny: most men will not “man up and marry” in the church or out of it. To quote Earl

I’m having a hard time reasoning marrying one woman that grew up in this rebellious culture. There is no way in hell I would marry myself to several rebellious women.

And the thread disintegrated into Prots versus Papists with a bit of ‘sperginess to add to the spice. Anyway, it’s fairly clear that you have not been able to marry more than one wife. I have quoted the Westminster confession many times on marriage, because I have found it a useful guide when people lose it…

Of Marriage and Divorce.

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

And if I have read the Catholic catechism correctly (I must stop alliterating) there is clear teaching that polygamy is not compatible with the faith. Despite this map.

from alphadesigner.com. I still think God loves the Finns.