Well, actually, Restornu...Let's compare Jeremiah Wright's UCC denomination about the need to have one female as an essentiality within marriage to what a certain "prophet" was saying in 1878, shall we?
July, 2005 New York Times: The United Church of Christ became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html
UCC conclusion: One woman doesn't necessarily cut it for a marriage (pretty progressive)
From the Joseph F. Smith 1878 message:
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I WANT HERE TO ENTER MY SOLEMN PROTEST AGAINST THIS IDEA, FOR I KNOW IT IS FALSE. There is no blessing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and NO BLESSING CAN BE OBTAINED BY MANKIND EXCEPT BY FAITHFUL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS, OR LAW, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it
Lds “prophet” Smith made it quite clear that Mormons who duck polygamy are...
...out of compliance with the full measure of the law...
...therefore ineligible to obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law...
...and he "protests the idea" that it is considered by some "saints" to a "non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind."
Lds conclusion: One woman doesn't necessarily cut it for a marriage (even more progressive for its context considering how Victorian things were).
Nice display of that progressive mind you embrace!
The FUNDAMENTALIST Mormons seems to know this instinctively.
Too bad that the SLC bunch of MORMONs were so afraid of the US Government back in the 1890's.