According to such definition, believing that Christ was married and fathered children would be a Fundamentalist doctrine, since the current LDS position is that the Church has not received revelation on this, regardless of all statements by early leaders.

Or this specific topic doesn’t fit into the category “Fundie” because many (if not most) members believe in that?

Is it then a matter of popularity? Plural marriage has never been a popular doctrine, and the same can be said about Adam God doctrine, the United Order, old-style garments, etc..

were Joseph Smith and the early polygamists in accord with the Church when the doctrine was revealed (probably as early as 1831)? Were the Church-approved plural sealings after the Manifesto in accord with the Church? Would you like to clarify how polygamy today is different from these two situations?

There are different kinds of Fundamentalists out there but most do support the LDS as Christ’s Church while they claim priesthood authority to keep plural marriage alive.

My point was more that while I answered yes to all three questions about, where I felt I had no control of the situation, I would probably answer no to all the questions I layed out.

Here is the way it is phrased:

If a fundamentalist Mormon wanted to give a speech in your city advocating polygamy, should he or she be allowed to speak, or not?

Let’s change it about, how about:

If a fundamentalist Mormon wanted to give a speech in your city advocating polygamy, would you listen?

Or how about:

If a fundamentalist Mormon wanted to give a speech in your house advocating polygamy, should he or she be allowed to speak, or not?

Or

If a fundamentalist Mormon wanted to give a speech in your city advocating polygamy, and came to you for permission and help, Would you Support them?

Or even

If it was your job to set up speakers for events in your city, and a fundamentalist Mormon wanted to give a speech in your city advocating polygamy, would you set them up?

Does Fundamentalist here mean polygamist? If so, would that include Joseph Smith and his friends?

Kevinf, I agree that it makes a lot of sense to construct an argument for tolerance from Mormon history. And I also agree that many Americans would probably express serious intolerance toward Mormons — as I mentioned above, at the end of the post, many Americans are willing to express support for the curtailment of the civil rights of basically any group they seriously dislike.

Norbert, I think the logic you express is probably reasonably typical of the Mormon bloggers who’ve answered this question. On the other hand, eliciting intolerant responses from samples of Americans doesn’t actually require naming a group those Americans fear; strong dislike is enough. As late as 1998, for example, lefty Americans were about 80% willing to suppress the civil rights of members of the John Birch Society — even though that society barely had members, and certainly lacked the power to be any kind of threat, by that point.

On the other hand, I’m not sure about the extent to which there isn’t anti-polygamist Mormon rhetoric among Mormons, especially in Utah. I know that I heard a lot while I was in high school there — to the point that I acquired prejudices that I subsequently had to unlearn. While there’s at least the possibility that my experience was atypical, it seems likely to me that the Utah culture region tends to inculcate strong anti-polygamist sentiments.