Sure it does. Abimilech had a thing for attractive older women. It is known as a “fossil fetish”.

“I don’t believe that Pharaoh ever intended to kill Abram”

I don’t believe that Pharaoh ever intended to kill Sarai, however perhaps the servants would. (thinking it would please Pharaoh).

This act shows the love Sarai had for Abram, A moving moment in Bravehart dir Mel Gibson is when the Landlord acts upon his historical right to sleep with a new bride before the husband, a fight ensues the bride gracefully intercedes before her husband is killed.

Sarai is the hero of this story, however the bible is rubbish at showing things from a female perspective.

Otherwise, I think 152 has it right.

Obviously JWOT can provide only the shortest of commentary, but I don’t think it’s being read charitably here. They’re not exactly creating this interpretation. It’s well rooted in ANE law and culture, as they point out, but here’s another example.

From the JPS Torah commentary on Genesis, authored by Nahum Sarna-

“In the ancient Near East there was a well-known sociolegal institution of ‘fratriarchy’ that existed over a long period of time. Where there is no father, the brother assumes legal guardianship of his sister, particularly with respect to obligations and responsibilities in arranging marriage on her behalf. Therefore, whoever wished to take Sarai to wife would have to negotiate with her “brother.”

In short, I don’t see anything inconsistent between the actual JWOT commentary and the way you want to read Genesis. JWOT has plenty of shortcomings, but this isn’t one of them.

Moreover, to their credit, the authors shoot down the Nuzi sister-wife parallels, something a few conservative scholars still seem to cling to.

As to the claim “The wife did not have sexual relations with the foreign ruler” I agree that there’s no clear textual evidence here, though at least in Gen. 12, the events all appear to happen in quick succession. You could translated v.17 as “then” or “at that point” Yahweh afflicted Pharaoh greatly. That’s still somewhat ambiguous.

I do take issue with the implication that “taking to wife” equates to consummation of the marriage. Taking to wife is simply Israelite legal terminology for “getting married.” The brother, as legal guardian, would have received these “gifts” as part of that legal process, not as a later “well now that I’ve bedded your sister, have lots of stuff” kind of consolation prize.

Anyway… I agree with your greater point. Most LDS don’t know how to deal with the messiness of the OT, it doesn’t match our expectations, but then I would argue that it’s our expectations that are messed up. We try to read it for what it’s not. You don’t read the phone book for bread recipes, or the newspaper for French lessons. The patriarchal narratives (as well as the rest of the OT) were not intended to provide short stand-alone stories of moral models, or teach “daily application” of how to live correctly. (That’s called Wisdom Literature. Check out Proverbs.)

If it’s important not to sugarcoat these stories, I think it equally important to try to read them (as #21 suggests) on their own terms, something many comments here fail to do.
Since the OT was not written for us, then as Rico asks, “Perhaps there is something I am missing here?” the answer is always “Yes, there is.”

Given that the Hebrew could be translated either way and sex with Pharoah is not a necessary conclusion from the text, the questions could just as easily be flipped on their head: Why is it so important to us to find the most unsavory reading in these stories? Why do we insist on projecting our modern sexuality onto biblical characters of several millenia past? Why do we think we have found a clear “face value” to this passage that has befuddled scholars and religious figures for centuries?

And speaking of Dinah: on the other hand, taking a wife by violence (even murdering her husband to get her) was common in many cultures as well. Though paying a bride-price to her family to recompense them for the service, child-bearing capability, and family connections they would lose by marrying her out of it was the more polite and typical way to go about things. Which makes your theory as to the root of Abraham’s Egyptian wealth make sense.

As uncomfortable as it sounds to modern readers, I think your theory has historical plausibility. And it’s an interesting examination of something I hadn’t really looked at before. Like the other prophetic examples you named, I always just assumed there was no sexual relationship between her and Pharoh. Interesting!

However, it’s quite possible God arranged (PoG 2) to pimp Sarai out to get the wealth Abram would need to begin a life in Canaan. After all, if “thou shalt not kill” is superceded when Nephi needs to steal from Laban, why can’t the Law of Chastity be superceded to get goods for Abraham? After all, Abraham was told sacrifice Isaac, and he was tremendously blessed for being willing to do that.

To allow your wife to go live with another man — ugh. To personally sacrifice your own kid — oh God. Can’t think of a man with more faith.