As much as I really hate to admit it, PP has Jason on this one, petard and all.
Perhaps, if one sees things one dimensional. Evidence is there however that Joseph himself felt it ended up being a mistake and he consdidered ending it. Alas, he was murdered before we could see how it all would have played out.
Polygamy cannot be surgically removed from the entire corpus of Gospel teaching without maiming other core principles, such as some of the central purposes of eternal marriage (eternal increase),
Eternal marriage and enternal increase is possibel without polygamy. It does seem though that 19th century Mormons tied it together. However, 20th and 21st century Mormons do not, including a very prominent one name Gordon B. Hinckley.
the principle of continuing revelation,
Continuing revelation existed before and in spite of polygamy. The question remains whether D&C 132 was divine.
and the fact that polygamy was clearly a divinely sanctioned practice among Old Testament prophets and patriarchs whom the Lord considered as righteous and upright in his estimation as any other. At least, that's what the Old Testament texts themselves indicate.
A study of the Old Testament reveals the polygamy was more tolerated then divinely sanctioned. Also, Old Testament polygamy was not a mandate for exaltation. On top of that the Book of Mormon condemns Old Testament polygamy especially David's and Solomon's. Interestingly D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 30's condemnation. There is no way around that contradiction. This is one of the reasons I question D&C 132.
The fact that we, in our particular cultural condition, cannot accept polygamy at all, even if commanded of the Lord and done in his way, is simply a statement about us culturally, not about what the truth of the matter may or may not be. None of the Brethren, either singly or collectively, have ever renounced or overturned the core concept, or that it was divine in origin as it existed among the early Saints.
Our Church President has said it is not doctrine and we have nothing to do with it what so ever, though technically he is wrong since it is still available if a man's wife has died.
The idea that polygamy was a mistake simply won't hold water. Although the practice was ended, the principle has never been altered as a core concept. Indeed, if you don't accept at least the possibility of legitimate plural marriage, you cannot, with any degree of philosophical rigor, accept the concept of sealing per se. The two are interconnected in such a way that, while we may never practice plural marriage while in this life, the concept of sealing and eternal family simply precludes plural marriage from being a possibility, or even a requirement for some.
Personally I think the mistake continues to be perpatuated. It will be corrected someday just as the restriction on the priesthood mistake was.