I cant speak for Phillip, but I for one would. Especially if those historians have shown themselves to be reliable on other claims(and with as many as 100 noting something like this, it's probably a safe assumption that at least some of them have proven themselves reliable).

...my point was that it seems odd to suggest Christianity is an arrogant perspective when it explicitly subordinates man to a superior entity.

I don't think there's anything odd about that at all - not when Christianity teaches that this superior entity loves us, watches over us, cares about us more than anything else, created the universe for the express purpose of bringing us into existence, and considers us so important that it will occasionally suspend the laws of physics governing the entire cosmos on our behalf. And that's not even to mention the many prominent Christians who think that God agrees with and endorses their every thought and opinion.

The essay "Who Needs God?" on Ebon Musings discusses some of these reasons and others in more detail.

On the topic of polygamy:

From a humanist perspective, the moral problem with the way the Mormons did it is the one-sidedness. One man could have multiple wives, if he could provide for them and their children, but women could not have multiple husbands. This stems from and tends to reinforce the view of women as property, or at most as being suited for domestic service and childrearing (the roles of women in Mormon communities, as I understand it), and the strong patriarchal tendencies in Mormon communities are probably not coincidental.

Alex nails it in one here. The moral problem isn't so much with polyamory per se as with the fact that it's historically been used almost universally as a way to enslave women and female children. If consenting adults desire to enter into such a relationship of their own free will, that's none of my business, but when it's practiced by a fanatical and insular religious community that forces it on women to subordinate and control them, then it is the duty of the rest of society to put a stop to that. I am fully aware that in practice it may be difficult to draw a legal line separating one of these cases from the other, but morally speaking the distinction is quite clear.

Polygamy could really cause confusion and chaos if practiced on a widespread basis. The wives would plot against each other to gain greater favor from the husband, and this pathology would pass on to the children as well. See the Chinese film "Raise the Red Lantern" for an example of this. Then there are inheritance issues. Of course, assuming a roughly equal ratio of men and women in a society, it would not be practical to have polygamy on a large scale because it would dry up the pool of available women (or men) to those who are single. Sort of like the impossibility of everyone owning their own business. Some businesses just cannot function if they don't have employees.

A more flexible arrangement would be open marriages, where there is one husband and one wife, but the husband, for example, can have a "friendship with benefits" kind of relationship in which he provides her with shelter, college tuition or some other contribution that helps her to advance herself in life and in return she provides him with companionship, helps out around the house with cleaning and caring for the kids and so forth.

This is a bit off the topic but I've always wondered what's so immoral about polygamous relationships? If multiple people desire to be married then what's the problem with that picture. From what I've read of the matter, it seemed to me that the reason the Mormon Church gave up polygmony was because the prevailing Christian social customs of the day frowned on "nontraditional" marriages. In this case, it's actually the Christians passing judgements on the Mormons based on their own religious prejudices. It had nothing to do with morality.

From a humanist perspective, the moral problem with the way the Mormons did it is the one-sidedness. One man could have multiple wives, if he could provide for them and their children, but women could not have multiple husbands. This stems from and tends to reinforce the view of women as property, or at most as being suited for domestic service and childrearing (the roles of women in Mormon communities, as I understand it), and the strong patriarchal tendencies in Mormon communities are probably not coincidental. This is in a very different spirit from mutualistic polyamorous relationships, which is probably what you have in mind. If multiple people desire to be married, and share a healthy, mutualistic connection analogous to that of a healthy couple, and can resolve the issues of jealousy and other complications such an arrangement might produce, there is indeed very little wrong with the picture from a reasonable standpoint. Patriarchal polygyny is another matter entirely.

I see that. But many a sychophant gets his pride stroked by becoming the toady of a great man. He feels that makes him better and more powerful than most, at least.

Likewise, the many natural phenomena beyond our control clearly spring from something greater than ourselves. (In at least one way. A volcano, for instance, is far more powerful, although not our intellectual equal. And to the primitive mind even that is not obvious.) If we can define that thing or things (even if we're just guessing) and then go on to suggest that we have a special "in" with this thing or things, that elevates us above whatever does not have that kind of relationship.

And in the moral realm the point ex machina makes should be considered as well.

Again, this would hardly give a full accounting of why we believe in gods--and probably wouldn't serve alone to explain how the notion of gods came to be--but could very well have been a factor in perpetuating and furthering the idea after it developed.