The peoples of the world can be divided into three categories: those who want to lead, those who want to follow, and a singular thinking few that sometimes follow, sometimes lead, but only when it harmonizes with their own drum beat. This later group is a limited, self-actualized array of creative, altruistic mavericks who's only interest is decency, reality and the truth.

Some of histories greatest minds came from this limited group - philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau who risked their lives for the sake of freedom of mind and pursuit of truth. It includes humanitarians like Mohandas Gandhi and Mother Teresa; scientists like Newton and Einstein; musicians like Claude Debussy; reformers like Martin Luther and Thomas Paine; and statesmen like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom dedicated themselves to the common good rather than selfish interest.

My essays are directed at the thinking few, the doubters and skeptics. They are not meant for those who tip toe through life hoping to make it safely from birth to death; or those who float complacently with the mainstream of thought for fear of being ostracized or censored. Nor are they meant for those who let their yearning to belong, overshadow their God-given opportunity for originality.

My essays challenge the contention that plural marriage is a revelation from God. I challenge the premise of pro-polygamists that Mormon plural marriage is protected by the First Amendment. I also question what appears to be LDS Church policy in not speaking out against the numerous incidents of abuse that are the direct result of Mormon polygamy. It is my contention that in not speaking out, the LDS Church should share in the blame.

I am not so naive that I expect my essays will cause Mormons to apostatize, or polygamists to put away their wives, or the LDS Church to apologize. It is not the nature of the masses to follow or emulate the mavericks, no matter how right they may be. Look back upon history. Galileo Gallilei and Charles Darwin provoked the wrath of the Church. John Locke's religious toleration did not sit well with the Pope, nor did his dissertations on democracy flatter the monarchs. These men quested for truth and dealt with reality, unlike the political and religious leaders who make fantastic promises and compose doctrines and myths with which to tranquilize the masses. It wasn't until wise leaders adopted the ideas and findings of the philosophers and scientists that the common good of the masses were improved.

This thought inspires an interesting question. Is the current success of the LDS Church the result of improvement upon the original? If so, can the Church benefit from further improvement?