So how come the political crusade touting decriminalization is spearheaded by a group of women? Its because these women have taken it upon themselves to lead out without polygamist priesthood support, not so much in defiance of the priesthood, but because something needed to be done to counter the accusations of corruption flooding the news. The girls astutely knew they could do what the priesthood couldn't, and that is, mitigate the accusations of corruption and abuse, and present a positive view of the polygamist subculture.

As these intrepid ladies gained momentum and the respect of government officials, they invited the leaders of the polygamist groups to jump on board. But how can a polygamist prophet take a back seat to a woman. You will never see Warren Jeffs, Paul Kingston or Owen Allred step into the lime light and deny the many accusations of men and women speaking out against the crime and corruption. They would be crucified by objective cross-examination.

Only one leader has responded, and then only vicariously. He is the prophet who manages the community of Centennial Park. He reportedly said, "Okay girls, its your fight. Go ahead." So he authorized a few of his lady converts from the LDS Church to work with Principle Voices. They are educated, well versed, charismatic ladies who found in Centennial Park what they couldn't find in the LDS Church, and they enthusiastically stepped into the forefront, delighted with the recognition, while the prophet peeks from behind their skirts.

On the surface it would appear that the only meaningful male support these gutsy gals have received has been from male members of the LDS Church and the Attorney General’s Office. Owen Allred, Paul Kingston and Warren Jeffs were invited to join in the crusade but of course they declined, after all, how would it look for these paragons of priesthood virtue to be lead by women. For those of us who are students of Mormon fundamentalism we know that this is par for the course. It is the woman’s roll to mollify, honor and venerate the man. Advise and council in the Mormon tradition only runs in one direction, from male to female, not the other way around. And every astute student of Mormonism knows that polices and practices in both the LDS Church and fundamentalism is governed by ego and politicks, not directives from heaven.

Egos can be a good thing, giving one confidence. But it can also lead to the "illusion of invulnerability," a phrase first coined during Watergate. No one, not even self-aggrandizing prophets are immune to the deleterious effects of the "illusion of invulnerability." It was that illusion that compelled Owen Allred to help steal 1.5 million dollars from Virginia Hill; and made Tom Green think he could get away with displaying his child brides on national television. Look what happened to Richard Nixon, at one time the most powerful man in the world. So look out Principle Voices because you are not without vulnerability.

The beginning of the pro polygamy movement began a few years before the Twentieth Century came to a close, about 1997. The first meeting was held in a basement room on the campus of the Salt Lake Community College. State Legislator, David Zolman, presided. Representatives from all the organized polygamist groups were invited, but most who showed were independent polygamists. The notifications were sent out by Anne Wilde, at least she is the one who invited me. At that time I had formally divorced myself from AUB (1994) and had, had about all I could stomach of Mormon fundamentalism, but as long as I was invited, I attended out of curiosity.

Representative Zolman explained that the purpose of the meeting was to organize all polygamists with the long range goal of decriminalizing Utah statutes prohibiting polygamy. Anne Wilde spoke up and said the goal was not to legalize, but to decriminalize. I thought to myself, what’s the difference? And a little cliched axiom ran through my mind. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." If decriminalization was ever achieved, I knew the next project would be to make polygamy an acceptable, alternative lifestyle.

Shortly thereafter there was a second meeting held at Anne’s house for the purpose of organizing a committee and chair person. Both Ogden Kraut and David Zolman were conspicuously absent. [Anne Wilde was a plural wife of Ogden Kraut] Once again I was invited. But by the meeting’s end it was quit obvious that this was Anne’s thing and she wanted to run it, with or without Ogden’s support.

Owen Allred has been quoted in the newspapers as being opposed to decriminalization. He was afraid that unsavory types would enter the principle and abuse it. He suggested that if the Attorney General would allow him to manage Utah’s polygamists he would make sure that only those who were worthy would be given plural wives. Since then, I understand, he has changed his mind and no longer opposes decriminalization. And the sad thing about it is that there are people of prominence in the larger community, including The Salt Lake Tribune, who seem to accord Owen Allred as a valid, religious leader on an equal plain with men like Gordon B. Hinckley and Billy Graham

In discussing decriminalization it should be kept in mind that Mormon polygamy is directly tied to Section 132, the alleged revelation that commands Mormons to take plural wives. 132 also restricts the authority to seal plural marriages to only one man, not a woman. [See verse 7] Section 132 is interpreted to mean that a marriage is not valid unless it is sealed by proper authority. That’s why Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt and many other past and present polygamists feel justified in seducing a lawfully married monogamous woman. This important, indispensable relationship between polygamy, authority and validity is never mentioned by the pro polygamy proponents. To reiterate - the Mormon view is that proper authority is necessary before a plural marriage is valid. So in essence, plural marriage is really about authority. That’s why Owen wanted the Attorney General to allow him to manage Utah polygamists, so it would help validate his authority. That is also why he was first opposed to decriminalization, he was afraid it would erode his authority.

Anne Wilde is the incentive behind the book, Voices In Harmony. According to my friend, Ogden Kraut, [now deceased] I was the inspiration. Anne and some of her lady friends were so outraged over my first book, Murder of a Prophet, they decided to do their own book as a rebuttal. Anne is also the incentive behind Principle Voices and in that roll she has been very successful. Due to Principle Voices the decriminalization movement has made great progress, especially in chumming it up with people at the Attorney General’s Office, and stomping about Utah giving speeches. What seemed like a long range goal, may not be so long after all.

The pro polygamy rhetoric has concentrated on secular polygamy, only occasionally do they argue that polygamy should be protected by the First Amendment. When they first started their campaign they repelled at the suggestion that they adopt the same legal arguments as homosexuals. They didn’t want any association whatsoever with such a disgusting bunch of people. Now they have apparently changed their minds. They not only want to obtain decriminalization on the shirttails of the homosexuals, they support same sex marriages. [See Sunstone, 2004, "Centennial Park Plural Wives Speak Out - Anne Wilde," and "What Do We Make of the News Out of Colorado City - Kin Driggs, Hillary Groutage."]

Principle Voices, like John Kerry, will say whatever is necessary to achieve their goal. They are painting a sanitized portrait of polygamy, using Centennial Park as the paradigm - a modern Shangri-la where distraught, single mothers and their children are guaranteed social unity, love, adventure and affection, understanding, security, and the occasional, exclusive companionship of a virtuous man. In the 1004 Sunstone presentation, they suggested that all of Mormon fundamentalism was just like Centennial Park. But in using John Kerry as a metaphor, with all the crime, corruption, cold-blooded tyranny and sexual abuse that has oozed out of fundamentalism, how do we know their purple hearts were not self inflicted?

What the pro polygamy proponents really want is State recognition of Section 132. They talk secular polygamy but are thinking Mormon polygamy - they really don’t want secular polygamy, but if they can sell to the Supreme Courts, Legislators, and public at large that secular polygamy is constitutional, it would imply State endorsement of 132, and lend strength to the illusion that 132 is a bona fide revelation. And keep in mind that Verse 7 states that only one man at a time has the authority to seal plural marriages.

Because 132 is still a prominent part of the D & C, it is alive and well like a troll lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce, once polygamy is decriminalized. You don’t have to be a prophet to predict what will happen. It will be just like the end of prohibition. The leaders of the various groups will become more brazen claiming they are the one mentioned in Verse 7. With nothing to fear, the competition for the tithing dollar and manipulation of gullible women will become more intense and could get nasty. Remember Ervil LeBaron, how he murdered Rulon Allred?

I think the argument can be made that if polygamy is decriminalized it will be showing favoritism to the LDS Church. As long as 132 remains in the D & C polygamy is a doctrinal part of the LDS Church, like it or not. The Manifesto is not an annulment or an amendment to 132, it is merely a recommendation. It is a historical fact that leading men of the LDS Church did not accept the Manifesto as a declaration from God. The Manifesto did not alter or amended 132. See Solemn Covenant, The Mormon Polygamous Passage, by B. Carmon Hardy.

Of all the presidents of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley has come the closest to an apology for past Church blunders, but has fallen short of an actual apology. For example, at a meeting of Mountain Meadow Massacre family survivors he was quoted asking for "forgiveness of all concerned" which I suppose could be interpreted as an apology . As it applies to polygamy he is quoted by the Salt Lake Tribune as saying: "It is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the church teaches that marriages must by monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."

I believe there are influential men in the LDS Church who are embarrassed by 132 and would rather that polygamy was never a Church doctrine. But to say it would be tantamount to saying the Church was wrong. Looking at 132 from the Church’s point of view, the Church can never apologize for polygamy, nor will they ever bring it back. To apologize would be like admitting the Pearl of Great Price is fiction. But the Church has do something more than rely on President Hinckley’s statement because there are to many mixed messages being sent that is giving strength to Mormon fundamentalists. If polygamy "is now against the law of God," why isn't it made clear to the members? As long as 132 remains unadulterated it plays into the hands of the fundamentalists. There are still many Mormon males who believe polygamy [132] is a correct principle and with a mischievous gleam in there eyes, are looking forward to having many wives in the afterlife.

The LDS Church is going to have do something with 132 before historians and writers are going to be willing to forgive and forget. And as long as the Church does not come out strong against polygamy, its going to be a sore reminder of the Church’s nefarious, polygamist past - an episode of abuse not unlike the present.

Back to Principle Voices. What these gutsy gals are really crusading for is non criminal authority to perform plural marriages. And it is there where the deception rests. Decriminalization will mean the freeing up of the leaders of the various cults to legally compete and pursue power, money, and the authority to trade tithing and fealty for plural wives. But what Principle Voices doesn’t tell you is who they are backing as having that authority. Who is the "one man" they are crusading for? Is it Owen Allred, Jim Harmston, Warren Jeffs, or Paul Kingston? They will probably tell you they are not backing anyone, that authority is not their issue. But even independents, if they’re Mormon correct must, claim some authority, even if they have to invent it, because John Taylor did not toss the authority into the wind for anyone to pluck out of the air, or did he?

Principle Voices’ claim that they are opposed to abuse in any form, no matter where it occurs, but that blanket statement falls way short of the truth. Why don’t Principle Voices come to the rescue of their own sex - ladies trapped in a lifestyle dominated by unscrupulous men. I have yet to hear them call Warren Jeffs to repentance for his tyranny and lack of compassion. I haven’t heard them call Owen Allred to repentance for helping steal 1.5 million dollars from Virginia Hill, or called Harmston and Kingston to repentance for the abuse they have encouraged and permitted. To ignore or downplay the abuse with cool imperturbability is hypocritical and gives comfort and encouragement to the abusers. I find Principle Voices’ indifference to their own sex rather disturbing because they are as much aware of the abuse as I am, especially Anne Wilde and Marianne Watson. Marianne has been ostracized from the Allred Group because of her lack of fealty towards Owen. Anne’s deceased husband, Ogden Kraut, was well aware of the abuse. He and I use to discuss it all the time. We both commented on how Jim Harmston exhibited some of the same characteristic as Ervil LeBaron. Ogden gave me an affidavit that helped confirm that Owen Allred was culpable in the Virginia Hill theft. So its not like these women are unaware of what is going on in the subculture!

The girls of Principle Voices are an enigma, non conformists in the world of Mormon fundamentalism, yet they champion the cause of polygamy, covertly 132. They want to live polygamy but only on their terms, that is why they have no sister-wives, or if they are plural wives, pariahs in their own families. It is one thing to submit to a tyrannical husband, but it is another thing to submit to a tyrannical first wife. It is called the "law of Sarah."

Principle Voices have evolved into an authority in and of its self, a voice that carries a lot of weight with the media, but very little weight in the fundamentalist subculture, because they have no priesthood. Nevertheless, they have an invested ego, programmed not to interdict with priesthood authority. These girls are laws unto themselves, untainted by priesthood authority. They are enraptured by the challenge of defending the cause, blinded by the enormity of their delusion. They are free, autonomous women speaking out for what they think is religious freedom. They are caught up in the excitement and notoriety of the battle and seem to care less that their lobbying for decriminalization, is a lobby for women "to be free to be oppressed" by the likes of Warren Jeffs, Paul Kingston and Jim Harmston. [See Escape from Freedom, by Erich Fromm.]

I know Anne Wilde and Marianne Watson. I believe, they really believe, they are doing God’s work. But they are not. Marianne, you are doing work for Owen Allred, the man who villainized your father. You are helping to elevate the ego of men like Owen Allred, and his ability to capriciously manipulate the lives of men and women who foolishly worship them as prophets.

He told me all about it on our trip to Israel. You have never been subjected to the tyranny of any cult prophet, nor would you tolerate it for a minute, yet you expend all your talents in defending the right of your own sex "to be free to be oppressed." It just doesn’t make sense. Why don’t you and your friends use your talents to clean up the corruption in the subculture instead of trying to minimize it.

What do you suppose people in other states thing about us. For fifty years we turned a blind eye to polygamy. Between the seventies and nineties the media pandered to men like Owen Allred, Alex Joseph, Jim Harmston and Tom Green, portraying them as innocuous, religious enigmas much like the Amish. For a decade the romance between the media and polygamy was a symbiotic relationship. The media got a quaint and queer story and the polygamists got to use the media as a proselyting tool.

Then suddenly the tide changed as media attention turned to the abuse that has come to be an inherited part of polygamy. The source of the abuse comes from the unrighteous use of power and authority that is defended in 132 as religion. An example is Warren Jeffs who excommunicated, then evicted from their homes and family, men he believed threatened his power and authority.