All of my essays are the product of twenty-five years as a polygamist, four years putting together the Virginia Hill law suit, and a year investigating Jim Harmston, who is the founder of the True & Living Church. My essays are also influenced by hundreds of hours of pouring over nineteenth-century and twentieth-century books. Instead of going to the library I purchase my research books over the Internet, some of which are well over a 100 years old. As a result, I believe I have accumulated one of the best personal libraries pertaining to the subject of Christianity and Mormonism.

I often make reference to Owen A. Allred and Apostolic United Brethren, AUB, that’s because I know more about Owen and AUB than any other group. I’m not really picking on him. His reign is probably the least oppressive and most law obeying of all the polygamist groups, therefore an invariable with which to compare the other groups. Nevertheless, Owen himself has had his ethical problems which I helped expose in the Hill vs. Allred et.al., law suit.

Over the years, Owen and his AUB priesthood organization has been depicted by the media as a harmless, moral lifestyle not much different than the Amish. This is not true. None of the organized polygamist groups are the crime free, abuse free, fraud free organizations proponents would have you believe.

"Polygamists Lose In Court," followed by the opening statement: "Polygamous leader Owen Allred laundered thousands of dollars in cash, and his church - Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) - conspired to steal thousands more - a judge has ruled in a multimillion-dollar law suit."

The Tribune’s opening statement is not entirely accurate. AUB is not a church. By Owen’s definition it is a priesthood organization that claims [impotent] authority over the LDS Church. When AUB baptize converts they are baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I also confront Principle Voices - a group of articulate ladies campaigning for the decriminalization of polygamy. The principle person of Principle Voices is Anne Wilde, an intelligent, capable lady I have known for thirty years.

Principle Voices appeared suddenly out of obscurity and immediately became the self appointed vanguard in the defense of Mormon polygamy. Due to the liberal, political climate of today, where almost anything is accepted as religious or political, they have made extraordinary progress in building momentum for their cause.

Their contention is that Mormon polygamy is an innocuous, constructive, misunderstood lifestyle that should be protected by the First Amendment as either a right to privacy or as a religious tenet. They have focused mostly on secular arguments and in that respect, some of their contentions have been sound. However, they have shied away from the religious and theocratic aspects of Mormon polygamy, an intentional attempt to distract from their real goal - state acceptance of a sovereign, Mormon theocracy. And that is where I am at odds with Principle Voices.

I respect their right to speak out, and am honestly impressed with their progress. As strange as it may sound, I am one of their fans, and say: "More power to them," because due to their tenacity, the pros and cons of polygamy are out in the open where they can be scrutinized and debated, much to the chagrin of the LDS Church, who I think would rather such matter be left under the rug.

It is my contention that Principle Voices, (PV) are misrepresenting their cause by misrepresenting themselves as the warp and woof of the polygamist subculture. The Ladies in Principle Voices are not the typical polygamist wives, far from it. They are as much an enigma in the polygamist subculture as polygamy is an enigma to the moral fiber of mainstream American principles.

Principle Voices would like to see Utah’s bigamy statutes repealed, but the way they sometimes go about it defies common sense. For example, in a recent court session where John Daniel Kingston was reprimanded for abusing his children, PV spokeswoman, Linda Kelch, showed up to give Kingston and his wife moral support. She was interviewed on television saying that the Kingstons ought to be allowed to live their polygamist lifestyle. What she didn’t seem to understand is that the abuse of John Daniel’s children is directly related to the Kingston theocratic, polygamist lifestyle.

John Daniel is the Kingston that belt whipped his daughter for refusing to become the eleventh wife of her uncle. Of all the polygamists, Principle Voices through Kelch chose to publicly support, John Daniel Kingston is one of the least likely to help her cause. Its like saying, John Daniel should be allowed to abuse his children.

Linda Kelch is also a candidate for state legislator, District 53, running on the "Personal Choice" ticket, what ever that is. She makes no bones about supporting the polygamist lifestyle and has adopted the motto: "personal choice as long as it hurts none."

Linda, god bless her for her daring and boldness, it seems, will do just about anything to attract attention to her cause. She has just about as much chance of being elected to the Utah Legislature as Roy Potter did in the 1980's when he ran for Salt Lake County Sheriff.

Although I am delighted she is a candidate and wish her luck, I do not see her as a serious candidate. I suspect she is the butt of her priesthood advisors and this is just another stunt to put her in the limelight and attract attention to polygamy and decriminalization.

Mormon based polygamy is a male dominated, priesthood controlled lifestyle. Without taking away Principal Voices unprecedented, seemingly insubordinate independence and self motivation, they could also be characterized as "Principle Marionettes," because it is a safe bet that lurking somewhere in the shadows are a cluster of independent, fundamentalist, priesthood guys who think they are pulling the strings.

I scrutinize Section 132 of the LDS Church's Doctrine & Covenants as the well spring of polygamist theology and urge my readers to do the same. Although I am admittedly a muckraker, iconoclastic and irreverent, I am not disrespectful for the sake of disrespect. I like to think of myself as a "free thinking scrutinizer." If you are a free thinker (or even an ideologue) with an interesting point of view about modern polygamy, please share it with me. Essays of value will be posted in my essay section.