A REPLY TO CARMINE

            Hello Carmine!  I’ve been waiting for you to come along.  I owe you an apology.  As you obviously know a lot about me, and AUB, the reason your comments have not been posted is because I am not a functional commuter guy.  I don’t know how to post the replies.  My best friend, who manages the blog for me, has had some serious health issues but is not back on track.  All of your comments will be posted, if they haven’t already.

            I don’t know what you mean by, “Get a life!”  I have a life, a great life and it hasn’t been better since I rejected Mormon fundamentalism.   I am spiritually free.  The only place I am tethered is by big government and that is a subject where I think we will agree.

            For the record, I am not against plural marriage per se.  I am against coercive plural marriage which happens to be the Mormon variety.  You cannot take an objective look at Section 132 without seeing that it is entirely coercive. 

            If a man can find two or more women and form a meaningful, fair relationship with them, then I say more power to them all.  But without the coercive inducement of irrational religious doctrine, I doubt that plural relationships will be generally accepted.  The pro Mormon polygamists attempt to create the illusion that Mormon polygamy, especially AUB style, is fair and voluntary.  In some cases it is but in many cases it isn’t.  Would you like me to give names?  If you are as well connected with AUB as you appear, I won’t have to name, names, because you will already be aware.

            The truth of the matter is that my experiences as a polygamist were primarily positive.  Of the many people who have come and gone out of AUB, I am one of the lucky ones.  I came out better off than when I went in.  Except for my first wife, (we did not have a good relationship) my two plural wives were great women and I learned a lot about marriage from them.  But both women were woman enough that they didn’t need to be plural wives to give their life meaning.  Even though, according to the law, what I did was wrong, I make no apologies.  I have a wonderful posterity (children and grandchildren) I would never have had.  If men and women can form meaningful relationships in AUB without being fleeced by the AUB priesthood, then good for them.  I am aware of some independent polygamists who seem to be making the lifestyle work for them.  I don’t bother them.

            You characterized my writings as an obsession with AUB.  It really isn’t an obsession.  I have always had a hankering to write – to put my ideas and thoughts on paper.  Even before I left AUB in 1994, I had joined the Utah League of Writer and attended a 7 day writer’s school in California.  The pros kept driving home,
“write about something you know about.”  Well, I knew a lot about Mormon plural marriage but I was reluctant to write about it.  I knew that as soon as I did and if it became public, I would have to open up my life to public scrutiny. 

            I was particularly concerned over what my former law enforcement peers would think.  As far as I know most of them have been open minded and have not condemned me.  In fact, a few years ago, I was a featured speaker at a Utah Peace Officers Association Convention in St. George and I was treated with the same warm respect as I had been while a deputy.  They wanted to know about Mormon polygamy and I told them.

            Writing about Mormon polygamy has taken me on a whole new interesting career and adventure I do not regret.  But I have to admit, I often get tired of writing about it.  During the lulls of Hill vs Allred, etc., and the media frenzy over Warren Jeffs and the YFZ Ranch, I started two historical novels that I hope to someday publish.  I think we are all born with a creative impulse.  I tried carving duck decoys, tying trout flies, and finally found writing.  I like a challenge and writing satisfies that challenge, just as building the case for Virginia satisfied a challenge.

            AUB was wrong.  The evidence is clear and the Utah Supreme Court has ruled they participated in a “pattern of unlawful activity.”  They have been given every opportunity to make amends.  It did not have to come to what is shortly going to happen.  They have exhausted all appeals, it is now just a matter of collecting.

            Virginia Hill does not have “unclean hands.”  She made the mistake of trusting so-called religious men.  I have dealt with just about every brand of criminal and I think the ones who exploit a person’s spirituality are among the worst.  I noticed in your comments you didn’t mention the name, Dennis Matthews.  Are you his friend?  I have less respect for Dennis than I did John Putvin.  Putvin was much smarter, more diabolical, but at least had charm and some ethics.  I truly miss the challenge he imposed.  Poor Dennis was like Putvin’s little puppy on a leash – a regular Charlie McCarthy. 

            I usually don’t like to attack character but rather actions, but in Dennis’s case I’m making an exception.

            Carmine, keep the comments coming.  Let’s engage in an intelligent, meaningful debate over the issues.  For example – why shouldn’t Virginia recover what she lost, plus damages, plus interest?  Why shouldn’t each of the defendants be equally responsible, enabling her to go after those defendants with the most assets?  The judgment was based on the actions of the defendants and not how much of her stolen money they personally obtained.