Reader comments
Jeffs guilty — Verdict: FLDS leader facing up to life in prison
43 comments | Read story
Alan | 12:29 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Oh, if only Brother Joseph were alive today he would tell us what to do!!! Hang
on, wouldnt he be there in jail with Jeffs??? Oh, no!!
Tiny | 3:48 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
He got what he deserved. and Alan this is for you: Joseph Smith didn't
force young girls to get married like Jeff Warren did, he didn't force
anyone, it was a choice. You should study alot more on past LDS History before
making a judgement like that. And further more the LDS Church hasn't
allowed this practice for a very long time. So, why do people have to keep
linking the LDS Church with this stuff of the FLDS people? And the state of UT
for that matter. It's really getting OLD!
Amy | 4:35 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
No, J.S. wouldn't be in jail with Jeffs unless to visit him and give
comfort, as he would do to ANY criminal. What J.S. did was under God's
direction with proper priesthood authority. What Jeffs did was NOT under
God's direction, without proper authority, and the punishment goes with the
crime. Let justice be served here in mortality, and then later (next life)
justice and mercy will be extended where it counts.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 7:33 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Hopefully Jeffs won't suffer death in jail as did Joseph Smith, even though
Smith was arrested many more times than Jeffs.
Klem | 7:50 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Mormons: how can you tolerate child rape, or polygamy?
Hide behind "religion" if you want, but those deeds are criminal.
Thank God we live in a secular republic!!
Hide behind "religion" if you want, but those deeds are criminal.
Thank God we live in a secular republic!!
Brent | 8:23 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Now Now Alan...
Danny C. | 8:24 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I still can't believe that no charges have been brought up against the
husband. He was the one alleged to have done the actual rape.
Cory | 8:38 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Lets play nice and not start a stupid debate about the differences between Jeffs
and Joseph Smith. As I remember Jeffs wrote on a piece of paper that he wasnt a
prophet.. That says enough about his character. The verdict is good, but wont
hold because of the fact that they never prosecuted the actual rapist. But I
think that he will eventually get hit with charges that stick due to his
unlawful flight and such. Im glad that a big fight hasnt started yet.. That was
the intent of Alan's comment. Isnt anyone going to stoop to a lower level?
Ann | 8:40 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Why persist with "alleged victim". Is the reporter questioning the
verdict? Victim, survivor, yes, but to use the word "alleged" after
the verdict is an insult to the courageous woman.
AZ | 9:46 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I agree with Ann!! The man broke the law and needs to pay. He is only a man not
a God.
Frederick of Logan | 10:22 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Would someone please explain to me in a couple of simple sentences WHY it was so
important to force Jane Doe into a marriage she did not want so that she could
most assuredly go to an eternal marriage? I understand that even young girls
were illegally sent to Canada to be married to old men. You would assume there
is certainly a lot of dumb people in that cult.
Believer in Mormonism | 10:41 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Polygamy is one thing. Underage is another.To Klem...I have had 2 wives for
several years. Both are in their 50's. It really isn't yours or anyone
elses business whan we do.
Believer | 10:50 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
To Klem...I have 2 wives for several years now. It is none of anyone's
business. Rape is one thing and polygamy is another. Learn the difference.
Boo | 10:52 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Klem, Mormons don't tolerate child rape, or polygamy? Jeffs is NOT a
mormon!!!!! How Many times does that have to be said? Get your facts straight
people, anyone practicing polygamy and sexual sins are not tolerated by the
mormon religion.
Focus on the subject | 11:18 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Jeffs arranged marriages for his followers. He had the power to stop marriages,
but he allowed young girls to marry older men, some of them blood related. He
had a power and he abused it, if you have great power be ready for the
responsibilities that come with it. It sounds like he is FLDS pimp, who would
give young girls to people that would follow him and give the alligence to him.
He got what he deserved and the whole freedom of religion thing, do think god
would want a 13 year old being married to older men? No, he would want them to
have a childhood, and experience life.
Ken Baguley | 12:05 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
During Joseph's time it was legal. Many years later there came down a law
which was tested and found to be constitutional. That is when the Manifesto
came out and Polygamy was stopped by a Prophet of God. We obey the laws of the
land...Some didn't immediately. As for Jeffs...How about the, "Sin
upon the heads of the fathers". Jeffs father brought him up to believe in
this...Who is the real violator???
Ken Baguley | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
In Joseph's day polygamy was not against the law...Many years later, a law
was passed and tested and found constitutional. That is when a prophet of God
wrote the manifesto banning the practice...Some didn't comply
immediately...As for Jeffs, his father taught him the practice...What about the
scripture, "The sins be upon the heads of the fathers". Who's
guilty here.
Anonymous | 12:19 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
As far as Jeffs and the FLDS goes, he should be sent away for life then the
States and Feds should go and arrest the leaders. How about a little
"freedom" in UT & AZ, President Bush?
And how in any stretch of the imagination is polygamy a good thing? Wonder what your wives would say if they had a choice? Polygamy is an antiquated, abusive form of female slavery and male domination that should be left behind in the dark ages where it belongs. The rest of civil society finds it abhorrent. How can you possibly admit to it and feel proud about yourself? Sorry, but it is society's business when it comes to unlawful acts
And how in any stretch of the imagination is polygamy a good thing? Wonder what your wives would say if they had a choice? Polygamy is an antiquated, abusive form of female slavery and male domination that should be left behind in the dark ages where it belongs. The rest of civil society finds it abhorrent. How can you possibly admit to it and feel proud about yourself? Sorry, but it is society's business when it comes to unlawful acts
Mark | 1:03 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Ken Baguley,
I'm not trying to tick off this whole crowd, but...
Bigamy was against the law in Ohio and Illinois in the early 1800's. Polygamy has "technically" been against the law throughout Mormon history.
Joseph Smith and some of the early brethren did marry teenaged girls. Pressure was brought on the parents of these girls to allow the marriages to take place. This issue is addressed in Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." It's a difficult historical issue to address, and Elder Bushman (He is a stake patriarch and great historian) does a marvelous job. Check it out.
What I'm saying is that the comparison is apparent, those outside of the Mormon movement are bound to bring it up for teh next century or so, so educated Latter-day Saints should be prepared to discuss it rationally.
I'm not trying to tick off this whole crowd, but...
Bigamy was against the law in Ohio and Illinois in the early 1800's. Polygamy has "technically" been against the law throughout Mormon history.
Joseph Smith and some of the early brethren did marry teenaged girls. Pressure was brought on the parents of these girls to allow the marriages to take place. This issue is addressed in Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." It's a difficult historical issue to address, and Elder Bushman (He is a stake patriarch and great historian) does a marvelous job. Check it out.
What I'm saying is that the comparison is apparent, those outside of the Mormon movement are bound to bring it up for teh next century or so, so educated Latter-day Saints should be prepared to discuss it rationally.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
What about her "husband' committing rape?
Mark | 1:46 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Anonymous,
He wasn't her legal husband. He was a 19 yr. old first cousin who was assigned to her. They were forced/expected to live as husband and wife. It will be interesting to see the stance taken by the legal defense team on this one...
I bet they paint him as another victim. In a way, I would buy that. This is more than Jeffs, this is a community so founded in a fear of outside influence and protective of plural marriage that it has abandoned certain aspects of human decency.
He wasn't her legal husband. He was a 19 yr. old first cousin who was assigned to her. They were forced/expected to live as husband and wife. It will be interesting to see the stance taken by the legal defense team on this one...
I bet they paint him as another victim. In a way, I would buy that. This is more than Jeffs, this is a community so founded in a fear of outside influence and protective of plural marriage that it has abandoned certain aspects of human decency.
A | 1:50 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
DANNY C: Actually charges HAVE been filed against the husband.
Aaron | 1:53 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
It is true that Mr. Jeffs will be held accountable for his crimes. Where law is
violated, payment must be made. This is human justice. What I find troubling
is the heat and slander coming from supposedly good people. Jesus said
"Love one another" and "he who is without sin, let him cast the
first stone." Justice will be pursued. But those who insist on demeaning
discussion, consider whether you're salacious in your own life. Are you
prone to allow or view pornography- the blatant violation of intimacy and sexual
perversion- the very thing you so angrily decry? Have you engaged in
pre-marital or illicit intimacy? At least these people have the decency to take
marital responsibility for their intimate actions; whereas many people today
seem to think casual sex is fine as long as we don't tell or talk about it.
Early aged, and forced, marriages are simply wrong. But so are many other
lascivious behaviors many of us "good" people get so stirred up about.
How about turning our heat and sentiment to more pervasive problems in society
and let the courts and victims handle this problem?
Agree | 2:07 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I agree with you Mark. I don't see too much difference between the Prophet
Joseph Smith's or Brigham Young's teachings and that of Warren Jeffs.
This is the reason I'm sure that many FLDS will view Jeffs as some type of
living martyr. Obviously the laws of the country have evolved since early to mid
19th century U.S., but Bigamy was illegal in Ohio and Illinois during that time.
In regards to "Boo's" post above: I don't belive the LDS have a monopoly on the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism." "Mormon religion" is not necessarily synonymous with the LDS Church. That would be like saying "Christian" can only be used to describe those of the Catholic Church, leaving out all who are products of the Reformation. There are the AUB (Allreds), FLDS, TLC, The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ, The Church of Christ, etc. They all use the Book of Mormon as a tenant of their faith and some of them refer to themselves as Mormons.
In regards to "Boo's" post above: I don't belive the LDS have a monopoly on the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism." "Mormon religion" is not necessarily synonymous with the LDS Church. That would be like saying "Christian" can only be used to describe those of the Catholic Church, leaving out all who are products of the Reformation. There are the AUB (Allreds), FLDS, TLC, The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ, The Church of Christ, etc. They all use the Book of Mormon as a tenant of their faith and some of them refer to themselves as Mormons.
Gail | 2:21 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Way to go Aaron. Leave this where it is and worry about things we as a society
can do something about. There was only one perfect man on this earth and he
doesn't live here any more. We all make mistakes and only God will serve
the real justice and mercy. Not for us to do.
wrz | 2:36 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
How does the term "prophet" differ from "pope"?
Clarifier | 2:56 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
To "Believer in Mormonism"
If you are indeed married to two women at the same time, then you are cannot claim to be called a "Mormon" or that you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you practice polygamy then you can be (and should be) excommunicated from the Church. Of course, if you are living a secret life and no-one in authority knows about it yet, then you are also causing others to think that this is a condoned activity within the Church - and IT IS NOT. Also, according to the current laws of the land, you are committing bigamy -unless, of course, you married #2 in a "spiritual" marriage only!
If you are indeed married to two women at the same time, then you are cannot claim to be called a "Mormon" or that you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you practice polygamy then you can be (and should be) excommunicated from the Church. Of course, if you are living a secret life and no-one in authority knows about it yet, then you are also causing others to think that this is a condoned activity within the Church - and IT IS NOT. Also, according to the current laws of the land, you are committing bigamy -unless, of course, you married #2 in a "spiritual" marriage only!
Clarifying | 3:29 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
To "Believer in Mormonism"
If you have two wives then you do not believe in "Mormonism" as you would not have been able to have a second wife (with the first one still living) since the official Church abandoned the practice in 1890 (117 years ago - but who's counting). You also would not be able to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It sounds as if you believe in parts of the "Mormon" past as it pleases you. If you are living a secret life and still trying to be an active member of the "Mormon" church, you are fooling yourself. You are subject to excommunication.
Also, if you married these two women in official marriage ceremonies, you are breaking the law and committing bigamy. If you are a member of a polygamous group and married the second wife in a 'spiritual' ceremony, then apparently you can get away with that.
Please do not assert yourself as a "Mormon" because you are not.
If you have two wives then you do not believe in "Mormonism" as you would not have been able to have a second wife (with the first one still living) since the official Church abandoned the practice in 1890 (117 years ago - but who's counting). You also would not be able to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It sounds as if you believe in parts of the "Mormon" past as it pleases you. If you are living a secret life and still trying to be an active member of the "Mormon" church, you are fooling yourself. You are subject to excommunication.
Also, if you married these two women in official marriage ceremonies, you are breaking the law and committing bigamy. If you are a member of a polygamous group and married the second wife in a 'spiritual' ceremony, then apparently you can get away with that.
Please do not assert yourself as a "Mormon" because you are not.
lily | 3:53 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
If Jeffs can be convicted and the former husband be charged for rape what about
the parents who forced the 14 year old girl into marriage in the first place!
Shouldn't they go to jail as well?
I lived there | 4:23 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I lived in UT a really great place except for the brain washed mormons
Enter nameELmo Julius | 4:53 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Thy Celestial marriage is plural wifes I want 38 wifes like Brother Brigham
Young and early leaders. I joined the LDS Church to have multiple wifes. LOL!
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander! Put all Plural marriages in
jail. Have the courage to protect womens rights. Deprogram the woman of FLDS and
educated them. Its not about welfare and being barefoot and pregnant any more.
The glory to good is intelligence.
to clarifying | 5:05 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
The church issued the Manifesto in 1890, but Church leaders still sanctioned
plural marriage until 1904. You can do a search/study on
"post-manifesto" plural marriage and find that several marriages were
performed by authority of the 1st Presidency after 1890. It's not a big
deal (to me), but thought I'd mention after reading your post.
Last I read, President Hinckley did not want church members refering to themselves as "Mormons" or the "Mormon church." You can search LDS.org for the statement. LDS and the full name if the church are prefered.
Last I read, President Hinckley did not want church members refering to themselves as "Mormons" or the "Mormon church." You can search LDS.org for the statement. LDS and the full name if the church are prefered.
Freedom of speech | 5:15 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
For those LDS that think polygamy isn't part of the church, I challenge you
to read D & C 132. The Official Declaration was only written for political
reasons and was not enforced by the Church for another 20 years. Sheesh people,
crack open a book and read about your own religious history.
Let's also say a man marries, then divorces and remarries...all in the temple. How many spiritual wives does he have? I count two which equals celestial polygamy thereby enforcing the D & C 132. Close your eyes to the facts if you will.
Let's also say a man marries, then divorces and remarries...all in the temple. How many spiritual wives does he have? I count two which equals celestial polygamy thereby enforcing the D & C 132. Close your eyes to the facts if you will.
molly | 6:43 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I agree with Lily! what kind of "parents"would allow this? They must
be really warped.
Alan | 6:52 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
Why do so many say that during Josephs day Polygamy wasnt against the
law.................. Of course it was. And for those of you who say Joseph
never FORCED anyone to marry, please check again and you will see many instances
of him telling people that their slavation would be denied if they didnt comply.
The only difference between Jeffs and Smtih is a personal belief of who you
think God sided with.
Cirrus | 7:40 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
1) D&C 132 is still on the books, and has not been revoked.
2) The Manifesto only states that the LDS Church will not teach and practice ploygamy. It is still an extant doctrine of the LDS Church. The LDS Church has never said the doctrine was wrong. Basically, it is only on hold awaiting a more favorable political environment.
3) The Manifesto has never been canonized as a D&C, unlike D&C 132 that has never been revoked.
4) Bruce R. McKonkie stated the ploygamy will at some time return to the earth.
2) The Manifesto only states that the LDS Church will not teach and practice ploygamy. It is still an extant doctrine of the LDS Church. The LDS Church has never said the doctrine was wrong. Basically, it is only on hold awaiting a more favorable political environment.
3) The Manifesto has never been canonized as a D&C, unlike D&C 132 that has never been revoked.
4) Bruce R. McKonkie stated the ploygamy will at some time return to the earth.
I agree | 10:19 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
I agree with above contributors that state that the Mormon church still believes
in polygamy. Since they believe in an after-life and since they allow
"celestial marriages" to more than one woman...they do. It's
that simple folks.
And it may not have been technically "illegal" in Joseph's time (I'm not sure), but it was one of the reasons for persecution. And at the last, he was imprisoned for destroying a printing press that was printing the truth about his other "wives". He used the "salvation" thing like Warren Jeffs for getting over thirty "wives". He was very similar to this situation. These are the facts!
And it may not have been technically "illegal" in Joseph's time (I'm not sure), but it was one of the reasons for persecution. And at the last, he was imprisoned for destroying a printing press that was printing the truth about his other "wives". He used the "salvation" thing like Warren Jeffs for getting over thirty "wives". He was very similar to this situation. These are the facts!
Jarid | 10:59 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
If anyone want to read and interesting book on Joseph Smith and polygamy they
should read "In Sacred Silence" I cannot recall the author on short
notice. It deals mostly with the journals of the plural wives and writings from
their posterity.
It also elaborates on the push that Brigham Young made to show that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that the practice was sanctioned by the Prophet (as opposed to what the RLDS chruch was trying to prove at the time). Joseph was "married" to a few teenagers, one as young as 14. He also used spiritual leverage to get some of the women to consent(to paraphrase, He said that God has commanded him to return plural marriage to the Earth and that if he did not, then he would be killed by shilbolm for failing)
The book shows that some of the unions were for "dynastic" reasons, I.E. to link prominent families, such as Wilbur Woodruff's, to Joseph Smith through eternity.
Overall, it should be a must-read for anyone who proclaims to be LDS, but struggles with the origins of polygamy in the modern church.
It also elaborates on the push that Brigham Young made to show that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that the practice was sanctioned by the Prophet (as opposed to what the RLDS chruch was trying to prove at the time). Joseph was "married" to a few teenagers, one as young as 14. He also used spiritual leverage to get some of the women to consent(to paraphrase, He said that God has commanded him to return plural marriage to the Earth and that if he did not, then he would be killed by shilbolm for failing)
The book shows that some of the unions were for "dynastic" reasons, I.E. to link prominent families, such as Wilbur Woodruff's, to Joseph Smith through eternity.
Overall, it should be a must-read for anyone who proclaims to be LDS, but struggles with the origins of polygamy in the modern church.
Teen | 11:05 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007
the trial was based on the actions of those involved. Jeffs broke the law.it has
nothing to do with the religion.many of you fail to see that.the FLDS can
practice and believe what they want, but only to a certain extent. as soon as
you infringe upon the rights of others, that is where your rights should and
ought to end.that goes for any religion or political party. Everyone can say and
think what they want to, but it all boils down to violations of the law that
must be punished.I'm proud of Wall for standing up for her rights.I
can't even imagine how difficult that would be.as for some of you i am
honestly dissapointed in your comments.no one should be pointing fingers at any
one person or religion.im not trying to offend anyone cause you are entitled to
your opinion.But when i read these blogs sometimes i wish adults could just hear
themselves.its a dog fight to see who is better or knows the most.its
rediculous!thats not what this is about.this is about a young girl who was
abused and i think instead of pointing figures and fighting we should support
her and those like her
Poligamy has roots in Bible | 12:14 a.m. Sept. 27, 2007
I am not for polygamy but for all those "Christians" out their the
Bible is full of old prophets that practiced polygamy. So It's really
stupid to throw polygamy in the face of LDS people for their ancestors practices
when the root of Christianity Abraham had many wives and concubines. It's
called being uninformed. There are many other instances mentioned. It was
practiced by many prophets. So you make fun of them it just makes you look
foolish. Lot actually had sex with his own daughters, talk about sick. I could
give a lot of references to the Bible but being Christian to me is about loving
my fellow man and I do not want to destroy faith just tell you that you are
being hypocritical if you profess to be Christian and try to tell another what
they believe. Put that energy into living a Christlike life and not so much
energy trying to bring someone else down.
Dont like it? Leave! | 12:35 a.m. Sept. 27, 2007
To "I lived there"- Hello! The Mormon's are no more brain washed
than any other Christian believer. I guess if you live in the bible belt like
Texas that all Texans are brained washed? Or the Catholics at Notre Dame?- Get
real, just because you came to a state heavily concentrated in one religion,
doesnt give you the right to label them brain washed. By the way, youre welcome
for the Mormons settling Utah so you could have a place to live in the first
place. For everyone else that lives in Utah and had a problem with members of
the church- there are 49 other states..the door is open! I am sick of the church
taking the criticism they do for all the good they do for humanity and the
residents of Utah collectively.
question | 3:52 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007
Was there a legal marriage licence issued for this marriage? If there was how
did the state allow a 14 year old to marry? If not were they really married? If
they were not legally married and Jeffs told them to live together and .... That
sounds illegal to me.
Lust | 10:48 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Polygamy is evil, anyway you look at it. It's not right and never will be.
It's only right for those who have no respect for woman.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Sloan may toy with starting lineup 10:02 a.m.
- Iran began nuke plant 7 years ago 9:32 a.m.
- Downpours swamp Mid-Atlantic 9:31 a.m.
- John King replacing Dobbs show 9:30 a.m.
- Obama announces jobs forum 9:29 a.m.
- Oil falls below $79 7:53 a.m.
- Stocks open lower 7:53 a.m.
- Iranian Consulate fatally shot 7:49 a.m.
- AP poll: Family dinner survives 7:47 a.m.
- Palestinian election may be called off 7:45 a.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Prep football: Felt's Facts Week
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- BYU football recruit turning heads
- Crash kills Utah County man
- Will state consider gay rights law?
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- Tavernari has matured
- Cougars practice with urgency
- Celtics crush Jazz
- House passes health care bill
289 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies256
- TCU showdown has big implications195
- Senators want food tax restored157
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections110
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah107
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges101
One of my guilty pleasures is perusing the covers of celebrity magazines...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Thanks "Concerned Advocate". I should mention that since I fight the State...
If it were not for our "elastic" currency we could just ignore those...
Actually Provo could be a convention destination if there was a good...
"TCU lost to Utah last year because they didn't have a team good enough to...
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an...
Mountain Crest's defense is too tough for Timpview. Our defense is more...
All i know is it won't be my cougars again! another year of great expectation...
One thing we have learned from recent history is that Utah can prepare for...
Great recruit and a great story. He has talent and Bronco will use his...
'Bad move by the Church. I am extremely disappointed!' Well I am happily...
Advertisements