Warren Jeffs allowed to represent self, says nothing


Return To Article
  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 30, 2011 6:48 p.m.

    Hey Allen, Your Mormon site . I lost it, please send it when you can.

    they will be like(as the ANGELS(aggelos,32) in heaven.(Mt 22:30)
    Versse2, Praise him, all his angels (aggelos ,32); 5, Let them praise the name of the LORD(YHWH), for at his command they were Created,( Psalm 148 2,5 NIV) . In heaven Christians will be like angels who both are created spiritual beings by God. No procreation or death.

    For by(Jesus/YWHW)] him all things were created(aggelos), in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created through him and for him.

    And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home(Jude 1:6), Bad angels (devils)nothing to do with a pre mortal estate.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 30, 2011 2:52 p.m.

    Hi sharrona, nice to hear from you again!

    Jesus' comments as recorded in Matthew are discussed in detail in my Mormon site, so I won't use up my 200 words repeating my comments here. For those interested, my Mormon site can easily be found via Google.

    You said Christians want to be with God. As Christians, we Mormons also want to be with God. There is one difference, though, between our desire and your desire. We want to be with God as families. You seem to want to be with God as an individual.

    This is the last comment that I'm allowed in this thread, so I won't be able to discuss this further. You're welcome, sharrona, to visit my Mormon site and discuss this further, if you'd like.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 30, 2011 1:02 p.m.

    Allen:At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like(as) the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30 NIV). This was Jesus answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)
    There will be marriage in heaven our marriage to the Son of God. It is then that our love for Jesus will be consummated in eternal bliss, bringing us to realms of exquisite joy and never-ending fulfillment.

    Christians want to be with God Mormons want to be god.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 30, 2011 12:17 a.m.

    @Mike L

    It is important that we realize polygamy is a policy or practice and not an eternal principle, because if polygamy is an eternal principle, it can't be discontinued, and we all should leave the church and join one of the fundamentalist groups that believe in polygamy. However, since polygamy is a policy or practice, it can be started or stopped anytime the Lord wants to do that. Thus, the statement in Jacob 2:30 that the Lord will command it when he wants the people to practice it, otherwise we should have one wife.

    I do believe we will have polygamy in the afterlife, but we can't say who will and who won't have it. You mentioned your father. He was "sealed" to his first wife and later had a civil divorce from her. He was "sealed" to his second wife. These sealings were just promises of what might happen in the future. Maybe, in the next life, he will be actually sealed to both women. Maybe only to the first or only to the second, or to none. We don't know. The LORD WILL decide who is actually sealed to whom.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 29, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    @Mike L

    If polygamy is an eternal principle, then it can't be banned or temporally discontinued due to political pressure. It is a fact that the church did stop the practice of polygamy in 1890 and again a few years later, and that tells me polygamy is a policy or practice and not an eternal principle. In addition, in the BoM, Jacob 2:28-30, the Lord said that if he wants polygamy, he will command it; otherwise they should have one wife. It seems pretty clear that polygamy is a policy or practice and not an eternal principle.

    I'm not saying that there will be no polygamy in the afterlife. I'm just saying that polygamy is a practice that was discontinued 1890. When the church discontinued polygamy, and today when it excommunicates people who practice polygamy, I don't think the church is saying anything about polygamy in the afterlife. It is dealing with a policy about marriage that was changed in 1890 and is not in effect today.

    July 29, 2011 8:49 p.m.

    D&C 132 is all about the eternal covenant of plural marriage.

    In 1966 Bruce R McConkie also said that polygamy will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. Talk to your Stake President or a Temple Worker. They will not deny plural marriage is an eternal principle.. because it is!

    July 29, 2011 8:31 p.m.

    Although your explanations are rational, they are not factual. If you read Joseph Smith's own writings, in addition to the writings of Brigham Young, John Taylor, even apostles in the 1960s and 70's spoke (and wrote) about polygamy being the "new and everlasting covenant" that was spoken of by Joseph Smith, and that for now, it means "Eternal Marriage".. which INCLUDES polygamous marriages in the afterlife.

    To deny this fact is denying Joseph Smith and the aforementioned prophets, as a unified voice, are wrong.

    Do some reading beyond your Gospel Essentials book.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 29, 2011 5:38 p.m.

    I hope the efforts continue to shut down these religious sex encampments.

  • oldschool Farmington, UT
    July 29, 2011 4:30 p.m.

    Go ahead and argue over semantics. The fact remains that the LDS Church does not sanction plural marriage here on earth and excommunicates anybody who enters into or performs plural marriage as well as anybody who supports polygamists. This is a churchwide policy. Mormons who live in countries where plural marriage is legal may not enter into such a marriage, or they will lose their membership in the church.

    The media does a disservice to society by referring to Warren Jeffs as a Mormon fundamentalist. Some people confuse the LDS Church, commonly known as the Mormon Church, with various organizations of polygamists who reject the LDS Church.

    I believe the attorney general of Utah also does a disservice by refusing to prosecute those who enter into plural marriages. I suspect it's because he believes the government never should have persecuted 19th century Mormons who practiced their religion.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    July 29, 2011 10:39 a.m.

    Mitt, John, and Harry just have got to be loving these discussions. Such a feast for the voters!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 29, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    The church never "banned" the practice of polygamy...it was "discontinued" which means it may very well be practiced again.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    July 29, 2011 9:50 a.m.

    The church had no choice but to ban polygamy, unless it wanted all of its polygamist members rounded up and sitting in a jail cell.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    July 29, 2011 9:29 a.m.

    Mike L:

    "I believe the Church is half lying when we try to make good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy."

    When we talk of banning polygamy, we are talking about not allowing a man to be married to more than one wife at the same time. A man cohabitating with more than one wife at a time is in fact excommunicated, as I am sure a high councilor would know. There is no lie there. Current church law unequivocally reflects that and enforces it.

    Now, as to plural marriage in the eternities, that is another story. Let me give you an example. My wife's grandfather survived two spouses, both of whom he is sealed to. In the eternal scheme of things, he is a polygamist. However, he had only one wife at a time on this side of the veil. In the eyes of the law, he is not a polygamist. There is no lie.

    This idea that a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not cohabitating with both on this earth is where the anti's accusations of polygamy against the LDS Church come from.

    July 29, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    He who acts as his own lawer has a fool for a client.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 29, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    Mike L,

    Church leaders don't make decisions about who will actually be married to whom in the next life. As a policy, a man can be "sealed" to more than one woman, but the the "sealing" in the temple is only a promise. In the case of your father, he has been "sealed" to two women. In the next life, will he be actually married to both of them? We don't know. God will decide that.

    On another note, polygamy is a policy not a principle. Eternal marriage is the principle. Polygamy and monogamy are policies that apply the principle to our lives. Yes, Brigham Young and other church leaders in the 19th century spoke of polygamy as if it were an eternal principle, but they were trying to justify their practice of something that was radically different from normal social relationships. If polygamy is an eternal principle, then LDS had better leave the LDS church and become active members of a church practicing polygamy. On the other hand, if polygamy is a policy and eternal marriage is the principle, we should expect polygamy to be practiced at times and not at other times.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    July 29, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    Mike L...to give your story some traction, you might want to use the word 'council'.

  • desert dweller SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 29, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    them thar Texan boys will do what gotta be done ! Utah and Arizona need to watch this so they can learn how to things the right way the first time

    July 28, 2011 10:31 p.m.

    Another huge pass along of misinformation that news outlets continue to accept, that we, the LDS church, don't "practice" polygamy anymore..

    Our church history in our doctrine that there is an eternal principle of polygamy. It was put ON hold for Utah to become a state. It is still an eternal principle and teaching. Any educated mainstream Mormon can affirm that.

    Fact: my father was allowed to marry another woman in the temple after my mother divorced him civilly, but remains his wife on church record... and he has both on his church record that are HIS in the afterlife. And guess what? If my mother were to come back into the church, she wouldn't be allowed to be "sealed" to another man.

    I believe the Church is half lying when we try to make good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy.

    I am not anti-Mormon. I am in the high counsel of my stake. I am simply stating the facts that can't be ignored.

  • FredEx Salt Lake, Ut
    July 28, 2011 7:47 p.m.


    I'll help you get it. The Constitution states that the the judge and jury presume the accused innocent unless proven guilty. The rest of us may believe or assert whatever we want.

  • Bjstarr west jordan, ut
    July 28, 2011 7:46 p.m.

    Perhaps he thinks he is like Jesus...a lamb being brought to the slaughter...he opened his mouth not. What a fool. May justice be served by putting you behind bars for life Mr. Jeffs.

  • FredEx Salt Lake, Ut
    July 28, 2011 6:38 p.m.


    I'll help you get it. The Constitution states that the the judge and jury presume the accused innocent unless proven guilty. The rest of us may believe or assert whatever we want.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    Be careful when you move to Texas to avoid Utah prosecutors.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    July 28, 2011 2:18 p.m.

    Fitness Freak | 10:37 a.m. July 28, 2011
    Salt Lake City, UT

    Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this guy when Utah and/or Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs. ago.

    Fitness, Utah seems to have a habit of not dealing with things. The Brian David Mitchell case comes to mind. Is this a budgetary decision? Let someone else pay for the trial and incarceration?

  • bmoncur RIVERTON, UT
    July 28, 2011 1:49 p.m.

    Jeffs: "You're all fired! I'm going to represent myself!"

    Judge: "Why?"

    Jeffs: "Nobody else is capable of making a good defense."

    Judge: "Um....Okay."

    Jeffs: "Oh, by the way, I'd like to postpone the trial."

    Judge: "Why?"

    Jeffs: "Well, I need time to find somebody to help me make a good defense! Duh!"

    Judge: *facepalm

  • CougarKeith Roy, UT
    July 28, 2011 12:55 p.m.

    The guy claims to be a prophet, then he denounces himself as one, then he claims it again??? Well let God support him or denounce him, and allow him to defend himself. Here we go again in the justice system, everyone wants to judge him and convict him before the trial has even started or finished. VERY SAD!!! You all want to honor the Constitution of the United States, but nobody wants to follow it??? I don't get it?

  • RichE Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client."

    Now this trial should really turn interesting! He is going to be asked questions by prosecutors, and without any legal guidance as to how he should answer, Mr. Jeffs will defintely prove the accuracy of the above adage!

    Congratulations to the judical system in Texas for refusing to let Mr. Jeff's latest stalling attempt to succeed.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2011 10:37 a.m.

    And when he loses his case he can claim "incompetent legal counsel".

    Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this guy when Utah and/or Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs. ago.

    Thank you Texas.