About the Weirdest Legal Case I've Heard of in a Long While

Nick Gillespie | September 13, 2007

From the AP:

Warren Jeffs might not have laid a hand on the 14-year-old girl he's accused of coercing into marrying her cousin, but he's still responsible for her rape, prosecutors maintained Thursday as opening arguments neared.

Jeffs, the head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a polygamist sect that broke away from the Mormon church, is charged with two counts of rape by accomplice in the girl's marriage to her 19-year-old cousin. Authorities allege he used his influence to coerce her into a religious union in 2001, and that the teens' consummation of the marriage amounted to statutory rape.

The girl has testified that Jeffs told her she risked her salvation if she refused.

Jeffs, 51, was a fugitive for nearly two years and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list when he was arrested during a traffic stop outside Las Vegas. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

More here.

This case--a rare set of circumstances to be sure--raises various questions about individual agency, responsibility, the intersection of religion and law, and more (among other things, I'm curious as to where the girls' parents were in all this).

Comments

|9.13.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Sex with your own wife, no matter how unlikely, shouldn't be illegal.

CB

|9.13.07 @ 10:06AM|#

(among other things, I'm curious as to where the girls' parents were in all this).

I'll wager that they are "True Believers of the One True Faith" whackjobs as well.

Don't you just love organized religion?

|9.13.07 @ 10:08AM|#

The girl's parents were probably stoned on the fundamentalist mormons' versions of weed. And/or they feared for their own salvation. They had probably given up the ability to think rationally and responsibly about this years ago. Or if they had been born into the sect, they most likely never developed any sort of critical thinking skills whatsoever. So, they and the girl were roped in by a combination of displays of communal love bombs and covert or overt threats against their souls since birth. They never stood much of a chance against that, I reckon.

Jeffs does deserve jail time. For "accomplice to rape" I'm not sure. But he does deserve a long sentence for this kind of coercive behavior.

|9.13.07 @ 10:08AM|#

Sex with your own wife, no matter how unlikely, shouldn't be illegal.

Which would only apply to legal unions, and from the term "religious union," this wasn't one.

|9.13.07 @ 10:09AM|#

BTW, if a 14 year old can legally marry in her cousin in Utah, none of this matters. If not, wouldn't aiding and abetting apply?

Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 10:09AM|#

All other elements aside, what I see in this is another case of prosecutors making ridiculous charges against questionable people, just like charging the guy that was running from the cops for the traffic accident death of a trooper on his way.

|9.13.07 @ 10:13AM|#

I'd say this would be "Conspiracy to Commit rape" or something, basically a similar type of case Charles Manson was convicted of. The leader of the cult held responsible for the actions of the cult.

dhex|9.13.07 @ 10:19AM|#

or maybe procurement? something along those lines?

the real question here is why are so many dudes, religious and non, into sex with virgins?

|9.13.07 @ 10:20AM|#

If we're going to start charging people who persuade people to do things only with their words, the advertising industry is going to be next.

Is marriage at 14 even legal in Utah? The law there says you need to cleared by a judge to get married that young, so wouldn't the ultimate responsibility fall on the judge?

|9.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#

Call me shallow, but this isn't nearly as entertaining as watching Big Love. It will have to do, though, since we're between seasons.

*sigh*

Henderson's Home Plus is Us + Us + Us!


It's funny (funny odd, not funny ha-ha) that the government chose this as their cause celébrè. It's also unclear to me what they are charging him with. The article cites "rape by accomplice" which sounds strange already, but I've also heard "accomplice to rape". The former suggests that he raped her by proxy - as if he ordered it done. The latter suggests a more direct role in the act. The implications of a conviction in this case would be incredibly harmful. Jeffs was not present during the act, he did not hold the girl down.

If he is convicted for this, suddenly every hapless fool who tells a woman to go home and perform her "wifely duty" is at risk of being charged with rape. Ministers, counselors... even erstwhile friends could fall under this rape-by-accomplice umbrella.

As a multiple survivor of what's now known as "gray rape", I certainly don't approve of anyone who advises an otherwise vulnerable woman to engage or remain in an unhealthy and non-consensual sexual relationship. Those people are fools, but not criminal.

They will become criminals though, if Jeffs is convicted.

|9.13.07 @ 10:27AM|#

By-the-by, I hate the terms "victim", "survivor" and "gray rape" (also "date rape") but... well, labels are convenient sometimes.

I do not identify myself by these terms, I only mean to say that I am intimately familiar with the less black-and-white aspects of rape.

Hope that makes sens.

|9.13.07 @ 10:28AM|#

sense, even O_o

|9.13.07 @ 10:29AM|#

The following marriages are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate:

• marriages between parents and children;
• marriages between ancestors and descendants of every degree;
• marriages between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood;
• marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews;
marriages between first cousins,
• marriages between any persons related to each other within and not including the fifth degree of consanguinity computed according to the rules of the civil law
First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:

• both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
• if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.
MARRIAGES PROHIBITED AND VOID
The following marriages are prohibited and declared void:

• when there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
• when the male or female is under 18 years of age unless consent is obtained from the parents or legal guardian;
when the male or female is under 14 years of age or, beginning May 3, 1999, when the male or female is under 16 years of age at the time the parties attempt to enter into the marriage; however, exceptions may be made for a person 15 years of age,
• between a divorced person and any person other than the one from whom the divorce was secured until the divorce decree becomes absolute, and, if an appeal is taken, until after the affirmance of the decree; and
• between persons of the same sex.

76-5-401. Unlawful sexual activity with a minor -- Elements -- Penalties -- Evidence of age raised by defendant.
(1) purposes of this section "minor" is a person who is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 16 years of age, at the time the sexual activity described in this section occurred.

So, to this laymens meager reasoning skills,

A. That was not a legal marriage.
B. The female in question was under the age of consent.
C. Statuatory rape occured.
D. Warren Jeffs aided an abetted same.

But, I haven't been to college, so I'm probably talking out of my ass. Then again, maybe not.

|9.13.07 @ 10:31AM|#

>If we're going to start charging people who >persuade people to do things only with their >words, the advertising industry is going to be >next.

are you serious? you think a fourteen year old in a religious cult coerced into marrying her older cousin is the equivalent to someone being persuaded by a commercial to go to arbys?

|9.13.07 @ 10:34AM|#

It was a "religious marriage" according to the article, but probably not a legal marriage.

I have a real problem with this theory of criminal liability, even though I'll readily admit that Jeffs' beliefs/practices are loathsome.

BTW, Utah's anti-polygamy statute seems like a blatant First Amendment if it applies to religious marriages that do not go through the state process. How can someone be a "polygamist" is one is only legally married to one person, regardless of how many other people they are having sex with under whatever guise?

|9.13.07 @ 10:35AM|#

That should read "First Amendment violation." Previewing before you post = priceless.

|9.13.07 @ 10:36AM|#

J sub D:

I'm good with your conclusions A, B and C but am not real comfortable with D simply because Jeffs wasn't present.

The argument would have to be built on duress or some sort of threat - for which I guess the state is citing Jeffs' prophet-y powers over the girl and her fear of hellfire. Even then, it seems an awful long stretch to me.

|9.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#

dhex: if you ever get the chance to try, you'll know!

J sub D - there are two muslims (one pakistani, one afghani) at my job who are married to their first cousins and are arranging such marriages for whichever of their children they can convince to go along with it.

I also know from working with families with the genetic disorder ataxia telagiectasia that many Amish in Ohio and Penn. as well as Muslims in Detroit marry their ouw first cousins (transmission of this gene is highly improbably except between closely related people). So I guess it's more common than you think.

|9.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Oh yeah, any freedom of religion excuse here is complete bullshit, and we all knowe that. Saying "You're going to hell if you don't rob this bank." is a crime. Any problems with that? Religion cannot trump law or we have no law.

|9.13.07 @ 10:39AM|#

Mr. Obvious

Utah, not Michigan, not Ohio. I thought that was obvious. ;-)

|9.13.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Saying "You're going to hell if you don't rob this bank." is a crime.

It is? Wow.

Besides, isn't Jeffs accused of saying, "You're going to hell if you don't get robbed"?

|9.13.07 @ 10:43AM|#

"In July 2004, Warren Jeffs' nephew, Brent Jeffs, filed a lawsuit against him alleging that in the late 1980s his uncle sodomized him in the Salt Lake Valley compound then owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Brent Jeffs said he was 5 or 6 years old at the time, and that Warren Jeffs' brothers, also named in the lawsuit, watched and participated in the abuse. Two of Warren Jeffs' other nephews also made similar abuse claims against him. One of the alleged victims, Clayne Jeffs, committed suicide with a firearm after admitting that Warren Jeffs had sexually assaulted him as a
child."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

Everybody's innocent until proven guilty, but it looks like reverse shotgun weddings aren't the worst thing this guy's been accused of.

Wasn't it legal to get married with a parent's consent in some states at the age of 14 until recently?

In regards to cousins, I think some of that may break down in a polygamous society. I think it's possible that a person could, for instance, marry the daughter of a man his mother's sister was married to and have no blood relationship with the woman he wanted to marry.

In other words, just because you're cousins doesn't mean you're a blood relative.

I wonder if these people are familiar with, "I'm my Own Grandpa"?

|9.13.07 @ 10:45AM|#

I'm good with your conclusions A, B and C but am not real comfortable with D simply because Jeffs wasn't present.

If you hire, encourage entice, or threaten someone so that they commit a crime you are guilty of same. That legal in many jurisdictions especially in the morals jurisdiction. Morally, this is no different than luring someone into an alley to be robbed.
Yeah, it's me, the atheist, talking about morals. Who'd a thunk it?

lunchstealer|9.13.07 @ 10:52AM|#

Bronwyn,

Jeffs was not present during the act, he did not hold the girl down.

If he is convicted for this, suddenly every hapless fool who tells a woman to go home and perform her "wifely duty" is at risk of being charged with rape.

There's no danger of a precedent which criminalizes telling an adult to consent to have sex when they might otherwise not. That's because the girl in question is not considered an adult who can consent to marriage or sex. And not just 'suggesting' it, but pretty much commanding it. Saying to your 30-year-old friend, 'Hey, you should have sex with your husband to save the marriage,' is very different from saying to a child, 'You should marry this man and have sex with him or your immortal soul will be damned for all eternity.' Especially if you are in a position of religious authority.

He knew, or should have known, that the marriage was illegal and the sex was illegal. He used his religious authority to convince an under age female to submit to sex she could not consent to.

Your regular preacher/friend/counselor isn't exactly likely to find themselves in that position. And if they do, they should tell the girl to wait until she's older. When she's older, she can consent, and his advice is no longer criminal.

|9.13.07 @ 10:54AM|#

:) We atheists are not an amoral bunch - not by definition, anyway. Atheist morality is sort of user- (or observer-) defined though, don't you think?

Morally speaking, hells yes I agree with you. Wholeheartedly, even. I just don't know if it's something that can effectively be criminalized.

|9.13.07 @ 10:58AM|#

lunchstealer, I get it. Thanks.

/The More You Know

fyodor|9.13.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Seems like there's two different issues getting potentially conflated here.

Clearly, the rape charge is based on the gal being a minor. A woman submitting to her "wifely duty" based on someone's bad advice would have a tough time proving rape, I think (though with the right lawyer and jury...?).

But I wonder to what degree Jeffs's accomplice role is based on the gal's minor status.

Intuitively, that seems like it should make all the difference. It's a lot easier to "coerce" a minor with mere words. But does it (and should it) make a legal difference? If you lure someone into an alley to be robbed, it wouldn't matter if the victim were a minor or not.

|9.13.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Given the recent story on the Jeffs community outcasts in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/09polygamy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

where Jeffs would order a family to abandon a 15 year old boy for watching a movie in another town, and the parents complied with a shockingly fast response, in my opinion I find anything Jeffs might order a 14 year old girl to be credibly threating and compulsive.

|9.13.07 @ 11:06AM|#

are you serious? you think a fourteen year old in a religious cult coerced into marrying her older cousin is the equivalent to someone being persuaded by a commercial to go to arbys?

I was indeed being sarcastic (As you said, it's quite a difference), though the principle is the same for anyone above the age of consent. I think this is a special case since she's probably not old enough to really understand what was going on. It'd be similar to telling your kid to jump off a building because you told him he could fly, and then being surprised when you're charged with a crime. The main question in my mind is: What constitutes the age of consent? An arbitrary age does not suddenly mean you're capable of making decisions after that age. Is there a better way to determine whether someone is capable of making these kinds of decisions?

|9.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#

The age makes all the difference. An adult telling a minor to summit to statutory rape is commiting a crime regardless of the argument he uses.

Sara|9.13.07 @ 11:20AM|#

It's not just hellfire he threatens girls with. If they don't submit to his authority, they are totally banished into the big scary world of sinners (yay for us!). And since the education system run by that group is so pathetic, and the religion so stifling, there are adults there with the brains of 14 year olds.
Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" gives a pretty creepy description of what all the mormon fundies are up to.
String them up by their balls.

|9.13.07 @ 11:25AM|#

Jeffs, 51, was a fugitive for nearly two years and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list

What for? Polygamy? The FBI doesn't have anyone better to chase after than polygamists? Or is he a fugitive for this case?

If he's wanted on other charges, I don't see the point of this novel prosecution.

|9.13.07 @ 11:27AM|#

fyodor,

Minors are below the age of reason, so the adult is held accountable if he orders illegal actions. If a case only involves adults, then there's a difference between a threat and a prediction. Saying, "Give me your money or I will shoot you." is theft by threat. Saying, "Your money is radioactive and you must give it to me before you get sick from it." is somewhere on the fraud->stupid advice->good advice continuum along with "Send us your money so we can raise awareness and save the world."

|9.13.07 @ 11:42AM|#

Any Mormons out there, here is your chance to help someone understand your religion tenets.

How many Mormons are truly against this type of behavior? I believe that the Mormon Church is secretly are "on board" with this type of shenanigans, because the silence from the Mormon Church is deafening. Much like the lack of objection to Global Jihad we hear from mainstream Muslims.

I compare this sect of Mormonism to the Branch Davidians. When are the Federal Agents and the armored vehicles going to smash down the walls of the compounds these people live in? After all, IFTC (it's for the children).

AFAIK, Mitt Romney has never renounced this activity, I would really like to know his real religious philosophy, not the for public release bologna.

I understand that many of the founding stories behind the Mormon church could be compared to Scientology (Magic hat, seer stones, ancient metal plates). The Mormon Church is also very secretive like the Scientologists. I have never heard of a religion that has secrets that are hidden from the congregation or the public at large, pedophillic Catholic Priests excepted.

|9.13.07 @ 11:47AM|#

Regarding an ATF raid on these compounds. They could use the same methods as SWAT teams, bust in the door, kill some people and magically find some kind of contraband, sawed off shotgun or some other illegally modified weapon.

|9.13.07 @ 11:59AM|#

There was an interesting story in the Denver Post this week regarding the banishment of teenaged boys from homes if they stray from the Mormon philosophy. This one kid had a stash of DVD's including the evil movie "Die Hard". His parents burned his collection and warned him about the evils of movies and music. Well, if forgot what transgression he committed, but he got kicked out at 14 years old and is living with relatives, working in construction.

The point the story made is that there is a concerted effort in Mormon communities to banish teen males, to decrease competition for the sweet young females desired by the dirty old men there in the Mormon Church leadership.

|9.13.07 @ 12:02PM|#

negatore,

my brother-in-law is a practicing Mormon, and he is quite adamant that "there is no FLDS church." After reading Under the Banner of Heaven, I can see how that is true, because apparently, all Mormons can receive revelations directly from God--it seems to be a central tenet of the belief. I don't hear much about it for what I guess is a similar reason that I don't hear any talk about snake handling Pentecostals in Appalachia from my Roman Catholic parents. Although they may think it's nuts, they don't bother mentioning it.

dhex|9.13.07 @ 12:03PM|#

I have never heard of a religion that has secrets that are hidden from the congregation or the public at large

well...how would you? they're secret. and as more of the megachurches will no doubt find out, there's always plenty of secrets up on high. (why they always involve fucking hookers, i know not)

anyway, mormon fundamentalists make up a very small slice of mormons as a whole.

|9.13.07 @ 12:05PM|#

What for? Polygamy? The FBI doesn't have anyone better to chase after than polygamists? Or is he a fugitive for this case?

If he's wanted on other charges, I don't see the point of this novel prosecution.

The feds went after Jeffs for "unlawful flight to avoid state charges", according to Wikipedia. But all of the substantive charges are under state law.

How many Mormons are truly against this type of behavior? I believe that the Mormon Church is secretly are "on board" with this type of shenanigans, because the silence from the Mormon Church is deafening. Much like the lack of objection to Global Jihad we hear from mainstream Muslims.

I rarely defend Mormonism, but you might want to do a little Googling before you post stuff like this. The mainstream LDS church is quite vocal in denouncing the polygamists, and is vehement in getting Utah officials (who are often LDSers) to go after them.

I used to wonder how Mormons could so easily disavow a practice that the founder of their religion (and his cohorts) practiced and advocated. The answer is that, unlike other Christian sects, Mormons believe in the doctrine of "continuing revelation." That is, they believe in modern prophets, to whom God can reveal new truths outside--or in contradiction of--their existing books.

Now we, as outsiders, can simply say that adopting monogamy was a very practical choice in the face of a potential U.S. Army invasion of Utah, but the doctrinal flexibility of Mormonism is why there have been surprisingly few wackos like Warren Jeffs and his ilk.

|9.13.07 @ 12:14PM|#

Shawn, Chris and Dhex;

Thanks for the reasoned, articulate responses. I really want to understand. As a person who enjoys exploring religious beliefs of various denominations, I found your replies to be helpful.

Timothy|9.13.07 @ 12:16PM|#

dhex | September 13, 2007, 10:19am | #
or maybe procurement? something along those lines?

the real question here is why are so many dudes, religious and non, into sex with virgins?

They're trying to benefit from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

|9.13.07 @ 12:19PM|#

Thanks for the reasoned, articulate responses. I really want to understand. As a person who enjoys exploring religious beliefs of various denominations, I found your replies to be helpful.

No problem. I'm the same way about religion.

|9.13.07 @ 12:20PM|#

negatore, I am not a Mormon but I know quite a few.

because the silence from the Mormon Church is deafening.

On the contrary, the Salt Lake church has been at the forefront of polygamy investigations. It's true that they were slow to fully implement the "Great Compromise" fully but they had purged any officials who were still performing plural marriages by the mid 19teens.

Incidentally, the "Great Compromise" allowed those who were already in plural marriages performed before the ban to stay married. The father of a Mormon friend of mine told me that they had lived in a town in Utah in the late 1940s where there was an old guy with three wives. He kept separate residences for the three, one in town and the other two on farms outside town. He was by that time in his eighties or nineties but still went to work every day as the president of the local bank.

I see ChrisO has dealt with everything else except this:

AFAIK, Mitt Romney has never renounced this activity, I would really like to know his real religious philosophy, not the for public release bologna.

In fact Mitt has denounced it and in terms that have left some Mormons embarassed. And in spite of the fact that his own grandparents went into exile in Mexico over it.

|9.13.07 @ 12:29PM|#

J sub D provides a good arguement for this guy commiting a false marriage. However what happens after the marriage or on the honeymoon is not the responsibility of the man who married them.

If a preacher marries a couple, how responsible is he/she for what happens after? Can a preacher be a conspiritor to murder if the guy kills his wife on their wedding night?
And I'm not sure if I buy the argurement that sex is a part of marriage, and by performing the cerimony he "OKed" the sex, since these days sex happens prior to a marriage. Besides you can't OK someone to break the law.

|9.13.07 @ 12:33PM|#

"""I used to wonder how Mormons could so easily disavow a practice that the founder of their religion (and his cohorts) practiced and advocated. """

Which religion doesn't do this?

|9.13.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Which religion doesn't do this?

Name another religion that disavowed a major tenet within living memory of its founder and did not disintegrate or split into warring factions. The LDS church managed it quite successfully. Only a relative handful of people splintered off due to the ban on polygamy, and they've never been successful at taking on the LDS church for influence or painting the LDSers as heretics.

|9.13.07 @ 3:40PM|#

But, I haven't been to college, so I'm probably talking out of my ass. Then again, maybe not.

j sub d -- looks like you nailed it. Perhaps you should drop the "haven't been to college" stuff -- either your argument is right, or it isn't.

|9.13.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Wasn't it legal to get married with a parent's consent in some states at the age of 14 until recently?

In Hawaii, until very recently it was OK for anyone to have sex with anyone at least 14 years old. Dunno about the marriage. This case would have been legal here at the time it happened. It was illegal in Utah because, in order to get the federal government off their backs in the late 1800s, some of the strictest laws and constitutional provisions against polygamy were enacted -- in the most polygamist state in the Union. This schizophrenic state of affairs is still playing itself out, compounded by the (non-fundy) Mormon church doing its level best to distance itself from its past in order to grow the membership.

|9.13.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Any Mormons out there, here is your chance to help someone understand your religion tenets.

How many Mormons are truly against this type of behavior? I believe that the Mormon Church is secretly are "on board" with this type of shenanigans, because the silence from the Mormon Church is deafening. Much like the lack of objection to Global Jihad we hear from mainstream Muslims.

AFAIK, Mitt Romney has never renounced this activity, I would really like to know his real religious philosophy, not the for public release bologna.

I understand that many of the founding stories behind the Mormon church could be compared to Scientology (Magic hat, seer stones, ancient metal plates). The Mormon Church is also very secretive like the Scientologists. I have never heard of a religion that has secrets that are hidden from the congregation or the public at large, pedophillic Catholic Priests excepted.

negatore -- The overwhelming majority of Mormons are revolted by what the FLDS folks do, or toward polygamy itself for that matter.

Silence from the Church on this matter?

Here's what the current President of the LDS Church says at LDS.org:

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church's October 1998 general conference:
"I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

"If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of thelaw of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' (Articles of Faith 1:12)."

Mitt Romney is what is (sometimes sardonically) called a Peter Priesthood (the female version is a Molly Mormon) -- he's in full agreement with the above, and pretty much everything else the Church leadership says.

Dunno where you're getting this biz about Mormons being secret about their beliefs. The scriptures underlying the beliefs are (literally) freely available if you ask for a copy. The views of the leaders are published monthly in Ensign magazine, and broadcast semi-annually in General Conference addresses. Invite missionaries in, pepper them with questions, and they'll answer them, or get back to you if they don't know the answers. Unless, of course, you're kind of a dick about it, in which case they'll politely end the discussion and leave.

|9.13.07 @ 4:34PM|#

The point the story made is that there is a concerted effort in fundamentalist Mormon communities to banish teen males, to decrease competition for the sweet young females desired by the dirty old men there in the fundamentalist Mormon Church leadership.

negatore -- Fixed your quote. You're confusing the fundy Mormons with the far more numerous mainstream Mormon church. Quite different churches, each considering the other apostates. It's like confusing Jim Jones or Branch Davidians with mainstream Protestants.

|9.13.07 @ 4:50PM|#

I admit that most of what I learned about Mormonism was from books like; "Under the Banner of Heaven" and TV's "South Park" and "Big Love", on HBO.

|9.13.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Let them all marry their cousins, aunts and uncles.

In a few generations, the recessive genes will take care of the whole problem.

|9.13.07 @ 5:52PM|#

It's like confusing Jim Jones or Branch Davidians with mainstream Protestants.

Well said. I've only really got to know one Morman in my life, (a CPO sonar tech) he was a damned good sailor, and a pretty cool guy.

These fundies, like the vast majority of fundies, are a weird and creepy bunch.

One other note - Nick, we solved the legal problems for ya. Put that sucker in the hoosegow!

|9.13.07 @ 5:54PM|#

Marriages between first cousins are common in closed groups.

In the 18th century Quakers read out (expelled) those who married outside the religion. Frequently first cousins were the only eligible candidates for marriage. Hence the term "Quaker cousins".

The policy did not stand for long. But it stood long enough so that a few families seemed to control things for a long time.

SIV|9.13.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Let them all marry their cousins, aunts and uncles.

In a few generations, the recessive genes will take care of the whole problem.

What? They'll own a large chunk of the wealth in Europe?

|9.13.07 @ 9:11PM|#

SIV

If the European Nobility hadn't been so inbred & had done some judicious pruning of the family tree and a little hybridization, France would still have a King.*

*Unfortunately, my family is all WASP for several generations: A long line of remittance men, alas.

Allen|9.13.07 @ 10:58PM|#

I just drove though Colorado City / Hinsdale last week. It's a weird, weird town. I'd love to see a reporter get out there and try to pound the pavement.

As for the comment on the weirdness of the town, it's not people having horses in their backyard. heck, it's not the few with chickens and cows. It's the various houses in various stages of completion. The high fences and gates around so many houses (it's a tiny town; where's the threat of crime???). It's all the cars in the driveways and the crazed minivans drivers.

As for the gov't. in this case, I'm with you on asking what about prosicuting the parents for neglect. Surely they were complicint in all of this, too.

And there is an FDLS. Now it may not be a normal church but it has existed in terms of owning communal property in that area and other such activities.

I have no problems with polygamy as long as it's adults making their own decisions and not children.

|9.14.07 @ 3:09AM|#

I would argue that the legal ban on polygamy is partly what makes the Warren Jeffs horror stories possible. The polygamist Mormons are forced to live very underground lives, which facilitates cult-like structures and all kinds of moral rot that are possible when everyone in a group is afraid of disclosure.

|9.14.07 @ 5:28AM|#

What a waste of tax dollars. Mis guided priority. The pimp on the corner has 6 women, kids with all, their all collecting welfare - and we are paying to prosicute this guy?

|9.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Even if the female in question had been over the legal age, Jeffs may not be immune from prosecution. Weren't there several cases of "rape" convictions in the military courts (sex between an ensign and her commanding officer) that even though the sex was seemingly consentual, it was felt that given the chain of command and power of authority that one had over the other, there really no way that the said "consent" could be said to have been freely given. There may be a similar possible argument here.

Chuck Cavanaugh|9.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#

If a father goes against the leadership then his wives can get "reassigned" to other men. So, I imagine the girls parents went along with the marriage.