Religion

Reason.tv: The Sons of Perdition Filmmakers on Warren Jeffs' Polygamist Church

|

Should the government intervene in polygamist communities like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)? What if the polygamy involves under-aged girls?

This week Warren Jeffs, the FLDS leader found guilty of facilitating the rape of one of his 14-year-old followers, was granted a new trial by the Utah Supreme Court.

A new documentary, The Sons of Perdition, profiles three teenage boys who are exiled from Jeffs' compound in Colorado City, AZ. Directors Tyler Measom and Jennilyn Merton follow the boys as they face the challenges of living without family support, assimilating into a new society, and trying to get their other siblings out of the FLDS compound. (View the film's trailer here.)

Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie sat down with Merton and Measom to discuss freedom of religion, the making of the film, and what the future holds for these exiled boys.

Approximately 9 minutes. Shot by Dan Hayes and Jack Gillespie. Edited by Josh Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Advertisement

NEXT: Wouldn't It Be Easier If We All Just Agreed that the Stimulus Worked?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If I’m remembering correctly, aren’t the majority of the marriages that took place in the FLDS community arranged marriages….i.e. that they were made without the consent of on or either party?

    See, I believe polygamy and polymory to be absolutely fine if its consensual all around, but when it involves arranged marriages (and CHILDREN, might I add), then that’s a different story entirely.

    1. “arranged marriage” doesn’t necessarily mean “without the consent of one either party.” it’s only without consent if either party is forced into the marriage at gunpoint, or under threats of violence, or something similar.

      Not having the guts to stand up to authoritarian people trying to make important decisions for you, and knuckling under and accepting those decisions made without physical threats against you, however resentfully, is consent.

      1. not it’s not

        violence can be implied but never actually threatened. Not that that’s the situation here, but it is with Islamic families sometimes. I can remember more than one story of Islamic immigrants in Western countries killing or attacking a daughter who dared to go out on a date or marry the wrong person.

        1. “arranged marriage” doesn’t necessarily mean “without the consent of one either party.” it’s only without consent if either party is forced into the marriage at gunpoint, or under threats of violence, or something similar.

          Here you go, buddy, let me help you out with that.

      2. I’m sure you were a real fucking Rambo when you were a 14 year old girl, tough guy.

        I swear, sometimes the utter moronic arrogance of the commenters here makes me want to puke.

        1. I’m sure you were a real fucking Rambo when you were a 14 year old girl, tough guy.

          +1

        2. I used to teach high school and junior-high. Most 14 yr old girls are as big as their parents and quite insane. Maybe not blood-lust insane, but damn close when they get their dander up.

          1. When they’re raised to be proud and independent, sure. Not surprising.

            When you’re raised to be a submissive shrinking violet, that’s a different story. It is possible to train all the self-worth out of a person, if you start early. How can somebody who has no concept of what their rights ought to be even conceive of revolt?

      3. Prole,

        You are right on. Most Americans consent to tyranny is a perfect analogy.

  2. Did she say “tow the lion”?

    1. Read between the lions, man.

  3. This is similar to many animal groups lead by one alpha male, such as horses and turkeys. The young males are driven off at sexual maturity.
    Works for turkeys but it ain’t no way to raise your children.

  4. Reason and Nick,
    Good job. Interesting interview and sounds like an interesting movie.

  5. Polygamy is socially harmful for just this reason; if you need three wives to each guy, then about half the male population has to go away. If you can’t get them killed in wars or go capture virgins to up the female count, you end up having to exile them. So basically war, kidnapping, rape, oppression, and exile are built into polygamy. At least when practiced by a whole community.

    And that’s why polygamists are immoral, while gays are aok.

    1. TROLLOLOLOLOL

    2. Wouldn’t gays solve the problem you are describing?

      I’d also suggest scrapping marriage (at least the legal part of it) altogether as the best solution for so many problems.

      1. Only gay manfolk solve that problem. Gay ladies add another layer.

        1. Not really as gay menfolk are far more numerous than the gay womenfolk. And the gay womenfolk are not really straight menfolk fodder.

          1. Guess you’ve never met a 19-year-old soft bottom butch.

            1. I know you probably watch lots of porn, but most of those women are gay for pay. It hurts to look at the real world every once in a while ’cause it’s so damn ugly–but yeah, most of the gay womenfolk are not lipstick lesbians, they are fugly ass dykes with weird apple-shaped bodies. Tough titty, dude.

              1. Dammit woman. Now I guess you’re gonna tell us that there’s no Santa Claus or Zombie Jesus. There is a real psychological need to believe in lipstick lesbians. I don’t claim to understand it, but the one-handed worship of lipstick lesbians provides much need stability in many of our lives.

                Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go find my sacramental bottle of jergins.

              2. They transmogrify into that.

                A lot of them start as ‘women’, some cute, some average, some eh. Over time this weird process sets in where they turn into lumpy pseudo-males, complete with caricatures of male behaviour.

                Had to dress one for a fetish fashion show once–she was still cute, but the transformation had begun. No makeup, hirsute and with a bit more BO than her men’s deodorant was covering. She turned out cute and sexy after we were done with her–kinda lipstick lesbiam mixed with leatherboy waif. Her companions, on the other had were on the other side of the transformation, mullets, flannel, phlegmy faux-male ‘deep’ voices. And enough weight to give them a sense of androgyny.

                It’s kinda sad.

    3. So does polyandry create amazon warrior chicks? Because, then, I want polyandry.

    4. It’s like you’ve never heard of Eunuchs.

    5. Polygamy is socially harmful for just this reason; if you need three wives to each guy, then about half the male population has to go away.

      And what stops the wives from having more than one husband?

      Are women really more tolerant of sharing men than men are tolerant of sharing women?

      1. Refer to Heinlein’s conceptualization of “ladie’s choice”. He was quite forward on the concept of sexual liberation and many consider him to be the precursor to feminist hags of the 1960s.

  6. as to the teens who were exiled – aren’t they guilty of child abandonment/abuse? Don’t they have to at least pay for the kids until they’re 16 or 18 or whatever?

    1. In many cases, they refer to the children as “runaways”. This has been happening for a long time and they’ve become quite good at it.

  7. Corona drinkers – deserving of death:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World…..oison-beer

    1. Just a variation of the old “The Mexicans are Peeing in Corona Beer” urban legend from way back. Probably the work of A/B, Miller or Coors.

      1. A/B is partners with Corona’s parent company. Miller and Coors are the same company.

        For an internet commenter you know surprisingly little about cheap alcohol.

        1. way back, they were competing companies. hello. He did say ‘old’.

  8. Should the government intervene in polygamist communities like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)? What if the polygamy involves under-aged girls?

    I think underage girls is the litmus test here. And having read a book or two on polygamy, I would also note that independent police departments would also avoid a lot of abuse without prohibiting consensual polygamy.

  9. This isn’t that hard.

    Religious people and communities should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us – no special treatment, one way or the other.

    SHould the government intervene in polygamist communities? Yes, if polygamy is illegal. This is an entirely separate question than whether polygamy should be illegal.

    What if the girls being married off and impregnated are 14? Yes, regardless of polygamy, if 14 is under the age of consent for marriage or sex.

    This ain’t rocket surgery.

      1. There’s still hope for America.

      2. That is the sort of shit that makes me wish I was a dad. Chidlessness sucks in a certain way.

        1. And people say we’re losing our dominance in the space sciences. Ha!

          Love that dad. I can only hope to aspire to such greatness. Though I suspect that the tooth had already come out before the launch, but that’s okay. Puffery is an American tradition.

  10. Force anyone (underage or not) to marry, that should be illegal.

    But polgamy etc should be legal.

    I also usuall have a problem with the whole concept of underage. It seems to not be applied very sensibly. You’re to young to marry, but not to young to be tried as an adult for murder?

    A 16 year old has sex with their 15 year old friend, and now one of them should be locked up?

    1. As Oscar Wilde said, Polygamy is having one wife too many, which is also the definition of matrimony.

    2. Agreed, adulthood should be set at one age and all the privileges and responsibilities that encompass it should be set at one age.

      1. I disagree. Age is relative. JS Mill is a good example.

    3. Polygamy is perfectly legal. It’s just that the arrangements aren’t enforced and it doesn’t have the tax write offs or bureaucratic shortcuts of traditional marriage.

      1. True. Former Seattle Supersonic Sean Kemp was quite the polygamist — he just never formalized his relationships.

    4. It seems to not be applied very sensibly. You’re to young to marry, but not to young to be tried as an adult for murder?

      That is a bad analogy.

      There is a public safety reason for trying some 16 year old killers as adults.

    5. The laws in Canada as far as underage sex goes, seem like the perfect mix in my opinion. 18 year olds don’t go to jail for having sex with 16 year olds.

  11. You’re to young to marry, but not to young to be tried as an adult for murder?

    There’s a difference between understanding that you’re not supposed to kill people, versus understanding the full consequences of getting married.

    Hell, I’ve known people well into their 50s who still don’t understand the full consequences of getting married. Just look at Larry King. Well, I don’t mean actually “look at” him – I wouldn’t wish that on most of you.

    1. “There’s a difference between understanding that you’re not supposed to kill people, versus understanding the full consequences of getting married.

      Hell, I’ve known people well into their 50s who still don’t understand the full consequences of getting married. Just look at Larry King. Well, I don’t mean actually “look at” him – I wouldn’t wish that on most of you.

      It’s not about understanding the full consequences, it’s about not locking people up for making those decisions.

  12. During the whole clip, all I was thinking was, “I’d totally do Jennilyn Merton….”

    I hope that’s not wrong…

    1. Me too, but I wouldn’t marry her.

      1. Me neither – that would just piss off my wife

        1. Move to Colorado City, AZ.

  13. “This week Warren Jeffs, the FLDS leader found guilty of facilitating the rape of one of his 14-year-old followers, was granted a new trial by the Utah Supreme Court.”

    Maybe somebody with better knowledge of this case can weigh in, but what I read suggested that he was convicted of “facilitating rape” because during the wedding ceremony he presided over, he quoted the bible and told the couple to “be fruitful and multiply.”

    …which doesn’t sound like facilitating rape at all.

    If he’d been convicted of polygamy, cause he was being polygamous, that would be one thing. But, quite frankly, after the government came in like a bunch of stormtroopers and stripped an entire community of their children–all because of a crank phone call?

    It looks to me like if they can’t get him on something legitimate, they’re willing to nail the guy for the worst possible thing they can make stick. …regardless of whether it’s the law.

    Also, I think it’s interesting that this post is right under another post about how some people seem to think that freedom requires us to put limits on freedom. I’m not saying some cultural practices aren’t harmful, but I think that’s a crappy limit to put on freedom too.

    Who died and said everything everybody does has to be for the good of everyone? Freedom should protect everyone–even if they don’t care about you.

    1. I remember this case from a few years ago and it,at the time, seemed trumped up to get Jeffs. The so-called rapist was not charged with anything while the “facilitator” went to prison. Very odd case.

      1. I think the idea is that the rapist (a 19-year-old boy from the same community) was also, in a way, a victim of the forced marriage and the lack of sex education they receive.

    2. i’ll agree with you on this. It is a lot like the burqa post today. Can we allow religious extremism to derail our basic freedoms. I say no.

  14. he was convicted of “facilitating rape” because during the wedding ceremony he presided over,

    He presided over a wedding ceremony with the knowledge and intent that it was the premise for statutory rape.

    That sounds like facilitating rape to me.

    1. The age of consent to marry in the state of Utah is 14.

      http://family.findlaw.com/marr…..-laws.html

      I don’t know the details of this case, but the fact that he married a bride that was 14 doesn’t appear to be against the law by itself.

      Again, my understanding is that the prosecution’s case was that saying “be fruitful and multiply” is what made him a party to rape…

      And my read on the law is that by itself that’s just bullshit.

      Doesn’t mean what he did was right. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. Doesn’t mean he’s a great guy.

      But party to rape? I’m not seein’ it.

      1. The “bride” said it was rape, fool, which is why he was found guilty for it at first.

        1. I’m sorry. The bride said the pastor raped her?

          This is the first I’ve heard of that.

          I heard she said the groom raped her. …and that’s something completely different, isn’t it.

          1. You said “party to rape”, so if Jeffs was an accomplice to this action, that’s why he was tried for it. You were questioning whether consent had anything to do with it due to the underage nature of the marriage–that has nothing to do with this case, as she is saying she did not consent. Stop being intentionally stupid.

            1. “You said “party to rape”, so if Jeffs was an accomplice to this action, that’s why he was tried for it.”

              I get what you’re saying. But you calling me names won’t make what you’re saying any better… Are you suggesting that if he wasn’t guilty of something, they wouldn’t have had a trial?!

              What I’m saying is that merely marrying a 14 year old isn’t rape in that state. If the 19 year old came to the pastor and said, “Hey, I’d really like to rape that girl”, and the pastor said, “Well, let me marry you two first, and then it’ll be legal!”–that would be one thing.

              From what I’ve read, that isn’t even what the prosecution is alleging.

              Pastors aren’t generally criminally responsible if grooms subsequently rape their brides. Statutory rape isn’t a question unless the parents didn’t consent because the law says 14 in Utah–which I think is wrong in this day and age–but regardless…

              Like I said, my understanding is that prosecutors alleged saying “Be fruitful and multiply” during the ceremony constituted conspiracy to rape, and if that’s the case, then that’s bullshit.

              Everybody knows the bride didn’t want to do it after the fact. Did she say during the ceremony that she didn’t want to be married? Even if she didn’t want to be married, and he married them anyway (which I haven’t even seen the prosecution allege yet), that may make the pastor guilty of something…but being a party to rape?

              Being a freedom loving guy that sticks up for individual rights, I sometimes find myself sticking up for pornographers, dog fuckers and against torturing terrorists–you can throw this guy in a pile with all of them and other people I think are disgusting too if you want to…

              Doesn’t mean he should be framed on a rape charge ’cause he married a couple and the groom raped the bride after the fact.

              It’s be interesting to see the facts of this case, which again–I’m not familiar with! But what I’ve seen so far suggests 1) the groom probably raped the bride and 2) beyond saying “be fruitful and multiply”, the pastor doesn’t seem to have much to do with that.

              1. I see your point, Ken.

                This is one of those situations where it’s pretty reasonable to figure that Jeffs knows damn well that x percent of the kids he marries are going to end up rape victims. But that doesn’t mean it’s provable in any one particular case.

                Sucks.

                1. Yeah, it sucks.

                  And the sick bastard probably doesn’t give a damn about me stickin’ up for him either.

                  But it matters to me. …and when the unwashed masses come for me and my nasty habit (selling investments and commercial buildings for something as sick and unforgivable as profit), no doubt this bastard won’t type a keystroke in my defense…

                  But I’ll know that I treated him better than he did me!

                  In the meantime, being a jackhole just isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime.

                  1. Ken, just to be clear, when I say it sucks, I’m not talking about Jeffs not returning the favor.

                    I’m talking about a variety of forms of “soft coercion” all going on at the same time such that any reasonable person knows this is fucked, but still, yeah, I can see that none of them probably rise to the level of a provable crime.

                    By soft coercion, I mean:

                    A) 14 years old. Legal age in consent in Utah perhaps, but not everywhere. Clearly a gray area.

                    B) Arranged marriage. Strictly speaking, prolefeed is correct. But the threat of banishment at 14 is clearly more, um, rights threatening than it would be for someone old enough to take care of themself! But in lieu of actual proof that she knew she would face such….

                    C) Religious brain washing. Okay, obviously I support the right of people to follow any religion they choose. But when powerful community-wide peer pressure is placed on 14 year olds with the threat of eternal damnation to back it up, I think any reasonable person can smell something pretty stinky.

                    D) Like I said the first time, I’m sure Jeffs and the entire community are well aware that not all their arranged marriages to youngsters quite, um, “work out” and that their system is rife with abuse. Still they go ahead and push it on those youngsters. I don’t know if it’s 10% or 90% of the time that it’s just fine. So yeah, I can see your point that unless the groom made clear his intention to rape the girl before the wedding, Jeffs probably shouldn’t be legally held accountable for being an accessory. But please try to understand he’s not a jackhole just cause he’s not a nice guy. It’s that he knows a certain percentage of the youngsters he marries are most likely going to be raped, and he does it anyway with no concern for that. It’s HARM he’s actually DOING to young people to prop up his power and his belief system.

                    That’s what sucks, Ken.

                  2. I see your point but Warren Jeffs didn’t just conduct a marriage ceremony. He placed the two people together and told them they were going to get married. The bride was quite vocal about not wanting to be married but that didn’t stop him.

                    When the victim when back to him after her marriage and said she didn’t like her husband touching her and wanted out, Warren Jeffs told her to return to her husband and submit.

          2. No, she had sex against her will with her 19 year-old cousin whom she married.

            The problem here is that Utah AG Mark Shurtleff stretched the law to get a conviction in order to get Rowenna Erickson and the other harpies at Tapestry Against Polygamy off his back. It was a political prosecution, pure and simple.

            The Utah Supreme Court — which is not particulary conservative, having some Democrat appointees on it — quite correctly whacked his pee-pee for it.

            Interestingly, if people really wanted to get rid of polygamy they’d get rid of public welfare, because the FLDS community pretty much survives on AFDC and other public programs because the women are considered to be “unwed mothers”.

            1. You were doing well until your last paragraph which is pure unadulterated bull-shit. These people are totally self-supporting.

              1. I’ve heard the same thing, that multiple wives collect welfare as single mothers. Don’t have a citation, true, but that’s what I’ve heard….

              2. They’re totally not. That area receives more food stamps and government assistance than anywhere else in either state, from what I’ve heard.

  15. I’m curious why more men aren’t converting to this religion rapido.

    1. Why the hell would you want one wife let alone multiple?

    2. Our wives won’t let us…

      1. Ah, men aren’t converting to this religion ’cause they’ve lost their cojones. The few and strong run this prison!

        1. A bush in the hand…

        2. No, because these polygamist communities are like isolated colonies of a rare animal; they don’t mix very well with the rest of society.

          Outsiders — especially male ones — are NOT welcome in the FLDS Church.

    3. I’m curious why more men aren’t converting to this religion rapido.

      Because having some religious leaders hogging most of the women and telling you, an unmarried man, that you can’t have premarital sex, and you’ll go to hell if you do, isn’t really a great deal?

      1. Because having some religious leaders hogging most of the women and telling you, an unmarried man, that you can’t have premarital sex, and you’ll go to hell if you do, isn’t really a great deal?

        You write, “hogging all of the women” as if women were property that could not be shared.

        Does it not seem strange to you that men would be allowed to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to have multiple husbands? It is as strange as a society that allows men to marry people of either sex, but women could only marry men.

        1. In the FLDS, women are treated like property to be shared.

          If Warren Jeffs doesn’t like you anymore, he has you kicked out of the group and then “re-assigns” your wife/wives and kids to a new, better hubby.

  16. If these wackos hate boys who will competed with their gross old dads for wives so much, why don’t they just kill them as soon as they are born like the Chinese do to girls?

    1. Abortion is wrong to them. Abandonment? Totally okay.

      1. Is adoption too multicultural for these fools? Any mother who would let their son get tossed out on the street is a failure of Darwinism as well as a monster.

        1. I’m thinking it’s more of the father’s actions and the mother’s passivity (okay, also an action) that’s involved. The father is looking out for the other men of his age in the cult–making sure there is not competition from younger men among them.

    2. I’m surprised the sons don’t kill their geezer fathers.

    3. If these wackos hate boys who will competed with their gross old dads for wives so much, why don’t they just kill them as soon as they are born like the Chinese do to girls?

      A better question is why can they not just share the girls.

      Girls are expected to share boys. Why not share girls?

      1. Religious prohibition of sloppy seconds and a shortage of douche nozzles, perhaps?

        1. Religious prohibition of sloppy seconds and a shortage of douche nozzles, perhaps?

          Would not men who are already married be considered sloppy seconds?

          1. Somehow men who are already married are seen as *better*, since they’re clearly on the path of polygamist righteousness.

          2. Somehow men who are already married are seen as *better*, since they’re clearly on the path of polygamist righteousness.

  17. I think underage girls is the litmus test here.

    That’s how I decide if I’m into it, too.

  18. OH wow, OK that makes a lot of sense dude. Seriously.

    lou
    http://www.anonymous-surfing.es.tc

  19. Yet another arguement as to the utter ridiculous nature of religion. Only people who believe in invisible beings could consider such things as discussed in the article. Shame on the religous moderate s out there who enpower lunatics discussed in the article. ( this means libertarins too ) I mean for fucks sake we are living in the 21st century and people are still considering the advice of a nomadic semi barbarian people of the iron age …..?!!? Again this is yet another illustration of the insanity that is religion.

    1. people are still considering the advice of a nomadic semi barbarian people of the iron age

      The LDS church was founded in early 1800s. The FLDS church was founded sometime after the LDS church outlawed polygamy in 1890.

      “Iron age” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

      1. Additionally, the LDS church isn’t actually remotely Christian save in it’s appropriation of some nomeclature.

        They are serial polytheists whose ultimate ‘heaven’ is becoming a god.

        Not a bad aspiration, but their cargo-cult approach is kinda out there.

        1. I’m an ex-Mormon. The LDS are actually uber-Christians, quite similar to fundie Protestants.

          Unless you believe that people who believe in Christ as their savior aren’t Christian, and who have the Bible as part of their thoroughly studied religious scripture and believe it is inerrantly true, in which case good luck parsing out how everyone else is a Christian.

  20. “Only people who believe in invisible beings could consider such things as discussed in the article.”

    Ever see a radio wave? Ever hear a dog whistle?

    1. And by dog whistle, I don’t mean a whistling dog.

    2. Radio waves aren’t beings. And yes, it’s called an oscilloscope.

      1. Being-ist!

      2. …and I need to get me one o’ them Hearin’ Oscilliscopes…

        1. Th oscilloscope remark was in response to the question of seeing radio waves.

          The point is that you confirm the existence of something through measurement.

          1. I STILL want me one o’ them Hearin’ Oscilliscopes.

  21. Should the government intervene in polygamous communities when the young girls are forced to become concubines in FLDS harems? Does the question need to be asked? Forced sex is rape. No bona fide Christian religion rapes its young girls and banishes its boys in order to leave more concubines for its elders. That’s sexual exploitation and child abandonment. No bona fide Christian religion threatens its members with eternal hell fire if they don’t obey the elders and hand over 10% of their income. That’s robbery. No bona fide Christian religion practises “blood atonement” for what the elders decide is a sin. That’s murder. The FLDS is not a religion, it’s a crazy cult like the Branch Davidians. The sooner the government does its duty and breaks this crazy cult up, the better.

    1. So, let’s trash the Bill of Rights for everyone in a particular faith because you don’t like their religious beliefs, and you allege that a few illegal acts have been committed by a few of those church members?

      Is that an accurate restatement of your beliefs? You do know this is not a collectivist website, yeah?

      1. Prole,

        as a fellow ex-member of your shared persecuted past, I agree with you. You have gained a personal understanding of the ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ that the unexperienced may never experience and continue to not understand.

  22. Hey folks. These are just Mormons following to true religion as established by Smith and that other guy. The Mormons don’t practice it anymore (formally) because our government made them abandon it to get statehood for Utah. These groups are not cults or evil, or any different from the many religious communities spread across America. Leave them alone.

    1. Are you an arab/muslim?

    2. Oh, they’re certainly different than most other religious communities. But different isn’t a basis for persecution.

    3. Precisely.

      The LDS have already had the First Amendment rescinded from them–the FLDS don’t comply.

      So many religions are exempt from First Amendment protection in this country I sometimes wonder why they bothered stating it.

    4. Hogwash! They’ve had to live below the radar so long, that they’ve become cults. Jeffs was on the lam for a long time before they finally caught up with him. It’ll be that way until the Supreme Court overturns its decision upholding the Edmunds-Tucker Act. If the courts grant gay marriage constitutional status, I don’t see how they can continue to oppose polygamy, polyandry, etc.

  23. Hey Jancis, According to AG Shirtleff’s spies in Short Creek, underage marriages haven’t taken place. Not only that, when underage marriages were taking place, they constituted a minority of the total marriages and nearly all were about 16-17. A “lost boy” was interviewed by Nancy Grace, he witnessed many marraiges and NONE were underage.
    Like the LDS, they are expected to tithe 10%. They don’t “banish” anyone, almost all the males who leave were over 18, the younger ones went to live with relatives who previously left, the ones who leave are like anyone else who leaves fundamentalist religions.
    The blood atonement crap is total bullshit, where are the bodies Jancic?? Can you name a single person whom the FLDS murdered?
    Exactly how should the Government “intervene”?? Go house to house and round them up? Conduct search warrants for evidence like family photos? Conduct “plig patrols” and observe who goes into whose house?

    Jancis, you are an ignorant and bigoted POS!!! I’m agnostic but some of my best friends are FLDS polygamists and ex-FLDS who left without hard feelings.

    1. Your arguments are invalid. I saw pictures of women in plain cotton dresses covering most of their bodies. Not a single pair of tiny shorts with slut written on the ass. Something evil must be afoot.

  24. I was standing in line at Trader Joe’s and noticed that a girl ahead of me, wearing black velour sweatpants, had the words “Pink Taco”emblazoned in sequins on her ass. No shit. I could hardly believe what I was seeing.

    1. That’s copyright infringement. The vagina is the pink taco. Her ass coulda said pink taco substitute.

  25. I’m having problems locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail. I’ve got some creative ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it expand over time. http://www.itunes.com/download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.