Talk:Warren Jeffs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Just a thought

First thing that came into my head when I heard about this guy: Waco Siege and John Titor. I think that says more about me than anything though... Cryomaniac 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs is a wonderful man, I hope they don't catch him soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.116.153 (talk • contribs)

Why do you say Warren Jeffs is a "wonderful man?" If he had nothing to hide, why was he on the run for so long? As a 'righteous prophet,' I would assume he would have stood up for his beliefs long ago. -Northridge 16:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice thought, Northridge. But it's a fallacy. Then again, people who use that language usually realize this. So, are you honestly saying that if a person "has nothing to hide" they should come forward and make their case, regardless of whether the courts see it their way or not? Do you obey *every* law - even those you don't believe are fair and just? Should a Christian living in Maoist China have come forward and stood up for their beliefs? Would not doing so, have made their beliefs any less valid? Polyblogger 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You made a valid argument. In many cases, my reasoning can be taken as a fallacy. But despite what you might think, I don't believe the US is comparable to Maoist China. There isn't really any Christian persecution in the US (though some people think otherwise); the death penalty is restricted to capital cases (and I think in China, the death penalty applies to a broader range of offenses); and the US justice system utilizes bail (I wouldn't know if bail is used in China). I don't think Mr. Jeffs was short of funds; he might/could have been eligible for bail if he passed the prerequisite requirements. With regards to Mr. Jeffs' sting in hiding, of course it isn't definite proof of guilt, but it's a damn strong indicator, and Mr. Jeffs' publicity in the Top 10 Most Wanted roster does color a person's perspective. Yes, I know the US justice system isn't perfect; the fact that innocent people have/continue to go to prison is enough to give pause. It would be wonderful if God was on earth to succintly tell us who the bad guys are and mete out the appropriate punishments. But it isn't such a perfect world. I'm sorry if this answer seems excessive and incoherent, but the reasoning behing your question seemed vague, Polyblogger. Are you coming from a 'Christian' viewpoint? Are you skeptical of the US justice system? Or are you just taking offense at my 'fallacy?' -Northridge06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Is it really necessary to have three almost identical passport-style photos? Camillus (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea, because he looks so different from one photograph to the next, and it might help someone recognize him. That's just my take... Mikesherk 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you all for talking about me and for recognising my power. God bless you. Warren.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.215.184 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Warren and welcome to Wikipedia. One question: If you're so "powerful", how did you end up getting caught? Hmmm....--Folksong 09:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, people in FLDS are forbidden to use the internet. So, obviously, that isn't Warren.161.11.121.122 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Last seen in public in 2004?

So Jeffs was last seen in public in 2004, but he was out on January 1, 2005 in Texas? Is this conflicting, or is the 2005 appearance not "public"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiacalMonkey (talk • contribs)

grammar tip: the possessive

If a word ends in an "s", and you want to make it possessive, you add an apostrophe "s".

For example, "the boss's car"

It is only when the word is plural that you merely add the apostrophe:

For example, "the bosses' car"

Sooooo....

since the name Jeffs is a singular noun, It would be "Jeffs's wives", not "Jeffs' wives"

"Jeffs's wives" looks cumbersome, but what can you do...

Not neccessarily - Chicago, APA and AP allow for you to just use the apostrophe as a possessive. For example "Warren Jeffs' car" or Chris' is acceptable, and in fact, in most western US universities is the norm. As a writer, I never use the possessive "double s" due to my training as a journalist. -Visorstuff 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks! -johno95 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was always taught that 1) monosyllabic words ending in "s" always formed the possessive by adding "'s"; 2) polysyllabic words ending in "s" always used just "'"; and 3) the possessive of disyllabic words ending in "s" was discretionary, i.e., either "'s" or just "'". Thus, "Charles's car", "Jesus's or Jesus' disciples", and "Socrates' cup of hemlock". "Chris' car" sounds weird to me. I suspect that "Warren Jeffs' car" sounds better only because the ear confuses it with "Warren Jeff's [sic] car".

Capture date

This article says he was captured on the 28th but the FBI Most Wanted List page says the 29th. Which one is it? --Kevin W. 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If the FBI say the 29th, it was the 29th. dposse 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant the MWL page here on the wiki. --Kevin W. 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2 news sources say 28th and so does The FBI --Napnet 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion came from the time difference. He was arrested at about 9PM local time, which is about midnight on the east coast(where the FBI's headquarters are). So it'e either the 28th or 29th depending on the timezone. TJ Spyke 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Under August 2006 Arrest, it says they had more $600,000. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_arrested says "$54,000 in cash and $10,000 in gift cards". Where's the source for the $600K?

Photo Change

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to eliminate the current opening photo and replace it with his recent booking photo. Aside from being more up-to-date, the current photo is grainy and of a poor resolution (I'm not citing any fault on the part of whoever uploaded it; the photo itself, which was used by the FBI, was of a low res to begin with). All in all, it looks much more professional.209.169.114.213 05:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious Freedom

Where's the religious freedom aspect in all of this? Aren't religious practitioners often allowed to break civil law in the practice of their faith? Smoking marijuana, slaughtering animals, and so on? I'm not saying Warren Jeffs is right or wrong in his beliefs, but that - in America - one would think he'd be allowed to practice as he chooses. Are polygamy and marrying "under age" girls somehow exempt from this, when other violations of law are not? And are these girls under age in the states in question, or at the Federal level? In many states, 16 is the age of consent. Someone please explain why the FBI felt the need to add this guy to their most wanted list, for these seemingly minor crimes. Minor in terms of possibly falling under religious freedom precedent, as well as, relative to the crimes of others on the most wanted list. Is there more going on here than meets the eye? Not looking to make a point so much as asking for some enlightenment. From anyone but Northridge, that is. ;) Polyblogger 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Polygamy isn't the issue. If it were, there would have already been a raid on the 8,000 practicing polygamists at the former Short Creek. The issue is that Jeffs 1) Allegedly forced girls into these marriages, and that 2) He was an accessory to rape. He is not being charged with being a polygamist, cult leader, or anything of the like; he is being charged with enabling the commission of violent crimes. Does that clear things up?209.169.114.213 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought polygamy was illegal? I don't think it matters if you religiously believe in it or not. If you take a person who is under 18/21 years of age, who is not a consenting adult (go look up consent on the wikipedia or whereever, more often than not even if you are 16 or older, your partner can't be over a certain age until you yourself are over 18/21), and marry them off to an older man without a choice? And when I say without a choice, I mean they most likely know no other way of living their life, and are probably scared of what will happen to them if they say no. I'm not saying all polygamist marriges are like that. But when you start involving children against their will, you've seriously crossed a line. Disinclination 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the REAL ISSUE is the massive Welfare load his followers have placed on the national socialist system. It was reported that the male members of Jeffs' sect work, but the unlicensed plural wives sign up for Welfare, Food Stamps and other entitlements. This tactic is quite a potent one, and was not to be tolerated, as we all can see. --Jetgraphics 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop the conspiracy theories etc since this is supposed to be about the article not about Warren Jeffs or religious freedom, or whatever else you want to talk about. Nil Einne 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of religion does not allow you to follow any religious belief in America. It protects religions from being targeted by the government See Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Supreme Court says a law which has the effect of interfering with religion can be constituional if 1) there is a legitimate secular purpose 2) it doesn't have the primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting a religion and 3)there must not be excessive government entanglement with religion. For instance, human sacrifices can be illegal under murder laws, as long as the purpose is to stop murder and not to inhibit the religion. People can be arrested for smoking marijuana as long as the purpose of the law is to control narcotics and not to hurt the religion in question. Sometimes though, reasonable accommodation can be demanded (wearing head veils or yarmulkes in some cases, are protected even though an employer doesn't like it).

Statement without citation

...a sect that broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when the latter denounced polygamy in 1890, something the founder of all Mormonism, Joseph Smith, believed to be a prophet of God by members, had encouraged in the belief that they were restoring original Christianity.

I removed this portion last week because the last portion stated that he believed that they were restoring origional christianity is unfounded to my knowledge. It was a little presumptuous to just remove it, but I believe it should be removed unless a reference from joseph smith's writings is placed. I think a citation is necessary because the statement makes sound LDS members sound hipocritical without mentioning thier belief in continuing revelation (like when in acts the need for circumcision and the rule that the gospel was only for the jews were both changed).--72.130.179.41 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Added clarification that the charges Jeffs faces in Utah are first-degree felonies (as sourced in the linked court document), that each charge carries five years to life, and that Jeffs is being held without bond until his next hearing on 21 Nov 2006.

More Edits

I reverted the edit from an IP address removing the following text: "*Carolyn Jessop - , left Merril Jessop and took her seven children (Former wife of Merril Jessop)". I am not sure if this is a true statement or what the source is, but as the anonymous editor deleted it without comment, I thought it should be added back on. Fundamentaldan 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

There are a crapload of external links and references, most of which are a bunch of news articles. We don't need this many links. I think we should use some to cite and then trash the rest. Hbdragon88 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The link on http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4753187?source=rss doesn't work. -- Dietrich Benninghaus 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

This page is full of POV-leaning inclusions. Compare this page to the page on Joseph Smith, and you'll see a vast difference. Both were polygamists, both arrested, both religious leaders with significant followings, both claimed to be prophet. And yet Smith's page is rather positive, while this page on Jeffs paints him as a common criminal. This is very inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "controversial" is biased. The word "denomination" rather than "sect" should be used. The FLDS should not be described as a "polygamist" sect, because that is not the main basis of the group. These are just some of the many examples of POV on this page, that should, to be fair, be eliminated. 142.161.230.111 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

I removed the following sentence:

"In relation, when several black men raped 5 of his wives and they conceived byracial children he assigned those children to other black families under his control."

It's a bit inflammatory to stand without citation, and a cursory google/news search didn't find any support.

It also reeks of bullshit. The FLDS believes that blacks are the spawn of the devil. There would not be black FLDS members or "black families under [Jeffs'] control." Sounds like the author of that sentence was some sort of troll/vandal.

Are you an expert on the FDLS? Maybe there are black members. Look at the al Saud family in Saudi Arabia. Ibn Saud the founder of Saudi Arabia had also black wives. The FDLS can then also have a mixed community. The branch davidians had one too.

<personal attack removed> both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the documentary expose "Banking on Heaven" explicitly make clear that the FLDS teaches that blacks are inferior.

I can assure you, there are not, nor is it likely there ever will be black in the FLDS. They are considered an inferior race. No I am not a member. But I live near their towns of Hildale and Colorado city. If you would like to HEAR proof of this and other nonsense this wacko preaches go to www.myeldorado.com

Timestamp accurate to the second of guilty verdict

I'm taking out the timestamp nonsense in the top summary. I took it out once before, and it was added back in. In 2 years, no one will care, or need to know, that it was at FOUR TWENTY-FIVE AND THIRTY-FIVE SECONDS PM, especially if the article says "in the afternoon of such and such date". Wikipedia is not a FIRSTPOSTLOL competition, it's non-encyclopediaic, it's trivial, and it looks childish. Please to be not putting it back without a really, really good reason. If it needs to be said, it could be said later in the article. -- Will 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted TfD

{{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} has been nominated for deletion. As this template is transcluded here, contributors to the "Warren Jeffs" article may want comment in the discussion here. I propose that if the template is deleted, then most transclusions would be changed to {{Infobox Criminal}}. -- Mark Chovain 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even {{Infobox Criminal}} is appropriate here. Jeffs was notable as a religious leader before criminal charges were filed against him. The infobox reduces his notability to the criminal issue, and I don't know that that's appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jeffs was notable before the criminal issue. Maybe we should go back to the usual {{Infobox Person}}. -- Diletante (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentenced

This article needs to be updated because there has been a sentencing for Warren jeffs. RYAN 3000 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Update incarceration status

The top sidebar indicates Jeffs is in Utah State Prison. The presumably obsolete section on his Aug. 2006 arrest says he's in Washington County UT jail pending an April 2007 trial. Davelic (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I was considering about deleting Seth Steed Jeffs article because he just seems not to be notable enough. But then again, merging would be better. After all, he aided his big brother while he was a fugitive, so that's why he should be mentioned in this article more specifically. Reverend X (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge since its been two months and no discussion. Seems notable with sources and a fair amount of google hits. Paper45tee (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention of America's Most Wanted

This article needs to add the fact that he was featured on America's Most Wanted. 75.179.153.39 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography section

The biography section seems a bit odd - I was expecting content about where Jeffs was born, went to school, and so on. Instead, it seems like a chronology of his leading his group and then being on the run from the law.

I would appreciate it if someone could fill in some biographical information in this section. --Zippy (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How many wives?

Shouldn't an item about a polygamist say clearly somewhere how many wives he has/had? Estimate? Maximum? Children? --Hugh7 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kissing his 12-year-old bride

Smoking Gun has some very damaging pictures of Jeffs smooching his 12-year-old bride, as well as another who's 14. If you can't call this a cult, there's no such thing. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds1.html 216.231.46.147 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs has supposedly broke god's law

I thought of you adding commets and/or talking about how he broke god's law or something like that in comparison to religious and Divine laws of other religions. And i have been thinking of this sorta stuff for a while, of how he might broke laws or teachings of other religions and such. And so forth. It might be interesting to discuss here. As long as it doesn't lead to a bitter arguement and so. So please reply back and i got inspirement for bringing up this subject in the first place in part as i got to ask jehovah witnesses and mainstream LDS people about thier views on Warren Jeffs, and they both agree on that Warren Jeffs broke god's law. So thank you and good luck to you then. In addition as well please also note that this is not promoting a judgement, but more like giving your personal opion type of thing and so forth. - Jana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.47.102 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?

Warren Jeffs looks like a jew. Does anyone know if he is a jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.214.133 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because hes skinny doesent mean hes jewish... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.187.246 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Elissa Wall

In this article there is a brief reference to Lamont Barlow being Wall's former husband. Does that mean they are now divorced? I have heard rumors of a divorce but was unsure if it was true or not. If they have separated, when did it occur? Would someone please fill me in on the details? I'm confused. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 conviction

"Texas: Polygamist Leader Convicted". New York Times. AP. August 4, 2011. convicted of child sexual assault. The victims were 12 and 15 year-old girls. --Javaweb (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Text accidentally deleted

Thank you,User:Good_Olfactory, for fixing my Warren Jeffs edit. I had accidentally deleted paragraphs of text. --Javaweb (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

FBI's Most Wanted Template?

Is this template for the info box the most appropriate over all? Would a religious leader or cult leader infobox be more appropriate? I'm not sure which templates are available but I don't think he is primarily known for being a fugitive but rather as a sexual predator and/or cult leader. Veriss (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Child molester"

Rather than debating whether to call him a "child molester" or a "child abuser" in the lead, it's probably simpler and more neutral to just state that he was convicted of such-and-such offences in 2011. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia renders the facts but Wikipedia does not render judgement (even if the judgement were accurate). ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with this approach. Veriss (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Real-time prison information

I have removed the "where is he now?" information. The references are to a form which displays current information (Galveston Hospital as far as I can see at present) so this content is not verifiable. We can consider how to provide a link to this form, perhaps as an external link, and of course any notable change in his circumstances will be reported in reliable sources...

As of mid-August 2011 he was housed at the Byrd Unit.^{"Offender Information Search." Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Retrieved on August 13, 2011.} As of late August 2011 he was located at the Powledge Unit.^{"Offender Information Search." Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Retrieved on August 27, 2011.}

--Mirokado (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 update

With everything going on this last month, I'm not sure that the succession box is right. The Possible aren't correct. For example:

Possibly Merril Jessop and Wendell Nielson:

Per McKinley, Carol (March 5, 2011), Inside a troubled fundamentalist Mormon sect, Salon Media Group, Inc., retrieved March 11, 2011, In just a few weeks, Jeffs has gone on a rampage, kicking out at least 40 of his most pious men. One of those faithful is Merril Jessop, a 70-year-old FLDS bishop. Another is Wendell Nielson, the first counselor in the Quorum of the First Presidency. Still another is Willie Jessop, a man who has been described by followers as Jeffs' "bodyguard."

It is no longer "possibly" that they are prophet and Merril Jessop can't no longer be "De Facto" leader. However, dose that mean that they were NEVER prophet? It's not Clear if they were ever "prophet" since there really isn't any WP:V source that say Jessop and Nielsen were positively Prophet, should they be completely remove to make the box like this:

or even

Or since there were wp:v source that prior to 2011 say that it was possible they were "prophet" perhaps it should be suggested that there was a break in W. Jeffs Prophethood by using:

This also effect the Template:MFleaders and any FLDS/Mormon Fundamentalist "Current" leaders sections. Should Merril Jessop be listed as "De Facto" leader anymore since he's gone?

Or it should be left as is since no one is sure?

Please note this only apply to "Prophet of the.." portion of the box, the rest should be left alone. Any suggestions.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The former information was the best information that was available at the time, though I suspected that Jeffs never relinquished his post, but the press had reported on all of these possible successors, I'm sure the official FLDS line is Warren was always the prophet and probably always will be. These positions are obviously anachronistic now since Jeffs has done another "cleansing" of the Church and you can lead something you're no longer a part of, but the information since it was valid at the time is nevertheless still valid, but merely historical now. Perhaps you could put in a disputed / unknown status in between Warren and Warren. Twunchy (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added uncle Lyle, the next-eldest brother after Warren, as his designated acting- (when necessary) prez per recent CBS news article "Jeffs' brother will take over: Ex-FLDS member."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about Merill Jessep-In the new book Answer Them Nothing it said that Warren Jeffs kicked Merill out of the FLDS after the raid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Cult category

The term "cult" carries definite negative conotations in modern usage. Use of the term can be a form of ritual defamation, calculated to demean and discredit groups, perhaps deservedly in cases, perhaps not. Clearly many experts and "laypeople" consider FLDS to be a cult. However, not everyone is in agreement on this. To not acknowledge, within the text of the article, that many consider FLDS to be a cult would be disingenuous. However, to place the [Category:Cult leaders] tag on the article is to render a judgement for the reader that the group is in fact a cult, even though it is a matter upon which reasonable people can disagree (even if less than 20% of the population would disagree). It is also a subtle way of hanging an offensive epithet on the article. A close analogy would be to place the [Category:Queers] tag on articles about gay/lesbian people. Not all gays or lesbians would be offended, some might even describe themselves as queer, though the majority would probably take some offense. That a dictionary definition for "queer" is met is still no justifaction for doing that. [Category:Homosexuals] would be fine. Many FLDS take offense to their religion being branded a cult. Because the term is considered offensive, and because there is not universal agreement that they meet the definition, it is wrong, at least in the context of a NPOV encyclopedia to place the [Category:Cult leaders] tag on this article. Dr U 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My sociology of religion professor would probably used the term, "sect." -Northridge00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the word "cult", by definition, carries a negative connotation. While it is true that the word "cult" as used in popular media has been attached to some well known tragedies (Jonestown, Heaven's Gate), it may not be correct to compare the term "cult" in religious studies, to "queer" in homosexual studies. "Cult" is just a term to describe a group, the negative connotation comes from the individual's experience with the term. Sure, you may ask someone what they think of when you say "cult", and the response may (or may not) be Jonestown, but if you ask those same people if any of the world's major religions were a "cult" at one time or another, they would likely agree. I refer to the wikipedia article Cult where several definitions are present, none seem to be negative to me. Seems to be a case of over political correctness. Trippz 09:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that a large portion of the "homosexual community" has embraced (reclaimed?) the term "queer" and has used it to self-identify. I don't see the same trend in religions—not many groups are embracing and reclaiming the use of the word "cult". I agree that in popular modern usage it carries negative connotations, regardless of the technical definition of the word. It should not be attached to this article if it is a term the members of the organization oppose as a description of their group. That's not "political correctness", it's common sense. –SESmith 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and again I admit that the word "cult" has become negatively associated and sensationalized by media culture. However, I don't think it is correct to redefine the meaning of a word because those people, who dislike the term (perhaps not knowing the actual definition) may disagree with it being applied to them. Sense Wikipedia is designed to broaden our understanding and general knowledge about topics, I cannot see why we should not use a word that even by Wikipedia's own definition(s), has no negative connotation (as far as I can tell). To continue with the previous comparison, it would be like using the word "homosexual" and a person who practices same-sex relationships being offended that they were called "homosexual". The word by itself is designed to categorize behavior, and does not place a positive or negative connotation. It is true that groups who disapprove of homosexuality may use the word "homosexual" negatively, just as the word "cult" may be used negatively by those who do not share the same beliefs as a particular religious group, but it does not change the meaning. The pejorative, if any, is in the context of its use. Additionally, there are many uses of the term "cult" throughout the world that are not generally considered bad by everyone and therefore do not represent a World View, perhaps, "The Cult Of The Virgin" is a good example. Generally the term Destructive_cults (or sometimes Death Cult) is used when describing negative cults. From my own readings on religious studies, the term "cult" is used frequently to describe religious groups without any negative spin placed on its usage. Sometimes "sect" is used, but this apparently may depend on the part of the world the material comes from, and in some cases the terms are interchangeable. Strangely, there are parts of the world where "sect" is considered a pejorative, and other places where it is not, so does this mean we should not use the word "sect" as well? If so, then what word should we use since "cult" and "sect" both may (or may not) offend a particular person? However, personally I would agree that some arguments can be made to distinguish a "sect" from a "cult", but that is another topic. Certainly, I'm not seeking to offend anyone, but at the same time, I cannot change the meaning of a word because they don't like it. So yes, perhaps you can argue that it is "common sense" to believe "cult" means something bad, but I would argue that it seems like over political correctness to say "cult" is a negative term in an "academic sense". Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, designed to advance academic pursuits, I cannot agree that "cult" should be removed. To remain on topic, I think the real question (in regard to this article) is if FLDS fits the definition of a "cult" according to the definition set forth. If so, then I don't see why it should not be used. Feedback appreciated. Trippz 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Society in general—not experts or specialists—ultimately define the meaning of words, and meanings change over time through changes in popular usage. Calling a religion a "cult" would be more akin to calling a homosexual a "faggot". It is, quite simply, no longer a neutral term. That appears to be quite self-evident. Find me a church that self-identifies as a "cult", and maybe your viewpoint might have legs. Not only should POV be avoided, but even the appearance of POV. "Cult" has the appearance of POV, probably to a huge percentage of the population. WP should not use "specialist" terminology. ("Gay" also means happy and carefree, according to my dictionary, but you won't see it used much in that sense anymore because another meaning has become more common.)

Besides, just look at some of the articles that are in Category:Cults right now: Brainwashing, Coercive persuasion, Cult suicide, Personality alteration, Satanic ritual abuse, Spiritual abuse, Stockholm syndrome. Should any religious denomination really be put in same category as these without solid references that it is engaging in what is popularly known as these "cult-like" practices and behaviors? I don't think so. That goes for the FLDS Church as much as any other. Otherwise, we will have to put all Christian denominations in the same cult categories. –SESmith 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was really hoping to avoid a lengthy discussion on this point, but that doesn't seem possible. Yes, you are correct! Word definitions change over time and it would certainly be foolish to argue otherwise, however, you as an individual cannot define a word by yourself, and neither can I. As you said, "society ultimately defines the meaning of words", I agree. That is ultimately the reason for dictionaries and by extension, encyclopedias. They are designed so that we all may have a common point of reference when conversing in dialogue . In this case we are not, as you put it, discussing a "technical" or even "specialist" definition of the word "cult" ...it IS the definition of the word "cult", as cited by various common resources, including Wikipedia. That seems quite self-evident. Find me a definition of the word cult, that implicitly states (without a preceding descriptive word, i.e. "Destructive Cult", "UFO Cult", "Death Cult") that the word "cult" is a pejorative term, and perhaps then YOUR argument might have legs. You are in essence redefining a word (or at the least excluding its usage) because your experience suggests to you that "cult" means something bad. My experience is not the same, nor is it proper for you to claim that "probably a huge percentage of the population" would agree with your viewpoint, particularly since every source readily available does not define a "cult" as ... "a funky, hooded group of really weird scary guys who don't fit in", or some other supposed "popular" definition that you may agree with. In this instance, YOU are actually projecting the POV with your argument that the word "cult" is bad because of your experience with its media associations. However, true journalistic accounts of these incident often include a prefix word when applying the term "cult", but sadly most sensationalized trash news reports do not. Though I have already agreed that the word has become sensationalized by pop culture (notice the root-word, cult?), it doesn't change the meaning. In a related, though perhaps sad example, segments of pop culture have also sensationalized words such as "pimp", but that does not change the meaning of that word. Again, it is the context in which it is used. A young man may call himself a "pimp", believing that this description somehow validates his illegal activities (and probably emboldens his frail ego), but I can assure you that when the judge uses it in the proper context, the true meaning is made all too clear. Perhaps in your immediate circle of people, everyone thinks "cult means bad", or more likely "cult might mean bad", but how can YOU claim the implied definition of a word which is consistently defined otherwise by various reputable and citable sources, particularly when that definition has never changed? Just because someone may be ignorant of a word's meaning ("specialized"? or otherwise) does not mean that their own "personal" definition is correct. In fact, in this case, its not! To apply "personal" definitions to words in Wikipedia implies POV, not the other way around.

On your second point, your argument that "cult" is akin to "faggot" or "gay" is unfounded. "Faggot" and "gay" are, and always have been, epithets. They are metaphorical terms used as a pejorative. "Cult" in the English language is, and always has been, a word to describe an often numerically small religious or philosophical group that is separate, or exists in tension with outsiders. This admittedly abridged definition has existed in English all the way back to the original Latin word "cultus", meaning adoration (or veneration, according to some sources). Since you made a point of it, the "Cult of Dionysus" is a good example of a functioning cult (and some people still practice this form of neo-pagan worship and may in fact refer to themselves as a cult). What about "The Cult of Caesar", who has practitioners even today who place flowers on Caesar's grave in Rome every year, usually on the Ides of March? This cult is often associated with Monarchical, or Imperial beliefs, which itself can be construed as a religious belief system. They are still active today. What about "The Cult of The Goddess", a growing neo-pagan belief system, are they all evil cult worshipers too? There is nothing negative, positive, or POV about the word "cult" when used in proper context. Again, "cult" in our example is more akin to "homosexual" (or perhaps more accurately, a sub-group thereof) not "faggot", this is because "cult" is simply a classification of a group of people and not a metaphorical pejorative term.

This brings me to the assertion which you have twice made that a group MUST self-identify with a term in order for it to be valid and applied to them. I find that to be an extremely odd, but interesting assertion. Why do you believe this way, and what are you basing your assertion on? If only it were true! Classifications are made all the time, by everyone, whether we like them or not. Its true that classifications can be tragically destructive as history has shown all too brutally, but at the same time they can be quite beneficial as well. For some, they help to establish a social (and by extension, personal) identity. Whether we like it or not, each of us categorize, and are categorized even if we don't agree with the category someone may place us into. In fact, categorization is often necessary to aid in understanding, and perhaps sanity. Of course luckily, simply being a member of a classification, or group, does not in itself define an individual, but we are talking group classification for purposes of this topic.

Additionally, an argument can be made that many groups will likely not self-identify as a cult, not necessarily always because of a negative connotation as you suggest, but because the term may suggest a limited scope. Generally, "cult" refers to a small following and most practitioners of any religion, denomination, sect, or yes ... cult, may not wish to be considered somehow inferior in magnitude, numbers, or importance when compared to competing groups. They all want to be the biggest, baddest, most righteous, religious group on the block, and poor little one syllable "cult", just denotes "small following". Even if "cult" is an entirely accurate term for describing a particular group, they may opt for a more progressive word such as "movement", "following", "practitioners", "brotherhood", "society", or the more flamboyant "revival"! My point is, they may (and do) choose a multitude of other terms to describe themselves, and often groups (like people) will identify themselves differently than outsiders may describe them. Can you really suggest otherwise? However, the old saying of "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then ... it's a duck!" still applies, that is, unless you want to redefine "duck" too. If so, I'd like to suggest the term, Web Enhanced Flat Footed Feathered Flying Frisky Waterborne Evolved Archaeopteryx! But if that's too cumbersome, then perhaps just "Quacky Thingy" might work. Of course, as long as it doesn't offend the duck's politically correct sensibilities.

On your final point about Wikipedia's articles in the Category:Cults, I concede that you may have a point in that some negative aspects of cults are linked, but aren't such links required to provide a comprehensive exploration of any topic? Category:Christianity has links to articles about The Devil - that's certainly considered by some to be a negative topic, isn't it? Maybe the Cult category itself needs more links (perhaps like this one, which is being denied), or maybe it requires division, or re-organization. Also, by following the Category:Cults link you can easily find List of groups referred to as cults which has an entirely amusing section entitled "Groups Referred to as 'Cult' in the Media", with citations no-less! According to your "popular" definition of "cult", Wikipedia itself has been defined as a cult! Apparently, we are all members of this horrifying "Wiki Cult"! Oh no! Though I don't remember ever agreeing to be categorized within a "cult", I personally will gladly proclaim my membership and I don't feel insulted even in the slightest. Do you? Why should any group be offended when called a cult? Its just a categorical term. But still, I would like to know where I can get one of those cool Wiki hoods, and while I'm on the topic, can someone tell me how come I haven't been invited to any of the secret mid-summer campfire meetings?!

Finally, it again ultimately really boils down to if Jeffs (as leader) and FLDS do in fact fit the actual (what you are strangely calling "specialized") definition of a cult. As for the other links in the Category:Cults it shouldn't really matter. However, if you wish to continue with the argument that this article should not be linked to Category:Cults because of the other articles in that category, such as Coercive persuasion, that doesn't make much sense because sadly there are ample reports of such things from former members of FLDS as cited in this and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints article. If, for whatever personal reason, you really want to block this article from being a part of Category:Cult, then make an argument that disputes it as meeting the actual definition of the word "cult", not your POV definition. You'll make more headway in your goal than you are by basing your argument on a POV and personal feeling toward the term. However, even if you make such an argument, you really can't change the meaning of a word because you don't like it being applied to a particular group. I'm sorry, but the word "Cult" is not a POV, any more than the word denomination, ecclesia, or any other word describing a religious group is a POV. You have also used somewhat telling language in your response, by indicating that you believe FLDS is a "denomination". Did you misuse the term or do you believe FLDS is, in fact, a denomination? Though this would be an entirely different (all be it, interesting) discussion, is this the real reason that you don't like "cult" being applied in this instance? Respectfully, perhaps you are are using a POV in this belief. "Cults" are not of less value, or in all cases subordinate to any particular denomination or sect, its just a classification. In this regard you may be abusing political correctness and consequently may actually be adding to the ignorance regarding the term, and thereby defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Sorry for the long post, and again I am not seeking to offend you or anyone else, but regarding your viewpoint on this topic, to me you seem clearly wrong and I'd respectfully suggest that you may need to reevaluate your POV to remain consistent with WP guidelines. Thanks for your input and the interesting discussion. Trippz 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-intellectual narrow-mindedness. There is not just one authorized and "approved" definition for "cult." Nor is there only one definition of "denomination". WP does not cater to specialists' terminology, which is clearly what you are trying to apply. –SESmith 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I can easily make the same statement about your viewpoint. I've never indicated that there is only one definition of any word, in fact, I've tried to illustrate the importance of context. I dispute that my use of the word is somehow "specialized", and therefore requires exclusion from use. Wikipedia does not pander to colloquialism either, which is clearly how you are trying to apply the term. Perhaps ultimately a new word may need to find its way into the language (though I'm sure many would disagree), but sadly it has yet to arrive as far as I know. In the meantime, I'd like to know how else somebody would refer to this concept. Trippz 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are? Sign your comments, pls. By the way, it's easier to have a meaningful discussion when you avoid long-winded posts like the one above. Your points could have been reduced to about one sentence per paragraph. With such a long entry, readers lose interest in what you have to say, frankly. –SESmith 05:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to sign. Agreed, already noted the length. However, when did you become the authority on how somebody expresses themselves? I was attempting to address each of the points you previously raised, something which you have yet to do. Be careful ... your Troll ears are starting to show.Trippz 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"when did you become the authority on how somebody expresses themselves?" About half-way through reading your diatribe...booooring... "I was attempting to address each of the points you previously raised, something which you have yet to do." I have yet to address each of the points I have previously raised? OK, that's a new one ... Incidentally, future users will be less put off by you if you avoid accusing them of trying to "block" the way you want something to turn out in WP because of "personal feelings"—better to stick to the topic at hand and avoid trying to psychoanalyze someone over the internet. Anyway, good luck on your mission to convince the other 99.999% of the modern world that "cult" is a NPOV term to use when referring to a belief system (as they say, you're gonna need it). SESmith 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider Warren Jeffs' actions "brainwashing", as would any rational individual, you loony fuck. But hey, if you want to defend the band of child molesters in Utah then hey, feel free. By the way, where are the gold tablets? 68.118.255.104 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster online: "Main Entry: cult

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion "

Not to say that they are the final arbiters of language, but nothing in that definition is inherently NPOV. Three seems to come closest to having negative connotations, although it's hard to argue that most sects that we would call cults are indeed regarded as unorthodox. You can argue about it all you like, but this seems pretty straightforward. Jsnbase 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any group lead by a convicted felon who raped minors, is a 'cult'. No valid religious group would retain such a person as it's leader. If he was removed, it would be fair to state that cult is derogatory. The fact that his followers retain him as a leader against all social norms of behavior, in fact makes it a cult by definition, as those members are serving their leader, and not a religious deity. (John H. - Brighton, MI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

There is already an archive. I will enable automatic archiving. The first run of the bot will archive items older than one year, which is what I would have done manually (doing it automatically is more reliable though.) I will then reduce the time to six months for regular archiving. Please post here if you would prefer otherwise. --Mirokado (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Born in San Francisco

Jeffs is a San Francisco native wanted in Arizona on criminal charges of sexual conduct with a minor...
Source: cbs5.com/this link: http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_129015909.html

This is an old one, unsigned. The link is now dead, here it is from Wayback. I would prefer something a bit more than just "native of" from one news story before updating the article, but thanks for finding this. --Mirokado (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Though I disagree with this man thoroughly I thought I'd clean up the neutrality of the page. I also mentioned his retraction of his claim to prophethood was only heard by is brother Nephi, Jeffs denies the conversation ever happened. I tried to use more neutral language and prevent "poisoning the well" so to speak. However I by no means approves of his crimes or recognize him as a prophet.

For this reason it appears to me Nephi may be attempting to seize power since the church needs a free prophet to perform marraiges so rather then post my speculation i have requested a page for Nephi Jeffs as I believe he will be a man of interest later on. I changed "cult" to "controversial sect" On a seperate note made mention of the practice of inbreeding within his sect to preserve his bloodline which the FLDS church believes they are descendent of Jesus Christ, as this sect is also exclusivly made of descendents of Joseph Smith whom they claim is a blood relative of Jesus of Nazareth. This is sourced in "Under the banner of heaven" and many other books which erroneously claim all mormons believe this when in reality only FLDS holds this doctrine that I know of.

I'd also like to request an update, where is he now? How has his trial been going? Has the church performed any new plural marriages as only HE is allowed to perform marraiges in their denomination. 69.29.97.154 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

= FLDS is not a "controversial sect", bigamy and child rape are part of their religion. Criminal behavior takes them beyond "controversial". 71.138.171.203 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You should register with wikipedia to get a username. I do not think that a separate page is warranted for Nephi Jeffs at this time, but should be made a part of the FLDS article when appropriate. Updates to the article are made by contributors like yourself as they happen and someone gets around to it. Nodekeeper 07:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the word "cult" should be changed to "controversial sect". The word "cult" by definition does not carry a non-neutral meaning. Religious studies, books, classes, articles, etc., use the term "cult" as a matter of course. Even wiki's article has various definitions for "cult", because it is a relatively vague term. However, the use of "controversial sect" seems just as vague and seems to be just a wordy way of saying ... "cult". To not use the term suggested seems to be a case of over political correctness. That's not to say that "controversial sect" is an inaccurate term, but rather just an unnecessary one, when "cult" works just fine. Trippz 09:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

but you are obviously a mormon. 69.232.43.239 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the link for this comment leads to the article {citation 23} at TIME that is pretty questionable itself: "...And while the headlines referred to it as the POLYGAMY TRIAL, that was not the charge either, though attitudes about polygamy are clearly being put to the test." ? Polygamy IS illegal here. And this case is revealing the abuse it enables to occur. It presents itself as fair and balanced in "support of relligion", but actually, mainstream Mormons DON'T belive in polygamy, this is a breakaway group.

Later: "So this was really a case about what happens when the state's interest in protecting children runs up against a church's right to practice its beliefs, however repugnant others may find them." Child abuse should not have the protection of ANYTHING, including religion. It's not an issue of fair and balanced to give a child molestor a chance to justify what they do. It's been very disturbing to hear people of this group slandering a child abuse victim out of 'loyalty to their faith'. I don't think this comment about her pregancy is appropriate here and I haven't been able to find any other corraborating evidence, either because the timeline of events is not appropriate or perhaps other news outlets did not find it germaine to the story. The line and its placement smack of slandering the victim. Van Sice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.68.53 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In reading this article, there are certainly more places of problematic neutrality. A woman who was found by a court of law to have been raped at fourteen is mentioned to be pregnant with another man's baby who she later marries. {Within paragraph 2 of Sex crime allegations...Specifically the sentence: She eventually left her husband and married another man, whose baby she was carrying.[23]}

Firstly, the timeline of this presentation is very confusing: at what time did which part of the events happen? In this context, it is presented as motivation for her leaving.

The 14 year old girl (Elissa Wall) was married to her first cousin for 3 years before meeting Lamont Barlow. She got pregnant while still married to her cousin, but Warren "released" them. She and Lamont got married shortly before the birth of their second child. Being pregnant with her first child was one of her motivations for leaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(reordered posts chronologically, indentation for clarity-I-hope, outdents for necromancy, no change to the posted text) --Mirokado (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Biography Section

The Biography section is total fucking garbage and would genuinely benefit from a clean up or perhaps a complete redo. (98.157.193.78 (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

It seems fairly complete and accurate; could you elaborate on what you think is wrong with it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

People convicted of incest Category

Should Jeffs still be in the "People convicted of incest" Category. While I know he was convicted, wasn't his conviction overturned? Therefore that mean the court says he wasn't conviction at all due to some reason. It wasn't that his penalty was overturn, his conviction entirely was overturned.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has said anything, I'm going to remove this page from the Category.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)