I just read a Salt Lake Tribune article about the moral departure of Willie (R.) Jessop from Warren Jeffs. What does this mean? Jessop was quoted as saying, "I came to the point where Mr. Jeffs’ conduct was indefensible and have chosen not to defend it publicly or privately." Jessop said also, " . . . but what came to light in Texas is morally indefensible.” What does he mean? Does Texas law enforcement have critical information about Jeffs that the rest of us have not yet seen? What is in the "millions" of pages of discovery documents Texas seized? Did Jeffs confess to actually having sex with 12-year-olds? Does someone have information about sex with 12-year-olds which corroborates the discovery documents? Have the general members of the FLDS communities been shielded from access to such information? Are they vouching for Jeffs only because they have been kept oblivious of the truth?
So many questions !!!
I say Jeffs (like all Americans) has a constitutional right to a fair trial (a thing which the other Texas defendants likely did not get). It was long claimed that Jeffs' twelve-year-old "marriages" went unconsummated until the girls were older - which begs for the production of more evidence. Nevertheless, I also applaud Jessop's courage in speaking what he apparently believes to be the truth in what some are claiming is an atmosphere of secrecy and fear. This is a delicate situation, because one would not want to see a fair trial be derailed because of revelations made by a former defense-team-member.
I don't envy the Commerce Division (or the court) who may soon be tasked with the job of deciding who is the rightful holder of the position of Corporation of the President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Somehow it seems that it should no more choose the religious leader of the church than Diseased Pousse Lintbag should have re-written the Trust's religious intent language.
It makes me want the truth to be made clear very soon, so that the good people of the FLDS congregations can "choose the right" and have their Trust and normal lives restored. After all, is that not what they want? Is that not what the State always wanted?
I also echo the sentiments of Mary Bachelor who, in June of 2008, wrote this post. If it is demonstrated that Jeffs is truly guilty of the (I say - capital) offenses alleged, will the community eventually conclude that Jeffs' leadership was fraudulent and morally bankrupt from the start, and that many families should not have been forcibly dismantled? What does all this mean?
