| 'Amen' debated in Warren Jeffs case | |
|
By Patrice St. Germain The Spectrum | |
HURRICANE - Attorneys for Warren Steed Jeffs filed a memorandum Tuesday stating that uttering "amen" does not affirm or adopt a statement. Walter Bugden, Jeffs' attorney, filed the memorandum in response to a request by Judge James L. Shumate during an Aug. 20 motion hearing. Bugden said in the motion that Jeffs' utterance of "amen" to an antigovernment statement bears no logical relationship to the crime charged, which is rape as an accomplice, for Jeffs' alleged role in arranging a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin. The memorandum also states that the utterance of "amen" at a church service is often more of a reflex or a courtesy rather than a conscious adoption of the speaker's statements. Michael Popich, of Westminster College in Salt Lake City who is a teacher of comparative theology, said for the primary religions, "amen" is an endorsement of beliefs. Popich said amen with the translation from Hebrew is "so be it." Used in the context at issue in Jeffs' court case - during a priesthood meeting - Popich said those present are accepting or endorsing the statement by saying "amen." "In that context, it's very definitely endorsement," Popich said. During the Aug. 20 hearing in 5th District Court, former Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member Richard Holm spoke about a priesthood meeting held in April 2002 where Sam Barlow spoke about marriages of underage girls and that changes in the law were attempts by the legislatures of both states to tie the hands of the prophet and impede on the Lord's work. Following the speech by Barlow, members of the FLDS Church present answered "amen." Popich said "amen" is used by the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Webster's Dictionary also describes the meaning of "amen" as affirming or ratifying. While Bugden's motion states that all evidence related to Jeffs' purported agreement with a speaker's antigovernment statements are irrelevant, prejudicial and hearsay, the state's motion states that Barlow's statements are admissible in court and not hearsay because the statement shows that Jeffs had knowledge and intent. In the memorandum, the state argues that following Barlow's report, Jeffs did not renounce or disavow the statements in any way and because Barlow was authorized by Jeffs, Barlow's statements constituted admission by a party-opponent and are admissible. Telephone calls to Bugden and to Senior Deputy County Attorney Brian Filter were not returned. The complete text of both memorandums may be found on the Internet at http://www.utcourts.gov/media/hpcases/. | |
|
TheSpectrum.com Originally published August 30, 2007 | |
| Back | |
| For more information email: | |
