My Life in a Polygamist Compound

Slate ^ | 04/16/08 | Torie Bosch

[DFG]

When Texas authorities seized 416 children in a raid on a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Americans quickly learned that the religious group encourages polygamy and the marriage of young girls to older men. Escape, a memoir published last fall, offers a more detailed portrait of life with the FLDS. In the book, Carolyn Jessop, a sixth-generation polygamist describes her life as the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who ran the recently raided Texas compound. Carolyn left Merril in 2003, before he moved to Texas, but her memoir sheds light on the man and on the beliefs and practices common within the insular community. Below, Slate flags Carolyn's most intriguing, strange, and heartbreaking allegations.

[ansel12]

“It was a bogus argument on Ansel’s part.”

---

whoa, I didn’t see that since you didn’t ping me.
What was a bogus argument by ansel12?

[GourmetDan]

"This case does involve adult males who should be ashamed for what they are doing to very young girls, as opposed to young men doing what young men and young girl might do together."

No, I think you (and many others) are making an assumption that is invalid. Historically, adult males have married young women for centuries. There is nothing to be 'ashamed' about. You are assuming forced sex on pre-pubescent girls and that does not appear to be the case. These are young women, as the example of the 12-year old woman that I gave, not 'girls'. It is only because people are making an assumption about physical maturity and insisting that technical legal definitions be applied that there is even an argument. Not *every* 12-year old girl is being 'married'.

The FLDS group says they don't marry them until puberty. If you don't want to believe that, then call them liars, but what I see people doing is 'implying' pre-pubescent rape simply based on age and their own personal opinions. In the span of history, marrying young women to older men wouldn't even merit a second glance. It has been practiced as long as their have been humans. It is only in this politically-correct environment against a minority population (e.g., try it against the homosexuals, for instance.) that the charge of 'criminality' can be leveled.

"I have to say that I see the polygamist males who abuse these young women to be operating on a criminal level far above anything the young men in your example would be breaking."

You assume 'abuse' and it is your opinion that minors practicing the same behavior is 'less criminal'. I do not assume abuse and it is my opinion that minors practicing the same behavior is more criminal. This is why I say it is a matter of opinion rather than any real abuse or criminality.

People are being conditioned to accept 'guilty until proven innocent' when the exact opposite is our legal foundation.

Or was. There is a reason these psyops are being perpetrated here and now. Society is being prepped for more 'witch hunts' and they will be totally surprised when it is applied to them.

[ansel12]

“These girls aren’t being kidnapped and forced into a lifestyle foreign to them by anyone except by the state of TX.”

---

Even worse, they are being bred like farm animals to serve as the collateral of the adults, especially the male leaders that trade in the currency of the female children as sex partners and more breeding stock to continue the infinite cycle

The men keep choosing additional “wives” including under aged girls, for decades, that takes a lot of female children.

[GourmetDan]

"whoa, I didn’t see that since you didn’t ping me. What was a bogus argument by ansel12?"

Whoa dude. I was responding to DoughtyOne's post and was trying to read his mind about what he meant when he said that you 'addressed what could be a real issue'. That almost certainly has nothing to do with what you meant when you wrote it and so I didn't ping you.

Click on the 'To xxx' link at the bottom of each post to follow the thread backward and see where DoughtyOne thought you 'addressed what could be a real issue'.

[GourmetDan]

"Even worse, they are being bred like farm animals to serve as the collateral of the adults, especially the male leaders that trade in the currency of the female children as sex partners and more breeding stock to continue the infinite cycle"

It is your opinion that this is worse. For the most part, they don't seem to have a problem with it and seem quite content to live with their families.

Is a human life worth less because it practices a lifestyle that you disagree with and mischaracterize?

That is the essence of your argument and it is bogus.

[Politicalmom]

Sure. Leaving little girls to be raped and become sex slaves is “much less destructive”.

I bet the little girls don’t think so.

[GourmetDan]

"Sure. Leaving little girls to be raped and become sex slaves is “much less destructive”. I bet the little girls don’t think so."

Maybe someone can see the 'guilty until proven innocent' emoti-frenzy in this comment.

There are simply too many women and too few men for them to be 'sex slaves' except in your mind. The ratio would have to be exactly the opposite from what we observe for your irrational conclusion to even be possible.

[DoughtyOne]

Academically, I think you make some valid points. I can only express my opinion on them, and you can stick to your guns as you see fit.

Number one, I don’t choose to participate in polygamy. If we’re talking about adults and social services are not being abused, and the children are brought up recognizing their parents and are nurtured, I’m not inclined to rail against it.

That’s as far as it goes.

I cannot sign on to young women who have just achieved adolescence, being the unwilling wives of older men.

There are a number of reasons why I can not go this route, the first among them the idea that adults would be free to have sex with underage children.

Let’s face it, when we look back historically, the broad populace did not have access to education and advancement. Life spans were short and the species doing what it must to propigate itself, younger kids were introduced into the adult setting much earlier. That’s not the case today.

In today’s environment, people live two and three times as long as they used to. Going through the education process takes until around 17 years of age. If college is desired, you’re looking at longer before young men and women settle down and know who they are and what they want. And at that time they ready to make intelligent choices. Those don’t always play out, but at least they have a fighting chance. At least they get to eighteen before they make their choies. And they do get choices.

I can’t sign on to adult childhood relations. It’s simply not fair to young men and women in this day and age when there is so much that they need to equip themselves with in this day and age.

Thanks for the comments Dan. While I don’t agree with you, I do see where you are coming from.

[ansel12]

“Maybe someone can see the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ emoti-frenzy in this comment.”

---

To clear up the confusion, we understand that you don’t agree with the polygamy laws but how young of girls should we let become a “wife” inside the cult?

[longtermmemmory]

does anyone know what happened to the custody case?

did the judge comment on the apparent hoax nature of the initial report now that the caller turned out to be a person in denver with a history of false reports?

[Politicalmom]

If a man can rape a female at will, keep her prisoner, have total control of her life AND her children’s lives, then that’s a slave.

Maybe you think that’s fine. They are just females. Who cares.

[ansel12]

“No, I think you (and many others) are making an assumption that is invalid. Historically, adult males have married young women for centuries. There is nothing to be ‘ashamed’ about. You are assuming forced sex on pre-pubescent girls and that does not appear to be the case. These are young women, as the example of the 12-year old woman that I gave, not ‘girls’. It is only because people are making an assumption about physical maturity and insisting that technical legal definitions be applied that there is even an argument. Not *every* 12-year old girl is being ‘married’.

The FLDS group says they don’t marry them until puberty. If you don’t want to believe that, then call them liars, but what I see people doing is ‘implying’ pre-pubescent rape simply based on age and their own personal opinions. In the span of history, marrying young women to older men wouldn’t even merit a second glance. It has been practiced as long as their have been humans. It is only in this politically-correct environment against a minority population (e.g., try it against the homosexuals, for instance.) that the charge of ‘criminality’ can be leveled.”

---

We can all name some individual examples, but will you post some numbers that show the use of young girls was somewhat normal in the history of the United States?

[GourmetDan]

"Thanks for the comments Dan. While I don’t agree with you, I do see where you are coming from."

The only place I saw where you didn't agree is that you thought that sex between minors was less criminal than older men marrying young women and I thought sex between minors was more criminal. But I understand that you want to distance yourself.

Here is the ultimate goal of the nanny-state. From the book, 'Escape, Carolyn Jessop's memoir'.

Page 404: Jessop heard "rumors that children were being taken from their mothers and sent to the FLDS compound in Texas. … We heard they were being sent away to be raised the way Warren wanted them to be raised."

This is the ultimate sin to modern society and must be destroyed at all costs. A patriarchial model where the husband/male leader sets the rules. To reach this goal, politically-unpopular male-led societies must be shown to be criminal and 'mean'.

In it's place, a matriarchial society where the opinion of women reigns supreme in all matters behavioral and political. Anyone who disagrees with feminine opinion is demonized. The woman on the beast comes swiftly.

[Colofornian]

Me: Do you still stand by this statement?

You: Absolutely, since no one has provided scripture that calls polygamy a sin…. Personally, I WONT call polygamy a sin because I can not find a single statement in the Bible that does so.

You (in earlier post, commenting on the interpretation of Deut. 17:17): What it says is that the King shall not have a LOT of wives. No number of wives is given.

Does everybody see the same inconsistency I see? First, taxcontrol makes an absolute statement that there is no such statement in the Bible that polygamy is sinful. Then, when confronted with such a statement, he tries to mitigate its impact by saying that only “Lots of wives” polygamy accumulation is against God’s wishes. (IOW, only one form of polygamy is against God’s wishes). Then, thirdly he goes back to his absolute statement again—that all forms of polygamy are acceptable to God.

You have yet to provide a scripture that calls polygamy a sin.

ALL: When you have somebody who won’t deal with the text in an intellectually honest manner, that person is either being obtuse or deceitful.

Qualify all you want about Deut 17:17, but to totally ignore it is distasteful. You can’t in one post concede that polygamy with many wives leads a person’s heart astray from God, and then sandwiched around that post issue statements that polygamy—whether with two wives or with many—is as you say, A-OK with God.

What you have provided is your interpretation of a text that you CHOOSE to take to the ABSOLUTE and EXCLUSIVE meaning not found in the original scripture.

Listen, let’s cut out the spin here: If we had started a conversation on a level playing field with no knowledge of previous statements by each other on polygamy, I’m sure you would give qualified statements on polygamy based on the OT, and so would I. (For example, based upon your previous responses, you might say that all polygamy is “fine” except for that which involves “lots of wives.” That’s a qualified answer...But most of the time you’re not giving qualified statements—you are giving absolute ones). As for me, I’m not the one who has to “overwhelm” every part of your statement to prove it false. As James says if you break one part of the law, you are guilty of all of it (James 2). If 99.9% of your balloon holding the helium is great, but the helium is leaking from a .1% hole pricked in it by me, your balloon is in trouble. No matter how you continue to try to prop it up by attacking my pin & accuse me of pretending that I’ve boasted about some absolutely overwhelming weapon, your accusations don’t mean anything. Your illusion of an absolutely perfectly symmetrical & safe balloon has just been pricked. If you know anything about logic, if somebody makes an absolute statement that has 50 working parts to it, I don’t have to prove that all 50 parts are wrong to discredit the statement. One will do just fine.

By your reasoning, drinking any form of alcohol is banned by the bible because of the many references to drunkenness.

So now we’re on to alcohol, eh? What? Because you won’t deal with the text, I now have to write a dissertation on when and where alcohol is acceptable? (Anything to avoid the implications of Deut. 17:17). Deal with the text.

But, since you have raised the parallel of alcohol, let’s just say you made the statement: Personally, I WONT call drinking alcohol a sin because I can not find a single statement in the Bible that does so.

What if I then cited a passage to you that says: He must not take many drinks, or his heart will be led astray.

You then come back & tell me, “See, drinking’s not sin—as long as you don’t drink all that many.” I then say: “So, then, you agree that drinking CAN be a sin…whenever you don't drink moderately.” You then come back & say: “Nope, I stick to my ground. Drinking is NEVER sinful because you can’t show me any passage that says it is.”

So instead of the discussion focusing on what “many” means, you retreat into your absolutist shell.

the scripture [Deut. 17:17] goes on to say…"...neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." By your interpretation, this would mean that the King must be a pauper. Yet we know God granted to Solomon great wealth. Was it a sin for God to do so?

You are so funny! Is everything 100% or 0% to you? How is it in a previous post that you sought to lecture me on the definition of “many” as it pertains to wives, but now you yourself cannot distinguish between the words “greatly multiply” and being a “pauper?” What? You don’t believe there’s a middle ground between “greatly multiply” and being a “pauper?” Is everything “extreme” to you?

What does Solomon himself say on this? give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. (Prov. 30:8) Hmm. That’s sounds pretty “lower class” to me (daily bread subsistence level).

Even then, in back to Dt. 17:17, I suppose somebody could “fudge” a bit if they weren’t aware of Prov. 30:8, and conclude, “Well, you know, Dt. 17:17 doesn’t say we can’t 'multiply…silver and gold,' for certainly, good stewards are called in the NT to multiply their investments. However, Dt. 17:17’s warning of not 'GREATLY' multiplying silver & gold is a sound warning."

(I mean really, Taxcontrol, are you trying to pawn off on us your ludicrous suggestion that if a person or king doesn’t “greatly” multiply silver & gold, ‘pauperdom’ is around the corner? May I suggest you stay away from teaching any financial courses?)

[SeaHawkFan]

This is the most evil cult spawned on USA soil and needs to be dissolved and all the perpetrators arrested and charged with slave trafficing of the worst kind.

As evil as it is, it is no Jims Jones.

[SkyPilot]

No, I think you (and many others) are making an assumption that is invalid. Historically, adult males have married young women for centuries. There is nothing to be 'ashamed' about.

Yes there is. If they are already married, then even looking at a woman with lust in their hearts is against the teachings of Christ.

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5:28

The Mormons claim to be followers of Christ, yes?

Or did the "prophet" Joseph Smith "restore" what Christ said?

All of the women in this picture were "wives" to this FLDS man. All of them were sexually active with him and produced children.

So, did he violate Christ's teaching, or not?

[mnehring]

The US Constitution specifically authorizes States to establish their own criminal code and standards, so let’s take a look at the law in Texas. (sorry about the language but directly quoting the law here) Texas Penal Code: Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not his spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, he: (1) engages in sexual contact with the child; or (2) exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor: (1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex; and (2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense. (c) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree. Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally or knowingly: (A) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent; (B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or (C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or (2) intentionally or knowingly: (A) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of a child by any means; (B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor; (C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; (D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or (E) [added 9/1/97] causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor. (b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: (1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence; (2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat; (3) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist; (4) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it; (5) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring; (6) the actor has intentionally impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the other person’s conduct by administering any substance without the other person’s knowledge; (7) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat; (8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate; (9) [amended 9/1/97] the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the actor; or (10) [added 9/1/95] the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser. (c) In this section: (1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor. (2) [amended 9/1/95] “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another. (3) [added 9/1/97] “Health care services provider” means: (A) a physician licensed under the Medical Practice Act (Article 4495b, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); (B) a chiropractor licensed under Chapter 94, Acts of the 51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1949 (Article 4512b, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); (C) a licensed vocational nurse licensed under Chapter 118, Acts of the 52nd Legislature, 1951 (Article 4528c, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); (D) a physical therapist licensed under Chapter 836, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971 (Article 4512e, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); (E) a physician assistant licensed under the Physician Assistant Licensing Act (Article 4495b-1, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); or (F) a registered nurse or an advanced practice nurse licensed under Chapter 7, Title 71, Revised Statutes. (d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the conduct consisted of medical care for the child and did not include any contact between the anus or sexual organ of the child and the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of the actor or a third party. (e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor was not more than three years older than the victim, and the victim was a child of 14 years of age or older. (f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Before 9/1/97 (b)(9) provided: (9) [added 9/1/95] the actor is a mental health services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the actor; or Before 9/1/95 (c)(2) provided: (c)(2) “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another, except that persons married to each other are not treated as spouses if they do not reside together or if there is an action pending between them for dissolution of the marriage or for separate maintenance. Sec. 22.021. AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense: (1) if the person: (A) intentionally or knowingly: (i) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent; (ii) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or (iii) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or (B) intentionally or knowingly: (i) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of a child by any means; (ii) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor; (iii) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; (iv) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or (v) [added 9/1/97] causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; and (2) if: (A) the person: (i) causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause the death of the victim or another person in the course of the same criminal episode; (ii) by acts or words places the victim in fear that death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping will be imminently inflicted on any person; (iii) by acts or words occurring in the presence of the victim threatens to cause the death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping of any person; (iv) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon in the course of the same criminal episode; or (v) acts in concert with another who engages in conduct described by Subdivision (1) directed toward the same victim and occurring during the course of the same criminal episode; (B) the victim is younger than 14 years of age; or (C) [added 9/1/95] the victim is 65 years of age or older. (b) In this section, “child” has the meaning assigned that term by Section 22.011(c). (c) An aggravated sexual assault under this section is without the consent of the other person if the aggravated sexual assault occurs under the same circumstances listed in Section 22.011(b). (d) The defense provided by Section 22.011(d) applies to this section. (e) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. Sec. 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual: (1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or (3) bodily injury. (b) An omission that causes a condition described by Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if: (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual. (c) In this section: (1) “Child” means a person 14 years of age or younger. (2) “Elderly individual” means a person 65 years of age or older. (3) “Disabled individual” means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself. (d) The actor has assumed care, custody, or control if he has by act, words, or course of conduct acted so as to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he has accepted responsibility for protection, food, shelter, and medical care for a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual. (e) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a felony of the second degree. (f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a state jail felony. (g) An offense under Subsection (a) when the person acts with criminal negligence shall be a state jail felony. (h) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another section of this code may be prosecuted under either or both sections. Section 3.04 does not apply to criminal episodes prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code. If a criminal episode is prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code and sentences are assessed for convictions under both sections, the sentences shall run concurrently. (i) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) that before the offense the actor: (1) notified in person the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d); and (2) notified in writing the parents or person other than himself acting in loco parentis to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d); or (3) [amended 9/1/95] notified in writing the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he would no longer provide any of the care set forth in Subsection (d). (j) Written notification under Subsection (i)(2) or (i)(3) is not effective unless it contains the name and address of the actor, the name and address of the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual, the type of care provided by the actor, and the date the care was discontinued. (k)(1) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the act or omission consisted of: (A) reasonable medical care occurring under the direction of or by a licensed physician; or (B) emergency medical care administered in good faith and with reasonable care by a person not licensed in the healing arts. (2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the act or omission was based on treatment in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized religious method of healing with a generally accepted record of efficacy. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a person charged with an act of [or?] omission under this section causing to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) that: (A) there is no evidence that, on the date prior to the offense charged, the defendant was aware of an incident of injury to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual and failed to report the incident; and (B) the person: (i) was a victim of family violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.01, Family Code, committed by a person who is also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual under this section or any other section of this title; (ii) did not cause a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3); and (iii) did not reasonably believe at the time of the omission that an effort to prevent the person also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual from committing the offense would have an effect. Before 9/1/95 (i)(3) provided: (i)(3) notified in writing the Texas Department of Human Services that he would no longer provide any of the care set forth in Subsection (d).

[Tammy8]

I have had some questions too...but questions are not welcome on most of the threads about this issue. If it is true that older men are having sex with underage girls, of course that needs to be prosecuted. Maybe a raid is the only way to accomplish this- I don’t know. I do have questions, I think we should all have questions. I have also learned to not believe everything or most things the media says- especially when things first happen.

[GourmetDan]

"I cannot sign on to young women who have just achieved adolescence, being the unwilling wives of older men."

I think you are assuming 'unwilling'. If they have been raised in this culture, they probably are not 'unwilling'. It is part of their life.

That's not to say that there are not exceptions, but I think everyone is assuming that 'unwilling' is overwhelmingly the case when it appears to be exactly the opposite. The objections should therefore, disappear.

"At least they get to eighteen before they make their choies. And they do get choices."

Is it 'better' to allow young people to make bad choices that lead to so much heartache and abuse itself?

I would bet that the number of young girls who are truly raped by Mom's boyfriend because she ran Dad off after 'deciding' that she had made a 'mistake' is off the charts compared to anything going on in FLDS. Shouldn't we be calling the govt in to raid every home where Mom is living with an unrelated male where young girls are living since that is where the real abuse is occurring?

Isn't this the scenario that most people have in mind, but are misapplying to FLDS simply because that is what they know and they think FLDS must behave the same way?

"I can’t sign on to adult childhood relations. It’s simply not fair to young men and women in this day and age when there is so much that they need to equip themselves with in this day and age."

What not fair is to allow young men and women to make their own decisions when 'there is so much that they need to equip themselves with in this day and age'. This is exactly why divorce, abortion, STD's, homosexuality, pedophilia and the like are rampant. People who are ill-equipped are darned sure making exactly those decisions every day because of logic just like that. Many more multitudes of adult women and young girls are suffering far more from this mindset than anyone in an FLDS compound.

And that's what all these good people want to 'expose' the FLDS to?