I again do not get into the details of the religious discussion. Based on what others have posted here, the FLDS at the compound was actually a much more radical sect than what the FLDS was in the past. First, I have no independent proof of that, just what I read here. Second, being less of a cult is not a defense of the cult. But if the FLDS under it’s current leader is distinguishable from the FLDS of 30 years ago, it seems logical it would be distinguishable from the LDS church of the late 1800s.
To all: I’m trying to stop posting to the FLDS threads, so if I don’t respond it’s not because I am ignoring you personally, it’s because I’m ignoring you as a group :-)