First of all I dont understand the "everybody" stuff.....so far I have seen the term "us" and "everybody" used only by two people.....
anyhow, I just really dont care for the pack mentality or for thinking as a "group" so I am probably not ever going to get the whole "us" and "everybody" thing.
I do think it is interesting that when the raid first happened the public polls supported the raid and now the public majority disapproves of it.
Has Glow convinced you that there were no underage marriages or pregnancies on the compound and that there was no need for CPS to intervene?
I hope I havent convinced anybody of there being no need for CPS to "intervene" - since I never said that.
Has Glow convinced you that because a young girl's body changes at puberty she is emotionally and physically ready to marry and give birth?
Never said this either.
Has Glow convinced you that the FLDS live just like we all did 100 years ago? What about forced marriages? Did that happen 100 years ago? Did reassigning wives and children to different men happen 100 years ago in this country?
As to the reassigning of the wives and children I dont know enough about why they do it to condemn it. On the surface, it sounds like Warren Jeff's has been using this as a power tool. I wonder though, if the practice was in place before him and if so, why.
I know the FLDS try (in their opinion) to follow the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Bible there was an arrangement in the nation of Israel for brother - in -law marriage. If a man died, his brother or other close male relative would take the widow and children into his own family thereby preserving the dead mans name by providing offspring. This accomplished two things, it provided financial security and protection for the widow and children and it kept the names of the various tribal lines names going down into future generations.
As for multiple wives that comes from the same portion of scripture and a man was only allowed to have as many as he could support. So when a man had many wives, that was saying something about him socially. Today men can by impressive cars and a Rolex and it can all be on a credit card and a woman might not know

back then, a man had to earn his way and only then was the "status" symbol afforded to him.
So it would be easy to see how Jeff's saw a way to manipulate this whole arrangement to "reward" some men and "penalize" others. That is of course corrupt and happens all the time, especially in religion and politics.
In America right now over half of all marriages end in divorce. Many of those marriages produced children. Most of those men and women will remarry between one and three more times. We euphemistically call this a "blended family", but it is similar in function to the reassigning, we just dont see it that way because its got that really fun word "choice" plastered over it.
I think that in 500 years when anthropologists study our current culture, they will find the practice of how we assigned and reassigned our mates and children to be peculiar also.
Should we step aside and let FLDS continue these practices? If not, what is the best way to handle this legally?
This is a really great question and I wish you, or someone like you, had asked it before the travesty of that raid occurred.
Should a religion be allowed to break the laws of the land?
It will be interesting to see what responses you get to this since some of the best minds of history have wrestled with the same question. My personal thought is that whatever a person decides is going to reign supreme, that IS their God. That's what being supreme means.