God’s chosen people” (p. 14 see also F. Jessop,
2009, p. 16 Wall, 2009, p. 153).
Nonetheless, authors reevaluated their families
after glimpses of the outside world. Mackert
imagined his father’s detachment in comparison
to the affectionate fictional fathers on television:
“If this was the norm, why was it that my own
father hardly even acknowledged my existence
unless I was in some sort of trouble?” (2008, p.
163). Flora Jessop saw a family camping and
prayed that they would adopt her: “I wanted so
desperately to see what it was like to have a real
family, a family with one dad and one mom. A
family who loved each other, who were nice to
each other” (2009, p. 94). Likewise, Scheeres
claimed her parents were abusive to the extent
that she viewed fictional families as more
authentic than her own:
When the Brady kids got in trouble,
their parents didn’t hit them or tell them
they were counting the days until they
moved out. They got grounded, not
whupped. They got talked to, not
threatened. There were no stomach-
churning wait-until-your-father-gets-
home pronouncements....
...In our minds, they were the real family
and we were the fakes. (Scheeres, 2005,
p. 266 italics in original)
Scheeres presented her parents’ abusive actions
as abnormal given her social environment.
Whether authors understood their parents’
actions as normal based on their standards of
evaluation related to their emotional
dispositions. For example, Scheeres’s and
Beck’s accounts were of parents who were
abusive. Yet, Scheeres (2005) wrote of a
standard of evaluation that denoted that her
parents’ abusive behaviors stemmed from an
abnormal lack of love. Whereas Beck (2005)
wrote of love for her father because her standard
situated him within social conditions that limited
and normalized his actions (which she
characterized as heinous).
Indeed, many authors represented that abuse and
neglect were normal within their religious
communities. For instance, Carolyn Jessop
explained that she did not inform her father that
her mother beat her and her siblings because “It
wasn’t considered abuse it was considered good
parenting” (2008, p. 13). Even
her use of the word abuse reflected how her
standard of evaluation transformed after she left
the FLDS. Similarly, Flora Jessop attested that,
in FLDS families, “terrible violence and chaos”
was commonplace (2009, p. 21). She
emphasized that she sensed that her father
sexually assaulting her was wrong, but not
abnormal. Elissa Wall explained that life in the
FLDS “was the only thing I knew and the only
way I could imagine living” (2009, front matter
[“The Prophet’s Will”]).
Although families from different religious
communities preformed their roles in relation to
different social norms, doctrines, and social
constraints, all religious organizations in the
study (with the possible exception of female-led
CUT) either adhered to traditional gender roles
or were moderately to extremely misogynistic.
FLDS families, for instance, had one father and
one or more mothers. FLDS mothers interacted
hierarchically, with the priesthood head (father)
as the family authority. This hierarchy meant
some mothers witnessed their children’s abuse
or discipline at the hands of their sister-wives
and husbands. Brent Jeffs, for example, stated
that his mother used “time-outs and other
nonphysical forms of discipline,” but that he and
his siblings experienced harsh discipline from
her sister-wives (2009, p. 30).
Most authors understood these social conditions
and sympathized with their parents, whom they
represented as nonunitary subjects. Authors
formed complex understandings of how their
parents “did family” and “did religion,” which
demonstrated their love, despite any parental
shortcomings.
Nonunitary Subjectivity and Parental
Action
Lalich detailed how individuals respond to the
social structure and interpersonal relationships in
“cults.” In Bounded Choice, she explained that
individuals commit acts that outsiders would
consider crazy (such as mass suicide and
murder) because the acts are “consistent with an
ideology or belief system that they trust
represents their highest aspirations” (2004, p. 2).
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 23
2009, p. 16 Wall, 2009, p. 153).
Nonetheless, authors reevaluated their families
after glimpses of the outside world. Mackert
imagined his father’s detachment in comparison
to the affectionate fictional fathers on television:
“If this was the norm, why was it that my own
father hardly even acknowledged my existence
unless I was in some sort of trouble?” (2008, p.
163). Flora Jessop saw a family camping and
prayed that they would adopt her: “I wanted so
desperately to see what it was like to have a real
family, a family with one dad and one mom. A
family who loved each other, who were nice to
each other” (2009, p. 94). Likewise, Scheeres
claimed her parents were abusive to the extent
that she viewed fictional families as more
authentic than her own:
When the Brady kids got in trouble,
their parents didn’t hit them or tell them
they were counting the days until they
moved out. They got grounded, not
whupped. They got talked to, not
threatened. There were no stomach-
churning wait-until-your-father-gets-
home pronouncements....
...In our minds, they were the real family
and we were the fakes. (Scheeres, 2005,
p. 266 italics in original)
Scheeres presented her parents’ abusive actions
as abnormal given her social environment.
Whether authors understood their parents’
actions as normal based on their standards of
evaluation related to their emotional
dispositions. For example, Scheeres’s and
Beck’s accounts were of parents who were
abusive. Yet, Scheeres (2005) wrote of a
standard of evaluation that denoted that her
parents’ abusive behaviors stemmed from an
abnormal lack of love. Whereas Beck (2005)
wrote of love for her father because her standard
situated him within social conditions that limited
and normalized his actions (which she
characterized as heinous).
Indeed, many authors represented that abuse and
neglect were normal within their religious
communities. For instance, Carolyn Jessop
explained that she did not inform her father that
her mother beat her and her siblings because “It
wasn’t considered abuse it was considered good
parenting” (2008, p. 13). Even
her use of the word abuse reflected how her
standard of evaluation transformed after she left
the FLDS. Similarly, Flora Jessop attested that,
in FLDS families, “terrible violence and chaos”
was commonplace (2009, p. 21). She
emphasized that she sensed that her father
sexually assaulting her was wrong, but not
abnormal. Elissa Wall explained that life in the
FLDS “was the only thing I knew and the only
way I could imagine living” (2009, front matter
[“The Prophet’s Will”]).
Although families from different religious
communities preformed their roles in relation to
different social norms, doctrines, and social
constraints, all religious organizations in the
study (with the possible exception of female-led
CUT) either adhered to traditional gender roles
or were moderately to extremely misogynistic.
FLDS families, for instance, had one father and
one or more mothers. FLDS mothers interacted
hierarchically, with the priesthood head (father)
as the family authority. This hierarchy meant
some mothers witnessed their children’s abuse
or discipline at the hands of their sister-wives
and husbands. Brent Jeffs, for example, stated
that his mother used “time-outs and other
nonphysical forms of discipline,” but that he and
his siblings experienced harsh discipline from
her sister-wives (2009, p. 30).
Most authors understood these social conditions
and sympathized with their parents, whom they
represented as nonunitary subjects. Authors
formed complex understandings of how their
parents “did family” and “did religion,” which
demonstrated their love, despite any parental
shortcomings.
Nonunitary Subjectivity and Parental
Action
Lalich detailed how individuals respond to the
social structure and interpersonal relationships in
“cults.” In Bounded Choice, she explained that
individuals commit acts that outsiders would
consider crazy (such as mass suicide and
murder) because the acts are “consistent with an
ideology or belief system that they trust
represents their highest aspirations” (2004, p. 2).
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 23
