Noncompliant actions within the FLDS were
gendered. In the FLDS, mothers could not
comply in a similar manner to Wall’s mother,
but FLDS expectations for husbands to hold
power over their wives created different
circumstances for men. Thus, a wife’s
consultation with church officials was sufficient
evidence that her husband had lost control over
her (and their children), which could lead to
church officials reassigning the wife to a new
husband.
Like Wall’s mother, Brian Mackert’s mother
sought reassignment (2008). She had discovered
that Mackert’s father had sexually abused his
daughters. Mackert expressed love for his
mother:
You weren’t always there for us
growing up, but you have been there for
us as adults as we try to reconcile the
past.... I, for one, am grateful for the
things you’ve done and love you dearly.
(2008, p. 8)
The efforts of Mackert’s mother to help her
children long after they suffered failed to protect
them, but her efforts did encourage Mackert to
love her and to understand her conflicting
commitments.
Noncompliance attempts involved religious
adherence without the individuals protesting
power relations. In response to parents’
noncompliance through religious mechanisms,
authors expressed understanding. Authors
associated protective noncompliance with love,
especially if it deviated from their understanding
that absolute compliance to religious demands
was normal.
Attempts at Total Compliance
Some authors presented parents as
unquestioning, submissive, and compliant, but
loving. Total compliance to most religious
demands involved family sacrifice and appeared
to make possible (though not to determine)
abuse or neglect. Authors often implied that
totally compliant parents prioritized their
children’s needs above their own, but beneath
their religious community’s demands. Parents
placing children in priority beneath religious
demands generally conformed to authors’
understandings of normality.
The compliance of Janzen’s (2010) parents
impacted her upbringing primarily through
gender norms and isolation, which let her fear
the outside world. She witnessed her mother
assume traditionally feminine activities (i.e.,
cooking) while Janzen was banned from
activities that allegedly promoted sexuality (i.e.,
dancing). Janzen characterized her parents as
lovingly providing a home that deviated from
the standards of mainstream society, but not in
ways that she portrayed to be threatening or
harmful.
Erin Prophet (2009) argued that her mother,
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, cared deeply for her
children but allotted little time to family because
of the demands associated with her mother’s role
as prophet to CUT. Furthermore, Prophet’s
mother excommunicated two of Erin’s siblings
because of “the belief system that allowed us to
delete a member of our family in this manner”
(2009, p. 129). Erin Prophet demonstrated that
her mother’s abandonment of her sister Moira
and (temporarily) her brother Sean prevented
deviance within the church and helped her
mother maintain power. Although her mother
dismissed Sean from the church, Erin wrote that
she soon permitted his return because of his role
in maintaining the church and because “Mother
had worshipped Sean” (2009, p. 72). Yet, Erin
criticized her mother’s preferential treatment of
Sean: “...if the girls in our family acted as he
did, nobody would worship us. Mother was not
trying very hard to build bridges with Moira”
(2009, p. 72). With these contradictions between
loving children and religious leadership
obligations, Erin Prophet demonstrated that her
mother’s actions stemmed from nonunitary
subjectivity.
Likewise, some authors stated that FLDS parents
abandoned children at the church’s instruction to
“Let your children go who won’t follow” (Jeffs,
2009, p. 87). Both Carolyn Jessop and Wall
questioned whether their parents’ grief over their
children leaving the FLDS was, as Wall wrote,
“solely out of love and regret for her sons’ pain
or for the dual failure that the situation
represented” (2009. p. 67). Carolyn Jessop wrote
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 27
gendered. In the FLDS, mothers could not
comply in a similar manner to Wall’s mother,
but FLDS expectations for husbands to hold
power over their wives created different
circumstances for men. Thus, a wife’s
consultation with church officials was sufficient
evidence that her husband had lost control over
her (and their children), which could lead to
church officials reassigning the wife to a new
husband.
Like Wall’s mother, Brian Mackert’s mother
sought reassignment (2008). She had discovered
that Mackert’s father had sexually abused his
daughters. Mackert expressed love for his
mother:
You weren’t always there for us
growing up, but you have been there for
us as adults as we try to reconcile the
past.... I, for one, am grateful for the
things you’ve done and love you dearly.
(2008, p. 8)
The efforts of Mackert’s mother to help her
children long after they suffered failed to protect
them, but her efforts did encourage Mackert to
love her and to understand her conflicting
commitments.
Noncompliance attempts involved religious
adherence without the individuals protesting
power relations. In response to parents’
noncompliance through religious mechanisms,
authors expressed understanding. Authors
associated protective noncompliance with love,
especially if it deviated from their understanding
that absolute compliance to religious demands
was normal.
Attempts at Total Compliance
Some authors presented parents as
unquestioning, submissive, and compliant, but
loving. Total compliance to most religious
demands involved family sacrifice and appeared
to make possible (though not to determine)
abuse or neglect. Authors often implied that
totally compliant parents prioritized their
children’s needs above their own, but beneath
their religious community’s demands. Parents
placing children in priority beneath religious
demands generally conformed to authors’
understandings of normality.
The compliance of Janzen’s (2010) parents
impacted her upbringing primarily through
gender norms and isolation, which let her fear
the outside world. She witnessed her mother
assume traditionally feminine activities (i.e.,
cooking) while Janzen was banned from
activities that allegedly promoted sexuality (i.e.,
dancing). Janzen characterized her parents as
lovingly providing a home that deviated from
the standards of mainstream society, but not in
ways that she portrayed to be threatening or
harmful.
Erin Prophet (2009) argued that her mother,
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, cared deeply for her
children but allotted little time to family because
of the demands associated with her mother’s role
as prophet to CUT. Furthermore, Prophet’s
mother excommunicated two of Erin’s siblings
because of “the belief system that allowed us to
delete a member of our family in this manner”
(2009, p. 129). Erin Prophet demonstrated that
her mother’s abandonment of her sister Moira
and (temporarily) her brother Sean prevented
deviance within the church and helped her
mother maintain power. Although her mother
dismissed Sean from the church, Erin wrote that
she soon permitted his return because of his role
in maintaining the church and because “Mother
had worshipped Sean” (2009, p. 72). Yet, Erin
criticized her mother’s preferential treatment of
Sean: “...if the girls in our family acted as he
did, nobody would worship us. Mother was not
trying very hard to build bridges with Moira”
(2009, p. 72). With these contradictions between
loving children and religious leadership
obligations, Erin Prophet demonstrated that her
mother’s actions stemmed from nonunitary
subjectivity.
Likewise, some authors stated that FLDS parents
abandoned children at the church’s instruction to
“Let your children go who won’t follow” (Jeffs,
2009, p. 87). Both Carolyn Jessop and Wall
questioned whether their parents’ grief over their
children leaving the FLDS was, as Wall wrote,
“solely out of love and regret for her sons’ pain
or for the dual failure that the situation
represented” (2009. p. 67). Carolyn Jessop wrote
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 27
