obstructed her parents’ Christian goals. After her
parents sent David (Scheeres’s brother) and
Scheeres to an abusive Christian reform school,
Scheeres envisioned her mother saying, “Now
it’s just Jake and me and our dedication to God”
(2005, p. 197).
Scheeres argued that this abuse was hypocritical,
considering their Christian beliefs. She stated
that her parents adopted her brothers, David and
Jerome, because “To reject a black baby would
have been un-Christian, a sin. God was testing
them” (2005, p. 19 italics in original). Even so,
Scheeres asserted that her parents mistreated
David and Jerome more than their four other
children. For example, when David asked
whether Jerome would come home for
Christmas after he was charged as a juvenile
delinquent, Scheeres’s mother said, “Of course
not” because she had henceforth excluded
Jerome from the family (2005, p. 142). David
rebelled by throwing his snow pants—an act for
which Scheeres wrote that their father broke his
arm: “My throat constricts and it’s hard to
breathe. What kind of father would do this to his
own son?” (2005, p. 144). Scheeres recalled that
her father only once lunged at her, but that he
frequently beat and physically scarred two of her
brothers (2005, p. 158). As a result, she did not
emphasize forgiveness or love for her parents in
her memoir: “I thank my parents for bringing me
David, but not for the life they gave us” (2005,
p. 353). She provided little to no evidence that
her parents were nonunitary they appeared as
detached parents and hypocritical Christians.
Similarly, Flora Jessop and Mackert narrated
about their fathers’ responsibility for their abuse.
Both authors wrote lovingly about their mothers,
whose actions they attributed to social
circumstance.
Flora Jessop depicted her father volatile and
distant: “Even though he was my father, I’d
never felt comfortable around him. His temper
would flare for no reason, and I’d seen him beat
my brothers—one older, one younger—without
mercy” (2009, p. 10). These feelings worsened
after her father sexually molested and
(beginning when she was age 12) raped her
repeatedly (2009, pp. 11–12, 41). Flora
portrayed that the commonality of this abuse
within the FLDS resulted from opportunity
rather than socially determined actions. Even so,
she craved affection from her father:
Like every child, I wanted to be loved
unconditionally by both my parents.
Even though my father had committed
the worst possible violation of a human
being, I still held out hope that someday
he would repent and love me as a father
should love a daughter. And sick as it
seems, he paid attention to me. To a
neglected child, even bad attention can
feel good. (2009, p. 77)
Flora Jessop’s father never made her feel loved.
Although Jessop recognized momentary guilt
when he first raped her, she portrayed him as a
simple, aggressive, uncaring character whose
actions she left unjustified (2009, p. 46).
Mackert explained a literal desire to “kill my
father” (“a vile man”) because of “A lifetime of
deceit, neglect, and intimidation” (2008, p. 17).
Mackert’s memoir recounts his family memories
through sessions with a therapist geared toward
overcoming murderous intentions. Mackert
portrayed his father as a man who abused his
children without providing a fatherly figure. The
sexual abuse of his sisters was what Mackert
identified as the catalyst behind his hatred
toward his father. Even so, Mackert expressed
how his father treated him: “…my first real
memory: being harshly disciplined by a father
who generally had no time for me.... Father
rarely spoke to me, seldom touched me, and
almost never looked me in the eyes” (2008,
p. 44). Mackert relied on his older brothers
(including his polygamous half-brothers) to fill
roles that he suggested fathers normally fill
(such as providing masculine role models).
Mackert explained that his father’s behavior was
hypocritical. His father was loyal to the FLDS
until his death, but he deviated from many
religious practices (i.e., he drank, smoked, and
married without consulting the priesthood [2008,
pp. 170, 202]). Mackert said that the sexual
molestation of his sisters was especially
hypocritical: “My heart was chilled! How could
he? This was the man who raised me to honor
and revere women because they bring life into
this world. He taught me to respect them and
30 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015

protect them” (2008, p. 180). Even so, Mackert
wrote that he eventually forgave his father after
years of hatred and admitted to wanting his
father’s love, “And I hated that I wanted him to
love me” (2008, p. 201).
Scheeres, Mackert, and Flora Jessop claimed
that their parents’ lack of affection led to their
resentment. The abuse these authors suffered
may not have exceeded that of authors who
claimed to love their parents. Even after being
abused and emotionally neglected (such as in
Beck’s case), most authors claimed to love their
parents and attributed abuse to social factors.
These authors, however, did not justify
hypocritically compliant actions with social
factors. In addition, aside from Scheeres’s father
who “wasn’t always so distant” (2005, p. 68),
memoirs presented detached, abusive parents as
unitary characters.
Conclusion
Narratives are subjective and unique, but general
trends exist within their pages. These memoirs
collectively exposed common experiences of
people in similar social positions (see Maynes,
et al., 2008, p. 81): “In discussing what might
appear to be ‘just personal’ details, they locate
themselves politically, economically, and
historically” (Andrews, 2002, p. 11). In this
article, I have shared my analysis of trends
regarding narratives of being parented in
families that practice religion strictly.
Similar to the interviewees in Molly Andrews’s
(2002) study, I found that most authors
attributed their parents’ shortcomings to social
circumstances. Despite these attributions, all
authors identified moments of noncompliance.
In their memoirs, they expressed understandings
of how parents responded to religious demands,
nurtured their children, or committed abusive
acts. Rather than resent parents for their
compliance, most authors expressed
understanding for the nonunitary dimensions of
their parents’ subjectivities.
Some religions create environments that
encourage parents to prioritize their beliefs over
their children’s needs. Even with these priorities,
some authors were grateful for their parents’
love. For example, Wall stated, “All along, my
mother had been by my side as my anchor, and I
needed her desperately” (2009, p. 155). The
irony of this support is that the parent also
complied with doctrines that created hardship
for the author. Rix (2010) and Janzen’s (2010)
experiences in comparison to the others
demonstrated that strict religious involvement
does not determine neglect or abuse. Yet, Rix
and Janzen were from Southern Baptist and
Mennonite churches, both of which exercised
less social control over adherents than such
religious organizations as the FLDS and CUT.
Abuse, neglect, or both were central to nearly
every memoir. Some adult children may believe
that religion positively impacted their
upbringing this is especially so for those who
do not feel abused, who remained in their
religious organization, or who felt supported and
had positive memories of their religious
community. Nevertheless, when parents
prioritize religion in some religious groups
(especially in abusive religious groups), children
could potentially suffer twofold: at the hands of
their often-loving parents and at the hands of
those who abuse their parents. “Doing religion”
strictly in some religious groups may not
determine abuse, but it does require commitment
that supersedes most other responsibilities and
thereby impacts how people “do family” (see
Lalich, 2004).
References
Andrews, Molly. 2002. Memories of mother: Counter-narratives of
early maternal influence, Narrative Inquiry 12(1), 7–27.
Andrews, Molly, Day Sclater, Shelley, Rustin, Michael, Squire,
Connie, &Treacher, Amal. 2004. Introduction. In Molly Andrews,
Shelley Day Sclater, Connie Squire, &Amal Treacher (Eds.), The
uses of narrative: Explorations in sociology, psychology, and
cultural studies (pp. 1–10). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Andrews, Molly, Day Sclater, Shelley, Squire, Connie, &
Tamoubou, Maria. 2004. Narrative research. In Clive Seale,
Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium, &David Silverman (Eds.),
Qualitative research practice (pp. 97–111). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts. 1993. Fundamentalism and gender:
1875 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bloom, Leslie R. 1996. Stories of one's own: Nonunitary
subjectivity in narrative representation, Qualitative Inquiry, 2(2),
176–187.
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 31