thoughtful writing practice

Description

Answer three of the following questions. The best responses will contain the following elements:

Thoughtful and nuanced thesis statement
Exceptional organization
Clarity in expression
Contextualizes and qualifies assertions
Points toward broader themes and issues in the study of New Religious Movements
Accounts for evidence that appears to challenge the thesis statement.
Be sure to include specific examples with direct in-text citations to our readings to support your points and cite any idea or quote that is not your original thought to demonstrate your close engagement with our course material. Include the editor/author’s last name and the page number. For example, (Allitt, 5).
Please only use the articles that are provided.
To demonstrate the breadth and depth of your knowledge, do not repeat examples between the responses.
Responses should be of sufficient length to display an immersion in our readings, offer enough examples to persuade even the skeptical reader that their argument is not only plausible but the most likely interpretation of the material, and considers the more subtle nuances and less explicit underlying implications of the questions.

1. What is Joseph Smith’s significance to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Why does Jan Shipps refer to it as the “Prophet’s Puzzle?” What does focusing on the leader of a community tell us about the tradition? What does it potentially overlook? Why? What does it tell us about the study of New Religious Movements more broadly?

2. Write a review of the film “Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey.” What kind of documentary was it? What was the thesis of the film? What evidence was used to advance the argument? What ethical issues arose in the film? How did the documentary confirm or challenge the presentation of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our readings? What implications does the film have for the study of New Religious Movements more broadly?

3. What parallels do you see between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Children of God/The Family? Are they responding to similar themes and issues? Why or why not? What does it tell us about the study of New Religious Movements more broadly?

4. Is the historical trajectory of the Children of God/The Family similar to any of the other groups that we have studied so far in the course or is it distinctive? Why or why not? What does it tell us about the study of New Religious Movements more broadly?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Update
The Fundamentalist Latter Day
Saints after the Texas State Raid
Assessing a Post-Raid M ovem ent Tr‫^؛‬eetory
Stuart A. Wright and Jam es T. Richardson
ABSTRACT: This article explores the im pact o f the 2008 Texas raid on
the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints com m unity near Eldorado called
the Yearning for Zion Ranch. We exam ine som e critical post-raid developm ents and the con ^ ction s o f prophet w ^m en Jeffs and ten other key
church leaders on charges related to m arriages with underage girls.
T hese developm ents include Jeffs’ efforts to maintain his authority h‫־‬om
prison, non-com pliance by som e m em bers, the em ergen ce o f a rival
leader, and T exas’ efforts to seize the Yearning for Zion property. The
convergence o f these developm ents has introduced a degree o f uncertainty and instability within the FLDS com m unity significantly im pacting
the future trajectory o f the m ovem ent.
KEYWORDS: Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, Eldorado, Yearning for
Zion, Texas raid, social control, Warren Jeffs
n this article we exam ine critical developm ents following the State
o f Texas’ April 2008 raid on the Fundam entalist Latter Day Saints
(FLDS) com m unity near Eldorado called Yearning for Zion (YFZ)
Ranch. In the afterm ath o f the raid, eleven FLDS m en, including the
I
Nova Religio: TheJournal o/Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 17, Issue 4, pages
83-97. ISSN 1092-6690 (print), 1541-8480. (electronic). © 2014by The Regents o f the
University of California. All rights reserced. Flease direct all re‫ ؟‬uests for permission ،٠
photocopy or reproduce article content through the University o f California Fress’s
Rights and Fermissions website, at http://www.ucpressjoumals.com/reprintinfo.asp.
DOI: 10.1525/nr.2014.l7.4.83.
83
Nova Religio
C h u rch ’s leader and prophet W arren Jeffs (b. 1955), were convicted of
violations related to marriages with underage girls, leaving the FLDS
com m unity in considerable disarray. Jeffs has reacted to his imprisonm en، with defiance, attem pting to m aintain and even expand his control
over th e FLDS com m unities in Texas, U tah an d A rizona, B ritish
Columbia, and other locations. Ue has issued warnings o f apocalyptic
doom for the U nited States by m eans o f earthquakes, tidal waves, fires,
and an assortm ent o f natural disasters if authorities do n o t release him
from prison. U e has written a barrage ٠٢ letters to the FLDS community
and authored a 248-page proclam ation o f his dire prophecies, which was
mailed to m ajor news oudets around the country.1 News reports have
suggested that Jeffs maintains “com plete control” over FLDS C hurch
m em bers from his prison cell,^ but a careful exam ination o f post-raid
developm ents suggests that the FLDS com m unity is in a state o f uncertainly and disorder. Jeffs’ life-^us-twenty-years sentence m eans he will
never leave prison, and unsettling inform ation about his sexual abuse o f
young women has a num ber o f FLDS m em bers quite disillusioned with
his leadership and prophetic claims. Some followers have voluntarily left
foe FLDS Church; others have refused to comply with his edicts and
have been expelled. Amid growing signs o f schism, a leadership crisis has
developed in which a fo rm e r FLDS bishop, W illiam E. Jessop, has
em erged as a rival to Jeffs’ authority and has already built a small following. As well, foe State o f Texas has attem pted to seize ¥FZ Ranch
property. H erein we offer an update on foe FLDS C hurch in o rd er to
assess the trajectory o f this im portant religious movement. For those ٨ ٠ ،
familiar with foe Fundam entalist Latter Day Saints, we begin with some
background to foe raid and a b rief overview ٠٢ foe g roup’s early history.
T H E TEXAS STATE RAID3
By 2008 Texas officials claim ed to have evidence o f a “widespread
pattern and practice”^ of child sexual abuse at Yearning for Zion Ranch.
O n ‫ ة‬April of that year, Texas State Folice and the D epartm ent ofFamily
an d ?rotective Services (DFFS) raided the ra n ch established n e a r
E ldorado som e five years earlier by the F undam entalist C hurch ٠٢
Jesus Christ ٠٢ Latter Day Saints. The massive raid, involring m ore than
one h u n d red state and county law enforcem ent officers, was triggered by
p h o n e calls to foe NewBridge Family Shelter hotline in San Angelo,
about twenty-five miles south ٠٢ foe YFZ Ranch. The caller, who claimed
to be a 16-year-old girl nam ed Sarah Jessop residing at the ranch, said
she had been raped and beaten by h e r 49-yearold polygamous husband.
Apparently with no effort to verity foe caller’s claims, Texas authorities
launched a massive raid that failed to locate “Sarah.” Authorities later
learned foe calls were a hoax, and foe caller turned ٠ ٧ ، ،٠ be Rozita
84
Wright and Richardson: The Fundamentalist LatterDay Saints
TABLE :٠
Convictions and Sentences ofFLDS Men after the Raid
‫ س‬Sentence
Yr. Convicted
Name
11-2009
Raymond Jessop — Convieted at trial. 10 years.
12-2009
Allen Keate — Convicted at trial. 33 years.
01-2010
Michael Emack — No contest plea. 7 years.
03-2010
Meril Leroy Jessop — Convicted at trial. 75 years.
0^2010
Lehi Barlow Jeffs — N o contest plea. 8 years.
06-2010
Keith Dutson,Jr. — Convicted at trial. 6 years.
0^2010
Abram Harker Jeffs — Convicted at trial. 17 years.
09-2011
Warren Steed Jeffs — Convicted at trial. Life +20 years.
11-2011
Leroy Johnson Steed — N o contest plea. 7 years.
11-2011
Frederick Merril Jessop — Convicted at trial. 10 years.
03-2012
W endell ‫الﻣﺎ‬
Nielsen — Convicted at trial. 10 years.
Swinton, a m entally d istu rb ed , 33-year-old w om an from C olorado
Springs, Colorado. Swinton, who previously had been arrested for making false charges to police, initially m ade calls to anti-FLDS apostate and
activist Flora Jessop (b. 1969), who contacted Texas authorities and
forwarded the calls to child protection officials. In an unprecedented
action, DFFS officials seized 439 children at the YFZ Ranch, asserting
that the children were at risk of abuse, even though the raid was based
u p o n initial allegations that h ad been m ade against one individual
th ro u g h hoax p h o n e calls m ade by one person. T he District C ourt
granted DFFS requests for em ergency custody, but the Texas C ourt of
Criminal Appeals later reversed the District Court, determ ining that the
State had overreached and had no evidence for mass custodial detention. In o rder to retain custody, the District C ourt would have to hold
hearings to show evidence of risk to each o f the 439 children. The State
appealed the decision but the appellate court’s decision was upheld by
the Texas Suprem e Court.’‫ ؟‬Later, eleven FLDS m en including leader
W arren Jeffs, were charged with sexual assault o f a m inor a n d /o r other
related violations.
According to a DFPS report issued m ore than six m onths after the
raid, all but 15 o f the 439 cases (96 percent) were “non-suited” (i.e.,
parents had taken appropriate action to protect children from abuse).6
All b u t one o f the children taken into state custody were returned to
their parents. Evidence garnered from the raid, however, im plicated
Jeffs in un d erag e m arriage practices an d led to convictions on two
charges o f sexual assault of a child and a life-^^-twenty-years prison
sentence. T he o th er convicted m en received sentences ranging from
seven to seventy-five years (see Table 1).‫ד‬
35
Nova Religio
TABLE 2 .
Age of Victim and ¥ear Assaulted by FLDS Alen Convicted
FLDS Men
‫مﺀوﻣﺢ‬/‫ﺳﺄ‬
«
Year Assaulted
Alan Keate
2006
Raymond Jessop
16
2004
Meril Leroy Jessop
15
2006
George Michael Emack
16
2004
f^ h i Barlowjeffs
15
2005
Abram Harker Jeffs
15
2006
Keith William Hutson, Jr.
15
2006
Leroy Johnson Steed
14
2004
Warren Steed Jeffs
12, 15
2004
Wendell Loy Nielsen
N /A Fleaded guilty to
Frederick Merrill Jessop
N /A ?erform ed unlawful marriage ceremony
o f his 12-year-old daughter
counts o f bigamy ‫؛‬
It is worth noting that the age of m arital consent had been raised
from 14 to lb by the Texas L e^slature in 2005 as a result of the FLDS
group’s moving to the Eldorado area two years earlier.8 The legislator
who introduced the bill. Representative H a ^ e y H ilderbran, represented
Schleicher County where the VFZ Ranch was located and had m ade no
secret o f his intentions: “I want to keep Eldorado, Schleicher County,
an d all o f Texas from becom ing like C olorado City, Arizona, an d
Hildale, Utah, where this cult cam e from .”9 H ence the ten m en (besides
Jeffs) could be convicted o f charges involving sexual activity with girls
between 14 and 16. T he age o f the victim and the year each was assaulted
is shown in Table 2.
EARLV HISTQRV OF THE FLDS CHURCH
T he Fundam entalist C hurch o f Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was
one o f many splinter groups that broke with the C hurch ofjesus Christ
o f Latter-day Saints over the LDS C hurch’s Manifesto o f 18‫ و‬0 ‫ ر‬which
officially condem ned the practice of plural m arriage (،،T he Frinciple”
o r Celestial M arriage) u n d er pressure from the federal governm ent.
W hen the LDS C hurch agreed to abandon polygamy in exchange for
U tah stateh o o d , sectarian groups th a t c o n tin u e d p lu ral m arriage
adopted the term “fundam entalist,” believing they were following the
pure doctrines ofLDS C hurch founder Joseph Sm ith,Jr. (1805-1844 ).*٠
The FLDS com m unity known as Short Creek (later called Colorado
City), Arizona was first setded in foe late 1020s by Leroy s. Johnson
86
Wright and Richardson: The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints
(1888-1986) an d several polygamist families. Short Creek becam e the
target o f intense efforts at social control, including excom m unications
by the LDS Church, prosecutions by the federal governm ent and convictions for violations of the M ann Act for transporting girls and women
across state lines for im m oral purposes, and state raids on the community in 1944 and 1953. The 1953 raid involved m ore than 1,500 police
officers and social service personnel wielding 122 warrants for FLDS
mem bers. Arizona officials seized 263 FLDS children and placed them
into state custody, and for two years the FLDS en d u red a protracted
series o f hearings in juvenile C ourt in Fhoenix. In the end, all but one
o f the women who were underage at the time o f m arriage returned with
their children to the community. The 1953 raid failed to end plural
m arriage b u t forced the FLDS to becom e m ore cautious in its dealings
with outsiders.11
By 1984 the FLDS C hurch in Short Creek had split over issues of
leadership and authority. T he central ‫ ؟‬uestion was w hether the C hurch
should be led by a divinely inspired pro p h et (the “one-m an rule” doctrine) o r by a consensus am ong the Friesthood Council of divinely
in spired m en. T he com m unity divided into two factions— the First
W ard supported the one-man rule doctrine, and the Second W ard suppo rted the council model. As scholars H eber B. H am m on and William
Jankowiak observed, Second W arders em phasized individual choice,
personal responsibility, achievem ent, an d reliance on a F riesthood
Council, rather than unwavering allegiance to the P rophet characteristic
o f the First Ward. But some 80 percent o f the original community supp o rted the Colorado City-based First W ard, which becam e the dom inant
FLDS g ro u p .^ The excom m unication of Second W arders as apostates
cem ented a p erm anent split. In 1985 Second W ard residents purchased
land a few miles south o f Colorado City and established a new community, C entennial Fark, Arizona, which would be characterized by m ore
openness toward outsiders and less restrictive gender roles. In contrast,
First W ard FLDS C hurch m em bers began to withdraw m ore from outside associations except for purely business transactions. Fearing cultural
and spiritual contam ination, they removed their children from public
schools an d prohibited television, movies and o th er forms of secular
entertainm ent. W hen Leroy Jolm son died in 1986, the m antle of the
F rophet passed to Rulon Jeffs (1909-2002), who would preside over the
FLDS C hurch for the next sixteen years. W hen he died, his son W arren
assumed the office o f FLDS President and Prophet.
WARREN JEFFS
W arrenjeffs was the second son ofR ulon’s fourth (and favorite) wife,
Marilyn Steed. T he senior Jeffs left behind ^ n ty -tw o wives, all but two
87
Nova Religio
o f whom W arren later m arried and took into his polygamous family. His
leadership m arked a signifieant shift in key FLDS practices and policies
by which he sought to solidify his power and authority. H e called for
greater centralization o f political and econom ic power in the person of
the Frophet, greatly expanding the First W ard’s one-m an governance
m odel . ‫ د ا‬He am algam ated FLDS C hurch finances and ordered business
owners to surrender their ownership, and he excom m unicated long-term
com m unity leaders Dan Barlow and Louis Barlow and twenty o th er m en
who challenged his new rules and practices, seizing their property and
reassigning their wives and children to m en loyal to him .‫ ^؛‬His actions led
to a power struggle with another prom inent leader, Winston Blackmore,
bishop of the FLDS C hurch com m unity in Bountiful, British Columbia.‫^؛‬
Jeffs expelled Blackmore, leading to a mass exodus of700 FLDS m em bers
who followed the bishop. According to historian M artha Bradley!
ft is clear th^W arrenJeffs pushed the lines o ^ n p r ie ty w ith in the context
o f the FLDS com m unity and dem onstrated a sense o f extraordinaiy
entitlem ent that wrapped around his role as prophet and patriarch o f his
own family kingdom . Jeffs’ leadership created profound pressures on the
group and led to its destabilization, and as important, to an increasingly
extrem e interpretation o f church law and behavior.^
Jeffs also ousted several hu n d red teenage boys for violations o f comm unity rules,17 sometimes for m inor infractions such as watching television, talking to a girl or playing football, though some left o f their own
ch o ice.^ W ithout parents or family, some o f these “Lost Boys” becam e
homeless o r ended up in the criminal justice system. Jeffs’ actions ereated an d h eig h ten ed division within the FLDS C hurch, and critics
accused him o f blatant disregard for C hurch law and practices, ft was
in this highly contentious context that Jeffs set about to establish a new
FLDS com m unity in Texas and announced that only his most loyal and
trustworthy m em bers could live at the new ¥earning for Zion Ranch. By
choosing only his most devoted followers, he m anaged to insulate himself from opponents and reduce im pedim ents to his prophetic demands.
T he property for ¥FZ Ranch was purchased in 2003, and by 2005 nearly
500 FLDS C hurch m em bers were living th ere . ‫و ا‬
O ne ofjeffs’ policy shifts was the return ‫ ص‬marriage o f underage girls. In
the years leading to his presidency, the age o f marriage for FLDS women
had risen. M artha Bradley reports that by the late 1980s, the average marriage age had reached 19, as youngwom en expressed m ore interest in first
obtaining higher education or professional training outside the community.20Jeffs revereed this trend by prom oting underage marriages, and in
Ju n e 2005 he was charged in Utah with sexual assault o f a m inor and
conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a m inor for allegedly arranging a marriage between a lTyear-old girl and h er 19-year^ld first cousin.
Wñght and Richardson: The Fundamentalist LatterDay Saints
Jeffs became a fugitive to avoid arrest,21 and photos released later showed
him eelebrating his marriage to a 12-yeartold girl, H e was put on the FBI’s
T en Most W anted list and captured in Nevada in August 2006. In Utah in
2007, he was found guilt)‫ ׳׳‬on two counts o f being an accomplice to rape
and sentenced to ten years in prison, but due to faulty instructions to
ju rors the Utah Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered a new
trial. Jeffs was still in custody in 2008 when Texas launched its raid on
Team ing for Zion Ranch. He was extradited to face charges after the raid
revealed evidence that he violated Texas law prohibiting m arriage of
underage girls.
AN EMERGING LEADERSHIP CRISIS
W hen Jeffs was incarcerated in 2007, he apparently expressed deep
reservations about his prophetic role and reportedly told his brother
Nephi that he was never called to be the FLDS Prophet.22 He also passed
a handw ritten note to th eju d g e at the U tah trial stating that he was “not
the p ro p h et o f the FLDS C hurch.”23 O n 7 November of that year, the
W ashington County Attorney’s Office released a video of a conversation
beuveen W arren and N ephi in which the form er renounced his leadership position in the church .2 ‫ ه‬W arren Jeffs also adm itted to “im m oral”
actions with a sister and daughter, and records show he tried to com m it
suicide. In an email to the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, he officially
resigned as FLDS P resident effective 26 Novem ber. His fluctuating
claims may be attributed to an apparent nervous breakdown in the days
leading up to the U tah trial.25
By the time o f the 2011 trial in Texas, however, Jeffs was reasserting
his leadership ftom prison via telephone, to which he apparently had
ready access while incarcerated. He persisted in calling loyal leaders,
particularly his b rother Lyle, and relayed instructions which were then
passed on to the m em bership. Jeffs reasserted prophetic claims despite
dam ning evidence against him in the criminal trial. Form er FLDS memb er Ezra D raper testified that “FLDS m en began taking brides younger
and younger after Jeffs took over,” and that “Jeffs ruled FLDS with a far
heavier and crueler hand than his father.” 26 The trial also revealed that
Jeffs recorded a session with a group o fl2 – to lTyear-old girls insttmcting
them how to please him sexually, telling some of the girls to undress, and
having sex with at least one of them. T he recordings played at the trial
were posted on the Salt Lake T riune website.
Jeffs’ conviction left ffie FLDS C hurch in considerable disarray. Some
o f the families whose children were seized by the State o f Texas did not
return to the FLDS community. O ther members left or were forced out as
Jeffs continued to press his authority from prison.27Those leaving included
a contingent that moved to Bountiful, British Columbia. William Ray
89
Nova Religio
(“Willie”) Jessop, FLDS Church spokespersun for the immediate post-raid
communications and press conferences, left the group in 2011, although
he still considers him selfa Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint.Jessop told the
Deseret ‫ﻟ ﻢ‬
that he sensed “a growing confusion am ong members about
the validity o f the church,sleadership,” and thatjeffs had “created a wholesale distrust of the church.” Everyone was “second-guessing their relig ion.”28 Jessop attrib u ted significance to the firct th at a n u m b er of
people in the FLDS C hurch had taken a stand agains^effs: “1 think the
church is going through a social crisis that is extremely painful, but in the
long term, it’s healthy .”2‫ و‬D e later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit
against Jeffs an d o th er FLDS C hurch leaders claiming they ruined his
business after he spoke out againstjeffs for his abuse o f young women.30
Jeffs’ actions and proclam ations increased tensions within the twin
FLDS towns o f Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Some critics
referred to the im prisoned p ro p h e t’s decrees as a large-scale “p urge”31
asjeffs imposed stricter requirem ents on m em bers, dissolved marriages,
declared a m oratorium on sex, and attem pted to remove doubters.32
According to news sources, he set a deadline of31 D ecem ber 2011 for his
followers to “dem onstrate their righteousness,” and FLDS Church members were subjected to intense personal inte^iew s to determ ine their
willingness to obey the new rules about personal behavior and have their
finances reviewed. An estim ated 1,500 FLDS m em bers failed to m eet the
stringent standards by the deadline,33 but w hether they were excommunicated or placed on some kind of probationary status is unclear.
Jeffs also o rd e re d surveillance cam eras installed th ro u g h o u t the
Colorado City and Hildale communities to m onitor the actions ofm em bers
and visitor 3‫؟‬.
‫ه‬
Guy Timpson, now an ex-member, told the
SaltLake Tribune
that the property had been surrounded by sixty cameras operated fi‫־‬om
a central control room in the Leroy s. Johnson Meeting House. Timpson
spent four m onths running the cameras before becom ing disillusioned
and leaving the Church. Evidently, surveillance information was funneled
back to Jeffs to determ ine m em bers’ compliance with his orders.
WILLfAM E.JESSGP
In April 2011, form er FLDS C hurch bishop William E. Jessop35 (not
to be confused with form er FLDS leader “W illie” Jessop, discussed
above), organized a group of ex-members to form a new community
in Hildale. Jessop describes him self as “acting bish o p ,”30 and Jeffs
reportedly has told other FLDS m em bei‫ ؟‬they will be expelled if they
attendJessop’s services.37 B utjeffs’ warning contradicted earlier actions.
In 2002 a dying Rulon Jeffs evidently had m ade William E. Jessop an
apostle in the FLDS C hurch,38 and in 2007, while W arren Jeffs was
awaiting trial and wavering in his convictions, he apparently abdicated
90
Wright and Richardson: The Fundamentalist LatterDay Saints
to jesso p his role as Prophet and FLDS C hurch leader.^Jessop certainly
makes this claim and has asserted that Jeffs told him he was the new “key
h o ld er.” Jessop condem ned him in the wake o f the evidence o f sexual
abuse and declared thatjeffs was “not the voice o fG o d .”^ According to
news reports, “some 1,000 people” have flocked to William F .Jessop,^
some o f their own volition and others expelled by Jeffs. Jessop’s group
does n o t yet have a nam e, and some in the twin cities refer to his followers as “^ J e s ” (pronounced “wedges”), based on his initials.4‘^
William E. Jessop has said that in his group there will be no pressure
on women to marry or have marriages arranged for them , and if teens
want to m arry they will be encouraged to consider the im plicadons.
“W e’ll encourage [girls] to be o f age and learn the qualities o f life and
en]oy life and n o t get into som ething they [will] regret.”^ Jessop also
has announced that women will be ffee to work outside the hom e and
children will be encouraged to earn high school and college d egrees.^
T hough still relatively small, Jessop’s group poses a serious challenge to
Jeffs’ authority.
OTHER POST-RATri IMPACTS
In addition to the struggle for control o f the FLDS Church, issues
between the State o f Texas and YFZ families reveal sustained governm em intervention into the intim ate lives of sect m em bers. As scholars
T am atha L. S chreinert and Jam es T. Richardson have o b sed ed , the
appellate court forced the District C ourt in San Angelo to vacate its prior
o rd er granting f o e DFPS sole tem porary m anaging conservatorship over
foe children removed fl‫־‬om the r a n c h . R u t some o f foe District C ourt’s
orders were extraordinarily intrusive. For example, the court m andated
that each “parent, child or other person involved shall not interfere with
foe ongoing investigation into allegations of abuse and neg lect… .T h e
D ep artm en t may visit the hom e o f foe children, and interview and
exam ine foe children. This may include medical, psychological, o r psychiatric exam ination.” T he co u rt also ruled, “T he D epartm ent (of
Family and Protective Services) shall have access to foe residence of each
child for unannouncedhomevisitsduñng foe hours of8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
each day” (emphasis ours). And finally, the court m andated, “Evety child
shall rem ain within foe State o f Texas at all tim es.”46 Schreinert and
Richardson draw the following conclusion:
It is im portant to n ote here that this list o feo n d itio n s is rirtually unpreced en ted in such cases. It represents a significant continued exertion o f
control over the FLDS com m unity, its families and children, even though
they had ostensibly won their case on appeal. In other cases o f this nature
. . . such as the on es involving the Twelve Tribes group or T he Family,
‫و‬1
Nova Religio
w hen the children were returned by court order to the group, it was d on e
with f e w c o n d i t i o n s . In this case, however, the effe c to fth e rulings left
the situation m uch the sam e as if the appeal courts had n ot ruled against
the trialjudge’s original order. T he group and its children were still under
very stringent controls by the very authorities who had initiated the raid, at
least for a substantial time period. T hese conditions had significant ram ifications [for] the FLDS and their ability to regroup on the land they
had lived on prior to the raid.47
Schreinert and Richardson observe that “the apparent rulings in favor
of the FLDS parents in the Texas Appellate Courts were largely a pyrrhic
victo^. The FLDS com munity won the battle to retain their children after
nearly two m onths o f their lives having been severely disrupted, but only
un d er rigorous state o v e r s i g h t . T h e s e actions only served to exacerbate
the initial raid ’s traum atic im pact on the families and children.4®
T he State o f Texas’ excessive and ultimately illegal actions to seize
439 FLDS children in the raid, not to m ention the continued intrusive
control over them , likely created deep suspicions am ong m em bers in the
FLDS Church. Some may even think that the con^ction ofW arrenJeffs
was m ore persecution than prosecution. The state’s overreaching in the
custodial detention o f the children may have helped support a rationale
for a persecution narrative and m ade it easier for Jeffs to play to it.
M artha Bradley Evans pointed out thatjeffs initially explained the need
to establish a new com m unity in Texas by painting him self as a persecuted p ro p h et “surrounded by apostates and troublem akers.”’™ This
apparently added to his strength and legacy in eyes o f the faithful.
CONCLUSION
As W arrenjeffs continues his attem pt to rule the FLDS C hurch from
prison, it remains to he seen how this will play out am ong m em bers over
time: w hether William E.Jessop will succeed as a com peting p rophet or
new factions will em erge; o r if, out o f practical necessity, those who
adm inister day-to-day FLDS C hurch operations becom e defacto leaders
with their own authority. It seems highly unlikely th atjeffs will ever be
released from prison, and his perm anent sequestration may em power
some FLDS m em bers to accept o r even press for new leadership. As of
this writing, Jeffs’ brother Lyle runs the daily operations o f the Church.
It is clear from o u r efforts to m aintain contact with FLDS C hurch
m em bers that the leadership has pulled back from com m unications with
external observers, researchers and o th er non-m em bers since W arren
Jeffs’ trial. Reliable contacts with whom we worked closety in the years
im mediately after the raid suddenly cut off all com m unication. O ur
telephone calls, text messages and emails were not returned, and efforts
to get third parties to persuade these contacts to renew com m unications
92
Wright and Richardson: The Fundamentalist LatterDay Saints
failed. Conditions following the Jeffs trial suggest it will be difficult to
gain access to the com m unity and earn the trust o f these same FLDS
leaders in o rder to assess the C hurch’s future direction. O n the other
hand, with the em ergence o f William E.Jessop’s group, we may have new
opportunities to cultivate fresh contacts in the twin cities. We think this is
an im portant avenue to pursue because docum enting how this religious
minority group responds to legal and o th er crises should be of great
interest to scholars interested in the study of religious movements and
social control actions taken against other such groups.
T he State o f Texas may finally drive out the FLDS C hurch if successful in its latest social control effort, which is to seize the group’s 1,?00acre property constituting ¥FZ R anchi* O n 27 N ovem ber 2012, the
State Attorney General filed a request that the property, valued on the
tax rolls at over $33 million, be turned over to the State, alleging that in
2003 the property was purchased for about $1.1 million with laundered
money. T he case now rests with the courts; if successful, the property
would be sold by the State o f Texas and the residents likely would be
evicted. According to Paul W eber, “U nderT exas law, authorities can seize
property that was used to com m it ٠٢ facilitate certain criminal conduct,
such as a hom e being used as a stash house for drugs.”^ Thus all the time,
effort, and resources used to build the impressive FLDS C hurch facility at
¥earning for Zion Ranch may end up on the auction block and sold to the
highest b id d e r.^ This controversial move, if successful, would m ean that
the state’s social control efforts begun in 2003, when the Fundam entalist
fa tte r Day Saints first moved to T exas,^ did accom plish the ultim ate
purpose of driving the group out. Obviously the actions ofjeffs and some
o f his followers contributed to this turn o f events, b u t the state’s clear
dem onstration o f its power to exert control over unpopular m inority
faiths should give all such groups pause for thought.’^
ENDNOTES
‘ “Im prisone،f Sect Leader W arren Jeffs Spends T housands on N ewspaper
A ds,” Nashville Tennessean, 2 4 January 2012.
2 “Warren Jeffs Still Calling the Shots from Prison?” 4 April 2013, abcnews.go.
com /blogs/headlines/2013/04/w arren-jeffs-still-calling-the-shots-from -prison/.
3 Much o f the information in this section is derived from the introduction o f
Stuart A. Wright an d jam es T. Richardson, eds.. Saints under Siege: ‘The Texas Slate
Raid ٠ « theFundamentalist LatterDays Saints (N ew¥ ٠٨ : N ew¥٠٨
University Press,
2 0 f l ) , 1-22.
4 “Original Petition for the Protection o f Children in an Emergency and for
Conservatorship in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, In the Interest
o f 330 Children from the¥FZ Ranch,” 2008, District Court ofS ch leich er County,
Texas, S lstju d icia l District, Cause 2002.
93
Nova Religio
5 Tamatha L. Schreinert andjam e^ T. Richardson, “Pyrrhic Victory? An Analysis
o f the Appeal Court O pinions C oncerning the FLDS C hildren,” in Wright and
Richardson, Saints under Siege, 242-63.
6 Texas D epartm ent ofFam ily and Protective Services, “Eldorado Investigation,”
^2 D ecem ber 206s, Austin, Texas.
s
7 W endell Loy N ielsen was released from prison on
May 2013 after serving
m ore than year. H e is the only convicted FLDS man to b e released.
8 Jam es T. Richardson and Tamatha L. Schreinert, “Political and Legislative
C ontext o f the FLDS Raid in Texas,” in Wright and Richardson, Saints under
Siege, 221-41. We d o n ot support marriage o f young w om en to older m en in the
group, but are simply pointing out authorities’ response to the openly polygam ous group’s m ove to Texas.
9 “Governor Perry Signs SB 6 into Law,” Eldorado Success, ‫ و‬June 2005.
10 While the FLDS Church is the best known am ong frndam entalist M ormon
groups, there are at least five other large ^ o u p s: Apostolic U nited Brethren
(Allreds), Latter Day Church o f Christ (K ingstons), Church o f the Firstborn,
C entennial Park, and Colonia Juarez. A considerable num ber o f sm aller groups
have form ed branches ٥٢ split o ff from the larger groups, ٠٢ com prise the
“Indepen dents,” such as Tom Green (b. 1948) ٠٢ Alex Joseph (1936-1998).
See Janet B ennion, “History, Culture, and Variability o f M ormon Schismatic
G roups,” in M odem Polygamy in the United States: Historical, Legal, and Cultural
Issues, ed. Cardell K. Jaeobson and Lara Burton (New Vork: Oxford University
Press, 2011), 102-0?.
11 Martha Bradley Evans, “T he Past as Prologue: A Comparison o f the Short
Creek and Eldorado Polygamy Raids,” in Wright and Richardson, Saints under
Siege, 25-50.
12 H eb er B. H am m on and W illiam Jankowiak, “O n e Vision: T h e M aking,
U nm aking, and Remaking o f a Fundam entalist Polygamous Com m unity,” in
Jacobson and Burton, M odem Polygamy in the United States, 41-?5.
13 H am m on andjankow iak, “O ne Vision.”
14 Bradley Evans, “T he Past as P rologue.”
15 This spin-off group unsuccessfully attem pted to have the British Columbia
Suprem e Court declare polygamy legal under the Canadian Charter o f Rights
and Freedoms. T he Court’s 33^ p age op in ion bas