“When I was young, I thought classical music was only the background noise for cartoons.” ― Ben Carson link
Snowy Owl
TWW 2009- We didn't much like the Duggars way back then
The Deebs have long been concerned about the Christian celebrity status of the Duggar family. We wrote our first post about them long before our blog established (much to our everlasting surprise) a niche presence on the web. The Duggar Delusion was written by Deb in July 2009. I wrote “Ma Ma, I Need an Appointment, I Have a Boo Boo”
We took a long, hard look at the how life at their home was portrayed by the television show. We discussed the fact that few people could afford 19 children. The Duggars' current home, travels, etc. were gifted to them through the generosity of their television sponsors who were thrilled by the large audience who followed them.
We remarked that it was highly unlikely that either of the parents had much time to spend with each child and how they had to rely on the older kids to babysit the younger children. Few people realized that the show presented their home life after they cleaned up the videos. For example, if the kids acted up, the camera people did a retake.You know that clean, spotless well appointed kitchen? Did you know there was a larger kitchen in which the preparation mess was hidden? The Duggars played *perfect* pretty darn well.
It was not a *reality* show but a *fantasy* show that Christians bought into. The Duggars were just another in a long line of Christian celebrities acting out a farce. As I said way back then, the Duggars are heading for a fall. Why?
There is a reason that Jesus needed to give humanity His grace. We are all mess ups. Now, some of you who are young will think I am being unbearably negative. However, most everyone who has raised a family to adulthood will know exactly what I mean. Serious failure and pain is as much a part of our lives as are those fun trips to Disney World.
When Josh Duggar's molestations of his sisters and one family friend were revealed, I was not surprised in the least. However, what startled me was the number of Christians who went to his defense. The silliest excuses were given-some of them by well known pastors and seminary professors. Folks, Christians sin.If things look perfect, you are being taken for a ride ans someone is making money off it.
- "He did this and became a Christian afterwards."
- "He was just playing doctor."
- "He got *counseling.*
- "He has repented."
- "He got married.
Each of these excuses were naive and just plain wrong but I do not have time to delve into them. Please feel free to do so in the comments.
The Dr Keith Ablow/Robert Jeffress Blowout.
Perhaps the best demonstration of profound Christian naivete was exhibited in a debate between Robert Jeffress, pastor of FBC Dallas, and Dr Keith Ablow, a Johns Hopkins trained psychiatrist. I am not here to be an apologist for either one of these guys. However, the debate brought out some points that would prove to be important in the coming months.
Note how Jeffress defends the Duggars, bragging that they sometimes come to his church. If you wish to read the transcript, here is the link.
Jeffress gave all the standard Christian responses. Josh was a young teen. He has repented. They are a wonderful family and did the right thing. They got counseling.I t's their right to live this way.
The Duggar sisters, prior to the debate, said the Josh was just going into puberty and was "just a little too curious about girls." Good night! What did their parents teach them. Did they actually get any counseling?
Dr Ablow said that Josh fit the criteria for a pedophile; that he got pastoral counseling which was not appropriate for pedophiles; that not being allowed to hold a girls' hand was bizarre; that they had too many kids and were unable to keep up with their issues; and that they put their kids on television, knowing they had concealed this secret. he found this disturbing and said that they were not a wonderful family.
I found that I agreed with Dr Ablow. During the ensuing months , I googled Josh Duggar's name on a daily basis. I was convinced that something was terribly wrong with him and that the other shoe was about to drop. Dr Ablow would prove to be correct. Dr Jeffress would be shown to be either a naive pastor when it comes to these issues or a celebrity Christian apologist.
Michelle Duggar admitted she was overwhelmed by all her work at home prior to Josh's molestation scandal.
I believe that there was serious stress in the family which was exacerbated by performing for cameras. In this admission, Michelle gives a hint of the stress involved maintaining their lifestyle.
It was 1:00 AM in the morning as I stood folding laundry with tears streaming down my cheeks,” Duggar wrote. “Feelings of being overwhelmed flooded my mind. I cried aloud, ‘LORD I NEED YOUR HELP, I can’t do it all! I feel so inadequate! Diapers, dishes, laundry, meals, cleanup, school lessons, baths, hugs, kisses, correction…’ My list seemed to go on and on.”
Saying God spoke to her, she continued, “Then it was as if a still small voice said, ‘Michelle, it’s easy to praise ME when things are going good, but are you willing to praise ME now?’ Immediately the scripture that says, ‘Offer up a sacrifice of praise’, came to mind. I said, ‘OK Lord, I will praise you even now! It really is a sacrifice!’ So through the tears I began to sing, ‘The joy of the Lord is my strength,’ my heart there was a release as if a burden had been lifted. I finished the laundry at 2 AM and went to bed.”
The family reportedly began to have serious money issues when their show was canceled.
In July, a number of sources began to publish articles that the Duggars were having trouble managing their financial obligations since the show was canceled. The family was pulling in between $25,0000-$40,000 per episode. They reportedly hoped to have a spin off featuring their two married daughters but Jill and her husband got out of Dodge, deciding to become missionaries. That cash cow was no longer available- link, link and link.
Then, the Duggars and TLC reportedly produced a show on how to counsel victims of sex abuse. (This is NOT a joke.)
It is simply astonishing to me that TLC would ever allow such a program. It is reported that Discovery's TLC will lose millions of dollars due to the cancelation of the cash positive Duggar show. So they dreamed up this?
The film, "Breaking the Silence," will air at 10 p.m. EDT Aug. 30, the network said Thursday.
To be broadcast commercial-free, the documentary aims to shine a light on the challenges faced by those affected by child sexual abuse, as well as raise awareness of where people can turn for help.
Viewers will also hear from experts, including a prevention training session conducted by Darkness to Light that is attended by Jill and Jessa, two of the Duggar sisters who have publicly spoken of being molested in their youth by their brother Josh. He has never been arrested or charged in connection with the molestations.
"We look forward to working with TLC on this upcoming special documentary and hope that it is an encouragement to many," the Duggar family said in a statement when the program was first announced.
The absolute idiocy of allowing the Duggars to do this show is mind boggling. TLC-do not air this show!!!
What sort of counseling did Josh get? His statement here, given at the time of the molestation revelation, is indicative of his continuous lying. As you will see shortly, he was involved in some other *activities* during this time period.
Josh appears to be adept at hiding his peccadillos over a long period of time link.
At the time, Josh, now 27, said, "Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends."
After noting that he confessed the crimes to his now-famous parents, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, as well as the authorities at the time, Josh added, "My parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life."
Josh Duggar/Ashley Madison
We were planning to post a tirade about TLC using the Duggars to help others learn how to handle abuse. However, the other day when I was doing my daily check of Josh Duggar, I found the Josh Duggar/Ashley Madison story within 30 minutes of its release. I immediately tweeted it and was beat out by two minutes by Mary DeMuth! I consider this war!
I had heard of the Ashley Madison hack several weeks ago and assumed that credit card numbers were going to be sold. I did not know that the hackers, known as the Impact Team, wanted to simply embarrass Ashley Madison and its users.
While they had earlier said that the $19 fee Ashley Madison charges customers to wipe their user data clean does not actually get rid of the information completely, the post announcing Tuesday’s dump contained additional allegations.
“Find someone you know in here? Keep in mind the site is a scam with thousands of fake female profiles,” the post — titled “Time’s Up!” — reads. “90-95% of the actual users are male. Chances are your man signed up on the world’s biggest affair site, but never had one. He just tried to. If that distinction matters.”
“We have explained the fraud, deceit and stupidity of ALM and their members,” an earlier paragraph of the Impact Team statement says. “Now everyone gets to see their data.”
Josh Duggar was amongst the first to be outed by the Impact Team's information dump link. This should not have been a surprise to Christians who understand the difficult nature of pedophilia, sex addiction, and other potentially damaging and dangerous sexually dysfunctional behavior.
I was not in the least surprised by this revelation. It is important to realize that Duggar had molested not just one of his sisters one time, but he molested 4 of his sisters and reportedly a baby sitter. These are not mistakes. These are deliberate and continuous acts.
Dr Ablow was proved correct. Unless Josh had received help from someone who knew how to deal with these issues, like a licensed sex offender therapist, then he was at risk to offend again. It appears that he did not get truly expert counseling that targeted his problems. As you will see, he reportedly began to participate in Internet activities as early as 2004-shortly after the molestations ended.
When he returned home after his *counseling* with a family friend who had Josh help him build houses, the family had the boys sleep on one side of the house and the girls sleep on the other side of the house with their doors locked.
Do you realize just how concerning this is? Why did they feel it was necessary? I have a son who for years slept in a room next to his sister's room. I never once had any need to consider having her lock the door…well, there was that one water balloon incident…
Josh Duggar also had a secret Facebook account in which he friended strippers link.
Josh Duggar's secret Facebook account friend list including female bar workers, a lingerie photographer and a stripper
The same email Josh Duggar used to sign up for Ashley Madison was used to make a phony Facebook account
The account for 'Joe Smithson' has just 32 friends, who are mostly women and include lingerie models and strippers
Most of the women are based in Arkansas, where Duggar lived before moving to Washington D.C. for work
He has used his fake name, Smithson, since 2004- four years before he married Anna link.
Think about it. It appears that has has been doing the Facebook thing for 11 years, which would be shortly after the reported molestation of his sisters.
He also used a profile picture of a real person link.
I would imagine that Harvard educated Jonathan Blankfein and his Goldman Sachs daddy are not amused.
Smithson's' profile was active as recently as January 2014, and appears to have been started in 2004, four years before Duggar married his wife Anna.
It says that Smithson is a graduate of the University of Arkansas who is living in Fayetteville.
The profile has just one picture on it, depicting Jonathan Blankfein, the son of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Blankfein is a Harvard graduate and has never lived in Arkansas while Duggar never attended college.
Both the Duggar family and Josh Duggar released statements, took them down and then rereleased new ones.
This aspect has been concerning to me. It appears that they cannot say what they mean without doing a retake. They did those retakes in their show so everything looked picture perfect. I guess they like to do retakes in their real life as well. This leads me to wonder what is and isn't real link.
The apology has since been amended several times, deleting the reference to his porn addiction, as The Wrap spotted. He also changed the passive "I became unfaithful to my wife" to "I have been unfaithful to my wife."
Julie Anne Smith looked at the comings and goings of the Duggar statements at her blog.
Josh seems to be under the illusion that people trusted him after molestation revelation link.
"I brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions that happened when I was 14-15 years old, and now I have re-broken their trust," Duggar said.
Well, in this case, he is correct. What is it with some Christians who seem to think that simple "I did it and repented" is the truth? I read more statements from Christians who claimed that Josh was over it. Even his sisters and parents conveyed that. Why?
I believe that the parents never had time to spend with each of the children. They were too busy buying food, figuring out how to get free vacations to Dollywood and doing retakes. Josh's sisters were glorified babysitters, often taking the role of the mom and dad with the younger children. This was like working in the Amazon warehouse.Run, run, run and get it right.
Will Anna Duggar blame herself? What should she do?
Prediction: Anna is already blaming herself for not being there for Josh. If Anna or her friends are reading this, please hear this. You have had 4 children in short order. Your husband has a deeply rooted sexual problem. He could be a danger to both you and your children, particularly to your daughters since it he appears to focus on females. Please get them and you safe and have yourself tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
Please do not keep bringing new children into this marriage. Josh needs psychiatric intervention before things get worse and they can get worse. No one can handle lots of little kids and deal with a seriously compromised spouse. Please get help for all of you. And if the Duggar parents try to blame you, run with the children, as fast as you can.
Will Anna Duggar get a divorce link and link?
Anna and Josh have a covenant marriage which means she may have to stayed married to Josh for almost 3 years. This is a voluntary law in Arkansas. The two sisters signed such a document. It is unclear whether or not Anna did so. Our guess is the Duggars will do everything in their power to keep Anna married to their sexually compromised son. I bet they will even tell her to keep having children.
Covenant marriages allow for divorce only in certain extreme circumstances –such as physical or sexual abuse of a spouse or child, or infidelity– but only after a mandatory counseling period that can be up to 30 months long.
Observers from outside the evangelical church are beginning to sit up and take notice of our scandals link.
This is why TWW exists. Christians need to hear from those of us who are inside the church and follow Jesus. It is important to realize that if we see it, everyone else sees it. So stop blaming us for airing your dirty laundry and listen. If you cannot draw us into your fantasies of the perfect family like the Duggars, you sure as heck are not going to find support from outside the church. We need to clean up our own acts and be the first to admit to our sins before we start to point fingers at the world.
And maybe we could give a group hypocrisy award to pastors Jack Schaap (Hammond, IN), David Loveless (Orlando), Grant Storms (New Orleans), Isaac Hunter (Orlando), Larry Durant (Sumter, SC), Sam Hinn (Stanford, FL), Paul Barnes (Douglas County, Colorado), Lonnie Latham (Tulsa), Earl Paulk (Decatur, GA), Joe Barron (near Dallas), Michael Hintz (Des Moines), Todd Bentley (Lakeland, FL), and Tony Alamo (Arkansas), all of whom were caught with men, women, boys, or girls, and forced to resign in the last decade.
…And these are just the sex scandals—I don’t have enough space to include the financial scandals, abuse scandals, and fraud scandals that have bedeviled right-wing Christian churches and organizations over the last few years.
It’s tempting to minimize these stories. They’re so familiar by now that surely the default assumption must be that the anti-gay crusader is probably closeted and gay, and the pro-family crusader is probably on Ashley Madison.
Which makes perfect sense, psychologically. If you’re wrestling with a particular demon, it’s easy to see that wrestling as the most important thing in the world. Philandering family-values types are out there screaming because ultimately, they’re screaming at themselves.
Jim Bob and Michelle do not get basic theology: Stupid bathing suits and ugly jean skirts do not prevent sin link.
There is an advantage to having a few years under the old belt. I watched *perfect* parents who homeschooled their kids, preached modesty and abstinence, fussed at me when I let my kids read Harry Potter, got upset with the witch in Sleeping Beauty and claimed that their kids were going to change the world for Jesus. Then, I watched as kids from committed Christian families became drug addicts, got pregnant out of wedlock, dropped out of school, or leave the faith. Of course, some did well. But pain and struggles were felt in most families.
In regards to the Duggars, it appears that they thought they could control all of this. Now they have a serious problem on their hands. Perhaps they might go back to Genesis and read how the most perfect Father in the world saw His children disobey Him. Why do we think we are going to get different results?
This wasn't something they ever imagined was possible," says the source. "They so strictly limit their exposure to these sorts of outside influences – from websites to even the sort of television they watch, if they turn on the TV at all – that they were absolutely baffled by how this could have been possible."
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar pimped their kids for money.
Here is my major criticism. The Duggars used their children to make having 19 kids financially feasible. What they don't tell you is that having 19 kids without a steady and substantial income is to guarantee living at the poverty line. God does not tell you to have as many kids as possible. He gave us the ability to limit the size of our families so that we can actually get to know one another and spend time together. Of course, everyone has the right to have as many kids as possible but one is not obligated to do so.
Why are we willing to take antibiotics for an infection, go to a doctor to deal with cancer or go to a psychiatrist to treat bipolar disease? Why shouldn't we let the chips fall where they may since God is in control?
The Duggars kept their kids from attending college and expected their girls to stay at home and take care of the little kids. They did not let them get exposed to a larger world with differing points of view, even within the faith. I still remember when the Duggars visited the Creation Museum. Josh stated that the earth was young. When asked how he knew, he claimed to have "researched and read on the subject." He has little idea what real research entails.
The Duggars put those kids on the air when they knew their son had molested their daughters. And they took the chance because, after all, it supported their habit of pushing out as many babies as possible. The episode in which Jim Bon and Michelle visited a OB GYN specialist to see if they could do anything else to have more kids was the day that I decided that there is something deeply wrong with the Duggar family.
Stay tuned….I predict there will be more stories to come.
#1?
Truly sad.
Am I first? No way!
roebuck wrote:
RollieB, you rascal, you beat me to it.
Seriously, though, what a perfect example of what happens when putative Christians pursue The World. This is the outcome of the money/celebrity/media culture, which is the US culture any more, it seems. The Duggar family was milking the culture for all the $$$ they could get – they were nothing more than a novelty act. Just sickening, really.
Have 19 kids….and go to an ob/ gyn to see if you can have more? Man, that’s just wrong.
You know some of the kids are going to have some sort of psychological damage from this….at some point, one if not more is going to write a ” tell all” book, and it may be shocking.
K.D. wrote:
It’s a freak show act, designed to make money. It worked for a little while…
Dee, I too believe there is more to come. There have been rumors for years that Jim Bob is corrupt, manipulative, and power hungry. I predict the next Duggar scandal will be related to Jim Bob.
As I posted yesterday I wrote a blog concerning Josh Duggar and his lifestyle.
I received one of the ugliest emails from a Christian ” leader” in our community. He basically took up for Josh attacked me for ” believing this tripe might be actually true.” He was basically saying the media was out to ” get” the family….including me. It was pretty awful,and the tone sort of spooked me.
This was before Josh released his statement of guilt.
Have I received an apology from the ” leader?”
Of course not….
And another thing — there are not, to my knowledge, any labor laws or financial laws in Arkansas that protect these kids. I wonder if any money at all has been set aside for each of the kids. Quite likely none. Did the children ever truly consent to being filmed? How many hours in a day did they have to put up with being on camera? Were they allowed to say no? Did they even understand the concept of privacy or free agency, and if so, would they have felt free to decline to participate?
When asked how he knew, he claimed to have “researched and read on the subject.” He has little idea what real research entails.
Agreed….after what I learned in grad school you bet! It was not a walk in the park. It took a lot of work.
Mom, you’ll have to explain the story of Will and the water balloon. I did not have locks on my doors with my sisters, however there are two incidents I did as a kid. This is what I did.
1. When I was in Junior High I wanted to play a joke on my sister so I took some ice cold water and poured it on her when she slept. That didn’t go over well and my parents weren’t happy.
2. Then there was the prank with the toilet seat. I didn’t mean for this to happen the way it did and had I known my sister was having a job interview I would not have done this. I took some vasoline and put it on my sister’s toilet seat. I think I was in high school when I did this. Well…my sister had an interview and she was getting ready and had a nice dress and sat down on the toilet and put on her shoes. Next thing I hear is this scream and “my dress!” She was getting ready to leave and I really got hit hard. 😛 I laughed so hard, but had I know she had an interview I would not have done it.
3. Then there is another situation which is folklore in my family. I thought the fish in the fish tank were hungry. I was in kindergarten/pre school and I grabbed some fudgeicals and put them in the fish tank in the middle of the night. My sister wakes up seeing this 6 year old standing next to a fish tank holding a couple of fugeicals in the water and she screams “what are you doing?” I drop them and run because I am scared, and then the rest of the family is woken up. My Dad had to clean the fishtank at 2 or 3 AM. He was not happy..but my family laughs about it today. 😛
There is sooooooo much to delve into here. What this needs to shine a light on is the rotten core of this Quiverful Movement and the Cult that surrounds Bill Gothard and is teachings. The Duggars are all supporters of Gothard and have followed if Life Principles or whatever it’s called. Google Gothard go to Gawker and search Josh Duggard back when they were talking about his molesting his sisters. Seems like this is so common that part of Gothard’s “Life Principles” was how families could deal with this sort of thing. Basically it’s girls are all little Jezebels – even the little ones so you’ve got keep them away from the men folk. Also Google the Pearls and “blanket Training” Michele Duggar has used “blanket training” but of course she makes it all nicey nice and not what it really is – child abuse of very young children. And of course all the so-called “christian blogs” wants to pretend this is just an aberration, could happen to any family. This is not an aberration in these families.
“Covenant marriages allow for divorce only in certain extreme circumstances –such as physical or sexual abuse of a spouse or child, or infidelity– but only after a mandatory counseling period that can be up to 30 months long.”
30 months?! 0_0 Poor Anna.
Corbin wrote:
Where did this evil nonsense come from? It’s certainly not Christian.
And the list of apologies the arrogant Duggar Family owes is growing:
1. Their home town’s police chief, who complied with the law, and provided a police report (redacted) about the sexual abuse. This was a Freedom of Information Act request and THE LAW. The police chief could have faced criminal charges for NOT complying with that law.
The Duggars had the AUDACITY to blame the police chief for their family’s problems
and they all wanted her fired.
2. The Arkansas Social Services
The Duggars got an attorney to have Josh sue this department when he was about 19 years old for investigating their family.
Then they recently had one of their daughters file some sort of legal action.
3. Goldman Sachs CEO’s Son
OK so now Josh has apparently used a member of this family’s photo for Josh’s sexual shenigans.
Do the Duggars ever apologize for anything??? Have they always been whiners?
Always played the blame game?
roebuck wrote:
Well, from many people I’m hearing that it’s very Christian. When you romanticize marriage to the point that many Christians have, some creepy stuff gets said. I guess it’s better to be married and in misery than to be divorced and free.
@ Leila:
Yes. The accounts of him “convincing” Michelle that she wanted this lifestyle was always creepy. Michelle has a lesbian sister who has accused her of being brainwashing before all the Josh stories came out.
I may have some more thoughts on this, but my girlfriend is about to come over. We have big plans: being alone in a room together, wearing normal clothes, holding hands…
Velour wrote:
They seem to be a bunch of grifters.
roebuck wrote:
Yep, grifters AND circus barkers.
Corbin wrote:
Don’t forget: Single and free!
Did you see this the Family Research Council just released a statement on the Josh Duggar calling him deceitful. They’re upset about his pornography addiction and infidelity…but silent on molestation. I guess molestation as sexual sin is ok? Wonder what James Dobson would say to that?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/josh-duggars-former-employer-calls-him-deceitful/ar-BBlYPE9?ocid=iehp
From the article I just linked….
Dr. Daren Brabham, a public relations and strategic communication expert, told E! News: “I would say at this point Josh Duggar’s brand is pretty much destroyed … The family values cause was his brand and potentially his political platform in a would-be political career, but now that has all been revealed as a sham. Public relations doesn’t get much worse than this. TLC is wise to have broken bonds with the Duggars in light of this new development.”
Here is what Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council said in his statement that was just released. There’s not a d@mn word about the victims that Josh Duggar molested. So pornography is evil but molestation is acceptable. As they say in the military….”whiskey tango foxtrot!”
****
“Last night we learned from online reports about allegations concerning Josh Duggar and then read his confession today. We are grieved by Josh’s conduct and the devastating impact of his pornography addiction and marital unfaithfulness,” FRC president Tony Perkins said in a statement. “Our hearts hurt for his family, and all those affected by Josh’s actions. His deceitful behavior harms his family, his friends, his former coworkers, and the cause he has publicly espoused. Those of us who advocate for family values in the public square are held to a higher standard, and Josh’s failures serve as a painful reminder of the destructive effects of not living with integrity. We are praying for the family.”
I’m just happy to have something to argue against Quiverfull teachings as proof that isolating a child from the world and indoctrinating them into Christianity doesn’t turn off human nature or the tendency to sin. So many people watched them for so long that the illusion became their reality. It is their hidden side that needs to be brought to light. How many anonymous QF families are dealing with the same issues? It is our lack of knowledge that gives the QF image one of respectability because of the isolated nature of its adherents and Joshs’ issues. Public as it may be, he is only one example of the fruit of QF teachings. Most would say that one bad apple is not proof of a spoiled bushel or a bad tree.
Eagle wrote:
Are you telling me that Josh Duggar was contemplating a political career? You’d think at this point he’d want to get the heck out of the spotlight as best he could.
Jamie Carter wrote:
I was on to them. When they were building the big new house and all of the girls were going to be sharing the same bedroom and they were discussing the layout I thought: That is really weird! What is going on in that family that there is ‘safety in numbers’? They have all of that space and could spread out, a couple of girls to a bedroom. But they aren’t. Something is wrong.
Other women here have posted that they saw the same thing.
I figured that the Duggars tried *too hard*, were *too perfect*. When people are trying *that hard* to avoid something, I always ask myself: What is the big deep, dark pit that they are spending so much energy avoiding?
It’s the amount of energy people put in to avoiding The Secret that to me is the tell-tale sign that there is A Secret.
Jamie Carter wrote:
According to Jim Bob, “But as we talked to other parents and different ones since then, a lot of families have said that they’ve had similar things happen in their families.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/05/in-a-duggar-world-the-real-victims-take-a-back-seat-to-their-parents/
Scary, isn’t it?
roebuck wrote:
It was my understanding that the reason for having so many kids was to increase the chance that at least one of them will be elected into politics and be a Christian agent shaping law by Biblical principles. The guys are raised to consider what the best way to get into politics is from a young age.
roebuck wrote:
IIRC, it came from a well-intentioned but wrong-headed attempt to stem the tide of divorce. The rationale is that people were rushing into marriage and rushing out of marriage. Make an exit from marriage more costly up front, and maybe people will be more careful. It is legalism again. Laws cannot change human hearts. Selfish people are going to be selfish, regardless of laws or sermons. Unselfish people do not need a special category of marriage in order to be faithful and loving spouses. We all need the saving grace of Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit, not Gothardism and Rushdoonyism.
Velour wrote:
That was a monumentally big mistake. I’m thinking a Goldman Sachs guy know where to find a good lawyer. Do you have to use a picture of a human person for your FB profile? Seriously, I don’t know how that works, but this is just such a stupid thing to do.
Isn’t it weird that the Kardashians are actually healthier than the Duggars? I’ve never seen either show. The blame for some of this does lie with clergy who have been so busy trying to follow celebrity pastors and be radical and build their own legacy that they have neglected to teach the Word to their people. It boggles my mind that all of the normal mainstream Christian leaders haven’t called out this super weird cult like Family.
Gram3 wrote:
Plenty of people have had their photos lifted off the internet and used in internet scams. Surely, Goldman Sachs has counsel because now their brand is being dragged into it.
Saying God spoke to her, she continued, “Then it was as if a still small voice said, ‘Michelle, it’s easy to praise ME when things are going good, but are you willing to praise ME now?’ ”
Yep, we should still praise God. It’s not his fault that we choose to be stupid!
I think Josh Duggar’s family values have a minus sign in front of them.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
It’s very scary, but I still think that the backbone of QF teachings, father as the head of the household, has a strong pull over most of Christianity. Many will think that so long as they have fewer kids then things will turn out alright because they’re not like the Duggars, but they won’t want to realize that the Biblical approach contributed to what happened. It’s the same ideology – the Duggars lived it to the fullest, but even a lesser version is inherently dangerous for everyone.
Gram3 wrote:
This seems to me to be the entire point of Jesus coming/being sent to us. We can not do it on our own, no matter how well intentioned (see ‘Old Testament’). Even with laws straight from God, we simply can’t do it. We are just so stuck between The World and the Heavenly Things. Without Christ, how can we even imagine we can do it?
Corbin wrote:
Poor Anna is an understatement.
Given the heavily supervised courtship practices these people adhere to, I wonder …… Do these couples really know (not Biblically, of course) one another when they say their “I do”s??? I wonder if Anna knew anything at all about Josh, other than the TV false front?
@ Jamie Carter:
Yes, I think the abusive aspect comes more from the Patriarchal ideology. You can have a lot of kids and still live a normal life. (Barring the number of stares you get when in public with a large family.) And you can have just a few kids and really mess them up with Patriarchy.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
You can’t have 19 kids and have a normal life.
@ roebuck:
OK, maybe not 19 kids. 🙂 I guess I should qualify that. There are commenters here with large families who didn’t drink the Patriarchal kool-aid. Conversely, my husband’s parents had three boys, and they did more damage than should be allowed.
Excellent reporting! The Dee writes: “What is it with some Christians who seem to think that simple ‘I did it and repented’ is the truth?” Great observation. There seems to be an egregious confusion of confession with true repentance — as if merely confessing the sins/crimes makes life all better now. It clearly does not; and repentance, restoration, and regained trust takes a long time. Sex offender therapy would do him a world of good IF he has a heart for change.
My family has watched a lot of Duggers/TLC. That does not count the fact that both my wife and I also use TV as a sleep aid. Since I will be permanently sick, it means that I usually don’t leave the room if the Duggers are on again.
But this following Dugger moment is the all time for me. All I could say was, what the hell!? ( 1:25—->2:22)
I don’t know what to make of this clip. But I got this bizarre, religious…(I don’t know what word I want here)…psycho / sexual… imagery that comes to mind.
This is a doctrinal statement that Michele is making here. There’s no way I believe she makes an unscripted, unauthorized statement on TLC. This statement had to have been cleared (at least I think) by Jim Bob and probably whoever, whatever, counts as JB’s ” spiritual covering.”
Am I right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihanEE-k3yM
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I understood what you meant.
I just don’t think that people will get how bad it is until more damage is done and others fail the movement and fall from grace. Undoubtedly we will hear more but hopefully the movement will not recover.
roebuck wrote:
I can’t. Believe me, he has proved that. More than once. This week.
nathan priddis wrote:
Yes, it has to do with their interpretation of 1 corinthians 11. To their way of thing a daughter is always under the spiritual covering or protection of her father up until she gets married when her husband takes over as her head. This teaching has gained a lot of ground because it keeps the principle and divorces it from the symbol requiring women to wear head coverings into and during church services.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, I believe you! And if I forget, even a little bit, I am soon reminded…
Jamie Carter wrote:
And it all has nothing to do with Christ.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I’ve been around the Quiverfull culture. Close but not immersed in it. Children are trophies to their parents’ godliness. I am totally serious. If you don’t have a bunch of kids, you are robbing God of covenant children and a godly seed (even I do not have words enough to explain how twisted this is.) If you have any fewer than 4 kids, you are out of God’s will and you have not surrendered your life/body to him as a living sacrifice (more Bible twisting.) In a former life I got into an extended discussion with a young man who did not know me very well, which was his first mistake. He said categorically that birth control is wrong and is evidence of a lack of faith. I said, fine, next time you get the flu or a serious infection, you just have faith that God will open and close your immune system and you won’t need those antibiotics or that appendectomy. Because God is sovereign, right? He said to me, “That is not the same thing.” To which I responded, “Let’s talk when you have almost lost your life in childbirth, and, save for modern medicine, you would have. More than once.” Do you think that made him think? Some of you have probably read stuff he has written.
Children are not trophies. This is every bit as sick as the successful man who ditches the wife of his youth for a trophy wife to make himself feel like he’s really something great. Or, increasingly, the cougar. People are not objects to be used.
roebuck wrote:
Not really, the verses do mention him but I have never seen an explanation of what Christ as the head of man is supposed to look like.
Eagle wrote:
Mr. Perkins, I have to say only in your own mind. The rest of us are quite aware that those who advocate for your version of family values are often the first to not meet even average standards of morality, let alone higher ones. If you think a “family values” public figure behaving badly surprises anyone anymore, you are out of touch. It gets attention, not because people expect better behavior, but because exposed hypocrisy is still interesting.
Gram3 wrote:
Whew!! I have 3 siblings, so I guess my mom is safe! 🙂
Corbin wrote:
She is probably in the lowest decile. But, hey, you’re definitely a trophy kid! You kind of remind me of a smarty-pants girl I once knew.
Well, on the positive side, there is the Tater-tot casserole. But a stroke of luck or divine judgment, I happened to watch a couple of Duggar shows while I was sick in bed. When I saw the one with the recipe for TT casserole, I immediately thought, “Well done, Ore-Ida.”
Full disclosure, I love Tater Tots. The kind with onions. Which means 19 kids was unlikely to happen here.
Eagle wrote:
Yep. And try to point out how disgusting that is. You’ll be called “Self righteous!!”, “Prideful”, “Perpetually Outraged”, and even “An enemy of the Church!!”
@ Gram3:
You don’t have to explain Quiverfull to me. I was a part of it. Since we walked away from our Patriarchal cult, our life is starting to resemble something close to normal. I love every one of my kids. They are not trophies to my Godliness.
Gram3 wrote:
I have a feeling I’d like her.
It seemed to me that he was confessing to a lesser problem with pornography than admitting to the greater problem of intention to commit infidelity to distract us from any other skeletons in the closet.
roebuck wrote:
As far as I can tell, it is all about the family business . And the family business is selling themselves . If there was ever a perfect place to use the word the favorite comp word “roles”, this family is it.
Gram3 wrote:
God help me, I couldn’t sleep during a recent heat wave. I thought it would be a good idea to teach myself how to make cinnamon buns from scratch. I got up in the middle of the night proofed yeast, etc. It is the most dangerous new hobby. I have nearly perfected them. I think it ranks right up there with sky diving in the “dangerous hobbies” list!!
Jamie Carter wrote:
And the NeoCal churches with all of their authoritarianism also uses this another way: They insinuate themselves into controlling the lives of single people, especially women. My former pastors/elders at The Gulag (as I call my former NeoCal church) wanted to control everything from my décor to my friendships to the food I brought to potlucks to my clothing choices (riding a bike to church in a dress in the summer, with bike shorts on under the dress). The chairman of the elder board called to give me advice when I got a new job and how I should handle myself. I didn’t ask for advice, pal. I know how to handle myself. Just the arrogance of all of them. If I wanted advice, I would have asked!!
Leila wrote:
I’ll just point out that when convicted felon and young earth creationist was released to his family last month in Mississippi, Jim Bob Duggar came along for the ride.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
So great that you got out and have a healthy outlook now. I’ve only known of a few who got out totally. How did you get out, if you don’t mind saying?
Velour wrote:
Cream cheese in the frosting. Heck, just skip the dough, sprinkle the cinnamon on the frosting, add spoon.
@ Velour:
Sounds like your church was much worse than mine. A few years ago we lost our sound technician when the deacon showed her a copy of the next week’s material for Sunday School, a book about covenant marriage. Now that I think about it, that entire class was full of singles and she had been single all the years she was there.
@ mirele:
That is sick . . . no words.
Gram3 wrote:
I did make a few “health” improvements to the cinnamon buns, Gram3. Instead of butter, I added olive oil to the dough mixture. I added cinnamon to the dough too. Then instead of butter on the rolled out dough, I used a pastry brush and put on olive oil. Out of nuts and raisins, but had several bags of muesli cereal mix. I just tossed some on since it has nuts and raisins (ok oats too). Then sprinkled on cinnamon/brown sugar mixture. Roll up. Cut into large slices if you wish (bigger cinnamon buns). Put in pan. Use a pastry brush and paint on milk (the milk proteins makes the pastry brown). Bake in a 400 degree oven for 10-15 minutes, depending on size of buns.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Yep. There are some sick, sick, sick churches. I refer to my former church as The Gulag NeoCal Church.
Here is conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson’s excellent article about what he sees as the greatest threat to the church right now, authoritarianism.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
Gram3 wrote:
Well, now you know another one.
My husband’s business was deep in debt, and the ministers in our former cult wanted him to file for bankruptcy. After consulting local businessmen, bankers, a financial planner, and new accounting firm, he decided to not file for bankruptcy. He was disfellowshipped for not submitting to the ministers.
While we’ve spent the last 3 1/2 years clawing our way out of near bankruptcy, I’ve also been educating myself on the ideologies we were involved in.
Lydia wrote:
Ye$ the mi$$ionary daughter Jill and her hu$band Derrick just returned from Central America and *had* to vi$it the Her$hey’$ $tore in Time$ $quare (New York City)and had to discuss milk. Michelle wa$ there too.
^correction: di$$cu$$
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Join the club. I was *keyed out* (Gram3’s saying for excommunicated/shunned) for *not submitting to the pastors/elders* at my former Gulag NeoCal Church. At the end of a meeting about their friend they brought to church without telling anyone, giving him church membership and a leadership role, and he’s a Megan’s List sex offender (I found him on the list while doing research for a prosecutor about another sex offender), my pastors/elders said that I was destined for Hell and read me a Scripture verse in serious tones. Yes, for discussing the safety of our churches children!!! They said he was harmless. His supervising law enforcement agency begs to differ.
Anyway my former pastors/elders wanted to control everything: my friendships, my décor at my home, what I brought to church potlucks, attendance at Bible studies and adult Bible Study on Sunday, and on and on.
A good article by conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, a fair-minded man, about the greatest threat to the church today: authoritarianism.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Makes no sense except in a framework of clerical authoritarianism. Actually sounds like the Recons in their attitude toward financial matters. If you don’t mind me asking something else, while you were in the cult, what was the attraction? When we were fooled, we were fooled because we were basically asking to be fooled without realizing it. Now it is so clear, but then it was so clear the other way. I wish I could say it happened only once to us.
Gram3 wrote:
First and foremost, I was love-bombed. I was only 18 when I joined. My family was in flux relocating back to the US from the KSA. I was making decisions about what college to attend. I was scared and lonely. With the cult, I had instant friendships almost overnight. I’ve since learned that’s a big red flag.
Once you’re involved in a close community like that, another dynamic takes over. One of the best books I read that pertained to my situation is Take Back Your Life by Janja Lalich.
@ Gram3:
I also think that, because my family was so dysfunctional, the “happy” families appealed to me. I now know it’s a facade, but I didn’t back then.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Please think about adding the book at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books tab. Write a little summary about it. It might help others.
Gram3 wrote:
I can totally relate to this.
@ Celia:
Bill Gothard did an interview for The Daily Mail in July about how he helped Josh Duggar.
http://tinyurl.com/p88kkgw
Velour wrote:
I’ll think about that. Maybe not tonight though. 🙂 My immersion into Duggarland the past two days has taken an emotional toll.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
No worries. People here have been reading a lot of interesting books. It is nice to have them under that tab so that we can all remember them, should we develop an interest in that particular area.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
We almost had to live/work there about 40 years ago. Scared me to death, but we ended up not having to go. Since then, I’ve met some Saudis, and learned a lot. I mean TMI a lot.
I knew all about love-bombing, and I had not relocated with all the re-orientation that entailed. But I still fell for it, so I totally get that.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
For others of us, it was the Karen Hinkley story. Brings up some bad memories, but makes me more determined.
Gram3 wrote:
Wow! Small world. 🙂 It was an interesting experience. A lot of Aramco Brats (dependents of Aramco employees) stay close and have reunions every two years. My sister stays involved. (While I was off in cuckoo land.)
Check out the site Free Jinger, specifically the “Quiver Full of Duggars” forum, for all the latest. It blew up after the last scandal, and it’s blowing up again with this one.
http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=87
Anyone want to bet these aren’t the only skeletons in the Duggar closet? Jim Bob has always given me the creeps.
There are a couple of minor inconsistencies in your article. There’s no evidence Josh was on Facebook as early as 2004 (unless he was a covert student at Harvard). More like 2009 or after. One of his fake profile’s “life events” was getting his driver’s license in 2004. Michelle’s laundry-room breakdown occurred when she had “only” 6 or 7 children, several years before the cameras came on the scene.
Robert Jeffress is a nut. I saw Ablow’s “debate” with him and agreed with Ablow, too.
It’s interesting how Mike Huckabee and all the “fundies” have been so quiet about all this. He came out in support of Josh and the Duggars early after the molestation scandal broke but then distanced himself. Now with this revelation? Crickets.
I’ve always said it’s fascinated and amazed me at what some people’s “last straw” regarding certain events is. There were members of Bellevue who supported confessed child molester (his own son was the victim), Paul Williams, but who got their panties in a wad and left the church when they changed the church mission statement. The “leghumpers” (as rabid Duggar supporters are called on Free Jinger) defended him throughout the molestation scandal (in which police reports confirm he molested 4 of his own sisters), but this latest revelation was their “last straw.” Don’t get me wrong. Marital infidelity is horrible, and there are certainly many victims because of this (his wife and children being the main ones), but for pete’s sake, he molested his underage sisters, one as young as 4, when he was 14-15 and probably until 16 or 17! He’s just sorry he got caught.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I heard about the restrictions and the compound and just about freaked out. My family says I like to camp in 5 star resorts, so I’m thinking Jeddah was not that way back then.
What do you think a Reality Show IS?
Sorry, not getting his driver’s license (although that was probably the same time), but becoming an organ donor. His wife would probably like to donate several of his organs right about now!
Since the voluntary covenant marriage law was referenced, I thought I’d throw in a few random tidbits. The Arkansas state legislature passed this in 2001 and Governor Mike Huckabee signed it into law. There are only a few other states that have this kind of marriage option. It just didn’t catch on. It’s been too long for me to remember (for certain) what people were the promoters, which politicians or groups, but it was really gushed over as being a giant leap for the sanctity of marriage. Gonna turn this divorce train around. You bet. A quick internet search just now revealed that perhaps 1% of the state’s marriages are covenant marriages. I have seen one marriage certificate that is a covenant marriage. I had forgotten that we even had such a thing, so I read it carefully. I felt disturbed over the restrictions and requirements. I am of the opinion that any couple who chooses an official covenant marriage is unlikely to divorce lightly, anyway. Another interesting bit of Arkansas Covenant Marriage Trivia: a few years after this option was made available, someone got the grand idea to promote it by hosting a statewide covenant marriage ceremony on Valentine’s Day in which already married couples converted their normal marriage license into a covenant marriage license. Governor and Mrs. Huckabee were supposed to participate as a solemn demonstration of the importance before God that they placed on their marriage. Strange but true. In remembering this, I’ve mentally cued the scene from The Princess Bride movie, only with hundreds of couples and Huckabee solemnly intoning, “Maiwwage … Is what bwings us … togethah … too-daay.”
Gram3 wrote:
Pecans, too! Oooo, I think I’m hungry!
notastepfordsheep wrote:
As of now, It Never Existed.
doubleplusungood ref doubleplusunevents.
doubleplusungood ref doubleplusunpersons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin.jpg
As for the abuse special set to air on August 30th, it’s my understanding Jill and Jessa Duggar (don’t know if it’s already been filmed, but Jill and Derick were spotted in NYC recently) were to make only brief appearances in it. The show is not expected to dwell on their family’s situation but rather the epidemic problem of CSA in society. Makes me wonder with this latest revelation if the Duggar sisters’ segments aren’t left on the cutting room floor.
Excuse me, now Jill Dillard and Jessa Seewald.
K.D. wrote:
Breeding Uruk-Hai for the Culture War Jihad.
“We conquer the lands of the Infidel! Our wombs shall be our weapons!”
— attr to some Euro-Mullah (Islamic equivalent of Quiverfull)
Corbin wrote:
Weren’t Covenant Marriages originally pushed through by CHRISTIAN(TM) Family Values Activists?
roebuck wrote:
Guess again, Roebuck.
The first I heard of Covenant Marriages was a mobilization call on some Christianese Activist radio — Focus on the Family or something similar. As I said above, I think Covenant Marriages were pushed through by Christian Family Values Activists.
notastepfordsheep wrote:
I wonder which organ is at the top of the list!
If no one has posted it yet, latest TV news release says that one of Josh Duggar’s AM accounts was active as late as May 17, this year.
Corbin wrote:
Salvation by Marriage Alone.
Nancy2 wrote:
I made a third batch when I got home from work.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Careful HUG. You’re beginning to sound like SBC ERLC Russell Moore!
Jamie Carter wrote:
i.e. Transfer of Ownership.
Some patrio fathers even demand a bride price payment.
Velour wrote:
Okay that does it. I have a bread machine, and I know how to use it!
@ notastepfordsheep:
Agree 100%.
Nancy2 wrote:
You know I need to repent for leading you in to temptation: cinnamon buns from scratch.
I have a new motto: “Life is short. Have a cinnamon bun (or 3)!”
Elyse Fitzpatrick says legalism will produce rebellion or self righteousness. Unfortunately, the Duggars are another example of that.
I grew up with a family much like the Duggars. They attended our church and a few were friends of mine. They didn’t have quite 19 children, but they had a lot. Now they’re in there 30’s and 40’s and most have left Christianity. I asked my friend “Why?” and was told, “I could never be good enough for my parents, how was I ever going to be good enough for God? Obviously he didn’t get the gospel at all. He makes a point though, in these homes where there is no grace, and the law is impossible to keep, I think some of these kids completely give up even trying.
A prime example of that, in my experience, are those who grew up under the Gothard model. Of those I know who rebelled the most, it was the families who followed Gothard. Which includes the family I already mentioned. I think it’s partly because there’s lots of law, and no grace.
One other thing about the family I mentioned, while growing up they were the picture perfect family. In fact, as a young girl I used to wish my family was like theirs. A few years ago one of them confessed to me that behind closed doors it was more of a nightmare that has now required counseling for many of them.
My prayer is that the things going on now will be used by the Lord ad a wake-up call for the Duggar family to make some changes. Also, that they will truly understand the gospel, including Josh.
I hope those of us who have been critical of them would not take joy in their fall.
Velour wrote:
I have a new motto: “Life is short. Have a cinnamon bun (or 3)!”
That motto will get me into a lot LESS trouble than that other motto.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2,
Our motto is sweeter!
Velour wrote:
Sweeter AND safer!
Ok, my migraine meds are really kickin’ in here, so I know this is out there, but ……… Does anyone know how the Duggars feel about getting pets spayed and neutered?
Nancy2 wrote:
No clue. They probably would be ok with it under the whole subdue creation theory. Given to you by God to master.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Dude, you seriously need to put a warning before you say something like that. Your posts are dangerous for people who are eating.
Having 19 kids under those circumstances is asking for trouble. I suspect, however, that the basic ‘trouble’ is not the result of the number of kids so much as the result of something we do not yet know about.
We need to be careful, however, in how we criticize family size. We have names of five boys and an unstated number of sisters in a certain family from Nazareth. Those who rush to call parents ‘breeders’ have to include Joseph of Nazareth in their pejorative comments.
I suspect that evolutionarily speaking, the desire for more and more sex partners (Ashley Madison) is not unrelated to the desire for more and more babies.
I only heard of the show a month ago, when I watched it with my sister-in-law (yes, we get it here in Taiwan) in between some travel and cooking shows. Then I googled the Duggars and told her about the molestation scandal. Oh yeah, and our local library also got their book, which I vaguely recall flipping through. I have no idea how they came to order it, and can’t imagine that very many people here would be interested in their advice.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I didn’t say it wasn’t being pushed by ‘Christians’. I said it wasn’t Christian. BIG difference…
Ellie wrote:
I share your sentiments. When I see this kind of thing happen in legalistic homes I pray that the children of these homes will understand the gospel. I suspect they see it much like I used to see it; grace is for that one moment in time when one accepts Jesus as their Lord. Then once you are in the family of God, it’s law, law, law. Who can stand a life like that? I am so glad for the preacher I met who finally set me straight on the fact that I need the gospel every day, not just at the point of my conversion into the faith.
@ okrapod:
There is a difference – ancient families were huge for many reasons. In the OT, polygyny and having concubines was permitted. It was the “husband of one wife” rule for leaders that changed things so that monogamy became more common. Because of their lack of medicinal knowledge, the mortality rate for women and infants was extremely high. They would have believed that having sons was proof of God’s favor because sons could take care of them in their old age as daughters were married off and went to live in their husbands household.
Modern families equally value daughters and sons. Medicine has helped us create a world where fewer people die young and for the first time people can limit the size of their family. Not that long ago my ancestors had no choice but to have a dozen or so kids only to watch most of them die before adulthood and live in poverty. Today we see that there’s usually three kids because of our belief in respnsability.
A few months ago, a quiverfull family in this are had its children taken away by the state because their living conditions was an unfinished cabin, open to the elements, without electricity, runing water, or reliable heat (wood stove). Their no debt, off the grid lifestyle was not ideal for that many kids. It’s not the family size that we’re criticizing to be mean, we know that the bigger a family gets the poorer living conditions become and the unhealthier it is for everyone. Most QF families don’t have the Duggar’s fame or wealth, so we can hazzard a guess that their biggest families are usually the poorest.
Quiverfull is an ideology. Because they don’t believe in birth control, the families can be rather large, but a large family isn’t always necessarily Quiverfull. You usually find Quiverfull accompanied by other ideologies like Patriarchy, homeschool only, modesty/purity, courtship/betrothal, Pearl style child “training,” etc. And, yes, it’s very legalistic. The entire movement is very cult like.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Sounds Biblical. But it is also cultural – referred to as the Mohar and Ketubah. It’s a good thing that they ignore cultural and historical context because it’s so much easier to control people by saying that every inerrant word is infallible and trans-cultural and anyone who doesn’t submit to them is rebelling against God. That and they want as much money as they can get and they could care less how they get it.
Ellie wrote:
Your comment is so good. When we broke from this cult like environment, I fell back on my pre-cult life. I had a “personal relationship with Jesus” before I got involved with this movement, so I still have some faith to hold on to. My husband, on the other hand, was raised with this poison. It has instilled a lot of good values in him, but a relationship with Jesus wasn’t one of them.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes and this blog also helps when we come across people going through similar authoritarian situations in that we can point them here and say, “you are not alone”. Then they can pick up ideas/courage for their own situations from many povs, instead of one.
That is what so impressed me about Karen Hinkley. The wisdom she displayed at such a young age!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I also had a relationship with Christ “before” and that meant everything. However, for me, over a long period of time, I have come to the conclusion that church is the worst place for me to grow that relationship. I am sure that is not the case for everyone but even the process of finding a Body of Christ that IS about Christ and not the leaders, is exhausting and frustrating.
Lydia wrote:
It looks that way, doesn’t it? After we left the cult, my father wanted me to return to the SCB. Since the story about my cult was what led me to TWW, I’ve had the opportunity to read about what has happened to the SBC since I left it. No, thank you. I think if/when our family does return to church it will be a something other than evangelical.
Gram3 wrote:
I understand. These stories seem to come in waves. Things will be calm for while. Then, within a few days time, Deebs and other bloggers are inundated with stories that need to be told.
okrapod wrote:
This subject is very interesting from a 1st Century perspective.
Reading around on the subject of ancient culture years ago, the Jews were very interesting in contrast to their Gentile counter parts in general. Every family had a family business whether it was fishing, carpentry or whatever. At the age of 7 most Jewish boys were sent to “school” to study with the local rabbi. If that boy showed promise he went on to more study. If not, he went to work with dad in the family business. (the Apostles did not show “promise” in that respect and were working when Jesus called them) If he went on to study, his actual rabbinical career would start around age 30.
Boys were needed to maintain the family and girls, while more valued than in other cultures, were married off as young as 13 or so when they were ready to have children. And because so many died in childbirth and there was a large mortality rate for babies, this made larger families a necessity.
The Romans had a more gruesome approach. If the baby was deformed, illegitimate or sickly they were often discarded upon the word of the husband or other paterfamilias elders. Girls who were considered of less value. The “Twelve Tables” of Roman law posited that if the child were seriously deformed, they were to dispose of it. In order to do this by natural causes (which they thought was not murder) they exposed the child to the elements. If the gods saved the child, then it was meant to live.
This practice of infanticide was outlawed around the 3rd Century.
This just more reality TV . TLC used to have interesting programming but turned the channel over completely to reality tv. The programs are cheap to make, earn tons of cash, generate buzz. Everyone loves a train wreck! I unplugged cable the day of the 24 hour “Extreme Couponing” marathon. “Jon and Kate Plus 8” and “Toddlers and Tiaras” all had their time in the sun and fell to one scandal or another. It’s nothing more than child exploitation. The Duggars will try to make some cash over this – Tell me Jack? What doe Josh Duggar win today? “Restoration! – evangelical Christianity’s favourite game!”. There’ll be tell all books, and advice to parents. The Duggars may have left the boob tube, but as we’ve seen in previous posts, there’ll be some celebrity pastor who’ll take poor brother Josh and lead to him to redemption, forgiveness. There’ll be tears and hugs while the vacantly smiling (and biblically approved) spouse stands by in support. This’ll go on for years. There’ll be a speaking tour, a book, another reality tv show – maybe old Josh’ll get a gender reassignment! Just think of the possibilities. And hark! Is that a whistle I hear? The TLC express is ready to leave the station, loaded with more reality tv goodness.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Hmmm. On the one hand the quiverfull people think about having as many as possible (as many as god gives them) and on the other hand you put a limit at three as the thing to do to be ‘responsible.’ What I see is people at both ends of the spectrum trying to tell other people what to do.
I think: it depends on a lot of variables. In my childhood four was the minimum rule of thumb for many catholic families (not some church law) and four is what was used in popular culture for the post war era as in a house in the burbs, a station wagon, four children and a large dog. What I seen in that this also is people trying to tell other people what to do.
My maternal grandmother had six; they were poor (east Texas poor) but the kids all grew up to be educated and employed and responsible and all but one married and had from one to four kids.
But there are people in our culture who are hugely anti-kids. They seem to be anti-kids on principle. They repeatedly use the term ‘breeders’ for people who have kids. I find that irrational and offensive and I plan to protest that attitude whenever possible.
And of course my thinking has both a personal and an observational element to it.
The personal. Two of the grandchildren who live with me were abandoned at birth in a certain other nation which has a legal anti-kids policy in place. Only one for most folks. I look at these kids, both female and smart and pretty and academically motivated (that is a value in our family) and of course it gets personal.
The observational. In the meantime, here where I live and where we have a large and growing segment of population which is of a certain identifiable first generation immigrant culture and which tends to have larger families and which is mostly hard working but relatively poor-ish, those kids in the local public school system at the end of last year end-of-grade standardized testing, to the surprise of almost everybody, tested out on a par with the dominant majority ethnicity even in spite of language difficulties. And this achievement level was seen in both the males and the females. Imagine that, all in spite of the fact that they are poor-ish, have larger families and struggle with the language. So don’t try to tell us here in this school system that it’s all about family size and all about money-apparently there is more to it than that.
But for those who think and feel and believe differently, do what you believe. Act on your own experiences and observations and abilities and motivations. I totally believe that people have this choice. One and done? Fine with me-unless you try to force that on everybody. Lots and lots-fine with me if you have the resources (money, extended family, cultural expectations, religious ideology, etc) to deal with it-unless you try to force that on everybody. Or pretend that you are more righteous than god based on your fertility. None-you don’t want to parent? Fine with me and better for you and the kids if you don’t parent.
Options!
okrapod wrote:
Did I write that sentence? How could that be since I came from a small family that was not poor?
Try again. What I see is that this also is people (etc)
Jamie Carter wrote:
The Duggars are “Independent” Baptists. Most of these folks tend to be Calvinist in their belief. As such, they would be considered in fundamentalist “Old” Calvinist ranks with a strong leaning to authoritarian rule and sometimes oppressive patriarchal behavior. In the reformed (Calvinist) system, TWW has noted on other posts that Female Subordination is the rule of the day; they must be submissive and yielding to men in authority over them (at home and church). These are characteristics of both “Old” and “New” Calvinism. Jim Bob and Josh would view women much differently in various compartments of life than mainline Christianity … and use their religion to justify the way they treat and use the weaker sex. Calvinism, on all fronts, is a “Christian” aberration that should not be entertained; however, New Calvinism is drawing 20s-40s by the thousands. Unfortunately TWW will have plenty of material to report on in the days ahead as more abuse is revealed from this corner of Christendom.
Gram3 wrote:
No, you do not need to have a human person for your FB profile. You can leave it blank or you can upload any photo of anything : pet, favorite landscape, self… as long as it is not obscene, etc. What FB does not allow is multiple accounts for one person. Josh Duggar must be very short-sighted in many ways other than the obvious to not to think that choosing the photo of such a high profile person could not come back to bite him. Of course, he may just have picked a photo that looked at least superficially like him and may not have recognized the name Jonathan Blankfein and it was just a really bad coincidence (from his pov) that is was someone with money, etc.
Zla’od wrote:
There could be lots of things behind it. The affairs could also have their roots in sexual abuse. Josh sexually abused at least five people that we know of, four of his sisters and one babysitter. There could be more victims. Was Josh sexually abused? If “yes”, by whom? A lot of these behaviors are the behaviors of a sex addict. Dr. Dan Allender has written about this in The Wounded Heart and provided Christian-based therapy.
http://thepathlesschosen.com/books/the_wounded_heart/twh_kit_info.html
http://theallendercenter.org/conferences/wounded-heart/
I did a bit of Googling and found that Josh and Anna could not have had a Covenant Marriage. Only 3 states have those – Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana. Their wedding was in Florida.
Interestingly, in Arkansas couples who are forming a Covenant Marriage must file a signed, notarized statement where both partners state, “We have chosen each other carefully and disclosed to one another everything which could adversely affect the decision to enter into this marriage.”
Somehow I don’t think that Joshie provided full disclosure.
okrapod wrote:
Hmmmm…I don’t see the link between large families in the Bible and what is rightly being criticized is the whole “Docrtines of Men”, i.e. patriarchy/comp doctrine/Quiverfull/Gothard/authoritarianism that the Duggars espouse and those other families espouse. Gothardism didn’t buy them a better, more perfect family. Bill Gothard, the Duggars’ hero, had to step down from his work after countless stories of his sexually preying on young women. We see story after story like that from these proponents. (By the way, why are we supposed to take our cues about how to live life from sex offenders?)
Gothardism wasn’t being promoted by large families in the Bible.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I identify with you in this regard; I guess that’s why we encounter each other in various blogs. As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I can testify that the organized church has done more to hinder my walk with Christ than advance it. The American church is a mess and approaching apostasy at break-neck speed. In too many places we are failing to keep the Main thing the main thing. The Christian experience should be about pursuing a “relationship” with Christ not “religion”, if that religious system by whatever flavor keeps you from maturing in Him. When it comes down to it, we each need to dig our own spiritual well. Someday, we will stand individually before Christ to give an account, not as a group that we attempted to worship with. We need to get this right on this side of Heaven … to be as He is in this world. Pray, repent, read your Bible, seek God’s face, move when the Spirit prompts you … be salt and light even if you have to “freelance” your faith on the move as He leads you. Your “Quiverfull” should be spiritual sons and daughters you help birth into the Kingdom through your faithfulness, as you touch their lives in your journey.
@ okrapod:
I’m with you. And options is exactly what many kids raised like the Duggars don’t have. They are expected to carry on the legacy. Many of them are blanket trained from childhood into perfect obedience. They will be shunned as apostates if they break ranks with this movement.
Abi Miah wrote:
So he could have made a fake account without using someone else’s picture/identity. I’m having a hard time seeing why he wouldn’t just use a picture that is not another person. That’s a little creepy that he felt the freedom to “take” someone else’s picture for his own use.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Good for you! Thank you for answering that question!
Abi Miah wrote:
He may get sued for the picture on his OK Cupid account. The photo was of a guy who lost a job this week because they thought he was messed u in this sex scandal.
http://www.tmz.com/2015/08/22/josh-duggar-okcupid-profile-stolen-picture/
Max wrote:
So much to cover…
okrapod wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful post about your family and community, and your care for children.
I think that people are deconstructing the Duggars’ beliefs because it was the height of irresponsibility for them to not take care of the children they had when their family was imploding from sexual abuse, when their children needed them and their son needed them, and they just decided to keep pressing on and having more and more kids because of their beliefs. With that came lying…lying about reality, lying about the extent of their problems, lying about what kind of family they really had, lying to the American public to make money about what a wonderful family they had, how perfect they were.
The bit about the girls locking themselves in their bedroom en masse in the Duggar household turns my stomach. I grew up with my 2 brothers who obviously never felt the need to molest me & who could be kept out of my room by a simple closed door as well as the knowledge it was my room.
The whole messed up Quiverfull thing seems to create a dynamic in which the kids growing up in it are less able to behave in ways preached by it than those who grow up outside of it. The hothouse created by their obsession with sex, not having it in this case, seems no less harmful (if not more) than those who grow up in other sex obsessed households. It makes me queasy queasy queasy.
My Gran was one of 17 – Irish Catholic born in 1922- I wish I could ask her about her experience.
Okrapod, I really appreciated your balanced comment about having options, and the tendency people have to tell others what to do. I completely agree.
Hi Dee your profile reads ‘She grew up in Salem, Massachusetts and is the granddaughter of a Russian immigrant. Her family was only nominally religious and she became a Christian at the age of 17 during an episode of Star Trek.’ Which episode was it? I remember when about 17 being impressed with the particular episode dated Stardate 4041.7 ( shown around 1978). when the slaves in it were thought to be Sun worshippers when they were really Son (of God ) worshippers!
In “Bread and Circuses”, the episode that took place in Stardate 4041.7 (AD 2268 for planet-bound humans), Captain James Tiberius Kirk, valiant captain of the good ship Enterprise, in the midst of their five-year mission, came across planet 892-IV, a draconian 20th-century version of the Roman Empire, complete with gladiators, senators and nefarious politics. The empire sponsors state executions of renegade slaves who practice a pacifistic religion of “total love and total brotherhood”. Sound familiar?
The twist is that the slaves imprisoned for practising the religion of their choice are sun worshippers. As Mr Spock, the ship’s Science Officer and Captain Kirk’s logical foil, points out: “It seems illogical for a sun worshipper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive, superstitious religion.”
And then the fateful and faith-filled moment memorialised in the hearts of all Christian Trekkers, Lt Uhura pipes up from her communications console to correct her superior officers: “I’m afraid you have it all wrong, all of you,” she says. “I’ve been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion, but he couldn’t. Well, don’t you understand? It’s not the sun up in the sky. It’s the Son of God.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/05/10/catholic-and-christian-themes-in-star-trek/
dee wrote:
I hope this poor guy gets his job back. How dense could Josh Duggar be, or maybe self-serving and uncaring are the operative words. He certainly has proven to be self-serving in how he has treated his sisters and wife. I wouldn’t trust him in my house around my children if I was his wife.
I guess the people using this web-site really don’t understand that NO I formation is safe out on the inter-web. They want what they want so bad that they are willing to be idiots about it.
@ Max:
What is sad is most of the people I encounter who are extremely frustrated with their church feel they are in mortal sin if they do not attend church somewhere. I understand this but think it keeps them from focusing on the main thing. Church, as we know it, seems to have replaced allegiance to Christ. It is almost always about taking the kids out of church that really concerns them. And I wonder how much worse it is to keep them there! I have certainly wrestled with that myself.
@ Velour:
I absolutely agree with you. What the Duggars have done ought to be criticized, lessons should be learned from it, and the people who think that the Duggars are the way to live need to hear opposing opinions from conservative christians and not just from ‘the world.’ Nothing that I can see in christianity justifies any number of things they have apparently done.
Zla’od wrote:
When I first head of Ashley Madison I did a bit of a search and found an article on Vanity Fair. I always read their “investigative pieces” with a jaundiced eye but they are interesting. The point was to try and understand the types that use Ashley Madison and their motivations. The evolutionary desire for more babies does not seem to be even a subconscious motivation. :o)
It seemed to be more: deception as an adventure. And of course, sex. Remember, Ashley Madison is about having “affairs”. If one wants raw unattached sex, one can easily obtain that these days.
okrapod wrote:
I was referring to my family, specifically. When I did geneology research – I noticed that my ancestors usually had about a dozen kids because they lacked the medical knowledge we have today. My grandparents had six as well – three boys and three girls. My generation – my cousins and my siblings – we’re usually in sets of three. So in a few generations we went from usually a dozen kids, to six kids, to three kids. I wasn’t speaking of others or other families or their beliefs or trying to suggest what they ought to do. I think it reflects the larger societal trend for familes to get smaller which is why I said it. I know of no one from public school who had more than just two brothers and sisters. Statistically, most families have two or three kids in general.
The problem with Quiverfull ideology is the the idea that children are ‘arrows’ to be shot into the heart of ‘the enemy’. Some are taught to think about the ‘200 year plan’ of what a father (partriarch) wants his family (household) to look like long after he’s dead: http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/whats-in-your-200-year-plan/
They’re not raising kids to cherish as they grow into individual adults – they’re birthing pawns to manipulate as ideological clones so that they can declare checkmate decades from now. They do this by indoctrinating daugthers to believe that their God-given role is to marry a Godly husband who will lead and provide for the family as she has as many children as humanly possible. Her own dreams, desires, plans, or spiritual calling are unimportant fantasies that distract from the mission of motherhood. Sons are prepared to be just like their fathers – having as many children and hopefully entering politics to push the Christian agenda as a Christian warrior against the world. Jim Bob Duggar ran as a Republican in Arkansas, if I’m not mistaken. The Duggars are but one Quiverfull family. Combine their beliefs with hundreds of others and the reality that their cornerstone belief is that they can outbreed the enemy.
I’m all for normal families no matter how many or how few kids are in the picture because their ideology usually includes what’s best for the kid – the best education, college, medicine from day one. Quiverfull families don’t believe the same things that normal families do and that’s why they’re so dangerous especially for the children who grow up and find it difficult to adjust to the real world because it’s so different.
Beakerj wrote:
Home was not a “safe” place. It breaks my heart that kids grow up like that and it is considered normal for them.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, sad indeed. God has called us to be the “Body” of Christ, equipped by leadership to do the work of the ministry together in which we each exercise our unique spiritual gifting to edify the whole. That, of course, is the genuine; the model of truly doing church with God … much of what is in operation today is a counterfeit; doing church without God. There are exceptions to this, but such churches are rare and endangered species. Sooooo … unless we experience a true revival and spiritual awakening in America (if and when we do), true believers are challenged with striking a balance between “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” with “come out from her and be not a partaker of her sin.” Praise God we can exercise our free will to hear His voice in this regard, lest we lose our spiritual bearings until He returns to right the ship.
Lydia wrote:
Josh already had that purpose covered with Anna. Now he was out to play the big bad boy!
@ Velour:
That comment was specifically ‘triggered’ by one commenter here who repeatedly uses the term ‘breeders’ for people with kids. My comment referenced the Holy Family which that person would recognize, as well as the biblical listing of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (however understood) which they would also understand given their religious background. To wit, note how carefully I said ‘Joseph’ and not ‘Mary.’
But I am tired of seeing myself and my family cast with a group ridiculed as ‘breeders.’ My response is: blipping right and dang proud of it. But being silent in the face of repeated ridicule-nah.
@ okrapod:
Thanks for explaining the context of your post.
@ Jamie Carter:
I’m glad you brought that up. It’s also known as Multigenerational Faithfulness.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/12/layers-of-extra-biblical-belief.html
This is where I believe the damage to Josh come into play. Not that he isn’t responsible for his actions, but some of this may be his way of rebelling or acting out against his tightly controlled environment. He also has obvious addictions which his parents failed to adequately deal with because of their own worldview.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks for this thoughtful reply.
@ Jamie Carter:
I certainly agree with you about the quiverfull ideology, and I have no use for that mess being passed off as being consistent with christianity.
Your family sounds responsible and seems to be in fact exercising options. More power to all of you.
Ellie wrote:
I can’t say that I feel “joy”. But I do feel a sense of relief that they are getting their comeuppance. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar happily lied to the American public about what kind of *perfect family* they had. When it wasn’t true – and they knew it (sexual abuse by Josh of at least four daughters and one babysitter) – they demanded the firing of their city’s police chief (a woman), made all kinds of attacks about her (for following the law and a Freedom of Information Act request from a news agency for the police report), hired an attorney for Josh to sue Arkansas Social Services when he was 19 because that department had investigated their family for this, hired an attorney for one of their daughters to recently sue, and on and on.
These people are arrogant! They emboldened their son. The Duggars were willing to lie, to harm the names, reputations, and careers of anyone who didn’t fall in lockstep with their deceit about what a *wonderful family they have*. They didn’t candidly admit, “We have serious problems that we need to attend to.”
They saw no wrong on the harm they inflicted on other people, the police chief, social services. They used their powerful friends in Arkansas to inflict further harm on people just doing their jobs in law enforcement and social services.
Bridget wrote:
This statement does not settle with me. It never has. I don’t think it ever will. It puts too much on leaders and very little on the individual. I don’t see where this is even in scripture, that the body is to be equipped by leadership. Teachers, pastors, administrators, etc. will naturally help build up the body, but the body is called to build one another up as well. The Holy Spirit will build up and empower the entire body. “But the body is not to look to “leadership” for building up the body.” This is one area where the Church has gone wrong. Expecting too much from too few “leaders” — and many men in leadership who use the position for power, prestige, and fortune, instead of being another member of the body who happens to be gifted as pastor, teacher, administrator, etc. The Church doesn’t need leaders. It needs members who use their gifts. Does that make sense?
@ Bridget:
That was a quote from Max. Don’t know why it quoted me.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
In a nutshell, Josh was taught women existed for his purposes. To affirm him, help him succeed and bear children. They were basically objects who exist for men.
But also intense legalistic forms of “purity” is taught in that world. Not kissing until the wedding, etc. Think of the cognitive dissonance in those messages.
Instead of having a mom and dad who taught him his urges/thoughts were perfectly normal but also to respect others and have self control, he was taught a mixed message.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
19 kids = bedroom evangelism, outbreed the heathen! That should have been the show name!
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
In a nutshell, Josh was taught women existed for his purposes. To affirm him, help him succeed and bear children. They were basically objects who exist for men.
But also intense legalistic forms of “purity” are taught in that world. Not kissing until the wedding, etc. Think of the cognitive dissonance in those messages.
Instead of having a mom and dad who taught him his urges/thoughts were perfectly normal for his hormonal development but also ingraining from a young age to respect others and have self control, he was taught a mixed message.
I am not excusing him because ignorance of the law does not mean one is innocent. (speaking of how our system approaches this problem) He is still responsible for his actions. But it would be irresponsible not to point out that system can be a breeding ground for deviant behaviors while masquerading as the perfect example. Deception is always deadly for many.
Now that is weird. I must have hit send before it was finished but it still showed on my screen? Devil gremlins?
@ Lydia:
Yes. I put the lion’s share of blame on Michelle, Jim Bob, and the teachers of all this poisonous ideology. Josh is going to have to own his mistakes. He’ll have a fighting chance if he does. But he is a product of this system. Not that kids and adults outside of these beliefs don’t have problems, but Josh’s indoctrination didn’t help.
@ dee:
“Gospel Centered Lawsuit?” Does that apply here?
Bridget wrote:
Yes! The constant focus on leadership is one of my pet peeves. In my view such a focus negates the reason for the Body. And it also keeps people in perpetual immaturity. Why isn’t the focus on maturing and moving on to help others no matter who you are in the Body with your spiritual gifting. The focus should be on ALL developing gifts and the fruits of the spirit.
There is this thinking out there that we should spend our time looking for wise mature leaders or praying the current leaders to change into wise, mature leaders. I think that is a huge waste of time when the focus should be on each and everyone maturing in Christ. Adults who are maturing spiritually do not need mediators or leaders. Why have so many bought into that thinking as a “fact”? I don’t get it.
If a leader used Jesus to deceive others or gain control/authority, I cannot imagine why people want to wait around to see if they changed. It is such a red flag. Yes, they can be redeemed/repentant– but can’t they forgo their lofty positions first? Wouldn’t that be a sign they are serious?
Bridget wrote:
“His “gifts to men” were varied. Some he made his messengers, some prophets, some preachers of the Gospel; to some he gave the power to guide and teach his people. His gifts were made that Christians might be properly equipped for their service, that the whole body might be built up until the time comes when, in the unity of the common faith and common knowledge of the Son of God, we arrive at real maturity—that measure of development which is meant by the “fullness of Christ”.” (Ephesians 4:11-13)
Bridget, when church is functioning as God intended, God-called anointed leadership helps equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. But the final product is the result of the Holy Spirit, not the leader’s talent. The problem is that you and I have not seen much of that in genuine operation in the church; leaders are more annoying than anointed! When the Church (the true one) is operating properly, as you note “It needs members who use their gifts.” Whose job is the ministry? Every believer has a part!
@ Max:
In the meantime, we better dig our own spiritual well and move where the Spirit leads. We have a spiritual leadership crisis in the American church … don’t lean too heavily on them to equip the saints in their current condition.
@ Lydia:
So many of us who followed these ideologies did so out of a sincere desire to do God’s will. We were sold a bill of goods. This lifestyle is touted as THE ideal way to raise children. It’s God’s plan. And when you’re presented with such happy families with well-behaved children, who can argue?
Some parents only wanted to homeschool their kids, and got sucked into these ideologies through a homeschool conference or materials shared in homeschool support groups. These ideologies somehow hijacked homeschooling as a platform. Thankfully, homeschoolers are becoming more diverse.
Some of us began to taste rotten fruit long before Josh’s problems were exposed. Some of us already know the game is rigged. We get angry when people try to defend the Duggars. We know molested children. We know how the kids are disciplined. We disciplined our own kids the same way. I want this movement to go away.
Lydia wrote:
Because Christians are constantly told with the NeoCal movement that their pastors/elders are spiritually responsible for them, will give an account to God for them, and so hand over your power and autonomy and sign an un-biblical Membership Covenant. The grab for power and money is described by authoritarian leaders in Scriptural verses as a heavy burden they must carry and you the ever day Christian just aren’t grateful enough.
okrapod wrote:
I appreciate your comment about not judging people either way. It isn’t more righteous to have a bunch of kids because Covenant Faithfulness nor is it more righteous to have no kids because Save the Planet. There is no universal ideal family size, for pity’s sake. I would have liked to have more children, but my health would have made that very unwise both for me and also for the children I already had. I do not see how it is possible to give 19 kids the love and attention and education that they need to thrive in a modern world. Certainly it was different when people lived on farms and more kids meant more help, not to mention that so many mothers and babies and young children died. The Quiverfull and related ideologies are stuck in a time that never existed, just like the TV families known as The Duggars and the Cleavers and the Nelsons never existed.
@ Bridget:
Before I get off my soap box, I want to add that Jesus modeled exactly what we are talking about. The Apostles He called out to were not the cream of the crop who were studying with Rabbi’s. Very unlikely choices for what He had in mind back then in that culture.
Then later we have Paul who WAS the cream of the rabbinical crop who ends up focusing on Gentiles. (Does God have a sense of humor?)
Then we have a group of women, both married and unmarried who are supporting Jesus financially and traveling with Him and the others. Then God gives them the honor to be the first to spread the Good News: He is Risen!
We are told over and over in a myriad of ways and occurences that the first will be last, honor the least of these, elevate the lowest in the Body, don’t be like the Gentiles in lording it over…. and on and on.
But that message is lost on so many because of the need for a few to be in control of the many. And for the adult “many” to have a “leader” to look to instead of growing in maturity with Christ.
Ok, soap box over.
Is the “underbelly of the underbelly” of the Duggar family Calvinism? Can anyone confirm Jim Bob’s theological leaning? They are “Independent” Church members – most of which are Calvinist, but not always.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I hear you! Me too! I appreciate your position and you have much to offer in the way of your experience. You are so articulate and wise in your comments.
@ Max:
Well, I hate to break it to you but they attend Robert Jeffries church when they are in Dallas. He was an early apologist for them and Josh’ sexual molestation of his sisters. My guess is that the Duggars are of whatever persuasion brings them the most camera time.
Lydia wrote:
And Scripture records that the world took note that “they had been with Jesus.” Can we say that about the spiritual leaders we have been exposed to? Is there evidence in their lives, both in and out of the pulpit, that they are experiencing a daily walk with Jesus … or simply following the teachings and traditions of mere men. The spiritual condition of church folks that sit under their teaching/preaching is largely shaped by where leadership rests in their own spiritual journey. Thus, if you are going to mature in your faith, you need to spend personal time in Bible study and prayer, always with a repentant heart so that you may hear His voice as the Holy Spirit leads you into all truth. Perfect church would have perfect leaders, but those are rare and endangered in 21st century church … so, if you are going to be perfected in your Christian journey, you will have to dedicate and discipline yourself to that goal!
Nancy2 wrote:
Ah bread! I spent some time in Paris long ago. I remember a small stand that sold their legendary baguettes still warm from the ovens. That’s it, no butter, no nuthin’ on em’, just black coffee to sluice em’ down with. Pure heaven. Elysium.
Lydia wrote:
I’ve found Jeffries’ theological persuasion to be elusive at times.
Muff Potter wrote:
I had a homemade cinnamon bun and coffee for breakfast this morning! During a recent heat wave, when I couldn’t sleep, I thought it would be a good idea to get up in the middle of the night and teach myself to make cinnamon buns from scratch!
It’s a DANGEROUS new hobby; I rank it right up there with skydiving! LOL.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
This is exactly what I’ve observed. People want to do what pleases God and want to do their best to protect their children. Good intentions and bad unintended consequences.
Max wrote:
Oh, well, let me help you. It is a crazy quilt of patched together ideas. Based solely on my prior interaction with some things Texan and some things southern red neck and some things fundamental baptist-ism I would say that makes up about 95% or so of what I see there. Not 95% of the man, just that percentage of what I see of his ideas.
Does anybody think that perhaps some of the race-to-reproduce-for-a-cause movement may be racially motivated? In my prior interaction with baptist fundamentalism I ran into some seriously racist ideas. What with the shifting demographic this might be part of it, I am thinking.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t know if the ideas were originally rooted in racism and then have become taught and acceptable in homeschooling and conservative Christianity.
Pastor Voddie Baucham in Texas is a black, conservative pastor who subscribes to these beliefs and writes about them. He is well-known.
okrapod wrote:
I ran into that with the reconstructionist/dominion types like Phillips, Rushdooney, Doug Wilson, etc. Mostly from the Reformed wing. I have little experience with the fundy Baptist types like IFB and such.
okrapod wrote:
I can’t say if Quiverfull is racially motivated, but Patriarchy and Reconstructionism do have ties to White Supremacy.
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2013/02/patriarchy-christian-reconstructionsim.html?m=1
That’s not to say that all people involved in these ideologies are racist. I think many have no idea of the roots. Over a year ago there was a homeschooling Afican American woman who interacted on Julie Anne’s blog, and shared her findings with us.
@ Lydia:
Do you remember when Martin G. Selbrede from Chalcedon interacted on Julie Anne’s blog? I don’t remember who was involved in that convo. That was pretty wild.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
ONe of his many names over the years…online…from that Reformed world. Not even sure if that name is real or not. Those guys perfected deception to wage war online.
Max wrote:
I think where we differ is that you seem to be adding a special annointing to certain giftedness within the body that you call “leadership.” There are many gifts within the body. I don’t believe one is more annointed than another. I also believe that the body will see people functioning within their giftings naturally before they are ever recognized publicly for what they do. Some people function in their giftings without ever being recognized in a body. They don’t care about the recognition either because they do what they do because it is natural, they love doing it as a blessing for the body.
@ Lydia:
But in thinking about this, there was a strain of that in the Bob Jones wing of Baptist fundamentalism I read about years ago, if I recall correctly. They were not even allowed to date inter-racially.
Bridget wrote:
1 Corin 12!
BTW: Since we are discussing gifts….I was just reading recently that early manuscripts D* F G 629, the Old Latin witnesses, the Vulgates and its citation by Hilary (d. 367) and Ambrose (d. 397) begin Col 3:11 with “There is no male and female….”
hmmm.
Tree wrote:
Arizona has covenant marriage. I had a letter to the editor published in the local fishwrap about how the state shouldn’t be the enforcement arm of church dogma. Some years later, a woman who worked in my building asked me what I knew about covenant marriage. I burst into laughter–“you don’t want to know my opinion.” She ended up getting a covenant marriage to her Indian / Hindu husband to prove to her Indian / Hindu inlaws that she was serious about the marriage. A priest at the local Hindu temple performed the marriage.
Lydia wrote:
In the words of the Prophet Steve Taylor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUimlKITbXg
@ okrapod:
Yes.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is actually a thing.
Some Christian television programs have book authors on who lament that Christians are being “out bred” by Muslims and that Christian birth rates are very low.
So, some Christians have gone into over drive, guilting and lecturing the young ‘uns to marry by 21 and have ten kids apiece. Their assumption is that Christian kids are deliberately avoiding marriage.
However, there are lots of Christians who want to marry but there is nobody to marry. I had wanted to marry by my late 20s or into my mid 30s, but I was told to get a mate at church…. well, when I was in my 20s, there were no 20 something singles at the churches I went to. Same deal in my 30s, 40s.
Also, the “pray and the Lord will send you a spouse and just have faith” stuff did not work.
But the Christian talking heads these days don’t care one iota for single women over 35 who would like to marry, they are only focused on the 20 somethings.
They don’t care about adult singles: they care about an agenda, period. If they cared about adult singles in general (all of us), there would be just as large an effort to help singles over 30 / 35 marry as there is to get the 21 year olds married, but that’s not the case.
But they really do promote the ‘marry young and have kids, to win by numbers’ strategy on some of the Christian blogs and TV shows I’ve seen.
This is a real, actual thing.
I used to hear liberals mock Christians over this stuff (they’d refer to such Christians as being the “Christian Taliban”), thinking, where are they getting this from, are they making this lunacy up?
But when I started looking into it, yes, this weirdness is out there – not by most Christians, but by some. I started reading about quivering families and what all.
Velour wrote:
Didn’t the Pigs make the same argument in Animal Farm?
Velour wrote:
Didn’t some Rabbi from Nazareth say that “What you have kept secret shall be shouted from the rooftops!”?
okrapod wrote:
In CF – CHILD FREE -lingo, “breeders” only refers to irresponsible parents.
“PNB” refers to responsible parents, “Parents Not Breeders.”
There are parents who have lots and lots of kids but who don’t care for them properly or discipline them. Those are usually the sorts of parents who are tagged with the “breeder” label.
YouTube “star” and public Christian Sam Rader’s name and payment information was found on the Ashley Madison list.
He says, in this People magazine article:
http://www.people.com/article/sam-nia-star-adress-ashley-madison-account-wife-forgives
This kind of talk makes Jesus’ death like a “get out of sin free” card. It trivializes Christianity.
I’d note this couple just shot to stardom after (a)he proclaimed her pregnancy after going around after her and testing the contents of the toilet with a pregnancy test (14 million views and counting) and then (b) she miscarried two days later. This was just earlier this month.
Having a viral YouTube channel can be quite lucrative. From an article I read (but I’ve lost the link), they could be making $9.60 per 1,000 non-skippable ad views. I can also say, from wandering over to look at his latest revelation, that the majority of people watching the video are giving it the ole thumbs’ down.
Jamie Carter wrote:
As explained by (Patriarch) Tywin Lannister:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyh9w_AO3YE
mirele wrote:
According to MSNBC, blackmailers are moving in to make use of the leaked info and divorce lawyers expect an upswing in business.
Daisy wrote:
And the Loud Crazies have this way of defining the public face of a group.
Because the Crazies have no life, nothing to distract them from their total unsmiling never-sleeping concentration on Advancing The Cause.
I saw this in Furry Fandom, where the Loud Crazies were usually no-life fanboys obsessed with their personal sexual kinks.
Daisy wrote:
And there’s also a Muslim equivalent of Quiverfull, for much the same reasons.
It’s classic tribal warfare; we have to breed Our Tribe until it’s big enough to overwhelm The Enemy. (In a lot of tribal languages, the word for their own tribe translates as “The People” and the word for every other as “The Enemy”.)
mirele wrote:
I saw that video. It creeped my husband out. Neither of us had ever heard of this couple before. It made me sick that while he was all “yay, we’re going to have another baby” he was soliciting some action on the side.
Gram3 wrote:
Sometimes this is referred to as “Cat Fishing.”
There is also this weird online game where women take photos of other people’s babies, post them to their own social media or blogs, and pretend that those babies are theirs.
“Digital Kidnapping” Is a Real (and Creepy) Threat When You Post Your Children’s Photos Online
http://www.womansday.com/relationships/family-friends/news/a51374/digital-kidnapping/
Velour wrote:
I also think the quivering view is a warped understanding of a few Bible verses, and it reduces women and girls to broodmares, only valued for their ability or willingness to reproduce.
Beakerj wrote:
I grew up in a traditional Christian household, where I was taught sex was for marriage only, and that was a conclusion I agreed with after thinking things over for myself and reading the Bible. (My parents were also gender complemetnarian in view.)
There was not a constant focus of sex or not having sex in my family, though. I think I turned out pretty normal. I’m over 40 and still celibate.
I don’t molest kids and have no interest in kids sexually, nor would I ever do that. If I were married, I doubt I’d join a cheating site like Ashley Madison, either.
There might be other dynamics going on with the Duggar family or Josh in particular that led to these issues, or with how discussion of celibacy was presented in his family.
Bridget wrote:
Earlier today, I saw an editorial about the Ashley Madison hack that discussed something similar; the author was going on about how stupid people are, even at cheating.
The page I read brought up the fact that there are a lot of guys who signed up for AM using their work e-mail addresses (some military accounts), or personal ones that all their family contacts them with, rather than using a throw away Hot Mail, Yahoo, etc., address.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Yes. The women become broodmares in these types of theological beliefs.
There are even traces of that attitude in garden variety gender complementarianism, where childless, child free, divorced, widowed, and never married women are seldom to never acknowledged by gender comps.
You’re only valued if you marry and have kids in some of these systems, treated with suspicion or like a failure if you do not marry and have kids.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t recall using that term on this blog, but it is a common one on CF forums. But as I said above, it refers to irresponsible parents, not responsible ones, who are denoted in CF culture as PNBs.
(The Duggars would probably be considered Breeders rather than PNBs because they apparently have not been responsible parents.)
Lydia wrote:
Yeah, like in my family (which was NOT a quivering family), they were old fashioned, and I got the idea that sex was for marriage only and that kind of thing, but my parents were not super legalistic about other aspects of dating and sexuality.
My parents were fine with my siblings and me, for example, dating, hugging people (regular hugs, none of that “side hugging” stuff the Duggars do), and did not consider hand holding or kissing sins.
Eagle wrote:
IIRC, “out breeding our opponents,” or some variation of that phrase, was used in an approving manner by a Christian TV show who interviewed a guy who was promoting his book on the dangers of low birth rates to Americans.
They really and truly do think in terms of “we must pressure Christian ladies to have ten kids a piece to out breed the Muslims and other heathen.”
mirele wrote:
Exactly.
I have to wonder how sexual papasan Duggar was in the home. He bongs and keeps his wife pregnant all the time, counts his money and goes to sleep while she who is pregant most of time, states that she isn’t allowed to say no to her husband, and is responsible for the chldren is up at 2 in the morning crying and overwhelmed. Where is the compatible with “husbands love your wife”?
Josh had a good role model for being a jerk. And now Josh’s wife is going to take the blame for her husband being a rampant ferral dog. I don’t think so.
How is this an example of being a Christian home or just another example of the Christian Taliban
Daisy wrote:
Stalin did that in 1944 and thereabouts to build up the population. There was the Mother Heroin medal (10 kids), and the Order of Maternal Glory (9, 8 or 7 kids for various levels of achievement) and something called the Maternity Medal which I know nothing about-only that it existed. This was not about religion but about population growth.
From the OP:
Something I mentioned at Julie Anne’s blog about a month ago is how much this reminds me of the movie The Village.
You can read about that movie here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368447/
In that movie (which I think takes place in or around 2004, when it was filmed), the parents raise their kids in this antiquated environment, which looks like it’s set in the 18th century (there are no radios, cars, TV sets, etc).
They think if they limit exposure to the outside world and all its sinful influences that there will be no sin or crime among them.
If I remember the story line correctly, one young man tries to murder another in this community in a jealous fit over a young women he has feelings for. This is a guy raised with no exposure to bikinis on women, TV sets, rock music, etc.
So no, creating a perfect environment isn’t going to keep people from sinning and failing.
You’d think Duggar-like families would realize this from reading the Bible.
Abraham, Noah, King David, and all those guys from the Old and New Testaments, did not have radios, cars, TV sets, and the women back then did not wear Yoga pants or spaghetti straps, etc, and those guys still sinned.
okrapod wrote:
Okay, but there are some branches of Christianity where having lots of kids is based in religious views, and they use Bible verses to try to justify the practice.
That is what Quivering families do, they take the Bible verse about a man having lots of arrows in his quiver to mean a Christian women should have lots of kids.
@ Daisy:
No doubt. That does not alter the fact that pushing the idea of having a bunch of kids for one reason or another is not a new idea-even in relatively recent times. Religion here, nationalism there, whatever. It is still the same behavior and is the opposite of what is going on in some other countries where number of children is restricted.
Here is conservative radio talk show host Janet Mefferd’s very good essay about the questions she would have asked Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar if she had interviewed them several months ago about the sexual abuse in their family:
http://janetmefferd.com/2015/06/questions-questions-what-i-would-have-asked-the-duggars/
Janet says that she will be back on the air in September 2015!
I think what bothers me the most is not that Josh Duggar is addicted to pornography, nor that he had an extramarital affair.
What bothers me the most is that Josh and his family have consistently tried to present to the world a perfect, “scrubbed” image of what it looks like to live a Christian life. It presents a terrible testimony to non-Christians, and it presents an unachievable standard to Christians.
Mr.H wrote:
Mr.H wrote:
Agreed.
I think we should have a collective sense of outrage about all of the decent people that the Duggars have attacked for their own family’s sick problems.
When their city’s police chief was required under a Freedom of Information Act request to provide a news agency with a redacted police report of the sex abuse in the family, the Duggars demanded that the (woman) police chief be fired from her job! (It’s a crime for the police chief to have NOT followed the law!)
When Arkansas Social Services investigated the Duggars for this abuse, the Duggar parents later got an attorney so that Josh could sue Social Services when he was 19 years old.
They have blamed everybody but themselves. They have lied and lied and lied some more. They have been more than willing to tarnish the names and reputations of all who were bound to uphold the law. They have been more than willing to demand special favors from their political friends to silence anyone in this case who did their job. They used one of their friends – a judge – to have the police report destroyed, which doesn’t happen in any other cases of juveniles. (It’s one thing to have court records sealed or expunged, that’s different. But they actually had a judge Order that the police report be destroyed.)
@ Daisy:
Daisy you’ve read me wrong, it’s not being taught celibacy that I have a problem with, it’s an outright obsession with sex no matter what form it takes. That was clearly not your household, where you also weren’t crammed in like sardines due to your parents obsession with having as many children as possible, at least as far as everything I’ve ever read by you seems to say. Sorry if I communicated badly.
Eagle wrote:
Russell Moore did state that evangelicals need to out preach the Episcopalians and out breed the Mormons.
Beakerj wrote:
And what’s so chilling about these rigid, authoritarian rules that are being taught is that the men like Bill Gothard who are the proponents of them have all been brought up on sex crimes charges or lawsuits. Gothard has been accused of abusing some forty young women, possibly more. Dough Philips is being sued for same.
okrapod wrote:
The Third Reich instituted the similar Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter in 1938. Three levels of award:
Bronze — 4 kinder of pure German blood
Silver — 6 kinder
Gold — 10+ kinder
And then there was the Lebensborn eingetragener Verein, founded by the SS in 1935 “to counteract falling birth rates in Germany”. A flat-out Aryan Breeding Program.
Then there was Romania, whose dictator Ceaucescu decreed a similar breeding program in 1966, using the same terminology as his hero Stalin. Romanian women had to bear at least five children for The Party, with special privileges for “Heroine Mothers” with more than ten. The Party also enforced its own version of “Covenant Marriage” by banning divorce. All this in a poor Balkan country whose economy had been siphoned off to keep Russia afloat. The results were the huge warehouse Romanian orphanages that were in the news after the end of the Cold War.
Daisy wrote:
The use of “Breeders” for people with kids is also used among the lunatic fringe of the Gay Rights movement.
I also heard it used in that manner by some Old School SF litfans who actively discouraged parents from bringing children to SF cons. This happened for a few years, and now the typical attendees at those same cons are the same faces every year, older and grayer and fewer of them with each year.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Like I’ve said before, spawning Uruk-Hai — living weapons for Culture War Without End, Amen.
And the women are nothing more than ovulating wombs, production facilities for these living weapons — like Spawning Pits below Isengard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jamrudGfC4
@ Velour:
I make cinnamon buns a various types of bread. A few years ago, my husband gave me a bread machine for Christmas. It takes a lot of the elbow grease work out of the job.
Velour, MP, you should try my oregano bread! The smell alone will make you feel like your body is defying gravity! Goes well with spaghetti and lasagna.
I appreciate much of what you say in this article – however signing up to an Adult site is not paedophilia. He may have grown out of his sexual ‘explorations’ of sibling minors – whatever that was all about when he was a minor himself? My first reaction on the latest scandal (apart from the obvious dysfunctional hypocrisy in him/this family and the questionable damage their childhood may have rendered on all of them) was – he’s more sexually healthy now – at least he is engaging in adult experimentation with another adult. That the restrictive attitudes of his parents (don’t even hold hands until married attitudes) had not fully stuck. Yes he was unfaithful (he’s not the first spouse in earth to do that), yes it’s dodgy in terms of his marriage etc but at least he was being more normal in seeking out freer sexual experience (ie mild kinky stuff he possibly believed he couldn’t do with his wife). This acting out seemed healthier than what he was purporting to believe in with the family dysfunctional system?
Be warned. I’m going on a rant here, and I’ll be all over the map!
Having children: If you want 19 kids and you have the means to care for them properly, more power to ya and God bless you! As for me, by the time my adventurous, stubborn wild child was 17 months old, I knew one child was enough for me! If I had 19 kids, all of my neighbors within a 5 mile radius would have been dealing with a rural Kentucky version of the Golden Horde.
Home schooling: In Kentucky, children who are homeschooled are require to meet certain government mandates before they can receive a diploma. Is the same true in Arkansas???
Quiverfull?? Out breed the Mormons?? Jesus didn’t say, “Go ye therefore and conquer the world by outbreeding the infidels.” He said to teach and baptize in his name!!!!
All of the people we hear about, like the Duggars, the SGM leaders, TVC, 9Marks ………… I honestly question whether those people are really Christians or if they are just using the lovely name of Jesus to take advantage of people and get an adrenaline power rush.
I forgot the rest of what I wanted to say, so rant over …. For now.
Nancy2 wrote:
I come on by. I’ll bring a salad. And now that I have been excommunicated/shunned by the authoritarian NeoCal Church Pharisees, I can bring a bottle of red wine too. (If you drink red wine in moderation.)
I have taken to making this great spaghetti sauce:
http://www.food.com/recipe/jo-mamas-world-famous-spaghetti-22782
It’s so fantastic, I am asked to make it and bring it to birthday parties as the main course.
Nancy2 wrote:
The ordinary people, or at least the ones I’ve known, want to follow Jesus, and they have been trained to follow the leaders who show them the right way to follow Jesus. I think they are deceived, and the reason is that they want certainty, and they want their children to stay unspotted from the world. There are leaders of all stripes who take advantage of good intentions and good desires. I have no idea about the Duggars. Jim Bob and Michelle remind me too much of the overly smooth guys and the sickeningly sweet women I’ve observed. The facade is way too good to be true.
@Nancy2
^Correction: I’ll
Bridget wrote:
Oh no, Bridget, we don’t disagree on that! The anointing that you and I carry in our unique giftings within the Body of Christ is not lesser than the anointing on pastors and teachers for those roles. As my sister in Christ, I respect the gift(s) that God has given you; you have a part in the Body and have been called and anointed for that ministry.
The point I was attempting to make, and which is very clear in the Ephesians 4 passage I quoted, is that offices such as pastor and teacher are specifically given to the church to help equip and mobilize the entire Body (by the Holy Spirit) to do the work of the ministry through their individual and combined giftings. We need each other; all believers are priests; we all carry the same anointing. Just because you and I may not have experienced that in church, does not make it untrue; it is still the divine plan for the Body of Christ, the free church of baptized believers.
As I have noted in various comments, the American church is not very healthy right now (and as TWW posts testify); thus, we are not seeing the diversity of gifts operating as they should. Many who are in leadership roles in today’s church (the one we fuss about on TWW) have not been called, gifted and anointed; they simply prepared for the ministry or created their own pulpit … there’s a vast difference. The record is clear that the first century church functioned as they were called to do; just as the record is clear that the 21st century church is not. I see no where in Scripture that this plan for the Body of Christ was to cease in the first century, or that only some gifts would move forward in time, while other diminished in importance. Bottom-line … we just ain’t doing church as we were called to do … we’re doing it without God in far too many places. In the meantime, you and I must still use our gifts as God leads, and that may not be within the dysfunctional churches where we hold our membership. Your gift will make a way for you.
I really feel sorry for josh because of the upbringing he had. This guy is clueless about real life.. I put a lot of the blame for his decisions on his parents. His parents are creating highly dysfunctional people who are not capable of functioning as healthy adults once they are grown. To me it’s kind of scary. This is just their first child. What are the next 18 going to be like!
We all face sin and struggles. However, given these kids sheltered and warped upbringing the only way they have to deal with these struggles is to bury them and keep secrets. This is were it gets scary to me. If there are similar issues going on in this family, they now have an even greateri incentive to hide things now. Very scary. I feel for these kids.
Ruth wrote:
Not really, actually. I left a moderately less controlling church. I knew I could get my family out when I asked me husband what he’d have done if they told him not to marry and his response was, “They did.”
The church I went to (Xenos Christian Fellowship, Columbus, OH) has many odd and outdated ideas about sex and dating. It’s only a little less formal than courtship. Two members have to have approval from their small group leaders to date. They are never alone in a house together and can be kicked out of the small group for premarital sex.
I was the thorn in their side becuase I had opinions, voiced them and didn’t apologize for it. I called the men out for being the weak ones if women’s clothing led them to sin.
The best thing I’ve ever done is gotten myself and my family out of there.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I’d love to compare notes with you sometime.
Gram3 wrote:
And I have noticed that there is something very aggressive about the sickeningly sweet women.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Ah, yes. The love Bombings.
As someone mentioned a marriage in Florida can’t be a covenant marriage; however, Arkansas allows a marriage elsewhere to be converted.
I’ll note that seeking a divorce in any state that doesn’t have covenant marriage will mean that that state’s laws on divorce apply and not the extra hurdles of a covenant marriage. There is also the option of annulment due to fraud.
However I suspect the big hurdle even if divorce/annulment were to be considered in a QF family is lack of resources both social (will the woman get emotional support from her birth family and friends) and financial (young children possibly many of them, no educational preparation for a paying job sufficient to support the family or even oneself, no other sources of money).
My own family history hunting shows that large families in the 18th/19th centuries were a bit of a dice roll. One set of my great grandparents had 15 children survive (admittedly my great grandmother only gave birth to 10 of them, the other 5 were from my great grandfather’s first two marriages; they were also wealthy enough to have a few servants). Another couple had son after son born and die each named Thomas. Another thing I noted was that quite a few of the children especially daughters in the large families never married (and acted frequently as nurses and foster mothers for the extended family). In the current generation the largest family among my cousins has 5 kids and a couple of others have 4.
@ nathan priddis:
I think michelle duggar said, “your daddy & I have begun to entrust your heart and your prayers to another man besides your father”
-her heart was entrusted to her father
-her prayers were entrusted to her father (???)
-now her heart and her prayers (?) are being passed on to a different male human being
this is just about the weirdest thing I’ve ever heard any Christian person say. how in the world did these odd & freakish beliefs come about??
Gram3 wrote:
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t thinking about the ordinary people – I was thinking about the leaders!
elastigirl wrote:
A married female has her husband for her “head” and her “covering” or “umbrella.” An unmarried woman has either her father or her pastor/elders as her “head” or “covering” or “umbrella.”
The thinking comes because females are not separate beings. IMO it all goes back to Greek thinking where the male is the ideal and the female is less than the ideal. She needs a completer. Which, oddly, is not exactly what we see in Genesis 1-2 where male and female *together* complement one another without hierarchy. In the garden, God was their Head in every sense of that term until they rejected him. We see no evidence before the Fall that the Man or the Woman related to God in different ways or that the Woman needed the Man as her mediator. After the Fall, we have fallen human social structures and institutions formed, which included Patriarchy.
The Rushdoonyites think that the OT reflects God’s order for everything. So, Patriarchy is assumed to reflect God’s ideal order for humanity, and every female needs a “head” of some sort. Gothard adopted this view as well, though he was not a Rushdoonyite, AFAIK. His scheme was various “umbrellas of protection with the adult woman just above a child and both under the husband/father and pastor/elder on top. Shepherding used “covering.” It is all the same idea and stems from idealizing the patriarchy we see in the OT and, actually, in human history including church history.
@ Gram3:
I want to clarify that when I say that “male” and “female” complement one another, I am saying that I believe that means that both sexes are both complete in the image of God and that somehow they complement one another. Obviously, biologically we are complementary, but I want to make clear that single males and single females are not incomplete in any way nor is their imaging of God less than. Obviously Paul valued singleness as did Jesus. Why some people insist that being married or being single is superior in all instances is something I do not understand.
Nancy2 wrote:
I go back and forth on this. I think there are good leaders who are deceived and don’t know it, and their intentions are good. I think there are leaders who are deceived and don’t know it and their intentions are not good. It is difficult for me to tell the difference. FWIW, I’ve been deceived too many times. I’ve acted with good intentions while I was deceived, but I was still wrong. At least as I understand things now. :} That’s why it’s so critical, IMO, to keep studying and to observe the fruit of various people or institutions or doctrines.
@ Gram3:
.
thanks for the information. but the “your daddy & I have begun to entrust <byour prayers to another man besides your father” bit…. what in the world??
her prayers are mediated/filtered through her daddy and now her husband before they get to God?
or, she has to get permission from her daddy and now her husband on what she prays?
her daddy and now her husband are responsible for what she prays?
I can’t imagine a more stupid system of spiritual bureaucracy & red tape. nor a more savvy & sinister solution for a fragile male ego.
Gram3, the idea that women are legally subordinate to men is also in rabbinical thought, which Paul Heger explained at some length in a monograph published by Brill. That said, the rabbis also stated that any woman could reject any suitor for any cause and the parents had to respect her decision. Historically, Heger noted, the solution parents devised for this rabbinical teaching was to arrange daughters to get married from such a young age they’d have no legally protected right of refusal. The case law was also flexible enough to include women inheriting the land when the men of a clan were killed off in a divine judgment.
However, a lot of rabbis concluded from the creation order that the woman was legally subordinate to her husband on the basis of the creation narratives (note the plural there because not all the rabbis interpreted Genesis 1 and 2-3 as a linear narrative whole)
@ Beakerj:
Ah okay.
No, in my family, we weren’t crammed in like sardines. My parents had three kids.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, I got to live out this lunacy at my former Gulag NeoCal Church as well, the pastors/elders as “covering” and “head” or “chief gossips”. They actually thought they had the God-given right to interfere in the lives of adults and haul you into meetings…about anything!
*One older single 50 year old woman ran to the elders when I didn’t want to be close friends with her. She had repeatedly demanded my private business, just personal stuff that’s none of her business, and I declined and said I didn’t share private information. Instead of the civil, “Sure, not a problem”, I was subjected to her escalations, tirades, and demands. OK, I thought, what a nut case! (Other former church members said she did the same to them and they kept her distance from her.) I was called and ordered into elders’ meetings about why I didn’t want to be friends with her!
*Other church members had to be interrogated about what their children ate.
I just saw this a few moments ago:
Warning Signs of Predators for Parents
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/warning-signs-of-predators-for-parents-127261332922.html
Snippet from that page:
But parents who assume their child could never be a victim should know that the reality is nine out of 10 children who are sexually abused are victimized by someone they know — including relatives, family friends, clergy, teachers, and babysitters, according to the National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC).
elastigirl wrote:
Again, a transfer of ownership.
Una Simms wrote:
I think you have made a lot of assumptions. He appears to be a sex addict. You don’t know how many other victims he has, could have in the future, and how much high-risk behavior he is engaging in.
He’s already been a serial child sexual abuser. It’s typical that someone will average 100 to 200 victims in their lifetime.
Velour wrote:
He wasn’t “experimenting”, he was careful and calculating to get to each of his victims, four of his sisters and one babysitter. He knew exactly what he was doing. He waited for others to be asleep or out of the way. We aren’t talking about little children of the same ages exploring each others’ bodies, no abuse.
Additionally, he escalated to sexually abusing a sister in his lap, with other people around and I believe there was another incident of sexual abuse of one of his sister’s in the laundry room.
This isn’t funny. This is predatory. There is a wealth of information about predators. You can find it online. Please get educated.
I recently discovered a blog called “Diary of an Autodidact” (http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/) by a lawyer in Bakersfield, CA.
These are two excerpts from a recent posting on the latest Duggargate.
Excerpt 1:
Second Excerpt (An interesting historical parallel):
A commenter at Spiritual Sounding Board related a news item of the first suicide tied to the Ashley Madison hack — a police captain somewhere in Texas. Source was the San Antonio media, no further details.
Daisy wrote:
Sadly thanks to 9Marks, Acts 29, Gothard, Doug Philips, John Piper, Al Mohler, Paige Patterson and the their ilk we now have un-Biblical, authoritarian churches that have more in common with radical Islam than with our freedom in Christ. And that observation also comes from conservative Christian men I know in Europe who are elders in their churches.
And we have “Shehad” as one man at Julie Anne’s blog calls it: churches’ War on Women. “She” (pronoun) + “had”, sounds like Jihad.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It is too early to speculate. No info on what else going on in his life.
HUG,
Josh Duggar wasn’t in an arranged marriage. He met Anna at a homeschooling event in another state. He wanted to court her. She lived in Florida.
He later proposed to her in a restaurant, I think it was her birthday.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This is sad, and may be only the start of suicides and murders related to this hacking of Ashley Madison website, Some of these cases are foreign where perpetrators of certain sexual behavior are given extended prison sentences and even death penalties. It is not so wonderful always exposing hypocrisy, even though it is a very prominent sin discussed in the New Testament. I am not a sympathizer of the Duggars. I have always thought they are strange people. On the flip side all people who choose to have large families and homeschool their children are not all social misfits.
Mark,
We don’t know what else was going on in his life re Texas suicide. When I went to look for that story I found a couple of others of cops who committed suicide because they were being charged for sexually abusing kids.
Sad story this one. But we don’t have the full story.
Velour wrote:
quote should have had Una’s name
Story on inquisitor.com: “Duggar Family failed to treat Josh’s sex addiction”
Says that they tried to arrange a marriage for Josh with the daughter of a family friend when Josh was 14!
…… Along with quite a bit more. If the story is true, these people are beyond twisted.
@ K.D.:
Hi K.D.
some advice . . . if that email from a ‘Christian leader’ in your community was so dreadful as to freak you out and make you uncomfortable,
inform the police that you received that kind of communication . . . there are some very sick, very vicious people out there purporting to be ‘Christian’ and attacking others in ways that are unbelievably horrible in order to intimidate them. These people need to be exposed. A friend of mine received a terrible email from one of these characters and (good for her) posted it openly on her blog . . . I thought, ‘well done, Debbie’
at some point, these sick people will go overboard and be outed and made to be accountable,
but don’t be intimidated by this ‘leader’ . . . make his name public, publish what he said, or report this to the police and get his communication on file so that there is some record of what he is up to.
God Bless, and take care. Try to protect yourself.
Gram3 wrote:
Indeed! Given the current condition of the American church, every Christian should be diligent to study the Word and see if the leaders, churches, and teachings we have exposed ourselves to ring true. Beware: the counterfeit is camping out with the genuine! You can certainly discern truth from error by inspecting the fruit of church leaders (you will know them by their fruit), but that ability needs to be honed by a careful study of the Bible, filtered only through the Holy Spirit, not the teachings and traditions of men.
In Scripture, the Bereans were considered more noble than the rest because “they studied the scriptures every day to see if what they were now being told were true” (Acts 17). The Bereans had to know that even what Paul was teaching them was true! If Paul had to withstand that rigorous test, so should every preacher/teacher we subject ourselves to. In dealing with the aberration of New Calvinism, much discernment is just simple observation – if you listen and watch closely, they will usually give themselves away. However, the subtle drops of reformed doctrine can be deceptive and can only be detected by knowing the Word and measuring what you hear against the plumb-line of Scripture. As we pray, we need to pray for a new measure of discernment. The Holy Spirit will be our guide.
Nancy2 wrote:
I can see their thought process in that:
1) LUST problem,
2) Give him a GAWD-approved SCRIPTURALLY-legal slot to stick it in instead,
3) Problem Solved!
4) With added benefit of uniting House Duggar with vassal House Baratheon/Bolton/Frey/Lannister/Whatever for the 200-year Plan.
Gram3 wrote:
“And this time we WILL Achieve True Communism!
This time the RIGHT person (Guess Who?) Will Be In Charge!”
“Take your workbooks and turn with Me
To the chapter on Authority;
Do you top the Chain of Command?
Rule your family with an iron hand?
Because a good wife learns to cower
Beneath the Umbrella of Power;
Under cover of Heaven’s gate —
I. MANIPULATE.”
— Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”
Questions I’d LOVE to see answered. Inquiring minds want to know!
1. How much $$ was Josh’s salary at FRC? Was he given a severance package or simply given *the bum’s rush* to the curb?
2. Was the cost of giving birth to their 4th child covered under FRC’s health insurance or ….heaven help them!….Obamacare!!! Being a family of 5, especially with so many little ones, probably qualifies the Duggar’s to receive SNAP, WIC, TANF, S-CHIP, maybe even Medicaid.
3. I wonder whether Josh will indeed take advantage of the few *entitlements* left available in our shredded social net his Republican buddies have so viciously destroyed.
4. Why did Josh and Anna vacated the DC house as quickly as they did? I mean, his wife is within 6 weeks of delivery of yet ANOTHER child. Was the house part of a housing allowance? Whose name was on the lease – Duggar’s or the FRC’s?
5. Sister Jill and her husband, Derick, sure left town quickly, as is their prerogative. However, they, too, live in an enormous house. How are they financially able? Derick Dillard is an accountant for Walmart. Once the molestation scandal hit, did Walmart offer Derick a *package* to disappear? I didn’t know Walmart had a Missionary Leave of Absence benefit available to their employees.
6. Why on earth did Josh use the photo of the son of one of the world’s most powerful CEOs – Lloyd Blankfein (sp?) Talk about having the wealth and power to make a person DISAPPEAR!
7. Then there’s the trouble of assuming the photo of the OKCupid *Random Guy*. It’s a shame that that poor fella got roped into this mess, too. The lawsuits from those 2 issues are going to cost BIG!
Velour
The following is simply my opinion of the Duggars-especially Jim Bob. I obviously have no proof-just raw guesses.
Regarding arranged marriages and the Duggars..they were not arranged in the historical concept of the word. However, Jim Bob had a lot to do with encouraging his progeny to marry exactly the people he wanted them to marry. If Anna’s family wasn’t in to large families and wanted her to go to college, that marriage would not have taken place. Jim Bob had a cash cow on his hands and he knew it. Getting them married and having lots of kids was essential to what he hoped was going to be a long run on TLC.
Jim Bob pimped his kids, knowing that Josh had problems. He thought they could control social media like they controlled that family. (Well, just like he thought he controlled the family. It appears Josh starting friending strippers on his super secret Faqcebook page in 2004 according to the reports.)
He was still trying to make a go of it after they canceled the show. He wanted them to spin off Jessa and Jill into their own show. Jill and Derrick got the heck out of Tontitown and are now enrolled in language school. This stint on the mission field is going to last awhile.
Then he pitched the “how to counself victims of child sex abuse” to TLC which went along with i, perhpas t because they were loing millions with the cancellation. It is supposed to air on 8/30. Can you imagine??Jim Bob giving child sex abuse advice?
It looks like Jim Bob will pimp anything to keep the money rolling in. I am waiting for the next pitch. Perhaps the Duggar will take in strippers and lead them to Christ- all for the sake of more shows.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This is a UNDERSTATEMENT. He acted our criminally. These are felon sex crimes. Others his age end up in prison for this.
dee wrote:
Dee,
I agree with your assessment of the Duggars and Jim Bob’s *pimping* the children for money. And yes they do what Jim Bob wants. The whole thing is scary and sad.
When the missionary daughter came home recently, she and her husband and Michelle Duggar went to the Hershey’s store in New York City’s Times Square. It pictured the daughter holding an over-sized bottle of chocolate syrup. Then the son-in-law yapped on about how they needed to get some milk. I was thinking: OK, how much is the chocolate company paying them for this?
Max wrote:
Amen, Max.
@ dee:
As their flesh is exposed, Christian celebrities continually have to reinvent themselves to stay afloat. From Driscoll to Duggar, the challenge is the same. After a while, they run out of steam and drop from the scene or find enough gullibles to bankroll unrepentant comebacks. Christendom is cluttered with “big names” who attempted to take the name of Jesus into ministry, but failed because they were driven by flesh not Spirit. And the church at large fails when we put our faith in charisma and gimmick, rather than humble servants of the Lord.
Beantoes wrote:
Lloyd Blenkfein. CEO of Goldman Sachs. Billionaire. Harvard-education + Harvard Law Degree. His son, whose photo was used, also went to Harvard. Yep, wrong family for the Duggars to mess with.
Velour wrote:
Maybe they figure President Huckabee will protect them?
Final Thought (I know it’s my second post): supposedly this cult/religion/belief system is about the respect and dominance of Patriarchy. Having never watched a program, yesterday, I binged watched a few episodes of Season 10, the final one in the series. If I didn’t know better, I’dve sworn this show was about Womanhood!
The stench of estrogen (not to mention the smell of loaded diapers and pissy, dirty children) nearly jumps off the screen. The men focused upon (mostly Ben, Derick and JB) seem to do nothing but traipse around the kitchen, following their womenfolk. None seemed to have a real job, unless you count mugging for the camera as meaningful employment. And, seriously? Men attending baby showers? Getting pedicures? Polishing wives’ toenails? Even ENTERING the Bridal Suite?! My father would have had a stroke!
The other few grown male offspring, whom I’ll call 16+ y.o., wanted NOTHING to do with all this frou-frou. When they were assigned a duty, such as hammering into the yard flamingos (in November, no less), only one son seemed to have any idea how to accomplish this task. Or at least he knew how to use a drill gun. Patriarch JB shows up to jobs without work gloves and dressed in his Sunday finest. Huh?
Granted, the cameras were documenting the wedding and showers of the two elder girls and thus aren’t going to highlight the (boring) kitchen table-bound school lessons like the producers may have in earlier episodes. However, weddings and showers and the ensuing newborn babies are going to consume this family for DECADES to come! When are the younger children ever going to get any attention?
From the various postings the family has made in the past few months, the skills of a professional PR writer were not utilized. They are poorly written, especially Josh’s most recent statement, with his convoluted verb tense usage. In other words, he sure didn’t get a decent education. One can only wonder about the younger ones. To me, they look almost feral. Frankly, their youngest girl, Josie, looks unhealthy. Hello, Child Protective Services? The Duggars need HELP!
It just sure seems fitting that the eldest child and first born son, the one who gets to wear the mantle of Patriarch to his own clan, makes such a disaster of it. Unable to support himself and his family in the big city, he returns to live near The Compound, broken and emasculated.
Americans are forgiving people with a blessedly short attention span. However, one needs to go AWAY in order to have a COMEBACK. The Duggars will be yesterday’s fodder in no time at all.
Beantoes wrote:
There’s always Daddy Dearest and his GOP connections.
H.U.G.,
Here is the link for the Jael Precious Moments cartoon-spoof done by Rachael Stone’s dad. It was on Tim Fall’s blog. You mentioned it to someone else in one of your posts (today?) and I can’t remember where.
https://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/biblical-womanhood-is-nothing-and-neither-is-biblical-manhood/
Velour wrote:
Velour… Make it clear that I was relaying excerpts from the Diary of an AutoDidact blog.
And as for “felon sex crimes”, remember the words of L Ron Hubbard and apply them to “Restoring a Christian Nation(TM)”:
“There are those who say what we do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
P.S. Nothing like Friends in High Places covering for you.
Just ask that bokor from The Princess and the Frog…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
H.U.G.,
There’s a glitch in the system here and it’s not putting the right name with the right quote. It’s been happening to me for the past 24-hours or so. Yes, I know that you were quoting another blog article.
Gram3 wrote:
I have noticed that the one thing both religious and secular zealots of any stripe hate and despise most is human freedom.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Dear C.S. Lewis was no angel. He lived with a woman many many years and it was not believed to be plutonic. Then he was involved with an American who was getting divorced and who he did marry. I love reading C.S. Lewis but his views aren’t necessarily Gospel
Velour wrote:
Maybe the Blekfein’s will exhibit more Christian Charity than the Duggars by not going after Josh for using the picture. We know how the Duggars went after people in the Arkansas law enforcement to display their godliness.
@ CB:
His views are as much gospel as the ancient theologians that the Christian world reads and honors today. And CS Lewis never hawked himself as a pastor or theologian for money, power, or prestige like many of today’s Christian leaders do. He didn’t pretend to be something that he wasn’t.
Bridget wrote:
You are right that the Duggars haven’t displayed *Christian Charity*, or for that matter, a good example toward others (Arkansas law enforcement and social services).
I am not certain what Goldman Sachs is going to do, they have a brand and reputation to protect as well. But their powerful friends throughout business can certainly pull some strings to stop the Duggars.
@ CB:
PS – HUG never said he was an angel. It was simply a quote.
CB wrote:
Why would we believe he is an angel? He never presented his views as “Gospel” unlike many charlatans written about here.
Muff Potter wrote:
That is the bottom line in all of it.
CB wrote:
Your post sounds legalistic. About Joy, Lewis’ wife, her first husband was a violent alcoholic, who had numerous affairs, and abandoned her and their two children. Joy and her ex-husband had both been involved in the Communist party and she later left it and became a Christian.
Who cares if Lewis lived with a woman? And what if their relationship was platonic? What if she worked for him? That was common in England.
Mark wrote:
I hope not, inasmuch as we homeschool and have a very large family (more than Phillips– less than Duggar).
But from day one I thought the Duggars were fraudulent, just as I always though the Phillips persona was nothing but a façade. As an almost absolute rule, anyone who spends much time making themselves look good is very bad. The Bible lays it all out, all the warts and ugliness, it’s one of the things that gives it veracity, who would tell the story of the disciples arguing over who was the greatest if it were a lie? So anytime I see one who calls themselves a Christian who spends undue time posting about how downright wonderful their lovely/hunky, amazing wife/husband is on Facebook, I naturally assume that they have bitter contempt for their wife/husband. Anytime anyone lines up a row of their kids with suits and ties and with hair that looks like political candidates, I think they’re phonies and hiding something dark.
I have yet to find a single case of anyone paying undue attention to outward godliness who wasn’t corrupt and ugly on the inside. I would’ve thought that Jesus made the point clearly enough with regard to the faux righteousness and pharisaism of His day that no one should be fooled by the likes of Jim Bob and Michelle, Bill Gothard or Doug and Beall. They are so easy to see right through.
But there’s the problem: one must pay a bit of attention to what Jesus said and did to see this, and as the years go by I find that He’s the block over which people stumble. They stop at a trite Sunday school lesson level with Jesus, they don’t really investigate the implications of anything He said, then for “meat” they run straight to the Apostle Paul and worship a decontextualized, twisted version of a few things that he wrote to a few churches. In so doing they ignore everything else Paul said, ignore the larger cultural context, ignore what Jesus said (one should never read Paul without filtering him through Jesus, the source), ignore common sense, ignore kindness and decency and truth. Why would anyone do this? Perhaps because they have a father very different from the One Who inspired Paul to write those words.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Ok, that made me laugh.
Beantoes (I love that name!)
I have made Duggar watching a hobby-not because I liked them but because I thought there were some troubling issues in the family. Here are a couple fo things you could find out pretty easily.
1. Jim Bob made some money buying and flipping homes. I am sure he wasn’t making a killing since it is Tontitown Arkansas and not NYC. The home livedi in with her husband was one of those homes. In fat, it is said Jessa got miffed because her sister got a better home than she did. hers was apparemtly a daddy house as well. Josh’s house used to belong to his grandmother. there is some controversy over whether or not taxes were paid.
2. I think he was trying to get away from the media when he moved bcak home. It is a orerural situation and he can hide there. Dad can give him work as well.
3. Jessa’s husband is employed doing work around the Duggar’s big house.
4. I find it interesting that Jill and hubby got our of Dodge, quickly and decisively. I wonder if they knew more was coming.
Gram3 wrote:
And when the child reaches adulthood, the woman gets bumped back to the bottom rung of the hierarchy.
CB wrote:
An important distinction is CS Lewis did not hold himself up as a standard of morality and virtue. He was quite clear about this in Mere Christianity.
As for the allegations of an affair between him and his housekeeper who was about three decades his senior, they are just that, rumors, most of them post facto whispered by people who have no notion of the cultural context of the mid and early 20th century in England. Whether Lewis did or didn’t have an affair with anyone, we have no idea.
You might as well have ridiculed him because he smoked and liked a good pint from time to time. You’re using pure ad hominem, which is a refuge of scoundrels.
Velour wrote:
Or, juvenile hall with court mandated professional counseling, at the very least.
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ve heard of some tribal societies that do that very directly. Where a boy upon coming-of-age and becoming a Real Man, his first act to prove this is to abuse (including beat) his mother, who is Just a Woman.
Law Prof wrote:
And other Preacher-men have.
dee wrote:
Not good for her and her husband.
Law Prof wrote:
In a nutshell.
Also a candidate for the quote of the week.
Law Prof wrote:
Except I like this one better and it should definitely make the final round for quote of the week.
Law Prof wrote:
I’m not a huge fan of the “Cheaper by the Dozen” movies. But one of my favorite scenes is early on when they are arriving at their new house and their van dashboard was littered with trash from the trip, empty paper cups and wrappers etc. I thought that was one of the most realistic things concerning the movie and the telling of a story of a large family.
Suits and dresses ducks in a row is creepy, stepfordy, and a lie.
(Looks like I’m zeroing in on your words LawProf. Guess I just like what you are saying today.)
Corbin wrote:
This to me is astonishingly horrific. What this means is that if a woman wants to divorce her husband who is beating or sexually abusing her and/or her children or is cheating on her, she is forced to stay with him for two and a half years before she can leave her nightmare situation and get her children and herself to safety. And during this time, she has to go through a counseling regimine specifically designed to convince her to stay.
It is hard enough for a woman in an abusive situation to summon up the courage to get up and go, even harder with children in tow and no job. Just horrifying.
PCA pastor in York, PA arrested for soliciting prostitution. Is there in increase in this crap or is the reporting just better?
Suzanne Calulu at No Longer Quivering is reporting that there is a twitter account that uses the same email address Josh used for the Ashly Madison account. Lots of retweets of porn star material. Ugh. Completely NSFW!
I have hated their show for years because of family members who got mixed up in Gothardism and it was like watching a slow slow death. The theology and “real” life is abusive, dysfunctional, and sad for those who fully embrace it. The show only showed what was in front of the veil, and perfection was emphasized as proof that the paradigm was good.
It has pained me that TLC allowed this family and all their ideology to be represented as something good, and willingly funded the sham. Even when their guru was finally exposed as a predator, the Duggars somehow remained above the fray even through they never disowned Bill Gothard and never distanced themselves from that ministry.
As for the Duggars emphasis on side hugs and saving that first kiss for the altar, yeah well…doesn’t exactly have one thing to do with purity does it?
Mara wrote:
You like what I say? Well, at least there’s one person, I’ve pretty much worn out my schtick on my family, I can hardly get them to listen. 🙂
Our 12 passenger van is a moving garbage can. We open the doors and cans, wrappers, plastic bottles tumble out. We try to collect it but some of it sometimes gets away, a frequent sight is of me chasing blown bits of detritus through the parking lot while teens and adolescents and toddlers stream out and my wife yells at the older kids “Grab the babies! Grab the babies!” We are definitely like the Cheaper by the Dozen family. The boys have been known to sword fight with steak knives, they drag frogs, wild cats, spiders and snakes into the house. They build traps for wild animals. Actual excerpt from a conversation in our house: “John, get the snake out of the house, it’s about to go under the couch!” They called him “Snakey”, he wasn’t poisonous–so far as I know. The only time our girls ever wore blue jean skirts was on those occasions where we’d visit another homeschooling family that was into that stuff, but we finally got tired of trying to be something that we definitely aren’t and now they wear what they want to wear and we let the chips fall where they may.
True story: while I was writing this post the two oldest boys got in a wrestling match in the kitchen, the oldest, a teen girl, anxious over college classes which start again tomorrow, screamed at them “I’ve had it with this garbage!”, moments later I got a call from a friend that he’d just seen our 8 and 10 year olds sitting on a bridge overpass over a major interstate almost three quarters of a mile away. After a frantic search, we finally found the keys to the van & jumped into it and saw our buck naked toddler boy sitting in there playing “car driver”. We dumped him in the house and retrieved our 8 and 10 year olds, who were drenched with rain and had been placidly sitting on the bridge overpass eating a lunch they’d prepared themselves. My oldest boy is now going through the house shooting nerf darts in random collections. My wife is at this moment screaming for my second oldest son, who is now missing–ah, she just found him. My two year old, still buck naked, approached me and said “Daddya, I love you. Isn’t that funny?” I swear I made none of this up. Typical half hour in our household.
@ Law Prof:
So what you’re telling us, LawProf, is that we don’t scare ‘ya. It’s nice to know what we’re an *Island of Sanity* for you here at TWW.
In other news:
Usain Bolt – YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope this is helpful.
Gram3 wrote:
Hear Hear! 🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes, Nick, you help all of us here at TWW be “good sports”!
@ Law Prof:
Hahahaha! If you or your wife ever have time, you should check out this blog:
http://chewingcrayons.com She’s a homeschooling mama of seven kids, and she’s hilarious. She sometimes comments at SSB.
Some of your material sounds blog worthy. Or you can at least comment your experiences with chewingcrayons.
Velour wrote:
Man, have I got some clobber verses for you Velour ! ! !
(tongue in cheek Velour, just kiddin’)
Actually I’m very much in agreement. I no longer believe that the Almighty expects perfection. I now believe He’s perfectly happy with imperfect humans doing the best they can with the golden rule what they’re given in time and talent. The rest is just window dressing and not at all that big of a deal.
@ Muff Potter:
@ Muff Potter:
Thanks, Muff.
Regarding the issue of outbreeding all the pagans and dominating the world, I believe the term they use in patriarchy circles is militant fecundity. Despite Michelle talking about having 19 kids because they’re all a blessing, there is a more real underlying reason, and it’s that twisted bizarre teaching. Again, thanks TLC for making these wackos celebrities. You and they laughed all the way the way to the bank…for awhile.
@LawProf – I love your descriptions. I am single and responsible for only myself. However, years of working full time and going to school, as well as going back and forth out of state to visit a sick parent have taken their toll on what little organizational abilities I have. I do try, though. I sometimes teach organizational skills to the visually impaired students I teach, and I got mad when my sisters heard this and laughed me out of the room.
Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
Taken to the extreme, such practice in “Christian” circles can shame women into child-bearing by implying that they are not acceptable to God unless they bear a “quiverfull.” It’s a strange distortion of Scripture, bordering on heresy if it is over-emphasized, and definitely a bondage that women should not be under. We see some degree of this in New Calvinism with their emphasis on female subordination and homemaker-only calling. Calvinists have been trying to out-breed the likes of me for generations … but I’m still here!
@ Law Prof:
When my daughter was 11 months old, I took her baby bed out and put in a twin bed because she was climbing out of the baby bed and roaming the house at will. I had to put a slide lock at the top of the back door to keep her from going outside. When she was 17 months old, I had to get up at 2 am and get her down off the top of the side by side refrigerator. When she was 3, she put a kitten in the washing machine — I had a load of blue jeans going swish, swish, swish at the time. I’ve taken her to the hospital for snakebites, cuts with hunting knives, accidents with horses …….. I love my daughter dearly, but one of her is all I can stand!
My parents stopped with 2 kids. When I was 4, I drive my papaw’s car into a ditch. When I was 11, I propped the front door open at my grandparents house and rode my pony up the steps onto the porch, then through the door and right into the middle of the living room. And I’m just hitting the high points here, You don’t want to hear about my brother.
I cannot imagine having to keep 19 kids like us alive, let alone under control! No, no, no! Please, no!
Lewis had his flaws but he had the sense to not seek ordination.
There was a story this week here in Dallas about a home daycare were the 14 year-old son of the owner molested two girls in the daycare. I looked a little further into this and found out that this family has 9 kids ranging in age from 7 to 30 (my guess is they home school). They also have a church every Friday just for kids and un primarily by “junior leaders” – kids. In the daycare as well as the church they advertise that “junior leaders” (ages 10 and up) are heavily involved in watching the younger kids. Obviously the “junior Leader” thing did not work out so well. This mom is so busy watching other people kids as well as her own large brood that she has no idea her son is struggling or even what he is doing. She naively makes him a “junior leader” in her daycare not realizing that this is putting her son as well as other children at risk. Unbelievable!
@ Nancy2:
On the other hand, if we had a “quiverfull” like you folks, we could send New Calvinism fleeing to the hills! ;^)
Leila wrote:
One site reports that a porn star by the name of Danica Dillon (I always thought they had names like Bubblicious) has communicated with Josh. She thinks he is nice. I can barely contain myself.
@ Leila:
Just in case you think I am making this up.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2358666/danica-dillon-porn-star-connected-to-josh-duggars-secret-facebook-page-posts-about-her-dirty-little-secret/
You can’t make this stuff u. Who thought I would be mentioning porn stars when I started this blog??!!
Look like he even had a super secret Twitter account. You can read about it here.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/08/news-josh-duggars-dirty-little-porn-star-secret/
I do not recommend clicking on the Tweet link inside this post. It is pretty out there.
It is becoming more and ore apparent that Josh Duggar has a serious problem. I think Anna needs to take those kids and get the heck out of there. He is going to need serious therapy.
@ Law Prof:
I miss those days…well, sort of.
Muff Potter wrote:
We’ll have to check that out. Actually, even I cleaned things up a bit in the previous narrative. I didn’t tell about what the baby did on our bedroom carpet when nobody ever remembered to snag him and put a diaper on him.
My wife just walked by, she has her ear protection on. You know those things the airport runway workers or the people who use jackhammers wear that you can buy at the home improvement stores? My wife wears those when the noise in the house gets too loud. I absolutely kid you not.
dee wrote:
A sad statement of the state-of-the-church. I have a feeling that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet coming from some “Christian” corners. When flesh struts about in the ministry, anything is possible.
Meant to respond to BTDT, instead somehow responded to Muff. Either my glitch or a system glitch.
dee wrote:
I hope help is offered to Anna to get out.
I want to take 25 year old Jana, scoop her up, and send her off to college.
Law Prof wrote:
It’s been doing that lately.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
We’d consider doing the blog thing, but if we did and word got out, child protective services would come and take them all away.
@Velour – agreed!
Godith wrote:
I think both.
@ Law Prof:
Here’s a little taste to whet your appetite: 🙂
http://chewingcrayons.com/2014/10/19/dear-boys-one-day-i-will-come-to-your-house-and-break-all-your-stuff/
Law Prof wrote:
LOL
In other news, one of my friends on facebook had commented on a picture, and I followed the link out of curiosity, then wished I didn’t. It led to a post about the new CD from the Flower HIll String Band, which is the band that Dave Adams, convicted pedophile, leads, which contains children in it. Yuck!!!
Beantoes wrote:
Well, I can’t answer those questions, but…I can point you to the 2014 990 Form filed by FRC. Which is this humongously ugly URL: https://pp-990.s3.amazonaws.com/2015_05_EO/52-1792772_990_201409.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAI7C6X5GT42DHYZIA%2F20150824%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150824T021221Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6b3766d3be5e80a4cad5d5ddc3cb23146ccbf3aeca596417acfede1595a91075
And then there’s this 990 form form the related Family Research Council Action group: http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2015_05_EO/52-1805562_990O_201409.pdf
Please note that Tony “Anthony” Perkins and many of his board are double dipping with FRC and FRC Action
As a board member of a tiny, tiny non-profit where I’ve put in five figures worth of cash and volunteer labor just this year alone, it’s like, WOW. These guys have a great gig. If we had even 1 percent of FRC’s take…!
Leila wrote:
The above post got seriously messed up. The upper part was a quote and the later part was my own commentary. Sorry for being confusing.
@ Bridget:
LOL with, not at you. I’m one of 9 and we fostered.
Former CLC’er wrote:
Bridget wrote:
Think about posting a review on amazon!
^Curious. My comment was to Former CLC’er, not Bridget.
Ema wrote:
And who do we all have to thank for that (Covenant Marriages)?
CHRISTIAN(TM) Activists Saving America, of course.
Godith wrote:
As Christian Monist’s uncle(?) put it:
“Bait a trap with P***y and you’ll catch a Preacher every time.”
Velour wrote:
“In many ways, Eula-Beulah prepared me for literary critics. After having a 200-pound babysitter fart in your face and yell “POW!”, The Village Voice holds few terrors.”
— Stephen King, On Writing (autobigraphical first half)
dee wrote:
Except in that culture Anna was raised and immersed in, she’d have to ask Josh’s permission first.
“What is Thy will, My Lord Husband? How might I better Submit?”
Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
For what it’s worth, years ago an online dictionary of slang defined “Christian Side Hug” as “Oral/anal sex, done to preserve technical virginity/purity.”
Wonder how it got that meaning?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Funny because it’s true, Doc.
Law Prof wrote:
What, no blanket-training? 🙂
FWIW, it sounds to me like your kids will be well-equipped for the real world and will not be as fragile as college kids and some young adults are these days. So glad you are back!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I wonder if their motto is ~~~~~
*Save America: torture the women and children!*
Velour wrote:
He lived with the mother of a military buddy who was killed during World War I. It’s my understanding Lewis promised his buddy he’d care for his mom if something happened.
mirele wrote:
Thanks, Mirele. I just checked the C.S. Lewis Foundation and it confirmed what you said that Lewis lived with his friend Paddy’s mother.
“1920
During the summer, Paddy Moore’s mother, Mrs. Janie King Moore (1873-1951) and her daughter, Maureen, moved to Oxford, renting a house in Headington Quarry. Lewis lived with the Moores from June 1921 onward. In August 1930, they moved to “Hillsboro,” Western Road, Headington. In October 1930, Mrs. Moore, Jack, and Major Lewis purchased “The Kilns” jointly, with title to the property being taken solely in the name of Mrs. Moore with the two brothers holding rights of life tenancy. Major Lewis retired from the military and joined them at “The Kilns” in 1932.”
According to one Duggar-interest (?) site and another Facebook posting, Daniel Keller (who they say is
Anna’s brother) wants to get Anna and her children away from Josh. I have no idea how reliable these sources are.
http://duggarsandbatesconfess.tumblr.com/post/127443473964/annas-brother-daniel-kellers-comments-on
https://www.facebook.com/EntertainmentTonight/posts/473807399466267
@ Debi Calvet:
Anna’s sister says that Anna must stay with Josh and says:
“Man is head of the woman and will be responsible for her at the judgement seat.”
?????????????????????????????
More-detailed link at that that interest site: http://duggarsandbatesconfess.tumblr.com/post/127443864554/anna-duggars-brother-calling-his-family-out
Nancy2 wrote:
UnBiblical heresy.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Is this some sort of running joke? …
Eagle wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
How can he be responsible for her when he can’t even control himself?
These people are severely whacked out.
@Velour – perhaps we are kindred spirits.
Did I mention that I knew Dave Adam’s wife years ago and since then I have glimpsed her in Target once and avoided her since I wouldn’t have known what to say.
Christiane wrote:
Ah, the local S.O. Wouldn’t do anything….and this may sound like the redneck I am, but I carry a .44 special CHL….
And yes Ronnie Floyd went “there” in his Sunday sermon – if you’re not keep your spouse sexually satisfied than it’s your fault that they stray.
Celia wrote:
Sounds like a line out of Mark Driscoll’s “Real Marriage” book! Ronnie Floyd has launched a 5-week sermon series on “Sex Today” … “to see what God’s Word says about human sexuality.” I suppose the pulpit can offer some things in that regard, but I liked it better when Dr. Floyd, as SBC President, focused on spiritual awakening. The greatest needs in the American church right now are humility, prayer, repentance, and seeking God’s face … not sex education.
Hello Ladies,
I hope you’re all working hard to be in the favor of men through your diligent support of their headship and leadership, because the success of the Gospel™ rests squarely upon your shoulders.
I must confess that I didn’t foresee the eventual loss of my career, nor did I imagine the consequences of our running away from Gaithersburg. At the time I had a firm trust in our bank accounts, and in our lives as hot commodities. Naturally I expected that after we moved to the “City of Beautiful Churches” that I’d continue to travel, give speeches, and offer my books for sale at numerous conferences throughout the year like I had done before. Instead this place has become more like “The Fall City”.
You see, I had established a name for myself, something no other woman in SGM was allowed to do without my express approval. Although I experienced slight twinges of guilt from time to time when I realized I was instructing women to refrain from building an independent life like what I had done, I knew within myself that it just went with the territory of being an SGM Leader – we’re simply above the laws we tell others to keep.
Also, you won’t ever hear me admit to any of our deceptive practices because I know the ends justify the means. Our Gospel™, which is true, makes men #1 and women #2. Just ask the Duggar’s.
And, with this in mind, we’ve been expecting our son to marry a girl who wants nothing more than a life at home that revolves around her hub. Unfortunately, he’s shown troubling signs, such as a preference for independently-minded women, the type who wouldn’t allow us to define for her what she can and cannot do, and who wouldn’t be content spending the rest of her life at home. This, of course, has had me worried. It’s a departure from the Gospel™.
In fact, I am certain that this is why, on September 9th, he is going to be arraigned on charges here in Kentucky. I am absolutely positive this is due to his having been exposed to some worldly ideas that have infiltrated his mind. I just know if he’d been spending more time at home, where the atmosphere is kept purified and cleansed of the pernicious influences of feminism, this would never have happened. My husband is especially convinced there’s a woman to blame. What else could it be?
And if the Judge is a female, we’re all doomed:
http://kcoj.kycourts.net/CourtRecords/Search.aspx
Click on the “Search by Case” tab
County: OLDHAM
Case #: 15-T-03896
Max wrote:
Is he going to deliver his sermon series from a king-size bed onstage with his smokin’ hawt stepford wife sitting beside him the whole time?
Morning drive-time radio mouthoff this morning:
“ASHLEY MADISON IS OUT OF BUSINESS” —
Multi-million dollar class action suit filed against Ashley Madison,
“If they’re smart, they’ll take all the money and disappear. Now.”
Mara wrote:
Doesn’t matter.
GAWD SAITH(TM).
@ Celia:
The way so many of these preachers discuss sex, one might think that the only reason to ever get married is to have sex. Does it ever occur to them that the marriage relationship is about much more than just sex? If the rest of their marriage relationship is in the bin, good sex will be right there with it on the trash heap. Expecting/demanding good sex (or any) when the relationship is a mess is foolish.
Carolyn Mahommy wrote:
The Duggar’s what?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That’s a gem! All the cheaters are going to sue because they got caught. I hope that is one case that never sees the light of day in a court room. I hope tax money isn’t wasted in this.
Gram3 wrote:
One line of thinking behind the ‘minimum four’ thinking goes like this. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and ‘multiply.’ So if you start with 2 (A&E) and then multiple by the lowest whole number which will give a result more than the original 2, that would be the number 2 as the multiplier. Which gives us 2 X 2=4.
No I did not make this up nor am I under the influence of any substance. This was/ is? the thinking.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Do as I say, not as I do?????
Celia wrote:
No, it’s not. A relative had this problem with her husband ~20 years ago. He strayed. It was HIS FAMILY that kept her sane. One of her husband’s uncles told her, “Look, it’s not about you. It’s about him. All he’s doing is thinking of himself, not of you and certainly not of your children. Just keep that in mind.”
Carolyn Mahommy wrote:
So this is CJ Mahaney or CJ Mahaney’s son? The post reads like Carolyn expressing concern for her son, and I thought his son’s name was Chad, but the arraignment information says “Charles J Mahaney”. I know that some people use “Chad” as short for “Charles”, though it’s not that common.
Bridget wrote:
Yup, for sure! And virginity guarantees a perfect marriage, don’t forget.
Well, it looks like a Charles J. Mahaney, aged 22, was picked up in Oldham County, KY and booked on August 14 for “operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, .08-etc. first offense.”
https://www.usinq.com/records/209d05d
Carolyn Mahommy wrote:
I can confirm that this is Chad Mahaney-22 yo son of CJ Mahaney- who has been arrested on charges of speeding as well as DUI-his first offense with the state. According to his bio on daddy’s sports blog, he is an intern at SBTS.
@ mirele:
I can also confirm that. I wonder what they do at SBTS with their interns who drink and drive-speeding in excess of 15 miles over the speed limits.
CJ used to “degift” pastors whose kids did this. But, I can assure you, he will not only not be degifted, he will be helped and coddled by his BFFs.
mirele wrote:
It’s the same person as seen in Chad Mahaney II’s Linked In profile. I also discovered (y’all can Google for it, not providing a link) that father/son Mahaney have a website called “Mahaney Sports” where they “are a father-son team seeking to bring a unique, gospel-driven discernment to sports through a weekly podcast and articles.”
Now that has got to be a complete misuse of the word “gospel.” Seriously!
@ mirele:
{gasp} Shockers! How could this be? He had the most Godly upbringing any parents could give a child. Or so they say.
Mara wrote:
I am sorry but God does not allow for common sense in understanding His ways or His design for the genders.
(wink)
Celia wrote:
Every good Southern Baptist pastor should know “It is our aim, therefore, to please Him, whether we are “at home” or “away”. For every one of us will have to stand without pretence before Christ our judge, and we shall be rewarded for what we did when we lived in our bodies, whether it was good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:9-10).
“My wife made me do it” will not cut it when the roll is called up yonder.
@ Carolyn Mahommy:
Carolyn, Don’t be too hard on Chad. It had to have been a huge disappointment to learn he was not going to inherit the a top slot in the SGM empire. So much child raising advice for us over the years yet you had to deal with a washout at Cedarville, too. Didn’t Mohler do you a favor for him, too, at SBTS like some of the other SGMers who came to Louisville?
Too bad the girls were not taught to seek after educational and mind expanding activities.
Most of us learned not to take child raising advice from your types a long time ago because we realized that each child is a unique individual and one has no guarantees-no matter what. However, to raise them in celebrity religious bubbles often has even worse consequences when they are older. It can take years to get over that entitlement mentality.
Lydia wrote:
Or for reading comprehension.
Dee wrote:
My goodness, I missed that! So Mohler did give CJ/Chad an SBC/SBTS resources favor. Oh dear. The docket says drugs, too. Not sure what that means.
I am not sure that would be grounds for dismissal at SBTS since they teach we remain wicked and cannot help sinning all the time especially if you are associated with a celebrity Christian. After all, his dad claimed to be the biggest sinner. Sounds to me like we might be hearing a big redemption/repentance story soon.
Here’s a link to the Charles J Mahaney arrest https://www.arrestnexus.com/records/ky-7ffb15d
Celia wrote:
Which goes to show just what these guys know about cheating, affairs and sex…..nothing….
mirele wrote:
On the very same day (Aug. 14) that C.J. Jr. was booked for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you will find this tweet at Mahaney Sports:
“Parents, how are you preparing your little leaguer for the big time of real life?”
Think about it. Reckon when all the New Calvinist little leaguers will be able to get off the Mahaney bus?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Nancy2:
@ Lydia:
@ Gram3:
Because we all have known for sometime that the Emperor has no clothes.
Duggar religion is about Male Rule, double standards, different rules for men than women with women having far more strict rules to adhere to than the men.
There is no:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart/soul/strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Do unto others what you would have done unto you.
It’s all:
White washed tombs prancing around as righteousness.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
And do unto others before they do unto you.
There is no Jesus in the Duggar religion.
There isn’t even any decency.
It’s all empty form and madmen structure.
Corbin wrote:
Josh and Anna got married in Florida, her home state, which does not have covenant marriage. So I doubt they have that license unless they went and got a second license in Arkansas, but I don’t know if that would even be possible.
Lydia wrote:
IIRC at one time the students had to pledge not to use “beverage alcohol.” Not sure about the faculty or employees. Surely intoxicating drugs would fit under that? On second thought, given your remarks about common sense and my experience with legalism loopholes, there probably is an exception because there needs to be an exception. Mahaney must be protected for some reason.
ar wrote:
Does anyone know where in Florida and what church?
Dee wrote:
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
Gram3 wrote:
Because he’s so HUMBLE(TM), of course.
(chuckle chuckle)
Mrs Stretch wrote:
*SBTS Jail ministry, anyone????
*5’6″….. Same height as me, an average WOMAN. I can’t help but wonder is he has the dreaded “little man complex” too.
No offense to the Marylanders out there, but as a native Kentuckian, I would like to deport the Mahaneys back to Maryland.
What Jr. has allegedly done is stupid, dangerous, selfish and a sign of a young man out of control, but it’s not bizarre, all that uncommon, or necessarily a sign of a lifelong problem and abject evil. What Sr. allegedly did at SGM was far, far more ugly.
Celia wrote:
Pastor (Ronnie Floyd) Says Keeping Spouse ‘Happy’ Is Key To Prevention
http://www.inquisitr.com/2360989/jill-duggar-tweets-infidelity-sermon-pastor-says-keeping-spouse-happy-is-key-to-prevention/
I wonder, if the gender is reversed, and it’s a woman who cheats on a husband, would these preachers be so quick to give the same commentary, to say there would be no adultery if “only you men would stay in shape and not gain weight,” or, “if only you husbands would have sex as often as the wife wants” …
Beantoes wrote:
I think that was simply ignorance. He was on the hunt for somebody who looked vaguely like him. He probably didn’t even try to find out who the person was. Josh is a user and he found someone to use.
Bridget wrote:
Actually, think of what could happen if it DID “see the light of day in a courtroom” with gavel-to-gavel OJ Simpson coverage on all channels:
Move over Commander Weirdbeard and Honey Boo Boo!
Welcome to the NEW Reality Show!
(JUICY! JUICY! JUICY!)
Daisy wrote:
If a man cheats, it isn’t because he is a cheater, it is because his wife did something to make him cheat. If a wife cheats, it is because she is rebelling against her husband or is a Jezebel.
It cannot ever just be that a wife or a husband decides to break their marriage covenant of faithfulness and exclusivity *for whatever reason*. It must always be about sex or gender.
Daisy wrote:
According to the article, the sermon covered both sides of the equation, wives keeping husbands happy, husbands keeping wives happy. So it’s not like I have a terrible impression of the sermon topic from a gender biased perspective (even though I disagree with it, some people are surely adulterers purely because they are self-centered jerks, and no amount of sexual favors are likely to keep them from straying), but the problem is with a young Mrs Duggar tweeting this knowing full well that with the timing of it the implications were that her sister in law was obviously not taking care of big brother. Considering what she knows of her big brother’s sexual proclivities going way back, it’s an astonishing and downright mean thing for her to implicitly throw the blame on her innocent sister in law.
I read the following in yesterday’s online People edition, in covering Pastor Ronnie Floyd’s sermon that included remarks on marital infidelity and tips for how to prevent it: “One of the most notable was the fifth suggestion, which mentioned keeping both husband and wife happy through “sexual contact,” which may only be put on hold for “focused prayer.” However, Floyd warned, if a husband or wife fails to keep his or her partner happy sexually they are opening themselves “up to the attack of the enemy.
“And that enemy is going to take your spouse away from you,” he said.
“Both men and woman have their sexual needs met by someone, somewhere, somehow.” (End of quoted excerpt)
I would like to say that I find this unbelievable, but sadly, it’s all too predictable. I have often heard people remark that “if a man’s not getting it at home, he’ll go somewhere else.” The first time I remember hearing someone say that, she was repeating what her husband had said about the husband of a mutual acquaintance who had been arrested for possession of child porn and online solicitation of a minor. I tore into that statement so hard that I think my sweet, naive friend was a little afraid of me. Well, good for me–people need to be confronted with how they blame victims. The perp in that case, by the way, taught an adult Sunday School class and had been open with them about how he had done time for possession of child porn, but had come to Christ and was a changed man and God had restored his marriage. Until he proved himself not to have been so changed. (The wife divorced him immediately the second time,)
I don’t know why people can’t grasp that Duggar’s issue is not a normal sinful issue of adultery. Most adulterous affairs–that I have heard of–at least have some element of personal relationship that developed in stages before reaching what we commonly think of as an “affair”. This Duggar infidelity was a deliberately sought and carefully maintained deception over the course of years with the intention from the beginning to break his marriage vows.
Comments like this preacher made demonstrate that appalling attitude that a wronged spouse is always to blame for the infidelity of the cheater. I butt against that head on whenever I encounter it. I have no personal reason to do so; it’s just wrong to blame one person for another person’s actions. And this Duggar infidelity is far beyond what most of us think of as cheating. Are people so blinded by loyalty to the Duggar family that they just won’t think about what they are subconsciously defending? I know that answer.
Law Prof wrote:
I agree!
Carolyn Mahommy wrote:
As always, your input is so valuable. Thank you, Carolyn. 🙂
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
No thank you. Don’t want to see it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I saw something about that the other day. There is a class action lawsuit against AM, which I think is owned by a company called Avid Media, or Avid something?
One thing I found kind of funny. The hackers did not mess with the other Avid owned site, “Cougar Life,” which is for older ladies to hook up with younger men. The hackers left the cougars alone.
Law Prof wrote:
Especially one who has four children under the age of six to go along with whatever sex issues Josh has.
Bridget wrote:
Related to that is another Christian myth about marriage, gender, and sex:
If Men Give Love to Get Sex
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/if-men-give-love-get-sex?page=show
I agree with you, Law Prof–the Duggar sister’s tweet was very unkind. A passive aggressive jab at a very wronged, innocent wife. It’s probably not the only unkindness going on in the One Big Happy Family.
Law Prof wrote:
Totally agree. The problem is using kids as part of the systemic teaching.
@ Law Prof:
Exactly! She was blaming her sister-in-law, Anna, in a passive-aggressive way, IMO. Sickening! How I hope that Anna’s brother will succeed in convincing his sister to let him rescue her (assuming the reports are true).
Dee wrote:
What is an intern at a seminary? What do they do?
Law Prof wrote:
From what I remember, CLC members were raked over the coals for far less. I wonder if daddy gives Jr. a pass.
Nancy2 wrote:
If you don’t believe this then you probably don’t believe the Bible. You probably go to a liberal apostate church that doesn’t believe the Bible. You need to get saved and attend a church that is not afraid to teach the Bible…
(wink)
K.D. wrote:
Paranoia is profitable. I think that’s one reason why they cultivate it. It also makes a great control mechanism.
Debi Calvet wrote:
Either that or she’s completely clueless, I hope the latter. If the former is true, she was apparently trained that way. When Josh first was caught abusing his sisters and the baby sitter, it was reported that Jim Bob blamed Josh’s sin for Jim Bob’s blowout loss (he got less than 1 out of 4 votes cast) in his run for the U.S. Senate.
Nancy2 wrote:
I didn’t know the Duggars were Mormon, because that’s the only place where that theology flies.
@ Debi Calvet:
I hope Anna speaks up for herself and her children, says she doesn’t believe in male hierarchy, and asks for help to recover from the debilitating teaching she has been steeped in. I would help her in a minute, but I would want her to initiate it. Where she ends up in regards to her marriage is another matter.
okrapod wrote:
I’d like to know, too.
okrapod wrote:
Southern Seminary has a “Ministry Leaders Internship” program in which it recognizes certain students to train them “for their unique leadership roles in ministry.” You know, sort of like the “unique” role C.J. Sr. has provided to New Calvinism.
@ Max:
SBTS’s website describes their intern program in this manner “provides high-caliber students an opportunity to work with key leaders across campus.” Thus, the high-caliber son of an elite will be trained by other elites to become an elite. He will be mentored by “key leaders”, blah, blah, blah, to someday be a Christian celebrity. (you can spot New Calvinist elites-in-training by their spiky hairdos in their mug shots)
Debi Calvet wrote:
Oh, brother. How did I miss that? From the Facebook link:
So, not submitting to husband makes one just as guilty as a child molester, porn addict, and adulterer. sin-leveling at its finest. Run, Anna, run!
Max wrote:
This is so disgusting, and it’s getting dispiriting. I think I need to take a break from the Internet for a few days…
Max wrote:
Do you really think Chad is in such an internship? Chad never displayed any character traits publicly that would qualify him for anything in leadership – biblically (I believe a correct use of the word in this case) speaking.
@ Bridget:
Hi Bridget – no, I’m not sure about this … if Chad is a Ministry Leaders Intern. I was pointing this out as one possibility for his “intern” title. In his profile on his sports website, he says he is an “intern at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Communications Department.” I’m not sure such internship in that department is one and the same as a ministry leaders intern.
@ Max:
I think I am going to throw up.
Law Prof wrote:
There are some Christian gender comps who believe that, too.
I can’t remember which one (or was it both?) but one or both of them who visit this blog told us i 2 or 3 posts on a previous thread that husbands (or men in general?) are going to be held “more responsible” or “responsible for” their wives to God.
The women are not thought to be accountable for themselves, their sins, their shortcomings, or their choices; no, the men are responsible for what women do*. I don’t see that in the Bible at all, but some gender comps believe that way.
*oddly except in cases of sexual sin, in which case a lot of the preachers blame women for not being “available enough,” or for not being pretty enough to keep their husband’s interest
Daisy wrote:
The article you referenced is idealistic and misleading. No doubt there are women who enjoy sex, but the type of men they find sexually attractive are usually poor prospects as husbands and fathers, such as the “bad boy” type, etc. On the other hand, there are men who are sexually unattractive, but are excellent prospects as husbands and fathers. They just can’t attract a woman who finds them sexually desirable. What usually happens is the woman “settles” for the husband and father prospect and sex becomes a duty. The man is tries to compensate, as mentioned in the article. Eventually, the marriage becomes sexless or ends in divorce.
Joe2 wrote:
I disagree.
I thought it was a pretty good piece in pointing out the stereotypes about gender and sex within evangelical Christianity.
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, based on your observation of his (now proven) character traits, perhaps Chad is only a student assistant (intern) in SBTS’s communication department rather than in the elite Ministry Leaders Internship program. I guess “interns” occupy various spots on the SBTS campus.
okrapod wrote:
Dear Okrapod, please don’t get sick yet … perhaps he is just a regular “intern” at SBTS (see my reply to Bridget on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:41 PM)
Max wrote:
That makes more sense. Still, what does being an intern mean at SBTS? Do you get paid while going to school? It could also be an unpaid internship.
Debi Calvet wrote:
I what sister-in-law dearest would have to say if she were the one on the receiving end of an incestually inclined, pedophiliac, cheating husband who is addicted to porn?!?
Jamie Carter wrote:
Reminds me of a biography I read about Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan. He raised his sons to be politicians: John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Edward Kennedy…
Muff Potter wrote:
Hmmmm, I get to skip right on in to heaven and all it’s glory, while my husband gets fried at the bema seat. If I’m. Bad wife, he pays for it!
I wonder if fathers will be held accountable for their unmarried daughters?
Gram3 wrote:
I love that prayer that goes…
So far today, God, I’ve done all right. I haven’t gossiped, haven’t lost my temper, haven’t been greedy, grumpy, nasty, selfish, or over-indulgent. I’m really glad about that.
But in a few minutes, God, I’m going to get out of bed and from then on I’m probably going to need a lot more help.
Thank you.
In Jesus name. Amen
(if you google “so far today” you’ll come up with a lot of similar versions. This one came from the “Church Funnies” FB page.)
Gram3 wrote:
Huh? (maybe this is explained in a later comment, but I’m out of time for reading for the present)
Gram3 wrote:
I’m a bit of a purist. Real cream in the frosting, maybe sub mascarpone for the cream cheese (I don’t care for the tang on cinnamon buns — carrot cake, yes!). And no raisins! My mom used to split her batch of cinnamon rolls in half — half were cinnamon-raisin (yuck, have never cared much for raisins, period), and the other half were pure and unsullied by shriveled grapes.
@ Max:
Chad is not even SBC which was another problem with Mohler giving a bunch of perks to the Non SBC SGM folks in the way of jobs, internships and he even tried to give academic credit for SGM pastors college! Thank goodness that went public!
Traditiinally Non SBC students pay higher tuition. So why the intern perk for a non SBC student?
Bridget wrote:
Might have tuition break and it is good for a CV. Let’s ask Al Mohler. (Wink)
refugee wrote:
I think my next batch of cinnamon buns, I will add little bits of chopped up apple before rolling up the whole thing and cutting in to slices.
Dried cranberries can be used in lieu of raisins in pastries, cookies, etc.
Nancy2 wrote:
It’s a toss-up Nancy2, between fathers and controlling, authoritarian church elders who demand binding, legal, contracts be signed by members called Church Membership Covenants. Because they will *give an account* (elders) for your soul and need to control your every move on this planet. And if you don’t bow and scrape, then it’s being lied about, threatened, gossiped about, excommunicated and shunned.
Bridget wrote:
I can’t think of a person among the leaders in Neocalvinism who’s displayed those traits. In fact, a display of those traits would be stepping down from public, visible leadership and being the least, the last, as Jesus said.
Daisy wrote:
Ken believes this, though I don’t remember his nuance, and I don’t remember if JS said this. Others say it because Christ sanctifies the church and therefore men sanctify their wives. It’s just more of the metaphor-stretching that takes it to ridiculous places. And, I think the ones teaching it, as opposed to the ones merely believing it, do it to make absolute submission more attractive to women. If women submit and their husbands make a poor decision, then the husband will have to answer for both his and his wife’s lives. The wife is not responsible for being an ezer kenegdo. She’s just a bobblehead, but God is going to make hubby answer for everything. Someday. But in the meantime, just shut up and stop “wearing him out,” as Matt Chandler so winsomely puts it.
@ Velour:
I like pecans in cinnamon buns.
Dried cranberries and walnuts are to die for in Amish Friendship Bread!
Max wrote:
Well, no one seriously believes Al Mohler reads 4 books a day with comprehension, writes a podcast, writes books, prepares a Sunday School class, does Seminary business and is a devoted husband and father. It takes staff to make a normal person into a demi-god to the fanboys.
Gram3 wrote:
It never occurs to those women that their husbands’ poor decisions may cost both the women and children dearly.
@ refugee:
Apparently it’s a thing now that women have resources and can employ/marry/support younger men to provide whatever a young man might have that she finds attractive. Until fairly recently, excess resources is something women only rarely had.
Sorry if this has already been linked here. But I thought this was very good and pertinent to the conversation.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2015/08/will-anna-duggar-be-offered-as-next.html
Law Prof wrote:
Bingo
I have been wondering about the courtship that Josiah Dugger had with Marjorie that appeared very short lived. From one of the pictures she was wearing gasp jeans ie not a jean skirt. Maybe she did not fit or perhaps her parents or her realised this was maybe not a good idea. Really feel for Anna. Tweet by her sister in law was not nice at all in fact was down right bitchy.(Apologies) We have a saying too sweet to be wholesome.
I pray that Anna will get the help and support that she needs and that the Holy Spirit will bring someome along side her for that purpose
Irish lass wrote:
I pray that she will be freed from this bondage and that her children’s futures will be well beyond serving the interests of Jim Bob Duggar’s vision of himself as uber-male. Wives and children are not objects for the satisfaction of a male or males, whether that is a husband, father, brother, or pastor/elder. Men are not objects for the satisfaction of females, either. We should love and value one another as belonging to the Lord and as gifts to one another, whether we are married or single, male or female, “clergy” or “laity.”
Gram3 wrote:
Oh Gram3…it sounds like you are “bringing an accusation without cause” against Pope Al Mohler. There are serious consequences for thinking of your mere (female, that’s another strike) self an equal to Pope Mohler. Criticizing A MAN of his stature????
Gram3, you have been listening to Jesus too much again!
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes!!!
Bridget wrote:
Except his last name and Who His Daddy Was.
Through most of European history, that was enough.
Birth and Breeding, you understand.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyh9w_AO3YE
@Velour – please send your address and I”ll be right over for cinnamon buns! 🙂
MSNBC – Josh’s brother-in-law just weighed in.
With both barrels.
Especially when Duggar fanboys hit back with “Are You Without SIN?”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/anna-duggars-brother-calls-josh-duggar-a-pig-begs-her-to-leave/ar-BBm3x61
refugee wrote:
No argument from me. With tasty treats like cinnamon rolls, the simpler the better.
@ Lydia:Why don’t you at least tell the whole story though. No, CS Lewis wasn’t an angel but the woman he lived with (from before he became a Christian) was the mother of his dead comrade. The two fought in WWI together and made a deal. If Lewis returned, and his friends died, he’d look after his mother, vice versa, if Lewis died and his friend returned, he’d look after his alcoholic brother. Well, WWI ends, Lewis lives (obviously), his friend didn’t. So, doing the honourable thing, Lewis went to look after his friend’s mother. Remember, Lewis lost his own mother when he was only 9. There has never been proof of what sort of relationship. Just that Lewis would never talk about it afterwards with anyone. No comments feed gossip. It may or may not have been more than that. But we will never know.
As for the American, she pursued him. He resisted. However, she was about to be deported. He very publicly (it wasn’t illegal back then) declared he was only marrying her so she could stay in the UK. They were friends, but not in a relationship back then. So, they had a plutonic marriage so she wouldn’t be deported. Then, she got cancer. He then realized he liked her more than just a friend. They were already married, so they moved in together so he could take care of her. She went into remission, they had some time together, happily, then she got sick again and died. I think her sons still hold title to his Narnia series.
Not painting CS Lewis as an angel, but nor am I about to feed the gossip mills, the woman he “lived” with may have been more about his need for a mother figure than a love interest, it may have been more, but no one can claim certainty on this.
Dee, while I agree with you that all families have their sins, the amount of molestation seems high in the Gothard type circles. I am wondering if it may be the hierarchy structures set up attract the molesters and with huge numbers of pedophiles in the crowd, kids see that behaviour and copy it? CJ Mahaney’s church had far too many to sweep under the rug (and a top-down hierarchy), Gothar himself is caught in molestation scandals and now the Duggars. If they can’t even find decent people in these movements to be spokespersons, the whole movement must be absolutely teeming with predators, so many they can’t find any good people? That is my impression after these scandals get turned up.
Duggar is in pretty deep. I mean, politicians get caught in affairs, but not pedophilia with family members, pedophiles don’t typically also get caught out chasing adult affairs. This picture of who Josh is, is pretty frightening. Pedophile, marriage cheater, liar. It seems pretty extreme. I don’t even think the secular politicians do this badly. So much for all that counselling he got, seems it only encouraged him by showing him his actions required no real consequences.
“Christian” hierarchies mean being in charge trumps having any responsibility to behave morally. Just get the title, then do whatever. As bad as the whole “Divine right of Kings” in the middle ages. Since both groups felt they were Divinely appointed leaders who could never be knocked from their thrones.
@ Daisy:
I’d look at the dad and pastors a little more closely too. I think a lot things are communicated via unspoken actions. For example, if you were in Mark Driscoll’s church, for example, and told that leaders were just acting as “servants of God” but viewed leaders acting like entitle d*cks all the time, you’d internalize a view of leadership. When you grew up and became a leader yourself, cocky arrogance towards those under and extreme deference to those above you would be part and parcel of your actions. But Dirscoll’s church wasn’t image conscious in the way the Dugger’s are. The Quiverfull view is do x,y, and z and act perfect. So what did Josh get raised on? Sexually pure parenting and leaders? or Acting sexually pure parents and leaders. Big Difference.
I suspect their sexual morality wasn’t taught by sexually pure parents and pastors. That is my hunch. People unconsciously pick up cues for sincerity. Harder to do via. media and so on, so Josh could pull off his sincere act in Washington, but up close and personal, I bet there are a lot of red flags around his life. Especially given that the pastors and parents felt they had “dealt” with the abuse by covering it up. Says a whole lot about their views on abuse. In other words, he grew up listening to pastors and leaders talk about sexual purity, but intuitively knew there was other things going on and internalized those. Now, he is still at fault for deciding to follow the unsaid. But I suspect the dark side was revealed to him when he was young. That is why I suspect the father of being less than moral in this whole shell game.
Val wrote:
Hey Val, I did not communicate myself well so I can see where you might have misunderstood what I meant in my original response concerning Lewis. Someone sounds that upset in comments because Lewis is being quoted thinking that means we think he is an “angel” does not get it and I assume does not want to. I am not sure the whole story would have mattered to that person but I am glad others chimed in. I agree with you and the others. And as usual, Muff always gets it and brings it home to the kitchen table. :o)
@ Velour:
Yes, one needs DNA proof before accusing the brethren of long time patterns of behavior and actual words. sigh. Heard it a million times
@ Val:
Males with predator tendencies will have them stoked real well in the Gothard environment. Women are taught to be submissive, not question, and be sweet not matter what. The sect has a pretty strange emphasis on sex. All the side-hugs and ankle length skirts are because humans are so depraved that any man who gets a little sight of some leg will immediately have desires he can’t control. For a sect so obsessed with purity, the adults talk about sex with a nod and wink all the time. Michelle speaks freely about being open to Jim Bob’s desires whenever he needs it and it is equated with some sort of righteousness. When they are around their engaged daughter’s they will openly kiss and joke about how “But you can’t do that yet.” Finally, when you factor in that the females are not allowed to be educated, hold jobs, and have any life experience, it puts the males in complete control to abuse and cheat should they want to. Anna Duggar has few options unless someone comes and saves her. She has no way to support herself. Her creepy, pervert husband is pretty much washed up, and will likely now rely on Daddy’s business the rest of his life, so I don’t even know that she would be able to end up with much support should she go the divorce route. . . which seems highly unlikely. . .since that wouldn’t be a with a devout, chaste, and gracious Gothardite woman would do.
Val wrote:
And even she was a lover. So what? How does that denigrate his accomplishments or subtract from them in any way?
Val wrote:
From Gothard to the Duggars, I think that whole movement can be summed as: Don’t think pink.
Remember that one? They continually tell them not to think about sex, etc, etc. The whole focus is telling them not to think pink. So what do they do? They think pink all the time. They cannot escape it! They are surrounded by the message in everything from how they dress to what they are taught. Constantly.
Instead of simply being open and honest about hormones and growing up.
@ Val:
C.S. Lewis AND his brother, a military man who retired from the military, lived with Mrs. Moore in the same household. I don’t find that odd. I have relatives in the U.K. and these kinds of intergenerational living arrangements, including with close family friends, were quite common.
Muff Potter wrote:
C.S. Lewis, his brother, Mrs. Moore (Lewis’ deceased best friend’s mom) and sister all shared a house together. This was quite common among my relatives in the U.K., these types of living arrangements.
Val wrote:
According to some articles written by other young women whose families used to go to the same church as the Duggars, there is a lot of sexual abuse in the families at that church. It doesn’t surprise me. The whole thing is a recipe for disaster. And Bill Gothard’s teachings…he’s a predator himself who preyed upon more than 40 young women, probably more.
Joe2 wrote:
I’m not sure where to start with this paragraph full of stereotypes and outright falsehoods. This is the same sort of stuff I’ve read in “men’s rights” material. You say that no doubt some women like sex (as if they are a distinct minority), and if they do, they are only attracted to bad boys who would be poor fathers and husbands. Huh? Seriously, if you really believe this, then you have only spoken with dissatisfied husbands who think their sexual problems are most surely the wife’s fault, because her shallow character makes her unable to be attracted to a nice guy like him. This is just a variation of the questionably Christian patriarchal groups, who believe a husband straying only occurs because the wife isn’t performing her God-ordained wifely duties enthusiastically enough to keep him happy.
I personally know plenty of women, just like me, who like sex, and like it with our husbands, most of whom are anything but bad boy types. In fact, my own husband of over 30 years is a geeky engineer, whose most attractive feature isn’t his looks (though they’re pretty great, IMHO), but the fact he makes me laugh every single day. And he’s a great dad. I didn’t settle for anything.
Of course I can’t know this, but one of my theories about this whole mess is that Josh Duggar, raised as he was, thought he had a reasonable expectation that his wife would make him happy, in every way, and if he wasn’t satisfied–in every way–then the fault would lie at Anna’s feet. Who could blame him for seeking happiness elsewhere, when his wife wasn’t providing it herself? My other theory has to do with the effect the purity culture has had on him. Women are to remain unsullied sexually until they are presented as a sacrifice to their husbands. A good wife, a good Christian wife, won’t want to participate in “dirty sex.” So when he starts to want something other than, for lack of a better term, straight missionary-style sex, he goes elsewhere, because he can’t imagine his good Christian wife participating in such behaviors. Two seemingly opposite theories that are explained by the same dysfunctional culture.
I do pray for Anna, who I believe finds herself in an unbelievably painful situation. She has been raised to fill a certain role, and probably finds all of this completely bewildering, and may even blame herself, as others in their circle are doing. In my observations of the Duggar family over the years, she has always seemed to be a kind, funny young woman. I hope she can emerge from all of this a stronger human being, with a sense of the truly unconditional love of Christ, not the conditional acceptance of patriarchy.
Maybe it’s buried somewhere in one of the over 400 posts but what was the unkind sister in law tweet that keep being mentioned?
@ Muff Potter:Well, that would depend on the audience, no?
OK, not too sure what you mean by all that.
In general, Christianity is more than just a set of beliefs to agree or disagree with, but out following or journey towards Christlikeness. So, it must be more than agreeing on debating points and does demand its follower do more than simply agree. Leaders must be above reproach, well thought of, have only one wife, etc. People are to abandon sinful ways, etc.
Does it mean CS Lewis had to be perfect? Not at all, but one would expect that he would have lived in a way that was different before and after his conversion.
So, if he was writing about the evils of adultery (I don’t think he was, but let’s suppose), it would have been hypocritical of him to have been living an adulterous lifestyle while writing against it and would have undermined his writings.
As far as I know, that whole living arrangement ended with the woman (friend’s mom) slipping into dementia, by the time CS Lewis had converted, so I don’t think it makes much of a difference either way.
Do you mean it makes no difference if CS Lewis was a hypocrite or not? I’d say it does. Or do you mean co-habitation isn’t something that we should regard as sinful? Sorry, not getting your meaning.
@ Deanna:
Well-thought out post, Deanna.
Additionally, besides the bizarre environment that Josh and his siblings were raised in, the sexual abuse in their family, Josh seems to have sex addiction issues and is acting that out, which is typical. Also, was he sexually abused?
@ Velour:
Yes, I agree with you. I was commenting on the possible insinuation that CS Lewis was “living with another woman” was not really immoral or disturbing because that woman was more of a mother-figure to him and not a lover.
@ Deanna:
I think this is a good overall summary of the movement, but Josh seemed to have this problem long before his marriage to Anna. The Facebook account was started 4 years before his marriage and the molestation of his sisters over the course of about a year happened long before he could have expected to marry and solve all his sexual issues.
I suspect this movement attracts large numbers of pedophiles and abusers because it is set up to give them the authority and anonymity they crave. That environment then sets up the next generation to follow suit. The view of women isn’t just about the wife fulfilling all a man’s needs, it is about every female they encounter being lower than them in the hierarchy and therefore have less of a conscious about how they treat them. It is similar to the ISIS group’s treatment of Yazidi girls, something less than human, still human enough to sleep with, but not quite equal and therefore discardable. Josh absorbed that environment. Seeing and experiencing the men in his life treating the woman as property and sexually dangerous. So, at a young age, he began to disassociate himself from his female siblings as ‘family’ and began to view them as property or objects. A dangerous situation for his own kids.
@ Deanna: And yes, poor Anna, by the time it gets bad enough for her to leave, so much damage will have been done.
@ Bunsen Honeydew:
Poor Anna, and now what will the Duggars do? I suppose they have enough wealth from their past shows to run on. But, do any of those kids have collage or post-secondary education? What can the family do now? Dad was in politics, right? and Real Estate? How is the market down there?
The next generation is hooped. They have little to no education, their stardom is kaput, they have no real world skills and they certainly can’t be right-wing spokespeople with all the cover-ups they engaged in. Yikes for all their futures.
19 kids and 69 grandkids all on EI. That would make a news headline or two.
Val wrote:
Do you mean to say ‘platonic’?
Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
It’s discussed on this page:
http://www.inquisitr.com/2360989/jill-duggar-tweets-infidelity-sermon-pastor-says-keeping-spouse-happy-is-key-to-prevention/
Val wrote:
And honestly, people didn’t live independently like that do now. Housing was expensive and scarce. It really was quite common for people to live together, fend for those who didn’t have someone to fend for them. I can cite similar examples as Lewis’ to my own UK relatives with a patchwork of people living together.
If Anna is to blame for Josh’s infidelity and AM accounts, then who gets the blame for Josh molesting his 4 sisters + one more girl?
Val wrote:
Fair question and I’ll be up front and honest about it. So long as it abides under the aegis and ethos of human responsibility, I see nothing sinful or morally repugnant about co-habitation at all. And as always, let each be convinced in his or her own mind.
@ Mara: Made my heart ache even more for Anna…
Deanna wrote:
My comments were addressed to the article and not to your marriage or any marriage in particular. The article was written by a newly married man and it reads like he is rationalizing the waning of sex in his marriage. He uses the phrase, “I can live without sex” writes volumes. Apparently, his wife is in accord with this view. She can live without sex too and is willing to accommodate him.
I agree with all you wrote. I’ve never watched the show but just the title shows that the focus was on having a bunch of kids. More kids, more viewers. Not exactly the best reason to have kids
I just wish the next Christian to be caught in sin would point out that this is why we need a savior. We are sinful people prone to sin even when the Holy Spirit lives in us. How much more so when we don’t have Him.
He has a lot of hard work ahead of him if he wants to change.
Deanna wrote:
Thank goodness my wife also thinks “makes me laugh” is attractive, because looking at the cold, hard physiological facts, I married someone at least two points higher on the 1 to 10 scale. But I definitely make her laugh. Ever notice comedians aren’t usually model-looking types? Some of us have to develop survival skills because we can’t lean on our looks.
Val wrote:
I saw something similar in attitude (except with imaginary critters instead of Yazidi girls) in the darker fringes of Furry Fandom:
Just human enough so it isn’t bestiality, but not human enough for it to be rape.
Beakerj wrote:
My father was one of 12.Their stories always came back to going to bed hungry. Every. Single. Night.
okrapod wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
This is where I am, as well.
Josh Duggar has checked into rehab.
http://www.duggarfamily.com/2015/8/duggar-family-statement
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Let’s hope it is a good one. And let’s hope if it’s a good one that they also get treatment for Anna. (By the way, her brother that is defending her sounds like one of the only sane relatives on either side of both families.)
zooey111 wrote:
I am wondering the same thing.
Velour wrote:
The defending brother sounds like he’s expressing a genuine human emotion–anger–at a person who’s badly abusing his sister and nieces/nephews. But genuine human emotions are sinful to the purity crowd. Seems to me that it should be obvious that the less and less human we become, the farther we get from God’s plan. Jesus was profoundly human, even though He was God in the flesh, and that He had no problem expressing anger, rage, and contempt for abusers or sadness, emotional exhaustion, fear, despair, gentleness, disdain, etc. etc. etc. By the definition of the purity crowd, Jesus was in some kind of serious sin for expressing the full spectrum of emotions.
Law Prof wrote:
Spot on, LawProf!
I have frequently said to my fellow Christians, and even some unbelievers who are level-headed in my family, about the NeoCal/9Marx/Acts29/& ILK crowd,
“Do you realize that if Jesus walked in to [name of church] that He would be expelled? He wouldn’t meet their *criteria*.”
Nancy2 wrote:
Tim Bayly said in a seminar I attended, something to the effect that more has been done for the kingdom of God through family discipleship, than through evangelism. If you’re interested, I can go and look up the exact quote. I wrote it down, because it sounded so “off” to me.
It even might have been “more has been done to grow the ranks of the kingdom of God” or “more people have been won for Christ” through family discipleship than evangelism… Now I’m curious and need to go hunt up that notebook.
refugee wrote:
It sounded “off” because it was “off”. Did Jesus’ apostles focus their attention on their families? How many children did the apostle Paul have to disciple?
In Matt. Ch. 12, Jesus said, “for whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Hard to believe that the Duggars would seek a qualified treatment program now any more than the did when he was molesting his sisters. Is it just me or does anyone else wonder about why Josh seems to be the only one of the Duggar sons in any kind of a "starring" role in their show? Knowing what they knew, why would any parent thrust him into the spotlight? I also wonder about the possible issues there could be with the other Duggar boys. Any thoughts?
A Georgia Mom’s Open Letter To Anna Duggar
JESSICA KIRKLAND’S FULL ‘BREATHE FIRE’ POST
I know everybody is laughing about this Josh Duggar story. Oh, a DUGGAR on Ashley Madison, it’s so rich! I wish more people would talk about Anna. I normally keep things light on Facebook, but let’s talk about Anna. Let me tell you: Anna Duggar is in the worst position she could possibly be in right now. Anna Duggar was crippled by her parents by receiving no education, having no work experience (or life experience, for that matter) and then was shackled to this loser because his family was famous in their religious circle. Anna Duggar was taught that her sole purpose in life, the most meaningful thing she could do, was to be chaste and proper, a devout wife, and a mother. Anna Duggar did that! Anna Duggar followed the rules that were imposed on her from the get-go and this is what she got in reward- a husband who she found out, in the span of six months, not only molested his own sisters, but was unfaithful to her in the most humiliating way possible. While she was fulfilling her “duty” of providing him with four children and raising them. She lived up to the standard that men set for her of being chaste and Godly and in return, the man who demanded this of her sought women who were the opposite. “Be this,” they told her. She was. It wasn’t enough.
What is Anna Duggar supposed to do? She can’t divorce because the religious environment she was brought up would blame her and ostracize her for it. Even if she would risk that, she has no education and no work experience to fall back on, so how does she support her kids? From where could she summon the ability to turn her back on everything she ever held to be sacred and safe? Her beliefs, the very thing she would turn to for comfort in this kind of crisis, are the VERY REASON she is in this predicament in the first place. How can she reconcile this? Her parents have utterly, utterly failed her. Think of this: somewhere, Anna Duggar is sitting in prayer, praying not for the strength to get out and stand on her own, but for the strength to stand by this man she is unfortunately married to. To lower herself so that he may rise up on her back.
As a mother of daughters, this makes me ill. Parents, WE MUST DO BETTER BY OUR DAUGHTERS. Boys, men, are born with power. Girls have to command it for themselves. They aren’t given it. They assume it and take it. But you have to teach them to do it, that they can do it. We HAVE to teach our daughters that they are not beholden to men like this. That they don’t have to marry a man their father deems ‘acceptable’ and then stay married to that man long, long after he proved himself UNACCEPTABLE. Educate them. Empower them. Give them the tools they need to survive, on their own if they must. Josh Duggar should be cowering in fear of Anna Duggar right now. Cowering. He isn’t, but he should be. He should be quaking in fear that the house might fall down around them if he’s in the same room as she. Please, instill your daughters with the resolve to make a man cower if he must. To say “I don’t deserve this, and my children don’t deserve this.” I wish someone had ever, just once, told Anna she was capable of this. That she knew she is. As for my girls, I’ll raise them to think they breathe fire.
.
Nancy2 wrote:
As I understand it, in the time & place where Jesus incarnated, EVERYTHING was about Family Connections and Clan and Lineage. (Like “Because you’re a Lannister” in Game of Thrones.) Those without large and powerful Families, Clans, and Lineage — slaves, orphans, singles, rejects — were less than nothing, both in life and in the afterlife. (If they even made it into an afterlife….)
Propagating by Teaching and Baptizing (instead of breeding) gave these have-nots a Family and Lineage in the Church assembly. They were no longer less than nothing, now they were sons and daughters and heirs in “God’s Forever Family” which would outlast the Clans and Lineages. Propagating the Lineage had changed from Birth to Baptism, from Blood to Water.
And these Quiverfull types with their 200-year breeding plans for their Lineage are just going back to before Christ.
Velour wrote:
Good advice, mothers. With the condition of the world AND the church, our daughters will need to know how to stand their ground and scorch some behinds when necessary. The proverb “Train children in the way they should go” has taken on a whole new dimension in the 21st century church.
Law Prof wrote:
in That Hideous Strength, wasn’t the stated goal of N.I.C.E. a form of Transhumanism, i.e. forcibly evolving beyond being human, the less human they became the better?
(And Jack Lewis, you have the biggest tin ear for acronyms I’ve ever encountered. Argh…)
Max wrote:
Indeed, Max. The whole legalism/authoritarianism “do it this way and it will all turn out” — no, life doesn’t work like that.
huzandbuz comments:
There is every indication that Josh Duggar was transported to a ‘faith based’ facility for treatment. No doubt this center is ‘Gothard’ affiliated and void of licensed psychiatrists or psychologists. No ‘real’ help will EVER be realized without truly professional ‘sexual addiction’ counseling.
I am a ‘Jesus is my Lord and Savior christian’ as well as a ‘very seasoned’ senior citizen. (Certainly the Word of God can be realized as powerful and applicable to our daily lives!!) It is necessary to be mindful, however, that the sovereign God who lovingly created us certainly enabled those ‘professionally trained counselors with behavior skills insights’ the ability to ‘get to the root’ of these inherent, all consuming problems. Even non-religious, trained professionals take ‘Christianity’ into consideration (if it is patient desired) as they delve into the solution to chronic, deep-rooted psychological issues.
I pray the Duggars and others of their ilk begin to miraculously see through the legalistic and ‘check-list based approach’ to Christianity to which they have relentlessly thus far adhered. ^i^ ^i^ ^i^
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Gen. 22:17 ???
“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and of the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;”
So, God wasn’t talking to Abraham. He was talking to Jim Bob Duggar. Wow. I didn’t know that! You learn something new every day.
So sad that even after all that has thus far been disclosed appropriate help is not what is sought by the family. A quiverful of damaged children will be the result of this family’s history of poor decisions.
Joe wrote:
And JimBob and Michelle Duggar will continue to castigate anyone else for their family’s SERIOUS problems: their town’s police chief (a woman), their state’s social services (required to investigate), and on and on. Anyone that upholds the law and their job is subjected to Duggar mistreatment, abuse, and lying, calls by the Duggars for said official to be fired, and this family is sue-happy (getting an attorney for Josh at age 19 to sue social services), etc.
Joe wrote:
And those damaged children will damage more people!
Mirele: Thank you for your intelligent response. Here’s hoping your efforts at the non-profit you run provide some help for *the good of the group*.
I, too, have always been interested in the Money Angle of this Duggar phenomena, including their connection to the FRC. The tax exemption status for some organizations citing a religious purpose seems quite a stretch to me and double-dipping (can’t we just call it what it is?: GREED) is par for the course everywhere. I’ll let the lawyers split the hairs.
As far as the Patriarchal Movement goes (which is the male side of Quiverfull, no?): if a truly strong male headship wants to take a mistress/lover/concubine, why isn’t that within his prerogative? Wouldn’t that reflect their virility? I mean, Mafioso Dons keep their *goomahs* tucked away; why can’t Josh Duggar? The ultimate irony here is that Josh has been utterly, public humiliated as a hypocrite, an emasculated man. Let’s not inadvertently push this man to suicide.
Velour wrote:
Do you have links for this as well?
I’d like to see what he’s saying and how he’s being received?
What position is he coming from in all this anger? Still Quiverfull? Agnostic, Atheist?
A lot of these second generationers goes the Agnostic, Atheist, even Pagan route after being chewed up and spit out by this false gospel.
@ Mara:
Can anybody answer this question for me?
Thanks in advance.
@ Mara:
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
@ Mara:
Bueller?
@ Mara:
No this is not about what Josh Duggar does during his “alone time”.
It’s how I feel asking questions over here on this recently abandoned board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1NrQYXjLU
Mara wrote:
It’s in the news. Online. Look up “Daniel Keller”. He’s the eldest child in the family. He told his sister Anna (Duggar) that he would pick her and her children up, bring them to live with him and his wife. Outraged at what Josh has done to his sister, his family, what an embarrassment to them all.
Mara wrote:
Answer: One AWESOME brother is his position in my book! Go Daniel Keller! He’s the only sane one in the family.
Joe wrote:
If Josh is the oldest/firstborn son, it could be simple Primogeniture.
Firstborn Son is Heir to the Throne.
refugee wrote:
I believe this is called “Bedroom Evangelism”.
And Massachusetts Puritans were also into it. “We evangelize our children.”
@ Velour:
Thanks Velour.
I googled his name and was able to read about him.
Mara wrote:
Anna Duggar’s Brother Bashes Cheating Husband Josh on Facebook: ‘I Won’t Stop Trying to Get That Pig out of Our Family’
http://www.people.com/article/anna-duggar-brother-daniel-keller-slams-josh-duggar-on-facebook