Priscilla & David Waller - Pecan Thieves Pregnant Again!

[Coconut Flan]

David is an arrogant, stupid, insensitive twerp, quite possibly struggling in an imperfect marriage and with a lot to learn, but I don't think he deserves to be called abusive. Yet. Time will tell.

Nothing has really changed with David I don't think. He's always seemed to be all about himself to me and Priscilla was more of an extension of David than a person in her own right in his view. Whether David is closeted or not, he's definitely egotistical and flamboyant. That isn't a good mix with having a horde of a children and I think he has a glimmer of that truth. On one hand he's feeling obliged to follow Quiverful doctrine and on the other he obviously resents what it's going to do to his life. He needs to resolve his own internal conflicts and soon.

[Arete]

Palimpsest,

I made it clear as mud, but my reference to an abusive husband was actually with Shrader in mind, not David. I don't know how else to classify a man who puts his wife and children purposely in a position to be living in campers and church basements when he has money for flying lessons.

I agree it is a little early to make a call on David. I just don't like the fact that Priscilla is such a vulnerable woman to begin with whose husband is showing signs of disenchantment. His mask is slipping, and she is isolated. That video of her worried about being good mother, trying to be grateful....it is just hard to watch, and harder still to understand how David could have posted such a thing.

[Nootbar]

Another year where Esther and Priscilla are both pregnant. Watch out, this means Anna's next...

The Keller girls may not have Michelle Duggar fertility, but good grief...

Ugh. Esther is pregnant again? I missed that one. How sad.

[Closed Womb]

Am I watching the wrong video? I don't see David being verbally abusive to Priscilla in any way in it, and I am naturally disposed to seeing Davilla as an abusive relationship. He looks surprised, and maybe a bit worried, but not upset with her in any way. They both talk like stupid Gothard-bots, but that is hardly unusual behavior for them, and Priscilla seemed like she got her words out much more fluently than usual. I still think they're twats, but this the new-brother announcement isn't the best evidence of their twatiness that I've seen.

ITA. I think it looks like HE is "keeping sweet" or the male version of hiding one's emotions, but it certainly does not look abusive. I'd bet good money that David has been praying like a mad man that Priscilla would not get pregnant and he's feeling a little bit of disappointment there as well as with the financial and practical aspects of having another child. It's hard to find out you're not God's special bunny.

[Palimpsest]

Palimpsest,

I made it clear as mud, but my reference to an abusive husband was actually with Shrader in mind, not David. I don't know how else to classify a man who puts his wife and children purposely in a position to be living in campers and church basements when he has money for flying lessons.

I agree it is a little early to make a call on David. I just don't like the fact that Priscilla is such a vulnerable woman to begin with whose husband is showing signs of disenchantment. His mask is slipping, and she is isolated. That video of her worried about being good mother, trying to be grateful....it is just hard to watch, and harder still to understand how David could have posted such a thing.

Ah, got you!

I don't know how else to classify Shrader either. What terrifies me is the number of people and Churches who are actively supporting and funding his gross neglect of his family for his own selfish dreams. We can see the crazy but apparently they can't. The mind boggles. John's behavior is worse than irresponsibility and does reach abuse levels, IMO. I shudder to think what will happen if they ever do reach Zambia.

My personal jury is still deliberating on David.

[nokidsmom]

Palimpsest,

I made it clear as mud, but my reference to an abusive husband was actually with Shrader in mind, not David. I don't know how else to classify a man who puts his wife and children purposely in a position to be living in campers and church basements when he has money for flying lessons.

I agree it is a little early to make a call on David. I just don't like the fact that Priscilla is such a vulnerable woman to begin with whose husband is showing signs of disenchantment. His mask is slipping, and she is isolated. That video of her worried about being good mother, trying to be grateful....it is just hard to watch, and harder still to understand how David could have posted such a thing.

Also not sure on David but do agree that Shrader is doing to his family falls into the category of abuse, IMHO. And I have said this before, that Pa Keller deserves some responsibility for this situation as he was the one who OK'd the marriage and transferred authority of his daughter to this loser. While I think the whole Daddy / Husband is the headship and the whole transfer of authority business is all a bunch of BS, frankly if one is going to believe in this stuff, then Pa Keller failed miserably as far as looking out for his daughter. Yeah, I know that he probably believes in Shrader's missionary nonsense and he doesn't seem to be the brightest guy, still from where i sit, he should feel some responsibility for his daughter and grandchildren being in their situation. Because he OK'd it in the first place and in their world, it's his approval as Daddy that makes it happen. But I digress.

Getting back to Pris, I do feel sorry for her because she seems to be particularly vulnerable and wonder that even if David can't see what's she's going through, why would he post something so pathetic. Then again, he did post the whole pecan saga. Talk about really making yourself look bad. Maybe he's got such a inflated view of himself, combined with being sheltered, it's become wildly distorted where he has no "filter" on things. Or it's an unconscious, perhaps PA way of showing how unhappy he is.

[salex]

I think you're assuming the grandparents have a lot more power than they actually do. Certainly they could offer Esther help, either monetary or a place to stay or even help getting away from her husband, if that's what she wanted. But it has to be what she wants, they can't force it on her. For all we know they give the family grocery money and have offered to take them in for awhile, and been turned down. Also it would take quite a bit of income for them to take in and support them all long term. I don't know their financial situation, but it may be beyond their means.

If their daughter doesn't want help there really isn't anything they can do.

I will say that if Pa Keller is in charge of picking his daughters' husbands, I'm not sure he is all that skilled at it.

[Snarknado]

I'm going with Philemon, Peter, Pamela

[Mama Mia]

Palimpsest,

I made it clear as mud, but my reference to an abusive husband was actually with Shrader in mind, not David. I don't know how else to classify a man who puts his wife and children purposely in a position to be living in campers and church basements when he has money for flying lessons.

I agree it is a little early to make a call on David. I just don't like the fact that Priscilla is such a vulnerable woman to begin with whose husband is showing signs of disenchantment. His mask is slipping, and she is isolated. That video of her worried about being good mother, trying to be grateful....it is just hard to watch, and harder still to understand how David could have posted such a thing.

I agree that keeping your family marginally housed while you pursue your dreams is a jerk ass thing to do, but I don't know if I would call it abusive. And if it is abusive the mother would really have to be held just as responsible as the father. I just get nervous whenever poverty is used as a criteria for abuse. Now if they follow the Pearls, that's physical abuse, or if they leave a sticker in a kids eye for days, that's neglect. But just being poor, or homeless, isn't considered abuse ( at least in my area) . If he cash to pursue flying lessons is a big factor though, but I wonder if it's that someone is buying the flying lessons for him and giving them as a donation?

[lascuba]

Am I watching the wrong video? I don't see David being verbally abusive to Priscilla in any way in it, and I am naturally disposed to seeing Davilla as an abusive relationship. He looks surprised, and maybe a bit worried, but not upset with her in any way. They both talk like stupid Gothard-bots, but that is hardly unusual behavior for them, and Priscilla seemed like she got her words out much more fluently than usual. I still think they're twats, but this the new-brother announcement isn't the best evidence of their twatiness that I've seen.

I've been wondering the same thing. I haven't read the blog in a while so maybe I'm missing something there, but I'm not getting abusive vibes from that video. Instead, I'm seeing a man trying not very successfully to hide his irritation and unhappiness. While he's not at all affection to Pris, I don't see him being at all cruel, either. What am I missing?

[Coconut Flan]

I'm not defending Pa Keller because he did take his family into Gothardism, but who could have foreseen the turn John would take? He speaks against Gothard now and he used to have a job and they had a home. At some point parents have to let the kids go and make their own decisions. Were there red flags with John that he missed? What do they say to him now? None of these things can we know. It does highlight the huge problem in making having a ministry such a high priority on the list of husbandly qualities. A ministry is not always a good thing.

[Tangy Bee]

I decided to watch the video again. Still seeing a husband talking positive...but not looking positive.

[SPHASH]

From what I saw of the video David was trying to be happy about the pregnancy but was clenching his teeth. Priscilla was oblivious to it.

[Arete]

I agree that keeping your family marginally housed while you pursue your dreams is a jerk ass thing to do, but I don't know if I would call it abusive. And if it is abusive the mother would really have to be held just as responsible as the father. I just get nervous whenever poverty is used as a criteria for abuse. Now if they follow the Pearls, that's physical abuse, or if they leave a sticker in a kids eye for days, that's neglect. But just being poor, or homeless, isn't considered abuse ( at least in my area) . If he cash to pursue flying lessons is a big factor though, but I wonder if it's that someone is buying the flying lessons for him and giving them as a donation?

A man whose family is homeless has no business wasting time with flying lessons. That time needs to be used pursuing employment. I am an absolute hardass on that point. It is abuse, because he chose to take them into that poverty, and he is choosing to further put them at risk with no preventative care and taking them to a part of the world where no vaccination is a life and death proposition. They are most likely food insecure as well. Esther was born into Gothardism, she is not like Zsu who knows another way and still chooses to abuse her children.

As to the sparkling one, that was abuse and not merely neglect. That child had to have been in terrible pain, and Lauren knows it. She chose not to do anything about it.

[Coconut Flan]

I watched the announcement video again. I think David had a cold. That would account for the deeper voice and he seemed to fade in and out with attention. I'm not seeing a clinched jaw but staring into the sun and kind of being sniffy from the cold. I agree he isn't over the moon about the news, but I don't see anything terribly off for him.

[Mama Mia]

A man whose family is homeless has no business wasting time with flying lessons. That time needs to be used pursuing employment. I am an absolute hardass on that point. It is abuse, because he chose to take them into that poverty, and he is choosing to further put them at risk with no preventative care and taking them to a part of the world where no vaccination is a life and death proposition. They are most likely food insecure as well. Esther was born into Gothardism, she is not like Zsu who knows another way and still chooses to abuse her children.

As to the sparkling one, that was abuse and not merely neglect. That child had to have been in terrible pain, and Lauren knows it. She chose not to do anything about it.

I don't think Esther can use her upbringing as an excuse any more than her husband can. Well maybe slightly more, since she is raised to follow his lead, and he is raised to provide - but when push comes to shove, if your kids are going hungry both parents have an equal responsibility to get off their asses and make some money.

If they were to become involved with the system, they would both be expected to find jobs as part of their service plans. I agree their choices are fucked up, but I don't see them doing anything ( at least as far as housing/ food go) that meets any official criteria for abuse. But, as always, that varies greatly by area. I live in a very expensive area with a very large homeless population - if they counted 'marginally housed' as a category of neglect the system would be over run.

As a side question - wouldn't they be required to vaccinate everyone before traveling? I know when my kid went out of the country for a school trip she was required to get certain vaccinations that were required by the country she was traveling too...long time ago so I don't recall which they were, but things not included in the regularly required immunizations at the time.

[PurpleSheepleEater]

Just a thought - if Priscilla was expecting spontaneous joy and cuddles at the news, then why did she leave a card on his chair at a Chick-Fil-A before he had to go back to work? Am I over-analyzing this?

I thought the same thing. A card. In a public place. While (presumably) sitting across a table. Seems like a pretty sterile situation for what should be a joyful occasion.

[Palimpsest]

I don't think Esther can use her upbringing as an excuse any more than her husband can. Well maybe slightly more, since she is raised to follow his lead, and he is raised to provide - but when push comes to shove, if your kids are going hungry both parents have an equal responsibility to get off their asses and make some money.

If they were to become involved with the system, they would both be expected to find jobs as part of their service plans. I agree their choices are fucked up, but I don't see them doing anything ( at least as far as housing/ food go) that meets any official criteria for abuse. But, as always, that varies greatly by area. I live in a very expensive area with a very large homeless population - if they counted 'marginally housed' as a category of neglect the system would be over run.

As a side question - wouldn't they be required to vaccinate everyone before traveling? I know when my kid went out of the country for a school trip she was required to get certain vaccinations that were required by the country she was traveling too...long time ago so I don't recall which they were, but things not included in the regularly required immunizations at the time.

Mrs S2004, I've argued both sides of this. I consider John to be grossly neglectful of his family and Esther is just submitting to his Headship. However, I also think any CPS investigation would find it difficult to substantiate abuse. John would argue religious freedom for the educational and medical neglect, and a long family camping trip for the pop-up trailer and lack of decent housing. The children look reasonably well-fed and clean, thanks to the families and churches who feed them on the road and Esther's efforts. Esther claims that they have not gone hungry yet. I do strongly believe that John keeps the family moving from state to state as much as he does to keep ahead of any CPS reports and investigations.

Both the Shrader and Rea (John's fellow deluded missionary on deputation) families spent the winter living in a Church basement. Four adults and 16 children in all. While that is infinitely better than a pop-up camper, I have no idea whether that would count as adequate housing, or would even be legal according to zoning or fire codes.

John only recently realized that they would need immunizations (I think due to medical insurance requirements of his sponsoring church and to get his Zambian residency permit) and was scrambling to get extra donations to cover the costs. The only requirement for entering into Zambia is Yellow Fever immunization if you come from a Yellow Fever Outbreak Zone. Believe it or not, the majority of immunizations are voluntary precaution for travelers. No proof of immunizations are even required for travelers entering the US as tourists. They are needed if you want to go to Sub-Saharan Africa to live and to get any medical insurance though!

So as not to derail this thread completely, you might want to check out the Zealous for Zambia thread where all this has been discussed in enormous detail!

[Mama Mia]

Mrs S2004, I've argued both sides of this. I consider John to be grossly neglectful of his family and Esther is just submitting to his Headship. However, I also think any CPS investigation would find it difficult to substantiate abuse. John would argue religious freedom for the educational and medical neglect, and a long family camping trip for the pop-up trailer and lack of decent housing. The children look reasonably well-fed and clean, thanks to the families and churches who feed them on the road and Esther's efforts. Esther claims that they have not gone hungry yet. I do strongly believe that John keeps the family moving from state to state as much as he does to keep ahead of any CPS reports and investigations.

Both the Shrader and Rea (John's fellow deluded missionary on deputation) families spent the winter living in a Church basement. Four adults and 16 children in all. While that is infinitely better than a pop-up camper, I have no idea whether that would count as adequate housing, or would even be legal according to zoning or fire codes.

John only recently realized that they would need immunizations (I think due to medical insurance requirements of his sponsoring church and to get his Zambian residency permit) and was scrambling to get extra donations to cover the costs. The only requirement for entering into Zambia is Yellow Fever immunization if you come from a Yellow Fever Outbreak Zone. Believe it or not, the majority of immunizations are voluntary precaution for travelers. No proof of immunizations are even required for travelers entering the US as tourists. They are needed if you want to go to Sub-Saharan Africa to live and to get any medical insurance though!

So as not to derail this thread completely, you might want to check out the Zealous for Zambia thread where all this has been discussed in enormous detail!

Well that was an interesting read! I really wonder how they would be treated if they were referred for services in my area. We are neck deep in all kinds of loony tunes and druggies, plus have challenges with differing cultural expectations with recent immigrants, but in 20 years of working in the field I only remember one fundamentalist family that a co- worker had on their case load.

Okay, I'll stop derailing now

[Cleopatra7]

Well that was an interesting read! I really wonder how they would be treated if they were referred for services in my area. We are neck deep in all kinds of loony tunes and druggies, plus have challenges with differing cultural expectations with recent immigrants, but in 20 years of working in the field I only remember one fundamentalist family that a co- worker had on their case load.

Okay, I'll stop derailing now

I think it is possible to be abusive without being the kind of physically violent monster that would lead to a CPS investigation. Many of the people we talk about fall into the sort of parents who are well-intentioned and think they are doing the best for their children when in actuality they are doing violence to them by denying them some combination of a proper education, proper healthcare, freedom of thought, and freedom of association. Telling boys that they must be single-income providers without letting them have access to higher education or trade school is setting them up for failure, especially since these fundies choose to live in isolated areas that cannot support lots of small businesses. Telling girls that they are only good to cook, clean, and make babies not only wastes their potential, it puts them in a terrible position if their husband dies early or if he is abusive, especially if she ends up being stuck with a litter of kids. These fundies purposely want to make it impossible for their children to live in the real world. This is an injustice and abusive, even if there is no law on the book about it.

[Mama Mia]

I, personally, am hesitant to use the word abusive except in fairly extreme circumstances. But I would definitely call Pearl style discipline, or letting children become seriously ill without seeking medical care, or many of the bloggers, ( Pearl influenced or not)who brag about beating their children abusive. I would call leaving a six year old in charge of several younger siblings every day neglectful.

I just think it's a very powerful word and if it's used too freely it loses it's meaning. I think it can be a little questionable to call something abusive just based on what sort of jobs the parents are telling the kids they need to have, or what belief system they teach. It gets kind of dicey, to me, because the official stance can swing just as easily in the other direction. For example, how many parents have lost custody because they are gay? Or how many kids are pushed to engage in extracurricular activities they have no interest in because their parents are intent on them getting into a good college - when the kid doesn't even plan on college.

I know we aren't talking about legal definitions of abuse and neglect here, but that's the framework I'm used to.

[CrazyCatLady]

Polly, Poppy, Petra, Providence

Preston, Perry, Philip, Peter

[scc12]

I'm not defending Pa Keller because he did take his family into Gothardism, but who could have foreseen the turn John would take? He speaks against Gothard now and he used to have a job and they had a home. At some point parents have to let the kids go and make their own decisions. Were there red flags with John that he missed? What do they say to him now? None of these things can we know. It does highlight the huge problem in making having a ministry such a high priority on the list of husbandly qualities. A ministry is not always a good thing.

Yes,I think it was really dumb of the Kellers to give their consent,and even their blessing,for Esther to marry John,without him first having a job.My first thought and q would be,"DO YOU HAVE A JOB OR A STEADY INCOME?" And if not,"HOW ARE YOU PLANNING ON SUPPORTING MY DAUGHTER AND ANY OFFSPRING YOU MAY HAVE?"

Common sense.

I would also have req. him to get a job and show he could hold it.IOW ...show me you are willing to work hard to provide for your family! Put your money where your mouth is.

[mausi]

Yes,I think it was really dumb of the Kellers to give their consent,and even their blessing,for Esther to marry John,without him first having a job.My first thought and q would be,"DO YOU HAVE A JOB OR A STEADY INCOME?" And if not,"HOW ARE YOU PLANNING ON SUPPORTING MY DAUGHTER AND ANY OFFSPRING YOU MAY HAVE?"

Common sense.

I would also have req. him to get a job and show he could hold it.IOW ...show me you are willing to work hard to provide for your family! Put your money where your mouth is.

They married a long time ago, maybe he had a job (or ministry or whatever) when they were courting. He might also have been the best option; I don't think the Kellers were a well-known/sought after family prior to Anna becoming a Duggar.

[Mama Mia]

Yes,I think it was really dumb of the Kellers to give their consent,and even their blessing,for Esther to marry John,without him first having a job.My first thought and q would be,"DO YOU HAVE A JOB OR A STEADY INCOME?" And if not,"HOW ARE YOU PLANNING ON SUPPORTING MY DAUGHTER AND ANY OFFSPRING YOU MAY HAVE?"

Common sense.

I would also have req. him to get a job and show he could hold it.IOW ...show me you are willing to work hard to provide for your family! Put your money where your mouth is.

I think they've been married for quite awhile, he very well might have had a job when they married. Many times people who are extremely fanatical get more and more extreme as time goes on. Especially if his wife is as extreme as he is, they may be feeding each other's vision, even as it becomes more and more impractical.