Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[skulduggery]

We don't know if he did or didn't. People mag didn't ask for a quote or show up for the sermons around that time. This time they did. Really, this is the first true confirmation we've had that the Dillards are active members of that church. I don't think it's fair to judge the minister over what we don't know.

How about judging him by what we do know, from the article?

Those are his statements, are they not? He is their pastor, is he not? And the statements also reflect the Duggar's anti-LGBTQA stance. It's kind of a no brainer at this point exactly what their church teaches.

[grandmadugger]

How about judging him by what we do know, from the article?

Those are his statements, are they not? He is their pastor, is he not? And the statements also reflect the Duggar's anti-LGBTQA stance. It's kind of a no brainer at this point exactly what their church teaches.

What I see in the article are 3 quotes, not a whole sermon. I need more context to make a decision about someone. I know first hand how a statement can be taken out of context, you did it me just a few posts ago.

He is Jill and Derick's pastor not Jim Bob and Michelle's pastor. The People title is misleading. He's the Dillard family minister not the Duggar family minister. He is quote as saying everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect. We know that Jim Bob and Michelle do not preach that.

[grandmadugger]

I thought he made it pretty clear in the article exactly what he preaches about them.

And it's still common knowledge that Christians do the whole love and forgiveness thing because it's a core doctrine.

But whatever, if I misread your comment and/or took it into a context you didn't mean, then my bad.

I quoted the part about Josh. You then snipped it to fit what you wanted it to be. I was attempting to discuss the portion of the article that is relevant to the topic of this thread which is Josh.

[skulduggery]

What I see in the article are 3 quotes, not a whole sermon. I need more context to make a decision about someone. I know first hand how a statement can be taken out of context, you did it me just a few posts ago.

Oh no no no no. I don't think so. Don't even put this off on me.

Don't mistake misreading context for the pastor making statements that outright say that LGBTQA people should be avoided by sons and that gender is static. Nope.

Three quotes may not be enough for you to decide what kind of pastor he is, but not for me. If you feel you shouldn't judge, that's your decision. But you don't make that decision for me.

He is Jill and Derick's pastor not Jim Bob and Michelle's pastor. The People title is misleading. He's the Dillard family minister not the Duggar family minister.

If Jill and Derick chose him, it's for a reason, because they agree with him.

He is quote as saying everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect.

While making a blanket statement that Bruce Jenner shouldn't be applauded and that gender isn't fluid. I already addressed this some posts back.

We know that Jim Bob and Michelle do not preach that.

No, we know for a fact they do.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/19/listen-to-michelle-duggars-anti-anti-discrimination-robocall/

So, grammaduggar, I don't know what your deal is, but it seems all your here for is trying to keep me tangled in a pointless argument. I've already spoken my opinion, and you just keep coming back with "omg don't you dare judge the homophobic preacher" knowing that hate speech isn't allowed here in the first place.

I'm just going to let the mods decide what your agenda is, because the more I continue responding to you, the more I get nowhere fast (and am forced to repeat myself, which is unnecessary and time wasting).

[skulduggery]

I quoted the part about Josh. You then snipped it to fit what you wanted it to be. I was attempting to discuss the portion of the article that is relevant to the topic of this thread which is Josh.

That's a personal attack and an accusation, considering I already said I misread you. You yourself admitted it when you said this:

I know first hand how a statement can be taken out of context, you did it me just a few posts ago.

I guess admitting my mistake wasn't enough to get you off my back now is it?

edited for clarity.

[bionicmlle]

Oh and this bit:

Oh yeah, that's a message of acceptance all right. Don't you dare let your sons around effeminate weirdos that might make them think it's okay to like the color pink and take up sewing as a hobby.

Surely that would prevent him from being a real man. :roll:

Ugh. Whenever I read this drivel about how one should "bring up sons" (I'm lookin' at YOU Steven Anderson), I get a song, which was meant as an autobiographical warning AFAIC.... "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys. They'll never come home and they're always alone, even with someone they love."

(Thanks Waylon & Willie :u-rock: )

[Special friend]

The Duggars pastor says jesus forgives all... except those pesky gender fluid transfolks.

people.com/article/duggar-pastor-josh-duggar-scandal

OMG!!!! :hand:

I believe these are two different people. Jill and Derrick´s pastor was referred to as "Andy Wilson". The Duggar family pastor who said this seems to be called "Floyd".

[Mylnijya]

SeriousJenny- Sorry I can't really answer your questions (except the 8 year old girl was not a Duggar, it was an anecdote about a different girl/family). But I wanted to welcome you to the board. It takes dedication to read through all of those threads. :clap:

[alba]

I was watching the Today show this morning and was furious at the way they characterized what Josh did. They said "Josh Duggar is accused of fondling underage girls when he was a teenager." I don't know whether that was just really shoddy journalism or an outright deliberate attempt to minimize the situation. It's probably the latter.

You mean as opposed to specifying four of them were his sisters? I think, legally, they can't, because they were minors at the time and therefore their identities are private.

[Mama Mia]

You mean as opposed to specifying four of them were his sisters? I think, legally, they can't, because they were minors at the time and therefore their identities are private.

I've seen that same wording in numerous articles and it really is very misleading. Not because of not mentioning that it's his sisters - but because " fondling underage girls" by a 14 year old boy really does make it sound equivelivant to a Jr. High boy " copping a feel" at a school dance.

[FundieliciousTaterTot]

That reminds me of those scary books "Bringing Up Boys" and "Growing Girls." I made a new acquaintance who told me that she firmly believes in natural differences between genders. Then she said she got that "amazing" Growing Up Girls book. Apparently in the book the phD author claims there is a "mini-puberty" during toddlerhood that causes girls to do the whole stubborn-meltdown toddler-thing whereas boys become aggressive. (Wtf)

I thought about my physiology class in grad school and cried my eyes out (internally) for the death of science.

Then I ran home and played with cars with my daughter.

[alba]

I've seen that same wording in numerous articles and it really is very misleading. Not because of not mentioning that it's his sisters - but because " fondling underage girls" by a 14 year old boy really does make it sound equivelivant to a Jr. High boy " copping a feel" at a school dance.

That's a good point; it could easily be interpreted as consensual activity with a same-age peer. A better way to word it without outing the victims would be something like "forcible fondling of children".

[servants-heart]

Finally, one of the biggest outstanding mysteries to me is the letter found in the book. Who wrote it and why? Who else knew it existed, if anyone? Who put it in the book, and what was their reason for doing so (did they hope it would eventually be discovered by a non-Duggar)? Who was the person who borrowed the book and ultimately spilled the beans? Heck, I'm even curious to know what book it was, even though that's likely irrelevant. I don't think anyone has been able to come up with more than an educated guess for any of the above, right? If any of the people involved (except JB, M or Josh) ever wrote a tell-all about this incident, that letter would be one of the first things I'd read about.

I am still really really curious about this letter as well! And I'm astounded JB and J'chelle didn't know about it. It just seems so unusual given their lifestyle. Some other posters mentioned a couple of threads back that people who have been victimised or abused have been known to leave notes in places which would be eventually found, but it's impossible to know if one of the girls left it in the book. And, from what a couple of people have said on this thread, it's an unknown as to whether the girls truly knew the gravity of what had happened.

So I agree, the letter in the book is very mysterious.

[Mama Mia]

I swear I've tried to find it using search , and read many, many many pages of threads - so forgive me if this has already been resolved: :embarrassed:

I have an idea about why Josh may have been a Plantiff in a case against the state in 2007 .

It varies wildly by state - but where I am a minors record is supposed to be completely sealed at age 18. However, this is not an automatic process ( sadly many kids assume it is ) . The young adult has to file court paperwork to get the juvenile record sealed. I would imagine that they would be called the Plantiff in the record.

Wouldn't the timeline be right for Josh to have Been 18 or 19 ( I think some states have 19 as age of majority ) in 2007 - ?

Also I noticed there was mention of a Family in Need of Services report filed? But haven't seen much else about what happened with it. - wouldn't Child Welfare have ordered counseling ( at least ) ? Or maybe the events were several years old when they became involved and they talked their way out of it?

In any case, even if formal charges were never filed, but a criminal and / or Child Welfare report was taken - Josh may very well have been advised to file to have records sealed.

If that's how it works in Arkansas - and again sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. Or imagining zebras when you've already discovered it was camels.

[Nic]

So if Michelle was afraid that child predators would dress up as women to molest young girls in bathrooms, is she also afraid that same predators will molest then say Jesus forgave them just to get out of criminal consequences?

[BreakfastClub]

You mean as opposed to specifying four of them were his sisters? I think, legally, they can't, because they were minors at the time and therefore their identities are private.

No, I meant the part about "underage girls." A child is usually not referred to as an "underage girl." When that phrase is used it means a girl who hasn't yet reached the age of consent, and it is almost always applied to a young teenager, not a five year old child. It is virtually never used to denote molestation. I wonder whether they had an agenda in reporting it that way, or maybe it was just sloppy journalism.

[Nic]

No, I meant the part about "underage girls." A child is usually not referred to as an "underage girl." When that phrase is used it means a girl who hasn't yet reached the age of consent, and it is almost always applied to a young teenager, not a five year old child. It is virtually never used to denote molestation. I wonder whether they had an agenda in reporting it that way, or maybe it was just sloppy journalism.

How about ACCUSED?? He ADMITTED it. And yes under age smacks of underage drinking, underage sex...

I read an article that said a motivation to not report it is to keep the homeschooling thing going. If they would have reported it, the kids would have either had to start going to real school vs SOTDRT or they'd have to Adios Joshie.

patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/05/jim-bob-duggar-may-have-covered-up-his-sons-crimes-to-continue-homeschooling/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=danthropology&ref_post=a-response-to-salons-plea-to-stop-writing-god-with-a-lower-case-g

[Idolatry]

How about ACCUSED?? He ADMITTED it. And yes under age smacks of underage drinking, underage sex...

He only vaguely admitted nothing. I can see why news organizations are covering their asses on that issue. With no conviction and a vague statement, I can see why they would say accused.

No excuse for that half ass description that sounds like he copped a feel with another teen. That's just wrong. Sloppy journalism, maybe even actively misleading. Allegedly.

[Nic]

He only vaguely admitted nothing. I can see why news organizations are covering their asses on that issue. With no conviction and a vague statement, I can see why they would say accused.

No excuse for that half ass description that sounds like he copped a feel with another teen. That's just wrong. Sloppy journalism, maybe even actively misleading. Allegedly.

During my consultation with attorney against the stars Harvey Levin, (aka watching TMZ Live) he said that Josh admitted enough in police report that ALLEGEDLY would not have to be used and he is an "admitted child molester"

[alba]

No, I meant the part about "underage girls." A child is usually not referred to as an "underage girl." When that phrase is used it means a girl who hasn't yet reached the age of consent, and it is almost always applied to a young teenager, not a five year old child. It is virtually never used to denote molestation. I wonder whether they had an agenda in reporting it that way, or maybe it was just sloppy journalism.

Okay, gotcha. My bad.

I'd guess it's sloppy journalism, because Josh himself was underage at the time so IMO the default assumption if they'd just said "girls" would be that they were his peers. IOW, I think if they were trying to minimise his crimes that's what they'd have gone with, rather than including the "underage" bit. I agree that that makes the victims sound more like teenagers than children, though.

[nelliebelle1197]

RR = Razing Ruth

Yes, I know.

[DuggarCurls]

'Dr. Phil' show slams report that it asked Josh Duggar, Jim Bob Duggar to take lie detector tests after child molestation scandal.

"There is absolutely no truth to the story whatsoever and is completely fabricated by RadarOnline," a spokesman for the daytime talk show wrote in a statement to the Daily News on Sunday.

nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/dr-phil-asks-josh-duggar-father-lie-detector-tests-article-1.2241783

[OkToBeTakei]

This pastor makes me ragey.

"Bruce Jenner is no different from all of us. We are all sinners. The key is cleansing our sins through Christ's grace."

Why is Bruce Jenner a sinner?

Why is he even bringing Bruce Jenner up in the same sermon where he discusses child molestation?

These people are really disgusting.

[OkToBeTakei]

Yes, I know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Apart from the laughs, I didn't get any red flags, mainly because he wasn't asking for money 8-)

[MiddleAgedLady]

For the poster who wanted the full sermon from Jill and Derick's church, the church has a website and they post their summons. Sunday's is not up yet but you can listen to past sermons! crosschurch.com/pinnacle-hills/