AR Politician Jim Holt - Family involvement

[luv2laugh]

Here is Sierra with one of the Holt's children. She is really everywhere isn't she?

[jinseng]

My understanding is that in general, all protestant denominations (e.g., non-catholic) are taught about having a 'testimony', which you can use to share and witness to others. It's a little bit like narrative therapy, where you construct a story about your life that makes sense to you. You take all the good bits and bad bits, and string it all together into a meaningful story. When you look at it that way, you can see how God was actually there the whole time, drawing you closer into a relationship with him, but you needed to become broken before the Lord first etc... It is used in psychology (without the God part) and it can be very helpful for people to come to terms with their life.

So I think Josh has used his 'sexual sin' as part of his testimony, and then gave his testimony to the church. So people often confess to the things they did before they got saved, and then say how God has changed their heart and now they want to use their life to glorify him. For example, I knew a pastor who claimed to be ex-gay, but was miraculously saved from the sin of homosexuality and later went on to get married, have kids etc. But I never believed it. If you're gay, you're gay, I say! But... if you are kind of naive and brainwashed, you can believe that God can miraculously change your heart about things like sexuality. I think this is what happened for Anna, when she heard Josh's testimony.

[Evenkeel]

I thought the stuff with the church happened in 2002 ans 2003. By the 2006 interview, it was water under the bridge as far as the church was concerned. It was a 2002 election that failed due to "sin. " I can see that election being JBoob's campaign or Holt's. Since they both helped each other's campaigns.

I've been reading about "confession" in Southern Baptists. It doesn't exist. The only reason Josh would have HAD to confess would an open "confession" that he was a sinner and saved by Christ, in order to become a member of the church. It is just a declaration of faith, not admitted to a specific sin. Who knows what their specific church rules are though. They may have to confess major things, but to a group? It seems unethical.

I saw someone say it was BEFORE he was a Christian. Blah, blah. So I can believe JB made him confess to being saved to become a member. After that point, further sin is worse because it looks like your "confession" of being saved was not sincere. Maybe that is when a public confession of specific sins is needed? Rabbit hole...The more I read about this loose connection called "Baptist", the more scared I get. I had always been confused as a kid how so many churches just split off and start new. It's no wonder crazy meglomaniacs like Gothard gain followers. People want theirbown rules to justify things. They want their own power. Thank goodness we have laws. Cuz I don't see these guys policing themselves effectively. And for decades they campaign to get the law to adopt their free-for-all rules.

I had my details a little mixed up. Holt ran for Senate in November 2004. The third Smuggar admission, consultation with elders and "family friends", and sending Smuggar to Little Rock was in March 2003. Therefore, JHolt knew about the whole debacle for a year and a half before the election if he was an elder that was consulted and/or the "family friend." It still follows that voters knew about JHolt's involvement in it if it was an "open secret" and voted accordingly, or JimBoob is even more of a lying liar who lies and Holt knew nothing at all because JB didn't tell anyone outside the family anything until the 2006 investigation.

[OodOnTheLoo]

The problem with putting Josh in a secular treatment program is that it would have undermined their religious teachings on gender roles. Real therapy would undermine so many of the rigid religious sex roles that their children have had drilled into them.

And introduce them to a strange concept some people call "consent".

[ShepherdontheRock]

And introduce them to a strange concept some people call "consent".

Not to mention "taking full responsibility for your actions."

[carebaer]

To the bolded, I also believe Holt was for Josh going to Piney Ridge, but the other elders agreed with the other option, thus why (I believe) Holt is the author of the letter. On page 15 of the police report, the person that wrote the letter, was said to have known of the actions Josh did, and unless that redacted mark states, "the girls", which makes no sense, I believe it's the actions to the 5th victim. I suspect Mr. Holt put that letter in the book, and when it was loaned out, it was loaned out to a 61 year old woman OR the husband of a 61 year old woman, who then phoned the hotline. I wouldn't be surprised if the 61 year old woman is related to Mr. Holt, but again, that's just my speculation. "Alice" comes across as someone who has a great deal of personal information on the Duggars, including financial. This is why I believe Jim Bob did not want to tell the identity of the author or receiver of the letter.

The part that I think is interesting is on page 32 when it states that the investigator learned the identity of the letter writer. It says "She (Inv Taylor) talked to and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

First, it's interesting that the names are redacted on this page as otherwise adult names are not redacted. The person who is believed to have emailed Harpo's name is also redacted on this page so I think they could be adult names. I just wonder why they were redacted.

I also wonder about the phrasing "was supposed to have with." The only thing I could think of would be something like "apprenticed with" and that doesn't fit the space. Something like "go with" seems unlikely for the Duggars.

But this info makes it sound like it's possible that the letter was written because someone was basically saying "In light of this information I am (or we are) no longer willing to have have Josh do XXX with me (us)." Which would make sense for why the letter was written and why it might have been stuck somewhere and forgotten about.

[Pandie5]

My understanding is that in general, all protestant denominations (e.g., non-catholic) are taught about having a 'testimony', which you can use to share and witness to others. It's a little bit like narrative therapy, where you construct a story about your life that makes sense to you. You take all the good bits and bad bits, and string it all together into a meaningful story. When you look at it that way, you can see how God was actually there the whole time, drawing you closer into a relationship with him, but you needed to become broken before the Lord first etc... It is used in psychology (without the God part) and it can be very helpful for people to come to terms with their life.

So I think Josh has used his 'sexual sin' as part of his testimony, and then gave his testimony to the church. So people often confess to the things they did before they got saved, and then say how God has changed their heart and now they want to use their life to glorify him. For example, I knew a pastor who claimed to be ex-gay, but was miraculously saved from the sin of homosexuality and later went on to get married, have kids etc. But I never believed it. If you're gay, you're gay, I say! But... if you are kind of naive and brainwashed, you can believe that God can miraculously change your heart about things like sexuality. I think this is what happened for Anna, when she heard Josh's testimony.

I think M & JBob's recitation of the whole miscarriage and birth cobtrol is their scripted testimony and confession that earned thie church membership. I also believe it has evolved over the years to fit an agenda, while leaving lots of crispy bits out. This is partically why I think, the SPECIFICS of any church confession by Josh may not have been full admission of a crime. I also believe the first police station visit was planned and they knew nothing would go on record.

"The truth shall set you free!" I honestly think it would for the Duggars too. If anyb6of them tried honesty instead of redirection.

[LogansMama]

:clap:

The problem with putting Josh in a secular treatment program is that it would have undermined their religious teachings on gender roles. Real therapy would undermine so many of the rigid religious sex roles that their children have had drilled into them.

[Ella]

"My understanding is that in general, all protestant denominations (e.g., non-catholic) are taught about having a 'testimony', which you can use to share and witness to others. It's a little bit like narrative therapy, where you construct a story about your life that makes sense to you. You take all the good bits and bad bits, and string it all together into a meaningful story. When you look at it that way, you can see how God was actually there the whole time, drawing you closer into a relationship with him, but you needed to become broken before the Lord first etc... It is used in psychology (without the God part) and it can be very helpful for people to come to terms with their life."

Put this way, I can see why the Duggars are perplexed that people are focusing on the bad bits. That is NOT the point of the story; that's just there to show how the sinner got to the good bits. It's all about the STORY of JOSH coming to terms with HIS life. Pay attention to the parts we want you to, dammit.

[moriah]

I was one of the people discussing this in Thread 7 -- the reason I made my first post here, actually, was to ask why no one was mentioning Jim Holt. I'd not realized how close the Duggars and Holts were (never watched the show really) but as a person who lived in NWA I was familiar with Holt as a political candidate. When I started searching for "piney ridge chaplain elder" in Google, though, I found out it was very likely to be him. Given that he does have name recognition in Arkansas, I was very surprised no one had touched the story.

At first I wondered if it was long-time theories/rumors about the Holts being more involved than just Jim being a "church elder" that was keeping the media away from running with the fact a politician accepted money from the Duggars while shielding Josh from prosecution, but when the DemoZette ran their article about the alleged witness to the "confession", I had a different theory. The source the DemoZette quoted re: the confession demanded to be anonymous -- and if that source is Jim Holt, reporting on Holt's connections to this matter could compromise their source.

If he was in fact that elder and also the witness to the alleged "full confession", people might think that he'd done his job as a mandated reporter. However, when I had to make a mandated report in early 2002, even though the circumstances demanded immediate police assistance I still had to make a report to the Hotline. In many states merely contacting law enforcement is sufficient, but not in Arkansas, and it's been that way for at least 15 years. Additionally, the law requires the report be made immediately, forbidding employers to require their mandated reporter employees to delay even long enough to speak with a supervisor -- waiting several months, even if he knew Josh was out of the home during that time, was still criminal.

I'm a mandated reporter on two accounts. First, I volunteer at a local domestic violence shelter. Second, though, is that I am ordained myself (in my Trad the second degree is the clerical degree, because the founder's wife was a third degree Alexandrian -- when he created his own Trad he elected not to step on the toes of lineaged Gardenerians ad Alexandrians by including a third degree initiation). Part of the work required to get my second included studying the legal obligations of clergy, one of which is of course mandated reporting. Since my state offered free mandated reporter training, completing that training was also a requirement. If whoever in the Southern Baptist Convention ordained Holt did so without training him on his legal obligations that's really rather scary... but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Interesting note... according to one website, the Duggar family has donated over $15,000 to Jim Holt -- Jim Bob and Michelle have contributed, as well as Jim Bob's parents (both before and after 2002), and Josh after he was grown. Strangely enough, though, there's a donation from "Joshua Duggar" for $650 in early August of 2002, along with two donations from Jim Bob for $200 each a little later in the month of August (all other donations that campaign had been in January of 2002). This was when he was still 14, but before getting sent off to Little Rock. Since they hadn't reached maximum donations from the four adults, it's strange that Josh, as a minor, would be donating to a state election campaign. In Arkansas you can write off donations for state elections on your state income taxes, so it'd have been more economically sound to have put the donation in a taxpayer's name, not a dependent's.

http://influenceexplorer.com/search/peo ... rom_form=1

I do not wish to speculate about The Thing About Which We Shall Not Speculate any more than any other decent news organization would -- when I searched his campaign contributions, I was trying to see if there was any indication of a late 2003 or 2007 donation. Instead, the date of the only suspicious donation makes me almost hesitate to even mention it. Still, I can't help but remember how the police report said Josh was "disciplined" after his July 2002 confession.

[SassyPants]

I hope that Josh paying for his own therapy was not in the form of an election campaign donation. Does sound like something JB would concoct.

Even if the money was given a year before the actual bootcamp took place.

[LogansMama]

Here is Sierra with one of the Holt's children. She is really everywhere isn't she?

UGH! It just proves, once again, how inter-related these fundies are. (I hesitate to use the term incestuous for obvious reasons.)

[LogansMama]

I hope that Josh paying for his own therapy was not in the form of an election campaign donation. Does sound like something JB would concoct.

Even if the money was given a year before the actual bootcamp took place.

I may be alone in this, but why should a juvenile Josh be responsible for paying for his own therapy? I shudder to think of my own child committing such a horrendous crime, but I certainly wouldn't expect my minor child to pay for psychological therapy that was obviously needed in such an instance!

I have no problem with kids taking responsibility for their actions and the financial repercussions (breaking a window, for example), but there's a huge difference between a broken window and sexual molestation.

Sorry, I just realized how way off topic this is...forgive me.

[SassyPants]

I may be alone in this, but why should a juvenile Josh be responsible for paying for his own therapy? I shudder to think of my own child committing such a horrendous crime, but I certainly wouldn't expect my minor child to pay for psychological therapy that was obviously needed in such an instance!

I have no problem with kids taking responsibility for their actions and the financial repercussions (breaking a window, for example), but there's a huge difference between a broken window and sexual molestation.

Sorry, I just realized how way off topic this is...forgive me.

Oh I am sure that the coughing up of money was the least painful of Josh's punishments.

I'm sure that "tell all" book is going to be chock full of interesting tidbits of horror.

I agree that counseling should have been on JB. He was employed as a state Rep at the time and clearly had HC insurance. Although we all know that the only counseling Josh received was a shaved head and hard labor.

[LogansMama]

I was looking forward to the tell-all before the scandal broke...now I'm on the edge of my seat! :popcorn2:

[FloraKitty35]

I may be alone in this, but why should a juvenile Josh be responsible for paying for his own therapy? I shudder to think of my own child committing such a horrendous crime, but I certainly wouldn't expect my minor child to pay for psychological therapy that was obviously needed in such an instance!

I have no problem with kids taking responsibility for their actions and the financial repercussions (breaking a window, for example), but there's a huge difference between a broken window and sexual molestation.

Sorry, I just realized how way off topic this is...forgive me.

I agree that Josh should not have had to pay for his therapy for molesting his sisters. There is a massive difference between breaking a window and non-consensual incest,

[moriah]

I may be alone in this, but why should a juvenile Josh be responsible for paying for his own therapy? I shudder to think of my own child committing such a horrendous crime, but I certainly wouldn't expect my minor child to pay for psychological therapy that was obviously needed in such an instance!

I have no problem with kids taking responsibility for their actions and the financial repercussions (breaking a window, for example), but there's a huge difference between a broken window and sexual molestation.

I suspect that the statements about Josh "paying for his own therapy" are evidence that he did not receive any real professional therapy until he was over 18, and only got it as a result of the DHS investigation. It would have been possible for a social worker to finagle it so that the girls got free therapy through Victim's Compensation -- basically saying it wasn't the victim's faults that their parents neglected to report it to law enforcement soon enough to qualify normally. Any therapy that Josh had to have to comply with DHS requirements would have to be paid for, though.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I suspect that the statements about Josh "paying for his own therapy" are evidence that he did not receive any real professional therapy until he was over 18, and only got it as a result of the DHS investigation. It would have been possible for a social worker to finagle it so that the girls got free therapy through Victim's Compensation -- basically saying it wasn't the victim's faults that their parents neglected to report it to law enforcement soon enough to qualify normally. Any therapy that Josh had to have to comply with DHS requirements would have to be paid for, though.

In the MK interview, JB said Josh paid for his own therapy as and adult.

[dianapavelovna]

Moriah - interesting find about the 2002 Joshua Duggar donation...

After the discussion about Jim Holt being a mandated reporter, I looked up the Arkansas statutes. Ahem:

(29) A clergy member, which includes a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him or her, except to the extent the clergy member:

(A) Has acquired knowledge of suspected child maltreatment through communications required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith; or

(B) Received the knowledge of the suspected child maltreatment from the alleged offender in the context of a statement of admission;

Seems like he's off the hook.

And I'm not aware of any evidence that he is/was a licensed counselor, so he wouldn't be a mandated reporter in that context.

I don't understand why the family seemed to make such a big deal that Josh PAID FOR HIS OWN COUNSELING YOU GUYS. So that makes him extra sorry? That guarantees that he hasn't offended since? That makes the counseling extra effective and special? Because it sounds to me like his parents never got him appropriate counseling when he was a minor, so it fell to him to procure it for himself when the authorities caught wind of the whole thing years later.

[moriah]

Seems like he's off the hook.

And I'm not aware of any evidence that he is/was a licensed counselor, so he wouldn't be a mandated reporter in that context.

I don't understand why the family seemed to make such a big deal that Josh PAID FOR HIS OWN COUNSELING YOU GUYS. So that makes him extra sorry? That guarantees that he hasn't offended since? That makes the counseling extra effective and special? Because it sounds to me like his parents never got him appropriate counseling when he was a minor, so it fell to him to procure it for himself when the authorities caught wind of the whole thing years later.

As clergy in Arkansas, I'm aware of some case law regarding this issue. The "clergy-penitent" privilege is limited to one-on-one admissions with the expectation of confidentiality. Jim Bob does not say in any police report that Josh "went to the elders to confess" -- it instead says that HE discussed issues with the elders. Even if Josh had confessed one-on-one with the expectation of confidentiality, the moment Jim Bob said a word about it mandated reporting would be triggered.

[jinseng]

The part that I think is interesting is on page 32 when it states that the investigator learned the identity of the letter writer. It says "She (Inv Taylor) talked to and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

First, it's interesting that the names are redacted on this page as otherwise adult names are not redacted. The person who is believed to have emailed Harpo's name is also redacted on this page so I think they could be adult names. I just wonder why they were redacted.

I also wonder about the phrasing "was supposed to have with." The only thing I could think of would be something like "apprenticed with" and that doesn't fit the space. Something like "go with" seems unlikely for the Duggars.

But this info makes it sound like it's possible that the letter was written because someone was basically saying "In light of this information I am (or we are) no longer willing to have have Josh do XXX with me (us)." Which would make sense for why the letter was written and why it might have been stuck somewhere and forgotten about.

Could it be 'worked' with?

[jinseng]

Page 32 Quote: "Inv Taylor stated that she found out who had written the letter that started this investigation. She (Inv Taylor) talked to and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

Actually, the more I read this, the more I think it was Kaeleigh Holt who wrote the letter. She would have been a minor hence the need to redact her name...

"Inv Taylor stated that she found out who had written the letter that started this investigation. She (Inv Taylor) talked to ? and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

This fits the larger redacted sections... and seems to make logical sense given the situation and timelines etc.

another member suggested this here viewtopic.php?f=87&p=957542#p957542

I think we're onto it...

[dianapavelovna]

Thanks for that, moriah! I didn't think it through and remember that JB talked to the elders, not just Josh.

I also think Kaeleigh Holt is a good candidate to the be the letter writer. Perhaps the last redacted section could be "courted with." It sounds a little awkward, but courtship terminology was probably not well known to whoever wrote the report.

It would also make sense because she was a kid at the time. It always struck me as a bit strange that someone would write all this sensitive information down and leave it stuck in a book rather than speak up and say something to the parties involved. But it would make sense for a young teenager (a girl in a Gothardite/conservative Christian environment, no less). Alternatively, maybe she wrote a letter to Josh...

[jinseng]

Yes...true dianapavelonva! it probably is meant to read " was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

OMG. Media needs to get onto the Holts toot sweet.

:popcorn2:

[carebaer]

Page 32 Quote: "Inv Taylor stated that she found out who had written the letter that started this investigation. She (Inv Taylor) talked to and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

Actually, the more I read this, the more I think it was Kaeleigh Holt who wrote the letter. She would have been a minor hence the need to redact her name...

"Inv Taylor stated that she found out who had written the letter that started this investigation. She (Inv Taylor) talked to ? and found out that was the person who wrote the letter. was the person that was supposed to have with until the allegations started."

This fits the larger redacted sections... and seems to make logical sense given the situation and timelines etc.

another member suggested this here viewtopic.php?f=87&p=957542#p957542

I think we're onto it...

Thanks. I kept looking for someone to figure that one out but missed some stuff in the eleventy Josh threads. The whole dating/engagement thing makes the most sense. I just couldn't get it to phrase with "with" But I was also thinking the investigators would summarize with commonly used words. It does make sense if courtship or betrothal were used that it might stay in the summary but come off a bit awkward.