Tori Bates Courtship- Part 2

[Fundie Bunny]

I'm not sure, but if this is how this guy really is, he is at brandon's level of weirdness

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, Fundie Bunny said:

I'm not sure, but if this is how this guy really is, he is at brandon's level of weirdness

Lol. I bet he's just not used to the cameras. I bet I would be weird in. Front of cameras since I didn't grow up in front of them unlike the Bates kids.

[OrchidBlossom]

On 6/10/2016 at 8:42 AM, nelliebelle1197 said:

I also don't think you can dismiss the fact that both Duggar girls married outside IBLP. Both husbands are WAY outside.

A lot of their so-called "core convictions" are the same though. And I don't really know if being a different kind of similar fundie counts as "way" outside the cult. It is outside of course, and I do take your point, though.

[actuallyjessica]

2 hours ago, Fundie Bunny said:

I'm not sure, but if this is how this guy really is, he is at brandon's level of weirdness

Blegh, can't wait. Not.

51 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

A lot of their so-called "core convictions" are the same though. And I don't really know if being a different kind of similar fundie counts as "way" outside the cult. It is outside of course, and I do take your point, though.

Exactly. Ben and Derick may not have come from severely restrictive households, but they're still towing JBs line.

IMO, it doesn't matter where someone has come from, it only matters where they're going.

[nelliebelle1197]

1 hour ago, OrchidBlossom said:

A lot of their so-called "core convictions" are the same though. And I don't really know if being a different kind of similar fundie counts as "way" outside the cult. It is outside of course, and I do take your point, though.

It does. I take it you have never been directly exposed to the variety of fundie beliefs? Or even the variety of beliefs in conservative Christianity?  A very slight doctrinal difference is the difference between heaven and hell to many of these people. There is a small discussion of this in the most recent Staddon engagement thread and you might want to look it over. 

Jessa's marriage to a Calvinist like Ben is massive, and if any Duggar had a critical thinking brain cell, they'd know. And anyone who understands the doctrinal differences and the importance of doctrine knows it, too. It is certainly much more rebellious and paradigm shifting than Alyssa Bate's stupid jeans.

[OrchidBlossom]

8 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

It does. I take it you have never been directly exposed to the variety of fundie beliefs? Or even the variety of beliefs in conservative Christianity?  A very slight doctrinal difference is the difference between heaven and hell to many of these people. There is a small discussion of this in the most recent Staddon engagement thread and you might want to look it over. 

Jessa's marriage to a Calvinist like Ben is massive, and if any Duggar had a critical thinking brain cell, they'd know. And anyone who understands the doctrinal differences and the importance of doctrine knows it, too. It is certainly much more rebellious and paradigm shifting than Alyssa Bate's stupid jeans.

Well yeah I have been exposed to fundie beliefs. I understand that slight doctrinal differences can be a big deal.

All I meant is that I'm not sure it is "rebellious" per se if Jessa isn't aware it is rebellion (and you seem to allude to this yourself, they aren't critical thinkers). A paradigm shift, perhaps. But a sign of rebellion, which is what I was discussing before, I'm not sure you can rebel if you think you are perfectly in line with your cult/beliefs.

Unless you are suggesting that Jessa and Jill knowingly and purposefully married someone with different beliefs as a way of escaping the cult? In which case that would definitely be a sign of rebellion. I would believe that of Jessa, possibly. Not sure about Jill though.

To be clear, I was just confused about what you meant. I was insinuating that I wasn't sure it was rebellion if they didn't think they had done anything incongruous with their beliefs. Given how little they are known for their deep spiritual thoughts and how they talk about sharing core beliefs and and all that I wasn't sure if it was "rebellious" per se. It certainly could be. And it is, as you point out, a bigger step away from gothardism than pants. Never denied or debated that.

[nelliebelle1197]

22 minutes ago, actuallyjessica said:

Blegh, can't wait. Not.

Exactly. Ben and Derick may not have come from severely restrictive households, but they're still towing JBs line.

IMO, it doesn't matter where someone has come from, it only matters where they're going.

It is about doctrine @actuallyjessica. Doctrine. That is what people like me and FG and @Palimpsest keep trying to tell you. Doctrine. Ben's doctrine is a massive shift from the IFB- style religion the Duggars practice. It is massive. You don't get it because you have never been in it like we have and because you don't care to learn.

Ben and Jessa have gone much further away than your Alyssa. 

[nelliebelle1197]

I love how the ignorant little Bates Fans who post no where else and know nothing about what the purpose of FJ is have come out with their little down voting. How about having some balls like @actuallyjessica and at least post an opinion before you down vote others? Dos voting does nothing if you cannot manage a thought.

[actuallyjessica]

15 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I love how the ignorant little Bates Fans who post no where else and know nothing about what the purpose of FJ is have come out with their little down voting. How about having some balls like @actuallyjessica and at least post an opinion before you down vote others? Dos voting does nothing if you cannot manage a thought.

Is the same to be said for people who merely up vote as a way of signifying their agreement? Or the people who downvote posts that you dislike?

I've said this before, but will say it again because I feel it is valid: the environment for discussion seems very hostile at times and that can, will and does turn people away from engaging in a conversation where their posts will be picked apart and scrutinized down to the letter by the main posters, who have some pretty strong black and white opinions.

Do you want discussion with varied opinions to pick apart, or just more people to agree with you?

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I love how the ignorant little Bates Fans who post no where else and know nothing about what the purpose of FJ is have come out with their little down voting. How about having some balls like @actuallyjessica and at least post an opinion before you down vote others? Dos voting does nothing if you cannot manage a thought.

It is strange isn't it?  I'm no big fan of down votes.  When I use one it is for cause.  I have my own personal 3 point criteria - and simple disagreement is not enough to get anyone a downvote from me.

I do think it is very weird to have a 0 post count but read here a lot and just spend your time downvoting.   Especially when one of your many down-votes was for a post that told us that a sock for a former "banned for cause" member had been uncovered and banned again.

@tasloi how about you decloak and tell us how you really feel.  Use your words!  Are you a closet Bates fan or a sock yourself?  Talk about passive aggression ...

 

53 minutes ago, actuallyjessica said:

Is the same to be said for people who merely up vote as a way of signifying their agreement? Or the people who downvote posts that you dislike?

Upvoting for agreeing is definitely approved of here.  So much better than saying "I agree" or "+ one."  Did you miss that discussion?  Perhaps you should venture over to the Community Boards where these things are usually discussed.  There was a fairly contentious debate about it - and the one word reply problem recently.  Here you go. 

 

53 minutes ago, actuallyjessica said:

I've said this before, but will say it again because I feel it is valid: the environment for discussion seems very hostile at times and that can, will and does turn people away from engaging in a conversation where their posts will be picked apart and scrutinized down to the letter by the main posters, who have some pretty strong black and white opinions.

Free Jinger is not for everyone.  The atmosphere here has always been challenging.  Intellectually challenging with a healthy helping of very funny snark.  Challenging =/= hostile.  FJ would be very boring if we did not have different opinions.

I hope it continues to be challenging.  The point is discussion - not a gaggle of hens all agreeing.

People have always been required to defend themselves and their positions here.  I've been called out myself many times in the past and have had to clarify or justify what I have written - it doesn't stop me from posting here because I actually enjoy the intellectual challenges.  That is what makes FJ fun. I also don't think I have ever whined about the big meanies on FJ although I have had to lick my wounds on occasion.  

You have been here a long time and should remember the bad old days.  If you want an even kinder and gentler place to discuss the Duggars and the Bateses then perhaps PreviouslyTV may be a safer place for you.  It is very heavily moderated - much more so than FJ.  I can't speak for the level of discussion there but I believe that it does allow for a lot of fandom.  The mods are also reputed to remove or delete posts where members disagree with each other strongly.

You do have to be tough to post on FJ and to be able to back up your opinions.  It is the nature of the beast.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, actuallyjessica said:

Is the same to be said for people who merely up vote as a way of signifying their agreement? Or the people who downvote posts that you dislike?

I've said this before, but will say it again because I feel it is valid: the environment for discussion seems very hostile at times and that can, will and does turn people away from engaging in a conversation where their posts will be picked apart and scrutinized down to the letter by the main posters, who have some pretty strong black and white opinions.

Do you want discussion with varied opinions to pick apart, or just more people to agree with you?

Obviously I'm not speaking for @nelliebelle1197, but I do think there is a big difference between upvotes and downvotes when it comes to expressing an opinion.

I've never used my full quota of down votes (maybe when things were particularly hateful - but it's very rare) on any given day and I can probably count the number of days I've used any at all on my fingers with some left over.  I was on reddit for years and had given out a total of 10 downvotes against a couple of thousand upvotes.  I think most people here seem to use them sparingly as well.

I'll upvote stuff if I agree, it makes me laugh, it's cute, or contributes to the conversation even if I don't agree on every point.  I give them away.  But I don't down vote when I merely disagree...and wouldn't.  Because disagreement can advance discussions.  If I want an echo chamber I can talk to myself - I always agree with me.

I down vote when I believe the post is either disruptive for the sake of it (and not seeing that here, speaking generally) or the idea being expressed is hateful or otherwise damaging and the down vote is visible sign that someone found it objectionable.  

But I've never downvoted when I hadn't made my problems with the issue clear in a post (or several.)

If I upvote because I agree and explain why without adding anything...I'm just being redundant and the upvote is to keep from cluttering up the threads with words of mere agreement.  But if you disagree with someone strongly enough to downvote ...it's not self explanatory.  If it's an area of contention with you then explain why - at least once. 

I'm just responding to your comment because I found it interesting.  As much as I disagree with much of what you post here you do state your case and own your opinions.  

I am sure when you downvote people they know why.  It would be nice if others followed that as well.

And I'm not speaking as a mod and there is no rule that you need to explain a down vote - just opining as a person.

[Ali]

I didn't grow up in a IFB church, so I can't comment much about that. I was raised Christian. I wouldn't call it fundie, but perhaps some here would. I witnessed some family members become a different kind of Christian. It was a huge deal to an older member of my family when this happened. There were tears, fasting, and a determination to convert them back to the right kind of Christian. 

There is a huge doctrinal difference between Arminianism and Calvinism. Doctrinal differences, such as these, is a huge thing for those rigid in their beliefs. Becoming a different kind of Christian is no small matter for some people and Ben Seewald belief's could be extremely upsetting to some. The fact that Jim Bob agreed to allow Jessa to marry him shows that he has some flexibility. 

Those who have been involved with ATI, such as Formergotherite, have repeatedly stated that wearing pants is not a big deal.

There is information about different beliefs here: 

http://www.freejinger.org/forum/322-religions-belief-systems/

[Exjw2015deed]

1 hour ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I love how the ignorant little Bates Fans who post no where else and know nothing about what the purpose of FJ is have come out with their little down voting. How about having some balls like @actuallyjessica and at least post an opinion before you down vote others? Dos voting does nothing if you cannot manage a thought.

I am assuming you are speaking about me, one of the two down votes and seeing that you have also visited my profile. I have only ever down voted once before, simply because I felt your approach and constant bashing and calling out particular users is unnecessary.

1. I am not a Bates fan. They are one the fundie families that I find interesting, simply because of the past two years they have had multiple marriages/courtships/babies, hence there is more to discuss. I have actually written on other threads. Duggars, David and Priscilla, and any jehovah witness threads,  and also read heavily in the Rodrigues thread, and have just now started to read up on the Staddons. 

2. I have been "handslapped" (just an expression) here multiple times early on and felt it was very deserving. When I first started posting many times in the past have popular users for example,  @formergothardite have corrected me very respectfully. I respect the insight of others especially those who have to live under the Gothard umbrella. I have understood and agreed with their frustration and annoyance when people come on boards swooning and sounding like leg bumpers. Again, I feel they have taken the patience and respect to understand and provide multiple resources. 

I came to Freejinger after lurking for years. What attracted me to Freejinger was the heavy amount of resources and information the users provide. Information added with wisdom and tons of snark is what I enjoy in a good thread. I feel unlike other threads the bates thread has slowly turned into a popularity contest. I can deal with the ADD, people talking about random things such as accents or pacifiers, but when it goes into people bashing one another I believe it takes away from the charm that FreeJinger has. 

The point of the down vote was not an attack or a way to shame you. If it has offended you I truly apologize. This place is a community at the end of the day, and I really meant no harm by disagreeing with your approach. Instead of a down vote next time I will take the time to actually post a opinion. 

[nelliebelle1197]

3 minutes ago, Exjw2015deed said:

I am assuming you are speaking about me, one of the two down votes and seeing that you have also visited my profile. I have only ever down voted once before, simply because I felt your approach and constant bashing and calling out particular users is unnecessary.

1. I am not a Bates fan. They are one the fundie families that I find interesting, simply because of the past two years they have had multiple marriages/courtships/babies, hence there is more to discuss. I have actually written on other threads. Duggars, David and Priscilla, and any jehovah witness threads,  and also read heavily in the Rodrigues thread, and have just now started to read up on the Staddons. 

2. I have been "handslapped" (just an expression) here multiple times early on and felt it was very deserving. When I first started posting many times in the past have popular users for example,  @formergothardite have corrected me very respectfully. I respect the insight of others especially those who have to live under the Gothard umbrella. I have understood and agreed with their frustration and annoyance when people come on boards swooning and sounding like leg bumpers. Again, I feel they have taken the patience and respect to understand and provide multiple resources. 

I came to Freejinger after lurking for years. What attracted me to Freejinger was the heavy amount of resources and information the users provide. Information added with wisdom and tons of snark is what I enjoy in a good thread. I feel unlike other threads the bates thread has slowly turned into a popularity contest. I can deal with the ADD, people talking about random things such as accents or pacifiers, but when it goes into people bashing one another I believe it takes away from the charm that FreeJinger has. 

The point of the down vote was not an attack or a way to shame you. If it has offended you I truly apologize. This place is a community at the end of the day, and I really meant no harm by disagreeing with your approach. Instead of a down vote next time I will take the time to actually post a opinion. 

No, actually, it was not you. Promise.

[Exjw2015deed]

Just now, nelliebelle1197 said:

No, actually, it was not you. Promise.

Okay good to know. And please know my apology was sincere. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

On 6/4/2016 at 8:30 AM, Denim Jumper said:

And with the Bates kidults, there is a lot more snap and personality than the Duggar Drones, so I can see them pushing back against some of Gil and Kelly's rules once they are legally adults. So, when you have the older kids not towing the line (even in minor ways, like showing too much collar bone or not being joyful about homeschooling the littles), it can erode the amount of control they have over the rest of the children.

To the bolded...why?  They certainly seem more extroverted and camera friendly and personalities on full display but how does that equate to being more willing to push back?

My siblings and I were always the reserved ones.  Observers, uncomfortable being the center of attention but pretty comfortable in our own skins.  If you don't know us well we'd make the Duggars look like the Batesesses on 11 but no one would call us malleable.  Cynical, skeptical, questioning, stubborn, and perhaps a little too confident in how right we all assume we are most of the time...but absolutely full of push back.  Whether it was warranted or not.

There were lots of kids with way more snap and personality who wouldn't think of pushing back on anything because they were people pleasers.  They cared very much whether people liked them, approved of them.  

And lots of kids who had snap and personality who would push back.  And plenty of the camera shy are people pleasers.  

My point is the only thing you can tell by the Bateseses being more perky and outgoing is that they are more perky and outgoing.  It's not an indication of their personal beliefs or their personal strength and resolve to act on them.

I'm not defending the Duggars...just refuting your assertion that you can tell anything at all about someone's core beliefs from their behavior on reality shows unless they state them directly.

The premise that their beliefs are more harmful because they seem more peppy and fun IS harmful in and of itself.  And I really cannot believe this has to be pointed out again.

 

[VelociRapture]

13 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Obviously I'm not speaking for @nelliebelle1197, but I do think there is a big difference between upvotes and downvotes when it comes to expressing an opinion.

I've never used my full quota of down votes (maybe when things were particularly hateful - but it's very rare) on any given day and I can probably count the number of days I've used any at all on my fingers with some left over.  I was on reddit for years and had given out a total of 10 downvotes against a couple of thousand upvotes.  I think most people here seem to use them sparingly as well.

I'll upvote stuff if I agree, it makes me laugh, it's cute, or contributes to the conversation even if I don't agree on every point.  I give them away.  But I don't down vote when I merely disagree...and wouldn't.  Because disagreement can advance discussions.  If I want an echo chamber I can talk to myself - I always agree with me.

I down vote when I believe the post is either disruptive for the sake of it (and not seeing that here, speaking generally) or the idea being expressed is hateful or otherwise damaging and the down vote is visible sign that someone found it objectionable.  

But I've never downvoted when I hadn't made my problems with the issue clear in a post (or several.)

If I upvote because I agree and explain why without adding anything...I'm just being redundant and the upvote is to keep from cluttering up the threads with words of mere agreement.  But if you disagree with someone strongly enough to downvote ...it's not self explanatory.  If it's an area of contention with you then explain why - at least once. 

I'm just responding to your comment because I found it interesting.  As much as I disagree with much of what you post here you do state your case and own your opinions.  

I am sure when you downvote people they know why.  It would be nice if others followed that as well.

And I'm not speaking as a mod and there is no rule that you need to explain a down vote - just opining as a person.

Personally, sometimes I explain and sometimes I don't. It depends on the situation and whether others have already expressed why I down voted. Before we had the down vote option, threads turned into massive pile-ons with dozens of people expressing the same exact disagreement over and over. It got to be a bit much to try and sort through - and at times it wasn't exactly fair to the person on the receiving end either. I always keep that in mind before deciding whether to post explaining my disagreement. 

As for up votes: I make it rain. 

[Ali]

I don't always explain my downvotes. I don't give them out that often and I think it is obvious why I give them out. I think upvoting is a wonderful way to ease into becoming part of the community or agree with a post when one has nothing new to add. I don't understand someone downvoting frequently when he/she has 0 posts. It's time to come out of lurking @tasloi! 

 

[OrchidBlossom]

I've yet to downvote anyone (that I remember... although possibly it happened once or twice and I forgot?) but I love me a good upvote. A great and convenient way to agree with people. Or acknowledge a good joke. 

 

[actuallyjessica]

I appreciate those (despite sometimes opposing views) willing to keep dialogue open and respectful. My opinion of each user generally gets left in the thread/post that its in, because at the end of the day this is just a website and we're all just people with feelings and various life experiences.

I hope that we can all learn something from each other, as I have learned from the respectful posts here.

Have a good day/night!

[stevie]

Well I'm not really sure where to post this but this looks like a good place since the thread is talking about rebellion again. Anyways as for the Bates kids and the Duggar kids in my opinion the only kid that I've seen do any rebelling is Josh with the whole Ashley Madison scandal. What he did is even frowned upon in non fundieland (he probably still has horrible beliefs though). I don't think any of the Bates kids have really rebelled and changed their beliefs. A few of them did make a few minor changes. As for the duggars I know Jill and Jessa married people outside of the cult but I don't think it changed any of their beliefs. Jill is off in Central America grifting for Jesus trying to convert Catholics. Ben does listen to rap music but I don't think Jessa really enjoys it and is probably uncomfortable with it and still posts horrible things on Instagram.

I think a big difference between the Bates and the Duggars is the adult kids in the Bates family are starting to court or are married. Some of them are going to crown college (I know it's not an accredited college but it still looks more normal than what the duggar kids do.) Some of them have jobs. In the Duggar family most of the kid adults are at home doing nothing. They're not going to college they're not courting they're not even working (except John-David) it looks weird. On the outside it just looks so weird that all these adults are at home all day doing nothing. The show could get away with that stuff when the kids were younger but now it's like why are all these adult children not doing anything with their lives. I think that makes the Bates family look more normal. (I also know UP makes them look more normal too). 

I've only watched one episode of 19 kids and counting it was back when the show was 17 kids and counting. It was the episode the first time the Bates came to visit on the show. The clothes the Bates kids were wearing made them look like bigger weirdos than the Duggers. The Duggers at the time already got rid of their frumpers that they weird wearing in the 14 kids and counting special (I watched that one too so I guess I've seen two episodes) now it's like the opposite the Bates look more normal than the Duggers. I feel the Counting On show could have been more interesting if the kids actually had stuff going on in their lives. Instead of making up stuff for them to do.

[OrchidBlossom]

10 minutes ago, stevie said:

Well I'm not really sure where to post this but this looks like a good place since the thread is talking about rebellion again. Anyways as for the Bates kids and the Duggar kids in my opinion the only kid that I've seen do any rebelling is Josh with the whole Ashley Madison scandal. What he did is even frowned upon in non fundieland (he probably still has horrible beliefs though). I don't think any of the Bates kids have really rebelled and changed their beliefs. A few of them did make a few minor changes. As for the duggars I know Jill and Jessa married people outside of the cult but I don't think it changed any of their beliefs. Jill is off in Central America grifting for Jesus trying to convert Catholics. Ben does listen to rap music but I don't think Jessa really enjoys it and is probably uncomfortable with it and still posts horrible things on Instagram.

I think a big difference between the Bates and the Duggars is the adult kids in the Bates family are starting to court or are married. Some of them are going to crown college (I know it's not an accredited college but it still looks more normal than what the duggar kids do.) Some of them have jobs. In the Duggar family most of the kid adults are at home doing nothing. They're not going to college they're not courting they're not even working (except John-David) it looks weird. On the outside it just looks so weird that all these adults are at home all day doing nothing. The show could get away with that stuff when the kids were younger but now it's like why are all these adult children not doing anything with their lives. I think that makes the Bates family look more normal. (I also know UP makes them look more normal too). 

I've only watched one episode of 19 kids and counting it was back when the show was 17 kids and counting. It was the episode the first time the Bates came to visit on the show. The clothes the Bates kids were wearing made them look like bigger weirdos than the Duggers. The Duggers at the time already got rid of their frumpers that they weird wearing in the 14 kids and counting special (I watched that one too so I guess I've seen two episodes) now it's like the opposite the Bates look more normal than the Duggers. I feel the Counting On show could have been more interesting if the kids actually had stuff going on in their lives. Instead of making up stuff for them to do.

I wonder if it might help to define what we mean by rebellion? I was seeing it as a conscious rejection of beliefs, but I think maybe that caused the conflict I had above, where I certainly wasn't disagreeing that Jill and Jessa's marriages represented a step away from their cult but more that I wasn't sure if it was their intention to do so or if they had kind of  considered it okay within their beliefs (although it may be either, I'm honestly not sure, we aren't in their heads so I would definitely be open to the possibility of that or circumstantial evidence of either). Similarly I think Josh's choices in the Ashley Madison scandal represent something but I'm not sure if it is "rebellion" in a conscious sense or if it is cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy.something else. Well, spoiler alert, it is definitely hypocrisy.

I mean Jill and Jessa marrying outside the cult is important. I just wonder what their subjective intent on it is though. 

Does anyone know IBLP/Gothardisms view on sort of using their attractive young members to recruit. Not "flirt to convert" per se because flirting is bad, but I have known a few fundies (but mostly men because of the spiritual leadership stuff) who purposefully sought to convert their partners (later spouses) to their exact/particular manner of fundie-ism through basically drawing them in with the relationship. This is only a tangientally related question. 

[nelliebelle1197]

1 minute ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I wonder if it might help to define what we mean by rebellion? I was seeing it as a conscious rejection of beliefs, but I think maybe that caused the conflict I had above, where I certainly wasn't disagreeing that Jill and Jessa's marriages represented a step away from their cult but more that I wasn't sure if it was their intention to do so or if they had kind of  considered it okay within their beliefs (although it may be either, I'm honestly not sure, we aren't in their heads so I would definitely be open to the possibility of that or circumstantial evidence of either). Similarly I think Josh's choices in the Ashley Madison scandal represent something but I'm not sure if it is "rebellion" in a conscious sense or if it is cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy.something else. Well, spoiler alert, it is definitely hypocrisy.

I mean Jill and Jessa marrying outside the cult is important. I just wonder what their subjective intent on it is though. 

Does anyone know IBLP/Gothardisms view on sort of using their attractive young members to recruit. Not "flirt to convert" per se because flirting is bad, but I have known a few fundies (but mostly men because of the spiritual leadership stuff) who purposefully sought to convert their partners (later spouses) to their exact/particular manner of fundie-ism through basically drawing them in with the relationship. This is only a tangientally related question. 

No, this makes sense. I really never meant to imply this was critically thought-out, genuine rebellion. I do think the marriages point to two things -1) the Duggars are not part of IBLP hierarchy and don't feel the same pressures as a Bates, Keilen, Paine, Webster, Waller,  Neely, Staddon or Wilkes would feel to marry within the IBLP cult; and 2) the Duggars from oldest to youngest just aren't that deep.

There is a discussion about Gothard vs Calvin here:

This very much demonstrates the divide between Ben and Jessa's doctrinal background and why that is actually important.

 

[OrchidBlossom]

Yeah I think it is very interesting, the differences between Calvinism and IBLP. I'll definitely check the thread out for a more in depth discussion. I'm pretty familiar with Calvinists (unfortunately) but a side by side comparison would definitely be interesting to read especially since I don't have any particular experience with IBLP, except my knowledge from the shows and my own background reading (and FJ of course!), but no lived experience.

Definitely seconding that none of the Duggars are probably deep enough to really spot these differences. I wonder if it has occurred to them at all that they are looking more outside IBLP for their life partners, though. I would be interested in knowing how they rationalize that if they have thought of it-- just add that to the list of things I would be way more interested in if TLC was actually willing to cover it I guess.

[RosyDaisy]

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://m.christianpost.com/news/duggar-familys-close-relationship-with-vision-forum-founder-doug-phillips-and-wife-highlighted-after-scandal-108697/?m=1

Even though there are huge differences in doctrine, I don't think it was a big deal for JB or Ben wouldn't have made it past the security gate or anywhere near Jessa. The Duggars (while been IFB and Gothardites) are a cult of their own).

Do not take this Bates leghumping. They are awful people with dangerous beliefs that have hurt people.