Mrs. Jill Duggar-Dillard (Derick) 61: Now Showing Shoulders

[Rachel333]

2 hours ago, Lisafer said:

Assemblies of God (anti-gay, anti-choice, but not as patriarchal as some other churches).

Interestingly, they were actually one of the earlier churches to ordain women. 

[Iamtheway]

5 hours ago, Knight of Ni said:

Conversations about religion in schools makes me think of a demonstration one of my high school teachers did to illustrate what the first amendment really means. 

One year he had a Hindu student in class and the other students would constantly try to preach and evangelize to her. They thought that freedom of religion meant that people could be any type of Christian they wanted. One day he started class by telling them that he had started a new religion and the god would be the classroom trash can that he named Bob. His new religion was called Bobism. He wanted all the students in the class to convert to Bobism. He did it to demonstrate that people were free to worship whatever they wanted. 

Bibism sounds awesome. I might join.

2 hours ago, mydoggoskeeper said:

Yikes! You would probably be very uncomfortable in many Asian countries!

And you probably shouldn’t come to Sweden. I  have had big problems walking around with shoes inside in Australia. It feels so rude to me to not take your shoes of when you enter someones home. Equal to throwing trash on their floor or wiping your nose on their curtains. 

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I think there’s also the fact that people have watched these kids grow up on television (the Bateses and Duggars specifically.) People start to feel like they know them and it’s easy to want to cheer for any little sign they may be moving away from fundamentalism. 

I think this is it. We grasp at straws because we really want these tiny signs to mean something. We’re cheering for them. Sometimes a little too much like parents at a soccergame for 7 year olds – with blind faith. 

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I think there’s also the fact that people have watched these kids grow up on television (the Bateses and Duggars specifically.) People start to feel like they know them and it’s easy to want to cheer for any little sign they may be moving away from fundamentalism. 

It is easy to want to cheer, or to want to be optimistic, but people don't really know them.  They just delude themselves that they do.

Cut to the chase.  Some people over-identify, sentimentalise, and gawk lovingly at carefully curated Duggar and Bates images on TV and social media.  They fawn or fan-girl those images.

And to cheer because Jill or Jinger are wearing shorts or tank-tops when Derick is actively tweeting extreme Fundamentalist hate and Jeremy is actively preaching extreme Fundamentalist hate is pretty damn stupid.  In my opinion.  

The clothing is not what is important.  The beliefs are important.

[karen77]

I think with the Bates or Duggar's at least, with the changing of the skirts/pants is just a sign that MAYBE they are starting to think for themselves. That's about it! But, that's a small step to thinking about other things too.

[VelociRapture]

6 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

It is easy to want to cheer, or to want to be optimistic, but people don't really know them.  They just delude themselves that they do.

Cut to the chase.  Some people over-identify, sentimentalise, and gawk lovingly at carefully curated Duggar and Bates images on TV and social media.  They fawn or fan-girl those images.

And to cheer because Jill or Jinger are wearing shorts or tank-tops when Derick is actively tweeting extreme Fundamentalist hate and Jeremy is actively preaching extreme Fundamentalist hate is pretty damn stupid.  In my opinion.  

The clothing is not what is important.  The beliefs are important.

Oh I definitely agree. I never watched the show so my introduction to them was basically FJ. Prior to that I just thought they were a weird religious family with too many kids. In fact, thinking about it, the first time I remember hearing about them was when they lost Jubilee and there was controversy over the release of the photos they had done of her. So while I get that others may think they have a connection through the show I don’t necessarily feel that way myself. 

I think what I mentioned helps explain the pushback though and partly explains why some of the kids are given more leeway than others.

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I think what I mentioned helps explain the pushback though and partly explains why some of the kids are given more leeway than others.

And it explains why we say again and again that we are not a Duggar or Bates fan site.  But some people really don't want to accept that.  They want to fawn.

It is an endless struggle to try to keep the focus on the beliefs.

 

[SapphireSlytherin]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Secret ballots exist for a reason. The states that use mail-only balloting actually violate the "Australian ballot" rules (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Australian ballot).

Nobody in this world knows how I voted in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, or...

Just because someone holds some sort of public office or is a major or minor celebrity does not mean that they MUST share their ballot selections. They have the same right to a secret ballot as Joe Blow down the street. I understand that some may influence others to vote in a specific way because of admiration or whatever, but still. Ballots are SECRET for a reason.

 

[AliceInFundyland]

When I said that Alyssa addressed the issue I should have said she acknowledged it. Because I do give her one point of credit for sticking up for herself. No, she didn’t go into any lengthy dissertation of an evolvement of belief. But, she doesn’t need to eat shit about it either. That is all. I do not consider her advanced.

[SassyPants]

46 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

It is easy to want to cheer, or to want to be optimistic, but people don't really know them.  They just delude themselves that they do.

Cut to the chase.  Some people over-identify, sentimentalise, and gawk lovingly at carefully curated Duggar and Bates images on TV and social media.  They fawn or fan-girl those images.

And to cheer because Jill or Jinger are wearing shorts or tank-tops when Derick is actively tweeting extreme Fundamentalist hate and Jeremy is actively preaching extreme Fundamentalist hate is pretty damn stupid.  In my opinion.  

The clothing is not what is important.  The beliefs are important.

Of course their total beliefs are more important than the clothing, which is only 1 part of their often referenced modesty standard...which contributes to a layer of their beliefs.

I just can't get over how wearing a skirt, covering a clavicle, knee or upper arm makes someone more modest and Godly, while at the same time they defend child molesters or a President Trump (serial philanderer and business shyster) and use their votes and voices to deny others their rights.

Such BS- 100% BS

But damn Michelle, don't you dare expose your clavicle.

 

[nelliebelle1197]

4 hours ago, Lisafer said:

@Palimpsest somebody should make a Venn diagram!  But why are some people overly focused on the clothing choices? 

Because people like @luv2laugh only know fundies in very abstract ways. Unlike me, you and @formergothardite, they never lived it, never understood the nuance and don't really understand things are not black and white - that what one family/sect/church does might not be what another does and that shifting dress codes rarely equal shifting values.  And when we - and others who do get it - try to tell them nicely that they are only seeing glimpses of this universe and people are different but still rotten, they downvote us and dig in.  Even though we have been there in varying degrees and we know from first-hand experience.

Same thing happened when Alyssa #superficialtwit Bates wore jeans after she got married. Some people could not get it through their heads that the Websters women have never been skirts-only and Alyssa just latched on to that. They always screech "BABYSTEPS!!!!!!!11!" until you want to screech yourself.

@Lisafer you just have to get used to the babysteppers and dress code warriors and secret Bates/Duggar fangirls. I take my downvotes with pride because I know the truth and stand behind it.

[Rachel333]

There have also been multiple members who were only allowed to wear skirts growing up and who said that for them it was significant when they started wearing pants.  Their experiences are relevant too, probably more so than people who grew up as pants wearing fundies.

I also want to reiterate that fundies can make real changes to their beliefs, values, and practices (changes much more significant than clothing choices!) and still be fundamentalists.  It doesn't mean that those changes weren't significant to them, and it also doesn't mean that they don't still hold incredibly ugly and dangerous beliefs.

[luv2laugh]

32 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Because people like @luv2laugh only know fundies in very abstract ways. Unlike me, you and @formergothardite, they never lived it, never understood the nuance and don't really understand things are not black and white - that what one family/sect/church does might not be what another does and that shifting dress codes rarely equal shifting values.  And when we - and others who do get it - try to tell them nicely that they are only seeing glimpses of this universe and people are different but still rotten, they downvote us and dig in.  Even though we have been there in varying degrees and we know from first-hand experience.

Same thing happened when Alyssa #superficialtwit Bates wore jeans after she got married. Some people could not get it through their heads that the Websters women have never been skirts-only and Alyssa just latched on to that. They always screech "BABYSTEPS!!!!!!!11!" until you want to screech yourself.

@Lisafer you just have to get used to the babysteppers and dress code warriors and secret Bates/Duggar fangirls. I take my downvotes with pride because I know the truth and stand behind it.

Nellie, with all due respect you are flat wrong about me. I have unfortunately attended an IFB church in the past for a solid 4 years. In fact, I know quite a few of the fundies we speak about through mutual friends from that community. I still keep in touch with one young girl and while she’s anti-Gothard, she’s strictly skirts only and she’s the pastor’s daughter.

Your definition of IFB fundie is simply different than mine. You’ve clearly attended more liberal IFB churches than my former one of past.

Derick is a douchebag and total jerk but he’s not IFB. Derick is Southern Baptist.

Jeremy is pompous and spouts anti-LGBTQ hate and anti-Catholicism rhetoric but he is not IFB. Jeremy is reformed Calvinist. This also includes Ben Seewald.

I guess the better question is what do you define as IFB and what do you define as fundie? Given your stance, I’d say you’d define someone like Mike Pence, Candace Cameron Bure and Billy Graham as fundie whereas, I see them as conservative evangelicals with backward, harmful views but not fundie nor IFB.

[Destiny]

25 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Unlike me, you and @formergothardite, they never lived it, never understood the nuance and don't really understand things are not black and white - that what one family/sect/church does might not be what another does and that shifting dress codes rarely equal shifting values.

This. I grew up fundie as hell, with beliefs almost exactly like the Duggars, and I rarely ever wore dresses. It's the beliefs that matter, not the clothing. 

Also, one does not have to be IFB to be fundie. I was supposed "nondenominational" but I guarantee you I was fundie AF. I can't think of a belief that the Duggars have that I didn't other than skirts only. 

[Lisafer]

29 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I guess the better question is what do you define as IFB and what do you define as fundie? Given your stance, I’d say you’d define someone like Mike Pence, Candace Cameron Bure and Billy Graham as fundie whereas, I see them as conservative evangelicals with backward, harmful views but not fundie nor IFB.

How do you define fundie? I see it as a matter of beliefs/theology more than anything. Do you base it on theology, outward appearance, or something else?

Oh, and @nelliebelle1197 thanks for your reply. You have way more experience on this board than I do and I never thought about the fact that there are actual Duggar defenders on here, lol. (Not saying anyone in the current conversation is). That would explain some puzzling reactions to some of my posts in the Duggar threads. Whenever I'm in Quiver Full of Duggars the vibe is a little different from Quiver Full of Snark. 

May I ask what flavor of fundie you grew up as? I understand if that's private info.

[PennySycamore]

@Daisy0322, you asked on the last thread if anyone had read Half the Sky?  I have and have seen the documentary as well.  It's an awesome book!  

[Firebird]

I define someone as fundamentalist when they have very rigid, legalistic, black and white thinking. A lot of strict fundamentalists add extra laws and rules onto the Bible so that they don't run the risk of coming close to breaking the Bible's rules. A lot of Victorian and Puritanical beliefs got thrown into the mix as well. You end up with this huge kettle of soup made up with various religion's left overs, traditions, Biblical intepretations, and culture. Your bowl may have some potatos and carrots in it. Mine may have some potatos and peas. It looks different on the outside, but it still came from the same Fundamentalist pot.

I think independent though and critical thinking skills are the keys to branching away from being fundamentalist.

[Pecansforeveryone]

 Someone on a different thread, wrote that fundamentalism refers to religiously based beliefs, specifically. I agree with that. To clarify: atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Atheism is not a religion. Atheists can be assholes. Atheists can be authoritarian. Atheists can be militant. Atheist can not be fundies. They do not have religious beliefs to be fundamental about. A Hindu who wants vegetarianism to be legally mandated could be considered a "fundie Hindu" Not so with your average, not religiously driven PETA member. They are militant assholes, but they are not technically fundie. 

[nelliebelle1197]

9 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Nellie, with all due respect you are flat wrong about me. I have unfortunately attended an IFB church in the past for a solid 4 years. In fact, I know quite a few of the fundies we speak about through mutual friends from that community. I still keep in touch with one young girl and while she’s anti-Gothard, she’s strictly skirts only and she’s the pastor’s daughter.

 

Okay, so I will take that portion back and amend it to say you are only looking through your own discreet lens. Also, there is a lot of variance in IFB - that why it is independent. It is not just ONE community with ONE set of beliefs. IFB is not a denomination - hence the "independent". Steve Anderson's IFB and Gil Bates' IFB are not the same IFB.

It's not MY definition of fundamentalist religion that counts. That phrase has a meaning and it is not open for discussion. Here is a good, quick summary:

Quote

Religious fundamentalism refers to the belief of an individual or a group of individuals in the absolute authority of a sacred religious text or teachings of a particular religious leader, prophet,and/ or God . These fundamentalists believe that their religion is beyond any form of criticism, and should therefore also be forced upon others. Logical explanations and scientific evidences have no place in these belief systems if they work against their religious fundamentalists. For fundamentalists, religion dictates every sphere of their daily lives, and they also attempt to involve the entire society into their own belief system, often by the use of force.

Being a fundie has nothing to do with wearing skirts or men having above-the-collar-length hair. It has to do with the immutable belief that you are right, everyone else is wrong and there is no gray. A Southern Baptist church can be fundamentalist. A Catholic can be a fundie.  Have you ever met an ultra-Orthodox Jew?

As long you believe in an inerrant, immutable scripture, in your own doctrinal purity,  in your own righteousness and the wrongness of everyone else, you are fundie.

You are IFB if your church takes the moniker, believes in baptism, biblical authority and local governance of the church with no influence from the SBC. In fact, ALL baptist churches are independent. Period. Some choose to affiliate with the SBC and the BSB for unity and access to professional materials, pooled resources, etc., but Southern Baptist is not a denomination like Methodist or Lutheran. What separate IFB from SB churches more than anything like skirts are the concepts behind governance.

You can be fundie and Southern Baptist. It's doctrinal vs affiliation.

@Lisafer My mom put me in a Bob Jones/ABEKA school in fourth grade. I was there until 9th. I needed a more rigorous and more personal education than public school could provide and it was the only game in town. I got way wrapped up in it and I ended up going to church on my own, etc. My mom is a social justice agnostic Presbyterian, even though she was not out with the agnosticism at the time. So it was a weird childhood.

 

[formergothardite]

10 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I guess the better question is what do you define as IFB and what do you define as fundie?

IFB is Independent Fundamental Baptist. This is a fairly diverse group hence the independent part. Most of them(that I have been around) have been KJV only. Baptism is a huge part of the belief system.  As a child none of the IFB churches I was around had women wear pants to church, but outside of church it was fairly common. We were the weird ones in my church for not going to movies. In the late 90's early 2000's I took my grandmother to her IFB church and I wore jeans. It wasn't a big deal. Those pictures I shared were easily found when I searched for IFB churches in NC. 

Gothardites also are a diverse group. IBLP is non-denominational. While skirts were required for all events, they were not required for everyday life, that was up to the father to decide. Gothard and IBLP's biggest fan Alfred dresses his family like this. And to show how fundie he is, Alfred thought it was okay that Bill Gothard creeped on his daughter. He was okay handing his daughter over to Gothard. He will twist himself into pretzels defending Gothard and his teachings, yet his family dresses in normal clothes. @luv2laugh, do you think Alfred is not fundie just because this is how his family dresses? 

Spoiler

 

10 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

like Mike Pence,

 We have a man who holds fundamental Christian beliefs and wants to use the government to force everyone to follow those beliefs. He wants to use the government to oppress entire groups of people his religion states are sinful. So in your mind, what makes this not fundie? To me this is like a classic example of being fundie. His way is the only right way and the government should be used to enforce and defend his and only his religious beliefs. I'm confused on why this isn't seen as fundie. Can you explain, please?

As for the Duggars, yes, they probably changed their minds on being dresses only. I doubt they would have been able to do this without the approval of their husbands. But they are doing something that, while their family didn't do, was still well accepted within their fundie community. 

[formergothardite]

11 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

There have also been multiple members who were only allowed to wear skirts growing up and who said that for them it was significant when they started wearing pants.  Their experiences are relevant too, probably more so than people who grew up as pants wearing fundies.

I'm sure for some it is. And for the Duggars/Bates it might have felt like a big step to put on pants*, but it can't be take to be a huge sign they aren't fundie or are less fundie since wearing pants is an acceptable part of their fundie communities. They are still preaching the same awful stuff, they are just wearing different clothes while they preach it. 

*we don't know and they haven't said

[MargaretElliott]

I think the skirts-to-pants transition is most interesting (irritating) to me because of how staunch many fundies were about them. Not necessarily the Duggars, but I made a similar comment on the Boyer Sisters thread... like, they declared to the world via blogs and TV shows and whatnot that skirts made them more womanly/godlier/a-better-Christian-than-you. It was a beacon of their religion, a visual cue that they were better than us heathens. And I get it, beliefs change. People change, trends change. But with something that many women declared as an integral part of their faith and identity... now you're abandoning that with no explanation? Are you less womanly now? Less godly? A worse Christian? Or have you just realized (much like most people on this forum) that your manner of dress isn't irrevocably tied to your beliefs? Like, I have no illusion that it's a "baby step" or that it signifies someone moving away from the cult. But it shows a change in something, however insignificant, and I'd be interested to know Jill's or Jinger's individual reasoning for her divergence from skirts, even if it's just "My MIL wears pants so I think it's okay." Just all seems kind of hypocritical to me to judge others for their clothing choices and then dress like them later. But hey, fundies are nothing if not hypocritical.

[MomKB]

20 hours ago, Georgiana said:

Also the naming convention of the title is taken from my Catholic school family directory that listed all families by the father, and then put the mother's first name in parentheses.  Even as a 5th grader I was deeply offended and wanted to lodge a complaint. 

That's what they did for the church directory at the fundie church I grew up in, and I was also offended. 

[formergothardite]

30 minutes ago, MargaretElliott said:

But with something that many women declared as an integral part of their faith and identity... now you're abandoning that with no explanation?

This reminds me of Kristina who went from skirts only/public school is of Satan, to wearing pants and putting her kids in public school yet still insists she has never changed her mind on anything.

Last I checked Kristina was IFB and she is wearing pants and sending her kids to public school, so again, IFB does not = skirts only/homeschooling. 

[theotherelise]

My family was borderline fundie for awhile during my childhood. My church growing up was charismatic and my parents even went to some faith healing revival type things. We were homeschooled for two years (went to a fundie christian school for the rest of our elementary-middleschool). My mom told me once that someone in the homeschool community offered her some ATI curriculum or invited her to a seminar or something, but thankfully she didn't hook on to that! We did use ABEKA and then christian textbooks at the Christian school. [side note: why did we need Christian math books? the devil was lurking in secular word problems, I guess?]. We were young earth creationists with strict literal views of the Bible and my parents didn't listen to secular music from 1980 through about 1997. 

For our family, there were some small steps that brought us into contact with the world outside our community and belief system which were helpful in breaking down the rigidity of those beliefs. Starting to listen to oldies on the radio was a step. Then it was any secular music they chose. And by middle school, I could listen to whatever I wanted. Financially, we had to go to public high school and it was probably what broke the dam. My brother is 6 years older, so I was in 4th grade his freshman year and got to reap those benefits even earlier. Also, we had never been limited in what we read, so that was HUGE.

It's just impossible to tell what is an important step and what is superficial. We played organized sports outside our community, but we definitely saw ourselves as better than them. So that was not a step that led us away from strict fundamentalism, even though it might look like it from the outside. Our church also evolved over the years and became less strict. That's the thing about churches un-moored from denominations, they can say/do/change whatever they want with very little explanation!

I tend to think that clothing styles are superficial, but I do think they have the potential to inspire self-reflection in some fundies. 

 

[VelociRapture]

I have a question. Not just for our former/current Fundies/Fundie curious, but anyone who wants to answer - what do you think is the main difference between a Fundamentalist Christian and a conservative Christian? Is there even a difference at this point?

And for the record I know how tiresome this conversation can be, but I really appreciate the comments and discussion that has been happening here. Especially those from our former-Fundies. Those of us who have not lived this type of lifestyle can often have a very tough time understanding the nuances and differences between different Fundamentalist groups. I mean, I’ve tried hard to listen and learn the past few years and I still have trouble understanding some stuff. So I think your comments (as they pertain to this specific flavor of Fundie) are very important and helpful.