John David and Abbie 6: Flying Off to the Honeymoon

[Rachel333]

2 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

What a disgusting wedding! 

Abbie had no problem with using Ruth's words to Naomi (Ruth 1:16) in her wedding vows. It doesn't work like that. Ruth loved Naomi. Those words were spoken from one woman to another. So if that is how you love each other, John and Abbie, then surely this is how Ruth and Naomi loved each other. You don't get to take her words, and use it for your hetero wedding, when you deny gay people any rights whatsoever.

Had Ruth and Naomi come up to you and asked to get married you would have preached to them that they are an abomination and going to hell. Today you are getting married, all nice and pretty, tomorrow you are out handing out pamphlets saying gay people are going to hell, and then you are actively preventing them from having human rights because you feel they are lesser than you. 

You don't get to appropriate Ruth's words like that, Abbie. You just don't. 

Those weren't romantic vows, though. I know some people want to see it that way, but it's a pretty fringe interpretation of the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship. There's still a long history of people using them in wedding vows or as a wedding reading, including at both hetero and same-sex weddings, but I honestly don't see Abbie and JD using it as appropriation.

[SorenaJ]

36 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Those weren't romantic vows, though. I know some people want to see it that way, but it's a pretty fringe interpretation of the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship. There's still a long history of people using them in wedding vows or as a wedding reading, including at both hetero and same-sex weddings, but I honestly don't see Abbie and JD using it as appropriation.

I see it that way. It has nothing to do with how I want to see it, but how I see it. Unless Ruth has personally walked up to you to say "yeah, no homo", then we can't say that they weren't romantic. 

It's fine to use in hetero weddings, but not in hetero weddings where the couple hold disgusting views about gay people. They steal the words, but wouldn't allow Ruth and Naomi to use those words at their wedding, because they wouldn't allow the wedding. 

[just_ordinary]

Here are my thoughts/impressions after watching it:

*those two did not save their first kiss for the wedding.

*the vows weren’t as romantic as expected. Most of it was the same, it felt like both only added three individual sentences. Both seemed to stress the leader/following part a lot. More than I remember from the other weddings. 

* Abbie’s father looks like a cute cartoon figure.

*Josiah looked like a deer in the headlights during the song. He seemed fine in the parts before. I agree that there is something wrong but I don’t think it has something to do with his relationship to Lauren. It seems more as if she helps him a lot. I have my own theories about them.

*the drone was just unnecessary. How can they stress the importance of holy matrimony and then turn it into a such a show? Fundie logic I suppose. 

*is JD working for ALERT? He was wearing an ALERT Aviation shirt in one of the photos. 

*watching JB trying hard to say some words of importance is just tragic. You had your chance mate. And your almost 30year old son surely can remember how he met his fiancée, as it wasn’t that long ago and definitely better than you as the show made it seem as his family was unaware what was going on.

*Jana seemed more emotional than I have seen her before. 

*the kiss(es) were awkward. 

*I don’t know what to make of Abbie’s comment about old people being cute. The way it came out just didn’t sit right with me.

*those two really were on the fast track. 

*what I like most about the Duggar boys getting married: JB has to take a backseat. 

*all in all I don’t get the love for their wedding. It was mediocre.

*Abbie reminds me of Michael Bates. Both are not the giggly type, both we’re older, both got a secular education in parts, both worked outside the family business. This helps to perceive them as more mature and confident but in the end they are happily and willingly submitting under their fathers and husbands authorities.

*I give them (generous) six months till they do something to piss us off big time.

[singsingsing]

You know what, never mind. I’ve ranted about them enough and everyone knows how I feel. I’m just going to wait for them to prove it themselves. Shouldn’t be long.

[viii]

28 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

You know what, never mind. I’ve ranted about them enough and everyone knows how I feel. I’m just going to wait for them to prove it themselves. Shouldn’t be long.

I can't wait for the downfall #sorrynotsorry

[seashell1025]

Okay so I am severely behind in reading posts (oh the struggle of being a teacher and only being able to really stay caught up in the summer, lol) But i've heard back and forths on whether or not mr. smuggar was in the wedding party or not? The video of him congratulating them looked like he was wearing wedding party attire but I dont know for sure. anyone have confirmation on that? 

[FrozenSmile]

3 minutes ago, seashell1025 said:

Okay so I am severely behind in reading posts (oh the struggle of being a teacher and only being able to really stay caught up in the summer, lol) But i've heard back and forths on whether or not mr. smuggar was in the wedding party or not? The video of him congratulating them looked like he was wearing wedding party attire but I dont know for sure. anyone have confirmation on that? 

He was a groomsman, but i didn’t see him in either of the videos. Was there a full length episode or just the two mini episodes? He was the first groomsman in, last one out.

[ElToro]

@FrozenSmile did you spot yourself in the audience?!

[Rachel333]

Eh, never mind.

[seashell1025]

13 minutes ago, FrozenSmile said:

He was a groomsman, but i didn’t see him in either of the videos. Was there a full length episode or just the two mini episodes? He was the first groomsman in, last one out.

Yeah no they didn't show him in the mini episodes. All the camera angles conveniently don't show like any of the groomsmen really.  Good to know! And so far its just the mini episodes.  I imagine next season will have a more full detailed storyline of the whole thing though 

[FrozenSmile]

3 hours ago, ElToro said:

@FrozenSmile did you spot yourself in the audience?!

No, but i looked! The camera guy & the guy that made sure the camera cord didn’t get caught on anything passed in front of us a bunch of times, but i don’t think they panned around the crowd very often. I hope they have a real episode, though. The mini episodes cut out quite a bit of the ceremony. They didn’t even show the ring pop bit, which was much funnier than the drone bringing in the ring.

[seashell1025]

I'm quite sure there will be a full episode honestly, if we're thinking about the patterns of the CO seasons.  Also, if there's no major duggar news anytime soon, what in the world is the next season going to be about? ? at this point it seems like it'll just be about JD and A!

[marmalade]

The wedding "episode" airs next Tuesday at 10. I put that in quotes because it's only blocked for 30 minutes. We'll have to wait until January for the extended version.

[miss_batson]

First post wedding post

 

[Photograph 51]

On 11/22/2018 at 3:20 AM, SorenaJ said:

What a disgusting wedding! 

Abbie had no problem with using Ruth's words to Naomi (Ruth 1:16) in her wedding vows. It doesn't work like that. Ruth loved Naomi. Those words were spoken from one woman to another. So if that is how you love each other, John and Abbie, then surely this is how Ruth and Naomi loved each other. You don't get to take her words, and use it for your hetero wedding, when you deny gay people any rights whatsoever.

Had Ruth and Naomi come up to you and asked to get married you would have preached to them that they are an abomination and going to hell. Today you are getting married, all nice and pretty, tomorrow you are out handing out pamphlets saying gay people are going to hell, and then you are actively preventing them from having human rights because you feel they are lesser than you. 

You don't get to appropriate Ruth's words like that, Abbie. You just don't. 

??? Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law.  There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any romantic involvement between the two.  

[QuiverFullofBooks]

2 hours ago, Photograph 51 said:

??? Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law.  There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any romantic involvement between the two.  

Also, the widowed Ruth married Boaz, and Naomi treated their son Obed as her own grandchild. Obed became King David’s grandfather.

[SorenaJ]

2 hours ago, Photograph 51 said:

??? Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law.  There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any romantic involvement between the two.  

Agree to disagree. 

(not about the mother-in-law part, that is a fact)

[justoneoftwo]

28 minutes ago, SorenaJ said:

Agree to disagree. 

(not about the mother-in-law part, that is a fact)

What do you think indicated more than a mil relationship? I've never heard of this so I'm curious 

[coexist]

I have an opinion about the true nature of David and Jonathan's relationship, especially considering King Saul grew angry with Jonathan for "acting like his mother" and for chasing after David like a woman (or whatever the text says), also for the passage that says the pair embraced until one of them "exceeded" himself (which /could be/ a euphemism in the same way that Saul going into a cave "to cover his feet" was a euphemism)... but I've never heard anyone make any such suggestions about Ruth and Naomi. I'm curious, too.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, coexist said:

Saul going into a cave "to cover his feet" was a euphemism)

what's that a euphemism for?

[coexist]

6 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

what's that a euphemism for?

In that case, for going to the bathroom. Other times euphemisms involving foot or shoe would have been referring to sexual things. Since we're discussing Ruth, Naomi instructing her to creep into the tent where Boaz was sleeping and "uncover his feet" probably meant "boom chicka bow wow!" (or at least would have given the appearance of having been 'improper') forcing his hand to make him marry her, which would've been the proper thing to do at the time. 

I posted about it here a few years ago with a link to a rabbi's page listing other old euphemisms. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

22 minutes ago, coexist said:

In that case, for going to the bathroom. Other times euphemisms involving foot or shoe would have been referring to sexual things. Since we're discussing Ruth, Naomi instructing her to creep into the tent where Boaz was sleeping and "uncover his feet" probably meant "boom chicka bow wow!" (or at least would have given the appearance of having been 'improper') forcing his hand to make him marry her, which would've been the proper thing to do at the time. 

I posted about it here a few years ago with a link to a rabbi's page listing other old euphemisms. 

thanks.  I had no idea Quinten tarantino was one of the bible's authors

 

[SorenaJ]

1 hour ago, justoneoftwo said:

What do you think indicated more than a mil relationship? I've never heard of this so I'm curious 

I think Ruth and Naomi had more than a mother-daughter-in-law relationship because 

1. Ruth cleaved unto Naomi the same way that husband and wife cleave unto each other. They were cleaved to each other. 
Ruth 1:14: And they lifted up their voice and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth cleaved unto her.
Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

2. Ruth 1:16-17 doesn't scream platonic to me (probably why it is often used in wedding vows. If those words define the love between husband and wife, why couldn't they define the love between Naomi and Ruth?)
Ruth 1:16-17: And Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.”

3. Naomi urged her daughter-in-laws Ruth and Orpah to return to their families, it was the sensible thing to do for widows to survive, but Ruth refused, even though she had no one to provide for her, placing her own life at risk. She then went on to provide for Naomi by gleaning. 

4. Ruth's son Obed's father is hardly mentioned, Obed is said to have been born unto Naomi. Ruth bore a son, but he is also Naomi's son. Also Ruth is better for Naomi than seven sons. 
Ruth 4:15-17: And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life and a nourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter-in-law who loveth thee, who is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him.” And Naomi took the child and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it. And the women, her neighbors, gave it a name, saying, “There is a son born to Naomi”; and they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

5. Boaz' marriage to Ruth was one of convenience, so that the land and property of Mahlon (Ruth's late husband) could stay in the family. Not a super romantic marriage. 

[JesSky03]

I just watched the episode and I thought it was a really sweet wedding. This was the first time I've watched anything with John and Abbie and I thought they had good chemistry. They just seem really genuine with each other. I thought their first kiss was actually really cute and not cringy like I thought it would be from reading about it here.

Did Josiah and Laura not rehearse in front of people beforehand or did nerves just get the better of Josiah? Because someone really should have told him to smile occasionally and to look at his singing partner every now and then. 

 

[Iamtheway]

Cool photo and a nice non-offensive first post. We continue to wait for their fall from grace.