Josiah & Lauren 18: Still Only A Single Arrow in the Quiver

[AussieKrissy]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

This was probably observed back when Josiah and Lauren got together, but I had not realized that the Swansons appeared briefly on the old show. (I’ve been watching some old shows.) They came to dinner in “Duggars Do Dinner,” season 4, episode 27. The Bontragers also came to dinner, and then everyone went to see the Bontragers perform. There was a running joke about the Duggars being unable to pronounce “Bontrager.” Lauren was visible several times, but didn’t speak on camera. 

I miss the n all together and add it in elsewhere when I read it in my head Bot traingers lol 

[breakfree]

On 10/22/2021 at 10:03 AM, Idlewild said:

Although I never particularly liked either Josiah nor Lauren in the way they came across on the show- I do admire them for going ‘off grid’ as far as social media is concerned. It shows it can be done and is probably healthier for them.

Now I’ve said that, they’ll probably plaster photos and endorsements all over Instagram! 

I'm super late responding but I'll say this for them too -- at this point there's a real chance they are not quiverful which is something I would never never seen coming this early in their marriage 2 years ago.

That doesn't actually mean much of anything on a basic level- one can certainly be fundamentalist and not quiverful- but I do think that it at least demonstrates some limited ability to think for themselves a bit which may provide a glimmer of hope for their kids futures.  At the very least their kids may get treated like individual people which is more than some of the other married couples kids are going to get as they keep going endlessly till their ovaries quit.

Edited November 2, 2021 by breakfree
Typos🙃

[libgirl2]

57 minutes ago, breakfree said:

I'm super late responding but I'll say this for them too -- at this point there's a real chance they are not quiverful which is something I would never never seen coming this early in their marriage 2 years ago.

That doesn't actually mean much of anything on a basic level- one can certainly be fundamentalist and not quiverful- but I do think that it at least demonstrates some limited ability to think for themselves a bit which may provide a glimmer of hope for their kids futures.  At the very least their kids may get treated like individual people which is more than some of the other married couples kids are going to get as they keep going endlessly till their ovaries quit.

How many siblings does Lauren have? 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

7 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

How many siblings does Lauren have? 

Eight, the youngest of whom was born just before she got engaged. 

It’s possible that they’re using birth control. It’s also possible that they don’t have much sex, or she had a miscarriage that wasn’t announced, or she’s pregnant now but hasn’t announced publicly. Or some combination of the above. 

[HereticHick]

24 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Eight, the youngest of whom was born just before she got engaged. 

It’s possible that they’re using birth control. It’s also possible that they don’t have much sex, or she had a miscarriage that wasn’t announced, or she’s pregnant now but hasn’t announced publicly. Or some combination of the above. 

Bella turns 2 next week, right? 

[breakfree]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Eight, the youngest of whom was born just before she got engaged. 

It’s possible that they’re using birth control. It’s also possible that they don’t have much sex, or she had a miscarriage that wasn’t announced, or she’s pregnant now but hasn’t announced publicly. Or some combination of the above. 

There are actually very likely  9, her mom seems to have had another after SiRen were married. It wasn't publically announced by them but there are many pics and a video that made it clear, duggardata has some posts on this if anyone wants to go digging. In some she's wearing a breastfeeding cover-up and appears to be nursing an infant much much younger than Duke would have been at the time the photos were taken.

 

And yup, to the other question Bella is 2 in about a week.

Edited November 2, 2021 by breakfree

[xenobia]

29 minutes ago, breakfree said:

There are actually very likely  9, her mom seems to have had another after SiRen were married. It wasn't publically announced by them but there are many pics and a video that made it clear, duggardata has some posts on this if anyone wants to go digging. In some she's wearing a breastfeeding cover-up and appears to be nursing an infant much much younger than Duke would have been at the time the photos were taken.

I remember the discussion about this. It was after Jessa posted a video from a Thanksgivning event at the TTH. Dwain and Lana were both there. Dwain was seen holding a baby, Lana with the breastfeeding cover-up. Here are the some screenshots (from the Reddit thread). Duke was born in February 2018, and this kid is definitely younger than that (Jessas film was posted November 2020).  Edit: And Bella was a year old around this time, so it's not her. I also guess that the baby is a boy. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by xenobia

[Mama Mia]

It’s interesting that there were a couple photos that included Lauren and Bella at Nate? And Esther Bates recent rehearsal dinner - but as far as I know none of Josiah, and none of any of them at the wedding. Very few Duggar’s appeared to be in attendance at all. I think just Joy and Austin w no kids, and John (who was a groomsman) Abbie and Gracie. Maybe Lauren is friends with Esther? They are about the same age. But they appear to be not only not posting to their own social media, but actively trying to stay out of photos in general. 

[indianabones]

28 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It’s interesting that there were a couple photos that included Lauren and Bella at Nate? And Esther Bates recent rehearsal dinner - but as far as I know none of Josiah, and none of any of them at the wedding. Very few Duggar’s appeared to be in attendance at all. I think just Joy and Austin w no kids, and John (who was a groomsman) Abbie and Gracie. Maybe Lauren is friends with Esther? They are about the same age. But they appear to be not only not posting to their own social media, but actively trying to stay out of photos in general. 

I think that Lauren stopped posting to Instagram because she was getting constant hate in her comments (and perhaps even her DMs) over how she dealt with her miscarriage and the way she dresses. I don't blame her if she's asking people not to post photos of her to social media.

[Giraffe]

6 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

It’s possible that they’re using birth control. It’s also possible that they don’t have much sex, or she had a miscarriage that wasn’t announced, or she’s pregnant now but hasn’t announced publicly. Or some combination of the above. 

This. It's also possible they're quiverful but experiencing secondary infertility. 

[justmy2cents]

59 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It’s interesting that there were a couple photos that included Lauren and Bella at Nate? And Esther Bates recent rehearsal dinner - but as far as I know none of Josiah, and none of any of them at the wedding. Very few Duggar’s appeared to be in attendance at all. I think just Joy and Austin w no kids, and John (who was a groomsman) Abbie and Gracie. Maybe Lauren is friends with Esther? They are about the same age. But they appear to be not only not posting to their own social media, but actively trying to stay out of photos in general. 

Jason was in one picture from the rehearsal luncheon. Seems that Jeremiah was there. Nathan tagged him in one Instagram post crediting him with being a pilot for the wedding. There may be more that weren't in any of the pictures. JB&M usually go to all the Bates weddings.

Edited November 3, 2021 by justmy2cents

[just_ordinary]

I mean we can still hope they put a bit of a healthy distance between themselves and the Duggars. We have had lots of talks about how JB seems to actively dislike Josiah and how Josiah seems to be closer to her parents. 
I don’t now if the Swanson’s still hardcore fawn over the Duggar’s or if that was more temporary. Especially now, with the big Josh elephant in the room.

I doubt any of them will seriously change their general view of the world. Jill is quite the lucky chance. But separating from the Duggar Borg, maybe coming to their own ideas about their life (still fundie, less Cult of JB) is never a bad starting point. 

There are three possibilities as to why they have only Bella for now (afawk). (1) They might actively try not to conceive, (2) or just have sex whenever they feel like it and it just hasn’t happened because they always missed the window or (3) they try to conceive but for whatever reason it hasn’t ended in a pregnancy or living baby for now.

I would hope it’s (1) or (2).

[breakfree]

I think there's a good chance that in a family of 19 kids more than just Jill will eventually leave fundamentalism, even if only for some version of mainstream conservative Christianity.  

[meee]

12 minutes ago, breakfree said:

I think there's a good chance that in a family of 19 kids more than just Jill will eventually leave fundamentalism, even if only for some version of mainstream conservative Christianity.  

I think I’m not really clear what the difference is anymore. If it’s not Quiverfull, and it’s not skirts only since they’re not all doing that either, then what else differentiates conservative Christians from fundamentalists? The homeschooling? I can’t think of anything else.

[SorenaJ]

4 minutes ago, meee said:

I think I’m not really clear what the difference is anymore. If it’s not Quiverfull, and it’s not skirts only since they’re not all doing that either, then what else differentiates conservative Christians from fundamentalists? The homeschooling? I can’t think of anything else.

Homeschooling I would say as well. Fundies are not big on any education, whereas regular conservative Christians would be happy with education. And women pretty much expected to be homemakers after marriage. That seems quite fundie to me. Maybe those weird creationist museums as well. Conservative Christians might be more likely to not be Bible literalists. 

It's a spectrum I suppose. 

 

[just_ordinary]

11 minutes ago, meee said:

I think I’m not really clear what the difference is anymore. If it’s not Quiverfull, and it’s not skirts only since they’re not all doing that either, then what else differentiates conservative Christians from fundamentalists? The homeschooling? I can’t think of anything else.

I think this depends greatly on subjective experiences and cultural background. I think what many US Americans would call conservative Christians would definitely be labelled as fundamentalists in my country. I always find it funny when people describe their “modern, liberal” way of Christianity and all I can think is- but but but that’s so conservative, not even my Christian rural grandparents where thinking like that anymore.

So to me- Jill is very much still a Fundamentalist. But she has shaken off lots of the Cult of JB and IBLP stuff that came on top.

[JermajestyDuggar]

The thing about Jill is that if she’s made a lot of changes already, I think it’s possible she will still make more changes in the future. That’s the thing about cults. You have to follow all the rules exactly. Once she’s started thinking for herself, she’s starting to think more like mainstream folks. And as we all know, our thoughts and beliefs change over time. I think hers will too. So it’s hard to say what she will believe 5 years from now. 

[CanadianMamam]

10 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

It’s interesting that there were a couple photos that included Lauren and Bella at Nate? And Esther Bates recent rehearsal dinner - but as far as I know none of Josiah, and none of any of them at the wedding. Very few Duggar’s appeared to be in attendance at all. I think just Joy and Austin w no kids, and John (who was a groomsman) Abbie and Gracie. Maybe Lauren is friends with Esther? They are about the same age. But they appear to be not only not posting to their own social media, but actively trying to stay out of photos in general. 

Jason was also at the rehearsal and Jer drove the plane that Nathan skydived out of. But I think just the 5 Duggars (and spouses). But the Star Barn has a max capacity of 300, so smaller than normal fundie weddings, especially when you consider that Nathan's parents/siblings/niblings account for 47 people plus Esther's very large family. But the Bates take up 1/6th of the room, even without the grandparents and aunts and uncles. 

[postscript]

1 hour ago, breakfree said:

I think there's a good chance that in a family of 19 kids more than just Jill will eventually leave fundamentalism, even if only for some version of mainstream conservative Christianity.  

I agree, and it will be the least likely kids who make the most dramatic breaks.

My mother was one of six children, raised in an extremely conservative, extremely strict brand of Lutheranism. They all started out as adults following the same path, but ended up all over the map religiously. Those who broke didn’t do so until they were in their 40s and 50s. In  my mother’s case, it took a hyper-religious phase (which unfortunately coincided with my teen years) and going back for a master’s degree to trigger the break. My generation strayed even farther afield, from atheist to fundamentalist. 

“Fundamentalist” encompasses many religious variants in the US, but it generally means anyone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Thus, it picks up the crazies we discuss as well as a lot of others whose religious practice is more mainstream. I well remember my mother telling us “We are not fundamentalist” even though in retrospect many of the practices I grew up with (no women preachers, for example) fall under the fundamentalist umbrella. As an example of non-fundamentalism in a strict religious upbringing, I was taught creation and evolution weren’t mutually exclusive. 

[Mrs Ms]

No male head of house and family reliant on JB for employment and thus also housing and food is going to break away. So only self employed male or married female Duggar offspring will change.

Which means they might privately be very different from the cult of JB but publicly towing the line while they work on further learning, independent employment and home ownership outside of his clutches. Imagine growing and maturing into a decent human being and having to publicly follow “the Duggar way™️“ 

[Mrs Ms]

3 hours ago, Mrs Ms said:

No male head of house and family reliant on JB for employment and thus also housing and food is going to break away. So only self employed male or married female Duggar offspring will change.

Which means they might privately be very different from the cult of JB but publicly towing the line while they work on further learning, independent employment and home ownership outside of his clutches. Imagine growing and maturing into a decent human being and having to publicly follow “the Duggar way™️“ 

Too late to edit:

Toeing the line. Towing, wth? It’s been a day…

[GreenBeans]

23 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think this depends greatly on subjective experiences and cultural background. I think what many US Americans would call conservative Christians would definitely be labelled as fundamentalists in my country. I always find it funny when people describe their “modern, liberal” way of Christianity and all I can think is- but but but that’s so conservative, not even my Christian rural grandparents where thinking like that anymore.

So to me- Jill is very much still a Fundamentalist. But she has shaken off lots of the Cult of JB and IBLP stuff that came on top.

This! In my country (Germany) for 90% of the people identifying as “Christian”, this means going to church once a year for Christmas (maaaaybe Easter). The vast majority of my family, friends and colleagues at work identify as Christian, but I do not know a single person who goes to church every week or is in any way involved in a church community.

When I was in school (small town, (upper) middle class), it was entirely normal to have a boyfriend at 15/16 years, and have sex, too. The first time I heard of  “keeping the door open when a boy comes over” was in an American movie. My boyfriend at 17 was allowed to spend the night - and it was the same for all my friends. I do not know a single person who would have “waited for marriage”, and no parents encouraging that, either. Educating kids and making sure they have access to contraception was the norm for most parents when I grew up.

So yes, what is viewed as “conservative” (or sometimes even “liberal”) by many here on FJ would qualify as fundamentalist or at least extremely restrictive where I come from.

It’s funny how much cultural norms vary and change your perception!

[Knight of Ni]

1 hour ago, GreenBeans said:

This! In my country (Germany) for 90% of the people identifying as “Christian”, this means going to church once a year for Christmas (maaaaybe Easter). The vast majority of my family, friends and colleagues at work identify as Christian, but I do not know a single person who goes to church every week or is in any way involved in a church community.

When I was in school (small town, (upper) middle class), it was entirely normal to have a boyfriend at 15/16 years, and have sex, too. The first time I heard of  “keeping the door open when a boy comes over” was in an American movie. My boyfriend at 17 was allowed to spend the night - and it was the same for all my friends. I do not know a single person who would have “waited for marriage”, and no parents encouraging that, either. Educating kids and making sure they have access to contraception was the norm for most parents when I grew up.

So yes, what is viewed as “conservative” (or sometimes even “liberal”) by many here on FJ would qualify as fundamentalist or at least extremely restrictive where I come from.

It’s funny how much cultural norms vary and change your perception!

Ha! My friend had her boyfriend sleep on the couch in the living room when he would visit her in college. When they got engaged he got to sleep in a sleeping bag on the floor in her room. 

[Expectopatronus]

3 hours ago, GreenBeans said:

This! In my country (Germany) for 90% of the people identifying as “Christian”, this means going to church once a year for Christmas (maaaaybe Easter). The vast majority of my family, friends and colleagues at work identify as Christian, but I do not know a single person who goes to church every week or is in any way involved in a church community.

When I was in school (small town, (upper) middle class), it was entirely normal to have a boyfriend at 15/16 years, and have sex, too. The first time I heard of  “keeping the door open when a boy comes over” was in an American movie. My boyfriend at 17 was allowed to spend the night - and it was the same for all my friends. I do not know a single person who would have “waited for marriage”, and no parents encouraging that, either. Educating kids and making sure they have access to contraception was the norm for most parents when I grew up.

So yes, what is viewed as “conservative” (or sometimes even “liberal”) by many here on FJ would qualify as fundamentalist or at least extremely restrictive where I come from.

It’s funny how much cultural norms vary and change your perception!

I wouldn’t say it’s the norm where I am but waiting for marriage also isn’t unheard of. Both my sister and I fall into this category as do a few of our friends. My cousins were a split of waiting and becoming sexually active in high school. A few guys I dated didn’t like my stance and informed me that I owed them sex on demand or the relationship was over. The relationship was over. To my way of thinking, everyone gets to decide for themselves what’s right. That said, I have concerns about safety when very young teens (12-14 years) become sexually active. I’ve known a few birth control failures that resulted in unplanned pregnancies which is a lot to deal with at any age but is even harder when kids are dealing with all of the day-to-day challenges of junior high. 

[GreenBeans]

1 hour ago, Expectopatronus said:

To my way of thinking, everyone gets to decide for themselves what’s right. That said, I have concerns about safety when very young teens (12-14 years) become sexually active.

I absolutely agree, but your decision of what’s right may be very much influenced by the cultural norms you grew up with and what is considered “normal” in your circles.

When I grew up, it was completely normal to wait (e.g. until you were 16/17 rather than 14/15, or until your relationship had become more serious/lasted longer, like 6 months or a year, or until it simply felt right). There wasn’t a general expectation you’d have sex with your first boyfriend at 14, or before you turned 18, or after x months of a relationship. Everyone would move at their own pace - just “marriage” wasn’t part of the equation. It simply wasn’t a factor in the decision to wait. At least not for anyone I grew up with.

And yes, 12-14 years is awfully young. Kissing would be considered normal at that age (at least when I grew up), but definitely not sex. At 15/16/17, with a long term boyfriend of roughly the same age - yes, no one would bat an eye at that.