[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 33: Ohhh Honey It Is Already a Disaster.....

[Bobology]

There are a lot of things I'd like to know, but this is high on my curiosity list: At what ages were the other kids in the Duggar family (other than Josh or his victims) told, or learned, about what was going on? When Josh was sent to hard labor as a teen, what did John David know about it? A lot of us here suspect the Kellers were not told the entire truth... so as the various siblings were told (if at all) I wonder what version they were told? And did some of them who were adults in 2015 hear the actual molestation part only when it became public? Unless there is a truthful Tell-ALL, I'll never know. And given that JB/M are liars, they've probably taught their kids how to lie* for jeesus, so I'd still be suspicious of book content.

*Lying for jeesus is fine, right? No sin in that, I'm sure.

[Idlewild]

I think that article covers really well the notion that by homeschooling the parents really consider they are superior - we know in the case of the Duggars that the actual academic part was woeful and we are now realising that the spiritual and well being part sucked too. 
The likes of the Duggars think everyone else is so corrupt and, to use a Jill R phrase, demonic - they never consider that they have a perpetrator in their midst and even when confronted with the awful truth they make excuses (‘Satan! Only over clothes - complete BS- he’s been redeemed, it’s the media’s fault for exposing it).

Even now it’s obvious from their latest statement that JB & M think they’re pretty awesome parents and a good influence on others. They are a lost cause, but others may see the light hopefully.

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, NancyDrewFan1989 said:

The only positive thing I hope that comes out the Josh Duggar saga is that more fundie and homeschooling Christian families take more action and notice when an older child abuses one of their younger siblings.

Looks like the Duggar ministry is finally proving to be of some value.

[Jinder Roles]

Not done reading the thread but prisons restrict all sorts of unnecessary things for the incarcerated. The point isn’t punishment but to dehumanize incarcerated people as much as possible. 
 

Personally I think prisons should be abolished for a list of reasons I’m not going to get into right now. 

[jjmennonite]

Does this fit here? Mennonites are patriarchal, infamous for abuse, at times. But I wasn’t homeschooled and got away. Dad got snipped, after me, and our kind of Mennonites are not quiverful. 

[ALM7]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:06 PM, Expectopatronus said:

I think this another area where these ultra fundie churches are dangerous. If you’re already going to Hell for having urges, why not go all the way and act on them? Not saying that I agree with this philosophy or that I excuse downloading CSA material but if an unwanted urge is simply labeled as ´sin’ and therapy isn’t an option then I think it shouldn’t be shocking that horrific acts occur. 

[my bold above]

@Expectopatronus, for some reason I thought the Duggar brand of IFB believed in eternal security [once saved, always saved], if so, Josh is home free in their book.  Commit any type of crime, no big deal, going to heaven.  Of course, the family brand is their major concern, shame on Josh for messing with the big grift.

ETA, Additional thought ... 

I do think they're concerned about their heavenly rewards.  They want the goodies once they get there, and there may not be grifting in heaven.

Edited July 16, 2021 by ALM7
Additional thought ...

[SorenaJ]

If they believe in once saved always saved, why do they wait with kissing and sweet fellowshipping until marriage. Why not sin like the rest of the heathens and have some fun, if they are already saved? 

[Nike]

1 hour ago, SorenaJ said:

If they believe in once saved always saved, why do they wait with kissing and sweet fellowshipping until marriage. Why not sin like the rest of the heathens and have some fun, if they are already saved? 

Maybe because females being the inferior creatures that they are, don't get saved so easily. Men on the other hand, for all their "superiority" lack any type of control when it comes to sex so they 'deserve' every chance of being saved.

[formergothardite]

Once saved always saved isn’t as cut and dry as it sounds. For example I’ve spoken to those sort of Christians and asked since I was saved as a child do they consider me as going to heaven despite being an atheist now. The general conclusion is that I’m on the path to hell and I wasn’t actually saved. This would change, though, if I repented and dedicated my life back to the correct version of Jesus. Doing that would show I was saved as a child and God had been working on my heart for years to get me to repent. 
 

One of the churches I attended had a church leader who was arrested for doing some pretty awful things. He showed no remorse for the rest of his life and he was written off as a wolf in sheep’s clothing who infiltrated the church.  People prayed for him to be really saved before he died. 
 

With Josh I think it will come down to if people believe he committed these crimes. If people believe he did this stuff and he refuses to admit it and show remorse, he might be treated as someone who needs salvation.

And the reasons to avoid sinful behavior for those who are saved is because once you are saved you are supposed to want to follow the narrow path to righteousness. If you are on the wide path of unrighteousness, then maybe you aren’t really saved. 

[nolongerIFBx]

6 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

If they believe in once saved always saved, why do they wait with kissing and sweet fellowshipping until marriage. Why not sin like the rest of the heathens and have some fun, if they are already saved? 

In all seriousness, because when you love someone, you avoid doing things that will hurt them even if you know that they will forgive you. God does have guidelines that He gives for His children to live by. He says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Even though He is "faithful and just to forgive," He also says not to use that freedom-- from the law and the eternal consequences of sin-- as an excuse to sin. In a marriage, does someone only stay faithful to their spouse because they don't want to get divorced? Or is it because they love their spouse so much they can't imagine hurting them like that? Fear of hell is a huge motivator, but so is love. And I'm not just talking about the Duggars who may have other motivations like appearances, parental disapproval, etc. but trying to follow the teachings of the Bible isn't always about fear of hell or punishment, it can be about love and that desire not to grieve God causes us to put His desires above our own desire to sin and have "fun."

 

Sorry, I know that sounds preachy, but if you're trying to understand Christianity or just the Duggars, "not using your freedom as an occasion to sin" is integral. If you just want to snark, snark on. But if you're interested in the theology, here's my 2 cents.

Edited July 16, 2021 by nolongerIFBx

[gustava]

21 minutes ago, nolongerIFBx said:

In all seriousness, because when you love someone, you avoid doing things that will hurt them even if you know that they will forgive you. God does have guidelines that He gives for His children to live by. He says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Even though He is "faithful and just to forgive," He also says not to use that freedom-- from the law and the eternal consequences of sin-- as an excuse to sin. In a marriage, does someone only stay faithful to their spouse because they don't want to get divorced? Or is it because they love their spouse so much they can't imagine hurting them like that? Fear of hell is a huge motivator, but so is love. And I'm not just talking about the Duggars who may have other motivations like appearances, parental disapproval, etc. but trying to follow the teachings of the Bible isn't always about fear of hell or punishment, it can be about love and that desire not to grieve God causes us to put His desires above our own desire to sin and have "fun."

 

Sorry, I know that sounds preachy, but if you're trying to understand Christianity or just the Duggars, "not using your freedom as an occasion to sin" is integral. If you just want to snark, snark on. But if you're interested in the theology, here's my 2 cents.

Your thoughtful post raises for me two questions:  1.  Does Josh truly believe in the faith in which he was brought up?  2.  Whether or not he does, does he truly believe he has sinned?  I think he pays lip service to "faith" but is too egocentric to accept that he's done anything wrong.

Edited July 16, 2021 by gustava
grammar

[formergothardite]

12 minutes ago, gustava said:

Your thoughtful post raises for me two questions:  1.  Does Josh truly believe in the faith in which he was brought up?  2.  Whether or not he does, does he truly believe he has sinned?  I think he pays lip service to "faith" but is too egocentric to accept that he's done anything wrong.

In my opinion Josh believes the faith in the exact same way millions of American Christians believe. It is something to mindlessly repeat and use when convenient but also it is cool to find loopholes when walking the faith isn’t convenient. The last five years has really opened my eyes to how little my childhood religious instructors actually believed any of the stuff they taught me in church. In the blink of an eye they dropped the standards they supposedly held sacred when it came to getting something they wanted. That is exactly the sort of life Josh has been leading. He has taken it to an extreme most people find repulsive, but he has watched plenty of Christians model the notion of saying one thing while doing the exact opposite.
 

Maybe Josh feels guilt, but I doubt it. I think he has found a way to justify in his mind what he is doing. He knows how to say all the correct Christian words but these teachings have made zero change to his life. I also don’t think he wants to change or to become a better person. 

[church_of_dog]

I've also got to wonder how much the recent vulgarization of American politics has added to their attitude (Josh's if not all/most of the Duggars) that "if the rules don't fit what you want, just declare them fake and they no longer apply to you."

Obviously this wasn't in play during Josh's younger crimes, but in terms of the current charges and his attitude about whether it was actually wrong, it wouldn't surprise me.

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, church_of_dog said:

I've also got to wonder how much the recent vulgarization of American politics has added to their attitude (Josh's if not all/most of the Duggars) that "if the rules don't fit what you want, just declare them fake and they no longer apply to you."

Obviously this wasn't in play during Josh's younger crimes, but in terms of the current charges and his attitude about whether it was actually wrong, it wouldn't surprise me.

Yeah. I think they,and a lot of people in their Christian circles, are deep into the idea that if you don't like the facts, just make up new ones and scream "fake news" when people bring up reality. I can easily see the Duggars going down that path no matter what evidence is presented. I'm not sure how successful that will be, though. 

[LanaBanana]

David and Hannah have opened a public Instagram account

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRY-ySpsf1A/

[ALM7]

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Once saved always saved isn’t as cut and dry as it sounds. For example I’ve spoken to those sort of Christians and asked since I was saved as a child do they consider me as going to heaven despite being an atheist now. The general conclusion is that I’m on the path to hell and I wasn’t actually saved. This would change, though, if I repented and dedicated my life back to the correct version of Jesus. Doing that would show I was saved as a child and God had been working on my heart for years to get me to repent. 
 

One of the churches I attended had a church leader who was arrested for doing some pretty awful things. He showed no remorse for the rest of his life and he was written off as a wolf in sheep’s clothing who infiltrated the church.  People prayed for him to be really saved before he died. 
 

With Josh I think it will come down to if people believe he committed these crimes. If people believe he did this stuff and he refuses to admit it and show remorse, he might be treated as someone who needs salvation.

And the reasons to avoid sinful behavior for those who are saved is because once you are saved you are supposed to want to follow the narrow path to righteousness. If you are on the wide path of unrighteousness, then maybe you aren’t really saved. 

@formergothardite, thank you so much for explaining the once saved-always saved doctrine.  I've managed to pick up on bits and pieces of eternal security, but I was never able to pin down the general concept followed by the majority of Evangelicals.  In fact, I was flipping channels and heard a pastor on TV say, there was only one way to lose one's salvation, to commit the unpardonable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  As a life-long Atheist, these concepts are so foreign to me.  Thank you again for explaining the doctrine.

Few other questions ...

-Do families like the Duggars etc. believe in the elect? 

-How do families like the Duggars as one example, get their heavenly rewards, is this where the concept of good works comes in?

-Why is every thing about Jesus.  God is certainly mentioned a lot, but not like Jesus.  Also, they hardly ever mention the Holy Spirit, don't they believe each entity is one, but separate?  Why is the emphasis always on Jesus?    

Thank you again, it just gets so confusing, and I know from reading your posts for years, you understand their doctrine.

Edited July 16, 2021 by ALM7
word

[Meggo]

On 7/11/2021 at 10:23 PM, jjmennonite said:

Does this fit here? Mennonites are patriarchal, infamous for abuse, at times. But I wasn’t homeschooled and got away. Dad got snipped, after me, and our kind of Mennonites are not quiverful. 

 

My experience with Mennonites (married into a family that was old colony when they were growing up) - is "it varies". You have Mennonites who are pretty well just like any other kind of Protestant. Wearing bikinis, dating, whatever "mainstream" stuff is happening - they're in. We have friends who were rich kid Mennonites and own multiple businesses etc. We went to a family funeral YEARS ago that was Really REALLY old Colony. In the church - men sat on one side, women on the other (except my husband and I and my SIL and her husband - we all sat in the back), the service was in German, I have never felt SO unwelcome in a church before. 

It just depends. 

Hubs (who broke away from his family's church the second he could and calls himself an atheist and who does not like organized religion as a whole) will tell you that HIS community growing up had a lot of kids in families because then the kids could go to work and the parents didn't have to. He was the first one in his family (he's 7th of 10) to NOT drop out of high school and go to work. He did do some university courses (but I think it was more drinking & partying from what I can gather :)) but then dropped out because he had to chose between school and being able to actually afford to live. 
All of his siblings are very mainstream Mennonite - but my MIL wears her little kerchief and I've seen her in pants MAYBE twice. 

But growing up - they were the dark dress, kerchief wearers. My MIL was being pressured into wearing some kind of ruffle thing on her head that gave her HORRIBLE headaches but that's what all the pious women wore so SHE felt she had (until her doc said "if it gives you headaches - stop!")... 

[Expectopatronus]

@ALM7 My understanding of the Duggars is that they do not believe in the elect; that was one of the theological differences JB had with Jeremy. 
Good works come from the book of James and his assertion that faith without works is dead; simply telling someone who is starving to believe and go eat when they have no food is useless (I’m paraphrasing; too lazy to look up the exact quote). 
You are right; they hardly ever speak of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know why they don’t acknowledge the 3rd person of the Trinity. Sorry. 

[Caroline]

4 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

 

Sorry, I know that sounds preachy, but if you're trying to understand Christianity or just the Duggars, "not using your freedom as an occasion to sin" is integral. If you just want to snark, snark on. But if you're interested in the theology, here's my 2 cents.

I think I'm way too lazy to get into extreme Christianity.  I appreciate your explanation, but I can't imagine spending so much time wondering about what God wants/doesn't want me to do.  It's like these kinds of people left their common sense and intuition at the door.  Treating people correctly seems to be what most humans do just because, but maybe I'm being naive because that's what I've tried to do and improve upon as I age. No need for scare tactics.

 

[formergothardite]

19 minutes ago, ALM7 said:

How do families like the Duggars as one example, get their heavenly rewards, is this where the concept of good works comes in?

I think it really depends. While some IFB probably preach that heavenly reward is based on good works, the churches I grew up around said that the heavenly mansions and jewels would be based only on souls saved or at least attempted to save. I think that is why people like Jill Rod are so fanatical in claiming she saved souls. Each soul means a bigger mansion and more jewels in your crown. 
 

And this entire thing sounds completely awful now that I’ve written it out, but It just seemed normal when I was younger. I have a clear memory of a Sunday School teacher saying we needed to witness because we didn’t want to get to heaven and find our crown with no jewels. I’m not sure there is a solid biblical basis for the idea, though.
 

36 minutes ago, ALM7 said:

Why is every thing about Jesus.  God is certainly mentioned a lot, but not like Jesus.  Also, they hardly ever mention the Holy Spirit, don't they believe each entity is one, but separate?  Why is the emphasis always on Jesus? 

I don’t have a real answer. I never have understood the trinity. But I think people like the Duggars use the term Jesus interchangeable with the Holy Spirit. “Jesus convicted me.” is pretty much the exact same as “The Holy Spirit convicted me.” 
 

[Alisamer]

5 hours ago, gustava said:

Your thoughtful post raises for me two questions:  1.  Does Josh truly believe in the faith in which he was brought up?  2.  Whether or not he does, does he truly believe he has sinned?  I think he pays lip service to "faith" but is too egocentric to accept that he's done anything wrong.

I think he believes it, but in a shallow performative way. He's not a deep thinker.

1 hour ago, ALM7 said:

-How do families like the Duggars as one example, get their heavenly rewards, is this where the concept of good works comes in?

-Why is every thing about Jesus.  God is certainly mentioned a lot, but not like Jesus.  Also, they hardly ever mention the Holy Spirit, don't they believe each entity is one, but separate?  Why is the emphasis always on Jesus?    

Thank you again, it just gets so confusing, and I know from reading your posts for years, you understand their doctrine.

I grew up in a fundie lite church and have never been much into theology, but my understanding of good works is that they are necessary in a "walk the walk don't just talk the talk" kind of way. I think there was some idea that the better a person you were the better things would be for you in heaven or some such (like the song "lay up your treasures in heaven"), but there is also a concept of "if you're Christian, act like it so you don't give God/The church/Christianity a bad name". Something which I think has been heavily eroded if not lost over the last several years!

My childhood understanding was along the lines of "Christians are good people so be a good person because you are Christian" which I realize is pretty circular.

As for the Jesus thing - my understanding again - Jesus/God/Holy Spirit = all the same. Three parts, but the same kinda. It's confusing. Almost like multiple personalities, or one being able to take multiple forms at once. Like on the other end of the spectrum a demon who possesses more than one person at once, maybe? Like Jesus is an aspect of God sent to interact with people, and the holy spirit is an aspect of God to internally inspire people. 

Now that I write that the "aspects" of God thing is probably the best way to describe it. I think many ancient Greek and Egyptian gods probably had the "multiple aspects" thing going on too, so maybe it was a more common concept back in those times. 

And not all Christians have that same concept - I know Remnant (or at least their late leader Gwen) is non-trinitarian. 

I think the emphasis is more on Jesus because he is the easier to understand and relate to part of the trinity. God's all powerful (and in the old testament at least, pretty frightening), the holy spirit is a nebulous concept, but Jesus was born as a human and lived a human life. Much easier to relate to, and to use as an example of how to live. 

I consider myself loosely Christian these days, and I tend to focus more on the parts of the Bible about Jesus than on the rest of it. I figure if Jesus is God come to Earth to show us how to live, then the rest is less relevant. IMO Jesus was kind to people of all walks of life, didn't discriminate based on race/illness/etc., said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, healed people who were sick, and stood up for the occasional injustice. And turned water into wine. 

Fundies seem to focus more on the old testament, the "rules" and all the small stuff. I tend to think Jesus was unlikely to sweat the small stuff. I tend to go more for the "loving father" figure of God than the "almighty smiter of people who make minor mistakes" one.

I think some people would consider me not actually Christian because I tend to think if God has three aspects then he could have more than three, and probably a bunch of different names, too - and God as a higher power who takes whatever name or form works for each person in each culture makes much more sense to me than a God who created everyone and considers everyone his children, but then only let certain groups know about him and sends every one of his children in groups who haven't heard of him yet to hell. I think God uses different names in different cultures, and cares more about what kind of person you are than what name you call him. 

Thanks for coming to my rambling TED talk that is only vaguely on topic!

[Caroline]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

nd this entire thing sounds completely awful now that I’ve written it out, but It just seemed normal when I was younger. I have a clear memory of a Sunday School teacher saying we needed to witness because we didn’t want to get to heaven and find our crown with no jewels. I’m not sure there is a solid biblical basis for the idea, though.

I grew up in a mediocre Catholic home, just going through the motions mostly.  It was good to be free to say how ridiculous some things were and have adults not criticize me.  I left it all behind quite early and have no interest in organized religion.  My question is:  Were the jewels and mansions solid things or metaphors for Heaven?  Are they akin to the virgins that extreme Muslim men believe await them in Paradise?  I ask because the concept of Heaven confuses me when people are so specific.  For example, there are some people I hope never to see in Heaven because I didn't like having them in my life here.  I don't need or want a mansion and jewels and jewelry don't interest me.  What about those of us who like simple things, nature, lots of good books to read and art to enjoy?   So, I'm guessing these kinds of rewards are metaphors like in Catholicism, but with fundies you never know.  

[ALM7]

13 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I think he believes it, but in a shallow performative way. He's not a deep thinker.

I grew up in a fundie lite church and have never been much into theology, but my understanding of good works is that they are necessary in a "walk the walk don't just talk the talk" kind of way. I think there was some idea that the better a person you were the better things would be for you in heaven or some such (like the song "lay up your treasures in heaven"), but there is also a concept of "if you're Christian, act like it so you don't give God/The church/Christianity a bad name". Something which I think has been heavily eroded if not lost over the last several years!

My childhood understanding was along the lines of "Christians are good people so be a good person because you are Christian" which I realize is pretty circular.

As for the Jesus thing - my understanding again - Jesus/God/Holy Spirit = all the same. Three parts, but the same kinda. It's confusing. Almost like multiple personalities, or one being able to take multiple forms at once. Like on the other end of the spectrum a demon who possesses more than one person at once, maybe? Like Jesus is an aspect of God sent to interact with people, and the holy spirit is an aspect of God to internally inspire people. 

Now that I write that the "aspects" of God thing is probably the best way to describe it. I think many ancient Greek and Egyptian gods probably had the "multiple aspects" thing going on too, so maybe it was a more common concept back in those times. 

And not all Christians have that same concept - I know Remnant (or at least their late leader Gwen) is non-trinitarian. 

I think the emphasis is more on Jesus because he is the easier to understand and relate to part of the trinity. God's all powerful (and in the old testament at least, pretty frightening), the holy spirit is a nebulous concept, but Jesus was born as a human and lived a human life. Much easier to relate to, and to use as an example of how to live. 

I consider myself loosely Christian these days, and I tend to focus more on the parts of the Bible about Jesus than on the rest of it. I figure if Jesus is God come to Earth to show us how to live, then the rest is less relevant. IMO Jesus was kind to people of all walks of life, didn't discriminate based on race/illness/etc., said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, healed people who were sick, and stood up for the occasional injustice. And turned water into wine. 

Fundies seem to focus more on the old testament, the "rules" and all the small stuff. I tend to think Jesus was unlikely to sweat the small stuff. I tend to go more for the "loving father" figure of God than the "almighty smiter of people who make minor mistakes" one.

I think some people would consider me not actually Christian because I tend to think if God has three aspects then he could have more than three, and probably a bunch of different names, too - and God as a higher power who takes whatever name or form works for each person in each culture makes much more sense to me than a God who created everyone and considers everyone his children, but then only let certain groups know about him and sends every one of his children in groups who haven't heard of him yet to hell. I think God uses different names in different cultures, and cares more about what kind of person you are than what name you call him. 

Thanks for coming to my rambling TED talk that is only vaguely on topic!

@Alisamer, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You mentioned the OT laws ... Fundies seem to focus more on the old testament, the "rules" and all the small stuff. I tend to think Jesus was unlikely to sweat the small stuff. I tend to go more for the "loving father" figure of God than the "almighty smiter of people who make minor mistakes" one.

I have never understood why they pick and choose.  Either they follow it completely, or they don't.  I imagine they rarely follow a kosher diet, they blend their fabrics etc., but yet use the convenient aspect of the other laws to condemn others.  Don't they recognize the hypocrisy of this behavior?   If they want others to join their brand of Christianity, how on earth do they justify the discrepancies of their faith, don't potential converts ask questions?  It's just mind boggling.

  

[JanasTattooParlor]

3 hours ago, LanaBanana said:

David and Hannah have opened a public Instagram account

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRY-ySpsf1A/

Has anyone looked at their first post? It literally starts off with “Nothing about David or I was prearranged. We chose each other.” Unless they’ve been reading here or Reddit, why would they start a public Instagram and start telling their side of the story? No one in the non-fundie world outside of snark groups know who they are. Also, starting their story off that way really makes it seem like the opposite is true whether she realizes that or not. Oh and they left the comments on and every single one is negative or telling her good luck being related to the Rodriguii. Post in spoiler for anyone who doesn’t have an Instagram. 
 

Spoiler

 

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

Were the jewels and mansions solid things or metaphors for Heaven?  

They were supposed to be real things. The crowns filled with jewels we were supposed to go throw at the feet of Jesus at some point in our heavenly stay. The gate of heaven was made out of one giant pearl. The streets were gold. The walls of heaven were made out of blue glass or something like that.  And there was going to be a feast that lasted a thousand years. It is all very weird to think about now.