Jana Duggar 14: Child Endangerment Charges and Howlers Supporting Her Via Meme

[SassyPants]

4 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Can you post the link please?

Sorry…it was posted on Reddit last week, but I don’t remember the thread. I poked around but couldn’t find it. 

10 hours ago, Cam said:

Imo, their show influenced the directions of their lives. They were surrounded by a tv crew for years and whether they realized it or not, they were being continually exposed to a tiny bit of life outside their religion.
And this: JB wanted to keep interest in the show going. He figured why not make marrying off his daughters part of the storyline. I think he made what he thought were eligible suitors fit into this plan. He didn’t have time to drag things out. No time to say, well, that one won’t work, let’s try another dude. I almost feel like the Ben story of him living with the fam to get to know Jessa before marriage was concocted as a storyline and if they weren’t on a tv show, JB would never have gone that route. But it made for different take on fundie relationships.
 

 Imo, JB was vetting potential husbands through the lens of keeping the show moving forward, that was his priority,  not “how do I keep my family steeped in the IBLP/ATI lifestyle?” Probably made out like a bandit when ratings soared with the wedding episodes and then ones when the daughters started giving birth to their own kids.

So, indirectly, his greed tripped him up. With the show’s demise, he may do things differently with the younger daughters.

If they didn’t have the show, Ben likely would have never have known about Jessa. Doesn’t his family live like 3 hours away? 

[Bobology]

9 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

If they didn’t have the show, Ben likely would have never have known about Jessa. Doesn’t his family live like 3 hours away?

Interesting... and it was through Ben that Jinger met Jeremy. Most likely Derick knew of JB due to the  show, so there is a possible 3rd Duggar daughter married to a specific man because of the show. The Duggar sons' wives could also be analyzed in terms of the show, but I don't have enough info.

[Cat Damon]

10 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

If you want to find a zealot just look for a born again who was raised Catholic. 

Ugh- Mike Pence is a perfect example of this.

[SassyPants]

34 minutes ago, Cat Damon said:

Ugh- Mike Pence is a perfect example of this.

He calls himself an evangelical Catholic. God help us all.

[front hugs > duggs]

I know this is very like…basic? but I just can’t understand all the lying and deceit in this family and how they don’t remotely see the hypocrisy of how unbiblical it all truly is. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by front hugs > duggs
Pressed enter too soon

[Cam]

I don’t know where Ben lived, but if he’d lived closer, the move wouldn’t have been necessary. Clearly, the show expanded the potential husband material since more men were aware of the daughters. Had the Duggars lived anonymously in Arkansas, there’d have been a much more limited pool of suitors. So the initial success of X#ofKAC had far reaching impacts for this cult clan. Maybe the sin in the camp was TLC.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Cam

[nelliebelle1197]

On 12/16/2021 at 12:14 PM, justoneoftwo said:

It's important to note there's no way Jenna could know they would win in fact none of us can know that for sure

Except people don’t usually settle if they think they can win. Especially control freaks with bad hair and a big ego. 

[nelliebelle1197]

21 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

So was Katey I believe, but they later turned to IBLP. I suppose as long as you get "saved" later, then it's okay. 

One thing to remember though- IBLP is not a religion but sort of a Christian self-actualization cult. Not everyone who follows IBLP teachings follows them exactly the same way. @formergothardite - who really is one- has noted there have always been families with different dress standards in IBLP conferences.  Jill Rodrigues follows the same doctrines as the Duggars but she was not brought up with IBLP and does not use the materials today. Same with Vision Forum- it was not a church but a business with books, homeschool supplements, toys,  films and conferences.

The core religious doctrines of both groups revolve around basic flavors of IFB/Bob Jones/PCC doctrines with IBLP or fundamentalist Calvinism with VF. That is one reason the Leaving Eden podcast annoys me because the female host does not get the doctrinal differences and lumps everything under her own experience with Jack Hyles’ brand of IFB, which is different than the IFB I was in - that is closer to the Duggars. Steve Anderson is closer to the Hyles version. And when the podcast covered Vision Forum she kept saying they were IFB when they are not- they are Calvinist, which is very different.

Edited December 18, 2021 by nelliebelle1197

[Italiangirl]

@nelliebelle1197 can you explain a little bit the difference between these groups? I have a hard time trying to understand where they differ, cause I have no frame of reference from here. Thanks 🥰

[nelliebelle1197]

2 hours ago, Italiangirl said:

@nelliebelle1197 can you explain a little bit the difference between these groups? I have a hard time trying to understand where they differ, cause I have no frame of reference from here. Thanks 🥰

Honestly, within IFB there is not much. But the practitioners believe there are vast divides. I know when I was in an IFB church and school, Jack Hyles was anathema. 

I found this and I think it does a better job than I could:

https://brucegerencser.net/2020/05/the-anatomy-of-the-ifb-church-movement/

My group clustered around Bob Jones and Maranatha - our leaders and teachers were all educated there. These groups do not necessarily feel affinity for each other even though the differences are negligible- it could be pre vs post trib rapture or legalistic nonsense like haircuts and skirts. Jill Rodrigues would not have been able to set foot in my IFB school; neither could her kids. They just would not have fit with the standards taught for modesty no matter the doctrine. 

Doug Phillips, the Botkins and the Mortons among others in the Vision Forum crowd follow/ed Rushdoony and the modernist Calvinist movement/Christian reconstructionists. I really think this group, which is actually likely to be more economically affluent and classically educated than IFB’ers, is much more insidious. But they are even more legalistic in a lot of ways and think of themselves as scholars and intellectuals. @hoipolloi can probably explain better than I but here here is a link to Rushdoony on Wikipedia that is pretty evenhanded and has a lot of rabbit holes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rushdoony

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by nelliebelle1197

[JermajestyDuggar]

11 hours ago, front hugs > duggs said:

I know this is very like…basic? but I just can’t understand all the lying and deceit in this family and how they don’t remotely see the hypocrisy of how unbiblical it all truly is. 

I think I can explain it. I’ve seen people justify lying “for the greater good.” They seriously see it like lying to the Nazis that you don’t have Jews hidden in your attic. They think that if the lies result in a greater good, then the lie is ok. That’s why anti abortion fanatics have no problem lying to women seeking an abortion. Because they legitimately believe they are saving babies from being murdered. They believe that if lying to a woman who then doesn’t get an abortion is worth it. 

[SassyPants]

Unfortunately a narcissist generally can not discern the difference between common good and self satisfaction and importance. Or maybe they can, but they believe whatever is good for them IS good for everyone.

[nokidsmom]

23 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yep!  If you want to find a zealot just look for a born again who was raised Catholic.  A close relative went fundy-lite when I was a kid and I was absolutely sick when she kept talking about how my father and the rest of my family were destined for hell.  Sometimes they can maintain the agree to disagree thing for a while but it always comes back to trying to save you.

I had a cousin go full-on fundie after her parents divorced, she was raised Lutheran.   Got roped in by her boyfriend and married in the KJV Bible believing church at the age of 18.   OMG were both of them zealots.   They gave their testimonies at their wedding, in his testimony he ended with the lovely proclamation telling people they were going to hell.   She renounced her Lutheran upbringing in her testimony in front of her parents and godparents sitting there.  We tolerated them but when they moved away it was a relief not to be saved at every family function.  

 

23 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

On a side note, everyone in my family (besides my mom) who went fundy-lite is still unhappy.  They went in looking for peace and several decades later they're still struggling with anger and unhappiness. 

Fundie cousin and her husband divorced 10 years later, she left her fundie phase behind.   Don't know really what happened to him but according to cousin's older brother he was still the same angry, unhappy guy we all knew.  Unfortunately during that fundie phase, cousin got her younger brother involved and he's still very much in fundieland having gone to some unaccredited Bible college and is doing part time preaching.   He doesn't strike me as that happy either. Years ago when he was in a more fundie-lite phase, he got into DVD collecting, something that he shared with Mr. No and it seemed that he really enjoyed it.  But then he doubled down when he went off to the Bible college, actually burned all his DVD's because ebil.  And he didn't speak to his sister for years when she divorced her husband and definitely went down a non-fundie road.

 

[Emma]

Not completely caught up yet.

I worked at a very conservative church for awhile and noticed there was a pretty high percentage of felons and addicts. My impression  was that they needed (used) the strict rules to help keep them out of their previous bad habits.

@GiggleOfGirls 

Visited a unique house once. It was built on a small cliff next to the ocean and the living room had a big window in the floor where you could see the waves on the beach below. They had a staircase to the second floor but also a full size trampoline. The idea being that you jumped on the trampoline, grabbed a rope and swung yourself to second floor landing.

[livinginthelight]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Unfortunately a narcissist generally can not discern the difference between common good and self satisfaction and importance. Or maybe they can, but they believe whatever is good for them IS good for everyone.

Narcissists have no category on their radar for "common good" or "others." They just don't think in those terms. Other people are merely props on the stage of the narcissist's life.

[neuroticcat]

8 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

One thing to remember though- IBLP is not a religion but sort of a Christian self-actualization cult. Not everyone who follows IBLP teachings follows them exactly the same way. @formergothardite - who really is one- has noted there have always been families with different dress standards in IBLP conferences.  Jill Rodrigues follows the same doctrines as the Duggars but she was not brought up with IBLP and does not use the materials today. Same with Vision Forum- it was not a church but a business with books, homeschool supplements, toys,  films and conferences.

The core religious doctrines of both groups revolve around basic flavors of IFB/Bob Jones/PCC doctrines with IBLP or fundamentalist Calvinism with VF. That is one reason the Leaving Eden podcast annoys me because the female host does not get the doctrinal differences and lumps everything under her own experience with Jack Hyles’ brand of IFB, which is different than the IFB I was in - that is closer to the Duggars. Steve Anderson is closer to the Hyles version. And when the podcast covered Vision Forum she kept saying they were IFB when they are not- they are Calvinist, which is very different.

Yes! I just recently learned that there were Amish and Mennonites in IBLP/ATI, which is wildly different from Uber reformed theology.

I also learned IBLP is the seminars that lots of people did, but ATI was the training/homeschool program that you had to actually apply for, agree to live a certain way (like throw out your tv, etc), and attend regular seminars. So definitely different levels of involvement.

Really recommend Heather Heath’s book Lovingly Abused. I just finished it, and she explains a lot of what it was like to live in and under the cultlike teachings, even as she explicitly says her mom was way more lenient than others. It’s really insightful.

[hoipolloi]

6 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

@hoipolloi can probably explain better than I but here here is a link to Rushdoony on Wikipedia that is pretty evenhanded and has a lot of rabbit holes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rushdoony

That wikipedia entry is a good start but be forewarned that Rushdooney and the cults he spawned are an absolute rats' nest of shite. If anyone is interested in an academic & historical treatment, many knowledgeable folks still recommend Julie Ingersoll's book, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction, which came out in 2015.

If you can handle lengthy podcasts, I also recommend listening to Christian Rightcast. They have done a number of deep dives into Rushdooney, Gothard and the Duggars, related cults like the Wilsons, and the connections between Rushdooney's "theology" and secular movements like libertarianism and politicians like Ron Paul.

[Militant Fecundity]

5 hours ago, Emma said:

Not completely caught up yet.

I worked at a very conservative church for awhile and noticed there was a pretty high percentage of felons and addicts. My impression  was that they needed (used) the strict rules to help keep them out of their previous bad habits.

For the most part, I’m here for whatever helps someone stay clean and become a productive member of society, conservative evangelical churches are all about the Testimony; the juicier the better. There’s a certain level of fundie street cred and ego stroking that comes with having a “powerful testimony”. 

[noseybutt]

7 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think I can explain it. I’ve seen people justify lying “for the greater good.” They seriously see it like lying to the Nazis that you don’t have Jews hidden in your attic. They think that if the lies result in a greater good, then the lie is ok. That’s why anti abortion fanatics have no problem lying to women seeking an abortion. Because they legitimately believe they are saving babies from being murdered. They believe that if lying to a woman who then doesn’t get an abortion is worth it. 

I agree this is a great description of the dynamic. Except, they don't acknowledge that they are lying.

For example, someone could say, "Yes, I lied to the women outside the abortion clinic but, by lying, I saved the life of a fetus."

As I understand it, the more IBLP response would be to ignore that you lied (because sin) and keep ignoring that you lied (because sin) and ignore any feelings around that lie (because sin) until there is, quite literally, either no conscious awareness of the lie OR conscious awareness but convoluted explanation. 

So the person who lied outside out the abortion clinic might say "I don't recall doing that" or "God gave me the words to say" or "God's truth is never a lie."

Whether memories are actual altered because of this process OR something of the memory is intact but overlayed by extreme mental gymnastics: It's insiduous.

[EmCatlyn]

On 12/16/2021 at 8:55 AM, imokit said:

I get the feeling that the TTH is a place where feral children run around in packs and adults interfere if there's screaming/the kids break something/bother them.  I've had that feeling since the shows, with the howlers running around, then the lost girls joining in.

I think as the Duggars have grown up, the mob mentality has continued.  Josh's overlap with M, meant there's still been a kid every 2 years with no break.  The Ms have been there enough to continue the pack thing, other siblings also drop off kids as they've started reproducing.

I don't think there's a lot of structure or supervision at the best of times.

One thing that has puzzled me is that the initial 14 (and 15) kid specials presented the children as somewhat unnaturally well-behaved.  But by 17 (or 18) and Counting, FJ is talking about Howlers and “feral” children.

Did the Duggar parents relax their discipline (too much work, maybe)?  Was having a bigger house conducive to more chaos?

As both a child and a parent I have known a few large families (7-14 kids) whose parents were “religious” (Catholics, Lubavitchers, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists).  In all cases, the kids were taught to be very well-behaved indoors.  You could go wild in the yard and on the farm, but inside the house you were quiet and civilized.  Obviously, I saw the kids as a visitor even when I was a kid myself, but it did seem to be expected that kids would be polite, never run, never shout indoors.  The mother of my daughter’s little Southern Baptist friend (the 5th kid in what was then a family of 8 ) would remind the children to use their “Indoor voices” all the time.

Is the “feralness” something where the Duggarlings devolved into, just as they gradually lost the frumpy clothing?  Was it just not shown in the first couple of specials? (I was never a regular viewer.  I watched while doing something else if I wanted something mindless in the background.)  What did more devoted Duggar watchers see?

[mpheels]

There were a bunch of changes in a short period of time that resulted in the younger Duggars seeming less well behaved that their older siblings. More space probably contributed, but also JB and Michelle gradually checked out of parenting as the older girls could take on more and more. They also wouldn’t have been as consistent with blanket training and other abusive discipline with TLC crews around, and there were (unknown to us) changes across the board in response to Josh’s behavior. Plus the younger kids had more worldly exposures earlier in life.

[Beermeet]

On 12/17/2021 at 8:18 AM, Cam said:

Imo, their show influenced the directions of their lives. They were surrounded by a tv crew for years and whether they realized it or not, they were being continually exposed to a tiny bit of life outside their religion.
And this: JB wanted to keep interest in the show going. He figured why not make marrying off his daughters part of the storyline. I think he made what he thought were eligible suitors fit into this plan. He didn’t have time to drag things out. No time to say, well, that one won’t work, let’s try another dude. I almost feel like the Ben story of him living with the fam to get to know Jessa before marriage was concocted as a storyline and if they weren’t on a tv show, JB would never have gone that route. But it made for different take on fundie relationships.
 

 Imo, JB was vetting potential husbands through the lens of keeping the show moving forward, that was his priority,  not “how do I keep my family steeped in the IBLP/ATI lifestyle?” Probably made out like a bandit when ratings soared with the wedding episodes and then ones when the daughters started giving birth to their own kids.

So, indirectly, his greed tripped him up. With the show’s demise, he may do things differently with the younger daughters.

That actually makes a lot of sense.  I keep wondering how some of the husbands were approved.  Jeremy and JB didn't get along and it was obvious.  Derick was towing the line as a baby fundie but, baby fundies are more able to see clearly at some point; it's not natural to them.  Ben is....Ben.  poor kid had parents give him away.  

But, if the motivation was wedding episodes and the fact the kids ( girls especially) can't be shown dating and giving heart pieces away, you get what looks good.  "Handsome" super religious dudes willing to go along with it now.  Is that at least part of what Derick meant when he said "akin to human trafficking "?

What exactly did he mean by that? 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Beermeet

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

.Really recommend Heather Heath’s book Lovingly Abused. I just finished it, and she explains a lot of what it was like to live in and under the cultlike teachings, even as she explicitly says her mom was way more lenient than others. It’s really insightful.

I just started the book and am really enjoying it— a light narrative voice and explains clearly.  Thanks for the suggestion.

[rainbowbabycakes]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:28 AM, ElizaB said:

Thinking of Jana's trouble has got me wondering: In Duggarland how many children is it considered "OK" for one person to watch? Daycares have ratio rules for a reason. While she may have made an honest mistake that anyone could have made- she quite possibly could have been in a situation that was in itself not safe and neglectful. Michelle always said, saying there are too many kids is like saying there are too many flowers. Well if there are too many flowers they will choke each other and die. 

I worked in daycare for years in Texas, and our ratios suck, lol

for infants (6 weeks-12 months) it's 1:4 or 2:10

Young tods (12-18 months) 1:5 or 2:13

Older tods (18-24 months) 1:9 or 2:18 (or within your room limits, they calculate the number of kids based on the the usable square footage of the room, ours capped at 2:13)

2's (24-36 months) 1:11 (or double with 2 teachers)

3's 1:15 (our center never had more than one teacher, but I'd assume it would double)

4's 1:18 (same as above)

5's 1:22 (same as above)

School age (kindergarten- 5th grade) 1:26 (not sure of the official 2 teacher ratio, ours capped at 33)

The fun part is that they base the ratio on the age that the majority of the kids in your class are, and the center I worked at for a long time took advantage of that. So as the year went on, and your kids aged up, they'd give you more... In the 2 year old room (1:11), with kids turning 3? as soon as you hit that halfway point of more kids that were 3 than 2, they'd bump you to the 1:15 ratio. It sucked. 

[Mama Mia]

6 minutes ago, rainbowbabycakes said:

I worked in daycare for years in Texas, and our ratios suck, lol

for infants (6 weeks-12 months) it's 1:4 or 2:10

Young tods (12-18 months) 1:5 or 2:13

Older tods (18-24 months) 1:9 or 2:18 (or within your room limits, they calculate the number of kids based on the the usable square footage of the room, ours capped at 2:13)

2's (24-36 months) 1:11 (or double with 2 teachers)

3's 1:15 (our center never had more than one teacher, but I'd assume it would double)

4's 1:18 (same as above)

5's 1:22 (same as above)

School age (kindergarten- 5th grade) 1:26 (not sure of the official 2 teacher ratio, ours capped at 33)

The fun part is that they base the ratio on the age that the majority of the kids in your class are, and the center I worked at for a long time took advantage of that. So as the year went on, and your kids aged up, they'd give you more... In the 2 year old room (1:11), with kids turning 3? as soon as you hit that halfway point of more kids that were 3 than 2, they'd bump you to the 1:15 ratio. It sucked. 

Those ratios sound absolutely horrifying. Terrible for any sort of nurturing, or even the basics of physical care —- but terrifying in case of emergency! What on earth would one person do with 11 toddlers ina fire!