Maxwell 53: Escaping the Borg by Marriage. Who'd Have Thought Sarah?

[theologygeek]

5 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I have a reasonable idea of who likely did it not that it will help now.  I'm sure someone will remember the name.  There was a blog that hated FJ, hated Raising Ruth, and seemed determined to track down trolls and anyone they decided not to like.  They printed off all their research on Raising Ruth's entire internet presence under all her identities and sent it to Chris's now ex-husband and it was used in his divorce case.  

Was Raising Ruth the one who turned out to be lying?  The one that people gave money to?  I don't remember the blog that hated fj.  

[adidas]

Razing Ruth was a scammer. If you have a while there are lots of details in threads here:

https://www.freejinger.org/forum/252-razing-ruth/

[theologygeek]

16 minutes ago, adidas said:

Razing Ruth was a scammer. If you have a while there are lots of details in threads here:

https://www.freejinger.org/forum/252-razing-ruth/

I just did a google search to find it and then it came back to me.  I got flak for not believing her lol  

Edited July 8, 2022 by theologygeek

[Bluebirdbluebell]

Duggar Data did a whole posted about Kory. He's the 2nd of 11 children. That's a much bigger family than we had thought previously. I hope Sarah has a say in how public they are. 

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

18 hours ago, Caroline said:

All of this exciting news about the Maxwell women makes me think of two other former SAHDs who have really evolved.

Does anyone remember the two Rebeccas?  One (Rebecca Kellum from Missouri) would often respond to the Maxwell blog and it was generally agreed upon that she was maybe interested in a Maxwell man but that Steve would never want someone as provincial as her to marry one of his dazzling specimens of godly manhood.  It was also agreed that she was way better off without a Maxwell prude.  I'm sure she's very happy for all of the female Maxwell escapees.

The other Rebecca (of Unusual Maiden fame) has really come a long way.  She seemed to let go of a lot of her former godly beliefs in favor of embracing real life and all kinds of people. She was very open about her own anxiety disorder and truly supportive of others.   She was not friends with the Maxwells as far as I now.  She lives far away from them in a notoriously blue New England state.  

Rebecca Elevent!!!y? I remember her. She seemed so sweet, but yes provincial describes her perfectly. Last I remember her mother had died and she was working and single. I remember a very sad post of hers where she went to a thrift shop for her birthday (17 or 18) & bought an outfit for her future baby. 
Anyone have any more recent updates?

 

So happy for Sarah, I hope her future husband is kind, fun and adores her. 

[asta]

Rebecca stopped blogging, but you can find her on FB (Rebecca Kellum). She looks good in recent photos, very grown up. She has a ton of hobbies listed. 

I remember that her parents adopted a little boy before her mum died. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

5 hours ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Duggar Data did a whole posted about Kory. He's the 2nd of 11 children. That's a much bigger family than we had thought previously. I hope Sarah has a say in how public they are. 

I saw a ton of K names, so I knew their family was big. 

[CyborgKin]

Sarah Maxwell.  Engaged.  In jeans.  On camera and viewable on Youtube.

What.

What is the world coming to?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

edit: THE HUG.  THE FRONT HUG!

Edited July 8, 2022 by CyborgKin
unpaused the video

[CyborgKin]

On 7/6/2022 at 8:53 PM, ToriAmos said:

Sarah. Maxwell. Engaged. 
who next?

one of the Arndts. Or a Botkin daughter.

Soooo, got any lottery numbers?

[Alisamer]

11 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

It’s actually fairly common in eastern and southeastern Missouri, oddly enough. 

I know a few Bollingers here in North Carolina as well. Not fundie though, to my knowledge.

I know that since they are fundies it's not a given, but I hope (and what little we've seen makes it seem like) Kory and Sarah have taken the time to get to know each other, talk privately (even if it's on the phone or chat or whatever), and that they are both taking into account the other's preferences for things like the engagement timing. 

But I think the timing was really nice, IMO. Having fun, but in a church setting so Godly. Surrounded by people who clearly love Sarah, being cheered and congratulated, etc. After a life of deferring to Steve it must have been wonderful to have such proof that she can dress how she wants, have actual fun, and still be loved. AND now, finally, on her own (and likely on her own terms), she's finding love and getting married (which she was raised to believe was to be her profession in life) all while doing and wearing and listening to things Steve would have had a conniption about. 

I have no doubt that Steve withheld his affection and distributed judgement freely whenever the girls veered even the slightest bit off the path he strictly set up for them. Teri spent much of her life battling depression and following the almighty schedule and barely getting by, birthing kids she didn't want, while Steve slowly chipped away at the small happinesses in her life. I don't think she was likely a super affectionate person to begin with, and her life made it even less likely for her to be loving and affectionate toward her children. No doubt that the girls were brought up knowing that if they didn't toe the line perfectly dad would have a weeping meltdown and start preaching about paths to hell and where you will go when you die. 

And now look at her! Wearing jeans, having fun, hanging out with her dad's special nemesis: youth groups, getting engaged to a guy she is clearly comfortable with and definitely not "no touch" with... She starts breaking Steve's strict rules and suddenly, she's got a life of her own, her dog, a fiancé, and FUN. 

[freejugar]

Holy shit. I'd never thought she'd be getting married first. Go Sarah!

[16strong]

2 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

Sarah Maxwell.  Engaged.  In jeans.  On camera and viewable on Youtube.

What.

What is the world coming to?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

edit: THE HUG.  THE FRONT HUG!

Ummm, link please?

[Bethy]

6 minutes ago, 16strong said:

Ummm, link please?

Start on page 3 of this thread. You'll see it all (very quickly) unfold.

[theologygeek]

Somebody help me here...  Years ago, when Sarah wanted to wear pants, didn't Steve take her to an airport and bash people who were wearing pants?  I read about it here but can't find it on their blog.  Was it something he said at a conference or did he remove it from the blog?  I know I did not dream this lol  

[kpmom]

14 minutes ago, theologygeek said:

Somebody help me here...  Years ago, when Sarah wanted to wear pants, didn't Steve take her to an airport and bash people who were wearing pants?  I read about it here but can't find it on their blog.  Was it something he said at a conference or did he remove it from the blog?  I know I did not dream this lol  

I think this is how it went...

Sarah used to have her own web site (probably in her early 20's).  I don't recall the name, but something like Preparing Daughters.  She wrote an article on the site about being dresses only.  She mentioned she was dresses only when she was a kid because her parents wanted her to be, but as a young adult decided she liked being dresses only and wanted to continue it.  It was pretty smug iirc, and she said something like, "If there is an activity you feel you can't do in a dress, maybe you shouldn't be doing that activity."

I believe the airport trip was something Teri wrote about in one of her early Mom's Corners.  She wanted her daughters to see why Steve was against slits in skirts, contrasting buttons, etc.  They were supposed to watch and see where men's eyes were drawn to when a woman walked passed.  Some on FJ said this was a Gothard suggested activity, and the Maxwells must have been Gothard followers at the time.

To my knowledge, Sarah never wrote that she wanted to wear pants, although she did wear them as a youngster, as some of the old photos on their site show.

So anyone here who is somewhat new to the Maxwells, or don't follow them all that closely, you can see why we "old timers" are sitting here in shock over all the changes in Maxwell Land this past year.

[Triplet3]

On 7/6/2022 at 11:53 AM, ToriAmos said:

Sarah. Maxwell. Engaged. 
who next?

one of the Arndts. Or a Botkin daughter.

Well, one of the Arndts (Luke) is actually in a relationship, with a girl called Catherine Cox…and Elizabeth Botkin is married! Check out the threads in QoS! FJ found out about Luke a couple of months ago, I think, but the news about Elizabeth came out yesterday.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Triplet3

[theologygeek]

24 minutes ago, kpmom said:

I think this is how it went...

Sarah used to have her own web site (probably in her early 20's).  I don't recall the name, but something like Preparing Daughters.  She wrote an article on the site about being dresses only.  She mentioned she was dresses only when she was a kid because her parents wanted her to be, but as a young adult decided she liked being dresses only and wanted to continue it.  It was pretty smug iirc, and she said something like, "If there is an activity you feel you can't do in a dress, maybe you shouldn't be doing that activity."

I believe the airport trip was something Teri wrote about in one of her early Mom's Corners.  She wanted her daughters to see why Steve was against slits in skirts, contrasting buttons, etc.  They were supposed to watch and see where men's eyes were drawn to when a woman walked passed.  Some on FJ said this was a Gothard suggested activity, and the Maxwells must have been Gothard followers at the time.

To my knowledge, Sarah never wrote that she wanted to wear pants, although she did wear them as a youngster, as some of the old photos on their site show.

So anyone here who is somewhat new to the Maxwells, or don't follow them all that closely, you can see why we "old timers" are sitting here in shock over all the changes in Maxwell Land this past year.

Thank you!  Now I remember the site she had a long time ago.  And yes, she was smug.  

[theologygeek]

I found her old website in the archive.  Giggling...

Encouragement from Sarah

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Timothy 2:9).

In our society, modesty is a subject that is rarely discussed or broached. What some people consider modest is not modest at all! So, what IS modest? As a godly Christian girl how are you dressing? The Lord led us to wearing dresses (when say dresses throughout this article, I'm also referring to jumpers and skirts!) only when I was about ten or so. At first, I was just wearing dresses because my parents wanted me to. But, as I grew older, my love for wearing dresses increased as did my desire to not defraud men with what I wore. Now, the conviction that my parents’ had for me has been replaced with my own conviction to dress modestly.

We have several reasons why I wear dresses only. The main reason is not to defraud men with the way I dress. If a lady wears pants, a man’s eyes are drawn to a part of her body they should not be drawn to. This can cause a man to have impure thoughts. The same thing with tight, revealing tops or low-necked blouses. We have heard some say, “But he is responsible for his thoughts!” Yes, that is true, but it is also our responsibility as a godly woman to dress in a way that would not provoke those thoughts. Would you be willing to deny yourself the “pleasure” of dressing the way you want to help a brother in Christ? “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13). We could paraphrase it and say, “If a certain type of clothing make my brother to offend, I will not dress that way…”

Another reason we wear dresses is to appear distinctly feminine. Compare a girl wearing pants to a girl wearing a dress! Who looks more feminine? Clearly it’s the girl in a dress! We know some like to think that they have cute feminine pants, but pants are still men’s clothing in our day.

We would encourage you that it is important even if you are wearing dresses to have specific standards. Just because a girl wears a dress does not mean she is modest. From our experience, there are more immodest dresses available in the stores than there are modest ones. I prefer my dresses to be ankle length. I do not wear spandex type material in dresses, skirts, or jumpers because it is very clingy. I avoid slits in skirts (we sew them up :-)) because it draws a man’s eyes to a woman’s legs and creates a peek-a-boo effect. I do not wear low-necked shirts, blouses, or dresses but rather ones that are at the collarbone or above. I personally do not wear sleeveless shirts. When looking at someone wearing a sleeveless blouse, where are your eyes drawn? Most sleeveless shirts are loose around the armholes, therefore showing even undergarments much of the time. Please, I encourage you, re-evaluate if you are wearing sleeveless things.

My brothers and Dad go to an inner city homeless mission each month. A while ago, another church showed up to help with the service. They arrived late, and a woman was along with them. She was immodestly dressed, and as she walked down the aisle to sit near the platform, my brothers observed that the men about fell over watching her.

I would encourage you to run your outfits by at least your Dad, and maybe even your brothers. Since they are men, they will be able to evaluate clothing and see anything that might be immodest.

I can do virtually anything in a jumper that one can do in pants or shorts - including exercising! In fact, I walk three miles per day with at least one of my brothers or sister, and part of that is on a semi-busy road. One morning, I decided to count how many cars we saw on that 30 minute section, and can you believe it was around 250 cars?!! That would mean around 500 people see us every morning, modestly dressed while exercising. That in itself is a testimony! I know from comments we’ve heard that people definitely notice us. One time, my younger brothers and sisters and I walked to a gas station to get a treat. Someone held the door open for us and said something like, “Oh, so you’re the walkers we see every morning!” They felt like they knew us just because they saw us. We have also had people comment on how happy we look. May Jesus Christ be praised!

If you feel you can’t do something in a dress, I would encourage you to question whether it is an activity that you can do and be feminine.

I pray that this article is an encouragement to you, and that you will re-evaluate your clothing choices. In closing, I strongly encourage Dr. S.M. Davis’ tape on, “The Language of the Christian’s Clothing.” It is $8 for two CDs, and I think you will be blessed. You can also check out our Modest Dress Resource page for hints on where to buy modest clothes.

Joyfully His,

Sarah Maxwell

[NachosFlandersStyle]

15 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

It’s actually fairly common in eastern and southeastern Missouri, oddly enough. 

Yep, there's a Bollinger County near Cape Girardeau. Having lived not too far from there I typed "Bollinger" into Facebook and found dozens of people who I have various mutual friends with.

[theologygeek]

The Preparing Sons website is gold  https://web.archive.org/web/*/preparingsons.com

 

This is some sick shit...  he really thinks he's God with the confession.  

Our family worship is right after dinner usually. It is around half an hour currently with children ranging from 5 years old to 25.

We had been reading Proverbs and just now switched to the birth of Christ in the gospels. Each one reads two verses out loud. The children ask questions and I ask them questions as we go. We all pick a verse and share why it was especially meaningful us. Then we have a time of confession and end with a time of singing.

God will richly bless a family through family worship. He sure has ours.

God bless.

Steve

 

[hoipolloi]

42 minutes ago, theologygeek said:

The Preparing Sons website is gold  https://web.archive.org/web/*/preparingsons.com

Thank you! It is a goldmine.

I'd forgotten about the Titus2 message boards. Wasn't there some kind (or many kinds) of drama in them? I seem to remember something about Teri cracking down on anyone who disagreed with her.

[theologygeek]

6 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Thank you! It is a goldmine.

I'd forgotten about the Titus2 message boards. Wasn't there some kind (or many kinds) of drama in them? I seem to remember something about Teri cracking down on anyone who disagreed with her.

Yes!  I remember that.  It was a message board that Teri ran.  Let me see if I can find that for you in the archives.  

Edited July 8, 2022 by theologygeek

[Bethy]

1 hour ago, kpmom said:

Sarah used to have her own web site (probably in her early 20's).  I don't recall the name, but something like Preparing Daughters.  She wrote an article on the site about being dresses only.  She mentioned she was dresses only when she was a kid because her parents wanted her to be, but as a young adult decided she liked being dresses only and wanted to continue it.  It was pretty smug iirc, and she said something like, "If there is an activity you feel you can't do in a dress, maybe you shouldn't be doing that activity."

Wow...I had managed to forget that whole site (it was still linked on the Titus2 page when I first discovered the Maxwells.) Interesting things I found today via Wayback Machine:

• The modesty screed wasn't there until 2004. It wasn't even mentioned until then. But it stayed there, front and center, until the end of the site. I feel like the early 2000s were a time in Evangelical/fundie-lite circles where people were getting their proverbial knickers in a twist about modesty for some reason. The Harris brothers (The Rebelution) launched that icky modesty survey in late 2006. People were literally having debates over whether an ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit was more or less modest than a knee-length skirt (a surprising number believed the slit was inherently less modest, even if it actually revealed LESS leg than a knee-length skirt. Sarah mentions slits and the "peek-a-boo effect" on the Daughters site.) Many folks were dogmatic about the fact that anything sheer or flesh-colored counted as nudity - or possibly was WORSE than nudity. A whole lot of fundie bloggers from that era that I've kept track of here and there over the years were strictly skirts-only then, but dress more normally now.
• When the Daughters site first launched, they had a painfully small collection of stories, most of them appearing to be positively archaic, that they at least halfheartedly recommended. (Remember, these are people for whom the Little House books crossed a line.) By the end of the updates, the only books they recommended as worth reading were...wait for it...the Moody series. Because only their books were truly worthy... Also, as of the first Wayback capture in 2001, they were recommending a small handful of magazines with titles like "HopeChest" for girls. Those recommendations faded off into the sunset as well.

[theologygeek]

Here you go @hoipolloi  I found the moms board.  https://web.archive.org/web/20030401115635/http://titus2.com/forums/  

[hoipolloi]

20 minutes ago, theologygeek said:

Here you go @hoipolloi  I found the moms board.  https://web.archive.org/web/20030401115635/http://titus2.com/forums/  

OMFG. Talk about a goldmine of snark.