Jinger Duggar Vuolo 60

[lumpentheologie]

3 hours ago, Nothing if not critical said:

I was raised Catholic, and when I first started questioning religion as a teen, I remember having long discussions about the exact meaning of Bible passages, about mistranslations and wilful misunderstandings and manipulations. And then at some point I realised that all that didn't really matter to me anymore, because I didn't believe the Bible was the word of God anyway, so why would I care about what it said in the first place (except as a matter of historical curiosity)?

I think something can have religious value without being the literal word of God. There are lots of Christians who don’t think the Bible is all true (although fundies wouldn’t consider them Christians, I guess). 

The texts that make up the New Testament don’t even really claim to be the word of God, not in the way fundies mean or in the way that the Qur’an claims to be, for example. That’s just tradition. [There’s an argument to be made regarding 2 Timothy but I think it’s hard to claim the author (again, not Paul) could be talking specifically about a compiled document that wasn’t even close to existing yet.] When those texts talk about the “word of God” they don’t mean the actual text you’re reading, they mean the message of salvation, the “good news” that the text conveys, or, in later texts like the Gospel of John, something more mystical/enigmatic.  

So if you’re religious it’s totally possible to believe that Jesus’ life and death were divine events but that the Bible is an account of those events written by fallible people and not also itself divine. That’s basically what I was brought up to believe by very liberal Catholic parents. There are also people who think none of it is divine but that the Bible contains valuable teachings despite that. 

I read the Bible (in different versions) and read about the Bible pretty regularly despite not thinking it’s the word of God, and I’d say that’s not just for historical curiosity (although that’s certainly a part of it). I think it has a lot of interesting things to say, things that are worth considering on their own merits regardless of whether you’re religious about it. I used to teach parts of the Bible alongside Plato and Aristotle for that reason. I think it’s also very much living folklore and huge touchstone of cultural and political identity in the present day. Fundies want us to think we have to choose between the Bible being the word of God on one hand or worthless trash on the other, but there are lots of other options. 
 

3 hours ago, Meggo said:

I've always thought of it as the longest game of telephone ever. It's impossible to know the source of any of it really.

We do know many things about the sources though! Linguistic analysis and historical context can tell us a lot, like which texts were written by the same person or ‘school’, when and where they lived, what their educational background and religious/philosophical commitments were, and what was probably added by someone else, etc. AI is getting even better at some of that analysis. 

It’s just that fundies turn their backs on these things instead of thinking they’re useful sources of information. Historically, fundamentalism came into being as a rejection of modern biblical criticism since they decided knowledge is of the Devil and it’s better just to stick your head in the sand. Its whole premise is that trying to understand will just send you to hell, so you don’t have to understand, you just have to obey. Which is why I think these pseudo-intellectuals like Jeremy who try to have it both ways are just ridiculous. 

[SassyPants]

3 hours ago, Meggo said:

I've always thought of it as the longest game of telephone ever. It's impossible to know the source of any of it really. And if every person added their own vague bit to it, and everyone interprets it slightly differently based on their own prejudices (the fact that we can probably find a pro/con item in there for nearly every single thing in the world) - enh. 
Weirdly - I was raised Catholic - SO not practicing anymore - but looking through my parents house - they have at LEAST 20 bibles. Minimum. But I can honestly say that outside of religion classes in high school or whenever - I've never read the bible - and I'm pretty sure my mom has only read what she was instructed to read - in church, in prayer group or whatever. Like "sit down every morning to read the bible" - never something I ever witnessed (and my family is really uber Catholic).

 

Raised RC as well. Attended RC schools K- BS degree, and outside of college Theology classes, I never read the Bible in school. Now my early elementary school years were at the start of Vatican 11, so I am sure that really affected the education process. Beyond Genesis I am OT deficient, but I have read the NT and am good on that information. What has helped me build back tremendously in the last 3 years is reading the catechism of the church- the “why” if you will. This is how I realized how poorly I was educated in the faith all those years ago. Also, from the early 2000s (abuse scandals) we did move away from the church, and for awhile were members of a UU Fellowship. I love the UU principles, but I needed more tenets and answers. Knowing the catechism is what really enhanced my faith and strengthened my belief in the word. FWIW, there are elements of the church I do not agree with, so there will always be struggles.

[St.Clara]

40 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

I think something can have religious value without being the literal word of God. There are lots of Christians who don’t think the Bible is all true (although fundies wouldn’t consider them Christians, I guess).

It frustrates me to no end that fundamentalists think that it is up to them to decide who is a Christian and who isn´t. Historically speaking, all the Protestant churches (although there were a lot of differences between them) had, at least, that one thing in common, namely that they refused to give one person, the pope, the power to determine whether someone was a Christian or not. You can disagree with that (and Catholics will) but I do think it is a fair point. How would one fallible human being - even if he was very learned - could have the ultimate say in transcendental matters? Should it not be ultimately left to God to decide who he recognizes as his follower?

One could even quote Luke 13 to make that case:

Quote

He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’

“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

But instead of leaving this decision to God, every fundamentalist dumbass Tom, Dick or Harry now thinks that he is qualified to make this determination. In that case, I prefer the pope...

I am sure they don´t know about the history of their faith and they have never thought about it. But it frustrates me because it is in my opinion a case of harming themselves and others because of sheer stupidity and because of a refusal to learn and reflect. That is the sort of thing that really bothers me.

[Meggo]

3 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

We do know many things about the sources though! Linguistic analysis and historical context can tell us a lot, like which texts were written by the same person or ‘school’, when and where they lived, what their educational background and religious/philosophical commitments were, and what was probably added by someone else, etc. AI is getting even better at some of that analysis. 

 

I think I meant more the motivation of the sources. Was someone pushing an agenda? Maybe? So while it might be a good book to learn from and to learn the teachings of - I'm not sure I can buy it as a full guide to live my life (not saying that you do, just in general). There a lot of other great books that teach great lessons too. 

My struggle with Catholicism is those gray areas. I didn't think I could be a pick & choose Catholic. I couldn't agree on God being compassionate and loving and forgiving, and then the church saying that remarriage is a sin unless you get an annulment. I just had issues with the inconsistencies, much to my parents dismay. I haven't been to church (outside of funerals and weddings) since 2012 when I went for Christmas Eve mass and the mass had changed SO much since I'd been there last - I got no comfort or ease from it at all. 

 

[Cam]

Raised Catholic. Became born again Pentecostal in my 20s. Now agnostic. I think if there were such a deity as a loving God, the concepts surrounding religion would not be so complicated. How could a deity really care if these people over here ate meat during Lent? There is so much discrepancy between what even one Catholic (Baptist, Presbyterian, Greek Orthodox, etc.) church in this town preaches and one in the next, let alone across the county or world. I also don’t understand how those with diminished mental capacity are supposed to understand and follow, or I guess given a pass because of their disability. But all these intellectuals argue the finer points. Imo, God should not be so complicated.

I also do not accept a loving God because of the Holocaust. Especially after watching Ken Burns comprehensive documentary about it. Just no. I am reminded of the following quote which may be harsh for some to read. 

Spoiler

’If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”   — Tracie Harris

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Cam

[Father Son Holy Goat]

I’m reading Jinger’s book right now and the biggest thing I had a reaction to was when she talked about Bill Gothard taking them to his favorite restaurant, Omega. 
 

Ive been to Omega before, it’s a casual family restaurant with a Greek bend. It’s good, but really? You are building your cult on the backs of these girls and you bring them to Omega?! There’s so many more imposing places near Headquarters, I’m surprised Gothard didn’t pick one of those, and a bit offended on behalf of Jinger. She deserved a high end place. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Father Son Holy Goat

[JDuggs]

9 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I’m reading Jinger’s book right now and the biggest thing I had a reaction to was when she talked about Bill Gothard taking them to his favorite restaurant, Omega. 
 

Ive been to Omega before, it’s a casual family restaurant with a Greek bend. It’s good, but really? You are building your cult on the backs of these girls and you bring them to Omega?! There’s so many more imposing places near Headquarters, I’m surprised Gothard didn’t pick one of those, and a bit offended on behalf of Jinger. She deserved a high end place. 

I didn’t realize you were from the area. I’ve only been to Omega one time around 30 years ago. I can easily see it being Gothard’s favorite place. He probably doesn’t spend a lot of money on upscale dining.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

2 hours ago, JDuggs said:

I didn’t realize you were from the area. I’ve only been to Omega one time around 30 years ago. I can easily see it being Gothard’s favorite place. He probably doesn’t spend a lot of money on upscale dining.

Originally, I’ve since moved away. 
 

I know it’s a silly thing to react to, but it jumped out at me.

[meep]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:27 PM, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I think there are biblically based beliefs then there are traditions. Some of them are harmless, Christmas music is a good example of this, and some aren’t so harmless. 

Eh. Yeah but for my mom specifically, she is obsessive about objects that have "evil spirits" and she is always crying about how it's her fault from the sins of her past whenever bad things happen to her children and grand children.

[patsymae]

On 10/4/2023 at 12:14 PM, SassyPants said:

Raised RC as well. Attended RC schools K- BS degree, and outside of college Theology classes, I never read the Bible in school. Now my early elementary school years were at the start of Vatican 11, so I am sure that really affected the education process. Beyond Genesis I am OT deficient, but I have read the NT and am good on that information. What has helped me build back tremendously in the last 3 years is reading the catechism of the church- the “why” if you will. This is how I realized how poorly I was educated in the faith all those years ago. Also, from the early 2000s (abuse scandals) we did move away from the church, and for awhile were members of a UU Fellowship. I love the UU principles, but I needed more tenets and answers. Knowing the catechism is what really enhanced my faith and strengthened my belief in the word. FWIW, there are elements of the church I do not agree with, so there will always be struggles.

The catechism is about one zillion light years behind what the theologians say and know. For example, Pope Francis himself is on record as saying there is no hell. The Franciscans do not believe in original sin or that Jesus died on the cross to placate a vengeful God for the "sins" of people God created. OR that he was physically resurrected.
It's all in the interpretation. And they keep most of the interpreting out of the catechisms.

[Meggo]

13 hours ago, patsymae said:

The catechism is about one zillion light years behind what the theologians say and know. For example, Pope Francis himself is on record as saying there is no hell. The Franciscans do not believe in original sin or that Jesus died on the cross to placate a vengeful God for the "sins" of people God created. OR that he was physically resurrected.
It's all in the interpretation. And they keep most of the interpreting out of the catechisms.

Wait - Franciscans don't believe in original sin? Isn't that in the Apostles Nicene Creed though? I am SURE I have said that in church at some point. How do they ... get away with not believing what seems to be a central tenant to the faith - that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for our sins (side note: was that ALL sins? was it the sins that had happened before then? the sins that were to come? and was it big sins like "murder" AND small sins like "I swore and didn't go to church on Sunday"?)

Also - one thing I was raised with - that made me just confused and pushed me to leave - Mom & Dad were (and still are) BIG rule followers. So if the rule is that you MUST attend church on Sunday - they followed that. (granted - sometimes they went on Saturday). But it didn't matter if the entire service was IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE and you therefore couldn't understand a word of it - we'd have to go. I mean - sure - you showed up. But... wouldn't God want you to .. understand it? Not just check the box? It seemed like God would have some gray areas on that point. And confession - the sacrament? No thanks - I think I went a few times - but when I was 8, and making stuff up because I couldn't THINK of a sin... that just ... didn't work for me. (I think we had to go a few times - around confirmation, and then maybe it was just offered to us after that and I refused to go) 

[treehugger]

I grew up in the Dutch/Free Reformed circles. We read through the entire Bible yearly, and memorized large portions of the catechism.  I don’t know which catechism is being referred to up above, but I definitely do not recommend the Reformed version.  Written several hundred years ago by men who had a vested interest in retaining their religious and political power. No thanks. There’s nothing like being told you are a “filthy rag” and “lowly worm” deserving only of being ground under God’s foot, and hellfire every Sunday of your formative years so you don’t ever forget where you’d be if god didn’t decide to randomly and arbitrarily save a few people, to really fuck a person up. The Reformed Catechism really likes to emphasize those points.  Keep people’s self esteem extra low, they are easier to abuse and manipulate that way. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by treehugger

[SassyPants]

I recently read the book Destined for Salvation (K. Fristad) written by a Methodist minister who is also a Christian Universalist. Any Christian having questions surrounding hell should read this book. I was already in the camp that no one languishes in the state of eternal damnation unless that is where they prefer to exist. The book addressed other issues too, including co-dependency, forgiveness, healing, stages of spiritual growth, all grounded in theology. 

[lumpentheologie]

20 hours ago, Meggo said:

Wait - Franciscans don't believe in original sin? Isn't that in the Apostles Nicene Creed though? I am SURE I have said that in church at some point. How do they ... get away with not believing what seems to be a central tenant to the faith - that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for our sins (side note: was that ALL sins? was it the sins that had happened before then? the sins that were to come? and was it big sins like "murder" AND small sins like "I swore and didn't go to church on Sunday"?)

Also - one thing I was raised with - that made me just confused and pushed me to leave - Mom & Dad were (and still are) BIG rule followers. So if the rule is that you MUST attend church on Sunday - they followed that.

In religious studies we have a distinction between “top down” religion (what the people at the top of the hierarchy want followers to believe) and “bottom up” religion (what people belonging to the religion actually believe/do). They are always very different, and imo Catholicism in particular has A LOT of diversity. An extreme example, but my family managed to be both Catholics and crypto-Jews for over 400 years. 

It used to be that scholars looked at the official doctrine as the “real” religion and all the followers doing something else as somehow “wrong” but in modern scholarship a given religion is defined as much (or more) by what the laity believe/do as by official doctrine. 

[Kiki03910]

1 hour ago, lumpentheologie said:

In religious studies we have a distinction between “top down” religion (what the people at the top of the hierarchy want followers to believe) and “bottom up” religion (what people belonging to the religion actually believe/do). They are always very different, and imo Catholicism in particular has A LOT of diversity. An extreme example, but my family managed to be both Catholics and crypto-Jews for over 400 years. 

It used to be that scholars looked at the official doctrine as the “real” religion and all the followers doing something else as somehow “wrong” but in modern scholarship a given religion is defined as much (or more) by what the laity believe/do as by official doctrine. 

There's an interesting history of crypto-Jewish people in northern New Mexico. I don't think the end of the story has been written yet.

https://www.jta.org/2011/09/28/united-states/new-genetic-evidence-links-spanish-americans-of-southwest-to-jews

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/mistaken-identity-the-case-of-new-mexicos-hidden-jews/378454/

 

[lumpentheologie]

1 hour ago, Kiki03910 said:

There's an interesting history of crypto-Jewish people in northern New Mexico. I don't think the end of the story has been written yet.

https://www.jta.org/2011/09/28/united-states/new-genetic-evidence-links-spanish-americans-of-southwest-to-jews

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/mistaken-identity-the-case-of-new-mexicos-hidden-jews/378454/

 

Yes, those are my ancestors! They were the first Europeans to settle in New Mexico in 1598. It was considered pretty worthless land by the Spanish at the time (no gold) and so a lot of Sephardic Jews fled there once the Inquisition came to Mexico City. Originally it was the only Spanish settlement in the Americas without a priest. They were all forced to convert to Catholicism officially but kept up Jewish beliefs and practices as well. My family doesn’t even believe Jesus is God but still they go to Catholic school, have Catholic weddings and funerals, say the rosary, etc. It’s interesting.

But there are lots of ways of doing religion and some of them don’t necessarily seem to “make sense” from a belief-centered approach. The centrality of belief in religion is really a Protestant thing that also crept into Catholicism starting in the Counter-Reformation. But even long after that, until Vatican II, when the Mass was still in Latin, it was the ritual that was important, not so much understanding what was being said. The priests didn’t even face the congregation then, they faced the altar. So the idea was the priests were having an interaction with God on behalf of the congregation, which was more or less a passive recipient.

For anyone interested in reading more, a great book is To the End of the Earth: a History of the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico by Stanley Hordes. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by lumpentheologie

[SassyPants]

9 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

Yes, those are my ancestors! They were the first Europeans to settle in New Mexico in 1598. It was considered pretty worthless land by the Spanish at the time (no gold) and so a lot of Sephardic Jews fled there once the Inquisition came to Mexico City. Originally it was the only Spanish settlement in the Americas without a priest. They were all forced to convert to Catholicism officially but kept up Jewish beliefs and practices as well. My family doesn’t even believe Jesus is God but still they go to Catholic school, have Catholic weddings and funerals, say the rosary, etc. It’s interesting.

But there are lots of ways of doing religion and some of them don’t necessarily seem to “make sense” from a belief-centered approach. The centrality of belief in religion is really a Protestant thing that also crept into Catholicism starting in the Counter-Reformation. But even long after that, until Vatican II, when the Mass was still in Latin, it was the ritual that was important, not so much understanding what was being said. The priests didn’t even face the congregation then, they faced the altar. So the idea was the priests were having an interaction with God on behalf of the congregation, which was more or less a passive recipient.

For anyone interested in reading more, a great book is To the End of the Earth: a History of the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico by Stanley Hordes. 

In the old days when bells were rung at certain parts of the Mass we were told that was to alert the congregation that this part of the celebration was important and to pay attention. One priest told us that congregants used to play cards during the Latin Mass.

[noseybutt]

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

In the old days when bells were rung at certain parts of the Mass we were told that was to alert the congregation that this part of the celebration was important and to pay attention. One priest told us that congregants used to play cards during the Latin Mass.

I feel so much better about how my children have behaved in church over the years. 😂 I never saw the point of making it miserable for them so yeah, they played games and drew pictures and built Legos.

[patsymae]

In the old days when bells were rung at certain parts of the Mass we were told that was to alert the congregation that this part of the celebration was important and to pay attention. One priest told us that congregants used to play cards during the Latin Mass.

 

One Easter went to midnight Mass at a church where there was almost nobody but a bunch of old grandmas. I had my one-year old in a pack on my back. When they rang the bell for the consecration (for non-Catholics, about the most sacred moment in the whole liturgy), he called out "Who is it?" Echoed through the whole church. The priest was cool about it. The babushkas, not so much.

[Cam]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:35 AM, treehugger said:

I grew up in the Dutch/Free Reformed circles. We read through the entire Bible yearly, and memorized large portions of the catechism.  I don’t know which catechism is being referred to up above, but I definitely do not recommend the Reformed version.  Written several hundred years ago by men who had a vested interest in retaining their religious and political power. No thanks. There’s nothing like being told you are a “filthy rag” and “lowly worm” deserving only of being ground under God’s foot, and hellfire every Sunday of your formative years so you don’t ever forget where you’d be if god didn’t decide to randomly and arbitrarily save a few people, to really fuck a person up. The Reformed Catechism really likes to emphasize those points.  Keep people’s self esteem extra low, they are easier to abuse and manipulate that way. 

Omg. So much truth in your post!!!

 

On 10/12/2023 at 7:52 AM, Meggo said:

Wait - Franciscans don't believe in original sin? Isn't that in the Apostles Nicene Creed though? I am SURE I have said that in church at some point. How do they ... get away with not believing what seems to be a central tenant to the faith - that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for our sins (side note: was that ALL sins? was it the sins that had happened before then? the sins that were to come? and was it big sins like "murder" AND small sins like "I swore and didn't go to church on Sunday"?)

Also - one thing I was raised with - that made me just confused and pushed me to leave - Mom & Dad were (and still are) BIG rule followers. So if the rule is that you MUST attend church on Sunday - they followed that. (granted - sometimes they went on Saturday). But it didn't matter if the entire service was IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE and you therefore couldn't understand a word of it - we'd have to go. I mean - sure - you showed up. But... wouldn't God want you to .. understand it? Not just check the box? It seemed like God would have some gray areas on that point. And confession - the sacrament? No thanks - I think I went a few times - but when I was 8, and making stuff up because I couldn't THINK of a sin... that just ... didn't work for me. (I think we had to go a few times - around confirmation, and then maybe it was just offered to us after that and I refused to go) 

Omg. More truth. How much meaning did adults get out of a Latin mass? How much less meaning than that did the children get? Yet we had to go every Sunday.

Again, my point that even within the same religion there is so much different interpretation. No one is on the same page. Is that what a true loving God really wants?

I recently had some unexpected extensive medical issues and was so impressed with the large hospital in a big city that took care of me. Incredible, knowledgeable professionals, well run hospital, caring support staff. Seemingly effortless teamwork. This is what I witnessed. Now my fruitcake sisters-in-law are gonna tell me “ Praise Gawd!” What an incredibly oversimplified and superficial thing to say. They want to give an apparition ( at best) the credit for a maze of health care professionals taking care of people in great need. I have no problem with faith being part of someone’s life, but there is so much more involved than that. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Cam

[Meggo]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:36 PM, patsymae said:

In the old days when bells were rung at certain parts of the Mass we were told that was to alert the congregation that this part of the celebration was important and to pay attention. One priest told us that congregants used to play cards during the Latin Mass.

 

One Easter went to midnight Mass at a church where there was almost nobody but a bunch of old grandmas. I had my one-year old in a pack on my back. When they rang the bell for the consecration (for non-Catholics, about the most sacred moment in the whole liturgy), he called out "Who is it?" Echoed through the whole church. The priest was cool about it. The babushkas, not so much.

Little old me - at age three- had the same reaction. I stood up and said "come in!" 

On 10/13/2023 at 5:02 PM, noseybutt said:

I feel so much better about how my children have behaved in church over the years. 😂 I never saw the point of making it miserable for them so yeah, they played games and drew pictures and built Legos.

We went to a funeral a few years ago in a Mennonite church. Not quite old colony, but also not quite super modern either. My son - age 3 or so - came with us. We all sat at the very back - ready to make a speedy exit, I came with a host of quiet toys for him (a matchbox car, some coloring, playdoh etc). The church also had a wide selection of coloring pages and crayons all set up a little table in the back - like a coffee table height - so perfect for little people. Definitely something put there for them. 
He was absolutely perfectly behaved the entire service. He only really poked his head up when there was singing at the end (likely the processional) and he was very excited about this. Most of the people in the church were surprised (when they were exiting) that there even WAS a little kid at the back because he was super quiet. Some of the old ladies were giving me the stink eye for my kiddo reacting to the music. (If I remember correctly - he wanted to see better - so was in one of our arms for that part and mesmerized by the music - maybe even swaying to it and clapped at the end). 
Like - did you even KNOW there was a kid back here until the end? And I know it's a funeral - but three year olds clapping at the end of a song in a church - isn't that... kind of nice? He wasn't obnoxious - he was just little and was joyful. I firmly believe that God would WANT a joyful child in his church. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

I finished Jinger’s book. One thing that stood out to me is how well she lived the legalism of Gothard’s teachings. It occurred to me it mirrors the rules and legalism of an eating disorder, which Jinger discusses dealing with. 

[just_ordinary]

For reference- I am a pretty typical Protestant in my country. This entails go to church on Christmas Eve, knowing some of the nice stories (Noah, Christmas Story, Joseph and his brothers, Moses…) from childhood. We like to visit a church while sightseeing (Notre Dame, Westminster Abbey…). But that’s about it. Most don’t have a bible at home, or can even recite the Lord’s Prayer. We still christen our babies out of tradition and many go on and do confirmation around 13/14. Most wouldn’t answer the question if there is a God with a definite yes. And even more don’t believe that Jesus really defeated death. If he was even real. Heaven and Hell- also pretty irrelevant. Most teachings are ignored but for what you would consider normal morals. To know the pastor of your parish by name already makes you rather involved.

All this to say- even though religion and church don’t play a big part here, sometimes you can stumble over some very interesting things. (Not going deeper into the God as a young lover sermon. Or the Christmas story as a blockbuster. That was just hilarious.)

The most impactful one came in a moment I really needed it. Paraphrasing here: God is not about preventing bad things. But about sharing our burden of suffering. Standing next to us till we can stand on our own again. He can’t „help“ us, but with the death of his son, he showed that he understands the grief and sorrow and wants to face it with us.

Now, that’s very far off from an Allmighty God that actively leads our life. But I found this sermon particularly nice. 

[Ms. Brightside]

I should have taken a screenshot, but I didn’t think to and now it’s gone… Jinger is answering questions on her Instagram stories, and one was about school for the girls. 
 

She said Felicity has been in a hybrid program at a Christian school, and they have considered private Christian schools for the girls in the future. 
 

There has been a lot of speculation about what they were going to do re: education, and I think a lot of posters correctly predicted this choice!

[marmalade]

MacArthur's school offers hybrid kindergarten. I'm sure that's where Felicity is enrolled.