Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[Witsec5]

Part of me still believes and part of me doesn't. I come from a family where there was a serious drama a minute and I know that when I was in my 30's if I kept a blog no one would have believed it. Truth IS stranger than fiction. Still lately something has been off about her story. The baby comes a month early but is able to go home pretty much right away; Rachel's wish to go to Disneyland; the baby's adoption by a lesbian couple. It's a bit much.

My sister is a pathological liar who is now doing her third stint prison for fraud and identity theft. I always fell for her lies because she was so good. So did everyone else. One thing I have learned is that a liar will give you more information than you have asked for or need--take it just a little step further so great is their need for embellishment. I could usually only tell this once I went back and retraced my sister's stories.

I never suspected Ruth of deception until now. Maybe some parts parts of her story are true but I am now a skeptic.

[Serious_News_Junkie]

that you started an account with an email entitled go fuck yourself is not working in your favor. It,s no about you being new, it's about you could be... hmmm let's say Isaiah! Plus you're not answering our answer to your concern... so read your email name!

That's the email I created after AnnieC pointed out that people could identify me by Googling the email address I used to join this forum. I'm just now responding to the attacks against me because I had to wait for my account to be reactivated after I changed my email address.

What about my original post reads like it might have been written by a homeschooled manchild from a patriarchal cult? Other than questioning a few inconsistencies in a specific blog, what have I said to suggest I'm actually a Bill Gothard supporter seeking to subvert this forum? I hope the rest of my compatriots in the fight against Gothardism, patriarchy, and religion-based misogyny are a bit more discerning.

I'm not responding to any of your "answers" because they're all based either on speculation ("maybe what happened is...") or the notion that Ruth has addressed the question at hand ("she's already said she did that because..."). Granted, speculation and Ruth's word are really all any of us have to go on at this point, but your answers based on speculation and Ruth's word carry no more weight than my concerns based on speculation and Ruth's word. And that's probably why you and AnnieC feel more comfortable resorting to ad hominem attacks than sticking to the issue at hand.

Honestly, which sounds more like the actions of a Gothardite (i.e., Daddy Darth or Isaiah)--presenting a well-articulated, well-reasoned argument or attacking someone's credibility and maliciously attempting to reveal his/her true identity?

[Coconut Flan]

I didn't find the baby coming early odd, but more expected due to the lack of pre-natal care and the stress Rachel was under combined with her youth. 35 to 36 weekers usually have a zero to one week NICU stay these days so that part tracked OK.

I've waffled back and forth but so far nothing has been completely unrealistic in the story. I think when we only see the exciting or dramatic parts, then it looks more easily made up than not. Having recently been called a liar behind my back for merely retelling some unusual anecdotes from 20 or more years ago, I'm leary of calling RR out over things that are more common than my anecdotes are.

[spragger]

1. I thought anybody who posted any skepticism about Ruth's story on here would get jumped on like they do in the comments on her blog, so I immediately have more respect for those of you on here who are willing to hear that and not make personal attacks.

2. I choose to just not donate because I have no way to be sure whether her story is true.

3. Sometimes the comments that make me suspicious as much as the story. A troll will show up, and somebody will comment and say,"I've been putting off donating, but now I'm going to!" It's like planting somebody in the crowd. It's just seems weird.

4. Equally crazy shit (of a different variety) happened to (or was witnessed by) me and I've had all the same horrible things said to me that Gothardites say to Ruth, so I know what it feels like, and I refuse to do it to her.

5. I think if Ruth's story IS true, it's smart for her to remain anonymous. Anybody who tries to claims otherwise is not very smart IMO.

6. I wish she would allow anonymous comments on her blog and just delete any trolls because other victims (people like her) might want to comment, but remain anonymous. Obviously it's her blog and her choice.

I would just suggest she not take donations. IDK if she even gets much money from them really. I hope if she does that she's reporting them on her taxes. It could come back to bite her in the ass since she accepts them through PayPal.

It just seems like if it is a "scam" (like Kaycee Nicole) it will come out eventually.

As far as the baby going to a same sex couple, I also envisioned two women, but I don't think she ever specified on her blog.

[Lostie]

6. I wish she would allow anonymous comments on her blog and just delete any trolls because other victims (people like her) might want to comment, but remain anonymous. Obviously it's her blog and her choice.

I would just suggest she not take donations. IDK if she even gets much money from them really. I hope if she does that she's reporting them on her taxes. It could come back to bite her in the ass since she accepts them through PayPal.

She did allow anonymous comments until just recently. She changed that because she was getting a lot of hateful comments.

Also, she's taken the paypal donation option down before, but people generally complain because they want to donate to her.

[Kitty]

I didn't find the baby coming early odd, but more expected due to the lack of pre-natal care and the stress Rachel was under combined with her youth. 35 to 36 weekers usually have a zero to one week NICU stay these days so that part tracked OK.

I've waffled back and forth but so far nothing has been completely unrealistic in the story. I think when we only see the exciting or dramatic parts, then it looks more easily made up than not. Having recently been called a liar behind my back for merely retelling some unusual anecdotes from 20 or more years ago, I'm leary of calling RR out over things that are more common than my anecdotes are.

Which confirms my belief that if none of this is true, then Ruth is a really good liar. I'm inclined to believe her; I'm not totally invested in her story because I don't have much reason to talk about ATI or Gothard outside of FJ.

As far as the premature birth goes, the birth was last week and the baby was able to go home this week, and was given drugs to mature her lungs before birth because of the risk she'd come prematurely. Note that Ruth didn't mention all of this at once, but across a number of posts. She'd have to have this elaborately planned ahead of time to pull this off.

[Chrystal-J]

Part of me still believes and part of me doesn't. I come from a family where there was a serious drama a minute and I know that when I was in my 30's if I kept a blog no one would have believed it. Truth IS stranger than fiction. Still lately something has been off about her story. The baby comes a month early but is able to go home pretty much right away; Rachel's wish to go to Disneyland; the baby's adoption by a lesbian couple. It's a bit much.

My sister is a pathological liar who is now doing her third stint prison for fraud and identity theft. I always fell for her lies because she was so good. So did everyone else. One thing I have learned is that a liar will give you more information than you have asked for or need--take it just a little step further so great is their need for embellishment. I could usually only tell this once I went back and retraced my sister's stories.

I never suspected Ruth of deception until now. Maybe some parts parts of her story are true but I am now a skeptic.

I could of written this post (other than my sister going to jail, but she is a major league liar). I'm beginning to think this is a bit much too. But, truth is stranger than fiction--so, who knows.

[Guest Anonymous]

I could of written this post (other than my sister going to jail, but she is a major league liar). I'm beginning to think this is a bit much too. But, truth is stranger than fiction--so, who knows.

I raised my eyebrows at the Disneyland thing when I saw it, but the more I thought about it I was swayed towards thinking it sounds more like (naive) truth than fiction: if the goal were to make money from donations.... honestly I think it would have been more lucrative to ask for something a little more 'worthy'.

[Deleted03]

1. I thought anybody who posted any skepticism about Ruth's story on here would get jumped on like they do in the comments on her blog, so I immediately have more respect for those of you on here who are willing to hear that and not make personal attacks.

.

Please note that I only responded to some guy (non Gothard affiliated or so he says) and did not respond to anyone who is "local"

I personally dislike people who join just to ditch speculations that they refuse to discuss on anyone we snark on, and particularly on someone who is on the board.

[luckylibrarian]

I tend to think that most of Ruth's story is true and that she may have changed some details to further protect her anonymity (which would be wise, anyway.) I absolutely don't think that Ruth is really some fifty year old man running a scam from his parents' basement. I think she mostly is who she says she is. I share Austin's feeling that it seems unlikely that Rachel would decide on gay couple on her own after being out of ATI for a short time. Someone suggested that it's possible Ruth steered her in the direction of a gay couple because that's as far from ATI as one could get. I could see that happening as well.

I missed the Disneyland thing. What was that about?

[Guest Anonymous]

Please note that I only responded to some guy (non Gothard affiliated or so he says) and did not respond to anyone who is "local"

I personally dislike people who join just to ditch speculations that they refuse to discuss on anyone we snark on, and particularly on someone who is on the board.

I think skepticism about Ruth's identity is healthy and inevitable, given that Ruth chooses to remain anonymous. If it turns out that she is fake then I'll be disappointed, but it won't make Gothard any less the villain in the piece just because I got distracted for a while by a fake blog.

My issues were with my own skepticism about a new poster who brought old news here, possibly in order to drive traffic to his own bloglist (which carries paid adverts).

And new poster: there was no malicious attempt on my part to 'out' you to the inlaws that you had not mentioned at that point. But I am not a compatriot of yours in a war against Gothardism and you should be careful not to expect sympathy and protection here by virtue of having lurked a while and having similar opinions to some of the members here. Ultimately, we just both happen to be members of the same snark board. Your opinions are perfectly valid - you get to snark on whoever you like but so do I - you don't get to control who I snark on by moralising to me about the people "who truly deserve it".

If a newbie pings my radar then I will sometimes look them up. I did not post any direct links to identifying information about you but I did find plenty and I alerted you as well as others to the fact: seriously, if you want to protect yourself, your wife and anyone else in your life then it would be best if you take responsibility for separating out the parts of your online life that list your name address and photographs, from the parts that you'd rather keep hidden. Your identity is your responsibility.

[apple1]

In the past, I have actually argued FOR Ruth's veracity here on FJ. I am beginning to change my mind. Something about this is not ringing true to me. I agree that it is not necessarily all or nothing.

I admit to being unsurprised by this adoption story outcome, and I rarely go to the blog. But there was definite use of the literary device of foreshadowing with this story. (What is Ruth's college major supposed to be anyway?)

The literary device foreshadowing refers to the use of indicative words/phrases and hints that set the stage for a story to unfold and give the reader a hint of something that is going to happen without revealing the story or spoiling the suspense. Foreshadowing is used to suggest an upcoming outcome to the story.

[Rowan]

To me, the part where all indicators show that it is a lesbian couple makes it believable even with Rachel's background. Was she specifically looking for this situation? No. But when the info on paper looked good, there might have also been the thought that it would be nice for her child to have two moms. Ruth and Rachel's father has been abundantly described as being a horrible, sexist, close-minded, controlling and relatively uncaring father in regards to his daughters' well-being. So maybe that this family would not have a male in that position was a bonus for Rachel that overrode the brainwashing she had received about LGBT people - she obviously had reason to already question a lot of what she had been taught based on the reactions of her family and the baby's father's family.

[Guest Anonymous]

I missed the Disneyland thing. What was that about?

It isn't something that has been widely discussed I don't think. Personally I mentioned it because it was a small thing that jarred with me and caused me to reflect a bit more than usual. At her readers' request, Ruth agreed to accept donations for a 'baby shower' for Rachel and because she obviously doesn't need baby things, the idea was to purchase other necessities and treats for her. One of the things Ruth mentioned was that Rachel would like to 'live it up at Disney'. Some commenters on the blog cautioned against booking anything in advance because Rachel might be in a fragile state and struggle with being around children en masse, immediately after the adoption. Personally when I saw it I thought, oh bugger, given that the 'tip jar' causes such controversy, a discussion around the use of tips for a frivolous thing, rather than say clothes or deposit on a flat, may lead to more mayhem about whether the blog is real or just a blag for money.

[MerryHappy]

I am x-ATI and I believe Ruth is legit, for what that is worth.

Rachel had a bit more life experience than I think a lot of folks are giving her credit for. IIRC, Rachel had left Darth Daddys home once before and then returned. She was not completely ignorant of how the world works and who makes up the population.

The fact that she adopted her child out to a gay couple is not surprising to me. From a ATIA POV, that child is undesirable as it was conceived in sin and is now further soiled by living in a home with gay people. I wondered if part of the reason Rachel placed the baby with this particular couple was to make her less likely to be taken back by the father and his family or her own screwed up family.

I understand why people are skeptical. I would be remiss to tell those who doubt not to listen to their instincts. However, for me, I believe her. She has dropped several hints that those of us who grew up in ATIA might pick up on.

I could figure out who she is if I really wanted but as she values her identity/privacy, I will respect that because I feel that her blog does a great deal of good in countering Gothardism/Duggars/ATIA.

[TXDuck]

I'm leaning toward it being true. There are some holes in the stories, but as someone trying to protect her identity that's to be expected. However, there aren't many/any inconsistencies that I've noticed. If she's a liar, she's really good. That said, there could be embellishments here and there. Who doesn't do that?

As far as the baby being a "month early". Well, that's not quite right. She was 2 weeks from being full term. The vast majority of babies this close to full term may spend a night or two in NICU and that's it. This is especially true if she's had drugs to mature her lungs and had no other health problems. So that's not really a red flag.

The same sex parents thing could be a red flag or it could be a complete rejection of their father's "values". I'm sure lots of us have seen young adults go the polar opposite of their controlling, smothering, in this case, abusive parents.

[Deleted03]

Isn't it more probable that going through a non-religious agency (or no agency) for adoption, in northern california that she will have more gay couples adopting?

[Renting with Raggles]

The fact that she adopted her child out to a gay couple is not surprising to me. From a ATIA POV, that child is undesirable as it was conceived in sin and is now further soiled by living in a home with gay people. I wondered if part of the reason Rachel placed the baby with this particular couple was to make her less likely to be taken back by the father and his family or her own screwed up family.

I thought this, too. It's not inconceivable that Isaiah might try to reassert his claim over the baby to manipulate a new wife or to take revenge on Rachel. That would not be a situation a person would risk putting their child in. Even if she had been indoctrinated in the homophobic culture, it could be a case of "an enemy of my enemy".

[MerryHappy]

I thought this, too. It's not inconceivable that Isaiah might try to reassert his claim over the baby to manipulate a new wife or to take revenge on Rachel. That would not be a situation a person would risk putting their child in. Even if she had been indoctrinated in the homophobic culture, it could be a case of "an enemy of my enemy".

I just can't picture Isaiahs family wanting this child at all. In ATIA circles, it is protect the males at all costs.

It does not benefit I's family in anyway to let the community know that their son had a child out of wedlock. While Rachel will carry the majority of the blame for being a brazen hussy (said with sarcasm) it will also damage the beloved man child's reputation and that of his family. That simply can not happen.

Rachel and child are disposable because they possess vagina's. I do wonder how this would have played out had Ellie been a boy.

Darth Daddy and Co. might be shitting bricks over this for the benefit of the public, to once again show the ATIA community just how ebil Ruth/Rachel have become outside of their umbrella of protection. Deep down inside though, Im guessing they are quite relieved that the problem/blessing has been taken care of. Now they have even more reason to hate teh gayz for stepping up where they failed as parents and grandparents.

If anything, if this stuff with Rachel is true...there will be increased pressure on Ruth not to out herself to save face for what is left of ATIA. Too many families involved now.

[Sprocket]

Didn't a member vouche for her (WonderingInWA, maybe?) as being legit?

[Guest Anonymous]

Didn't a member vouche for her (WonderingInWA, maybe?) as being legit?

There has been no definite verification, I don't think.

A member (creaky steel) whose sister is a lawyer apparently helped with transporting Rachel to Ruth's place and advising on how she could get legal help.

Ruth herself came on and asked how she could verify her details with the site admin, but to date, I don't think we have been notified that any such activity has taken place.

I think it would be very helpful if Ruth could in some way 'prove' her identity to Alecto, whom I think many of us here would consider to have shown herself to be trustworthy and credible over an extended period. I guess that would still leave doubt over the details in the continuing story over on the blog, but well, that's the way it is with anyone in blogland.

ETA: here is a link to the last time this was discussed: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7786&p=204456&hilit=ruth#p204456

ETA2:On the same thread, Ruth said this:

But I don't think she or Alecto ever confirmed whether they had had a direct conversation about the matter. Maybe Ruth was too busy getting Rachel out of the present situation at that time? But if she wanted to contact Alecto, it looked as though Alecto was quite willing to hear from her.

[asinglevoice]

I, too, am wondering about the legitimacy of Ruth's story. I still am inclined to believe she's telling the truth - she's kept this blog for ages, has been consistent in her knowledge about the workings of ATI/Gothard and the quality of her knowledge is such that one would have to do a substantial amount of in-depth research that I'm not sure is that readily available or easy to find. Of course, I could be wrong about that. It just seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to, for so many years, for relatively little financial gain and no personal recognition. And there is also Ruth's willingness to let people be skeptics - pathological liars/frauds are hell-bent on proving their validity, so I think that's an indicator to not go unlooked.

On the other land, lately there have been things that have caused me to raise a few eyebrows. She posts about having some conflict with her in-laws and people post telling her to reconsider her impending marriage - ta-da! Next post, she and Harris have split. She posts about her sister's pregnancy, and people post wanting constant updates on Rachel's progress - ta-da! Baby's here early. The couple is laughably far from ATI/Gothardism, and people post speculating it's a same-sex couple - well, you get the idea.

I also wonder if Ruth is, in fact, her real name. I know it's been claimed to be a pseudonym, but there have been instances when her father has commented on the blog and referred to her as "Ruth Mary." I have a difficult time believing that a man that vile would care much about honoring his daughter's desire for anonymity. Unless Ruth manages to see her father's posts before anyone else gets to them and edits it accordingly. I'm not sure how Blogger's security settings work - I never had any anonymous comments sent to me for modification before they showed up on my blog, but perhaps there is a setting for that.

In any case, I still err on the side of believing her. These things always have a way of coming to light, so I think it's really only a matter of time before it's exposed either way.

[contrary]

IIRC, she did edit her fathers' posts (and in some cases, posted his emails after she edited them) to preserve her and the family's anonymity.

[asinglevoice]

IIRC, she did edit her fathers' posts (and in some cases, posted his emails after she edited them) to preserve her and the family's anonymity.

Good to know, thanks!

[jericho]

I think I may have seen it. The commenter didn't mention names, but he said that a picture of Ruth's family could be seen on the TLC slideshow of the Duggars' home. He said to look for a family with a large age gap and a lot of older children and a baby. The only picture I found that contained pictures of other families was their wall plastered with Christmas cards, but they were too small to read most of the names. One looked promising (even had children named Rachel and Ruth), but after googling, it didn't appear to be the right family.

I thought I remembered reading Ruth saying her family knew OF the Duggars but didn't know them. That would seem strange if Ruth's family would be at the house of someone they only knew of. Then again, Ruth said her mom was at the funeral of Jubilee.