Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ChocolateReign

Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)

Recommended Posts

I'm guessing maybe they added the Internet restrictions afterwards. He would not be able to purchase it himself. Unless he found someone else's stash...

I would be willing to bet my butt that teens at Gothard's centers could get their hands on all sorts of verboten things. I went to church camp as a teen four times a year from age 13+. The most conservative kids still had all sorts of "band camp" type stories. And there were a couple o kids who could turn side hugging in a pew into a moment of "get your hands off of me this very second or I will break your arm. Yes, even in church I will break your arm."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be willing to bet my butt that teens at Gothard's centers could get their hands on all sorts of verboten things. I went to church camp as a teen four times a year from age 13+. The most conservative kids still had all sorts of "band camp" type stories.

Gothard's "camps" are a world different than church camp(of which I happily attended most of my teenage years). They are heavily controlled and monitored.

 

It's a cult, and the centers are nothing more than brainwashing the youth of the cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gothard's "camps" are a world different than church camp(of which I happily attended most of my teenage years). They are heavily controlled and monitored.

 

It's a cult, and the centers are nothing more than brainwashing the youth of the cult.

ITA that it's a cult and brainwashing. Still, even in heavily controlled environments, some teens still find ways to break the rules. That Unlikely Disciple book mentioned up thread covers that topic at some of the most rule heavy conservative universities.

 

Don't get my wrong, I look back on my camp days with fondness. I just don't think that you can realistically stop kids from finding stuff like porn if they are hell bent on finding it. I have friends who went to some pretty out there programs and very conservative mission type camps and there was still off limits activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of hard, though, because if he truly did repent (which none of us would ever know) and never did it again and will never do it again, and he fully devoted his life to God, he really is going to feel a certain way about various topics out there.  That's the difficult part for me.  We don't know if he really regrets what he did and will never do it again.  

 

For me, even if Josh truly repented and has never done anything else, the organization he works/ed for has financially supported legislation in Uganda that called for the DEATH of people that he sees as sinful because of their sexual actions. Not everyone in this country will agree that consensual sex between homosexual adults is a crime. Most everyone will agree that repeated fondling of young children over a period of time is sexual molestation, well, of course unless you think a teen male sitting the bare bum of a four year old on his naked apparatus with his family in the room is truly just youthful "experimentation."

 

Josh shows no mercy and yet you ask that he be given it, just in case. I struggle with this. His mother has actively called transgenders "pedophiles", while having her son involved in the same activity. I struggle with this.

 

The rules apply to others but not to them.

 

Edited for accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go you one further:

 

If we are people who believe that God's laws require XYZ then we, ourselves, are faithful to follow those laws without fail as a matter of conscience. BUT we must recognize the right -- civil, moral, and biblical right -- of others not to be bound by that law or to be coerced toward that law by our actions. No Christian was ever compelled to be Christian by others. If someone is adhering to Christian tenets and repeating Christian doctrine not of their own volition that person is a hostage and not a convert. Taking religious hostages is not part of the Christian faith, according to its Author.

 

That's where I stand. I don't believe the Bible justifies the political and social religious right. I believe that "I" must follow my religious beliefs and that I can fight for the freedom of religious expression in my country, but I don't see it in scripture where I can legislate my religious views toward anyone else at all. I don't see a scrap of authority for a theocracy. What I do see is endless injunctions to expect persecution and endless reminders that the kingdom, that is the church, is not an earthly one. I have no legal, moral, or scriptural right to try to legislate a comfy life for myself or an accepting climate for my beliefs.

 

I don't think I can compel my children to believe and live as I do, either, because again, they would be hostages. So far they've all embraced Christianity on a personal level, and I hope they always will. If they do, I believe that my stance on personal conservatism and liberality toward all men will be a major reason why, because it is just. Religion without justice cannot flourish without coercion. Love, however, grows.

 

(It's Sunday so I did a lil' preaching. I'll stop now.)

 

 

Wow, Tibbie, just wow!

 

This is Christianity that I can respect and understand.

 

I hope in my agnostic ways, I can return the equity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to parse out why you are posting along these lines. I didn't know and considered it a bit of a puzzle.

 

Now I know that you have some sexual things you consider gray areas in your childhood. That's understandable but not applicable to this situation.

 

There is pretty much zero gray in a 15 year old molesting a 5 year old in a shared space of the home. The level of trickery required for that is high. These were felonious acts for good reason and had the parents done the moral thing, they are acts which likely would have brought him, and should have brought him, actual consequences.

I have not at any time said there was grey area in the wrongness of what Josh Duggar did to his sisters and the other victim. I have said there is grey area in the experience of the victims and how they may feel about it, which since they have not spoken had been filled by the assumptions and projections onto them. That does not mean I think everything is hunky-dory for them.

 

I also, upthread, tried to point out some of the reasons why there may be good reasons for a statute of limitations on sexual crimes by juveniles (aside from religious beliefs about forgiveness and absolution), that juvenile sex offenders are, in fact, likely to grow out of it, even with patterns like Josh's, and it's not a foregone conclusion that he must be a continued danger because he didn't go shouting his crimes from the rooftops.

 

I don't think it makes his political aspirations and public moral stances any more despicable than they already were because they were already retch-worthy.

 

Whatever harms the Duggar girls have suffered as a result of the abuse, it's not all Josh's doing. We cannot accurately measure his culpability because we can't go back in time and evaluate teen-Josh. Much as justice was not served by how the disclosure was handled by his parents, (because it wasn't) trying someone as an adult for acts committed as a juvenile doesn't serve justice either, because he was only fifteen. There are good reasons for not trying juveniles as adults, and Idon't think it's already done more often than it should be.

 

If anyone should be looking at criminal charges for all this, based on the information we have, it's Jim-Bob and Michelle, for the failure to protect their daughters.

 

At the same time, we don't have all the information and I hope both his victims and Josh got some help or benefited somehow from the religious counseling (much as I find that unlikely) and a safety plan was put in place and held to, through CPS intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the beginning when they met, they were apparently quite more liberal -- PDAs, even kissing and such -- and they used birth control. So at the start JB & M were more mainstream.  I don't know exactly when the OTT fundyism came in, but the stories are that JB aligned with Gothard early on and even before then had always been like Michelle's Svengali.  She isn't a bright person.  She would be easily to indoctrinate and manipulate.  Couple that with being able to segregate her from her family and keep her immersed in pregnancy/birthing/child-rearing, it would not be hard to steer her far away from her family.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that neither of the Duggar parents have ever impressed me with their intelligence or education, the unfortunate truth is that anybody can fall into a cult or into an abusive relationship. Being intelligent doesn't keep you safe from this sort of thing (google even suggests that people with above average intelligence may be somewhat more likely to join a cult, although I can't quite find the original source of that factoid), and fears that "only stupid people would end up in this position" can help keep people from getting out of a cult or an abusive relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define violent sexual assault vs. "a case like this"? What does that even mean?

 

Sexual abuse of young children by teens and adults are rarely overtly violent- most victims have been groomed or coaxed. Many kids are confused by the feelings they have. That doesn't make any child sex abuse "non-violent".

 

I don't think that you are sitting on a high horse or are "on Team Josh". I do think that your main thrust throughout this thread is misguided and seems to want to view this is a young teen making a mistake.

More like a young teen making a whole series of extremely f***** bad choices, with parents who made a series of very bad choices which enabled his behavior and then covered it up.

 

I will not use the word mistake since that is read by some as minimizing.

 

I defined what I meant by violent earlier.

 

My main thrust throughout this thread is that juvenile sex offenders are not and should not be treated the same as adults. If he was 20 when he abused his sisters, my opinion of his culpability and how people have reacted would be very different.

 

We also don't put people in prison for their political beliefs, no matter how wrong we think they are. Much as I find their politics to be abhorrent and wrongheaded, they still have a right to speak out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this was not a good thing, but I'm sad to see that so many of you would obviously never accept an apology from someone for something they did many many years ago.  I feel for your mates and your children and hope they never do anything to disappoint you because you would probably hold it against them for the rest of their life. 

 

Yeah, I can see that happening. A few months ago you called me a moral degenerate and I'm still not ready to let that go. :glare:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go you one further:

 

If we are people who believe that God's laws require XYZ then we, ourselves, are faithful to follow those laws without fail as a matter of conscience. BUT we must recognize the right -- civil, moral, and biblical right -- of others not to be bound by that law or to be coerced toward that law by our actions. No Christian was ever compelled to be Christian by others. If someone is adhering to Christian tenets and repeating Christian doctrine not of their own volition that person is a hostage and not a convert. Taking religious hostages is not part of the Christian faith, according to its Author.

 

That's where I stand. I don't believe the Bible justifies the political and social religious right. I believe that "I" must follow my religious beliefs and that I can fight for the freedom of religious expression in my country, but I don't see it in scripture where I can legislate my religious views toward anyone else at all. I don't see a scrap of authority for a theocracy. What I do see is endless injunctions to expect persecution and endless reminders that the kingdom, that is the church, is not an earthly one. I have no legal, moral, or scriptural right to try to legislate a comfy life for myself or an accepting climate for my beliefs.

 

I don't think I can compel my children to believe and live as I do, either, because again, they would be hostages. So far they've all embraced Christianity on a personal level, and I hope they always will. If they do, I believe that my stance on personal conservatism and liberality toward all men will be a major reason why, because it is just. Religion without justice cannot flourish without coercion. Love, however, grows.

 

(It's Sunday so I did a lil' preaching. I'll stop now.)

 

 

Somehow I passed right by this when it was first posted and didn't see it until someone quoted it downstream. I had to go back to find it so I could 'LIKE' it. But, I also wanted to quote it and tell you there are not enough 'LIKE's for this. This is some might fine Sunday preaching, Tibbie!

 

Well said!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I am far from being one of "their most strident defenders."

 

I don't know if it is genuine or not, but neither does anyone else.  I think he probably felt remorse just because almost anyone would, given the facts as we know them.

 

People always make short statements that ring hollow at times like this.  He can write his book later.  I could list out some pretty obvious examples but I don't want to get political.

 

A lot of the negativity here is well-placed, because what Josh did was a terrible thing.  But a lot of it is political.  I am not a Duggar defender, but it bugs me when people say things that are patently untrue to support their position.  You don't like ATI, purity balls, anti-gay organizations, etc., that is fine; neither do I.  But let's stick to the facts as we know them.  I think the undisputed facts about ATI etc. are damning enough without twisting and selectively reporting what Josh did or didn't say in his brief public admission.

 

But in his public admission, he said he got "counseling" and that those he hurt got counseling. His mother said he did not get counseling, but spent time with a family friend. I find this statement disingenuous at best. The average person reading this is going to assume he means "counseling" as in with a licensed professional. That's how we are supposed to read it, I think, but if asked about the fact that his mother said he didn't get counseling, he can always say he meant he was "counseled" by the family friend. It's small things like this that make me think Josh is not quite upfront. Well, maybe that and the $14K in back taxes that he owed a while back and may still owe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in his public admission, he said he got "counseling" and that those he hurt got counseling. His mother said he did not get counseling, but spent time with a family friend. I find this statement disingenuous at best. The average person reading this is going to assume he means "counseling" as in with a licensed professional. That's how we are supposed to read it, I think, but if asked about the fact that his mother said he didn't get counseling, he can always say he meant he was "counseled" by the family friend. It's small things like this that make me think Josh is not quite upfront. Well, maybe that and the $14K in back taxes that he owed a while back and may still owe.

 

 

was that the family friend that was an Arkansas state trooper who is currently serving 56 YEARS for child porn/pedophilia? (and I believe reading between the lines of everything, that is thought who it was who "counseled" him.)  that's not something that will make people think he's trusthworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in his public admission, he said he got "counseling" and that those he hurt got counseling. His mother said he did not get counseling, but spent time with a family friend. I find this statement disingenuous at best. The average person reading this is going to assume he means "counseling" as in with a licensed professional. That's how we are supposed to read it, I think, but if asked about the fact that his mother said he didn't get counseling, he can always say he meant he was "counseled" by the family friend. It's small things like this that make me think Josh is not quite upfront. Well, maybe that and the $14K in back taxes that he owed a while back and may still owe.

 

 

I agree.  

 

The best, and most dangerous liars, are ones who can lie to themselves as easily as they lie to another about something minor.  I truly think Josh thinks he is being genuine and honest.  But that doesn't mean he is any such thing.  I have a couple of relatives like this.  It's horrifying the backflips they can do to get what they what and dodge responsibility.  But they truly believe that what they are saying is true, it's like the lie rewrites their memory, it is so real to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh.  The sister thinks the family is in a cult.  How strange.  Wonder how Michelle went from a marginally religious family to fully embracing this lifestyle, down to thinking Josh was treated too harshly?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891512/Anti-gay-reality-star-pictured-lesbian-sister-Michelle-Duggar-s-older-sister-s-significant-worries-mom-19-s-braining-washing-religious-cult.html

 

There are many reasons this can happen.  IME (unfortunately), Latching onto something that sounds like, "if you do X, your children will be "safe." This can happen rather quickly (some external recent horrible event -- or bit by bit.  

 

Growing up, Gothard was just coming into his own.  All of my brothers and I attended the conferences.  On the surface (one-time through), much of it sounded so comforting.  If we would just do these things, stay under our father's umbrella of protection, everything would be fine and we would be blessed.  My parents implemented a lot of what he taught -- thankfully they never went to the Advanced Institute (but it wasn't because they didn't want to, it was because it wasn't in a place they could attend).  

 

Based upon what I've heard about JB/Michelle, my guess is the grief over the loss of a baby and a desire to understand why God allowed it to happen paired closely with attending a Basics conference gave them the "answer" to the "why" they were longing for.  They bought into it hook, line, sinker.  Michelle already loved JB.  So, anytime anything might have seemed wrong, M. simply remembered her teaching, that she needed to submit.  Any fear/questions on her part were part of her sin nature, which she needed to reject.  I'm sure she would cry, pray and seek forgiveness for her wrong.  Eventually, in order to keep one's sanity, you naturally cut off many ties (at least from a conversational standpoint) with anyone who doesn't see things the way you do (or the way you are supposed to).  It's difficult enough to keep oneselve's thoughts/desires in check -- but when you are around even loving family members who question anything, it is almost unbearable.  As time progresses, you stop seeing yourself as a person with value/thoughts/feelings independent of your husband.  You have become so adept at burying those thoughts and feelings (out of guilt), that you almost don't notice anymore.  You turn to your husband for every answer.  Your husband controls every aspect of your life...and because of all you have been taught and believe you understand, you no longer have the ability to go against it.  You have to trust what you have learned/known -- it is almost as if you have lost the ability to think any differently.

 

The system IS very attractive to men who like control.  But, even Michelle was seeking to control the circumstances and outcome in her family's life.  That grief...that all-consuming grief...the knawing feeling that it must be something *I* did wrong which caused my baby to die.  It is consuming.  You think through every morsel you ate, every action you took -- is there anything that you did that might have caused this?  Gothard had the answer (for her).  Birth Control.  They disobeyed God's law, and their baby paid the price.  Everything she did after that was an attempt to prevent the loss of another baby.  She believed (knew in her heart) that if she just followed these principles, she would have more babies -- and they wouldn't die like J.

 

There but for the grace of God...go I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purity ball pictures were icky! But they were that way because the photographer directed the people to pose that way. I'm a semi-professional photographer and I can assure you the people did not naturally arrange themselves into those poses. Those poses were directed by the photographer. Rather than, "Ok, give me a nice bright smile!" it was, "And now, look very serious as if you're taking this committment to purity very seriously," etc.

 

Don't be fooled into thinking those people wanted to look like that in the shots. The photographer was clearly replused by the idea of a purity ball and created pictures to show his repulsion. As most photographers will tell you, "I don't take pictures, I create them." I mean, I agree with the photographer--those purity balls are bizarre, but don't be fooled into thinking that those daughters and dads usually stand around looking like they're miserable or overly touchy-feely. I have a feeling that his subjects are pretty upset at how those pictures turned out.

 

And I have to exclaim: I did not know the strong connection between Hobby Lobby and ATI! I mostly ignored the whole HL-Birth Control issue and pretended it didn't matter to me, but I can't stand ATI and am very disappointed to find out that HL supports them in such a substantial way. I can't go there anymore knowing that. Dang it.

I agree. I attempted to write a post like this about the photography, but it went wonky and didn't post. (There's something so anti-climatic about trying to rewrite a post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to Josh -- we honestly can't know where he is.  We are all guessing or hoping.

 

It is really hard for me to hear other people speak about how a person who is ______________________ SHOULD think or act.  What is "normal" or not "normal."

 

Why?

 

Because, my "normal" reactions are usually hidden.  When my child was lost, I panicked on the inside.  However, my face/body was a picture of calm.  This is my NORMAL.  It is not normal for me to break down in tears -- especiallly under stress.  I don't yell, scream or panic.  I am, to all appearances, calm and unphased.  Later -- away from it all -- I do fall apart.  Please be careful that you are not projecting YOUR normal and assuming everyone reacts the same.  They don't.

 

After a very bad car accident, which I walked away from without any major injuries, my parents assumed the accident wasn't very bad -- because I was so calm on the phone.  An argument by phone ensued, and my parents were certain I was pretty much making things up so I could justify staying another few days with a boy.  Now, when they saw the picture of the accident -- my mangled car held by one sturdy branch from a lake -- the same spot someone else had been killed a week earlier -- they were horrified.  My parents apologised to me for the way they talked to me after the accident.  

 

We are also expecting him to behave as if this just happened.  

 

For him, this was a long time ago.  For us, this is fresh and recent.

 

For him, and the way in which he was raised, this is all water under the bridge.  It's been dealt with.  For US, we are processing everything and expecting him to behave a certain way because that is what WE would do TODAY.

 

For him, leaving home to go work on a farm was probably counseling. In his mind, this could very well be true.  I doubt he stayed for 8(?) months away from his family and never had to talk about what he did, and why it was wrong.  While, to his mother, she could think of counseling as being something different.

 

There are very few things in my past that still make me emotional.  However, they aren't usually things I've done.  Things that were done TO me?  Yeah, I still feel it.  I am sure the girls still feel it -- they are the ones who LIVED it.  

 

As for Josh -- that past, to him, is anceint history.  Is he still ashamed?  Probably.  I am still ashamed of the wrongs I did as a teen.  But, at 27 -- even though I never did anything like JD -- I would be hard pressed to create some sort of emotion-filled, remorse-filled plea for some of the very real hurts I'm sure I inflicted.  My mom?  Heck yeah -- she could.  But, she also cries when a cop pulls her over.  We are completely different people -- we react and think and process in very different ways.  Neither is better than the other -- but because I don't process the way my mom does, people wrongly assume that I'm not sorry enough, or it wasn't THAT bad, or maybe I just don't really care -- when nothing is further from the truth.  

 

We cannot forget that JD has been just as brainwashed as any of the girls.  JD is behaving and reacting in the manner he has been conditioned to act and behave.  Just because he is a man does not mean he can easily depart from the conditioning in which he was raised.  He may have an easier time of breaking away than a girl -- but the grip of his whole lifetime is very strong.  Men who have only been under this teaching a short time -- and came to it as an adult -- can have a very difficult time breaking away.  To come to a point where you can walk away from what has been NORMAL to him -- when, even now, he is probably surrounded by people telling him HE is right, and the rest of the world can't possiblly understand? Not impossible, but extremly difficult.

 

Gothard's and the Pearl's warped teachings are the root of this -- combined with the sinful desires of man, which when warped with bad teachings -- blind those who they purport to be helping from their own sin and guilt, and in fact reinforce the notion of self-righteousness.

 

Most of us here cannot even begin to understand what it is like to live under this teaching -- let alone embrace it.  But for the kids, it is the only life they have known.  It is the only way they have known.  And leaving it will not be easy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was that the family friend that was an Arkansas state trooper who is currently serving 56 YEARS for child porn/pedophilia? (and I believe reading between the lines of everything, that is thought who is was who "counseled" him.)  that's not something that will make people think he's trusthworthy.

 

I don't think that is where he was sent.  I was even thinking maybe it was to the Bates' home, but maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding the fact that neither of the Duggar parents have ever impressed me with their intelligence or education, the unfortunate truth is that anybody can fall into a cult or into an abusive relationship. Being intelligent doesn't keep you safe from this sort of thing (google even suggests that people with above average intelligence may be somewhat more likely to join a cult, although I can't quite find the original source of that factoid), and fears that "only stupid people would end up in this position" can help keep people from getting out of a cult or an abusive relationship.

 

Or into an abusive relationship. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is where he was sent.  I was even thinking maybe it was to the Bates' home, but maybe not.

 

I hope not.  The Bates have daughters the same age as the Duggar girls in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing maybe they added the Internet restrictions afterwards. He would not be able to purchase it himself. Unless he found someone else's stash...

 

I think being ATI they already were very TV and internet restrictive.

 

Although I found it very humorous that they were so anti TV but then allowed their younger ones to watch cartoons on a laptop.  Apparently the TV box is evil but watching the same thing via a computer is not.

 

Sorry to be so cynical. I grew up fairly fundie and the inconsistencies always make me cringe.  We had friends who were VERY anti movie theater folks, but if the same movie came out on TV, that was fine to watch because no one would SEE you going to the theater.

 

The same church folks were against spending money on the sabbath but if they paid for their weekly newspaper on a Monday, delivery on Sunday was fine.  Considering the argument for not spending money on Sunday was that if you buy things on Sunday you are causing others to work on the Lord's day, this made no sense to me.

 

We were not ATI, but we were quite restricted growing up.  No movie theaters, no dancing, no face cards, no working on Sunday for most people (medical staff excepted), minimal make up, and for a while my mom was on a no pants thing (claiming scripture that pants were men's clothing and the Bible strictly forbids males or females to wear clothing of the other sex.)

 

And then there was the "you must forgive for everything, even heinous sins."  I saw this......this fake forgiveness that had to happen for appearances.  The underlying hurt and grief and pain was never dealt with because the idea is that once you forgive, you forget.  It is like it never happened.    This is what I see in the Duggars BECAUSE of their stand on so many things that were very in line with what I grew up with.

 

I feel *almost* free from most of that, but some of it still haunts me.

 

I am still a Christian, but I am not like that and have a hard time with people who are.  It is one more reason I take issue with people lumping all Christians into one big pile.

 

Whew, didn't mean to go off on that tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, even if Josh truly repented and has never done anything else, he has called for the DEATH of people that he sees as sinful because of their sexual actions. Not everyone in this country will agree that consensual sex between homosexual adults is a crime. Most everyone will agree that repeated fondling of young children over a period of time is sexual molestation, well, of course unless you think a teen male sitting the bare bum of a four year old on his naked apparatus with his family in the room is truly just youthful "experimentation."

 

Josh shows no mercy and yet you ask that he be given it, just in case. I struggle with this. His mother has actively called transgenders pedophiles, while having her son involved in the same activity. I struggle with this.

 

The rules apply to others but not to them.

 

Catching up on this thread and I missed this. Can someone link to the quote where he called for death to homosexuals?

 

And I hadn't read the details about the four year old in the family room either. No words except wtf? This whole situation just gets weirder and sadder and more horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching up on this thread and I missed this. Can someone link to the quote where he called for death to homosexuals?

 

And I hadn't read the details about the four year old in the family room either. No words except wtf? This whole situation just gets weirder and sadder and more horrible.

 

I don't think he openly calls for the death of homosexuals, he is (or was) part of the FRC who at one time supported a bill in Uganda that allowed for killings of gays by giving them $25,000.  The bill was actually the death penalty to those who knowingly spread AIDS.  

 

However, homosexuality is crime in Uganda.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My depressing thought for the morning: I wonder who got the blame for being the reason their daughter was stillborn several years ago. Since apparently that's how things work in their church, I'm sure it was pinned on someone for something. And that makes me want to throw up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My depressing thought for the morning: I wonder who got the blame for being the reason their daughter was stillborn several years ago. Since apparently that's how things work in their church, I'm sure it was pinned on someone for something. And that makes me want to throw up.

 

And Josie's illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My depressing thought for the morning: I wonder who got the blame for being the reason their daughter was stillborn several years ago. Since apparently that's how things work in their church, I'm sure it was pinned on someone for something. And that makes me want to throw up.

 

 

And Josie's illness.

 

 

Just to be clear -- not every corner of ATI blames infant death/illness on sins of the parents.  There are some who do (and yes, it probably would nearly always be the fault of the wife -- who, regardless of how one was raised, or what one did, the woman almost always experiences some feelings of guilt -- which would be a "red flag" to others in the sect, but AFAIK, is a normal part of the process in dealing with the loss of a child).  My brother and my SIL may have been driven further into ATI/Gothard because of the death of their first child, but I'm not certain.  Mainly because the time-line of their "conversion" to the ATI life came many years later (about 10 years).  They had been "fundie" before that (a little bit more than how we had been raised, but not wildly more -- they were really the bit-by-bit conversion).

 

Even if no blame could realy be assigned (overtly), because of how you are taught to think, I most certainly would not find it difficult to believe that Michelle thought it all somehow her fault.  Which, in all likelihood, pushed her further into the teachings/lifestyle of ATI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear -- not every corner of ATI blames infant death/illness on sins of the parents.  There are some who do (and yes, it probably would nearly always be the fault of the wife -- who, regardless of how one was raised, or what one did, the woman almost always experiences some feelings of guilt -- which would be a "red flag" to others in the sect, but AFAIK, is a normal part of the process in dealing with the loss of a child).  My brother and my SIL may have been driven further into ATI/Gothard because of the death of their first child, but I'm not certain.  Mainly because the time-line of their "conversion" to the ATI life came many years later (about 10 years).  They had been "fundie" before that (a little bit more than how we had been raised, but not wildly more -- they were really the bit-by-bit conversion).

 

Even if no blame could realy be assigned (overtly), because of how you are taught to think, I most certainly would not find it difficult to believe that Michelle thought it all somehow her fault.  Which, in all likelihood, pushed her further into the teachings/lifestyle of ATI.

 

 

I think the idea stemmed from the idea that Jim Bob lost his election because there was "sin in the camp."  So clearly they think bad things happen because of sin.  That was the gist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gothard's "camps" are a world different than church camp(of which I happily attended most of my teenage years). They are heavily controlled and monitored.

 

It's a cult, and the centers are nothing more than brainwashing the youth of the cult.

 

What one did he go to? I googled briefly last night and could not find out anything really about it.  Was it a brainwashing cult thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, Jessa Duggar's Father-in-law has come out in support of the Duggar family.

 

"It pains me to see that they are now having to relive the nightmare that had been laid to rest well over a decade ago with Josh's repentance and reformation," Seewald wrote, "but I feel compelled to bring some context and reason to the bloodletting that many are engaging in and to come to the aid of our dear friends and family." 

 

and, 

 

"I want to say that the Seewald family stands with the Duggar family in solidarity. We stand with the unnamed victims of these incidents. Our thoughts and prayers are for you. I want to say to Josh, hang in there, the shame you feel is legitimate, yet Jesus took your shame as he was punished in your place. Rest in his forgiveness and grace. Remember that he gives you his righteousness as a covering for your shame. Let this trial in your life build humility and grace. Don’t be angry at the world for their hatred of you. Show them through your love for them that it is Jesus Christ that made all the difference in your life. I’m rooting for you."

 

The whole article can be found here:  http://seewalds.com/grace-greater-than-our-sin/#more-341

 

The problem I have with all of this is that the girls do not have any say in this.  None of them have come forward to talk.  Even if they are ever "allowed" to come forward and talk, it will just be with what people have coached them to say.

 

Also, it is noted that Mr. Seewald and the media are trying to keep the fact that it was Josh's sisters' secret.  Keeping it a secret just shames those girls more.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea stemmed from the idea that Jim Bob lost his election because there was "sin in the camp."  So clearly they think bad things happen because of sin.  That was the gist.

 

Didn't they also blame a previous miscarriage on the "sin" of using birth control? I don't think it's unfair to suggest they might be blaming the still birth on someone or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My depressing thought for the morning: I wonder who got the blame for being the reason their daughter was stillborn several years ago. Since apparently that's how things work in their church, I'm sure it was pinned on someone for something. And that makes me want to throw up.

It's mind boggling. God gifts people with all the good stuff, he punishes those who disobey. If tragedy befalls someone nearby but not them, they claim that God blessed them or proclaim 'there but for the grace of God go I '.

I'm betting blame was heaped on Michelle in private, though her husband would be a darling and say god was teaching both of them a much needed lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea stemmed from the idea that Jim Bob lost his election because there was "sin in the camp."  So clearly they think bad things happen because of sin.  That was the gist.

 

It also stems from the fact that they seem to believe the loss of their first baby was tied to their use of birth control, not only in the medical "they told us pills cause miscarriages!" sense, but also in the "punishment of God" sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding how the FOIA works. Is it because the perpetrator was not convicted of a crime that this was able to come out under that Act? I don't see how that protects a youthful offender -- wouldn't his records have been sealed because he was under 18 if he were actually convicted? And how does any of this protect the victims if the PARENTS are named? Aren't there people all around the U.S. who have been victims of sexual abuse -- can any of them be readily identified if someone wants to submit a FOIA request and get the names of the parents, whether the perpetrator was a family member or not?

 

I realize the fame of this family has generated public interest, but if the report had just named the son and said "five victims" I would not have automatically thought of the daughters, so why was it necessary to name the parents of the victims, and make that public? And yes ALL of this is primarily the fault of the son and parents, but anyone who contributed to making it public without any thought for how it would affect the victims gets some bonus blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence or lack thereof truly has nothing to do with ending up brainwashed in a cult or in an abusive relationship.  There is usually something or some string of things that take you on that path.  It often looks better on the other side than where you are to begin with and by the time you are there you don't even realize how bad it is or see what those on the outside can see.  I have a cousin who is very, very intelligent.  Many years ago she was homeschooling two young boys, one with pretty severe learning disabilities.  She was very isolated (homeschooling wasn't very popular in their area then).  Then she got pneumonia.  It took a long time to feel better.  Her husband was always a bit controlling.  Even her mother was a bit overbearing and tried to move in and take over the house while my cousin was sick.  My cousin got very depressed.  At some point in that period of time, her friend introduced them to a new church.  AFAIK it has nothing to do with ATI.  It was very much the "surrendered wife" however.  Her friend was happy.  She seemed to love their church and their lifestyle.  Many people there homeschooled.  So my cousins started attending there.  For the next several years, my cousin was a shell of her former self.  Over time she realized this wasn't okay, the way her husband was taught to treat her and the way she was allowing herself to be treated.  She got strong again and after much pain and anguish, they left that church and found a new one that didn't teach women to submit completely no matter what.  It was very, very hard.  All their friends were in that church.  She's a different person today.  So is he for that matter.  She's stronger.  He's more gentle.  It was scary to watch, however.  Particularly scary because she fell into it so easily and she's not one I would have ever considered weak or unintelligent before.  It was just the circumstances of her life in the couple years before.  It can happen to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I read the article upthread about Michelle's sister and her partner being concerned about the family being in a cult.

 

There was a quote from Jim Bob in response to an effort at the time to get the show taken off the air because of their active efforts against the rights of LGBT people.

 

Basically Jim Bob said it would never happen. He bragged about the show being a top producing show on the network and that the publicity just brought in more viewers. 

 

Basically he was stating that any publicity is good publicity. 

 

I wonder if he still feels that way now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he openly calls for the death of homosexuals, he is (or was) part of the FRC who at one time supported a bill in Uganda that allowed for killings of gays by giving them $25,000.  The bill was actually the death penalty to those who knowingly spread AIDS.  

 

However, homosexuality is crime in Uganda.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

 

From your own link to Wiki:

 

In 2010, the FRC paid $25,000 to congressional lobbyists for what they described as "Res.1064 Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion" in a lobbying disclosure report.[67] The US House of Representatives resolution condemned the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill,[68] a bill which, among other things, would have imposed either the death penalty or life imprisonment for sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

The bill divides homosexual behavior into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offence of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I read the article upthread about Michelle's sister and her partner being concerned about the family being in a cult.

 

There was a quote from Jim Bob in response to an effort at the time to get the show taken off the air because of their active efforts against the rights of LGBT people.

 

Basically Jim Bob said it would never happen. He bragged about the show being a top producing show on the network and that the publicity just brought in more viewers. 

 

Basically he was stating that any publicity is good publicity. 

 

I wonder if he still feels that way now. 

 

I think that TLC is holding their breath that they can get away with keeping the show on the air. Look how fast they cancelled Honey Boo Boo. The Duggars are money makers. I doubt JB thinks this is good publicity, but he's not wrong that TLC wants to keep them around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your own link to Wiki:

 

In 2010, the FRC paid $25,000 to congressional lobbyists for what they described as "Res.1064 Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion" in a lobbying disclosure report.[67] The US House of Representatives resolution condemned the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill,[68] a bill which, among other things, would have imposed either the death penalty or life imprisonment for sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

The bill divides homosexual behavior into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offence of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders.

 

 

Yes, one is life imprisonment and one is death for spreading HIV, or acts committed to minors or people with disabilities.

 

I am not defending it in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one is life imprisonment and one is death for spreading HIV, or acts committed to minors or people with disabilities.

 

I am not defending it in any way.

 

Or repeat offenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link has been posted on my FB feed a couple of times:

 

http://madworldnews.com/duggar-girls-victimized/

 

Apparently anyone who talks about this at all is just as bad as Josh.

 

Gag me with a spoon!

oh, for pity's sake . . . . :svengo: . their supporters need to get off their high horse.  and stop engaging in melodrama. :nopity:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or repeat offenders.

 

 

I am not even sure how there could be repeat offenders if the first offense is met with life in prison or execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link has been posted on my FB feed a couple of times:

 

http://madworldnews.com/duggar-girls-victimized/

 

Apparently anyone who talks about this at all is just as bad as Josh.

 

Gag me with a spoon!

 

 

I can't even read the supporters for Josh.  One man who posted another similar article is a man whose brother has gone to jail for molesting his 16 year old niece.  I have to consider the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not even sure how there could be repeat offenders if the first offense is met with life in prison or execution.

"Aggravated" means the specific things (ie involving drugs, minors, HIV etc.) That implies that consensual 'ordinary' homosexuality is not "aggravated" -- unless it is repeated.

 

That means that this law considers anyone who would continually participate in ordinary consensual homosexuality (being unwilling to stop after being caught for a non-aggravated type of behaviour: "repeating" that "offence") to be of the same category of criminality as the "aggravated" type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way I could see 'supporting' or 'explaining' the Duggars at this point would be seeing them as victims of this cult, maybe thinking that the Duggars just gave up thinking for themselves. If the higher-ups said they should jump, they jumped.  It's not unheard of (Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones, whatever that cult was with all the ladies wearing pastel dresses), in some cases people end up killing their children at the order of those in authority.  If I'm not mistaken, mothers have even turned their daughters over for abuse to spiritual leaders (wasn't that part of David Koresh's thing?).

 

I don't know.  The two aspects of this that make absolutely no sense to me are why they would keep Josh in the home after multiple offenses with multiple victims, and why they would go on TV afterwards, pretending theirs was the perfect family.  This is all I've got for why anyone, knowing this was in the family's history, would remotely consider going on TV with 'family values' front and center. If they are brainwashed cultists, and the big shots at ATI told them to, that at least explains why they would do something so ridiculously risky for their family.  

 

I just don't know.  The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach. Those poor girls. :( 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My depressing thought for the morning: I wonder who got the blame for being the reason their daughter was stillborn several years ago. Since apparently that's how things work in their church, I'm sure it was pinned on someone for something. And that makes me want to throw up.

I expressed the same fears when baby Jubilee died. They were already in the wrong-headed territory of believing that their one early miscarriage was a consequence of using the BCP. It makes my heart ache to think of anyone fearing/believing that Jubillee died as a punishment or curse.

 

Also, Anna suffered a miscarriage, too, and I also wondered if she feared there was some cosmic justice reason. It's all very sad. Losing a baby already wracks most mothers with guilt/fear that they were at fault. How awful if one has "spiritual authorities" confirming their fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it escapes the attention of the Duggars' defenders that had Josh not molested anyone, there would be nothing to talk about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to Josh -- we honestly can't know where he is. We are all guessing or hoping.

 

It is really hard for me to hear other people speak about how a person who is ______________________ SHOULD think or act. What is "normal" or not "normal."

 

Why?

 

Because, my "normal" reactions are usually hidden. When my child was lost, I panicked on the inside. However, my face/body was a picture of calm. This is my NORMAL. It is not normal for me to break down in tears -- especiallly under stress. I don't yell, scream or panic. I am, to all appearances, calm and unphased. Later -- away from it all -- I do fall apart. Please be careful that you are not projecting YOUR normal and assuming everyone reacts the same. They don't.

 

After a very bad car accident, which I walked away from without any major injuries, my parents assumed the accident wasn't very bad -- because I was so calm on the phone. An argument by phone ensued, and my parents were certain I was pretty much making things up so I could justify staying another few days with a boy. Now, when they saw the picture of the accident -- my mangled car held by one sturdy branch from a lake -- the same spot someone else had been killed a week earlier -- they were horrified. My parents apologised to me for the way they talked to me after the accident.

 

We are also expecting him to behave as if this just happened.

 

For him, this was a long time ago. For us, this is fresh and recent.

 

For him, and the way in which he was raised, this is all water under the bridge. It's been dealt with. For US, we are processing everything and expecting him to behave a certain way because that is what WE would do TODAY.

 

For him, leaving home to go work on a farm was probably counseling. In his mind, this could very well be true. I doubt he stayed for 8(?) months away from his family and never had to talk about what he did, and why it was wrong. While, to his mother, she could think of counseling as being something different.

 

There are very few things in my past that still make me emotional. However, they aren't usually things I've done. Things that were done TO me? Yeah, I still feel it. I am sure the girls still feel it -- they are the ones who LIVED it.

 

As for Josh -- that past, to him, is anceint history. Is he still ashamed? Probably. I am still ashamed of the wrongs I did as a teen. But, at 27 -- even though I never did anything like JD -- I would be hard pressed to create some sort of emotion-filled, remorse-filled plea for some of the very real hurts I'm sure I inflicted. My mom? Heck yeah -- she could. But, she also cries when a cop pulls her over. We are completely different people -- we react and think and process in very different ways. Neither is better than the other -- but because I don't process the way my mom does, people wrongly assume that I'm not sorry enough, or it wasn't THAT bad, or maybe I just don't really care -- when nothing is further from the truth.

 

We cannot forget that JD has been just as brainwashed as any of the girls. JD is behaving and reacting in the manner he has been conditioned to act and behave. Just because he is a man does not mean he can easily depart from the conditioning in which he was raised. He may have an easier time of breaking away than a girl -- but the grip of his whole lifetime is very strong. Men who have only been under this teaching a short time -- and came to it as an adult -- can have a very difficult time breaking away. To come to a point where you can walk away from what has been NORMAL to him -- when, even now, he is probably surrounded by people telling him HE is right, and the rest of the world can't possiblly understand? Not impossible, but extremly difficult.

 

Gothard's and the Pearl's warped teachings are the root of this -- combined with the sinful desires of man, which when warped with bad teachings -- blind those who they purport to be helping from their own sin and guilt, and in fact reinforce the notion of self-righteousness.

 

Most of us here cannot even begin to understand what it is like to live under this teaching -- let alone embrace it. But for the kids, it is the only life they have known. It is the only way they have known. And leaving it will not be easy.

You make some good points here.

 

However, it is a mistake to think that Josh's abuse of his sisters is entirely a result of his upbringing (which may have enabled to and certainly impacted the events following disclosure).

 

It is also a mistake to demonize and dehumanize him.

 

Both of these are ways to make him "other" which can downplay the reality that he is an ordinary, flawed human being. There is no way of raising your kids, or religious belief, or other practice which can guarantee 100% that something like this can't happen in your own family.

 

Because it can, and it does, and denial and minimizing and mishandling all happen because people do not react perfectly when Very Bad Things happen.

 

All anyone can do is the best they can with the understanding and knowledge they have. There is plenty to criticize and point out was done wrong in the actions of the Duggar parents. But having seen a friend and a sibling deal with this type of situation as parents, and given a lot of thought to "what would I do in her shoes" I can see where one handled it better than the other, but can have compassion for the one who handled it badly and the reasons why. You don't have to be a selfish megalomaniac to screw up during a crisis of this magnitude.

 

On the other hand, neither of them put their family on national TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to get technical about the Bible then should we tie a millstone around his neck and toss him into the sea?

 

 

I believe that is the stated punishment is it not?

 

It's not, according to Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way I could see 'supporting' or 'explaining' the Duggars at this point would be seeing them as victims of this cult, maybe thinking that the Duggars just gave up thinking for themselves. If the higher-ups said they should jump, they jumped.  It's not unheard of (Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones, whatever that cult was with all the ladies wearing pastel dresses), in some cases people end up killing their children at the order of those in authority.  If I'm not mistaken, mothers have even turned their daughters over for abuse to spiritual leaders (wasn't that part of David Koresh's thing?).

 

 

 

did jim jones' followers KNOW they were drinking poisoned kool-aid?  I could easily see him not telling them.  that the drink was equal to some sort of covenant drink to get people to drink it - but not telling them it would also kill them.

Apparently it escapes the attention of the Duggars' defenders that had Josh not molested anyone, there would be nothing to talk about!

 

details, details  - don't confuse the poor dears with logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points here.

 

However, it is a mistake to think that Josh's abuse of his sisters is entirely a result of his upbringing (which may have enabled to and certainly impacted the events following disclosure).

 

It is also a mistake to demonize and dehumanize him.

 

But that would take all the fun out of it. :glare:

 

Both of these are ways to make him "other" which can downplay the reality that he is an ordinary, flawed human being. There is no way of raising your kids, or religious belief, or other practice which can guarantee 100% that something like this can't happen in your own family.

 

Because it can, and it does, and denial and minimizing and mishandling all happen because people do not react perfectly when Very Bad Things happen.

 

All anyone can do is the best they can with the understanding and knowledge they have. There is plenty to criticize and point out was done wrong in the actions of the Duggar parents. But having seen a friend and a sibling deal with this type of situation as parents, and given a lot of thought to "what would I do in her shoes" I can see where one handled it better than the other, but can have compassion for the one who handled it badly and the reasons why. You don't have to be a selfish megalomaniac to screw up during a crisis of this magnitude.

 

Having seen waaaay more of this (professionally) than anyone should ever have to, I agree with your conclusion here. And I'm not sure that there is ANY good way to handle this. Maybe just bad and less bad.

 

But, then again, here I am, reading a thread that I know disgusts me, so what do I know.  I admire your fortitude, Ravin, inserting a bit of rationality and compassion. Yay, you.

 

On the other hand, neither of them put their family on national TV.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...