s/o Jinger - LetThemMarry

[Katy]

Ugh.  I knew the patriarchy movement was creepy, but it wasn't until I read up on the reference to LetThemMarry that I understood just how creepy.

 

Basically, to restore the patriarchy, sell your tween daughters through betrothal, your sons (and their slave labor) are still under the authority of the father until you die, have your children have as many children as possible as young as possible so there are many boys to hand over their income, and everything that is theirs is yours.

 

It's the creepy, religiously abusive path from poverty to riches.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160404113311/http://letthemmarry.org/authority-of-the-father-historical-commentaries/

 

 

 

[BlsdMama]

Wow.  That's some website.... It's about not only maintaining control over adult children but also over the inlaws.

 

I wonder how they explain 1 Corinthians 7:8.

[frugalmamatx]

They are creepy. And creepier in person. They had a table {right next to ATI's ALERT academy} at our local homeschool convention last year. 

 

I felt like I needed a hot shower to scrub off the sleez just from walking by. 

[FaithManor]

Oh, it is a creepy thing for certain. To be this interested in one's adult children's sex lives and fertility makes me think it is a haven for perverts. Really. I have a married daughter and grandson. I can't fathom attempting to control them. My brain just doesn't go there.

 

This reminds me of the Scott Botkin/Doug Phillip cult in which men who join are supposed to make a 200 year plan. Literally, planning your control beyond the grave in order to populate the earth with their kind of "christian" and dominate world governments.

 

Crazy talk for certain. Unfortunately, because under the guise of religious freedom in this country child trafficking is not taken as seriously as it should be, this kind of thing will be tolerated because this nation recognizes no basic civil rights of the child so essentially, a child does not have the right to be protected from betrothal to someone else in the court, and given the sheer number of these that have come on the docket in New Jersey and the courts have been loathe to overturn, ie. annul, the marriages, it doesn't appear that the law is willing to do much about it. Thankfully though, one court did do its job when the father that forced his 15 year old daughter to marry her rapist was sentenced to jail. 

 

Sick and twisted. Medieal. Here, let's sell our kids to each other under parental treaty. My goodness. Back to the Dark Ages we go! Thankfully, in all likelihood this would not become dominate in this society as the bulk of families, law enforcement, and adult children are all about personal liberty so not inclined to engage in this behavior. It is a bad fringe movement, but hopefully will remain fringe and nothing more.

[HRAAB]

I remember looking at their website because there were rumors they might be at a local homeschooling convention; I don't know if they were invited in the end.

 

Just crazy.

[FaithManor]

At least the Salvation Army got wind of it and didn't let them use their camp for the conference. Seriously, the word needs to get out so that no public facility will ever be offered to them. Sad to say though, that money talks, and many public facilities probably don't care a lick so long as they can get their money from renting out their space.

[Katy]

Speaking of insane Dominionists...  I was trying to explain this to a relative of mine.  Does anyone know a succinct website to explain this so the relative doesn't have to take my word for it?  Apparently he thinks I'm too liberal to be trusted, and Wikipedia is evil too.  I don't feel like spending hours researching if some of you already know the answer for me.

[Guest]

That's absolutely horrid. What a perversion.

[Guest]

Speaking of insane Dominionists... I was trying to explain this to a relative of mine. Does anyone know a succinct website to explain this so the relative doesn't have to take my word for it? Apparently he thinks I'm too liberal to be trusted, and Wikipedia is evil too. I don't feel like spending hours researching if some of you already know the answer for me.

I haven't found one. We have just had to point out, gently, where dominionism runs counter to scripture, uses disparate/uneven standards for interpretation, and just plain twisting of verses out of context. We have a relative who is a loving, thoughtful believer but not very discerning and tends to really like Rushdoonie and North and other similar dominionists, so we just address these things as they come up and guide them back to scripture. Discernment is a weakness of this person, but they are strong in areas of prayer, love of the body, and many other things. Dominionism plays into worldview and political ideologies many believers find attractive, and a lot of it insidiously weaves into biblical doctrines and sounds correct at first glance, so accessing it isn't straightforward at all.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Bluegoat]

There are those Mormon spin-off cults that seem to structure their families very similarly.  I think it is all about finding some way to get a free ride and control others, for some it seems to have a very strong appeal.  Anything they can plausibly hang this on for authority, they will.

 

I think it's so interesting that there is so much similarity in the family structures that result.  I can think of 60's type communes that had a similar set up too.

 

I actually don't have an issue with arranged marriages, though, I think they get kind of a bad rap from groups like this.

[TranquilMind]

Ugh.  I knew the patriarchy movement was creepy, but it wasn't until I read up on the reference to LetThemMarry that I understood just how creepy.

 

Basically, to restore the patriarchy, sell your tween daughters through betrothal, your sons (and their slave labor) are still under the authority of the father until you die, have your children have as many children as possible as young as possible so there are many boys to hand over their income, and everything that is theirs is yours.

 

It's the creepy, religiously abusive path from poverty to riches.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160404113311/http://letthemmarry.org/authority-of-the-father-historical-commentaries/

 

I read the page on which your link lands, as well as the What We Believe page, and I'm not seeing what you are saying here, that authority - as opposed to honor - lasts until parental death.   Now anything about selling tween daughters or sons being slave labor, or handing over their income to their father. That first page was huge though, so perhaps I missed it. 

 

 

Can you show me where that is? 

 

By the way, Obeying your parents comes with a precondition - "in the Lord"  If they are outside of biblical authority, and not just societal custom or something, then it does not apply. 

 

I simply didn't see all that about selling tween daughters and forcing sons to keep supporting parents. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Excelsior! Academy]

We did not return to our convention this year partially due to this group having a booth there.  Why would they book them!?

 

My eldest, 18 at the time, was carrying my youngest, 4 at the time, and was handed a pamphlet on preparing your toddler for marriage.  I. am. not. kidding.  I kept the pamphlet thinking it was a joke planted by someone who was a homeschooling naysayer.  Nope.  It was real.  That is when we looked up the website, realized it wasn't a parody, and ran as far away from our convention as we could.  

 

What a sick, twisted, un-biblical belief structure.

[Katy]

I read the page on which your link lands, as well as the What We Believe page, and I'm not seeing what you are saying here, that authority - as opposed to honor - lasts until parental death.   Now anything about selling tween daughters or sons being slave labor, or handing over their income to their father. That first page was huge though, so perhaps I missed it. 

 

 

Can you show me where that is? 

 

By the way, Obeying your parents comes with a precondition - "in the Lord"  If they are outside of biblical authority, and not just societal custom or something, then it does not apply. 

 

I simply didn't see all that about selling tween daughters and forcing sons to keep supporting parents. 

 

I don't remember what page that was on.  It discussed marrying before being able to support your own family, working anyway, handing pay over to father, and old testament history of every married son submitting to his father at length.  Perhaps it was the page about patriarchy.

[FaithManor]

Here is an article on adult child obedience to the father and particularly Vaughn Olman. Maybe it will be helpful in understanding the belief.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/02/quoting-quiverfull-adult-children-must-be-under-father-headship/

 

[FaithManor]

http://ohlman40.rssing.com/chan-45840097/all_p1.html

 

[FaithManor]

http://letthemmarry.org/faq/

[FaithManor]

This quote right here from Ohlman's own site is very telling.

 

"Doesn’t a legitimate marriage require the consent of both the people marrying? Scripture speaks of the father of the son “taking a wife†for his son, and the father of the bride “giving†her to her husband (Jeremiah 29: 6; Judges 21: 7; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10: 30; 1 Corinthians 7:36-38). It gives example after example of young women being given to young men, without the young woman even being consulted, and often, in some of the most Godly marriages in Scripture, the young man is not consulted."

[FaithManor]

And another quote from his website.

 

How young should people get married? We think that if people are honest with themselves, they really already know the answer to this question. When do boys become men and girls become women? When are their bodies developed enough to have children? When do they begin to develop romantic interest in the opposite sex, and when does fornication begin to become an issue?

The Bible provides many reasons for marriage, and most if not all of them demonstrate that marriage typically ought to happen in the youth (as in, before the age of 20).

We also quote some old commentators (Calvin, Gill, Luther) who assign particular age ranges to clarify what we should already know to be “youthâ€. (Seriously, most churches today have “youth groupsâ€, which are for their teenage population.) And we generally agree with these men. John Calvin defines the “flower of her age†(1 Corinthians 7:36) as “from twelve to twenty years of ageâ€. Likewise, John Gill defines it as “one of twelve years and a half oldâ€. And Martin Luther says, “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen…†We do not endorse marriage at ages as young as twelve. Our position is that, for a woman:

1) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

2) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is ready to bear children. Unlike modern society Scripture sees the woman as a bearer, nurser, and raiser of children. The ‘young woman’ is the woman whose body is physically ready for these things, physically mature enough to handle them without damage.

3) The 'youth' ready for marriage is one who is ready for sexual intercourse sexually and emotionally. Her desire is for her husband, and she is ready to rejoice in him physically.

All three of the above points represent, not a certain exact age, but a level of physical and sexual maturity. Not ‘maturity’ as in ‘been there, done that’, nor even a ‘maturity’ as in ‘have been at this level for a long time’, but a point of arrival. But we are certainly in agreement with the commentators that marriage (in order to be timely and to accomplish its purposes) ought to happen before the age of twenty for almost everyone.

[Guest]

And another quote from his website.

How young should people get married? We think that if people are honest with themselves, they really already know the answer to this question. When do boys become men and girls become women? When are their bodies developed enough to have children? When do they begin to develop romantic interest in the opposite sex, and when does fornication begin to become an issue?

The Bible provides many reasons for marriage, and most if not all of them demonstrate that marriage typically ought to happen in the youth (as in, before the age of 20).

We also quote some old commentators (Calvin, Gill, Luther) who assign particular age ranges to clarify what we should already know to be “youthâ€. (Seriously, most churches today have “youth groupsâ€, which are for their teenage population.) And we generally agree with these men. John Calvin defines the “flower of her age†(1 Corinthians 7:36) as “from twelve to twenty years of ageâ€. Likewise, John Gill defines it as “one of twelve years and a half oldâ€. And Martin Luther says, “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen…†We do not endorse marriage at ages as young as twelve. Our position is that, for a woman:

1) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

2) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is ready to bear children. Unlike modern society Scripture sees the woman as a bearer, nurser, and raiser of children. The ‘young woman’ is the woman whose body is physically ready for these things, physically mature enough to handle them without damage.

3) The 'youth' ready for marriage is one who is ready for sexual intercourse sexually and emotionally. Her desire is for her husband, and she is ready to rejoice in him physically.

All three of the above points represent, not a certain exact age, but a level of physical and sexual maturity. Not ‘maturity’ as in ‘been there, done that’, nor even a ‘maturity’ as in ‘have been at this level for a long time’, but a point of arrival. But we are certainly in agreement with the commentators that marriage (in order to be timely and to accomplish its purposes) ought to happen before the age of twenty for almost everyone.

O.M.G. Where is my bucket? I am going to hurl.

 

Also find it interesting that there is no mention of the actual purpose of breasts. they might be enjoyable for the guy, but they are for nourishment of babies.

[FaithManor]

O.M.G. Where is my bucket? I am going to hurl.

 

Also find it interesting that there is no mention of the actual purpose of breasts. they might be enjoyable for the guy, but they are for nourishment of babies.

More misogyny. Of course the only use of a female body is for the sex needs of a man! Of Course!  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

Nature's baby bottles dudes! Wrap your brains around it. Whether or not you like them or find them alluring, they aren't there for your entertainment contrary to your popular belief. They exist for the nutrition of the next generation should the female choose to reproduce. All other considerations are secondary.

 

The misogyny runs deep. 

 

And really. I mean. Good gosh. What man spends a lot of time contemplating the reason his daughter has breasts, and planning how soon he can get rid of her???? If my husband thought that way about our DD he would have been tossed to the curb so fast his head would have spun clean off his shoulders! I refuse to go back to the Dark Ages of civilization.

 

Just because things "used" to be done a certain way, doesn't mean that they "should" be done that way. Good grief. I swear this guy is just running some sort of cult for perverts.

[Guest]

It certainly does look that way to me.

[Guest]

And here I thought they were primarily for *my* sexual enjoyment. Apparently we have been doing it wrong :lol:

[TranquilMind]

Here is an article on adult child obedience to the father and particularly Vaughn Olman. Maybe it will be helpful in understanding the belief.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/02/quoting-quiverfull-adult-children-must-be-under-father-headship/

I read it but I'm not understanding this at all (granted, I know little about "patriarchy" group folks).

 

"There is also a darker side to the concept of “singleness†as well: When people today use the word “single†to describe someone (maybe themselves), they mean by this not only that the person is unmarried but really that they are alone. Scripture never shows the 30-year-old unmarried woman, living alone in an apartment, who is the CEO of a major corporation and has achieved all of the goals our society has set for her. It never shows a time in a man’s life where he ceases to be under the authority of his parents or where his responsibility to care for his family ceases. [5] Not even after marriage. While it is true that a man or woman may be unmarried, maybe even called to be so, Scripture never shows such a one as being exempt from responsibility and duty toward others, particularly family. “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.†(Romans 14:7)"

 

Well, of course scripture doesn't speak of a woman who is a CEO living in an apartment. That isn't the sort of concept that made sense in those days, but it certainly speaks of the Proverbs 31 woman, who is buying real estate (vs. 16) and gets out in the marketplace and sells (vs 24). She produces goods, takes care of her family, is a strong woman, and is charitable.

 

Sure, there are all kinds of people in scripture who are not being ordered around by parents. Abraham was a parental figure to Lot and they separated when both grew very wealthy and needed more space. No "obedience" and subservience required. Even the Prodigal's father didn't insist on obedience. Even Jesus said that those who value parents above him were wrong. The scripture says only to obey your parents in the Lord, not just flatly to obey them. Honoring them doesn't end, but day to day obeying them as your authority figures sure does. Nor does the scripture quoted there support that contention. Sure, you have responsibilities to family, but you are not subjugated to them.

Edited June 22, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I don't remember what page that was on.  It discussed marrying before being able to support your own family, working anyway, handing pay over to father, and old testament history of every married son submitting to his father at length.  Perhaps it was the page about patriarchy.

 

Hmm.  I did see some of that, but certainly not the endless submission and handing over your paycheck.  Will look again. 

[TranquilMind]

http://ohlman40.rssing.com/chan-45840097/all_p1.html

This is just a list of links that go to supposed articles, but there isn't any content.  They simply quote something and say, "What do you think"? 

[TranquilMind]

http://letthemmarry.org/faq/

 

That is enlightening. 

I don't get this whole endless lifelong authority, as confused with honor, but I guess as an outsider to that mentality, that is ok. 

 

And 15 is far too young to get married.  I do know late teens who married and did ok, and it was pretty common in previous generations. 

[MercyA]

And another quote from his website.

 

How young should people get married? We think that if people are honest with themselves, they really already know the answer to this question. When do boys become men and girls become women? When are their bodies developed enough to have children? When do they begin to develop romantic interest in the opposite sex, and when does fornication begin to become an issue?

The Bible provides many reasons for marriage, and most if not all of them demonstrate that marriage typically ought to happen in the youth (as in, before the age of 20).

We also quote some old commentators (Calvin, Gill, Luther) who assign particular age ranges to clarify what we should already know to be “youthâ€. (Seriously, most churches today have “youth groupsâ€, which are for their teenage population.) And we generally agree with these men. John Calvin defines the “flower of her age†(1 Corinthians 7:36) as “from twelve to twenty years of ageâ€. Likewise, John Gill defines it as “one of twelve years and a half oldâ€. And Martin Luther says, “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen…†We do not endorse marriage at ages as young as twelve. Our position is that, for a woman:

1) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

2) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is ready to bear children. Unlike modern society Scripture sees the woman as a bearer, nurser, and raiser of children. The ‘young woman’ is the woman whose body is physically ready for these things, physically mature enough to handle them without damage.

3) The 'youth' ready for marriage is one who is ready for sexual intercourse sexually and emotionally. Her desire is for her husband, and she is ready to rejoice in him physically.

All three of the above points represent, not a certain exact age, but a level of physical and sexual maturity. Not ‘maturity’ as in ‘been there, done that’, nor even a ‘maturity’ as in ‘have been at this level for a long time’, but a point of arrival. But we are certainly in agreement with the commentators that marriage (in order to be timely and to accomplish its purposes) ought to happen before the age of twenty for almost everyone.

 

What a bunch of pervs.  :(

 

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

[Artichoke]

Speaking of insane Dominionists...  I was trying to explain this to a relative of mine.  Does anyone know a succinct website to explain this so the relative doesn't have to take my word for it?  Apparently he thinks I'm too liberal to be trusted, and Wikipedia is evil too.  I don't feel like spending hours researching if some of you already know the answer for me.

 

 

I'm not sure about the dominionist angle, but the Pe*rls ( didn't want to type the full name ) wrote a series of articles about dysfunctional patriarchy.   

[FaithManor]

In terms of basic theology and ideology, the wiki article isn't bad.

[FaithManor]

Dominionism itself does not describe the many flavors of lifestyle though, kust the.underpinning theological bent. For that possibly pulling up articles on Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Geoff Botkin, and Voddie Baucham to name a few. Then also "Stay at home daughters movement" and "purity balls" will give some additional informatiom.

[Guest]

Speaking of insane Dominionists... I was trying to explain this to a relative of mine. Does anyone know a succinct website to explain this so the relative doesn't have to take my word for it? Apparently he thinks I'm too liberal to be trusted, and Wikipedia is evil too. I don't feel like spending hours researching if some of you already know the answer for me.

I don't have a quick description but you can find some sources by looking at the following words and names in your browser.

 

Dominionism

Reconstructionism

Theonomy

 

RJ Rushdoony

 

Maybe you will find something that will work for your relative.

[TranquilMind]

Dominionism itself does not describe the many flavors of lifestyle though, kust the.underpinning theological bent. For that possibly pulling up articles on Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Geoff Botkin, and Voddie Baucham to name a few. Then also "Stay at home daughters movement" and "purity balls" will give some additional informatiom.

 

Ugh.  Never heard of most of them, but the "stay at home daughters movement" sounds pretty odd. 

Where do these twisted people gain followers?  It's hard to believe that many follow this kind of stuff, but maybe they do.  

[Guest]

I wouldn't group Voddie Baucham in there. He is involved in the family church movement but is theologically sound and doesn't veer into cult territory with his recommendations.

[Daria]

Marriage is ordained for the prevention of fornication. 

 

 

WTF?  

[FaithManor]

Ugh. Never heard of most of them, but the "stay at home daughters movement" sounds pretty odd.

Where do these twisted people gain followers? It's hard to believe that many follow this kind of stuff, but maybe they do.

Usually the process of gaining followers is slow. With Doug P, he marketed his historical toys, his adventure series, vintage style, wholesome, family oriented stuff along with a profoundly false view of American history as that of a god ordained theocracy which appealed to a lot of conservative Christian families. Slowly it morphed into more and more bizarre ideas but a little at a time always under the veneer of "this is the formula for a godly, happy marriage and family" with the political capper that his dad was the founder of the Constitution Party, now called the US Taxpayer Party, and ran for POTUS a couple of times. The more people got sucked in, the crazier he got, but always his smiling, perfect, godly, world traveling, family was put forth as proof that it worked. He cultivated allies amongst dominionists such as Geoffrey Botkin whose daughters were put forth as beautiful, subservient, father worshipping practically perfect young women and who wouldn't love to have such selfless, devoted daughters. He gained steam in the homeschool movement by bizarrely over stating both his achievements and his family's. He never disclosed that he was fired from HSLDA for not playing nice with women and being too crazy for their blood! He became a known speaker on the homeschool circuit though passed over by the less conservative, moderate, and progressive homeschoolers, and a total unknown to secular homeschoolers.

 

He appealed to vulnerable people. People looking for an ideology that woukd give them a check the box formula for a successful God pleasing family.

 

Of course in all of this he never disclosed his funny accounting practices that included the ministry buying his family's clothing and personal care items, 6000 sq ft "parsonage", furniture, toys, everything. He did not disclose that female employees were not given paychecks and instead paid fathers and husbands so they would not have money of their own. And on and on. He was charismatic, beguiling, offered a magical product, same old same old of how a sociopathic narcissist gains a following.

 

It is how all of these nutters get fans. They work on those who are searching for easy answers where there are none. He promised something that Christianity can't give...a perfect life if you just do x,y,z. And for the most extreme right wing elements who long for some sort of American theocracy, an equation for how to achieve it.

Edited June 21, 2016 by FaithManor

[TranquilMind]

This quote right here from Ohlman's own site is very telling.

 

"Doesn’t a legitimate marriage require the consent of both the people marrying? Scripture speaks of the father of the son “taking a wife†for his son, and the father of the bride “giving†her to her husband (Jeremiah 29: 6; Judges 21: 7; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10: 30; 1 Corinthians 7:36-38). It gives example after example of young women being given to young men, without the young woman even being consulted, and often, in some of the most Godly marriages in Scripture, the young man is not consulted."

Yeah, that's nuts. Consent is rather a basic requirement of entering a contract.

[TranquilMind]

Usually the process of gaining followers is slow. With Doug P, he marketed his historical toys, his adventure series, vintage style, wholesome, family oriented stuff along with a profoundly false view of American history as that of a god ordained theocracy which appealed to a lot of conservative Christian families. Slowly it morphed into more and more bizarre ideas but a little at a time always under the veneer of "this is the formula for a godly, happy marriage and family" with the political capper that his dad was the founder of the Constitution Party, now called the US Taxpayer Party, and ran for POTUS a couple of times. The more people got sucked in, the crazier he got, but always his smiling, perfect, godly, world traveling, family was put forth as proof that it worked. He cultivated allies amongst dominionists such as Geoffrey Botkin whose daughters were put forth as beautiful, subservient, father worshipping practically perfect young women and who wouldn't love to have such selfless, devoted daughters. He gained steam in the homeschool movement by bizarrely over stating both his achievements and his family's. He never disclosed that he was fired from HSLDA for not playing nice with women and being too crazy for their blood! He became a known speaker on the homeschool circuit though passed over by the less conservative, moderate, and progressive homeschoolers, and a total unknown to secular homeschoolers.

 

He appealed to vulnerable people. People looking for an ideology that woukd give them a check the box formula for a successful God pleasing family.

 

Of course in all of this he never disclosed his funny accounting practices that included the ministry buying his family's clothing and personal care items, 6000 sq ft "parsonage", furniture, toys, everything. He did not disclose that female employees were not given paychecks and instead paid fathers and husbands so they would not have money of their own. And on and on. He was charismatic, beguiling, offered a magical product, same old same old of how a sociopathic narcissist gains a following.

 

It is how all of these nutters get fans. They work on those who are searching for easy answers where there are none. He promised something that Christianity can't give...a perfect life if you just do x,y,z. And for the most extreme right wing elements who long for some sort of American theocracy, an equation for how to achieve it.

Thanks for this post. That's interesting.

[Guest]

Was Doug P the one who led the nanny on with promises of marriage after he knocked off, er, um, after his wife passed? Then he broke into her house or something??

[EndOfOrdinary]

I live in the middle of nowhere. We live on federal land and do not have a physical address. When we moved out here, we did so because we are avid outdoors people, could get Internet access (for a very high price), and could shortly be debt free by simplifying from Big City. I had no idea that homeschooling out here would be so drastically different. I had no knowledge of the Quiverful movement, Dominionism, or the Goddards. Having gone to Catholic boarding school, I had an idea of right wing religious homeschoolers, but no concept of the extremism.

 

The abundance of such homeschooling extremism here is quite shocking. When I see national headlines, it no longer makes me wonder how such things can occur. Many of the women (I have never met husbands) and children are beyond pleseant. They seem wholesome, woodsy, and put together. As more time passes, layers begin to reveal themselves, but at initial and cursory meeting no one would be the wiser. It is much like having a Facebook version of yourself. Oddly enough, the female family members are incredibly well put together, but lowly educated. They could manage a law firm practically, but cannot think much passed very superfical levels. It is a very strange combination. I think their "with-it" ness comes across to many as an education. However, I would not doubt it comes from huge amounts of responsiblity and lots of family managment experience from an extremely youmg age.

[Liz CA]

More misogyny. Of course the only use of a female body is for the sex needs of a man! Of Course!  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

Nature's baby bottles dudes! Wrap your brains around it. Whether or not you like them or find them alluring, they aren't there for your entertainment contrary to your popular belief. They exist for the nutrition of the next generation should the female choose to reproduce. All other considerations are secondary.

 

The misogyny runs deep. 

 

And really. I mean. Good gosh. What man spends a lot of time contemplating the reason his daughter has breasts, and planning how soon he can get rid of her???? If my husband thought that way about our DD he would have been tossed to the curb so fast his head would have spun clean off his shoulders! I refuse to go back to the Dark Ages of civilization.

 

Just because things "used" to be done a certain way, doesn't mean that they "should" be done that way. Good grief. I swear this guy is just running some sort of cult for perverts.

 

Since reading so much info here about ATI etc., I finally realized that a family we knew was obviously living by their principles - even though at the time I had no clue. I merely thought them strange. They married one of their daughters off days after her 18th birthday, the other daughter was around 20. When the mother could not control the older daughter's husband, she told her daughter to pack up and come home, home meaning mother and father's house. The mother was on the phone with "her girls" not just once a day (which IMHO would be plenty) but several times and evidently inquired about all kinds of things to do with their husbands. This I only know because she openly shared it. Right around the wedding of the younger daughter I began to scratch my head as the girl was so obviously not ready to leave home.

 

[FaithManor]

Was Doug P the one who led the nanny on with promises of marriage after he knocked off, er, um, after his wife passed? Then he broke into her house or something??

Bingo!

 

She was brought into the home when she was about 14.5 years old and he groomed her from the beginning as the next Mrs. Dougie P. He promised her that Belle would die soo, and they would be married. Part and parcel of this was Doug's creepy fascination with Michelle Duggar. He and Belle had eight children and after several years of no more, he was unhappy. Belle was at age of peri-menopause/waning fertility and DP or Dip as I tend to refer to him coveted the larger family due to his "200 year plan" to have a massive number of dominionist descendents to help set up a theocracy. It was therefore necessary to cultivate a new, presumably fertile female with a lot of childbearing years left. What he intended to do with Belle is anyone's guess. His particular brand of looney preaching made divorce a total taboo and would have likely resulted in quite a black eye for his money making endeavors. However, as has been reported on Wartburg Watch, Patheos, Leaving Fundamentalism, Spiritual Sounding Board, and Recovering Grace, along with the allegations in lawsuits against him and Boerne Christian Assembly - the church he founded - women accused of anything by their husbands were automatically guilty just for being female and the man was always, always right no matter how heinous the action so it is possible he could have trumped up charges of adultery or idolatry or whatever and gained sympathy and support for a divorce. What is more chilling was that he kept telling Lourdes that Belle was going to die soon though the woman had no health problems. Maybe he isn't dangerous, but I think that Belle should have had her food checked for anti-freeze and rat poison.

 

After Lourdes blew the whistle, sick of the never ending promises that clearly were empty, finally figuring our how used she had been, realizing that the engagement ring he gave her was just to placate her, she fessed to her family and her father had a lawyer draw up a cease and desist contact letter for Dip. Dip just couldn't keep away and one night scaled the side of the house, and climbed through her bedroom window. It was pitch black and he woke her out of a dead sleep so the police report indicates that she didn't at first recognize him. She screamed for help which caused Dip to figure he better get his tail out of there, so he shinnied back down the house and started running having apparently not parked nearby. Her brother and dad, armed for Iwo Jima, went flying out the door Lourdes having told them the intruder had fled, and fired a coule of rounds at Dip. They were getting ready to shoot again when Dip passed under a street light and they recognized him and chose not to fire again.

 

Lourdes eventually married but was quickly divorced. The lawsuit for abuse is going forward. The IRS is giving him a financial colonoscopy, and the board of directors for the ministry put him out of the house. Since everything was going bankrupt post scandal and it was all owned by the ministry, they literally had to leave with nothing more than the courtesy of the clothes on their backs. But due to the law in these matters, toys, and other things for the children could not be gifted despite what appears to be some indicated sympathy for Belle and the children.

 

And she is still with him. Belle, you need to have your food checked!

 

This is how it goes with these narcissists. They are expert, pathological liars and can usually juggle those balls successfully for years bur at some point somewhere one of their victims wakes up and a ball hits the floor. CJ Mahanney, Doug Wilson, Doug P, Joshua Harris, T Haggard, Mark Driscoll, and many many more.

[Guest]

Bingo!

 

She was brought into the home when she was about 14.5 years old and he groomed her from the beginning as the next Mrs. Dougie P. He promised her that Belle would die soo, and they would be married. Part and parcel of this was Doug's creepy fascination with Michelle Duggar. He and Belle had eight children and after several years of no more, he was unhappy. Belle was at age of peri-menopause/waning fertility and DP or Dip as I tend to refer to him coveted the larger family due to his "200 year plan" to have a massive number of dominionist descendents to help set up a theocracy. It was therefore necessary to cultivate a new, presumably fertile female with a lot of childbearing years left. What he intended to do with Belle is anyone's guess. His particular brand of looney preaching made divorce a total taboo and would have likely resulted in quite a black eye for his money making endeavors. However, as has been reported on Wartburg Watch, Patheos, Leaving Fundamentalism, Spiritual Sounding Board, and Recovering Grace, along with the allegations in lawsuits against him and Boerne Christian Assembly - the church he founded - women accused of anything by their husbands were automatically guilty just for being female and the man was always, always right no matter how heinous the action so it is possible he could have trumped up charges of adultery or idolatry or whatever and gained sympathy and support for a divorce. What is more chilling was that he kept telling Lourdes that Belle was going to die soon though the woman had no health problems. Maybe he isn't dangerous, but I think that Belle should have had her food checked for anti-freeze and rat poison.

 

After Lourdes blew the whistle, sick of the never ending promises that clearly were empty, finally figuring our how used she had been, realizing that the engagement ring he gave her was just to placate her, she fessed to her family and her father had a lawyer draw up a cease and desist contact letter for Dip. Dip just couldn't keep away and one night scaled the side of the house, and climbed through her bedroom window. It was pitch black and he woke her out of a dead sleep so the police report indicates that she didn't at first recognize him. She screamed for help which caused Dip to figure he better get his tail out of there, so he shinnied back down the house and started running having apparently not parked nearby. Her brother and dad, armed for Iwo Jima, went flying out the door Lourdes having told them the intruder had fled, and fired a coule of rounds at Dip. They were getting ready to shoot again when Dip passed under a street light and they recognized him and chose not to fire again.

 

Lourdes eventually married but was quickly divorced. The lawsuit for abuse is going forward. The IRS is giving him a financial colonoscopy, and the board of directors for the ministry put him out of the house. Since everything was going bankrupt post scandal and it was all owned by the ministry, they literally had to leave with nothing more than the courtesy of the clothes on their backs. But due to the law in these matters, toys, and other things for the children could not be gifted despite what appears to be some indicated sympathy for Belle and the children.

 

And she is still with him. Belle, you need to have your food checked!

 

This is how it goes with these narcissists. They are expert, pathological liars and can usually juggle those balls successfully for years bur at some point somewhere one of their victims wakes up and a ball hits the floor. CJ Mahanney, Doug Wilson, Doug P, Joshua Harris, T Haggard, Mark Driscoll, and many many more.

Such a bummer that the father and brother aren't a better shot.

[justasque]

Marriage is ordained for the prevention of fornication. 

 

 

WTF?  

 

Fornication being relations outside of marriage.  Gotta marry 'em off before they are tempted, so they can indulge without sinning.  

'Cause apparently they are not capable of self-restraint.  (Those purity rings and balls and such having something of a non-zero failure rate.)

[eternalsummer]

Some of these things are historically and even today quite normal, outside the West.  I think we're wealthy enough to allow some degree of self-indulgence in the choosing of mates (we don't have to arrange them so carefully for social and economic stability and growth) and to allow and support things like divorce and resultant single motherhood, etc.  It is our privilege talking :)

 

That said, I was raised in this society and so of course I feel quite intrinsically that the only acceptable and humane way to marry is to choose your mate and not start having children until at least your late teens.  

 

I am just aware enough to accept that this is to some degree a cultural bias on my part, paid for by the sacrifices and hard work of my ancestors.  I indeed chose my mate; we were engaged when I was 15 and he, 18, and we never questioned the permanence of our relationship.  He was my first (only) boyfriend.  I did not date.  

 

 

However, insisting on arranged, very young marriages in this society, where they are not necessary or socially beneficial, seems a bit wacko.

 

Plus the people who start these movements do all seem to end up being pedophiles.

 

I wouldn't condemn the young men any more than the young women, though - both are the unfortunate targets of these crazy people.

[FaithManor]

 

 

 

 

 

Plus the people who start these movements do all seem to end up being pedophiles.

 

 

 

This right here.

 

BG turned out to be a pervert. Dip is a pervert. DW arranged a marriage for a convicted pedophile, last name Sitler, to a young lady in his church, a man with multiple victims and high risk of recidivism, who then went on to molest his own son with said young wife so this really doesn't speak well of DW and frames him out to be a pervert at heart. CJ Mahanney and Josh Harris harboring a known pedophile in their congregations, attempting to silence the victims and their families, and violating mandatory reporting laws which really makes one think what they do behind closed doors when no one is watching. Sproul JR already suspected of shenanigans then caught in the Ashley Madison fiasco, Joshie Duggar of the Family Research Council - a family values lobby - child molester and Ashley Madison pervert, Sam Radar - christian youtube star - Ashley Madison, Jack Hyles of IFB with his mistress entertained and kept in style on embezzled church dollars and knowingly harbored a rapist and defended the guy. JH's son in law Jack Schapp convicted of statutory rape of a minor in the youth group then taking her across state lines to get an abortion. Mark Driscoll increasingly creepy with his sex sermons culminating in advocating marital rape and being escorted off the church property by the elders apparently the plagiarism not being enough of a red flag to fire him prior.  Jimmy Swaggert of course, Douglas Goodman pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the UK convicted in 2004 of the sexual assault of four church members. Gilbert Deya a Kenyan evangelical pastor who claimed to heal women of infertility was convicted of stealing babies and child trafficking. Earl Paulk of a mega church in Decatur, GA, multiple, spiritually abusive, grooming related sexual liasons that concluded with a DNA test proving his "nephew" was actually his son. Coy Privette conservative pastor and state politician for NC convicted of six counts of aiding and abetting prostitution. Joe Barron pastor of one of the largest churches in the US convicted of soliciting sex from a thirteen year old online who was actually an undercover police officer. Tony Alamo of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries - so many charges I can't list them all suffice it to say among them convictions on ten counts of transporting minors across state lines/sex trafficking , and the list goes on and on. 

 

And Ashley Madison, and Ashley Madison, and Ashley Madison....

 

I subscribe to the philosophy that the bigger they are and the louder they squawk about sexual sin, marriage,  babies, quiverfull, god's kingdom on earth being achieved by man, and....the more likely they are to be total perverted hound dogs in shepherd's clothing.

[TranquilMind]

This right here.

 

BG turned out to be a pervert. Dip is a pervert. DW arranged a marriage for a convicted pedophile, last name Sitler, to a young lady in his church, a man with multiple victims and high risk of recidivism, who then went on to molest his own son with said young wife so this really doesn't speak well of DW and frames him out to be a pervert at heart. CJ Mahanney and Josh Harris harboring a known pedophile in their congregations, attempting to silence the victims and their families, and violating mandatory reporting laws which really makes one think what they do behind closed doors when no one is watching. Sproul JR already suspected of shenanigans then caught in the Ashley Madison fiasco, Joshie Duggar of the Family Research Council - a family values lobby - child molester and Ashley Madison pervert, Sam Radar - christian youtube star - Ashley Madison, Jack Hyles of IFB with his mistress entertained and kept in style on embezzled church dollars and knowingly harbored a rapist and defended the guy. JH's son in law Jack Schapp convicted of statutory rape of a minor in the youth group then taking her across state lines to get an abortion. Mark Driscoll increasingly creepy with his sex sermons culminating in advocating marital rape and being escorted off the church property by the elders apparently the plagiarism not being enough of a red flag to fire him prior.  Jimmy Swaggert of course, Douglas Goodman pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the UK convicted in 2004 of the sexual assault of four church members. Gilbert Deya a Kenyan evangelical pastor who claimed to heal women of infertility was convicted of stealing babies and child trafficking. Earl Paulk of a mega church in Decatur, GA, multiple, spiritually abusive, grooming related sexual liasons that concluded with a DNA test proving his "nephew" was actually his son. Coy Privette conservative pastor and state politician for NC convicted of six counts of aiding and abetting prostitution. Joe Barron pastor of one of the largest churches in the US convicted of soliciting sex from a thirteen year old online who was actually an undercover police officer. Tony Alamo of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries - so many charges I can't list them all suffice it to say among them convictions on ten counts of transporting minors across state lines/sex trafficking , and the list goes on and on. 

 

And Ashley Madison, and Ashley Madison, and Ashley Madison....

 

I subscribe to the philosophy that the bigger they are and the louder they squawk about sexual sin, marriage,  babies, quiverfull, god's kingdom on earth being achieved by man, and....the more likely they are to be total perverted hound dogs in shepherd's clothing.

 

Dip... heh, heh.

 

Actually this is really sad.  Scripture has a lot to say about this:

 

Romans 2:3-4  Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

 

Also from Romans:  17But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.â€

 

[sunflowerlady]

So, do you all think that this type of thing is becoming less common and less popular in homeschool circles?  I used to see all the Pearl books, Vision Forum items, etc at convention. Also , homeschoolers I knew IRL as well as online homeschool moms used to really be into this type of thing. As time went on, it seem to have gone somewhat out of fashion. Of course, Vision Forum imploded, so that is why they are gone. 

 

Is this type of thinking/lifestyle on its way out in the homeschool world?

 

 

[FaithManor]

So, do you all think that this type of thing is becoming less common and less popular in homeschool circles?  I used to see all the Pearl books, Vision Forum items, etc at convention. Also , homeschoolers I knew IRL as well as online homeschool moms used to really be into this type of thing. As time went on, it seem to have gone somewhat out of fashion. Of course, Vision Forum imploded, so that is why they are gone. 

 

Is this type of thinking/lifestyle on its way out in the homeschool world?

I don't know. Possibly it represents a shift in homeschooling. While the charge for homeschooling to be legal was lead here in Michigan by a United Methodist Pastor who also had a teaching license with years of teaching experience in the PS and for heavens sake and still ended up in trouble with the law,  who while a Christian was primarily homeschooling for academic reasons and only secondarily for religious ones, I think that at the beginning the movement may have been dominated by those leaders who promoted homeschooling - BG was a big one at the time - as a way of bringing god's kingdom to earth through human efforts (dominionism) and of course isolating children from the world. Many of the early homeschool conventions were not particularly diverse. Only very conservative curriculum like Rod and Staff, Abeka, ACE were present, and the speakers were predominantly uber right wing. In terms of secular curricula, it was often extremely difficult to get publishers to sell to homeschoolers. Now we have Amazon and BN, and a variety of options so many more non-religious options.

 

Over time it has become a legitimate academic pursuit beyond the scope of a particular type of religious community which has brought in more diversity, a wider range of opinion and experience. I think that writers like Holt, Gatto, and our very own SWB may have been instrumental in promoting the idea of homeschooling for education's sake not only for religious convictions. Now we have an even larger group of secular homeschoolers who are trying to have a voice in the education process. So potentially the landscape has changed a bit. 

 

I don't know if it is on its way out, but I hope it is. Still, there will always be vulnerable families looking for a formulaic lifestyle to solve their problems, so I suspect that dominionism will be difficult to make extinct.

[Katy]

I'm not sure about the dominionist angle, but the Pe*rls ( didn't want to type the full name ) wrote a series of articles about dysfunctional patriarchy.   

 

Wow.  Never thought I'd think of the Pearls as relatively liberal by those standards:  http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/the-balanced-patriarch/

 

 

As for Driscoll, I wasn't aware of the rape controversy. That's terrible.  But I did hear an interesting critique of his interpretation of Song of Solomon once.  That basically it isn't the story of a married couple at all.  That it's the story of a young maiden in love with a shepherd who is captured, taken to a harem, but never submits, and eventually after refusing repeatedly,  is sent back home to her love.  Read it again with that it mind, and see if that interpretation doesn't make a heck of a lot more sense than the "traditional" one.

[FaithManor]

Another one I am convinced has something very seriously wrong with his head is Geoffrey Botkin of the Stay at Home Daughters Movement.

 

I find it odd that his two daughters 28 and 30 haven't been married off yet despite this dude's rattling around the homeschool circuit claiming young people should be married off young and have lots and lots of babies. Boy those biological clocks are a tickin'. And he's another one of those 200 year plan nuts, so with only a married son to provide for the next generation, he's a fallin' down on the job big time.

 

I know...snarky. But seriously, it is VERY weird that in a movement determined to treat females as nothing more than incubators, and committed to the bizarre concept of a 200 year legacy of dominionist descendents, after writing a book in which he claims to have prayed over his daughters' ovaries on the day they were born so they would be fruitful (is this not the weirdest thing in the world for a brand new father to think???), that he hasn't made them marry yet.

 

It makes my creepo meter go "ding, ding ding ding ding we have a winner". Hopefully that is not the case. My gosh I hope not for their sake, but history and experience seem to indicate otherwise with these kinds of men on that particular circuit.