Josh Duggar was arrested today

[KungFuPanda]

I think Ted Cruz will put Ted Cruz first and ghost the whole family.  

[Resilient]

39 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Filters don't work well, and often block a lot of sites that any reasonable person would consider legitimate to browse in a public location. That's why libraries are often loathe to put them in. We'd all *like* to keep hardcore shocking stuff off the public screens - but we don't want to accidentally - or "accidentally" if the people who designed/bought the filter have an agenda - block access to informative websites about breast cancer, sex ed, lgbtq issues, and so on. And all these things have been blocked with bad filters, often.

This was much to my 14 yo's surprise when I borrowed his laptop and searched on "breast cancer."  A sad sad day for me.  And he had been given many of these addresses by his Boy Scout senior patrol leader.  Parenting fail.  We thought we were safe.  And OMG the things I saw that I can never un-see.  Anyone who thinks that internet P*7N is like Playboy online...get your head out of the sand.  

[itsheresomewhere]

46 minutes ago, katilac said:

I definitely think they're going to be all, Josh who? They know the feds don't arrest without an extremely strong case. 

This.  If it was a financial crime, I bet they would be involved but not with this. 

[Tanaqui]

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

[Ausmumof3]

31 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

I think she’s saying her son had already been looking at stuff and she came across it when she was searching on his laptop for breast cancer stuff?  But I’m also lost.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

[Hyacinth]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

General FYI: A Senior Patrol Leader in Boy Scouts is not an adult. It's usually one of the older teens. Still gross, of course, but I don't think she was suggesting a grown man was slipping the kid porn URLs. 

[popmom]

3 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

never mind—quill said it already

Edited May 4, 2021 by popmom

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

I don't remember what I was looking for that time I got an eyeful - but it had nothing to do with "breast"....  the images popped up on the search page

[Spryte]

20 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I don't remember what I was looking for that time I got an eyeful - but it had nothing to do with "breast"....  the images popped up on the search page

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

[Annie G]

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

Wow. Just wow.

[Katy]

Those poor children. I hope the court orders CPS oversight and YEARS of therapy. 

[mommyoffive]

22 minutes ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

They better not allow that!

[Ottakee]

25 minutes ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

[Annie G]

6 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

I wondered if he might be allowed to live at home after you mentioned similar details in your experience. 
 

I was surprised that he had been in contact w them (through his attorneys) for the past 19 months. I assumed they did the raid and he didn’t know anything else until the grand jury indictment came back. DS just served on the grand jury in our county and though he couldn’t tell me details, he did say not all the cases were from arrests that had already happened...some folks didn’t know they were in a case before the grand jury. (They heard 45 cases in 3 days!!!)
 

Do federal cases move as quickly as they are scheduled or is it likely to be pushed back? Early July isn’t far off to have a jury trial. 

[Ottakee]

16 minutes ago, Annie G said:

I wondered if he might be allowed to live at home after you mentioned similar details in your experience. 
 

I was surprised that he had been in contact w them (through his attorneys) for the past 19 months. I assumed they did the raid and he didn’t know anything else until the grand jury indictment came back. DS just served on the grand jury in our county and though he couldn’t tell me details, he did say not all the cases were from arrests that had already happened...some folks didn’t know they were in a case before the grand jury. (They heard 45 cases in 3 days!!!)
 

Do federal cases move as quickly as they are scheduled or is it likely to be pushed back? Early July isn’t far off to have a jury trial. 

Well, the arrest here came long after the raid   I am sure that was some contact but he never told me about it.

Here arrest was Feb 28 and trial was set for June but he asked to postpone it.  It went to trial Sept 5.

[gardenmom5]

12 hours ago, Spryte said:

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

I wasn't even searching for images.

2 hours ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

[Annie G]

6 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I wasn't even searching for images.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

It’s kind of crazy because it says he didn’t personally interact with a single child.  I’m assuming ‘interact’ means something specific in this instance, because he has kids and siblings and nieces and nephews so of course he has ‘interacted’ with children. So yeah, it must be a euphemism for ‘sexually abusing’. Which is a weird thing for his attorney to assert since Josh has admitted to molesting four of his sisters in the past. Sorry, I meant to say he ‘personally interacted’ with them. And sheesh- it’s like the attorney is saying that what Josh might have done is bad, but that he;s not Really the bad guy here.   In any case, I bet he’ll be out tomorrow afternoon and likely able to see his children, though maybe only supervised.

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

[gardenmom5]

30 minutes ago, Annie G said:

It’s kind of crazy because it says he didn’t personally interact with a single child.  I’m assuming ‘interact’ means something specific in this instance, because he has kids and siblings and nieces and nephews so of course he has ‘interacted’ with children. So yeah, it must be a euphemism for ‘sexually abusing’. Which is a weird thing for his attorney to assert since Josh has admitted to molesting four of his sisters in the past. Sorry, I meant to say he ‘personally interacted’ with them. And sheesh- it’s like the attorney is saying that what Josh might have done is bad, but that he;s not Really the bad guy here.   In any case, I bet he’ll be out tomorrow afternoon and likely able to see his children, though maybe only supervised.

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

I think it means in his case, he was just "interacting" with inappropriate pictures of children - not the children themselves.   however, his attention to those pictures would have rewarded those who took the pictures and who interacted with the children in person.  He's not innocent of harm.

I'd like them to throw away the key.  I'd also like anna to be required to get licensed counseling (and hopefully break the cult's brainwashing.)

[Laurie]

47 minutes ago, Annie G said:

 

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

I agree with you!    

I saw something disturbing last night.  After reading what Faith Manor wrote, I did a search for Mike Huckabee and ATI.  The very first thing that showed up was the IBLP website's prison ministry!   I guess that organization is everywhere, so even if JD gets more of the same training or whatever it's called in prison at least he won't have access to children.   

 

   

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Laurie said:

I agree with you!    

I saw something disturbing last night.  After reading what Faith Manor wrote, I did a search for Mike Huckabee and ATI.  The very first thing that showed up was the IBLP website's prison ministry!   I guess that organization is everywhere, so even if JD gets more of the same training or whatever it's called in prison at least he won't have access to children.   

 

   

Those of us in Seattle/puget sound area tend to despise huckabee (I'm a conservative!).  not just because of the creepy vibe he gives off.

He pardoned/commuted-the-sentence of - many a criminal. (more than the gov's of the states around him combined.) One of those criminals (Maurice Clemmons) came to washington and bragged to his family about how he was going to shoot police officers (apparently, they thought it was just talk).  Which he did, in cold blood.  Four officers as they were sitting in a diner prior to going on duty.  He was fatally shot by his would-be fifth victim  (days? a week?) later.

Edited May 5, 2021 by gardenmom5

[Ottakee]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I wasn't even searching for images.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

This is the crazy thinking that goes on.  I won't go into details here to protect the victims bit it was similar crazy thinking presented on court with my now ex husband.

He was offered a 15 year plea deal and turned it down.   He was convicted and sentenced to 90 years instead.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Ottakee said:

This is the crazy thinking that goes on.  I won't go into details here to protect the victims bit it was similar crazy thinking presented on court with my now ex husband.

He was offered a 15 year plea deal and turned it down.   He was convicted and sentenced to 90 years instead.

Sounds like it was better he got the 90 years instead.

 

I'm sorry it upended your and your chidlren's lives.

[gardenmom5]

did anyone see that Jill's dh has come out, and is publicly slamming JB and M?

 

Sounds like Jill got the winner in the dh dept.

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

did anyone see that Jill's dh has come out, and is publicly slamming JB and M?

 

Sounds like Jill got the winner in the dh dept.

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

 

[MercyA]

Here's the full bail request, if anyone is interested:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.18.0.pdf

[Ottakee]

38 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

Sounds like it was better he got the 90 years instead.

 

I'm sorry it upended your and your chidlren's lives.

That is was.

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

Apparently JimBoob told the kids it was a "ministry" while collecting paychecks on behalf of adult children. They should have been paid. 

He might also be sensitive to Kills trauma that she's in therapy for. Idk, just a thought. 

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

I hope bail is not granted and Josh realizes he ain't getting want he wants, for once. 

I hope the Duggar parents finally see their self-righteous parenting created a monster.

[AbcdeDooDah]

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

Apparently JimBoob told the kids it was a "ministry" while collecting paychecks on behalf of adult children. They should have been paid. 

He might also be sensitive to Kills trauma that she's in therapy for. Idk, just a thought. 

 

Not sure how messed up the quote. I put my comment in italics

[Dmmetler]

On 5/4/2021 at 9:07 AM, Spryte said:

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

I have a kid who loves fan art and fanfic, and I ended up discussing rule 34 and what specific terms in headers meant early, so that it would be easier to avoid based on a list of search results, BEFORE clicking on links. Because fansites rarely end up filtered out. 

 

I learned this the hard way when I assigned my middle school age music students to research a musician or composer they liked. One of my 6th graders first search hits, on a school computer with filters, was a photo of her chosen singer performing (ahem) offstage. She printed it, and it wasn't until later in the day that her math teacher caught her running a thriving business showing it off for a quarter a look. 

[maize]

15 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

 

I hope the Duggar parents finally see their self-righteous parenting created a monster.

Ascribing his actions to their parenting though is the flip side of their own misguided belief--that parents can control the outcomes of what kind of people their children grow up to become by parenting the "right" way.

We don't control outcomes because children are individuals who grow up to be adults who are individuals.

Did their parenting contribute to the way Josh sees and interacts with the world? Yes.

Did they create him to be who he is? 

Absolutely not. That's not how parenting works, for good or ill.

[LucyStoner]

This whole thing about the kids not getting paid is one reason I just can't watch "reality" TV.  TLC films these shows in states where there aren't laws protecting the children- work hours, pay held in trust.  I don't believe that parents have the right to use their kids like this.  There's also literally no amount of money that would get me to sell my children's privacy like that so I must admit I am pretty critical of parents being willing to do so. 

This board's opinion has changed so much re: the Duggars.  

I grew up in a Catholic family who attended a protestant church for a time when I was a pre-teen.  I had the random opportunity to attend BLP with Bill Gothard himself (at the time, it was emphasized to us how lucky we were that he would be live and not on video!) in 1992 and so I attended, with a friend from the church.  Fortunately, my parents (especially my mom) were not taken in by the nonsense.  I sat there for the whole week (maybe it was Wednesday to Saturday and not a full week?) in pants listening to him talk about how it was wrong for girls to wear pants and that Cabbage Patch dolls are evil. I also got to see him run an absolute staged scam on stage (a man, supposedly possessed by demons, attacked Gothard on stage! But wait, the man's father was in the audience!  But wait, our prayers had healed the man!  And now the man, who was possessed by demons just moments ago was tearfully asking all of us to sing his favorite hymn!) and when I first told this story here, there were still people defending Gothard and his methods, lol.  Because of their association with ATI, I was always REALLY skeptical of the Duggars.  I know good families got caught up in it but they weren't just caught up in it, they were promulgating it.  

Even at age 12, I saw through his staged attack trick and I sat there wondering how many of the people in Mercer Arena were buying it.  After the first day, I mostly went back because we got to eat lunch at the Center House in Seattle Center (12 year old Katie absolutely LOVED the lemonade at The Frankfurter 😛 ), I didn't have to go to school AND I was curious what crazy thing he would say next.  The gave us leatherette books with their teachings in them and the seminar followed the book so my book was full of my comments, rebuttals and doodles.  I wrote the word NO a lot.  

Edited May 5, 2021 by LucyStoner

[AbcdeDooDah]

12 minutes ago, maize said:

Ascribing his actions to their parenting though is the flip side of their own misguided belief--that parents can control the outcomes of what kind of people their children grow up to become by parenting the "right" way.

We don't control outcomes because children are individuals who grow up to be adults who are individuals.

Did their parenting contribute to the way Josh sees and interacts with the world? Yes.

Did they create him to be who he is? 

Absolutely not. That's not how parenting works, for good or ill.

That's pretty much what I meant. The hyperfocus on sex and women's bodies had to contribute to the deviancy. 

"Created a monster" is an expression. It in no way indicates he is not responsible for his actions.

Edited May 5, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[AbcdeDooDah]

Anyone know what time the hearing is today? 

 

[OH_Homeschooler]

14 hours ago, Ottakee said:

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

Well, he is Josh Duggar and never faced a consequence in his life. 

My ex was convinced while he was under investigation that he was going to be cleared. He said his defense attorney read the statements my daughters made and "nothing looked that bad." (You bet your ass I voted against him when he later ran for D.A.) After his arrest I found a journal where he had written about wanting to double his income that year, and wanting to take the family to Disney once the whole thing was over. Instead, he was arrested, lost his job, and went to prison. And none of us ever want to see him again.

These men are truly delusional.  

Edited May 5, 2021 by OH_Homeschooler

[maize]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

That's pretty much what I meant. The hyperfocus on sex and women's bodies had to contribute to the deviancy. 

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

[catz]

13 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

This whole thing about the kids not getting paid is one reason I just can't watch "reality" TV.  TLC films these shows in states where there aren't laws protecting the children- work hours, pay held in trust.  I don't believe that parents have the right to use their kids like this.  

.....

I totally agree. I will not watch or follow any reality programming that uses minor in an ongoing way.  I have been saying this for years.  And I was slammed for it during the Duggar golden years.  Emotionally healthy parents don't pimp their offspring's childhood for financial gain.  

[AbcdeDooDah]

5 minutes ago, maize said:

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

Ok.

 

[hippymamato3]

6 minutes ago, maize said:

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

Obviously this isn't true, but if parents do everything WRONG - there are going to be consequences. 

[LucyStoner]

1 minute ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I totally agree. I will not watch or follow any reality programming that uses minor in an ongoing way.  I have been saying this for years.  And I was slammed for it during the Duggar golden years.  Emotionally healthy parents don't pimp their offspring's childhood for financial gain.  

Exactly! 

Right as their show was getting started, I read some article in a magazine like Family Circle or Good Housekeeping that was like "See how this resourceful mom feeds 16 kids!" and my main takeaway was it honestly didn't seem they were really getting quite enough nutrition- the meal plan seemed unrealistically modest to me and there was something about fruit being a treat and not like an everyday treat but a treat treat. I posted something to that effect on another board and got slammed.  I will say that at least for the kids' sakes the show seems to have enhanced their standard of living in a way that meant acquiring food was no longer a hurdle to overcome. 

[maize]

35 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

Obviously this isn't true, but if parents do everything WRONG - there are going to be consequences. 

There are actually people who grew up with horribly abusive parents and became responsible, kind, thoughtful adults.

Humans behavior is just so complex. We are a mix of our genes and our environment and our own choices in response to our environment, and no single factor has determining control. 

I'm not at all saying I don't think Josh's parents--or anyone's parents--had no impact. 

Only that parents don't have control, in either the direction they desire or any other direction.

Edited May 5, 2021 by maize

[hippymamato3]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

There are actually people who grew up with horribly abusive parents and became responsible, kind, thoughtful adults.

Humans behavior is just so complex. We are a mix of our genes and our environment and our own choices in response to our environment, and no single factor has determining control. 

I'm not at all saying I don't think Josh's parents--or anyone's parents--had not impact. 

Only that parents don't have control, in either the direction they desire or any other direction.

Absolutely - but that doesn't meant the parents behavior didn't lead to scars. Because it absolutely did. 

[Katy]

43 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Anyone know what time the hearing is today? 

 

1:30 central

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

This whole thing about the kids not getting paid is one reason I just can't watch "reality" TV.  TLC films these shows in states where there aren't laws protecting the children- work hours, pay held in trust.  I don't believe that parents have the right to use their kids like this.  There's also literally no amount of money that would get me to sell my children's privacy like that so I must admit I am pretty critical of parents being willing to do so. 

This board's opinion has changed so much re: the Duggars.  

I grew up in a Catholic family who attended a protestant church for a time when I was a pre-teen.  I had the random opportunity to attend BLP with Bill Gothard himself (at the time, it was emphasized to us how lucky we were that he would be live and not on video!) in 1992 and so I attended, with a friend from the church.  Fortunately, my parents (especially my mom) were not taken in by the nonsense.  I sat there for the whole week (maybe it was Wednesday to Saturday and not a full week?) in pants listening to him talk about how it was wrong for girls to wear pants and that Cabbage Patch dolls are evil. I also got to see him run an absolute staged scam on stage (a man, supposedly possessed by demons, attacked Gothard on stage! But wait, the man's father was in the audience!  But wait, our prayers had healed the man!  And now the man, who was possessed by demons just moments ago was tearfully asking all of us to sing his favorite hymn!) and when I first told this story here, there were still people defending Gothard and his methods, lol.  Because of their association with ATI, I was always REALLY skeptical of the Duggars.  I know good families got caught up in it but they weren't just caught up in it, they were promulgating it.  

Even at age 12, I saw through his staged attack trick and I sat there wondering how many of the people in Mercer Arena were buying it.  After the first day, I mostly went back because we got to eat lunch at the Center House in Seattle Center (12 year old Katie absolutely LOVED the lemonade at The Frankfurter 😛 ), I didn't have to go to school AND I was curious what crazy thing he would say next.  The gave us leatherette books with their teachings in them and the seminar followed the book so my book was full of my comments, rebuttals and doodles.  I wrote the word NO a lot.  

That is really interesting that you saw through it all as a child.  

As to the bolded, count me as one who has had their opinion changed.  But I will say that I knew next to nothing about them.  I just have always loved big families and liked that part.....I did not know about the crazy cult like religion that was causing so much harm.  

Same with "On Becoming Baby Wise".  I read that book when my son was a newborn and I honestly DID gain some insight to a baby's sleep schedule.  I 1)apparently had a revised edition and 2)do a lot of tossing out the bad when I read child books.  Once I got on this board and learned about the affiliation with the Pearls I quickly realized how bad it truly was.  Now I never recommend that book, but I still recommend the points I took away that helped me with my newborn.  

I think what I have learned the most is to not be quick to jump on a bandwagon....read, research and pay attention to where the money is streaming from and to.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Scarlett

[Ottakee]

1 hour ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Well, he is Josh Duggar and never faced a consequence in his life. 

My ex was convinced while he was under investigation that he was going to be cleared. He said his defense attorney read the statements my daughters made and "nothing looked that bad." (You bet your ass I voted against him when he later ran for D.A.) After his arrest I found a journal where he had written about wanting to double his income that year, and wanting to take the family to Disney once the whole thing was over. Instead, he was arrested, lost his job, and went to prison. And none of us ever want to see him again.

These men are truly delusional.  

Hugs.   They just don't get it.   Mine still does not.

[maize]

I've learned everything I know about ATI from this forum. It's entirely outside my world.

I was interested in the Duggars early on because they were a prominent large family and I came from a large family; there aren't many people who can identify with growing up in a double digit family! I've learned however that, other than being religious and having lots of kids, their world has nothing in common with mine.

[plansrme]

3 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

 

Even at age 12, I saw through his staged attack trick and I sat there wondering how many of the people in Mercer Arena were buying it.  After the first day, I mostly went back because we got to eat lunch at the Center House in Seattle Center (12 year old Katie absolutely LOVED the lemonade at The Frankfurter 😛 ), I didn't have to go to school AND I was curious what crazy thing he would say next.  The gave us leatherette books with their teachings in them and the seminar followed the book so my book was full of my comments, rebuttals and doodles.  I wrote the word NO a lot.  

I attended several of his seminars when I was probably ages 12-14. I never witnessed a staged (or otherwise) attack, but I also remember specifically objecting to several aspects of his teachings that no doubt contributed to his ability to get away with what he did. For example, he teaches strongly against "taking up offenses," which means that if Josh does something wrong to Jinger, that is solely between Josh and Jinger. Anna can't be angry with Josh about it and has no recourse against Josh because it was not an offense against Anna. Even as a child, I knew that was dangerous, and I am sure it explains a lot about why his followers never ratted him out. Likewise, the teaching that a woman being raped should cry out to Jesus for help to keep from being raped--well, the very implication that a rape is her fault for not engaging in this ritual was ridiculous. And he goes on and on about the sins of the fathers, etc., being passed down to the children and its implications for adopted children (who are basically the spawn of Satan), with some rituals in which one should engage to keep this from happening to your adopted child. Now, I say this as one who believed (and still believes) in literal demons and holds a host of other theologically conservative positions. But, still, despite the dangers I could identify even at that age, I sat through 4 or 5 days' of his basic seminar, several times. He is an engaging speaker, and at the time, I did not think everything he said was worthless (I pretty much do now, of course). I also think a lot of what he pushed was not presented until the advanced seminar level, which I never attended. For example, large families were not a focus in the basic seminar at that time, although they may have been added later.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, maize said:

I've learned everything I know about ATI from this forum. It's entirely outside my world.

I was interested in the Duggars early on because they were a prominent large family and I came from a large family; there aren't many people who can identify with growing up in a double digit family! I've learned however that, other than being religious and having lots of kids, their world has nothing in common with mine.

Same, that I never heard of ATI until this forum.  Duggars are from my home state so that was always of interest.....but yeah clearly now that we all know more they are outside my world as well.