In light of recent news events, we are republishing an older article on the danger and flaws of IBLP's teachings on counseling sexual abuse within families. Our hearts go out to all the families under Bill Gothard's influence who have suffered this tragic abuse. The teachings are horrific in both their blame of victims and lack of true help for young perpetrators.
An Institute publication entitled “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family” [Click here for the full pdf document] was first mailed to Advanced Training Institute (ATI) families in the late 1990s, and it has been periodically distributed at conferences since. Recovering Grace does not know the identity of the family members who shared their story in this document, so we don’t know whether, or how much, the two first-person accounts in the document were influenced or edited by Bill Gothard or other Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) staff. As we examine the message of this document, we understand the young man and his mother may have been under pressure to present a certain type of message at the time this was written, and that their views might be very different today. So it’s the influence of the words, not the family itself, that we wish to examine. The entire document is available at the link above, and specific quotes are reproduced below. It’s helpful to read the entire original document before proceeding to our analysis.
“The parents were shocked and grieved as social workers visited their home and confirmed reports that an older brother was guilty of sexually abusing younger ones in his family. The damage to the younger children, the ridicule to the cause of Christ, the shame of detailed publicity, and the scars to the life and reputation of the boy were indescribably painful to the family and their friends.”
It’s interesting to note that of the four listed consequences of sexual abuse in this case, three concentrate on damage to public image. The abuse is presented as tragic, but public exposure of the abuse and the resulting damage to appearances are presented as at least as tragic. The piece uses the humanizing language “scars to the life and reputation” to describe effects of the abuse and its subsequent exposure on the young perpetrator, but uses the term “damage” to describe effects of the abuse and its subsequent exposure on the much younger victims. Hopefully unintentional, this subtle yet troubling choice of language presents the young victims more as harmed goods than as harmed people, and they remain almost abstractions throughout the piece.
“The boy did repent of what he had done; now that time has passed, he was asked the following questions:
1. What were the early indications that you had the problem?
2. What conditions or circumstances contributed to the problem?
3. What steps could your parents have taken before it happened?
4. What could have been done to avoid it?
5. What teaching could have been given to each child to resist evil?
6. What factors in the home contributed to immodesty and temptation?
The boy wrote out the following answers to these questions. The information he gives is so helpful that every parent should read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way.”
In this list of questions, “immodesty” in the home was presented to the young man as a leading question. It’s assumed to be a motivating factor for his sexual abuse of his siblings, and he was asked how not only he, but also his victims, could have been trained to “resist evil.” This is the first time the piece displays a presumption that the very young children were somehow complicit in their own abuse by exhibiting “immodesty” and/or not effectively resisting the sexual assault of a much older and stronger perpetrator — let alone their very own brother whom they knew and trusted. The implication that the younger children were “immodest” and did not adequately “resist evil” will be made explicit by the young man’s narration later in the piece, and the suggestion that the younger children were “immodest” and inadequately resistant due to their lack of training does little to blunt this subtle assignment of blame to child victims.
The bulk of the piece is then turned over to the young abuser to get his analysis of what led to his actions, as well as his speculation of how the abuse might have been avoided by his parents or his victims. His insights are described as “so helpful” and are clearly meant to be prescriptive in nature. He is always assumed to be a reliable narrator, and his words are elevated to an authoritative status. At the end of the document his advice is reworked into a list of direct action steps.
“I think that the laziness I demonstrated toward my responsibilities around the house and towards other people who asked me for assistance, was probably the only symptom my parents saw that would have shown any problem in my life. One way I showed this laziness was by arguing with my parents when I was asked to help around the house.
“This behavior of course did not help me and only created strife between my parents and myself. The root problem of moral purity created in me a lack of self-control. With the arguing that I did with my parents, I became depressed. I tried to fight it by trying to make myself feel good. This only led to immoral habits that eventually led to offending.
“Laziness is similar to slothfulness, and both words point to the spirit of doing what I want vs. doing what I ought, or better put for me, obeying the flesh vs. obeying Scripture. In my case, it was displayed physically and morally. If a parent sees that his son is showing signs of being lazy, it is highly likely that his son is also struggling in other areas of his life.”
While this self-examination was doubtless a valuable exercise for the young man, the unclear application for parents seems that any young man who struggles with laziness, argumentativeness, or depression may also be a sexual predator. These common teenage struggles are suddenly all likely indicators of extreme danger to younger siblings. While this portion of the letter is narrative, it directly follows an exhortation to parents to “read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way.”
“I was expected to baby-sit and change diapers, etc. Baby-sitting gave me the opportunity to offend; without it I think it is possible that I might not have offended. I would still have had a problem with the immorality, but I do not think I would have violated my sister in such a way.”
This is the first time the parents are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. This is the second time the document uses the term “immorality” (a term generally used within IBLP to describe adultery, premarital sexual activity, use of pornography, and other voluntary sexual behavior) to also describe one person sexually assaulting another. [It’s interesting to note that this document (and other IBLP documents that Recovering Grace is aware of) never distinguishes between morally objectionable (but not illegal) consensual sexual activity and the illegal activity of child molestation. Instead it categorizes all of these activities under the same generic term of “immorality.”]
“Modesty was a factor. It was not at the level it should have been in my family. It was not uncommon for my younger siblings to come out of their baths naked or with a towel.”
This is the first time the extremely young sexual abuse victims are indirectly blamed for the abuse by their abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document.
“They would often run around the house for the next twenty minutes until my mom or sister got around to dressing them. Changing my younger sisters’ diapers when they were really young may not have been a big thing, but it really did not have to be that way (if we had only applied Levitical law).”
This is the second time the parents (and now an older sister) are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. His reference to Levitical law presumably refers to Leviticus 18, which prohibits “uncovering the nakedness” of various family members. However, Bible commentaries interpret this often used phrase in Lev. 18 as actual acts of incest/sexual intercourse — not simply an innocent uncovering of nakedness by a child.
“My younger sisters used to wear dresses often, but as they were young and not aware of modesty, they did not behave in them as they should.”
This is the second time the extremely young abuse victims are indirectly blamed for the abuse by their abuser.
“Mom did not push the modesty unless we were in public, and Dad only had the opportunity to mention it during weekends. Little people do not realize their nakedness right away. It takes several years before they grasp it. It needs to be taught to them. My mom is a nurse, and the human body was not a big deal to her. I guess she didn’t want it to be for her children either.”
This is the third time the parents are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser.
“She and I have talked about it. She explained to me that she had no idea how visual male sexuality is, compared to women who are mainly by touch. I am so grateful my parents have changed so much of this area in our home.”
The narrator inserts observations on very normal male sexuality into a story about very abnormal sexual abuse of young children, suggesting a link. In this document, the young man’s specific sexual attractions and interests are not at all presented as abnormal; if anything, they are presented as part of an expected continuum of unchecked sexual interest.
“This was not a major reason for the offending, but it allowed my little sister to be open to what I made her do.”
Even with the mild concession that his parents’ lack of conformity to (how he interpreted) Levitical law was “not a major reason for the offending,” this is the third time he indirectly blames his abuse on his victim, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. The author’s description of his sister as “open to what I made her do” is especially disturbing, as it implies complicity and guilt on her part, an implication never countered in the document.
“I don’t think so much teaching was necessary because everyone was so young. However, a different lifestyle, with more modesty, might have prevented what happened”
This is the fourth time the parents (and by implication the young victims) are respectively blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and though he offers some qualification to his conjecture, his speculation is not countered or qualified by any more authoritative voice in the document.
“Pornography has been a stumbling point for me for a long time. It started when I was working at a store near my home. They did not have porn there, but a customer would use the dumpster as a place to get rid of his. It was late January 1993. I had just been working there for two months or so when I went to take out the trash, and I looked in the dumpster and saw a pornographic magazine. It hit me hard, and temptation came over me like a flood. I could not believe the war that was going on in my head. Should I look or not was the question, but I had already given ground through other things of a sensual nature.
“I had not gained this ground back. I had seen movies when I went to friends’ and relatives’ houses where there was not the same standard as in our home. I had the desire to look for sensual things, and I did, but this was a boundary that I had created, like a line I promised never to cross. Funny thing was I had never had the chance to cross it before, so it was easy to keep. I thought that I could look at ‘just one.’ That was not the case. I became a living testimony of what it says in Proverbs. ‘The eyes of man are never satisfied.’ It didn’t satisfy me, and it seemed to just bring more temptation.”
The potential effect on adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material is certainly relevant this story. What is interesting in the broader context of ATI-published anecdotes is how this story conforms to a certain expected pattern. Often ATI anecdotes will describe young people working jobs or interacting with friends and relatives outside of the influence of immediate family or IBLP, and almost always involve the ATI student being exposed to, falling victim to, or perpetrating some moral evil as a result. The only regular exception to these type of anecdotes is the category wherein the ATI student is intentionally ministering to outsiders and sharing biblical principles or Commands of Christ; all other interactions outside of ATI’s influence are almost invariably portrayed as catastrophically destructive. Here the student is not only exposed to sexually explicit material, but this sets in motion a chain of events that ends with child molestation and public humiliation of the family.
“One of the problems that came with this immorality was guilt and hiding my problem. I should have spoken to my parents and told them all that was going on in my life, but I didn’t. I felt I would be rejected by them and not understood. The arguing I was doing was pride. I was not going to humble myself before them.”
Here the young man takes responsibility for his own actions.
“Before the problem had gone this far, I wish that my parents had established a mutual trust so that there could have been open communication between me and them. I wanted to be able to tell them anything and feel like they would help me through the problem and not just give me a consequence for it. I believe that would have made a difference.”
The young man articulates a desire for a closer relationship with his parents, and his description is quite poignant. He also, however, begins a subtle shift of blame back to the parents, a shift that intensifies in the next line.
“I might be asking too much, but at the least it would have challenged my thought life—asking me what I thought about when I went to sleep, if I had any immoral thoughts, or were there any challenges that were a struggle for me.
“I think my dad asked me once how I was doing and hinted about that area, but it was not direct and to the point. I can remember thinking, ‘Does he really want to know about that?’ I went on to tell him, ‘I’m fine,’ while thinking, ‘If he would ask one more time, a little more directly, then I would know if he really wanted to know.’ I should have told then, but I didn’t. (My fault.) If the question was constantly before me and asked regularly of me, I would have begun to feel as if it really mattered. I think it would make me feel as if I was being held accountable. For me that would have brought guilt, forcing me to confess my faults.”
In a document explicitly designed to advise parents, the young man professes responsibility for withholding information he says he should have given to his father, while simultaneously asserting that regular rigorous interrogations would likely have prevented him from becoming a sexual molester. How is a parent meant to apply this insight? Should all parents of teenagers question their sons and daughters daily about sexual thoughts, or is this only applicable to parents of young men, or of troubled youth, or of troubled male youth? If the cited warning signs displayed by a potential young abuser are sloth, depression, or argumentativeness, should any young person displaying one or more of these characteristics be persistently questioned as a suspected sexual predator? The stakes for younger children in the family are very high, and the desired scenario the young man describes is extremely accusing and intense for older children, while the instructions are not clear.
“Sex was not and is not a major topic in our family, not that it should be, but I felt that the subject was not allowed as far as what I could bring into a conversation. Maybe if my parents had told me about sex around age twelve or so, I could have asked a lot of questions, and maybe I would have had something to go on. As it was, my sex education came from what I pieced together from movies, friends, and the jokes that I heard.
“If I had a twelve-year-old son, I don’t know how I would tell him about sex, but if I didn’t, someone else would, if they hadn’t already. I would guess he would already have some questions. I think that most problems in families start with poor communication between people. I see a need for ‘open, honest communication,’ the freedom to be listened to when needed, and to have questions answered in an understanding way. If started at a young age, it could be a foundation when they get older and problems get more difficult.”
This section is notable as a rare (perhaps unique) promotion of sexual education in ATI families, and the young man once again expresses a moving desire for better communication with his parents. He makes recommendations without explicit blame shifting. Nevertheless, it is once again implied that if the parents had just provided precisely the right kind of (unspecified) sexual instruction, the abuse would not have occurred.
“One of the things that I learned about in the two years of counseling was personal boundaries. There are some basic steps to keep the opportunities of offending away from young men. For example, not letting myself baby-sit, have little kids sit on my lap, or hang on me, or even be alone with a little person. There is also no roughhousing or wrestling that could encourage inappropriate touching.
“If I had applied these before I offended, it would not have been easy to offend. The simplicity of these boundaries is a small price to pay for such protection. I don’t want to say I forbid my younger sisters to touch me, but I do make sure that when we make physical contact with each other it is done properly.
“For example, if the little people want a hug, I get down on one knee and hug them on their level. I don’t pick them up or let them hang on me. My mom thought I should mention that one should ask when you want a hug or when you want to be in someone’s personal space (within twelve inches of their body), or touch them.”
Young men working alone with children is an area of great controversy in many circles, but remember, the narrator of this story sexually assaulted his own very young siblings. His advice forbids most normal childhood physical contact and affection between siblings on the grounds that any older brother may be easily tempted into sexual abuse. In this scenario, parents should treat every older brother as both an opportunistic predator and a potential victim of accidental sexual temptation by his siblings. No distinction is drawn between guidelines for the author, who has a documented history of molesting his younger siblings, and those recommended for all elder brothers. The narrator describes what effectively constitutes an accepted amount of ongoing physical contact between a former sexual abuser and his victims, with no differentiation between healthy, non-abusive sibling relationships and sexually abusive relationships.
The next section of the document is a letter from the mother of the young man, and to her great credit she writes of pursuing a child’s report of abuse, and seeking and accepting help:
“When my daughter had indicated something was going on, and the son denied it, I had no evidence. I thought if I put some fear into him, if it did happen, he would not do anything again. That is not true. The temptation can become an addiction and works like other addictions.
“As Christians in a secular world, we can become fearful of what could happen to our families if authorities or counselors get involved. We want to hide the problem. That may not be God’s best. It would take far too long to go through what happened when the authorities became involved in our problem, but I will say, God was faithful to us. We now have some people we would consider friends that have very difficult jobs in the juvenile system.”
Note that the mother describes having “no evidence” when her daughter told her something of the abuse, as if the daughter’s report did not itself constitute evidence. This may be merely a poor choice of words, but once again the implications are unsettling. The mother then describes more about her son’s case and echoes his thoughts on older brothers babysitting young siblings. The document closes with a broad list of recommendations drawn from this single account.
“Every precaution should be taken by families so that a similar tragedy will not happen among their children. Once it does happen, it can never be undone, and the scars last a lifetime. Therefore, the following factors should be carefully considered for application in every home.
-
Do not tolerate laziness by any child. Plan a full day’s schedule.
-
Do not argue with your children over surface problems. Probe for root problems.
-
Do not neglect moods of depression in your children. Plan a time to talk it out.
-
Do not allow boys to change diapers, especially of baby sisters.
-
Insist on modesty at all times.
-
Teach the children to recognize wrong behavior in moral areas.
-
Pray for protection from pornography. Prepare them to resist it by reading Prov. 1-7.
-
Establish open, honest accountability for daily victory in thoughts, words, and actions.
-
Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts such as Samson, Tamar, etc.
-
Provide guidelines on all physical contacts between children.
-
Prohibit roughhousing, wrestling, and inappropriate touching of brothers with sisters.”
Four troubling, recurring themes in this document are: the subtle blame of child victims for inviting their own abuse; the lack of distinction between normal physical contact among siblings and the behavior of a sexual predator; the lack of distinction between normal adolescent interest in sexuality and abnormal sexual interest in children; and the lack of distinction between objectionable (legal) consensual sexual behavior and illegal sexual assault. This list presents a queasy hodgepodge of all of these categories. This is especially important in the case of “Insist on modesty at all times,” which sickeningly underscores the former abuser’s implication that the attire and conduct of young children can make them somehow complicit in their own sexual abuse, as well as “Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts,” which appears to conflate child molestation with the voluntary sexual conduct of adults.
This is an extraordinary document that casts accusatory suspicion on most teenaged boys (all who have demonstrated any amount of laziness, argumentativeness, depression, enjoyment of physical play and roughhousing with siblings, aptitude and willingness for child care, or interest in sexuality of any degree or kind), while shifting part of the blame for the actions of an abuser onto young children’s perceived lack of propriety and parents’ lack of implementation of Levitical law and daily interrogation sessions.
Is it any wonder that so many ATI young people, especially young men, grew up with extreme loathing and suspicion of their own normal sexuality, if so many different common teenaged struggles, interests, and behaviors branded them as potential child molesters? Is it any wonder that, despite this document’s admirable paragraph on reporting sexual abuse and working with professionals, many ATI parents were reluctant to acknowledge, much less report sexual abuse when they learned of it, as they would themselves be strongly implicated as having facilitated the abuse? Is it any wonder that ATI sexual abuse victims were often reluctant to report their abuse not just because of the usual fears and trepidations of abuse victims, but also because they would be in strong danger of being implicated as having invited or inadequately resisted the abuse?
This piece is a strong disservice to parents, to current and former young abuse victims, and to non-abusive young men. And it is, unfortunately, the wrong kind of help to sexually-abusive young men, who can find within this document many ways to assign some blame for their actions to parents who failed to adequately interrogate and Levitically police them, or to young children who accidentally “seduced” them. The quoted young man and his mother were doubtless offering the best advice they knew how to, and this document was doubtless published with the best of intentions to prevent child molestation in families. But its potential to prevent harm is far outweighed by its potential to cause and excuse harm.
If this sexual abuse series brings up any emotions that you would like to process with a professional counselor, please e-mail us at:
[email protected]g. We would be happy to recommend some professional counselors who are associated with the Recovering Grace ministry and who are familiar with the fundamentalist background of ATI and IBLP.
July 31, 2024
I like this '' This is especially important in the case of “Insist on modesty at all times,” which sickeningly underscores the former abuser’s implication that the attire and conduct of young children can make them somehow complicit in their own sexual abuse, as well as “Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts,” which appears to conflate child molestation with the voluntary sexual conduct of adults.''
I remember the heaviness on modesty in the home. When we heard of '' moral impurity'' it must have been the female's fault. If a man cheated on his wife '' she must not have been taking care of him in bed'' somehow it was always the females fault. I was blessed enough that no one in my family blamed a small child for perversion.
BG teaching as a whole lets men off the hook for sexual sin. The female shoulders the blame. It teaches ADAM in Genesis 3. It's that woman you gave me God. Always blaming woman and God, never excepting responsibility.
We experience the same issues with a nephew and niece - Therapy did not help!
Very sad it destroyed family. And now the kids are adults living the fast life. I watched John on CNN tonight how true! Bill Gothard and his teachings was a joke.I'm really glad CNN did a show on it tonight.
Simple root cause and problem is stated within the lessons learned.
Titus 2: the root solution. The aged women are not in behavior as becometh holiness, they are false accusers, given to much wine and do not teach good things. They fail to teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of GOD be not blasphemed. They fail to exhort the young men to be sober minded. There is no testimony set or example to live by; creating degradation of yet another generation.
The aged men fail to be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. They fail to speak, and exhort, and rebuke all these failures with all authority.
Then look around and question why things are the way they are. You do not read the BIBLE or pay for wisdom; that is obvious. You do not understand the root problem or cause; why would you think you have any ability to fix the results? Sounds to me like a bunch of spoilt children, unable to do their own job; but blaming everyone else.
"You do not read the BIBLE or [pray] for wisdom; that is obvious. You do not understand the root problem or cause; why would you think you have any ability to fix the results? Sounds to me like a bunch of spoilt children, unable to do their own job; but blaming everyone else."
There you go again (which should be in quotes).
Is there a reason moderators even admit this kind of a comment? It is based on total ignorance of any sound understanding and application of the Scriptures. Why do we allow this kind of abuse to continue on a forum such as this? This commenter is obviously a troll and should be banned from the site. This is intentionally provocative and has nothing at all to do with reality.
4GOD, are you Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, or Zophar the Naamathit?. You seem to have it all figured out!
Then rebuke me within scripture, I welcome those that correct and watch after my soul. That is the difference between a Christian and a spoilt child.
4GOD (what a misnomer!),
Whatever is truth is of God whether it comes out of the Scriptures or the mouth of a babe ("spoiled child"), out of a donkey, or from a rock. Holy Scripture twisted out of its proper context and wielded as a club to accuse and abuse others is a lie and a sin. You have already been rebuked here with truth and show no sign of having benefitted. This is the first and last comment I will make to you.
Truly there is wisdom in the Scriptures for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, but we have to be willing to listen to the Spirit from softened humble and loving hearts and not to false teachers who flatter our egos. Pride is indeed the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. It is on display in all its hideous "glory" in your comments.
4GOD, read every reference to Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, or Zophar the Naamathite and what God says directly to them and you will have your rebuke from within Scripture. Your "root" is pure speculation on your part. You know nothing about these people's lives, but only that there must be cause and effect, bad things happen for a reason and no one is an innocent victim. God clearly rebukes that in the Book of Job, declaring that He is Sovereign and you do NOT get to know the reason for everything. Read the whole book in context. I would rather not quote the whole thing to you.
"Judge not lest ye be Judged". I would suggest you read Sermon on the Mount. Coming on here and calling people you do not know "spoiled children" is a false judgement. Your quote of Titus doesn't even apply to the situation at hand which is sexual abuse of the Duggar girl's by their brother.
We fight to protect those abused. If mothers had the strength and fathers had convection to teach and rebuke within Titus 2; we would not have abused. That is meaning of true LOVE.
We are at war. We battle principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness. We are commanded to take up the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit; which is the word of GOD (Ephesians 6). It is our owner’s manual and we pay for wisdom in such fight; it costs everything (Proverbs 4).
You list the 3 friends of Job that failed to listen. “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth GOD, let him answer it.” (Job 40) I quote scripture, lay out the requirements of Titus 2 and rebuke such failures as commanded. In your own conviction, you pop your heads up. Go talk to HIM about that.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7, Sermon on the Mount). HE will judge your soul, that is HIS job; others will judge your actions and testimony. Do you contend that you are above judgment by your works? James 2 covers that pretty well; “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”.
I do see many judges though; a child with absolute Civil Rights to privacy in youth, violated. Many forced to relive; based on the ignorance of no more than social workers trying to justify their job. How about Bill Gothard? How about the attempt to remove my Civil Rights to freedom of speech and religion? Why don’t you rebuke those? Can you not do your job?
Assuming this is about the Duggar son---here is my 2 cents.
Here is what EVERYBODY was waiting for, EVERYBODY! (yes, christians, us too!) to see some sort of crack in a so-called perfect family. Now those with stones can freely throw and it will make the throwers' sins ok. To me it is another case of "deening" like what was done to Paula Deen, pull something from someone's past and use it to bring them down. Personally I think, if accusers have to go back that far to find something (how many teen age boys with raging hormones have groped a girl?) they are really grasping at straws, because it was dealt with back then. Funny thing, it was for sexual improprieties that the Duggar's mentor, Bill Gothard was pulled down from his leadership position.
I only hope this situation may be the crack in the dam that can be used for show the Duggar daughters the true freedom they have in Christ. There is more to following Christ than being a stay at home wife and wearing only shapeless dresses. Their value in Christ is more than just popping out babies and being subservient to a husband who decides what you do and do not do. It is NOT a sin to wear pants or go to college or choose your own mate or have an independent thought in your head.
esbee - no stones here for Josh. BIG HUGE regret for what might have been, and the responsibility lies with the parents. They wanted their family put out there for the world to see. What might have been if they had got the proper counseling right away, immediately after finding out what was going on. What might have been if they could have discreetly been honest with the world, and shown the world how nobody is perfect, and how they hope to grow stronger and go on from this. What might have been if the girls had gotten all the resources they needed, including counseling.
If they had handled it differently, so many people would have been encouraged to not hide their shame. There was an opportunity to show how to properly deal with serious sin, and they blew it.
And yes - everybody talks about how Josh got "counseling." What about the daughters?
I guess I'm not so sure, having not read everything on the subject, that the family did not handle it properly. What is obvious is that with this in their background, putting the entire tribe on TV to show their wonderfulness, and Josh as a front man for FRC, they risked a devastating public humiliation which has now happened.
Rule No. 1: Don't put your kids on TV if you don't want to ruin their lives.
Having read more of your summations of the published information, I concur that the family did not handle it properly. Please don't attack me for my ignorance. I can only read so much mainstream media on such tragedies. If they had not put their family on TV, it would be none of our business, but it does confirm the inadequacy of the "New Approach" given to the world by another sexually bound sinner.
Don, not a problem. There has been a lot of noise and confusion, with the Duggar relatives, friends and fans, including Huckabee, insisting Josh was in treatment, all is forgiven, and so on. I even read the girls had counseling.
I have been stating rule 1. for years.
Hutchins (the jailed officer who did not investigate Josh) now claims Jim Bob told him Josh only was guilty of one incident.
Have no idea if Hutchens is telling the truth or not, but if he is, things are looking worse and worse for the parents here.
Don, I have found this commentary to provide the proper way a Christian ought to see the matter. This makes my short list of the best commetaries on this subject:
http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/05/22/what-should-the-duggar-scandal-teach-the-church/
Lynn, I agree the Moore essay is very good. But as a denominational spokesman, it hints at very careful legal protectionism for the institution.
I don't see hints of legal protectionism, unless a call to having a clear outline of protecting people at church from perpetrators of such crimes hints at legal protectionism.
I saw the essay as a more dispassionate view of the roles, prerogatives, and responsibilities of family, church, and state w/regard to these issues.
I'm a lawyer so I tend to be skeptical of institutional spokesmen.
Here is an upcoming interview. Though there may be some, I think Kelly will not always throw hanging curve balls their way. It should be interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/30/media/duggar-parents-plan-interview/
Don...I agree with 'don't put your kids on tv if you don't want to ruin their lives'. Following Bill Gothard has truly robbed the Duggars of the wisdom of God. God's word warns us not 'to cast our pearl before swine'. Also the duggars are so 'into not 'defrauding'men by being immodest yet modesty is more than dress..its a way of life and attitude that seeks not vainglory and applause from the world.And by placing ones children before the world is to make idols out of them. One only has to look at the tabloids and magazines plastered with the duggar girls to see that this has happened.
I find it deplorable that anyone would suggest that the Duggars "dealt with" the situation in ANY appropriate way. They did many things wrong. Firstly, they got their instruction/advice from a man who was himself accused of many instances of sexual harassment, which means his teachings were likely filtered through the lens of an abuser. They waited quite awhile to take this issue to the police, so long that the police were unable to charge him due to statue of limitation. They NEVER sent him to any actual counseling, just had him build houses with a family friend and had a cop who was a family friend give him a lecture. This cop was later sentenced to 56 years in prison for child pornography charges, so he is definitely not a good source of counseling for a person who is already a repeat offender.
Lastly, they forced four of his victims to "forgive" and continue to live with their abuser, who had already molested them multiple times. This is completely unacceptable, especially considering their other failures in this situation. He could have kept victimizing them or even escalated the abuse. I had a friend who was in this same situation (repeated sexual abuse from her father) and their family dealt with it about the same, and her brother eventually raped her. Nothing I have read mentions the victims much at all, so I don't know the support the family provided for their daughters, but I can't help but suspect it was extremely lacking since they were trying to cover up their son's crimes. The abuse and having to live with their abuser and make nice with them can be extremely detrimental to their mental health and overall well being.
You seem to say that people shouldn't be held accountable for past mistakes, as if time alone is enough to absolve them. It is absolutely not. These things were not properly dealt with, both the cases of Paula Deen and the Duggars, so it is very fair to bring them up later. If people have truly changed, they should willingly admit their mistakes and be very vocal about how wrong they were, especially people will large followings that respect them. They need to show people that they understand why their past behavior was inappropriate and how they have changed, as well as providing a good example to those who still hold harmful views or victimize people.
Also, the fact that so many boys feel the right to inappropriately touch a girl against her will is disturbing in and of itself. The fact that you're passing it off as normal is worse, honestly. Boys of all ages should (and are capable of) understanding that other people's bodies are OFF LIMITS. Consent is very easy to teach. Its incredibly hypocritical that you would insist a woman should have a choice in her clothing and career, yet dismiss girls being sexually harassed by their peers as the fault of "raging boy hormones" rather than lack of respect for the girls' autonomy.
Lastly, one of the reason people should criticize the Duggars harshly is that they present themselves as moral beacons to a rather large audience. They are famous largely due to their large family and their outspoken Christian beliefs. It is disgusting and hypocritical that they would spread completely unfounded accusations that transgender people are child molesters WHILE hiding one in their own family. If they had spent more time legitimately dealing with their own issues and less time publicly criticizing innocent people, perhaps people would care less when they are exposed as child abuse apologists.
"They waited quite awhile to take this issue to the police, so long that the police were unable to charge him due to statue of limitation."
I think your summation is right, but I would not put Paula Deen in anywhere near the same category as this. And regarding the above - a clarification (as I understand how it went down):
1. 2002 - 2003 Josh was abusing his sisters and one other multiple times. His father knew about it.
2. Some time in 2003 after way too much time and abuse has elapsed, they go to their church to discuss it, and the church does not act as a mandatory reporter, but Josh gets sent off, not for proper counseling, but to do construction. So the cover up starts. They are going to refer what he did as having undergone treatment.
3. Some time (I believe 2003) after the construction work is done, Josh goes to police officer (now jailed for child porn offenses) and gets a lecture, a report is filed, but no investigation is opened, because the perverted officer said Josh had been through treatment (which he really hadn't).
4. During this time Michelle is voted Young Mother of the Year, and Discovery helps finish their 7000 square foot house. And nothing is known about whether proper counseling is provided for the girls to this day.
5. In December 2006, Oprah gets tipped off about the covered up molestation, and refuses to tape the Duggars on her show. THAT is when it was known, but too late to open an investigation.
Someone correct me if I err, but that is how I believe the statute of limitations comes in here.
You are correct.
Error in your #3 - A report was NOT filed at that time. The officer was a family friend (and convicted pedophile) who they took Josh to, to try and "scare him straight." This is when the cop gave him a "warning," but he never filed a report. If he had, there would have been an official investigation.
The police report was filed a few years later in response to the Oprah show reporting on the tip they'd received. Investigators found that molestations had taken place in the past, but they couldn't do anything about it. No charges were filed because the statute of limitations had passed before the crimes were reported and the investigation couldn't find evidence of recent molestation (occurring within the time frame of the statute of limitations.)
The statute of limitations does not begin until the victim turns 18. Seeing that one victim is still underage, Josh could be charged yesterday if the police report still existed. That is why a judge who is a personal friend of Huckabee agreed to have it destroyed. There is officially no evidence of this crime unless a victim makes another report.
Jim Bob has made huge political donations in his state. Hundreds of thousands. People do as he says; he refused to produce Josh during the first investigation and it was allowed; now he has ensured charges cannot be filed. It's all corruption and pay offs. Follow the money, the trail is easy to find and to follow. His real estate deals also are easy to look up, and show similar evidence of corruption.
Audra: You are not correct on the statute of limitations as it existed at the time of the offense (which is the statute of limitations that is applied).
Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that retroactively changing the statute of limitations in order to prosecute crimes from long ago was unconstitutional. Arkansas's change to the statute of limitations occurred in 2013, not 2003.
I wonder if anyone else thinks it's strange that the Duggar girls did not loudly protest when they woke up to find their brother molesting them? Why were they willing to remain quiet and to submit to the abuse? This, to me, is the most horrifying part of the story and the most condemning outgrowth of Bill Gothard's teachings on women.
"Now those with stones can freely throw and it will make the throwers' sins ok. "
Why do people keep saying the same idiotic quote about "throwing stones". HE MOLESTED HIS SISTERS! Stop talking about damn stones and get real!
The only "stone" that applies here is the millstone.
Esbee, I'm don't think this surprised anyone. People of discernment could see that something was wrong, but didn't know what it was.
More like, those of us who know the subculture of that world knew SOMETHING would come out someday, having lived or closely observed it in our own lives/families. It would have been extremely unlikely that they could have escaped this horrible life unscathed. That's all. No rejoicing, no gloating, merely, 'I'm not surprised.' I speak for myself in saying that I'm only surprised it came out so soon, I expected more of the children to be grown and out of the house, (parents can't exercise as much control then.) Also not surprised that it was incest of some sort. This subculture is breeding ground for every type of abuse, those families (like mine) who were fortunate enough to escape sexual abuse, are fortunate indeed.
Josh Duggar did not "grope a girl." He molested his much younger sisters and one of their friends.
Thank you for sharing and for doing all that you can to help our families. I was formerly the wife of a IBLP Leader from the Wayne, NJ area.
We were facilitators of the IBLP and our children were taught through the ATI curriculum. Please accept my apologies.
I was uncomfortable with the whole idea, but I wanted to honor the Lord and my husband. I found that my husband and other IBLP/ATI families were covering up their sexual sins, abuses and other vices as well.
In 2008-2012 I investigated my entire household and then I uncovered the lies and received a few broken bones for not being a submissive wife.
Well, abuse is not a part of the Lord's will. Sadly, my older children won't speak to me and it seems that the Stockholm Syndrome is quite prevalent amongst the entire community. Shunning is also common.
We were taken hostage and we didn't even realize it. Let's continue to pray for those who are currently taken captive.
2 Peter:14-26
Dealing With False Teachers
14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
AMEN!
Uh, oh. I think I shall have to become Lindsey1. Welcome, other Lindsey.
esbee, you said "how many teen age boys with raging hormones have groped a girl?"
What is wrong with you. I was a teenage boy with raging hormones and never sexually assaulted a female (MUCH LESS MY FREAKING SISTERS). This is not pulling something benign from his past. What he did was a felony offense, and the fact that it was never reported properly, or handled professionally, indicts the entire Duggar family and their system of belief.
There are lots of things wrong with me---do you want me to send you the list and do you have hours to read it and do you want daily updates?
I myself have been victim of a few feel ups by boys, cousins and such, and no I did not like it but the media and unbelievers are going to turn this into an "off with his head" deal for something that happened when he was a boy. Of course, not every 15 yr old boy does what he did even though many 15 year old boys are usually only 8 years old in the brain. From what I read the family dealt with it, even if it was sometime later. The parents were probably thinking what would Gothard do.
happens every weekend in the backseats of cars... I'm "grateful" Jesus took my shame.
I hope you weren't five when you were felt up.
If you read the police report, it clearly indicates which four of Josh's sisters were the victims -- only one was still, in 2006, young enough that the investigator had to distinguish between "good" and "bad" touches and ask them to label a full body part diagram to make sure they understood what the child meant when they used a specific word for a body part. It also shows that there was a female sibling who was not assaulted, and that sibling was studying for her GED in 2006.
So yeah, his youngest victim was 5 in March of 2003, when Josh was sent to Little Rock.
Isaac, I am not sure what world you live in, but if you even checked on the statistics for sexual behavior among teens, you might be shocked. All kinds of sexual behavior, from groping to intercourse, is, unfortunately, the norm for many adolescents. Sometimes it turns into abuse of younger children. It's sad, but it's real. I've worked with children and youth in different capacities since the 80s, and I've worked with families where sexual acting out-both wanted and unwanted-has caused huge problems. It can be everything from an unwanted pregnancy to, unfortunately, groping one's own siblings, either out of curiosity or just plain warped thinking.
What is so sad about the situation with Joshua D. is that, if his parents had worked properly with the authorities and therapists, he would have received appropriate treatment and he would have had a sealed, juvenile record. He also might have been less likely to re-offend. By hiding the situation, the Duggers only created more issues for themselves. It's not to say that the information might not have come out at a later date (nothing is secret in the day of the Internet), but they would have had the opportunity to say that they went through the proper channels and the criminal recored was sealed.
By the way, I'm very committed Christian who is very sad about where our society, including those who claim the faith, has come in terms of sexual behavior outside of Biblical norms. However, I also believe in God's grace and healing for both victims and perpetrators because we are truly all equal at the foot of the cross. I also believe that people who are dangerous sexual predators need counseling, and often jail time, to protect the innocent from their evil ways.
All that being said, I have always found the cult of Dugger very disturbing, rather like inviting voyeurs into your own home. Besides the fact that they are so tied to Gothard's teachings, they are not part of a church where they could get positive input regarding their spiritual walk or their family strategies. I do not believe God ever intended individual families to operate in isolation. A healthy church (emphasis on "healthy") can be a wonderful place where we encourage and exhort each other in growing in the ways of grace. A church can also be a bridge to get help. The Duggers have none of that, but they do have millions of viewers watching their family tragedy play out on TVs and video screens all over the world. I find it very sad.
Yes, yes, yes!
I am 65 years old...there was so much sexual curiosity and violation in my past I could not begin to rehearse every incident. I am not justifying any of it, but, I know personally that it is prevalent. My home was not "christian" but becoming a christian, being a pastor's wife and having to deal in our churches with this reality puts the way people deal with things though wrong into perspective. My own mother hid what my brothers and father did to her daughters out of fear and shame. It was devastating and has had life long consequences. I never spoke of the incidents I was involved with til I was 25 years old. Neighbors friends, brothers, cousins, my father, an Aunt and Uncle introducing me to porn. This stuff is easy to form opinions about and grueling to face, admit, deal with and heal from. (We were part of a 'sting' to catch a father in one of our churches on the phone having a conversation with his daughter regarding abuse . He subsequently went to jail.) .
I am telling you it is multi-faceted and complex. I pray for God's grace and wisdom as I continue to 'counsel' victims of all types of abuse. I long for heaven!
Thank you for this perspective Olivia. The perversion of mankind is deep and pervasive. How we can condemn others while hiding our own is part of the evil. The church has little presently to offer, ignoring the Scriptural clarity that made Genesis 2 marriage frightening to Jesus's disciples.
This is why I am so enthralled with John Paul II's Theology of the Body. It presents the antidote because it focusses on the Image of God in our nature and the Love of God in our calling.
Covenant love is hard, risky, entails great loss and is the ONLY call we have on our sexuality. To love God and spouse more than ourselves. To find ourselves only in giving ourselves away fully to communion with another.
So you were an adolescent paragon of virtue. Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. You might ask your sisters, though, what their own experiences have been. There are always cousins, or family friends, or worse--relatives. If your sisters escaped unscathed to, if not adulthood, then at least the age of consent, congratulations to them, as well. But if you have three sisters, odds are at least one of them has a story.
I lost count of my own stories, and I was raised in a good family with a strict moral code and belief system. They never knew because I never told. I never told because the encounters were so frequent, in my young mind I must have thought they were normal.
Just don't be so quick to judge. You have no idea what goes on in the house next door. Clearly, too often we don't know what goes on in our own. Sixty percent of females, and 30 percent of males report inappropriate sexual encounters before age 16, usually by a family member or close friend. So think of that, count your blessings and guard your family.
All I can say is that I have so much pity for you. It's so sad you're justifying Josh's bad behavior with all the bad behavior of others. Clearly a "strict moral code" does not mean a "good family," because what you described was sick and sad. My family, atheists, utterly frank about sex, taught me about bad touches before I can even remember. My one experience was at age 3 with a 13 year old neighbor. He pushed me down and started making out with me and groped me. I told my dad, he beat the kid up. THAT'S NORMAL. not what you're describing.
Isaac,
I have been pondering what you said. Thank you for being the sort of man who finds this abuse unimaginable. I am happy you are out there somewhere.
Genesis 3 pretty well assures us that we are alienated male from female. So "normalcy" does reflect this alienation. The question we should be asking is where freedom may be found. The evidence before us establishes pretty clearly that IBLP is NOT the source of freedom from the curse. No one should commit any offense against another. But even consent does not purify sexual immorality. Playing the consent game is why "good" boys mess around with girls with bad reputations, no harm with consent, right? Only Grace can free us.
"And such were some of you..." if you don't know where that is in your Bible, find it and read the entire chapter and the next. You won't find any victim blaming, only an call to freedom in Christ.
We are bought with a price. We should live accordingly, showing deference to one another.
I thought it would be worth mentioning something here from the 2006 police report in which the Duggar parents were questioned about their son's actions. According to the police report, Jim Bob Duggar sent Josh to a treatment program. According to the police report:
"Jim Bob said that they found out about a Christian program in Little Rock which they felt more comfortable with. Jim Bob said that he could not remember the name of the program, but that it was conducted by a Christian ministry in the old Veterans Hospital in Little Rock... Jim Bob said that he thought that the program was affiliated with the Little Rock Police Department since they had a station in the same building. Jim Bob said that the program consisted of hard physical labor and counseling."
This is the IBLP Little Rock Training Center. IBLP was involved directly in Josh Duggar's counseling and probably knew detailed information about what happened in the Duggar household and that the authorities were never contacted.
The one article I read about this indicated that the Duggar parents contacted a State Trooper they knew to report the incident to him. The case went nowhere and the Trooper himself was subsequently convicted on child porn charges and is currently in prison. It is no wonder the investigation (if there ever even was one) whithered on his desk. Whole situation is just a mess.
I take no joy in seeing what is happening in the news, it is a big "coulda told you so" moment, the rotten fruit that has come forth since the situation did not get handled appropriately from the start. This is just further condemnation of the teaching of IBLP/ATI/BG on this subject matter.
I hope the family, especially the girls, can find true healing and FREEDOM in Christ.
That's a lot of bull that they did not know what the program was called. The Little Rock "Training Center" at that point was just a large empty shell with one wing of one floor of staff rooms. Everyone knew that the Police Department was a separate entity, period. The door between the facilities was locked. For them to pretend the "program" was legitimized by the proximity to a PD is pure smokescreen. Harold Walker lived in a home on the grounds of the property. He had small children at the time. I wonder if he even knew why Josh was being sent. Apparently he was a little clueless about the whole thing, from some other articles I've read. I wonder why they didn't choose Eagle Mountain?
IF it was the IBLP Training Center, Jim Bob did not forget who it was. He lied. "If", I said.
This article is an excellent analysis and example of how damaging some of Gothard's teachings are. With just a casual reading of Gothard's document, it sounds good until all the problems with it are exposed.
One of the things that is mentioned several times in this analysis is the implication from Gothard's teaching that the victim
"inadequately resisted the abuse" and thus the victim was partly to blame for the abuse because of it. Do not blame a victim for not fighting back.
There is something that often happens in the victim’s body, in both males and females, that most people do not know about or understand. When a person is faced with a traumatic assault, their body tends to go into one of several different responses – fight, flight or freeze. While some fight and others flee, most rape victims (50% or more), do not resist their attacker in any way. They freeze. A temporary paralysis comes over them and they can’t do anything. It is called tonic immobility.
Tonic immobility is a normal biological response that is found in both animals and in humans. It is a simple survival behavior that the body does without a mental decision on the victim’s part. Sometimes to fight back will cause greater harm. Sexual abuse is about power and control. The sexual predator will tend to do whatever they can to maintain that control. Later the victim may criticize themselves – ‘What’s the matter with me? I just laid there! I’m such a fool! Why didn’t I fight, or at least scream?’ Church leaders may blame the victim for being consensual or not doing anything.
I suspect that conservative groups that put a strong emphasis on male leadership and that women are to submit to men, may have a higher rate of tonic immobility among sexual abuse victims.
Dr Rebecca Campbell, a professor at Michigan State University explains about tonic immobility:
“Tonic Immobility can happen whether the assailant is a stranger to the victim, or whether it is someone she/he knows. Victims who experience tonic immobility during the assault freeze. They can't move, they can't fight back, they can't flee. And after the trauma, a person can have difficulty remembering specific details of the event, especially when they freeze while it's happening.
“It's important to remember that tonic immobility is an autonomic response, victims don't decide to do this; it's an automatic response of the brain and body, working together to try to protect the survival of the organism.
“Tonic immobility can be extremely frightening and confusing to rape and sexual assault victims. Why did I freeze? Why couldn't I move? Why couldn't I scream? Why didn't I fight back? Why was I just stuck there? It's not uncommon for victims to blame themselves for this response, often because they don't understand why they did what they did. And often, not remembering the details of how things happened can bring up feelings of shame, especially when questioned by others. Most people don't know about the "freeze response." Most people don't know that research now tells us that "fight or flight" is actually "fight, flight or freeze." The freeze response, also called tonic immobility, has been documented in many research studies with sexual assault victims. It is very real, it is very normal, it is completely biological and it is not something victims can control. Nor is their fault.
“In my career as a research psychologist, I have had an opportunity to interview many rape survivors who experienced tonic immobility during the assault. None of them ever knew why they froze and because of that, they carried within them tremendous guilt and confusion. When I've told them that what they experienced sounds like tonic immobility, and when I've described to them what tonic immobility is, they are astounded. Some survivors cry in relief, some have jumped up and hugged me, some have sat there in disbelief, asking me to explain it over and over again, just to be sure. To know that this is something normal—something that happens to many survivors and it's not their fault—is incredibly freeing and healing. It can help make one part of a terrible—traumatic crime a bit more understandable.
“I have also had the opportunity to talk with police officers, detectives, nurses, doctors, and rape victim advocates about these issues. Many of these professionals are not aware of "fight-flight-or-freeze" or if they are, they don't know that research now shows that some rape and sexual assault victims experience the "freeze response" during the attack. Unfortunately, there are still too many instances where our helping professionals blame victims for tonic immobility and add to victims' shame, guilt, and self-blame. However, as legal and medical system personnel learn about Tonic Immobility, they are able to help victims understand what has happened to them and help them along their journey of healing.”
http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/blog/talking-about-tonic-immobility-tonights-svu
Those girls, boys, men, and women who experienced tonic immobility during their sexual abuse need our compassion and understanding. It is important that we do not blame them for their response, or judge them wrongly.
I had never heard of "freeze" before either. Very interesting. Thank you for the time you take to contribute here, Myron. Your posts are always well -thought out and helpful.
Thank you for your detailed response. I had already suspected that I must have experienced a freeze response in my life's traumas, but to have a scientific name for it is a powerful confirmation. I am no expert on anything, but I would like to add that the brain plays another part in trauma, which includes learned response. If a person feels helpless and hopeless in the face of danger, she will not even try to fight or run. She believes that her fate is already sealed. So, since her body is stuck there, she will go away in her mind to reduce the pain. For more information, visit www.lifemodel.org., and search for "trauma effects and the brain".
This comment reminds me of a weird experience I had in college. I was sitting on a bench at compus and a young man sat next to me and struck up a conversation. It was very friendly, but in the middle he suddenly started rubbing my leg. It was bizarre and so unexpected. I was so stunned I just kept trying to carry on the conversation as if nothing were happening, because I didn't know how to respond.
This was in a public place with people walking by, so I wasn't exactly afraid, but even so I had no idea how to handle the situation appropriately. So I can easily believe that a girl who is being raped will freeze and do nothing to resist the attack, especially if it is completely unexpected.
Thank you for your comment, that helps me understand some things about myself. While to my knowledge I've never been sexually harmed, I tend to freeze up in moments of panic, or if someone is angry and expressing their anger/frustration, even if it's not directed at me. I freeze and want to hide. I hate it, and wish I knew why I do this.
Myron Horst,
This is extremely valuable information. Thank you!
Like most dispensationalists, I believe that Christians still have their sin nature along with a new nature in Christ. The old nature can't be improved AT ALL. Therefore, lists of rules do nothing to alter it. Gothard's legalistic teachings only proved what the New Testament taught all along, that the Law could only condemn us and ultimately kill us. Only the Cross, the grace of God, and our response in faith can bring glory to God.
While I'm sad about the Duggar situation, I'm glad that it appears the whole clan will be off the air. The odd mixture of law/self-righteousness + faith in Christ only misled their many fans. It may also be true that God allowed the revelations about Josh's past to bring healing to the family, away from the pressures of the show.
IBLP willingly protected Josh Duggar and ignored the victims, by not acting according to their legal duty of care to report this child abuse to the authorities. Despite the fact, the nearest police station was quite literally on the ground floor of the Little Rock Training Centre where Josh was receiving 'counselling' from IBLP and Bill Gothard (a known sexual predator and child molester himself).
As far as I'm concerned, this situation deserves a full recovering grace article in and of itself. Their role in silencing and covering up this serious crime provides only more evidence that IBLP must be shut down.
Good points, Gemma!
Gemma, do we know for sure that LRTC was the place and that Gothard counseled Josh? What is the source for that information. It was assumed above, but not clearly established.
The following is the description in the police report. Others here have identified it as the IBLP training center. There's no way that JimBob didn't know the name of the program. It's as if he'd been instructed to leave that detail out, or at least did it on his own purposefully. It's what makes me think there may have been somebody behind the scenes through it all.
"James [JimBob] said that they found out about a Christian program in Little Rock which they felt more comfortable with. James said that he could not remember the name of the program, but that it was conducted by a Christian ministry in the old Veterans Hospital in Little Rock and the man who ran it was Harold Walker. James said that he thought that the program was affiliated with the Little Rock Police Department since they had a station in the same building. James said that the program consisted of hard physical work and counseling.
I also meant to mention the obvious - that he could recall Harold Walker's name but not BG's or the name of the organization clearly indicates intentionality.
These articles confirm Walker, the VA facility and the LRTC are the place. If so, Jim Bob lied to the police. That is a shame.
http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-political-reach-of-gothard.html
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/founder-of-josh-duggars-treatment-center-left-after-sexually-grooming-teens-and-young-women/
http://starcasm.net/archives/316680
Don, that is what I've been trying to point out to some of my family and friends who don't even follow Gothard's teachings, but are very supportive of the Duggars on account of the TV show.
This kind of deception makes me believe the officer in 2003 is correct when Jim Bob said there was only one instance of abuse and they dealt with it with a treatment program.
It also makes me suspect that between late 2003-2006 that there may have been more incidents. Once you have been caught in a major lie, why believe you about anything?
My first thought as I read the original article was that it was written to fit some of Gothard's teachings and what he wanted to convey. Some of the things written just seemed so far from what a young man in this situation would even think to write.
And I too am tired of women being blamed for men's sexual sins. It's like it gives men freedom to think or act in an immoral manner and then blame it on a woman's behavior or dress. The Bible teaches all of us to bring every thought captive, to control what we see and how we react when we see something that we know will tempt us to do wrong, and to accept and admit when we have sinned--not blaming it on someone else.
May the Lord give each of us wisdom and discernment, a heart of love and obedience to our precious Savior, and compassion and love for the victims of abuse.
Thank you for re-posting this. Very good timing. Some of the bigger media players are just now starting to make the connection between how the Duggars handled Josh's child molestation behavior and the teachings of IBLP. The whole thing is so disturbing; that they apparently never really got Josh any real counseling- helping a family friend remodel is not professional counseling! They never really went to the authorities- having a family friend, who also happens to be a cop, give Josh a stern talk a year after the incident is not reporting the incident to legal authorities. No report, no investigation, not until 3 years later when a third party reported them.
No disclosure to other families with children to whom Josh was exposed? Professional counselling for the 4 sisters who were molested? Knowing what we know about IBLP and the Duggar's deep following of the teachings, it is highly unlikely. Did they feed their daughters the IBLP garbage about the victims being to blame for tempting their brother or that God allowed this to happen to them because of some sin in their life? It is very likely. This is all so very sad. At least there is one thing which I doubt I will be hearing from my friends anymore when I try to caution them about IBLP: "But don't you want your family to be like the Duggars? Their an ATI family."
I don't think that modesty helps all that much at all. Sure, it's good to be covered, yet a bunch of rules about how to cover just causes people to focus more on the evil. Like learning to ride a bicycle and thinking, "I'm not going to hit that tree, I'm not going to hit that tree....." Guess what? You hit the tree because you're focusing on it. I bet Amish boys and girls can flirt as well as anyone, and Amish boys and men seem to be capable of molestation, too. It's a big issue there. I've mentioned this before, that when my daughters and I were at our most modest, my husband would lie on the floor and gaze up our dresses during Family Bible reading time. He didn't have any access to porn that I know of, but he was (is) a sex addict. It's a spiritual/mental battle that has to be won, which can't be 'helped' by outward rules and regs. It takes a determined effort to turn one's mind toward Christ, to praise and worship, to thinking pure thoughts, at first every few seconds, then eventually it becomes second nature, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
We've become a generation of paranoia about boys and men touching girls, when actually the lack of proper touching and affection and watching parents truly loving each other is a big part of the problem.
As for the Duggars, the whole idea of obeying without question (which our family subscribed to for too long) is a huge problem. The children should be learning to make decisions and be allowed to question and search out answers to life years before they leave home. And, the parents need to stop acting as if they're perfect. Recently, the dad rode along with his older son in the son't police car. The son specifically told his dad that he couldn't leave the police vehicle under any circumstances (and a few other rules), yet as soon as the son was a few feet from the police car and had his back turned, Jim-Bob was out of the car running into the store to buy snacks. That incident just screamed hypocrite to me and I lost what little respect I had for the dad right there. The son looked upset, but then shrugged and said, "I asked him not to leave but I guess it's ok."It was NOT ok!!!! And JB's grin and attitude while doing it was, "See, I'm not accountable to anyone, I can do what I want." It shows that they don't have respect for the law, or the church,or even respect for their own children, etc.
The father was defiant, in that situation the son had authority as the officer of the Law. The father disobeyed him in a situation that was potentially dangerous. I think the father wanted to say to everyone that he was in charge and he was manipulating the situation to stamp his "authority" on his son and everyone filming. No-one was going to tell him what to do!
I'm not familiar with the police car incident. Which son was involved, what were the circumstances, and how did you find out about it?
It was on one of their TV episodes, Season 15, Episode 4, about a month or so ago. One of the older boys, John-David, is a constable and Jim-Bob wants to 'spend quality time with him' and rides along with him in the police car for an evening.
I discovered this website years ago when I wanted to have some background knowledge for understanding/supporting a friend coming out of ATI. I've been referring people left right and center to this article and the Counciling Sexual Abuse one as well. My friends, my family, my FB aquatinces mainly had no idea that such a seedy underbelly existed, much less that it was an institutionalized framework in which to raise young people. There are some sensationalist, very liberal (even liberal for my tastes and I tend to sit center/left on most issues) articles starting to come out now with scans and quotes from documents that have been preserved, for lack of a better word, on Recovering Grace. It looks possible that finally the truth of the damage that ATI/IBLP have caused may be revealed once and for all.
The BG teaching in the above article explains a lot of what I'm seeing in the media. It seems like the Duggar defenders emphasize that he, too, was "just a kid". I read reports that some of the victims were as young as 5. Just thinking about not only the physical intimidation that that implies, but also the mental and emotional power you would have over younger siblings/family friends when you are the oldest son in an extremely large family. And living in a culture with a mindset emphasizing instant obedience and obeying "authority" figures? The idea that little girls can dress or behave in a way that invites abuse is sickening. Were those girls ever even able to express how violating that must have been? Did they really freely offer forgiveness or even truly understand what happened to them? This was not a one time incident either, nor a case of 2 young children playing "doctor". The fact that it is referred to as a "mistake" completely minimizes his culpability and the pain and suffering he caused these young girls.
It is ironic that the vast majority of Gothardites refuse to have a tv in the house----- until the Duggers came into the limelight. We still have Duck Dynasty!
I think the fact that they put themselves on TV without owning one smack with hypocrisy at it's finest. It is double talk. One one hand you are not suppose to even have a TV, let alone watch it then turn around a put yourself and your children on it for people to watch. I never understood that about the Duggars. But again I think reality TV is not reality and not matter how Godly or good or outreaching you have convinced yourself as a reason to be on TV. Reality TV is more staged and highly edited. This also applies to Duck Dynasty as well.
I grew up with younger siblings that ran around naked (as toddlers) after bath, in the pool sometimes and there was plenty of goofy roughhousing and diaper changing and babysitting to be had, yet the thought of ever inappropriately touching any of them is such an EWWWW factor that seems built in to me that I think this has MUCH more to do with the SHAME instilled at a young age for natural things like your own body parts. That constant guilt and shame then becomes obsessive when you reach puberty and thus we have unnatural behaviors that are tragically preventable!
That's true. I also believe when even family relationships are turned into authority "umbrella" schemes instead of freely given and received love (and founded on appropriate empathy, warmth and affection, as another commenter above points out), this is what can happen.
Don't try to guess at the reasons for male moral weakness and predation. All such is blame shifting. We are screwed up from Genesis 3 to the end. The only Freedom is in Christ. Those who claim to be innocent or self-controlled by human effort or "wisdom" are fooling themselves.
"Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
[…] website, recoveringgrace.org, devoted to people damaged by Gothard’s teaching materials; and this page offers more insight into how his minions view abuse.) If that’s true, it suggests any […]
If the mainstream media catches on through the RG website that the Duggars are hugely involved in IBLP/ATI, it could really give some traction to getting IBLP and all affiliated ministries shut down. To the moderators: It might be worthwhile putting together a post about the Duggar family, and their involvement as an ATI poster-family... I really want the mainstream media to realise the roots of their dysfunctional belief system, highlighting the dangers of the cult the kids grew up in.
Gemma, media has already caught on. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/5/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-josh-duggar-police-report.html
This is the article I wanted to share: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/what-did-josh-duggars-counseling-look-like.html
The author looks at the same IBLP pamphlet that RG does.
Do they really believe sex education reduces sexual abuse? On what basis? Amoral sex education is a lot more about pregnancy and disease prevention than moral goodness. The materialist preaches consent as the be all and end all of respect. I can't buy that. The entire "rape culture" on college campuses is comprised of highly educated people with a lot of sex education in their transcript, and even more understanding of how to evade consent through intoxication. And scores of highly educated counselors abuse their clients every year.
This is about hearts, not information. IBLP clearly fails in its mission, but that does not commend in my mind the amoral materialist approach.
What? By materialistic, I assume you mean science and reality based?
"What? By materialistic, I assume you mean science and reality based?"
No - Don could say it better than I, but the philosophy of materialism, which posits that the material universe, specifically matter, is what is to be studied to account for everything that happens. It leaves out God and morality, bottom line. CS Lewis explained better than I ever could why right and wrong and God cannot be shoe-horned into a materialistic philosophy. It is amoral, as Don said.
I agree with Don. And I can see the inconsistency in people (who may or may not be aware of their amoral philosophy) saying we need to give sexual information so then sex will all be mutual, and that is good (according to them). On what basis do you say mutual consent is good, but forcing sex or sexual behaviors on someone else is bad? All I've ever heard is crickets chirping or else waded through nonsense.
It's a long way from materialism to God, too long to write about here, but the bottom line is there are some things that are always absolutely right, and some things that are always absolutely wrong, we all instinctively know this to be true and operate under the moral law all the time, and in order for morality to be a true concept there must be Someone who is the Umpire who alone can call right and wrong for what it is.
And I didn't even touch on Don's point that the college students who rape were more than likely steeped in an amoral sex education on pregnancy prevention, mutual consent, disease prevention, etc.. It's a problem of the human heart, not controlling the environment (Duggars, Gothard) or leaving out right and wrong altogether (the secular education which is founded in materialism).
What Lynn said. Believing that sex education will protect children from molestation is like saying teaching everyone about how bank security works will reduce bank robberies.
Is there anyone besides me who thinks Mike Huckabee's campaign is running itself into the ground over the Duggar issue?
LynnCD - yes, absolutely
I hope it's running into the ground. I fear the public isn't really seeing the connection between Mike H and the Duggar's. I hope people start seeing the tie.
Huck is probably banking on gaining a hold on the Duggar loyalists, who may count in the hundreds of thousands among Republican Primary voters. With 19 and counting conservative candidates, you have to do something desperate to get a toehold. Huck is claiming the Duggar vote when he knows everyone else will run away as fast as they can. It's not enough to get nominated, but it may be enough to stay in the top 5 while the others knock each other out. If he is the only one right of Jeb Bush left, he would not be tainted by Duggar loyalty. He is well enough known that those many who wrongly think Jeb Bush is some leftist would be comfortably voting with Huck.
As a Conservative who has been active in politics, the thought that these people are entrenched in my political circles bothers me. It also bothers me that the Duggars had a squeaky clean persona for so many years and that my friends who never heard of ATI until now thought that the family was so perfect.
I haven't been involved with ATI but have been a victim of sexual abuse through an ex's political group that I could definitely call a cult. A couple years ago, I was watching the show and saw one of the girls (not going to say which one) and thought "that girl has been abused sexually." I could tell just by the look in her eyes and her general persona.
I hope the girls know that this was not a blessing in disguise and that we love them and support them.
"I hope the girls know that this was not a blessing in disguise and that we love them and support them."
Yes, exactly what you said that we should support them, and that they are loved, not despised.
Reagan, I hear you, but ATI families are heavily Republican. I took my family into ATI while I was a state legislator. It was a safe place for us. Now, I hope to reach many of these because they are politically connected. Don't abhor them. They know not what they do. The political connection is a bridge. Use it patiently.
I have said that Megan Kelly's interview with Jim Bob and Michelle was an effort by Fox News to legitimize the Duggars in order to keep Huck on the campaign trail. Kelly let so many things in the interview slip by. I believe it was an interview bent on trying to regain ground that Huckabee had tossed away when he much-too-quickly jumped to defend the Duggars the day after the story broke. Hardly any details were known when Huck did this.
I think Fox has more candidates to be interested in than Huck and the powers that be at Fox most likely know that he probably has a snow ball chance in hell to be the nominee. Huck is an old friend of the Duggars from way back. His defense of them is more of a knee jerk reaction with little thought but to defend some old friends. In a back handed way, Huck has shown that he is willing to stand by friends no matter what it might cose him in the long run. That is going above politics that one usually sees from politicians and how they treat friends that run a into problems.
I thought also that there was some hope in the Hannity follow up after Megan. He had Dr. robert Jeffers on who became extremely defensive and argumentative with the conservative Psychologist. Jeffers really didn't do himself any favors and showed that he obviously doesn't want to dig deeper and look and a number of unhealthy things about the Duggars and what they believe. Hannity's was obviously angeling with the unhealthiness of reality TV in the first place and that it is totaly naive at the least to put yourself and your children out there especially with this type of problem with Josh. I hope Hannity will dig deeper and start to look at Bill Gothard and his teaching. I'm praying that he does more with Bill Gothard because it seems like the majortiy that liked and watched to show know very little about Bill Gothard and his is still swept under the rug by this.
"I have said that Megan Kelly's interview with Jim Bob and Michelle was an effort by Fox News to legitimize the Duggars in order to keep Huck on the campaign trail."
I believe Huckabee shot himself in the foot with his knee jerk support of his friends, yet I think Megyn Kelly's focus was on protection of juveniles, and to focus on the shaming of juvenile offenses in the case of Josh, now an adult, and the release of easy to figure out information on a young person still a minor.
"Kelly let so many things in the interview slip by."
I totally agree with that. She let it slip by that Jim Bob said after the third confession and a year later, they talked to "friends." In truth, it was the elders of their church. The elders did not report immediately as they should have. Jim Bob covered for his church big time in that interview. That was a huge, big, letting something "slip by."
"I thought also that there was some hope in the Hannity follow up after Megan. He had Dr. robert Jeffers on who became extremely defensive and argumentative with the conservative Psychologist."
Jeffers was overly credulous. I really like how Dr. Ablow hammered him with, "How would you know?" Or something like that when Jeffers said the family was totally fine now.
I thought Dr. Ablow and Andrea Tantaros spoke for me on Hannity. Andrea said the family was very naive to think that this wouldn't come back to bite them.
The other victims here are Anna Duggar and their children. I think the other hidden issue here is the quick 4 month courtship teaching where the couple is always monitored and never alone. I wonder if Anna was truly informed about Josh's previous problem and if she didn't, would she have married him with this kind of background if she knew? How can someone really get to know another person in such a short notice as well as never being allowed to get to know someone. It take time to learn about another person and if they really have something in their life that might cause real grief and pain later in marriage. I certainly wouldn't want to be on my fourth child only to have my husband make national news in this fashion. His children with her will now always have to live with this kind of public outing. This is a real danger with short term arranged marriages that IBLP promoted as "Godly".
I also want to thank whoever wrote this article that it was very well done with incredible analysis.
Anna Duggar said Josh was completely honest and told her everything. If this is true - then that is very good that he did that.
I'm reading positive and negative editorials on this all over the place. There are people trying to tell others to leave the Duggars alone about this, but that's impossible. And tonight I saw another reason why it's impossible - there are many, many victims of sexual abuse in the home and this story hits a nerve with them, and they have to talk. They have to vent. And it isn't pretty. But to those of you reading this who may be tempted to tell people to be quiet - it might be good to allow those who are suffering to vent. And for this, I thank RG for reposting this article - very good idea.
And “James [JimBob] said that he could not remember the name of the program” they sent Josh to for “counseling.” In Little Rock, run by Harold Walker, in the old VA hospital, that he thought was affiliated with the police department. (Police report, page 15.)
So much for Duggar credibility.
There are reports that Josh’s victims have forgiven and that the family is closer now. But it was spoken in Gothardese, so we have to read it that way. “Forgiveness” was likely forced via spiritual intimidation. There were likely confessions from the victims and mutual forgiveness. Then they were probably told to make nice. And never bring it up again. And smile. And side hug. And never give a bad report.
I can imagine that when shopping for a future mate for the oldest son, a certain measure of disclosure is required to ensure the future wife will stand by her man without excuse. But then you can’t run off too many potential candidates, considering the necessity of filling the position in Gothardland. What we would consider “full disclosure” so early in their relationship does seem odd, but in Gothardese, to be told “everything” may just mean learning that “mistakes” were made of an “improper” nature. And it wasn’t just on him, anyway, of course.
We’ll never know exactly what was done or said. I just remind us that when interpreting information, it’s more accurately done in context of the originating culture – not the culture of the one hearing it. That, and a police report indicating Duggar hogwash.
Elizabeth D wrote: And “James [JimBob] said that he could not remember the name of the program” they sent Josh to for “counseling.” In Little Rock, run by Harold Walker, in the old VA hospital, that he thought was affiliated with the police department. (Police report, page 15.)
So much for Duggar credibility. (end quote)
Elizabeth D, I don't understand this. What I read from a news source is Jim Bob said he sent Josh away to a program, but Michelle said that he was doing construction for a while, with the clear implication it wasn't a treatment program. That is enough for me to know that Jim Bob deceived the policeman when he told him Josh had been through treatment, but I don't understand the specifics you mention.
This is from page 15 of the 33-page 12/12/06 police report online: There was a discussion with church elders about unsuitable programs where he “might be exposed to other offenders and other things that they did not want him exposed to.” Then “James [JimBob] said that they found out about a Christian program in Little Rock which they felt more comfortable with. James said that he could not remember the name of the program, but that it was conducted by a Christian ministry in the old Veterans Hospital in Little Rock and the man who ran it was Harold Walker. James said that he thought that the program was affiliated with the Little Rock Police Department since they had a station in the same building. James said that the program consisted of hard physical work and counseling. James said that [redacted] was in the program from March 17, 2003 until July 17, 2003. James and Michelle said that they were both comfortable that nothing had occurred since [redacted] went through the program in Little Rock. They both felt that [redacted] no longer had any problem and that all of this had been resolved. The Duggars said that [redacted] had apologized to [redacted} and that they had forgiven [redacted]. James said that several members of their church were aware of the situation and had been supportive of the family.”
That's what’s in the report – not necessarily the truth, but what was recorded by the investigator as having been reported by the Duggars at that time. As Daniel has posted in this thread, “That’s a lot of bull that they did not know what the program was called. The Little Rock ‘Training Center’ at that point was just a large empty shell with one wing of one floor of staff rooms. Everyone knew that the Police Department was a separate entity, period. The door between the facilities was locked. For them to pretend the ‘program’ was legitimized by the proximity to a PD is pure smokescreen. Harold Walker lived in a home on the grounds of the property. He had small children at the time. I wonder if he even knew why Josh was being sent. Apparently he was a little clueless about the whole thing, from some other articles I’ve read.”
Then there’s the news account that Michelle has said it wasn’t actual counseling, but that he worked with someone they knew on a construction project. I’m not sure when she said it, or who reported it. Assuming she did - was that the way she described the Little Rock Training Center? Was that her way of admitting that he didn’t receive professional counseling? Or was he somewhere else when they said he was there? Was he in two different places during that span of time? Did she answer a question without first consulting her husband?? (God forbid. Maybe if she’d consulted him, the stories would match a little better.)
All that’s clear to me is that nobody’s being completely honest here – as best evidenced by JimBob’s ambiguity to the investigator in 2006 about where he’d sent his son for 4 months just 3 ½ years earlier. I know I’ve never sent my kids off overnight anywhere I couldn’t recall later – just sayin’. Was he instructed from the beginning to leave the Gothard/IBLP name out of any reports, or could he really not remember the name of the "program" they have been associated with for years? Hmmm ...
Thanks. After I posted and I had a "duh" moment because I realized he should have remembered the name of the program his firstborn son went to. After all, he was in on the discussions with the elders, it was within the circle of people they knew, and it wasn't that long after it happened.
The Duggar family, unfortunately, were surrounded by men with severe problems with sexual addictions and perversions. Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, their pastor who recommended Michelle for Mother of the Year was in a sex scandal later, and the officer who didn't open a case on Josh - he was a friend, and also severely addicted to child pornography.
A long time ago someone who graduated from ATI told me the sex education they got from IBLP was one of complete repression, where normal curiosity was treated as sin.
What a recipe for disaster.
Ever since BG's resignation I've seen that yes, everyone seems to be sworn to secrecy about IBLP. And this just goes to show how that has backfired. There were some bad mistakes made in a lot of ways here. Josh says he wishes he could go back and change it. Do Jimbob and Michelle? I imagine they're weighing it all now; where, had we done this, would it be better? It's hard to say if there's an absolutely right answer. And where to go now. I don't blame TLC for pulling the show. They're getting flack from both sides. Either way there will be those who refuse to watch TLC or patronize the advertisers. Where to go from here? Watch and pray. And, for me, not to get so obscessed that I neglect my OWN life, that they're not a part of. For example, none of the pastors involved baptized me, officiated my wedding, did funerals for my loved ones, and I don't work for them. But, we all know sexual abuse is everywhere, and likely there will be more triggers. Let's keep helping each other
Michelle's statement that it wasn't really atreatment program is on page 30- "Det. Hignite then asked Mrs. Duggar about the training center they sent [redacted]to. She said it was not really a training center. Det. Hignite asked if the guy [redacted] talked to was a certified counselor. She said no. She said it was a guy they know in Little Rock that is remodeling a building. Det. Hignite ased if the guy was more of a mentor. She said kind of."
Thank you, Cricket! I read so many different things that I forgot Michelle's statement was in the police report - I was thinking it was issued later. I wished they'd pressed a little harder about what it was after they found out what it wasn't.
I would like to believe this to be true but again what is she going to truly say in these types of situations, she didn't know? A four month courtship where the couple is never even allowed to be alone to have such "honest" conversations begs the question. It isn't fair to her. I also wonder with Michelle and Jim if they really understood what they were getting into in making a "reality TV show" in the first place. Putting yourself and your children out there opens yourself up to the fact that "family secrets" like this eventually will come out. Likewise, I don't even think that they thought about the harmful effects of raising ones own children in front of a camera with the world watching is. Just look at so called child stars either in movies or music and you will see real life problems many of them faced in being constantly out there and in front of everyone. But when one isolates yourself from the culture, those kinds of stories are not considered. I think they thought they were above all of that but that isn't true. Look at the two newly married Duggar girls, It seems like they are now in competition for attention from the media and fans and are now addicted to the attention they get from being in front of a camera starting in their early teens. Without realizing it, the Duggars raised them to be more concerned about public attention and what it gives them. Not so wise and good. All of this is real sad. I think there was going to be an upcoming episode where the youngest girl has a seizure with cameras rolling and Jana is holding her calling for help. Do we really need to see this? It is such a violation of Josie's own privacy to begin with. Later in life, is she going to want the world to see her having seizures at age 5?
rob war: "I also wonder with Michelle and Jim if they really understood what they were getting into in making a "reality TV show" in the first place. Putting yourself and your children out there opens yourself up to the fact that "family secrets" like this eventually will come out. Likewise, I don't even think that they thought about the harmful effects of raising ones own children in front of a camera with the world watching is."
This is what I've been saying for years, I agree. They are adults but they set their children up for exposure, and the children did not have a choice. They wanted to show the world their family and "how it's done" according to IBLP teachings.
Immediately after Jim Bob had the goods on Josh he should have taken him before their church, and their church should have acted to protect those girls by reporting to the authorities. Jim Bob should have had Josh in a real treatment program, and proper care given to all the victims, following on the heels of reporting. Then, they could have continued with their reality TV, and if and when this was brought up, they would have had concrete proof that the matter was swiftly and properly dealt with, and that the world should know that abuse of little children in their house will be swiftly and severely dealt with.
It was interesting to me that in 2004, Michelle Duggar was voted "young mother of the year."
I really hate reality TV, but, having two cats, I have a penchant for "My Cat from Hell." But the Duggars didn't interest me, even though I was and remain very interested in IBLP. I can't figure myself out sometimes.
I agree, Lynn. But we need not speculate about anything we don't know.
Yet the lectures from the "liberated culture" are quite tedious.
Being on TV for these years has compounded the pain of every victim in that family and greatly damaged Josh's wife by exposing her to public ridicule for the rest of her life.
Don, if they drop out of sight and break free from this blasted reality TV, in a few years people will have moved on to the next iteration of Mama Jane, 19 Kids, etc.. And I hope they can talk to some Christians grounded in truth, to get proper counsel to facilitate healing. It takes time but people do forget. I have seen many comments from people who have never heard of them. There is a huge segment of the world who don't even know who Bill Gothard is.
When the news first broke, I hoped that Anna already knew and that this wasn't news to her also. I was glad to see her statement. I hope her statement is true and she's not covering for him. I can believe that he is a "changed man" and not the same troubled teen that he used to be, but that doesn't make the publicity easy to take. Love you, Anna, stay strong.
The Duggar scandal shows this Gothard Scripture-twisting reaping more rotten fruit--this time more in the public eye than ever. I thought the following was an insightful commentary from Terry Mattingly:
http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/5/24/washington-post-gets-it-the-duggar-tv-empire-made-all-kinds-of-people-nervous
The quote in this article from Christian blogger, Owen White, I found particularly resonated with me, and his whole blog post is worth reading. In the reports, it comes out that the patrolman, a Duggar family friend, who first received Jim Bob's report about Josh gave Josh a talking to, then buried the report. That cop, also a church elder in the religious circles to which the Duggars belong, is now serving 56 years for child pornography. It should surprise no reader at this site that reports are Josh got no professional counseling--he apparently just did some manual labor for a friend of the Duggars as his "therapy" and the family was "counseled" by the elders of their church. It breaks my heart--especially for the Duggar children and grandchildren.
Karen,
that is a good article and link. I appreciate it. What is concerning to me though and it has nothing to do with the article is that if one were to view Patheos and start looking at the different channels, one can easily find articles under the Progressive Christian and Atheist channels. If one were to look at evangelical and even Catholic, (which I just checked), you do not see anyone discussing this at all, except Roger Olson and his latest about when is a Christian sect a cult. I think evangelicals need to take hold of the discussion out there because there are a number of disturbing twists being put out there by either atheists and progressive Christians. The Duggar scandal has nothing to do with traditional Christian teaching on morality and the purpose and proper place of sex. Nor does this have anything to do with SSA and SSA marriage, something Josh Duggar spoke out against in his job. But this does have everything to do with IBLP and Bill Gothard and quiver full movement which falls outside standard evangelical teaching and views. These views also cover what is or isn't therapy, extreme ideas on one's own sexuality and body as well with the Duggars the public reality empire they have become. The link you have is the first step in taking back the conversation where it belongs.
Yes, I really liked the reflective perspective in the article--not one you usually see. It sounds like Patheos is a broader platform for a variety of views like Belief.net, but since I'm pretty settled in my traditional Christian views (not much change possible in Orthodoxy!), I don't mind a broader exposure. I think it's good to engage in discussion beyond our sometimes rather insular borders and learn to think more deeply about why we believe what we do. For young believers, I might give different advice.
My understanding is the blog owner's upbringing was same as the Duggar family but she is no longer a believer. If this is true, she has a valuable perspective. And it reminds me that the best thing I can do is pray for others, including her. I think her perspective is tempered with understanding and compassion, and that she makes many very good points.
Lynn, by "blog owner" in your May 26 post are you referring to Terry Mattingly? If so, let me clarify what that blog is about by referring you here:
http://www.getreligion.org/why-were-here/
Mr. Mattingly, a journalist, is a Christian and is a member at an Eastern Orthodox church. As he notes in the original article I linked, he grew up in a Southern Baptist home.
I'm on a mobile device and don't have time, but I meant a female blog post author, sorry for the confusion. Will clarify more later.
Russell Moore (SBC) has addressed it: http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/05/22/what-should-the-duggar-scandal-teach-the-church/
Brilliantly done! From the article by Russell Moore:
"Sexual abuse is immoral, but it is far more than just sexual. Sexual abuse is an act of violence, in which one leverages power to sexually violate the helpless. The resulting aftermath is not just a guilty conscience awaiting judgment on the part of the perpetrator, but a victim who has been assaulted. Sexual abuse is not just a sin but also a crime, not just a matter of personal unrighteousness on the part of the perpetrator but also a matter of public injustice.
This means that sexual abuse in the context of the church must be handled in terms of both authorities responsible—both the church and the state. The state has been given the sword of justice to wield against those who commit crimes (Rom. 13:1-7). The church has no such sword (Matt. 26:51-53). This means that the immediate response to allegations of sexual abuse is to call the civil authorities, to render unto Caesar the responsibility that belongs to Caesar to investigate the crime."
thanks for the link, it was a very good article. I'm waiting for Christianity today to do something. Haven't seen it yet and for all the puff pieces they have done on the Duggars, I would think there would have been something instead of ignoring this. It is silence like this that let those that don't believe to frame the situation and take the stage.
I'm trying to figure out what "authority" the church has in such matters, except to make sure that the unrepentant are excluded from communion or that molesters do not get access to the church's children.
Don, isn't it true that clergy are mandatory reporters when they hear about physical and sexual abuse?
Lynn, I am sure it varies from state to state. If the incident relates to a church activity like Sunday School and Camp it is more likely while in many places what is mentioned in a confessional is sacrosanct. So I do not believe there is a single answer to the question. From what I read their church leaders had some sexual abuse problems themselves so this would be the least of their failings.
I do believe the religious community is waking up and that what the average church would do in 2003 has changed dramatically in light of the recent scandals.
It's not really about legal duty but what is right. These, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore famously reminded us (echoed by any public figure who claims no violaton of "law"): right and legal are two very different things.
Don, I believe you answered your own question. The authority the church wields in a case of sexual abuse is to invoke the instructions of I Corinthians 5 and excommunicate the offender. The list includes fornicators, which encompasses every kind of deviant sexual activity, and thus the church has the authority to "deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." Since church members are not even to eat with those who are excommunicated, that would prevent such molesters from gaining access to children of church members. Naturally, as law-abiding citizens, the church members also have a responsibility to report the crime to the authorities.
The church's discipline may be spiritual, but don't discount the effect that being cut off from one's main source of community support can have on an individual. Pick any of the pastors or priests who have recently been found guilty of child abuse. Imagine if their churches, instead of covering for them, had after notifying the authorities and then confirming the charges by their own investigation, said, "You have committed sin and a crime, you are forthwith excommunicate." They would have left that person to face trial and imprisonment utterly alone; in fact the church would have worked against him by standing for the victims. That would have gone a long way to helping that person truly realize the enormity of what he had done and his utter sinfulness and need of salvation. And, if he ever got out of prison, he would have to prove his complete repentance before any church would even let him attend a church service, while his prior crime would disqualify him from holding any office (elder) or serving (deacon) in any position in the church, according to the directions in I Timothy. The spiritual authority which Paul gives the Corinthian church is quite practical, if only it is used.
The Russell Moore article is very, very good. People need to read that.
The Duggar situation is getting worse and worse. Now it turns out that when Jim Bob ran for US Senate in 2002, he said that rape and incest should be capital crimes. Molestation of a sister is pretty close to incest in my book. Then it's come out that Josh, in his admission of molestation, said that after he was confronted by his sin, he accepted Christ into his life. Odd, because on his website (ja20.com) he says that he accepted Christ at age 7. I think he changed his story to make it sound like the molestation occurred before he became a believer.... Now Ray Comfort is defending Josh for what he did "BC" (before Christ). The Duggars gravely underestimated the media and especially the Internet, but then so did their hero Gothard.
Yes, what is it blogger Owen White is quoted as saying?
"Anyone who assumes that sexual abuse in the Duggar household begins and ends with Josh is living in a TLCesque unreality world."
IBLP teaching had a way of insinuating that if you had moral failure in your life, your first profession of faith didn't take and you probably needed to commit to Jesus Christ the right way via a public profession.
Owen White's original post is well worth reading: http://theochlophobist.blogspot.ca/2015/05/arkansans-oh-my-poor-people.html
They underestimated the media. Yes that is it. I really don't think that they thought about the consequences of becoming such public figures and the fact that real reality will eventually come out, not just the TV reality that isn't reality. I also think that they had insulated themselves from popular culture, movies, music etc that they should have considered the effects on children on such early exposure. All one has to do is look at the ruined lives and the difficulties that so many early child stars have had that maybe one would hope that they would have decided not to turn their children into stage props for themselves. I find it interesting that a number of child stars that grow up in from of everyone turn around and do not raise their own children this way. Shirley Temple the first big child star turned around and raised her own children in privacy and obscurity. I now see the recent Duggar girls competing for media attention. Is it really wise to put yourself on People magazine after just getting married and pregnant? Do they really deserve such attention and for what? I think they think they were above it all and so Godly in their minds that they wouldn't fall like the rest.
I think the parents initially started off with good intentions. There is no doubt that all the adulation, fame, and yes, money enticed them down a dangerous road.
As with all transactions with the Devil, the initial enjoyment pales in comparison with the final payment.
Josh did wrong. He probably would have been sent to some kind of juvenile program for treatment. All that could have been in his past now. 40 years from now, I wonder what the top Google hit for Josh Duggar will be? Can he ever live this down? That's the price of monetizing the public's voyeuristic interest in your kids.
Reminds me of Newt Gingrich really, actually getting right with God as a Catholic at the time of his third marriage to his former employee who he committed adultery with while married to his second wife his former employee...
It is so convenient to claim salvation after all that bad stuff. Why not just drop out of public life when you cannot hold your head up in public any more? Why claim later salvation unless it is nothing but a "get out of jail free card", come to think of it, that sounds like the Baptist faith to me all these years later.
Vanessa: You are right on! This entire scandal would not have ever been publicized world wide if Jim bob had not subjected his family to media scrutiny with Reality TV. He is to blame for seeking fame and fortune at the expense of his family. What Josh did was wrong and could have been corrected, and repented of. Now, however, the media is using it to cast all believers and especially GOP Christians as a bunch of lying hypocrites. The Christian family is sacred and should not be advertised or drug through the media-sewer. Shame on Jim Bob.
[…] Grace also posted a second document, called “Lessons From Moral Failures In A Family,” which tells the story of family dealing with the consequences of their son sexually abusing some of […]
This doctrine being taught by the Gothard is simply a logical extension of the serious errors in the way most Evangelical Christians (I consider myself evangelical) think about the body and sexuality. The view that the body is the source of temptation has more in common with Gnosticism than it does with the historic Christian understanding. We are paying a very steep price for insisting that God's good creation (the human body) is the cause of temptation to lust.
But its not enough to say what we oppose... we need to examine the Bible and see how God expects us to see the body. I love this site MyChainsAreGone.org, because they take on this lie that "men are visual" head on.
http://mychainsaregone.org/lies/visual-stimulation/
Josh should have dated at fourteen and than kissed a girl on his first date.
The courtship idea sounds good in theory but creates so many problems.
Praying for all that are in courtship now and help the recovering grace
staff thru all this mess. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Usual American dating patterns are neither the cause of child molestation nor an inoculation against child molestation. The courtship crowd sometimes wants to assert the former, right now some are asserting the latter, but there's no causality.
It's kind of like people who say Bill Gothard should have married rather than sexually paw at the young girls under his "ministry" and in his employ: his unmarried state wasn't the cause of his sexually harassing counselees and staffers, his unmarried state didn't prevent it, and marriage wouldn't have prevented it either. He chose those actions; he wasn't dragged to them by celibacy fairies.
There's no substantiated reason to believe that teen in the article or the teen Josh Duggar would have been discouraged from predation by a Friday night smooching at the movies any more than we should believe that a Friday night date would led them to moral ruin. It's a red herring.
Yes! exactly to the point and I agree 100%!
Agree, whether he "dated" or "courted" has no bearing on whether he molested his little sisters. They are completely different issues.
It's impossible to say whether Hutchens is covering for himself and lying here, but if he is stating the truth, Jim Bob Duggar has lied in his cover up and skirting the law: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/05/28/jim-bob-duggar-state-trooper-josh-duggar-fondling-sex-abuse/28058841/
The news does not end in 2006: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/josh-duggar-sued-agency-molestation-probe-report-article-1.2237112
I don't know if the Duggars were conscientiously trying to handle this the right way or just trying to cover it up (many on this site have made good points).
What strikes me as odd is that about a year after this all happened, they put their kids on a reality TV show. REALLY? Did they really think this was the best way for them to heal, in the spotlight of all this media attention? I don't know if they were really naive or terribly insensitive to their children.
Susan, I think this can only be explained by the phenomenon known as "denial"--an ego-protective psychological mechanism which enables us to live in a fantasy/lie to avoid the pain of reality. Obviously, it was also an opportunity to make money. Likely, they believed Gothard's spin on "forgiveness" was all the "healing" they truly needed. His teaching fuels denial and insensitivity and preys on the naivety of sincere believers. If conscientiously followed, it basically guarantees the searing of our conscience and the silencing of the God-given wisdom of our "gut" instincts about the real nature of love and healthy and just human relationships.
I think it is a mixture of being naive, full of themselves and the money and fame it would bring. I almost wonder if they didn't know what they were getting into. When one isolates themselves from the culture where there is no TV, movies, music etc, I think then they don't see the pitfalls from raising your children in front of everyone. I think they thought themselves as so "Godly" that they would be immune to the problems that the limelight brings people. I think it is interesting that we really know never little of Jesus own childhood. There really is nothing in the Bible but the birth, escape to Egypt and then his start of public ministry. The only story told in the Bible is about Jesus when He is twelve. But that incident of finding Him in the temple emphasizes who He really is, the Son of God. Nothing else is given, nothing else is mentioned. I think if the Duggars contemplated that even Jesus's own childhood is hidden and obscure, then maybe they wouldn't have put themselves and their children out there for the world to watch. I am praying for the children. I do feel badly for all of them.
Rob, well stared and true. When I first heard of the Josh scandal, the first thing that entered my mind was: "Why did Jim Bob allow this to happen?" I turned the show off about a year ago when they were all on camera over Michelle's last dangerous pregnancy. it was then that I realized that there was just too much secular media on this family. Plus, it bothered me that Jim Bob was making a fortune off the exploits of his "perfect" family. When the Josh-scandal came out I saw the duplicity right away. Jim Bob knew better. He could have cared for his family enough to protect Josh from potential worldwide media scandal. He did not. The fame and fortune were just to tempting. I have a large family, too (8 kids, 1 wife) but the thought of having a camera on them 24/7 is just horrific. There is only one reason for this and that is the money. Always follow the money. I have to wonder if this is the pitfall of all TV (video) ministries-even IBLP. Power is just too corrupting, and absolute power (like IBLP) corrupts absolutely. This is especially deadly when legalism is attached-like with the Duggars and Bill Gothard.
Let's not underestimate the "Brilliance of BG."
He's never been a limelight-seeker, but BG's master plan has been to multiply followers (primarily via lack of birth control) from behind the scenes in order to spread his teachings and his version of morality far and wide. Conferences worked well in the beginning, but they only reached individuals intermittently. Homeschooling provided more permanence to permeate through the family structure. What else could he use to expand his reach - mass media, perhaps?
Maybe he could parade a model family to the world like he did at conferences. They could promote their (his) values as pillars of virtue. They could show the world that following the rules would result in huge blessings and pure joy and happiness all around. How could it not work? As long as they promote the right image (and smile - always SMILE and give nothing but good reports!), people will just stand in awe and want what they have ... which all points back to his twisted system.
It's just a hunch, but I think the early Duggar specials and the eventual series were likely "arranged" with a family he recruited, groomed, and hooked. If they had any (natural) misgivings about being put in the limelight, I can imagine that they were counseled to forge ahead to "reach the world" for BG. Just a hunch.
I never followed the Duggars closely and until this all broke, didn't even realize they were followers of Gothard. Does anyone know how deeply they are into the system? Does it seem likely the Gothard was involved in this TV series in some way?
Susan, they were deep enough to refuse last year to repudiate the man even after he admitted to being moral fraud. Many pled with them to break with Gothard, but he may have known about this and would have had that to hold over them.
It does need to be clarified whether the IBLP L.R. Training Center was the locus of Josh's "treatment", regardless of its status at the time. If so, they are covering for Gothard right now by not saying so.
They've spoken at ATI conferences and it used to be a link on their site. I believe that Michelle was the Young Mother of the Year in 2004(?). Also, I thought I heard that their literary agent is the same one that sells the Pearls' books.
Susan,
It looks like the Duggars have scrubbed any links to ATI from their site. However, they are still front and center on Josh Duggar's website. He has linked almost every ATI program as recommended Resources for Families: Journey to the Heart; The Embassy Institute; ALERT; Big Sandy Family Camp.
However, it is interesting that since they took the site down then put it back up, the link to ATI and IBLP, that were formerly on the page, are gone. Interesting that it appears that those were scrubbed but the other IBLP program links left up.
http://ja20.com/resources/
Maybe they thought that being videotaped would "keep everyone honest" and they would put on appearances? It seems like Gothardism is all about keeping the appearance of G-dliness.
I'm a modern orthodox Jew and we do things like dress modestly. I find that if I am following a more strict community's rules, I'm doing it for them and not to keep Torah and obey G-d. I try to remember that Torah is what I should follow, not some rabbi or some Gothardish individual. You can't serve two masters.
Reagan Girl, thank you for your perspective. I would be interested to hear your response to a lot of the rest of this site. One tragic aspect of ATI and IBLP has been that they try to strictly obey the Torah to earn the favor of God. Many postings on this site confront that approach. I like your attitude but am interested in your response to many of those postings.
Glad you are here.
On re-reading this piece, I think it may be overstated that, here, molestation is called merely "immorality". The actual quote from the Gothard literature says: "...would still have had a problem with the immorality, but I do not think I would have violated my sister...". This clearly implies that the perpetrator calls immorality something he did separate from his molesting. He was probably masturbating but they did not want to use that word. I agree that the entire approach focusses on the perpetrators lust rather than the victim's dignity, but I conclude the specific charge is overstated.
Obvious take away from the IBLP document: repression/suppression of sexual desire can only work through totalitarian control and isolation. No one can find freedom in Christ.
Subtle take away: BG should not have had one-on-one working relationships with younger sisters in Christ and not sock-foot-wrestled with them in dark vehicles (let alone gaze at their pictures in his private student directory; I wonder if the only reason they sought pictures of ATI family members was so he could gaze upon our daughters).
In many states, the statute of limitation on civil claims for molestation has been eliminated. In such a jurisdiction, a girl who was molested in an ATI home that studied these materials might successfully sue her family and ATI for contributing to the violation.
Six Hundred of us marched to the justice department in cleveland and to city hall demanding police reform. We had lots of media coverage. If six hundred would march to ATI headquarters in oakbrook and demand ATI reform maybe we could see changes.
Mitchell, there is a great difference between a government that is abusive and a private organization that teaches foolishness. We have all asked them to repent. They will not until they are convinced themselves that they are wrong. Your mob will not convince anyone at Oak Brook and media persecution will only confirm to them their righteousness. We should pray for their deliverance as we have been delivered.
Greater cleveland congregations is the name of the group that marched.
There were 40 clergy and 600 marched with the cleveland police shutting
down roads so we could present our case to city hall and the justice center.
Mayor frank Jackson of cleveland is open to change and reform as well as calvin williams the police chief of clevleand.
If we can get a city to change we can get ATI TO CHANGE. You have to have hope and faith that Bill will want to reform.
mitchell chapman
gates mills ohio
Mitchell, please read the postings on this site about the many times people have tried to motivate Bill to correct his path. He is not as responsive as the Cleveland Mayor, but of course, he never had to run for re-election, since he appointed himself lord over us.
I live in DuPage county and was wondering if anyone has filed a complaint with the States Attorney?
Does anyone think Jana, Jill, Jessa and Jinger have ever considered speaking out about all of this? With Jill and Jessa both being married now, they aren't quite as dependent on Jim Bob as Jana and Jinger are. I mentioned this in another post, but I think Jill is at least getting away from some of the ATI teachings in that she's scheduled (or was) to be at a Christian music festival in Ohio this summer with bands such as Toby Mac (who obviously wouldn't be welcomed at anything ATI affiliated). I feel sorry for all 4 sisters, but especially Jana. She is absolutely beautiful and seems so sweet and genuine, yet, she seems to be stuck taking care of her younger siblings with no real way out. Sometimes I wonder if they have been so brainwashed by ATI and Jim Bob's iron fist type of parenting that they will never really understand the joy that is found in a real relationship with Christ. I have some hope for Jill in that she seems to have married a really good guy in Mr. Dillard, who doesn't seem to have a fundamentalist background. However, the whole ordeal is really sad and the fact that Jim Bob and Michelle basically hid Josh's actions makes me sick to my stomach. I like Mike Huckabee, but his personal endorsement of Josh after all this came to light is literally a death nell to his campaign (not that he really has much of a chance anyway).
considering that the girls are victims, I would imagine that making some kind a public statement would just rehumilate them again. What would you want them to say, "my brother gropped me when I was sleeping"? That sort of press type conference would only open these very personal type wounds. I think the only thing they would say based on the type of training they have had under IBLP is that they have forgiven him and it is all behind them. It is extremely difficult for any woman to publically come out about being a victim like this. Recovery Grace has had I think about 35-50 stories about Bill and his behavior but only just a hand full have publically been willing to have their stories published. You also need to remember that JoyAnna at age 5 is also a victim in this.
Thank you Rob. Well said.
Jim Bob claimed in the 2006 police report that he could not remember the name of the Christian program that they put Josh in in 2003. This is almost certainly a lie. I find it implausible that he could not remember that they chose to send Josh to an IBLP program for "counseling" rather than obtain legitimate counseling. I assume he was trying to protect IBLP and it is likely for good reason- IBLP may have committed a crime in not reporting Josh. There are mandatory reporters for sexual abuse crimes; law enforcement, teachers principals and other school personel, social workers, doctors, therapists and counselors.
If the program claimed to provide rehabilitation and counseling, they may have been a mandatory reporter under the category of "counselor". Michelle may have a few more brain points than Jim Bob concerning this area, as she apparently backed away from his claim that Josh was given counseling. She might have been trying to protect IBLP and was aware that if they were exposed as having posed as a counseling center, then they would have been a mandatory reporter.
Also, ATI would probably fall into the category of a private school and Josh was a student. Given the relationship of ATI/IBLP and the training center, it is very possible that people in various positions at ATI would have been involved in the center or at least had knowledge of the abuse. They would have probably been legally obligated to report his crimes.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf
Well, I've been calling it a lie ever since I found out in 2003 he said Josh got counseling and that only one incident happened (what Hutchens said he was told). The truth is there were multiple incidents and Josh never got counseling. In 2006, to say, "I'm sorry, I don't recall," is very Clintonesque.
Be careful, Lynn. He spoke to investigators in 2006 and that statement was recorded by the investigators in a public record. So it does appear to be a lie. But what Hutchens says now was not written down in 2003, so it is not as reliable. He is a man who may lack credibility. I'm not saying he is lying, but I would not presume he is telling the truth. He says Jim Bob and Josh says it was one time, but that does not make it true.
I will amend that to "appears to have misled" Hutchens in 2003, based on Hutchens' testimony. But I thought it was also pretty established that Jim Bob and/or Josh told Hutchens that he had been through a treatment program, which is false.
I hope you and other people with law backgrounds can give your opinion on Megyn Kelly's interview which will air later on this week.
I guess I missed that and the lawyer in me says it does not matter because he did not go to Hutchens to make a formal police report, only to get some tough love for Josh. The 2006 investigation was formal and J.B. clearly misled because he KNEW he sent Josh to the T.C. but was covering for Gothard and the program which was still trying to become established as L.R.T.C. at the time, and might have come under negative formal scrutiny if the investigators had followed up.
The blame for this entire Duggar mess lies with the parents mostly. They knew about the potential for scandal with Josh and yet they signed on with TLC anyway--no doubt for the cash. it was their desire for fame and fortune that led them to have the camera on 24/7 and rake in the cash that goes with it. the family is sacred and when you allow the world in to film your "perfect" family, then look out! Also, I turned the show off when I saw Jim Bob allowing the camera to film their ordeal with their youngest premature daughter. is this really where the Christian faith is going-reality TV? I hope not.
You are speaking my mind. There are a number of decent blogs on Patheos Evangelical channel questioning the Christian cult of celebrity in that Christians follow the world in making and raising up and following different pastors, authors, ministries and yes even "reality TV" and then accountability is lost, purpose in reaching the world for Christ is swallowed up with status updates and all the rest. Then all of this come crashing down when some kind of scandal or abuse comes out. There is no such thing as "reality TV" no matter who is the subject matter. I saw a blog once that compared the Duggars to the Kardashians and taking out the obvious religious differences, it was a pretty scary comparison. Yet too many very good and well meaning Christians defend them in the name of wholesome TV. The problem is that it isn't wholesome to invite TV crews into your home to show yourself off and raise your children this way. It's kinda obvious that Jill and Jessa seem to crave the attention it had given them. It isn't healthy, it isn't wise and I wonder where all of this is going to spin out as with all these children.
Rob, has Christianity become "too big to fail?" What you say is spot on. Can you even imagine the early church this way? If they were, we would have no persecutions, no martyrdom, and no lasting and pure faith-the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. American Christianity is beginning to make me sick...and I am a pastor (of a small congregation). Having done this for 27 years now, I am really getting tired of the gimmicks and drama that now have to be a part of each service.
No, I can't imagine the early Church fathers, starting with the 12 apostles recognizing this at all as Christianity. Considering that all but St. John died martyrs deaths, I would think they would be shocked that a large Christian family puts themselves on TV like this. It's one thing to make a pro-life stand which is sorely needed into today's culture of death, but it is another to promote oneself including your children as some kind of super-duper. Yes, all children are a gift of God and a blessing but that message is lost with the Duggars and even the Bates. It's not what people come away with watching these families. The basic moral message of marriage, family , children is not what becomes promoted here. Look at their recent marriages of Jill and Jessa. The message of waiting for marriage is lost on kissing and when they can kiss and all the photos of their smooches afterwards. No one discusses basic Christian moral behavior, it is lost in a kissing side show. Their made made rules of courtship which isn't even Biblical and covers up God's basic plan for sex and marriage. It's those kinds of "rules" that Jesus accused the pharisees of. Man made rules that cover up God's real moral code.
Guy,
I also can only imagine the frustration you must have as a pastor in dealing with all of this. I'm sure that it must become extremely tiring to battle the constant nonsense out there in the name of Christian TV shows, para-church groups, teaching ministries and even the internet now. It's just a guess and observation that too many very good and well meaning and sincere Christians take too much of their ideas about their faith and how to live it from these things and sound ideas, orthodoxy and the tried and true goes out the door for the latest and the greatest. My prayers are for pastors like you.
"Can you even imagine the early church this way?"
Um, yes . . .
When I read through the New Testament, including the epistles, and the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, you see everything. Everything. Incest, immorality, spiritual abuse, factions, materialism, pride, predictions of savage wolves soon to come, Judaizers, Gnostics, and more. The early church had it all.
Lynn, I was responding to the Pastor's observation and his observation wasn't about sinful behavior but about the celebrity type status and emphasis and silliness a lot of American Christianity has turned into. Yes, there were problems with bad behavior and heresies in the beginning but a lot of Christians also paid the price with their lives. Maybe you need to take up your comment up with him since he was the first to make the comparison, not me.
rob war, the early church had their version of "celebrity type status" as well. Paul admonished the Corinthians in more than one place about this attitude. In fact, at one point we know they complained that Paul did not carry himself in person as a celebrity, if you will. They wanted to be IMPRESSED by a lot of externals. Jesus rejected the masses making Him King per force. And other examples of such in the NT. Just because word traveled less quickly didn't mean this kind of behavior was not already taking place, or being rejected by Jesus, Paul, etc..
When you ask me to take up my remark with Guy not you, I already did in my first comment in this conversation. I quoted him not you and was responding to his remark. You did not say what I put in quotes and replied to. It was Guy. It appears to me you are overreacting.
Lynn, certainly there were problems in the early Church, too, but they didn't have modern media to spread the nonsense (and dubious fame) at the speed of light! Of course, that also meant it could be awhile before an Apostolic visit to take care of gross sin in the infant churches and to oust impostors posing as apostles of the true gospel! Truly there is nothing new under the sun. :-P
Yah. Have speed of light can deal w/quickly and maybe nip it in the bud. Horseback, walking, or slowboad it can blossom and flourish and maybe take root. ;-)
Of course, covering over sin even w/speed of light can make things take root, fester, and grow bigger. Then, when it does get out . . . WHAM!
Very good points, Rob!
Tomorrow night the Duggar's will be intervened by Megyn Kelly of Fox news, Megyn states; “I’ll take that reputation as a tough but fair journalist,” Kelly said on her program on Monday. “However, this isn’t going to be a cross-examination of a family. It’s going to be an interview. I want to hear their story. And I think America wants to hear their story now.”
“Nothing is off limits,” she continued. Well, almost nothing. “I don’t plan on getting into the specific details about what was done," she explained, "because my understanding is the victims don’t want to discuss that either.”
As God commands of all of us to be truthful lets pray that God will give the Duggar family the courage to be truthful and repent for past lies and cover-ups. That is what would glorify God. Pray that Meqyn asks questions that would bring about the same. The world is looking that we as Christians practice what we demand of others. God will take care of His reputation but our part is to follow all of His commands, which includes repentance and truthfulness regardless of the consequences. This applies to IBLP and Bill Gothard also!
Larne
Amen Larne!
Let's hope that truth and repentance win the day on the Kelley File, although I am not holding my breath. Legalistic people have a tough time truly humbling themselves. They live the facade on a daily basis and when confronted by truth (with grace) spin and blame. it will be tough to peel the veneer off. We live in an age of what I call self-centered "dramatism" where everybody wants to "be on stage." This is where Christendom is heading in our post-modern world and it is not good.
Jim Bob Duggar, while acting like and claiming to be a man that protects his family according to his religious standards, has not protected nor cared for his family. He allows his wife to endure unsafe pregnancies, his daughters have not received appropriate counsel, his son was not adequately held accountable nor did he receive adequate therapy. All the while, James Duggar is putting his family on public display as a testimony to something . . . maybe an ATI form of godliness? Or was it for the money? fame? politics? In no way has he loved and protected his family the way his patriarchal beliefs claim he does or will. I pray be gets out of show business and learns to love his family. He needs a completely different understanding of love and respect.
Don Rubottom May 31, 2015
Did you really say what I think you said in the above dated comment? You had your family in ATI for political gain?
Bridget, Is this the post you are referring to?
Don Rubottom May 31, 2015
Reagan, I hear you, but ATI families are heavily Republican. I took my family into ATI while I was a state legislator. It was a safe place for us. Now, I hope to reach many of these because they are politically connected. Don't abhor them. They know not what they do. The political connection is a bridge. Use it patiently.
Yes. Thx for copying it.
Bridget, when I said "it was a safe place for us" I meant that we had close friends involved and that it was an encouraging place. I did not say it was a profitable place politically. Those of us connected have been many times ridiculed in the press for our involvement in the "cult". Here in Florida, it has been continuous for the 19 years I have been here.
My reference to the political connection existing NOW was to enable some to reach back to those still defending Bill, such as the Duggars. What I said was in response to Reagan's statement: "the thought that these people are entrenched in my political circles bothers me". She is bothered that ATI/IBLP families are still active Republicans. For me it is a bridge that allows me to gently entreat them to reconsider Gothard. Their ATI quirks do not disqualify them to be involved citizens, in fact, it mitigates against the concern with "isolation" expressed by some on this site. Based on Reagan's statements, we (ATI and former ATI) are not the kind of people Reagan seeks to associate with. But major political parties tend to put many unexpected coalitions together--consider Orthodox Jew Joe Lieberman and Barney Franks. "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
IF we are to exemplify Grace, we cannot exclude Gothardites from our civic organizations. If they wish to depart, let them depart. But compassion, not abhorrence, seems to be the prescription for we who have come out of ATI/IBLP.
I am sorry you inferred that my statement indicated a political motivation for joining. I was encouraged by both Dan Webster and Tom Hill to do the seminars and Knoxville during my re-election year in spite of the burden it would put on my schedule. But I saw it as a risky sacrifice, not a political advantage. Taking my family to Knoxville a mere month before the Oklahoma primaries was NOT a politically advantageous move. My legislative district was not full of Gothardites, but was more liberal Republicans. (I got 51% in reelection even though Republicans were 58% of the voters!) Very little that I did as a legislator was politically motivated OR politically intelligent from the perspective of self-advantage. I just said what I thought, did what I thought was right, and took my lumps.
BTW, I regret some of my legislative decisions, but I do not regret any of the ATI friendships I developed those last 4 years in public office.
Thanks for clarifying your response to Reagan. It was confusing to me, which is why I asked. I understood it differently. I wasn't intending to infer anything.
Thank you for your kindness.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/duggar-daughters-jessa-and-jill-to-speak-about-molestation/ar-BBkEWQD?li=BBgzzfc
“Duggar Daughters, Jessa and Jill, to Speak About Molestation”
According to this article there will be an interview of 2 of the victims. Some commenters state this will be nothing more than “I forgive him” and perhaps something they might have done wrong that caused Josh to do what he did.
If the victims have been able to process the abuse appropriately, move on and forgive, I am all about it. What I'm not okay with is how it was handled at the time. I surely hope the victims have all recovered as wholly as possible. Forgiveness and time don't change the facts. I do hope that the girls did not feel obligated to go public with their forgiveness or story. They don't owe anyone any information or excuses. That being said, I appreciate their bravery and I respect what they want to tell the public.
Not going to listen to the daughters. I wish they had not been interviewed. This all hinges on the parents, as far as I'm concerned.
I do NOT believe Josh should have been forced to resign. I'm sorry this is currently hurting him and his life.
The police report was released illegally, and I hope the lady who did it is held accountable.
I believe Jim Bob was less than truthful tonight, if indeed he went to his church to discuss the matter. He said "friends." So far, what I have read is "church" is where he went to talk over the issue. So, is it church or a casual meeting of friends?
It is still unclear as to whether Hutchens is lying, or Jim Bob, about what went down when they went to the police in 2003, after Josh came back from Little Rock.
Jim Bob still strikes me as dishonest because in 2006 he had no recall of significant details he seemed to remember tonight, regarding the treatment Josh got in 2003.
And the Lord will work everything out if we pray for all of them.
It was good to hear them tell their side of it.
Well, listening to Megyn Kelly. Jim Bob is one smooth operator. Parents are not mandatory reporters, and they finally went to some "friends." I assume that was his church. But "friends" are not mandatory reporters, either, right?
It was his CHURCH he went to. Makes a big difference here.
Isn't their "church" a group of so called like minded quiverfull friends? it is one and the same. I thought they got together to worship in each other's homes.
If they are unincorporated, that might make a difference here.
Michelle said Josh and all the girls got professional counseling. That's good to hear.
You sincerely believe this?
She expressly said the girls and Josh got professional, licensed counseling. Josh had to work to pay for his. I don't know whether to believe her or not. I'm inclined to. I don't trust Jim Bob.
People have been very accurate, factual, & clear in commenting here. And I'm learning to be, too, since becoming part of the RG community:
(#1) L.I.T.s & most of BG's other staff got worked into the ground & were discouraged from attending any kind of college even if they'd had the time or the pay to have been able to go. It takes a college degree or at least a certification to get licensed as a counselor.
(#2) Conversely, BG has always been terribly enamored with personal connections affording prestige. Whether it was his interview in Mexico where he told the female interviewer about all the leaders from other nations who were beating down his door to get at his "secret to success in what (he) does with young people", or maintaining a jet-setting lifestyle by using slave-labor under slave conditions, or choosing the physical appearance he most preferred to flank his side, he sought power of association more than most do.
(#3) BG has a four-year degree in psychology, & was/is a licensed psychologist.
(#4) J.B. was a state legislator. He was the one arranging help for his children (who were, of course, children of a state legislator).
(#5) What system of manual labor in exchange for counseling already existed at the time J.B. was trying to get help for his kids, esp. J.? (Here's a hint: a system where such a kid went by the label "encouragement case."
Is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking?
Nicole, what I'm thinking is Jim Bob was deceptive in 2006 to protect IBLP, and he misled the public last night on Megyn Kelly when he said they went to their friends prior to sending Josh to Little Rock. What he tried to insinuate is they did not disclose anything to mandatory reporters. My question is, did they talk to their church leaders, or not.
It is clear what Megyn Kelly is up to. She is rightly concerned about the illegally leaked report, and is setting up the situation so the girls can share how the leak has harmed them. It's not too hard to connect the dots here and point to where this is headed. And I do agree with Megyn. Everybody needs to be held accountable.
So far in the tv interview here is what one of the victims has to say --- ---what a find interesting is that they call her an " alleged victim" when she clearly admits she is a victim....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/jessa-duggar-confirms-she-was-molested-by-brother-josh-%e2%80%98i-was-one-of-the-victims%e2%80%99/ar-BBkF3RO
below is an excerpt from the article----
Jessa Duggar calls her brother's actions "very wrong" in a portion of a new interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, though stops short of labeling him a child molester, pedophile or rapist, in an excerpt from US Weekly.
"I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist, some people are saying," the alleged victim tells Kelly during their interview. "I'm like, 'That is so overboard and a lie really.' I mean people get mad at me for saying that, but I can say this because I was one of the victims."
Duggar's protection of Gothard is only drawing the spotlight to Gothard. Bad approach.
Yes, Don. Now the Media will hone in on just who this "construction worker" was who counseled Josh. Christians need to realize that when you open yourself up to secular media, they will find the dirt ON YOU Count on it!!!!!
ty for clueing me in to this wider picture. Things play out the way they do based on the players, & I believe Jim-Bob may be one, along with the main one that he's protecting. This BG does NOT deserve to be protected over this if his outfit "counseled" ANY of those kids!!!
My post with all the (#)s was getting-at the horrifying possibility of BG being the one to interact with them. But the blame-the-victim doctrine he invented is just as bad as he is, even if someone else did read it off to those poor kids. Which I doubt. He would NEVER let somebody else get the glory of one-on-one counseling state legislator's kids. And what did Jim-Bob do, call and dictate a memo to an institute staff member? Yeah, right. He didn't even tell the COP what it was about in '03. If Jim-Bob didn't trust a friend-cop with the info, then he assuredly got through to BG himself. And would have been all-too eagerly received.
If BG had a secret pact with Jim-Bob concerning the issue being counseled, then the kids would have most certainly been sworn to secrecy, too. Is it legal for a psychologist to tell a client that they're not allowed to talk to anyone outside a pact of silence that was orchestrated by himself & someone else other than the victims? Because, if mandatory reporting was evaded, this is called witness-tampering to the effect of obstruction of justice in the state of Pennsylvania. And it is a felony.(I know Arkansas is not Pennsylvania).
A therapist cannot make this kind of pact with anyone. There is a difference though with client/therapist/minister/lawyer privilege where things shared with the therapist/minister/lawyer/dr are not to be revealed to others unless there is imminent danger of harm or threats. We are probably going out on a limp here in speculation of who or what Josh might have be "counseled by" but without real facts it would be best not to speculate.
BG does not need a secret pact for his acolytes to protect him. All he needs is their continuing belief that he offers the world a new approach to life.
ty for your levelheadedness.
I, for one, would like to see a feature article on what it was like for dads to do whatever all it takes to raise kids up to at least the teenage years. (I have no idea, I've been single my whole life). Like, there's no way it could be comprehensive, but I'd like to hear a summary of what it takes to provide & protect to the effect that his dependent(s) survive/grow to be teenagers. Financial, logistical, spiritual; the whole "life sentence" in it's every moment of every day demands, summed-up. Men are good at being concise; I want to know about this.
I think it would be great if a dad rather than a mom wrote it, NOT because moms don't do as much to get their kids to this point, but because a dad would contrast more directly with BG because BG is also male. Notice I did NOT say BG is also a dad, BG is also a grandpa, or, BG is also a conscientious Christian, or, BG is also a man. I said, "because BG is also male." An effective comparison requires at least a shred of common ground.
I feel this would be relevant to this site because this is actual good, and substantiated, that was already existing (that BG leeched from, monetarily, spiritually, mentally/emotionally &, in 34 cases, sexually/physically). It afforded an empire.
I truly wish J-B would state such a summary. He could. And tell what it would have felt like if one who long ago did more than merely pose a threat to his hard-earned assets. Especially if, rather than also being under his care as a subordinate, this Taker had set himself up as the dad's mentor. And especially if this Taker had no kids of his own, not because he was 14, but because he didn't want to put forth the effort or risk the liability of having his own family. Because Taker made too much money by actually getting PAID to "lead families" to feel he could risk losing it all by failing to lead one of his own. (And what dad ever earned a paycheck for leading his own family?!?!?) And if this Taker had had 50+ years in which to read his Bible & obey it.
I'm glad this site has kept the focus on BG and the ramifications of what he's done to all families under his umbrella, because whatever crime J. did to his sisters still has himself pale in comparison to BG's culpability. Repeat offenses over 35 years with no owning it, no accepting help, and thus no change in abusive behaviors. Think of the angst that would've been in J-B's & his wife's voice in the interview if they'd instead been describing what it was like to live with BG in their home!!!!Thank-God that wasn't the case.
I just want to hear from a man who can speak to the responsibility/pressure of J-B's role so I can see that contrasted with BG's......... "role".
I think it would make a great feature article.
Nicole. I appreciate your requesting a father's point of view in raising up children---through the teens and beyond. I can tell you from my experience, that "one size does not fit all"---like BG and the gothardites would want you to think. I gave my kids (now grown up, some married), the one rule---"I trust you until you prove me wrong." It is important to do fun (even crazy) things with them (traveling to places like Roswell, NM, Orlando FL, Gettysburg, PA). I grew up as a child doing much international traveling as well as domestic traveling and that bonded us greatly---and it has worked for my wife and children. The one thing that BG and the gothardites have done to royally mess themselves and others up is to take away the creative part of the child (e.g., art, drama, sports, Tae Kwon Do, reading materials,music, et al) that most gothardites would gasp at). Many gothardites have denied creativity in their children as they perceive a child's creativity as "ungodly." (And IMHO I still think the main reason why BG got his thing going is because he was freaked out by the hippies---LOL)! My parents did not like the secular rock music that I have (and still listen to), but respected my choices. My dad did not fight in WW2 just to clamp down on his two sons. Not only as a military officer, but as an attorney, he knew the importance of defending freedom for people, and yes, the importance of "taking up someone's offence" and not "yielding rights," but defending rights for people. My wife and I have given the same freedom to my children and yes, they have respected us for that. I told them them that the only thing is that the music they listen to is that the musicians are not into the occult, and even with that I would not search their rooms or anything like that. And I certainly did not by into that BG notion of the beat being evil. If I had a question on a movie or music bit, I would sit down and try to be as fair and objective about it and ask questions as to what appeals to them about that music or movie in question---I still respected their choices. For my to strip away their God given creativity would be like for me to amputate an arm or a leg from them. My response to the gothardites is to ask them "what are you afraid of?" The gothardites appear to me to be reacting out of fear, rather than faith. The hurting former IBLP people have had their creative part of themselves amputated. For any gothardites reading this, PLEASE respect your children, (they are wiser that you may give them credit for). Give them love, and of course lavish upon them the grace and the gospel of Jesus Christ---and as they say in AA and Alanon, "Let go and let God." Instead of IBLP, I encouraged my kids to be active in para church groups such as Campus Life/Youth for Christ, Young Life, and Luther League (or whatever denominational youth group). We did not emphasize, like BG and his followers, to have family members as "best friends" and have little or nothing to do with those outside their box. All four of our kids graduated from the public schools (egasp), all college grads (oh,my), except for one who is a college senior and plans to attend seminary. All were honor students, some were inducted into the National Honor Society, and one was a class Valedictorian. And yes, all follow the Lord and are members and active in congregations. I grew up in the hippie era, and I would not trade that for any other era. I have literally watched someone die on the streets of NYC---not a pretty sight. Ah, there are worse things out there than rock music. Choose your battles wisely. For me, the 1960's and 70's with the influence of social justice, love your neighbor, stand up for others who can't (goes against the gothardian notion of "not taking up an offence"), I I admit that for awhile I bought into that "Never trust anyone over 30"---well, now that I'm well over thirty...! That Peace and love era of freedom was influential in raising my family. It worked well for us. But I would never want what worked for me and try to sell those hippie era ideas at seminars. The problem with BG and the gothardites is that they complicate things concerning relationships---family and outside thereof. It brings to mind (if I have my history correct) that one Gentile walked up to Rabbi Hillel and asked him to describe Judaism in the amount of time that he could stand on one foot. The Rabbi stood on one foot and said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and your neightbor as yourself. The rest is commentary." Nicole, I am only one of many. And even with what I described, "one size does not fit all." Blessings!
Yes! A thousand times this post! What I believe now, and wish I had seen almost 30 years ago! My Dad fought in WW2 as well and did not fight so people could be abused by authoritarian culitic teachings that make a mockery of true authority.
Btw, every time our last asks me, ""Mom, can I download 3 songs to my I pod?" -- besides telling her it's "may I" I tell her to think about whether the Lord would want her listening to the lyrics,and then say, yes (a lot of times), and do not scrutinize her choices down to the nth degree.
Everybody still under the spell of Christians such as Gothard or the Duggars -- PLEASE read Todd's post. Think long and hard about what Todd so eloquently describes, namely, the dehumanizing nature of Gothard's teachings. REST in God's watch care over your children. And even though you rest, NEVER cease to beg God to bless, guide, and protect your children. We should all never stop making sure we understand the Bible correctly, and be Bereans in this matter, so we can think straight in the matters of parenthood.
God is a good shepherd. And we are not under myriads of dos and don'ts such as in the levitical law, but the commands and precepts of the New Testament, which is a law book that can be applied to every tribe and family on earth, because it would respect the creativity of the human spirit in ways such as modest dress, how to eat, how to make music, expression in worship, and so on, and so forth.
God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind. Gothard catered to a spirit of fear, imposed powerlessness (that leaky umbrella dooms you), neglected love and nurtured unsound minds (those demons are after your kids!). It was not of God.
Thanks for this, Todd k. It's encouraging!
Nicole, Great questions and I love how they have been answered. One thing I find myself telling my two oldest boys is what Don said above, "Gothard catered to a spirit of fear, imposed powerlessness ..."
I now encourage my boys to become powerful men, and forget what they learned while we were in ATI. BG had this yielding rights thing that he wove through everything. It was not based on reality or truth. It was weak. BG is weak. True he is an amazing evil manipulator, but how can anything from him produce powerful fruit. His message is based on lies.
BG cannot make real money. A powerful man knows how to serve and make himself valuable. A powerful man knows how to get repeat business because he can deliver what he says he will. How many repeat business ATI kids who are now parents are using the ATI program? BG has nothing sustainable to offer. He might be able to suck you into his traps, but he is a weak sham, and has no real goods or services to offer.
However BG can con people out of money. One example, the Character Sketches books. What is the true value of this book (Vol 1 used) that was going to change the world? A quick search on Amazon shows used books starting at $4 (plus s/h.) The first 14 used ones listed were under $10 (plus s/h.) On E-bay 2 copies are $8.94 (free s/h.) Compare that to the IBLP store where you can get the 3 vol set for $140.00
Another example, see Recovering Grace Sonic Bloom: Untruth With An Agenda March 21, 2013. There is an army expression that comes to mind when I think of BG doing business, "he would mess up a soup sandwich." With all of BG millions, how could he be involved with Sonic Bloom as a legitimate product? How could he mess that up? I do not know anything that BG has done that makes money legitimately. I could be missing something. Maybe his paper route when he was a kid.
My two oldest boys (now 35 and 40) were probably the most damaged of my kids from ATI. Both struggle with jobs and in general how the world works. However we now have open communication about my involvement with BG and what was wrong.
Nicole, it is easy to see what I would do differently and what contrast there would be if I could do it over. There are lots of things I would change, this is one that is easy to talk about because it is what I weekly talk to my boys about
You know, the more I think about it, it bothers me that Josh is hiding, and his sisters are out there defending him, crying about "being revictimizd." Seriously? They made the choice to go on national TV for a whole show, instead of just a small segment, and meanwhile, where is Josh, who should be doing the whole show if he so chooses? I'm kind of reminded of the times in the OT where the women were offered to the mobs so the men could be spared. I know that is an exaggeration, but, come on! Ah well, they can write a book on this that will doubtless sell well. Meanwhile, they are doing a great job in capitalizing on negative publicity.
Todd got me thinking about my father, who did a lot of combat fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and into Germany. I know what he would have said. "They set themselves up for this and they have nobody but themselves to blame. Of course they're upset, but don't think for one minute they are not thinking how to capitalize on the situation. They're probably crying all the way to the bank on this."
I can just hear him saying that, and while I don't know what their plans are, thinking about the horrific stuff my Dad went through, as well as horrible persecution going on all over the world yet, does help lend a corrective perspective to thinking about the Duggar fiasco.
Like BG's "endorsements" from women and Bill Clinton's female cabinet members defending his "honor". They should not be out front to save face for anyone. But I don't see what good it would do for Josh to go on TV, either. What's he going to say, "Oh yes, I am as horrible as anyone wishes to say I am", "I didn't inhale"? The interviews were to save face for the family, not Josh. He is the one to hide away, like Steve Gothard being sent to Northwoods. But there is nothing he can accomplish by going on TV.
True, with one exception, and that is to speak of his evil actions and of the saving power of Jesus. I heard Greg Guttfeld, on The Five, and he was great. Said he's not a believer, but he doesn't respect the Duggars so much as he respects a public preacher, preaching the message in the open air, with people walking away and all the mockery. He admires that kind of bravery. If anyone can catch that segment on the net, Greg, the unbeliever, startled me into thinking of what is really admirable. And it reminds me to pray for Greg, too.
Btw,, when I referred to the Duggars capitalizing on their situation, I did not mean for selfish purposes, but to make a new strategy to get their message out. There will be opportunities for that. The negative publicity almost guarantees it. Personally, I wish their comments had been brief, and then no more on camera for a long time so they can sort things out and feel what it is like to be a regular family with some privacy in the home.
In the present day, a Christian telling the world that he did bad things but he's forgiven is just salt in the wound that tells the world Christians judge others but skate themselves. No one likes it when an evildoer pronounces himself clean.
Don,
the excuse that "I'm forgiven now" to often ends up being a cop out. The message that it really gives is "I'm not suppose to be held responsible for what I did because I'm forgiven and you are suppose to forgive me too and ignore what I did and if you bring up what I did, you are being judgmental because I'm forgiven".
I think the two girls came on to try and make the case that they are now being revictimized by the release of the report. They both claimed that this was all resolved, forgiven and behind them. That may or may not be fully true, we will never know. I also think they were out to try and save the possibility that they would become spin off reality shows themselves and in order to keep that idea alive, come on TV and garner support for themselves. Remember, the older Duggar children were young teens when the parents started to do specials. They are first didn't ask to be on TV. However, I also think that putting them so young and early on TV with the attention it as given them has caused them to look for, continue and enhance this sort of "rock stardom" they now have. While Jill cries on TV about being revictimized, she also has had no problem posting baby bump pictures every week, kisses with the hubby and hot dates with him. I don't think she and the rest of them realize that this sort of "stardom" is going to come with a price and that price is having painful, embarrassing and private things come out as well. The Duggars were rather foolish in traveling down this road. I am not sure where this is all going to spin out for all of them. This also includes the Bates who are waiting in the wings. Reality TV is not something to be desired. There are big prices paid by those that do this.
I agree. Their parents shaped them to be in the spotlight. Andrea Tantaros said they (the parents) were naive, and that is an understatement!
Yes Rob: the love of money is the root of all evil. JB is selling is his "perfect" family for a "mess of pottage." Now the perfection is tarnished, but $42,000 an episode on TLC is a lot of money to give up. He is a hypocrite just like BG. He did this for fame and fortune and now when the secular media turns on him he and his pathetic children cry on the camera. Enough! Practice what you preach and stay out of the limelight! You are giving real believers a bad name. That is my rant for the day. Thank you.
And now the Bates are going to be featured on TV. Goodbye Duggars, Hello Bates. Yuck!
Melody, they have the freedom to do this. If it only goes a couple seasons, I think that would be good. On other channels, I sometimes like watching how it is to live in Alaska, the Turtle Man, etc., I hope they are aware of what they are getting into . . . and I hope their children don't get overexposed for years and years as the Duggar children were.
The have been on for a while in a couple of different venues. I think though they have not been as successful of a show mostly due to the fact that they have been seen as a little boring and the parents were less flamboyant than the Duggars. The Duggars started out as specials not so much as a regular type show to feature how a big family manages and I think on the Duggar part to promote their quiver full views and life style. I think from what I've read about them and even some of the views of these sorts of families is that they have a mission to promote their family style views to attack more people to it. On the Bates in comparison to the Duggars, the Bates as parents have come across as more caring and involved with their children. Michelle has not come across as a caring loving mother. The Duggars have obviously let the attention they have gotten spin out of control. Also, Duggar lost re-election before moving on these TV shows, I kinda wonder if the reality TV adventure had some motivation in trying to keep themselves out there and in the limelight for future political ambitions.
If they are not as flamboyant, then that means they can get their message out in a season, and I hope TLC doesn't try to create too much fake drama to bolster the ratings. I have seen maybe three episodes of Duck Dynasty, parts of two 19 Kids, several Jon and Kate Plus 8, and these kinds of shows bore me to tears, with the exception of Duck Dynasty, because it is funny, and because the adults are the ones featured and the children aren't being used (to my knowledge).
We really need to pray for the Duggars, and that the Bates will not be harmed by this.
Todd k & Guy S.,
Thank-you so much for substantiating what real child-rearing is! And for explaining it in alternate to BG's agenda. What spoke most to me was that, in sustaining, protecting, & bolstering your kid's creativity, you are echoing God: "And God saw the man he had made in His likeness and said: 'It is good'". It's such a refreshing change from viewing kids as such evil little bastards that they can't even be around any peers, just 2 adults to drive out their foolishness with a rod 24/7.
What also spoke to me is that you both indicate it was/is important IN YOUR OWN SIGHT to spend time with your families. Trips all over the country & weekly chats even to this day are time-intensive. It's powerful to me that you both recognize the value of the time you've put in. You didn't see yourselves as above & aloof from your own flesh & blood. (Somewhere in the Bible there's something about it being a righteous man who does not hide himself from his own flesh and blood).
What also spoke to me is that we're to follow the WHOLE Bible in not getting beat down in many ways or standing by whenever somebody else is getting beat. Just tonight, I acted according to how you fellows raised your kids instead of how Gothard demands. I called into the corporate complaint hotline to file a report. I work for a large corporation & have for over 13 years & have never done so. Yesterday, the supervisor approached 2 of my co-workers in my presence. (We're all base-level employees). He was holding his arm. It turns out another supervisor had just hit him. "She all-&-out decked me as hard as she could. It hurts, it still hurts", he said. My co-workers were stunned. I worked through my shift again today, wondering if anything had been reported. Since nobody came to ask me anything, I realized it hadn't. Apparently nobody was around to see the incident although I did hear somebody really yowl about 5 min. prior to hearing what this supervisor told us. Then I realized there's cameras EVERYWHERE where I work. The conversation he had with all 3 of us was right on a video monitor, with him facing it. There are also cameras where he said it happened. So, going against everything that BG ever said to do about "taking up others offenses", "speaking up late in the day", and the "suffering unjustly without resisting that good may come", I just now filed a report via telephone. I hung up the first time, during the automated menu, but then I called back & did it. I only hope I would've had the nerve even if at least the part I vouched for wasn't on video. Two witnesses besides me who heard what he said should suffice in and of itself. Yet, I've had it beat into me that I'm supposed to cover up offenses, that I don't have a voice, that I have NO RIGHT to request better than whatever circumstances are doled out, etc.
Thanks, Todd k, & Guy S., for your input. You have encouraged me to stand up to bullying in my place of work. God bless.
I had a thought about the Duggar daughter interview. They came across very well. But they downplayed the severity of what their brother did. They were very contradictory - said all the "stuff" was done over clothing. They were asleep, so how could they know? Just taking their brother's word for it? That is not being a witness - if you said you were unconscious.
How do you sleep through something like that, anyway? I'm positive I couldn't, even in a deep sleep. I'm very suspicious.
Secondly, all the "stuff" done was not over clothing. Major contradiction, unless you want to take their word that what happened when they were supposedly unconscious was the truth. But more to the point, there was at least one episode of "stuff" done under clothing. That was with a conscious victim. We don't know if there were more episodes. So not only did they contradict what their father said, not only were they not witnesses to something they said happened to them, but they have got me very suspicious that this story has been changed. Because the one conscious victim said it was done under clothing. So he couldn't get away with that one.
We know that lying took place during the whole scenario, whether it was Hutchens, or Jim Bob, in 2003. Jim Bob probably lied when he said he couldn't recall details of where Josh had his treatment, and with whom, three years later. We know the church covered up for them by not reporting them, and that Jim Bob covered for his church on that interview, by calling the elders "friends" instead of "elders" as mentioned in the police report. Therefore . . .
I reverse my opinion about psychiatrist Keith Ablow's take on the interview. I was upset when he said the Duggar girls made it all about themselves. But, in fact they were. They were not thinking of their other sister in that interview when they said "over clohting." Dr. Ablow, in saying they made it all about them, was trying to ask what safeguards were placed in the church and community at large when these things were taking place? It did go on for over a year. The answer is, nothing was done.
The Duggar girls have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, by what they said in that interview. It just takes a little thinking to understand that was all about damage control, and not very well done at that.
I think it's their story. They deserve to tell it.
I don't think they were inconsistent. They say what happened, though inexcusable, wasn't very severe. So, a guy touched them while they were asleep in a way that HE knew was wrong and with a wrong motive. But not in a way that woke them up, or for the person who was awake, made it obvious what was happening.
If a man brushed into a girl, bumping her breast, but did it for the purpose of touching her, she may never know (unless he confesses -- and that's the kind of thing an ATI student would confess and only serves to make the victim feel really bad!) that it was "inappropriate touch" and not an accident.
As to the "under clothing" one.....a small child sitting on a brother's lap wearing a dress? How easily that could have been done without the child realizing something inappropriate happened!
That's the picture they paint. It's their story. There is something really horrible about telling your story and people refusing to believe it. If they are lying, that's between them and God. But if we are going to insist on believing the victims when they tell their story, we need to practice it.
"That's the picture they paint. It's their story. There is something really horrible about telling your story and people refusing to believe it. If they are lying, that's between them and God. But if we are going to insist on believing the victims when they tell their story, we need to practice it."
I never said the girls lied - that was on Jim Bob.
I said, they couldn't be witnesses to say what happened if they were asleep. They were saying, basically, "We weren't witnesses, because we were unconscious, but this is what happened." FOUL!!! THAT is why I'm not buying it. Because it was a third hand report to them about what happened to them that they are reporting as factual. It's one degree removed from me coming on and saying, "This is what happened."
"As to the "under clothing" one.....a small child sitting on a brother's lap wearing a dress? How easily that could have been done without the child realizing something inappropriate happened!"
Are you aware there are multiple confessions of Josh fondling genitals? And that Jim Bob said some were under the clothing? Do you know what the little one said to the investigation officials in 2006? She was aware of what had happened. She was awake. But she wasn't on TV to discuss it, now, was she? No - only the adults who said what happened when they were unconscious.
The family was contradictory in saying the incidents did happen under clothing, and never happened under clothing, and if the girls attempt to make the two interviews consistent by claiming they only referred to themselves, then how would they know? They were unconscious. They are not witnesses. That is my point. They can't be believed, because they are not witnesses.
You said they lost credibility in your eyes. Which is fine...but means you don't think they are telling the truth, right?
"...but means you don't think they are telling the truth, right?"
Absolutely and unequivocally no. What losing credibility refers to is them being first hand witnesses to what went on. They are not credible witnesses, because they were asleep. We really don't know what went on as far as that goes. It's all based on what Josh said.
Secondly, they contradicted what their father said about the over clothes, under clothes issue. Once again, if they merely referred to what happened to them, they are relying on what Josh said.
I lived in a small town where someone decided to spread a story that a few people had been abused by someone. I was on the list of supposed victims. And it didn't matter what we said, people said we didn't know what we were talking about....that it had happened. Frustrating! I just don't think that we should do that sort of thing to the Duggar girls. Let their story be their story...but that's just my 2 cents worth.
"And it didn't matter what we said, people said we didn't know what we were talking about....that it had happened. Frustrating! I just don't think that we should do that sort of thing to the Duggar girls."
Who's doing that to the Duggar girls? I'm not. They said they were victims; and I believe them. They then went on to detail what happened to them, and I can't believe or disbelieve that, because they were unconscious when it happened, according to them.
They have undoubtably been pressured into essentially forgetting what happened to them, and said exactly the same things which the Dad said in the parents interview. People suffering from PTSD may not remember all or part of what happened, it's not at all unusual for people to have sort of 'cover' memories. But children want for their parent's to be happy with them, and if what the parents want is to minimize/deny what happened, the child can easily actually forget what it was. I don't believe they are lying. They have been more or less brainwashed.
The Duggars lied in the interview. Lied/minimized/denied.....The Dad is a particularly nasty character, the things he said 'only a few seconds', 'over the clothes', TYPICAL behavior for both molesters/rapists/etc. and those who enable/defend them. It was so sad and awful to watch. The Mom looked like a deer struck by headlights, I don't really blame her because she is you know, stuck in this cult and has no ability to have thoughts or feeling of her own. Whatever her husband says goes.
According to the police report the Duggars were told by a victim about Josh's molestation-from what I've read this cult AIT (?) does not believe such a thing as mental illness exists. Josh NEVER had any counseling by a mental health professional. He was sent away to work with a guy building houses, that was the 'therapy'. But that only happened later.
The Duggars learned of his molesting girls AGAIN-they say Josh came to them, but that is extremely unlikely, given the way that they are trying to protect the family image at the victim's expense. Still, they did nothing. Oh, I know, they put LOCKS on the girls bedrooms, right, at some point??? The same things happened AGAIN. This was over a course of 16 months.
According to the law they are guilty of enabling molestation of their children, by not reporting to the police etc...they never reported anything to the police, only to a friend who was a state trooper. What did he do? Gave Josh a stern talking too.
How did the police really find out? The Duggars were going to be on OPrah, and someone OUTSIDE the family emailed them with the information. Oprah contacted authorities. An investigation was launched, and when police wanted to interview Josh his Dad refused and lawyered up. Unfortuneately the statute of limitations had passed by this time, otherwise felony charges could have been filed.
He molested 5 girls at least several times according to the police report, which you can read online.
Josh's Dad is a REALLY creepy creepy guy. His eyes are on the money and possible political power involved in the show, but for ANY Dad to be anything less than beside himself at the thought of his children having been molested is sickening. I would not be at all surprised if he himself had molested Josh. Sadly, the majority of molesters have been abused themselves....you can always get more information on the internet. It has also come out that the Duggars hit their children with a metal rod, for 'discipline', and of course all the creepy stuff from the home schooling cult, which can be read here at this site.
Emily, I find some of your statements bordering on slander. In the end only God can reveal the secret motivations of a person's heart.