Sunnybobs

Genuine query - why would the Bates not want anything to do with the Duggars? I'm assuming they (at least the parents) probably knew what Josh did from old. I understand they might need to be separated due to tv contracts but personally there could still be friendships between them couldn't there?

Well Jill & Derrick are dipping their toes into Instagram again to post 2 month old pictures of Izzy (looking v cute)

Obviously the girls can feel however they feel, they're adults who have chosen to share their narrative on national television. What's really scary however is the possible damage their message could do to other young viewers AND predators "It was only thorough the clothes - so don't feel bad, no big deal. You didn't even remember it so no biggie, just get over it" "Forgive and forget, move on," "not as bad as actual rape" "it happens in lots of families" I cannot think of more disturbing and dangerous messages to allow to be normalised. They must create their own narrative and survival but this interview more than anything else has driven home the point that they cannot be on television sharing this message - it's frightenibgly dangerous language that allows abusers to minimise their abuse again and again and again. I feel sorrow for the sisters but if this is how the family is going to try and push the story away then it must not be allowed.

I think also their adherence to a very patriarchal social set up allows for this abuse to be more widespread and hidden than mainstream society. (And I think its already far more widespread in "normal" society than most of us want to believe) If they are all aware it goes on and all aware it's routinely hushed up and the woman is told it's her at fault then yes they probably do know more families where this is not "the worst thing".

I really hope Derrick is pulled away from ATI etc from this scandal and not drawn further into that world. I can honestly see it going either way at the moment but genuinely hope for Jill & Israel's mental health and happiness that they see a way out to a more mainstream baptist church and life.

I too think this is really odd mainly because didn't Jill (pre scandal) say that she hoped her baby would have the characteristics of her siblings aged 12 and up - and then she specified 12 because that's when your character is considered formed and below that excuses "little kid" untrained behaviours? In which case Josh would have been considered by his own sub culture to be nearly adult at 14 surely?

Oops just quoted without comment but what I meant to say was I thibk this is a really interesting point because I think Ben Seewalds dad was pointing towards this as a possible option in his piece about the scandal. If he was and it was possible I wonder if this might be an option for any of the victims (dependent on public responses to the Friday interview perhaps?)

I don't know that the Kellers knew obviously but depending on their type of prison ministry surely they would be more likely to belive in the power of redemption through Jesus etc. Josh as a younger man confessing to young Anna and sharing his story of being saved and his redemption might easily have been a powerful sway to Anna. Also having heard how JB & Michelle are minimising the abuse in their interview it's probably pretty safe to think that they minimised it similarly to Anna in the hope of enabling the marriage quickly.

I think if I was conservative Christian in America I'd be genuinely offended if someone assumed that because some other conservative Christians acted in a terrible way many years ago I'd automatically be supporting them?! Surely there are religious, republican Christian commentators who have come out against the Duggars as well and want the issue of sexual abuse dealt with fairly?

I think he took the job because he was bored out of his head not selling cars in Arkansas - look back at his earliest Instagram feeds, it's all fast food pics, weather pics & some half hearted attempts to be political. That man was utterly bored with life. I don't actually think he's unintelligent though thanks to his parents is woefully uneducated- the job at a FRC must have appeared like manna from heaven to him. Also who really thinks they're going to get pulled up on stuff they did when they were 14, have probably assumed had been hidden and of course "in his head" was a forgiven and redeemed mistake. He must have seen that job and move as his escape route and goodness knows what he & Anna think now.

So actually JB can't be really in control then? TLC will surely have lawyers pre approving all the questions & preparing their respinses in Duggarese lingo. I wonder what JB & M think or are they aware of the extent of the publics feeling or do they still shield themselves from media? (Actually I'm not in USA & only read on here so not even sure how much reporting is happening in America?)

Do you think the Duggars want the interview or do TLC want the interview? I'm assuming that could change the direction of the questions.

I'm not sure any of us can say who seems what personality at all anymore, before this scandal Josh & Anna were my favourites, yes there was a slight smugness there and I despised his politics but as a couple I was rooting for them to pull away from the cult. Now I've realised how much I don't know about the truth of the Duggars. JD's weird obsession with trashing cars & non comfortable way with people still seems weird to me and I can't just reinterpret him to be the good guy just because Josh has gone down in flames. More and more I just feel like they're all incredibly damaged people.

What staggers me is the total shut down of their social media & responses by all of them. I understand Jim Bob keeping himself & the minor children silent but the dillards, Seewalds etc. how much control does he have over them all - it's scary. And I don't mean to just respond to this crisis but just total radio silence - no pregnacy updates, baby pictures etc. Is that the way to go to get the story to drop or not I just dont know but they really have circled the wagons and inlaws with then haven't they?!

You know you've been reading too many Duggar boards when you honestly read this as defrauding meat

Yes I've always read it as like above to. For a snark site this one has always struck me as a very respectful and careful community with a good sense of humour. One of the reasons I find it so fascinating is the total diversity of posters and backgrounds from fundamentalist pasts to religious presents and non believers. Even thoughout this scandal I've seen nearly all careful responses. It's just a nice site :)

I also think that even if the public don't expect her to or want her to Anna does love Josh and he her. Before this scandal was revealed the Josh/Anna board was quite admiring of them breaking out on their own, possibly becoming a little more relaxed in their fundamentalism, enjoying their freedom etc. Just because we are all rocked by this being news doesn't mean it's going to change everything in their lives. I do believe Anna knew what had occurred because reading Gothard literature shows the horrors can be explained & prayed away. I think they're going to be shocked at it becoming public and were naively thinking it was long ago history. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were genuinely shocked at the external public reaction as they might well see this as a closed, resolved issue (as wrong as this is) Also in all walks of life regardless of belief I'm sure many of us know women who have stayed with men hit by scandals as big and bigger than this.

I don't really think anyone of them count post anything at the moment without being attacked by all the 1000s stalking them on social media. Also Jackson is 11, he would have no access to social media anyway so it would be a worthless gesture. Some of the comments made on their Instagram accounts are very disturbing, I'd be shutting mine down except I suppose at the moment even that would be interpreted as something it might not be meant as.

Wow this article had brought it home to me like no other how deeply weird and messed up the ATI attitude to sexual abuse is. It was hard to read. The very disturbing example ATI "counselling" literature used to explain how sexual abuse could happen in the home is frighteningly similar to the incidents reported in the police report. That the example boy in the counselling page was tempted towards abuse of his siblings by seeing them run around after their bath naked or in towels, that his parents were to blame for not insisting on modesty enough. Ugh how anyone can be "counselled" using these as beliefs is really really alarming. Also the fact that it is used as an example could suggest that this is one area that ATI was having to counsel families through which might also suggest this was a bigger problem. Separate to that the understanding that if counselling was given to any of those affected in the Duggar case - victims or abusers it would follow this model and be invested in these beliefs has only made me more aware how little I have ever understood Duggar philosophy. How you rebuild a family with that as your guide I have no idea.

Absolutely - I really felt very similar, he's not attacking his in laws because it's likely to not be what his daughter in law would want but as far as he can within both his fundi belief framework and the need to take care to respect the victims he does show support primarily to the victims.

The only thing about the Bates I keep thinking about is that all of the horrible Gothard print outs on how to treat victims of sexual abuse etc (so the IBLP & ATI composed literature) is also reflective of how they have been taught to believe - they are high up in this institute. This horrendous news has really made me think more critically about both the Bates & Kellers because they are in at the top of this organisation.

Agree agree agree! I really think the Bates (and possibly the Kellers) knew much more about this than we might think. Gil Bates is a church elder, his daughters have made successful Gothard marriages, he is higher in the network than Jom Bob it appears. I just mentioned on the Josh thread (but possibly it should have been here) just because the Bates display a more cheerful version of their beliefs & are clearly more talented singers and Kelly seems a more nurturing mother does not mean that they don't hold all the same views.

Also while I like the Bates family I find it really hard to believe that they would have acted any differently. Gil Bates is a church elder, he would have been involved in deciding how and when and what justice was to be meted out. And if he wasn't involved exactly with Josh's behaviour I'm sure he has been involved in similar meting out of justice cases if this is how this church/cult/institute organises things. Jut because the Bates come across on television as more palatable and joyful than the Duggars doesn't change the fact that they hold all the same beliefs and are ruled by Gothard principles.

I don't see hypocrisy in Michael Seewald's post at all. I think his show of solidarity with the Duggar family is as he says solidarity with the victims. In fact with his comment about civil justice I think he's opening the gates for any of the victims to bring their own case if they want to in the future. Also given that other fundamentalist families and supporters might well be reading his blog his final section "speak up" is really quite strongly giving legitimacy to victims. And I can't quite believe I've agreed with so much of his blog because I can't stand large parts of it but only because they're not my beliefs. I think a careful reading of it however does show a line of careful support for the victims and he's in a much better place than us to know the possie state of mind of potentially some of those victims.

Ok I really don't actually like the Seewalds and think their own adherence to the vision forum cult is as alarming as the Duggars Gothardism. Also Guinn's public sharing of the Huckabee message was in my opinion foolish and ill timed. Having said that the post by Dad Seewald is (in the frame of fundamentalist Christianity in which they are all clearly working) not that bad - he calls Josh's actions "reprehensible" which is further than others so far, he gives the victims the right & dignity to remain unnamed and also reminds his readers that they are unnamed. He also is very very clear to victims that they are not to blame - way further than anyone else this close has got to stating this and I don't think he is condoning how Jb&M dealt with it but saying something quite similar to Walrusgirls excellent post above that nearly all families mess up these situations. So while I don't agree with lots of his post I actually think there are parts where he is showing some thought and solidarity to the victims. (And it's taken me so long to type this I expect a 100 responses have just said this better above!)