Churchhoney

Hey, throughout his life George Washington blamed Martha for their lack of offspring. Said that the only chance he'd ever have to produce kids would be if she died young and he married some sweet young thing. Yep. The Father of Our Country totally ignored the fact that, just before he married young widow Martha, she'd popped out four kids in rapid succession with her first husband. It's the American way. We put him on our holiest of objects, after all, the dollar bill.

Well, I expect they have two reasons for doing this, don't you think? There's the free junk food aspect, but there's also the "support fellow anti-LGBQT activists" part,

Nope, no prayer closet for you! It's just hard to navigate the snark that comes naturally to mind, and that this place is intended to be a venue for, and all the really serious questions that are lurking behind the snarkable when it comes to these people. They're a joke in a way but they're also so much more than a joke, and the non-joke part is pretty consequential in a whole bunch of ways. You constantly point to that yourself!

I shoulda had two Bourbons! ... Yeah, Pearl Buck's parents sure did do this, didn't they? I'm always amazed when I hear how many people had grandparents or great or great great grandparents who were long-term missionaries in countries that I think of as having ancient, complex and sophisticated cultures. Strange when you think of the belief system -- and the strength of it -- that told all these people to go and tell all these people that everything they thought and did was wrong from start to finish. We're really not far off from that world in time, either, even with these 20- and 30-somethings. Everybody: Thanks for the very kind words. Sorry that I let the inherent contradictions push me to jerkiness last night!

Thanks, Arwen. I drive myself kinda nuts, though!

Well, I think so. Cause that's the whole point of these missions, right? But I think they also firmly believe that they're doing the right thing -- both according to God's will and for the souls of the people who worship the other gods -- by basically telling them this. Because if they don't come to believe in the right God, they're doomed, right? I mean, I think we clearly see in this example that they in some ways do behave with a funny version of respect -- when they tell people from one culture they'd like to "save" -- the Navajo folks -- about the people they know in another culture they'd like to "save," in Mongolia, where they spent years. They're obviously thinking of theories that link Native Americans to a possible long-ago movement of folks from Mongolia into North America, and I don't think they're speaking really disrespectfully of the two cultures or of the historical story that adopts that theory when they make the comparison. He seems to talk about the Navajo folks enjoying hearing about that link, And I think he's very likely portraying that possible link as part of a big symbolic story of the history of humanity in which many cultures have developed before the coming of Christ and then since the coming of Christ there's been a slow movement of missionaries out across the world to draw all these peoples together under Christ's banner. They're being disrespectful in our terms -- but in their terms, they're not intending to denigrate people but to tell them what they think is the all-important story and the good news that, while many older cultures didn't hear about Christ, Christ has now sent his missionaries around the world to do so and of course only does it because these cultures are good and are their to be saved -- and it's part of the deeper meaning of history that they'll gradually all become part of the very big tent of the fundamentalist Jesus. And that that's something that was meant to happen from the beginning and is now coming to fruition. And, yeah, I know that a lot of us see it completely differently and think in terms of respecting the dignity of each person's and each culture's own particular view of itself and its own beliefs. But if instead you have come to believe this story of everyone around the world seeking eternal truths in blindness until either Christ himself or the representatives of Christ -- i;e., the missionaries -- come to show them the light, then what they're doing looks like respect and not the disrespect that it seems like to you and me. And that was the view of many very bright and apparently educated and civilized western Christians for centuries -- and many of them tried to make it true using the sword, no less -- and that's where these guys, these conservatives, are getting it and it's what they're echoing. So it doesn't look disrespectful to them. To them it looks like activity to fulfill the only story they can conceive of that actually makes sense of human history. I'm not saying that it's right. Or that it's now mainstream. Much of the world has moved on to a more enlightened view. (However, now we're faced with another real dilemma: If you respect everybody's beliefs, and they're all utterly different, how can you say that any of those beliefs are true, or privileged in any way? Respect isn't as easy as it might seem, seems to me ... For me, that's part of the wealth of evidence that says there's no such thing as a personlike god -- so how can I think I'm respecting people's beliefs, either, when I think this... and yet somehow I feel as if I try to .... ) Any way, all I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure these are their premises, and they're not just making spelling errors or historical errors. .........I just don't think you can understand what people are doing without understanding what their premises are. And if you ever wanted to try to dissuade somebody from this kind of thinking behavior, you'd absolutely have to know their premises. That's both a practical necessity, if you want to confront their misguided ideas, but it's also a matter of respect. When I ask them to respect Navajo religious beliefs to at least some degree, I can't then go around and not respect their core beliefs at least to the extent of trying to understand what they are. Sorry. But, as usual snark, just doesn't cut it for me when it comes to evaluating any of these people. I really don't belong in a forum like this.

It's not just David. "Navaho" was a pretty widely used spelling in the 19th century, and apparently some fundie mission groups have brought it back. As here:https://joshuaproject.net/ ( https://joshuaproject.net/about ) Since DW's family are dedicated members of a Gothard-sprung fundie mission group, I expect that's where it comes from. I doubt that it's just a School System of a Bunch of Dining Room Tables spelling error, either. The fact that it's now an archaic but once widely used U.S. spelling suggests to me that there's probably some kind of idea behind their doing it. .... Like ... if we spell everything the way people did in the 19th century, one day we'll wake up and it'll be the 19th century -- hurrah!?.... Well, not that. But something.

I kind of think that as far as Jim Bob and his many spawn are concerned, simply being the Duggar in your marriage makes you headship number two to eternal headship number one JB in your new family, no matter whether you're male or female. The Duggars are the world's top-class people, JB speaks his top-class shit through all his children and thus they all operate as headships of whatever poor saps they marry, no matter what. Wondering how that will play out in the Jinger/Jeremy union. I'm thinking that JB may have to exercise his headship directly on Jeremy, since Jinger doesn't strike me as having the natural headship bossiness that Jessa and even Jill do so I don't see her being a very good JB surrogate. Of course, it may not matter since JB uses his headship only to promote the family fortunes, so as long as he doesn't do anything to hurt the teevee franchise, Jeremy will probably be able to run his household the way he wants. And I'm sure Jeremy will be as eager to sustain the Duggar fam fame as JB is. Of course similar eagerness helps keep Derick and Bin in line, too, I'm sure, so Jessa has help to maintain control in her house.

Bin: Fame that'll lead to a TeeVee preacher-to-the-millennials career of his own? Derick: Fame in the fundie world to help ease his way into a missionary career that he'd learned was hard to get into? Jeremy: Fame for a similar reason?

Or at least love him until JB assumes he can control him. Could get interesting then. It'd be great if JIm Bob had actually welcomed into the fold someone who would actually do that.

And, far far worse than that for a dedicated offspring brain-warper and prison warden like JIm Bob, it means meeting other kids in situations where kid-only conversation is hard if not impossible to control. His big worry is always that someone will see through him and escape his total control.

Well, we don't need to worry about it. Frank Sun's based in NYC these days, looks like. So hooking up with Jana hasn't been in the cards for some time.

Nope. Jesus is waiting for his army. I wish I thought that they didn't believe this.

I'm not gay either, but it feels very bigoted to me. I think it's just that liberals think we're not bigoted, oh no no no not ever. And that while it wouldn't ever be right to poke sexual/gender-related jokes at an out gay person's expense or come up with nicknames that refer to him or her as being butch or effeminate, it's more than fine -- actually deserved, even -- to do it when the person is heavily closeted because of his insane upbringing and his own conservative beliefs. Since he's a conservative Christian who's confused and miserable enough deep inside to wear pink shirts and aprons while closeted and seething with rage and married to Prissy, then he's fair game for being labeled with something supposedly cute and harmless that would actually brand him horribly in the life he's in. Every time I see that phrase used around here, it seems to me to be dripping with contempt at his being closeted and angry. But when you struggle terribly with something about yourself that's heavily at odds with situations like the one he was born into, there aren't many channels of escape from that struggle that won't make you fear your inner being will be ripped to shreds. He was lucky or unlucky enough to have the option of not only staying in place but rising to become a leader of that space. And while that's not a good choice and certainly leaves him just as angry as before and likely in a position to do more harm to people just like himself, I still completely understand why he made the choice. I think it's a choice that many of us would make if we were in his situation and got the opportunity -- Because of some talents you have, you get to bury the feeling that you're unacceptable in the sight of your God, and serve your God in a high position. What a vindication and a rush that must have been. How many people wouldn't take it, especially if we were as essentially blind to the real meaning of our struggles as I'm sure he was, and is? A lot of us would take that option, I would guess, and of course it's a horrible trap. My heart breaks for David Waller. To me, he's not a figure of fun to any degree at all.

Yeah, I agree. However, I do think some guys who are generally heterosexual can go obsessively anti-gay crazy too, if they're in prolonged all-male situations or sports situations with not only all males but very physical and pretty goodlooking males and they feel stirrings or get involved in just a tad bit of something. I'm pretty sure that most (I want to say "all" but who knows, I suppose...) people's sexuality is more fluid and, mm, open to options than most people give it credit for. But while many people never find that out about themselves or do find it out but take it pretty much in stride, people with some personalities (and maybe some belief systems? ...) may freak and become obsessive, I think. Someone with a controlling personality, for example. Finding out your own sexuality was even a tiny bit different than you thought might trigger a pretty intense reaction in such a person, I'd guess. I also think that his major obsessiveness about sexuality could just be response to guilt or a feeling of hypocrisy over having gotten drunk and having fun in purple beads. I think there are a range of things that could have caused him to go so nutso. .................None of them rational, of course.

He's probably caused a couple of divorces by now. Maybe this will give Jinger something valuable to hold over his head. That could come in very handy.

I prefer to leave my threat vague. Let's just say any one in which his face fills more than 10 percent of the shot.

If you ever post that horrifying Boob picture, I'm not sitting with you on the bus any more. Spitballs or no spitballs.

According to comments on their social media and other stuff we dug up at the time, they didn't make up the dance. It's their version of an apparently commonly performed dance to that song (whose name I can't remember right now.). There are videos on youTube of the dance from some years ago, apparently of the original version? as well as some other versions. And various people wrote to them on social media fondly recalling having performed or having seen that dance at retreats on college campuses. So I'm guessing that everybody performing it thought it was wonderful because they were seeing it through the lens of their own nostalgia for the U.S. Christian pop song it represents and some teen or college retreat they once attended. And they're dumb and self-centered enough to think it would have a similar positive affect on people who live in another country, speak another language, don't know the song and never went to any U.S. Christian retreats. Pretty clearly shows the idiocy of the whole enterprise.

Yep, me too.

That's funny because I'd pay money to never ever ever see Derick and the Missioncationers do an interpretive dance again. My brain still shudders with the cognitive dissonance I got watching their and especially his terminal awkwardness. Can't stand feeling so truly sorry for people at the exact same time I'm feeling massively offended by them.

Yeah, but if you don't make people feel really really guilty about absolutely nothing, how are you going to continue controlling their every move for the rest of their lives? You're missing the big picture here. It's not about guilt! It's about the great things that guilt can do!

Yeah, but I don't think a gossip sheet would want to announce that it wrote about those people either. ; )

On the other hand, he made our brains to trick us into relying on them. So I'm guessing this is a sort of a thing with God. Seems like abusive parents and spouses in this faith system can really claim that they're living in God's image. Guess the idiot writer of this story didn't remember that each couple sets its OWN courting rules. lol

I think a gossip rag might call pretty much any show it's writing about "A-list." Cause I doubt they want to announce that they write about "C-list celebrities"! You could justify it easily -- Each network's top-rated reality shows are the "A-list" reality shows. Similarly, top local weather broadcasters in each metro area are your "A-list" weather people. And so on. Duggars would count.