The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

[libgirl2]

On 10/25/2020 at 10:56 AM, BigBingerBro said:

Sideways, I think

Its a great movie. 

[DangerousMinds]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

Its a great movie. 

One of my favorites!

[Jeeves]

Ya know, as I read the posts about the cruise above, I realized that I was reluctant to believe that Jer would spank and harshly discipline Felicity in the way that Voddie Baucham describes, as quoted above.

But it's true that you can learn a lot about people by those they choose to run with and I think I was just in denial and fooled by all those sweet looking social media posts.

So from now on, until persuaded otherwise, I am of the opinion that Jeremy and Jinger spank and discipline Felicity in the manner advocated by Baucham, and all those soft-focus sweet-looking social media pictures of them with their daughter that they post on SM, are fake fake fake.

So, if any Jer fans are reading here? Let him publicly and clearly disavow those teachings of good old Voddie B, his co-preacher on the Voyage of Persecuted Christians. Until and unless he does, IMO both he and Jinger are sh*t abusive parents, and f*ck them.

[Suzn]

22 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Ya know, as I read the posts about the cruise above, I realized that I was reluctant to believe that Jer would spank and harshly discipline Felicity in the way that Voddie Baucham describes, as quoted above.

But it's true that you can learn a lot about people by those they choose to run with and I think I was just in denial and fooled by all those sweet looking social media posts.

So from now on, until persuaded otherwise, I am of the opinion that Jeremy and Jinger spank and discipline Felicity in the manner advocated by Baucham, and all those soft-focus sweet-looking social media pictures of them with their daughter that they post on SM, are fake fake fake.

So, if any Jer fans are reading here? Let him publicly and clearly disavow those teachings of good old Voddie B, his co-preacher on the Voyage of Persecuted Christians. Until and unless he does, IMO both he and Jinger are sh*t abusive parents, and f*ck them.

I am reluctant to believe that Felicity is abused like that monster described as the correct way to raise children, but Jeremy's association with him absolutely requires these methods being disavowed.   Otherwise Jeremy gives his tacit approval by not speaking out, whether they are beating Felicity or not.  This is another couple who give appearances of being more normal and mainstream than they really are.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Suzn

[Zella]

I sincerely hope Felicity is not treated that way, but the fact he is willing to be part of that cruise tell me that he doesn't find those beliefs objectionable, even if he doesn't practice them himself. 

[rue721]

The way the men on this cruise demand women and children be treated is absolutely disgusting and shocking.

I don’t know if Jeremy is becoming even more radicalized by MacArthur & Co or he was always this way, but regardless, it seems that these two are on the path to being JB & Michelle 2.0. I wonder how Jinger feels about that, but she probably is just ignoring what she can and praying away the rest.

[BigBingerBro]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8881235/36-weeks-pregnant-Jinger-Duggar-wears-heels-Sunday-brunch-LA-husband.html

[GeeGolly]

Eh, Jeremy can disavow those teachings or not. If he says nothing folks can assign those beliefs to him or give him the benefit of the doubt. If he makes a public statement folks are going to believe what they want to believe about him anyway.

Members of mainstream religions cherry pick their beliefs, so I assume folks like Jeremy do as well.

 

[Jeeves]

9 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Eh, Jeremy can disavow those teachings or not. If he says nothing folks can assign those beliefs to him or give him the benefit of the doubt. If he makes a public statement folks are going to believe what they want to believe about him anyway.

Members of mainstream religions cherry pick their beliefs, so I assume folks like Jeremy do as well.

For his children's sake, I hope Jeremy does cherry pick when it comes to the child abuse doctrines. But of course his failure to publicly disagree with Voddie while "sharing the pulpit" with him on that cruise, gives me more reason to assign those beliefs to him than not. 

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

For his children's sake, I hope Jeremy does cherry pick when it comes to the child abuse doctrines. But of course his failure to publicly disagree with Voddie while "sharing the pulpit" with him on that cruise, gives me more reason to assign those beliefs to him than not. 

I hear you. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem Lissy is being abused. That doesn't mean she isn't. But I don't think she is.

Personally, I think much of the bullshit that Voddie and the Pearls preach would take extraordinary efforts and discipline on the part of the parents and in my real life experience most parents couldn't follow that shit even if they wanted to. That's not saying that preaching that mindset isn't harmful, because the mindset alone is very harmful and anyone who falls prey to it will be an abusive parent. 

But I think its human nature for most parents to protect and love their kids and it would be easy for loving parents to dismiss those teachings.

[rue721]

34 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Eh, Jeremy can disavow those teachings or not. If he says nothing folks can assign those beliefs to him or give him the benefit of the doubt. If he makes a public statement folks are going to believe what they want to believe about him anyway.

Members of mainstream religions cherry pick their beliefs, so I assume folks like Jeremy do as well.

 

He has made very public declarations of support, like attending MacArthur’s seminary to be taught his theology at his knee, signing that vile petition, and going on this cruise to “lead fellowship” and preach alongside these other misogynists and child abuse proponents. These are public, conscious choices/declarations that Jeremy has made. It’s not “giving him the benefit of the doubt” to ignore them. There is no reason, aside from wishful thinking, to believe that Jeremy has misrepresented his own beliefs and that he’s a closet non-misogynist who has mainstream views about child rearing.  

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, rue721 said:

He has made very public declarations of support, like attending MacArthur’s seminary to be taught his theology at his knee, signing that vile petition, and going on this cruise to “lead fellowship” and preach alongside these other misogynists and child abuse proponents. These are public, conscious choices/declarations that Jeremy has made. It’s not “giving him the benefit of the doubt” to ignore them. There is no reason, aside from wishful thinking, to believe that Jeremy has misrepresented his own beliefs and that he’s a closet non-misogynist who has mainstream views about child rearing.  

I totally hear you. But I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt the same way I give folks in my own life, who belong to mainstream religions, the same.

[lascuba]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I totally hear you. But I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt the same way I give folks in my own life, who belong to mainstream religions, the same.

While I don't give religious people the benefit of the doubt all that much, I do think that the people on top spouting their ridiculous rules don't actually believe those rules themselves. While Jeremy isn't on top of the hierarchy by an means, he not only fancies himself on that trajectory but has managed to get close to those in charge. And I have always believed that people smart enough to climb up a hierarchy and get people to follow them are too smart to believe even half they shit they claim to--except the misogyny part, of course. That part they all believe wholeheartedly. When it comes to the rules and practices they preach, though? Odds are pretty decent that Jeremy isn't following many of them.

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, Zella said:

I sincerely hope Felicity is not treated that way, but the fact he is willing to be part of that cruise tell me that he doesn't find those beliefs objectionable, even if he doesn't practice them himself. 

Or he does kind of find at least some of the beliefs objectionable, but because he's getting money and a boost to his own prominence out of this, he pretends he agrees with every word they say and approves of it. That's every bit as wrong, just in a different way, to me.

My guess--based on nothing--is that he may not believe in the child-rearing stuff but he does believe in the "woman's place" thing.

The keep-women-in-their-place message serves Jer's personal interests because it steeply limits the number of people he has to compete with. And it gives him license to feel that he knows more about the really important stuff in life than an entire sex. And it allows him always to be the one in charge if he feels like it.

Then he can condescendingly say how awestruck he is by Jingle's genius momminess while still secretly believing that God truly considers men's bailiwick of "leadership" to be the more important.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8881235/36-weeks-pregnant-Jinger-Duggar-wears-heels-Sunday-brunch-LA-husband.html

"The bond that sisters share is unique, and one I cherish every day. After all these years, they’re still my best friends! I’m glad God’s giving that gift for Felicity to enjoy."

That's because you still don't have any actual friends, Jingle.

You were programmed for decades not to have actual friends. Because allowing you kids to have friends would have risked seeing you pulled away from JB's and M's totally selfish orbit. As a result, you still have zero idea about what friends are.

And you and your sisters don't actually seem to like each other much when you're in each other's company. So despite what you've been taught to parrot, you aren't even particularly friendly with your best friends, you poor thing.

You do get to go along with your husband, as the designated photographer, when he's out eating gourmet burgers with the bros he thinks are trendy. But beyond that, I don't see him doing much for your social development either.

Hopefully you'll be getting Felicity into some groups one of these days where you might spend a little time with other moms and, shock!, start making some actual friends from outside your family. Friends you met on your own and with whom you have a personal affinity, not just a permissible affinity because they belong to the same brand of Christianity you do. Because that's a thing.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Snow Fairy]

In one picture Lissy gives me the young Shirley Temple vibe

[GeeGolly]

Weird or suspect? The Vuolos are wearing the same clothes in paparazzi photos as they are in their IG photos.

[Normades]

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Personally, I think much of the bullshit that Voddie and the Pearls preach would take extraordinary efforts and discipline on the part of the parents and in my real life experience most parents couldn't follow that shit even if they wanted to. That's not saying that preaching that mindset isn't harmful, because the mindset alone is very harmful and anyone who falls prey to it will be an abusive parent. 

Well, at least a few parents made the extraordinary effort and followed the Pearls resulting in the death of children.  So, if one follows it, that's one too many.  "All that it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."  Jeremy is not only doing nothing, he's endorsing it.  At least that's how I see it. 

[DangerousMinds]

6 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8881235/36-weeks-pregnant-Jinger-Duggar-wears-heels-Sunday-brunch-LA-husband.html

Brunch in Venice Beach? Is that anywhere near their church?

[GeeGolly]

17 minutes ago, Normades said:

Well, at least a few parents made the extraordinary effort and followed the Pearls resulting in the death of children.  So, if one follows it, that's one too many.  "All that it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."  Jeremy is not only doing nothing, he's endorsing it.  At least that's how I see it. 

I hear what you're saying. But that would mean that folks who are members of mainstream religions and say nothing are complicit as well. Many religions make their beliefs on LGBT+, birth control, reproductive rights, etc, very clear. If one believes differently, but attends those churches every week and says nothing, aren't they doing the same thing?

I'm just wondering why Jeremy should be held to different standards. 

[DangerousMinds]

8 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I hear what you're saying. But that would mean that folks who are members of mainstream religions and say nothing are complicit as well. Many religions make their beliefs on LGBT+, birth control, reproductive rights, etc, very clear. If one believes differently, but attends those churches every week and says nothing, aren't they doing the same thing?

I'm just wondering why Jeremy should be held to different standards. 

I can only speak for myself, but I do consider them all complicit. 

[rue721]

Jeremy isn't being held to a different standard. He's not just attending Grace Church, he is preaching and leading fellowship, studying in MacArthur's seminary as well and working for him, signing public letters, and otherwise in all ways trying to be a leader in this faith/political movement.

Edited October 27, 2020 by rue721
It's not "just" a faith, it's a political movement as well

[GeeGolly]

6 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Jeremy isn't being held to a different standard. He's not just attending Grace Church, he is preaching and leading fellowship, studying in MacArthur's seminary as well and working for him, signing public letters, and otherwise in all ways trying to be a leader in this faith/political movement.

We had a very progressive priest at a church in our area during the height of the pedophile scandal. Many Catholics flocked to his church and many didn't think to highly of this priest. He made his feelings known to his congregation and everyone else found out by word of mouth. He never made a public statement. 

Who does Jeremy owe these statements to?

[Zella]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

We had a very progressive priest at a church in our area during the height of the pedophile scandal. Many Catholics flocked to his church and many didn't think to highly of this priest. He made his feelings known to his congregation and everyone else found out by word of mouth. He never made a public statement. 

Who does Jeremy owe these statements to?

He doesn't owe them to anyone, but the fact that he doesn't do one to distance himself tells me that he doesn't have a problem with what is being taught. And that's his own personal business, but I think it's a worthwhile thing to point out to companies any time he tries his influencer bullshit. In the past, people used to argue that Jinger and Jeremy were being unfairly punished for her parents' beliefs. But the fact that he doesn't just attend church there but actively participates in these venues confirms that he at the very least doesn't have any strong stance against these ideas. 

Personally, I've always felt like the fact he keeps losing sponsorships but never has tried to distance himself from any of these ideas tells us all we need to know about what he thinks. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Zella

[farmgal4]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:52 AM, Churchhoney said:

According to the website, yep. I'm guessing the level of "public persecution" the best Christians are being subjected to in these days of public-health tyranny means they desperately need to huddle together around a Royal Caribbean buffet three or four times a day gathering strength. 

In other news, Jer's apparently been promoted to headliner alongside such leading lights as Voddie Baucham. Yeesh. There'll be a whole lotta talk about public persecution of Protestantism, kid spanking and complementarianism! With good old modern mainstream regular-nice-guy-and-respecter-of-women Jer in worshipful agreement with those he sucks up to, no doubt. Guess headliner status on a Royal Caribbean cruise is what continuous sucking up, TeeVee fame and Jingle's social-media following will do for you. Yeehaw!

Wonder if Jingle'll attend, with a toddler and a near-newborn? 

Public Persecution and Big Buffets! 

https://g3conference.com/g3-at-sea/

"As we consider our place in history, we must be prepared to stand firm in the midst of cultural trials, personal trials, and public persecution. Join us as we remember the important stand of Luther 500 years ago and as we prepare our hearts to remain faithful in our present day.

"From January 10-15, 2021, we invite you to join G3 Ministries as we sail to the Eastern Caribbean and the Bahamas on board the magnificent Royal Caribbean Explorer of the Seas. This will serve as a retreat and conference where we will consider the importance and necessity of firm Christian conviction.

"During this round-trip Cruise embarking from Miami, FL, Voddie Baucham, Josh Buice, Phil Johnson, and Jeremy Vuolo will lead us in exploring God’s Word throughout our journey together at sea.

"During our time together, we will have hours of biblical teaching, but we will also enjoy unique time together over meals with intentional fellowship time that is typically not possible during a busy conference setting."

Phil: Complementarianism!  Stamp Out Woman Elders and the Sinful Men Who Allow Them! 

(Is he actually wearing a mask?!) 

Voddie: Paddle the "Selfish Sin of Shyness" Out of Your Toddler! 

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/06/17/voddie-baucham-prescription-for-spanking-and-the-shy-child/

'And, they desperately need to be spanked and they need to be spanked often, they do. I meet people all the time ya’ know and they say, oh yeah, “There have only been maybe 4 or 5 times I’ve ever had to spank Junior.” “Really?” ‘That’s unfortunate, because unless you raised Jesus II, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked 5 times before breakfast.” If you only spanked your child 5 times, then that means almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go.

'Why do your toddlers throw fits? Because you’ve taught them that’s the way that they can control you. When instead you just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out and they finally decide “you know what, things get worse when I do that.”

''THE SELFISH SIN OF SHYNESS

'Let me give you an example, a prime example. The so-called shy kid, who doesn’t shake hands at church, okay? Usually what happens is you come up, ya’ know and here I am, I’m the guest and I walk up and I’m saying hi to somebody and they say to their kid “Hey, ya’ know, say Good-morning to Dr. Baucham,” and the kid hides and runs behind the leg and here’s what’s supposed to happen. This is what we have agreed upon, silently in our culture. What’s supposed to happen is that, I’m supposed to look at their child and say, “Hey, that’s okay.” But I can’t do that. Because if I do that, then what has happened is that number one, the child has sinned by not doing what they were told to do, it’s in direct disobedience. Secondly, the parent is in sin for not correcting it, and thirdly, I am in sin because I have just told a child it’s okay to disobey and dishonor their parent in direct violation of scripture. I can’t do that, I won’t do that. I’m gonna stand there until you make ’em do what you said.'

I’ve tried again and again to locate the sequel to the story about the “shy kid at church.”  He continues that story by telling about a little girl who refused 14 times to shake someone’s hand, and FOURTEEN TIMES her pastor father took her to his office and “wore her out.”  Towards the end of the beatings, the man was begging the pastor to just let it go, she didn’t need to shake his hand, but the pastor refused.  After hearing Voddie tell that story and acting as though that pastor was his hero, I will forever hate that sick, twisted SOB.

Edited October 27, 2020 by farmgal4
Misspelled word

[rue721]

14 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Who does Jeremy owe these statements to?

I genuinely don't know why you're so invested in the idea that Jeremy secretly doesn't agree with the ideas that he has publicly and willingly not only attached his name to but preached and headlined events about.

Why not just believe what Jeremy has made very plain about his beliefs? Just because you disagree with them? I disagree with them, too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Jeremy. I would be very frustrated if everything that I do in my community, everything I put my name to, every event I attend or even lead, even events that had my name splashed across the advertising for because I was a keynote speaker at them, were all dismissed as "well, we don't know what she REALLY thinks." Those are all ways of very publicly and explicitly declaring beliefs and trying to persuade others to agree with them. Same goes for Jeremy. Just because you dislike those beliefs doesn't mean he hasn't been quite clear about what he believes and wants to persuade others to believe.

Edited October 27, 2020 by rue721

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I genuinely don't know why you're so invested in the idea that Jeremy secretly doesn't agree with the ideas that he has publicly and willingly not only attached his name to but preached and headlined events about.

Why not just believe what Jeremy has made very plain about his beliefs? Just because you disagree with them? I disagree with them, too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Jeremy. I would be very frustrated if everything that I do in my community, everything I put my name to, every event I attend or even lead, even events that had my name splashed across the advertising for because I was a keynote speaker at them, were all dismissed as "well, we don't know what she REALLY thinks." Those are all ways of very publicly and explicitly declaring beliefs and trying to persuade others to agree with them. Same goes for Jeremy. Just because you dislike those beliefs doesn't mean he hasn't been quite clear about what he believes and wants to persuade others to believe.

I'm not invested in Jeremy not being a child abuser. Just as I don't believe others who think differently than me, are invested in him agreeing with child abuse.

Making your beliefs public come with the risk that folks will think you represent all beliefs. for sure. But as I said before, I give my friends and acquaintances the benefit of the doubt. Others don't, and that's okay. 

Other than Jeremy being Fundy and/or guilt by association, I've seen no indication he abuses his child or encourages others to abuse theirs. That's just the way I see it. Its just my lens, my opinion.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, DangerousMinds said:

Brunch in Venice Beach? Is that anywhere near their church?

Well, you've got to go from an inland spot to the, you know, ocean. So...depends on what you call "near." It's probably less than an hour's drive.

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not invested in Jeremy not being a child abuser. Just as I don't believe others who think differently than me, are invested in him agreeing with child abuse.

Making your beliefs public come with the risk that folks will think you represent all beliefs. for sure. But as I said before, I give my friends and acquaintances the benefit of the doubt. Others don't, and that's okay. 

Other than Jeremy being Fundy and/or guilt by association, I've seen no indication he abuses his child or encourages others to abuse theirs. That's just the way I see it. Its just my lens, my opinion.

I am not fond of him in the slightest, but I don't think he would hurt Felicity. 

[Jeeves]

Just now, libgirl2 said:

I am not fond of him in the slightest, but I don't think he would hurt Felicity. 

I hope he wouldn't. But it was the horrific details of Vonnie B's teachings about "disciplining" children, related in connection with Jer's co-headlining with Vonnie B on that cruise, that was just a bit much for me. Sure I don't assume he agrees with Vonnie B 100% but those teachings are just so abhorrent that I suppose it's kind of a "line in the sand" thing. For me. Obviously, not for everyone. We all have our issues and we're not all the same, and thank dog for that!

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

 

I'm just wondering why Jeremy should be held to different standards. 

I don't think the standards should be different either.

However, I'd still say there's a fairly significant difference between somebody just being a schlub who goes to a certain church--often as enough of a schlub to not even know all the views that the church endorses--...

...and somebody clearly endorsing views by appearing as a headlining speaker at conferences that take place for the sole purpose of endorsing those views and right alongside speakers that endorse those views without ever debating them or disagreeing openly (as I know he doesn't) and becoming the very open and enthusiastic protege of people who endorse those views--as Jer is an open enthusiastic protege of Macarthur and Phil Johnson, who's one of MacArthur's top lieutenants.

So I do think he violates the standard more egregiously than the mere churchgoing schlub does 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Zella]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't think the standards should be different either.

However, I'd still say there's a fairly significant difference between somebody just being a schlub who goes to a certain church--often as enough a schlub to not even know all the views that the church endorses--...

...and somebody clearly endorsing views by appearing as a headlining speaker at conferences that take place for the sole purpose of endorsing those views and right alongside speakers that endorse those views without ever debating them or disagreeing openly (as I know he doesn't) and becoming the very open and enthusiastic protege of people who endorse those views--as Jer is an open enthusiastic protege of Macarthur and Phil Johnson, who's one of MacArthur's top lieutenants.

So I do think he violates the standard more egregiously than the mere churchgoing schlub does.

 

Yeah this is me. I don't think most people are 100% in agreement with any organization, including the churches they attend. But to me there is a difference between someone being a private citizen who goes to something and someone who sets themselves up as a public figure and repeatedly goes to the events as a speaker and signs these petitions. 

And to be honest I know lots of private citizens who have vocally denounced some of the beliefs of their churches. One friend of mine in particular is a Methodist and after their votes on LGBT issues a couple of years ago, she wrote a very lengthy post on FB in which she said she still loved where she went to church but she felt betrayed by and disappointed in the UMC leadership. She is not a social media influencer or a public figure, but Jeremy has never once pushed back on anything, to my knowledge, even in a comment or a post. When he loses business for being branded a bigot, he never says, "hey, I'm not actually a bigot." He just stays quiet. One could argue he is staying quiet because he doesn't want to lose his job, but he has actively sought these people out for a job. There are other seminaries where they lives. He picked this one. He signs their petitions. He speaks at their conferences. And he never once qualifies that support. 

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah this is me. I don't think most people are 100% in agreement with any organization, including the churches they attend. But to me there is a difference between someone being a private citizen who goes to something and someone who sets themselves up as a public figure and repeatedly goes to the events as a speaker and signs these petitions. 

And to be honest I know lots of private citizens who have vocally denounced some of the beliefs of their churches. One friend of mine in particular is a Methodist and after their votes on LGBT issues a couple of years ago, she wrote a very lengthy post on FB in which she said she still loved where she went to church but she felt betrayed by and disappointed in the UMC leadership. She is not a social media influencer or a public figure, but Jeremy has never once pushed back on anything, to my knowledge, even in a comment or a post. When he loses business for being branded a bigot, he never says, "hey, I'm not actually a bigot." He just stays quiet. One could argue he is staying quiet because he doesn't want to lose his job, but he has actively sought these people out for a job. There are other seminaries where they lives. He picked this one. He signs their petitions. He speaks at their conferences. And he never once qualifies that support. 

I see him more of an opportunist who wants to be a big fish in a big pond. He will agree with whatever for fame but might not actually follow it to the letter. Like guys who claim to be so upstanding and moral etc... and meanwhile are screwing anything that moves. 

[Zella]

1 minute ago, libgirl2 said:

I see him more of an opportunist who wants to be a big fish in a big pond. He will agree with whatever for fame but might not actually follow it to the letter. Like guys who claim to be so upstanding and moral etc... and meanwhile are screwing anything that moves. 

That could be, but to me, to be that spineless and greedy and unprincipled is actually even worse.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

We had a very progressive priest at a church in our area during the height of the pedophile scandal. Many Catholics flocked to his church and many didn't think to highly of this priest. He made his feelings known to his congregation and everyone else found out by word of mouth. He never made a public statement. 

Who does Jeremy owe these statements to?

I don't think he owes statements to anybody.

But I do think that, if I appear at a conference where all the speakers stand for certain things and I don't go there and note while speaking or on the program or somewhere that I oppose some of those things, then I can expect everyone to assume that I believe those things. Because by appearing on the same bill and not noting that I'm not entirely on the same page as they others, I'm endorsing what the people there stand for.

Ditto if I accept certain people as my faith-and-theology-and-leadership mentors. If I do that, then I can expect everyone to assume that I agree with those mentors on faith, theology and leadership.

It's on us if we base our views on him on the fact that he wears basketball shoes and looks like a kind of average modern guy. That's superficial stuff. It has nothing to do with his beliefs. But conferences he speaks at and the people he considers his valued colleagues and mentors say a lot about his beliefs...

Or, if they don't, then we know he's being a hypocrite for money and prominence because by his associations he's clearly promoting stuff to others that he doesn't think is right. You really shouldn't do that. You really really shouldn't do that, in my opinion.

Does he have to frequently explain what he thinks about women? Nope. We can easily read those views from the company he not only keeps but reveres, admires and sucks up to constantly!

Now, is he a person who's thoughtful and deliberate enough to think about whether his behavior really accords with beliefs he supposedly holds? Probably not. I think he's a little dumb and his main goal in life is to belong to the clubs he thinks are coolest and most influential (while bringing in cash). So his behavior may veer wildly from the things he believes that he believes.....He may behave better than his beliefs would suggest. He may behave worse than his beliefs may suggest. He may do both!

But, again, that's not something I consider a good way for someone to conduct himself when he's so eager to constantly preach to others about what life means and what God requires and how those others should behave.

To warrant being listened to as a preacher and advisor he should be among the most thoughtful of people, in my opinion.

Not a dumb-ass who never even thinks about how his beliefs match up with his actions--which is what he is if he makes himself a prominent part of a crowd with rigidly stated beliefs...but then doesn't care if he actually lives by those beliefs.

Not that that would make him any worse than many many many many other people who aspire to spend their lives telling others what to do. But I usually feel like being judgmental about those people!

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

Okay, I'm going to step into dangerous waters ...

Has every priest, deacon, bishop, etc stood up and publicly denounced pedophilia? Should we now assume priests who have said nothing about it, agree with it?

[Suzn]

39 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I hope he wouldn't. But it was the horrific details of Vonnie B's teachings about "disciplining" children, related in connection with Jer's co-headlining with Vonnie B on that cruise, that was just a bit much for me. Sure I don't assume he agrees with Vonnie B 100% but those teachings are just so abhorrent that I suppose it's kind of a "line in the sand" thing. For me. Obviously, not for everyone. We all have our issues and we're not all the same, and thank dog for that!

I don't know that Felicity is abused, but by not openly opposing those teachings, it is tacit approval.

38 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

...and somebody clearly endorsing views by appearing as a headlining speaker at conferences that take place for the sole purpose of endorsing those views and right alongside speakers that endorse those views without ever debating them or disagreeing openly (as I know he doesn't) and becoming the very open and enthusiastic protege of people who endorse those views--as Jer is an open enthusiastic protege of Macarthur and Phil Johnson, who's one of MacArthur's top lieutenants.

So I do think he violates the standard more egregiously than the mere churchgoing schlub does.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah this is me. I don't think most people are 100% in agreement with any organization, including the churches they attend. But to me there is a difference between someone being a private citizen who goes to something and someone who sets themselves up as a public figure and repeatedly goes to the events as a speaker and signs these petitions. 

And to be honest I know lots of private citizens who have vocally denounced some of the beliefs of their churches. One friend of mine in particular is a Methodist and after their votes on LGBT issues a couple of years ago, she wrote a very lengthy post on FB in which she said she still loved where she went to church but she felt betrayed by and disappointed in the UMC leadership. She is not a social media influencer or a public figure, but Jeremy has never once pushed back on anything, to my knowledge, even in a comment or a post. When he loses business for being branded a bigot, he never says, "hey, I'm not actually a bigot." He just stays quiet. One could argue he is staying quiet because he doesn't want to lose his job, but he has actively sought these people out for a job. There are other seminaries where they lives. He picked this one. He signs their petitions. He speaks at their conferences. And he never once qualifies that support. 

 

19 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

But I do think that, if I appear at a conference where all the speakers stand for certain things and I don't go there and note while speaking or on the program or somewhere that I oppose some of those things, then I can expect everyone to assume that I believe those things. Because by appearing on the same bill and not noting that I'm not entirely on the same page as they others, I'm endorsing what the people there stand for.

Does he have to frequently explain what he thinks about women? Nope. We can easily read those views from the company he not only keeps but reveres, admires and sucks up to constantly!

Now, is he a person who's thoughtful and deliberate enough to think about whether his behavior really accords with beliefs he supposedly holds? Probably not. I think he's a little dumb and his main goal in life is to belong to the clubs he thinks are coolest and most influential (while bringing in cash). So his behavior may veer wildly from the things he believes that he believes.....He may behave better than his beliefs would suggest. He may behave worse than his beliefs may suggest. He may do both!

But, again, that's not something I consider a good way for someone to conduct himself when he's so eager to constantly preach to others about what life means and what God requires and how those others should behave.

 

All of the above is where I am on Jeremy.  He preaches on how people should behave and what they should believe and signs documents supporting certain beliefs.  So, if he does not agree with child abuse to raise children, he should say that to the same people he is preaching to.

[Tasya]

There's so much projection and conjecture going on in this thread right now. I am a Christian, I do not go around publicly declaring everything that I disagree/agree with my church on. I think it's patently ridiculous to say that Jeremy potentially abuses Felicity because this guy that he has some connection to advocates abuse. This is really uncomfortable personally, definitely veering far off what is I think meant to be discussed in these threads. 

[DangerousMinds]

5 minutes ago, Tasya said:

There's so much projection and conjecture going on in this thread right now. I am a Christian, I do not go around publicly declaring everything that I disagree/agree with my church on. I think it's patently ridiculous to say that Jeremy potentially abuses Felicity because this guy that he has some connection to advocates abuse. This is really uncomfortable personally, definitely veering far off what is I think meant to be discussed in these threads. 

It’s not just “some” connection. He is appearing on a cruise with them as one of the keynote speakers. And I’m not sure what you mean by “projection?”

[Scarlett45]

Moderator Announcement: Please make your posting primarily about Jeremy & Jinger. If your post is not primarily about them, and they are used as a jumping off point to discuss only a vaguely related topic the post will be removed. 
 

Do not forget you can always reply to someone and continue the conversation in the Small Talk thread. 

[Temperance]

53 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Okay, I'm going to step into dangerous waters ...

Has every priest, deacon, bishop, etc stood up and publicly denounced pedophilia? Should we now assume priests who have said nothing about it, agree with it?

As former Catholic, yes I do think they need to renounce it publicly. They would argue Francis is doing it for them.

Topic: Jeremy shouldn't be associating with people who promote child abuse. It's sad we're arguing about this. 

[Suzn]

.

 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Okay, I'm going to step into dangerous waters ...

Has every priest, deacon, bishop, etc stood up and publicly denounced pedophilia? Should we now assume priests who have said nothing about it, agree with it?

I think that when you represent some organization, you have a duty to say it if you think that something the organization treats as ethical and a good thing is actually wrong, according to your lights. 

I think that goes for Jeremy (and priests!) as much as it goes for anyone else! 

Jer wants to teach the world about his faith. If he believes in the woman's-place thing and doesn't believe in the hit-the-kids thing, then I think that, as a person who repeatedly says he aspires to teach and lead and inspire others, then he very much has a duty to say, if he's on a bill with somebody who believes in hitting kids, to say, "Respectfully, I should say that I don't entirely agree with Brother XYZ's view of child rearing.  In other areas we're in accord, and I agree with him up to point JKl. But in my interpretation of our faith, TUV is not valid because of BLAH." 

People within organizations do that! And in Jer's case, it's very important to him to talk about all sorts of things as being moral issues and god-related. So why is it okay to imply by your silence and your presence that something you think is immoral is okay. 

Now, of course, a brouhaha might start. But if you're really talking about the things that you believe are the most important things in human life -- and, indeed, in the universe -- (and that IS how Jer talks about the things of his faith), then it seems to me you have an absolute duty to wade into those things. Brouhaha or not. 

The Imitation of Christ. It's not just a book. It's an imperative!  Christ would have broached the subject, brouhaha or not. As have some priests. 

Why does Jer get to live by an easier standard  when he constantly talks about the extreme importance these things have to him and should have to everyone? 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Suzn]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:52 AM, Churchhoney said:

Voddie: Paddle the "Selfish Sin of Shyness" Out of Your Toddler! 

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/06/17/voddie-baucham-prescription-for-spanking-and-the-shy-child/

'And, they desperately need to be spanked and they need to be spanked often, they do. I meet people all the time ya’ know and they say, oh yeah, “There have only been maybe 4 or 5 times I’ve ever had to spank Junior.” “Really?” ‘That’s unfortunate, because unless you raised Jesus II, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked 5 times before breakfast.” If you only spanked your child 5 times, then that means almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go.

'Why do your toddlers throw fits? Because you’ve taught them that’s the way that they can control you. When instead you just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out and they finally decide “you know what, things get worse when I do that.”

 

I just need to emphasis this.  In case there is any doubt about what that monster Voddie is advising, "wear them out" means spanking, beating the child into submission, total submission.  Even if Jeremy would not dream of beating Felicity, if he does not renounce that, he is by omission, advocating that other children are beaten.  I can't say how outrageous I find that! 

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, I think we can say that they're wrong for not speaking out. I think they have a duty to speak out, yeah. 

But I'm going to hazard to guess that most parishioners are not looking at their parish priest assuming they're okay with it because they have said nothing.

[Churchhoney]

16 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

But I'm going to hazard to guess that most parishioners are not looking at their parish priest assuming they're okay with it because they have said nothing.

Yeah, that's probably true. 

But if you are a person who sets yourself up as a minister of God or if you are set up as that by your ordination as a priest or a pastor, then what the congregation sees really isn't the point. You've taken vows that put you in a different position. You've proclaimed yourself in a different position. And God supposedly considers you to be in a different position -- You aren't just some guy standing up there who's allowed to say only what your personal whims suggest is happy and safe for you. You have taken on a role that means you have different duties. 

In Jer's seminary it's made clear that pastors HAVE GOD SPEAKING  DIRECLTY THROUGH THEM TO THE PEOPLE -- that's a maxim that MacArthur absolutely puts at the heart of his seminary and his teaching. And it's not an unusual one in churches. So if God is speaking through you, then you have a very high duty to speak what you believe is the moral truth. Jer seems to buy the MacArthur view wholly and he's constantly talking about how central it is to his life and how horrible it is that isn't central to the lives of others. 

So if you go to a conference and you're a spokesperson of God but you shut your mouth because you figure you'll get a better paycheck and more speaker invites if you don't tell the crowd that on some particular point you disagree with Voddie Baucham or Phil Johnson, then you're doing more than lying. You're lying. And you're betraying God.

Your lie APPEARS TO COME FROM GOD, according to what people are told about the ministry. God is silent, does not contradict or question someone's suggestion that you hit children. Thus, God endorses hitting children. If Jer is silent, this is what Jer -- THROUGH WHOM GOD PURPORTEDLY SPEAKS -- is saying! 

And that kind of silence and hypocrisy on the part of clergy have done a great deal, through history and today, to turn millions away from churches. So people do notice. 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

And that kind of silence and hypocrisy on the part of clergy have done a great deal, through history and today, to turn millions away from churches. 

Well in this case, that would be a good thing.

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

Well in this case, that would be a good thing.

I agree. But of course that only goes for the people who DO LEAVE over something like this. It doesn't help the children of families who've believed Voddie and the Pearls and others and stayed, maybe in part because they didn't hear others speaking out against it! 

Churches have a great deal of influence, still. That's why Jeremy wants to be part of one! 

 

[BigBingerBro]

[SMama]

Ew, Jeremy’s greasy hair. Felicity looks cute.