Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Micks Picks]

Just today on the news I heard a newscaster saying the new pope did not see a conflict between Evolution and the Big Bang and religion.  Newsflash, ever so many years ago.  I was taught there was no conflict, and you could see true beauty in evolution and big bang.  Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.  They aren't new either.  

[PityFree]

Just today on the news I heard a newscaster saying the new pope did not see a conflict between Evolution and the Big Bang and religion.  Newsflash, ever so many years ago.  I was taught there was no conflict, and you could see true beauty in evolution and big bang.  Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.  They aren't new either.  

Exactly. I was raised Catholic and went to 12 years of Catholic school. My 6th grade science fair project was about evolution; no one batted an eye and I got an A. My father is also a scientist (published and known internationally in his field). He's never seen a conflict between his faith and science.

[Ilovemylabs]

What we know is that Bill Gothard sexually assaulted several young women who had close contact with him at the island in Michigan over a number of years. When young women reported this, families tended to side with Gothard, their spiritual leader. The claims go back several decades, and were investigated once by his inner circle, although nothing came of that.

There is a website called recovering Grace where several of the stories are told anonymously.

We do not have ANY reason to think that Jana was singled out specifically, although she would have been there during the times it was going on. Priscilla Kellar would have as well. They have never come forward or made any such claim.

About a year ago, the board of the ministry removed Bill Gothard from the head as the stories became too numerous. (It was also when Doug Phillips of like-believing Vision Forum was going down for a sexual relationship with the babysitter.) He has issued some pseudo-type apologies. He recently launched a new "ministry" of some type.

Again, there is ZERO evidence that Jana or Priscilla were involved. But they are both a little different than their other siblings (nothing wrong with being different of course) and were the ones who spent the most time there so there has been some speculation.

Thank you GEML!

[ginger90]

We do not have ANY reason to think that Jana was singled out specifically, although she would have been there during the times it was going on. Priscilla Kellar would have as well. They have never come forward or made any such claim.

 

How do we know they haven't told someone (if in fact it involved either or both of them) ? We don't.

[GEML]

As I posted, it's something we have all speculated about given their demeanors, the timing and what we know about the man. But I also don't think it's right to start false rumors just because. So while I mention it, I also say in every post that *I* write on the topic that we have zero evidence whatsoever that either young woman was part of it. That's just how I choose to do things.

[Rhondinella]

Does the RNC just send him a list of talking points each morning?

 

 

Heh.  Precisely.

[GEML]

Yes- every morning he would get talking points from a variety of places. (So do liberal speakers.)

[Rhondinella]

Oh, I thought that was a joke.  But I guess I'm not surprised that it's real.

[GEML]

Unfortunately, three days out before an election, it's a well oiled machine!

[3girlsforus]

 

 

Ha... really?  My Southern Baptist gramma would disagree with you. She was pretty sure it was okay to hate people based on their activity (or lack thereof) in the church. I really hope that the Duggars' beliefs are more forgiving.

 

I'd love to argue with your gramma... but something tells me that's considered off topic :-). 

 

The idea that people are more or less "sinful" depending on their genes is beyond non-Biblical. The Bible says that all people are created in the image of God and then due to the Fall, all are born sinful and the ONLY way to fix that is through the death and resurrection of Christ. EVERY, SINGLE, PERSON... It doesn't make you automatically 'more Godly/less sinful' to be born a Duggar or "less Godly/more sinful" to be born to a serial killer. (yes I realize that the Duggars probably consider anyone not a Fundie to be in the 'unacceptable' group but I'll go with serial killer to make it less offensive - if this topic of not adopting can be less offensive). 

 

The sinful nature of man and the sole road to salvation through Christ is a fundamental belief in Christianity. Declaring that you can't bring a child into your family because their biology makes them less worthy cuts at the very core of what they claim to believe.

[GEML]

Plus, there are clear examples of children being "adopted" in the Bible. Moses and Samuel are two that immediately come to mind.

And as 3Girls mentions, it's completely out of sync with EVERYTHING the New Testament teaches us.

Which gives us a pretty good example of how Gothard doesn't teach biblical standards, just weird, personal distortions, pulling out verses to twist to suit himself.

[msblossom]

Yes, and if I may add, that as Gentile Christians we are all adopted into God's family according to Romans 8:15. Paul refers to it as receiving the Spirit of adoption when we come to Christ which allows us call out to God in a most intimate and familial way, Abba, Father. God, Himself, wholeheartedly approves adoption. He did as much for us, thankfully.

Edited November 2, 2014 by msblossom

[mbutterfly]

Plus, there are clear examples of children being "adopted" in the Bible. Moses and Samuel are two that immediately come to mind.

And as 3Girls mentions, it's completely out of sync with EVERYTHING the New Testament teaches us.

Which gives us a pretty good example of how Gothard doesn't teach biblical standards, just weird, personal distortions, pulling out verses to twist to suit himself.

Let's just say Gothard is no Martin Luther (or John Wesley, etc.). His goal doesn't seem to have been any sort of effort to bring the church closer to Biblical principles at all. Rather, he picked a set of behaviors he liked (or didn't like) and wrote very specific rules about them. Or, at least, it appears the same to me. 

[mbutterfly]

Yes, and if I may add, that as Gentile Christians we are all adopted into God's family according to Romans 8:15. Paul refers to it as receiving the Spirit of adoption when we come to Christ which allows us call out to God in a most intimate and familial way, Abba, Father. God, Himself, wholeheartedly approves adoption. He did as much for us, thankfully.

I was adopted as a baby. Several years ago I attended a retreat, and the retreat leader based her teachings largely upon ideas around sins of the fathers -- much like the Gothard teachings. She was actually asking attendees to write down what they knew about their ancestors to find inherited guilt. All the attendees were stunned. It was quite foreign to our previous learnings. So I asked about what an adopted child should write (I wasn't the only one). She got very red-faced and said she couldn't answer that. It was only in reading here that I realized this is really a philosophy. I had thought she just read something quickly before she came and put together activities out of very poor scholarship. I must confess there has been much joking at this woman's expense though she is far away and surely doesn't know.

[msblossom]

Ugh. It's not only sad but very frustrating when people interpret the Bible incorrectly and teach and/or manipulate people with it's false interpretation to correct and control people. A heavy judgement awaits those like a Gothard and others like him.

[RazzleberryPie]

Plus, there are clear examples of children being "adopted" in the Bible. Moses and Samuel are two that immediately come to mind.

And as 3Girls mentions, it's completely out of sync with EVERYTHING the New Testament teaches us.

Which gives us a pretty good example of how Gothard doesn't teach biblical standards, just weird, personal distortions, pulling out verses to twist to suit himself.

JESUS himself was adopted by Joseph, and several NT verses talk about believers being the adopted children of God himself, so that trumps any OT 'sins of the father passed to the sons' talk IMO. I would love to see a real scholar sit down with Gothard and refute just about everything he teaches.

[cmr2014]

Salon has been running a series of articles about some of this fundie stuff. I've read articles in the past few days about the purity movement, purity balls, and the saving of the first kiss. Honestly, I thought the "saving the first kiss" thing was Gothard, but I guess it's more wide-spread in fundie circles. Anyway, it's interesting reading and may be of interest to others on these boards.

[GEML]

I will be the first to say there is a lot of ignorance and ugliness in people, and they will take anything beautiful and destroy it if they can. I wish I could say that this was only a fundamentalist issue, but I spent most of my teens and twenties in evangelicalism and now worship in what is know as "mainstream Protestantism" and live daily in a very secular day job and life. No one is immune from close mindedness and self- righteousness. Fundamentalist just admit it out loud a little more loudly, perhaps, and are more proud of it.

I've been reading the Salon articles, but I'm frustrated by most religious articles because there's a whole cultural language that you either know or you don't, and if you don't know it, you miss half of the point. I am NOT talking about belief - secular journalists can do an excellent job in, say, science or politics, both of which have specific jargons that matter, without that journalist being a scientist or a politician. But we ask people who have NO knowledge of religious culture to write about them and then they make careless mistakes. It's frustrating.

Edited November 3, 2014 by GEML

[cmr2014]

 

I've been reading the Salon articles, but I'm frustrated by most religious articles because there's a whole cultural language that you either know or you don't, and if you don't know it, you miss half of the point. I am NOT talking about belief - secular journalists can do an excellent job in, say, science or politics, both of which have specific jargons that matter, without that journalist being a scientist or a politician. But we ask people who have NO knowledge of religious culture to write about them and then they make careless mistakes. It's frustrating.

 

GEML, I didn't grow up fundie, and have limited experience with the lifestyle -- most of my schoolmates were fundie, and what I know comes from what they told me and what I witnessed when I went to church with them.

 

I am enjoying the articles, but would be interested on your take on them. I feel like they are giving me some insight into a lifestyle I don't know, and don't really understand. If they are giving me mis-information, or a warped perspective of what life is actually like for fundie girls, I'd like to know.

[GEML]

I have two issues with them -- first, I find them  sort of exploitative, because they almost always deal with parts of fundamentalist/evangelical worlds, like the Duggars, that don't even begin to encompass the reality of what most religious girls are going through.  There's an enormous different between a girl who makes a purity promise and one who attends a purity ball on a date with her father.  The first is someone who may or may not even have a father to make that commitment to, and was drawn to the church because it offers her family-like feeling of acceptance, and the latter is almost exclusively someone who comes from a nuclear family, someone who has money, and a father and mother of a particular type.  They are a subculture within a subculture within a subculture, and for all the one line that might state that, we are still endlessly parading these young women out as though they are something to be stared at.  That irks at me.  They are already commodified within their own culture -- we don't necessarily make it any easier to leave by commodifying them in the secular world -- it only proves that their parents were "right."

Second -- we continually leave young people in a young state, when, like real life, people grow up and move on.  The real issue is that fundy and evangelical churches cannot keep their young people in the sanctuary, (or the nave, the worship center, the auditorium -- whatever you want to call it.)  Three out of four of these children will leave the church behind completely.  THREE OUT OF FOUR.  That's an astonishingly high number.  That's a death toll number.  In thirty, forty years, all of these mega churches will be mega ghost towns unless religious leaders figure out what they are doing wrong -- and maybe what they are doing wrong is everything.

Because we keep bringing up the same examples of shocking fundy/evangelical behavior, both within the culture and in the media, and then act surprised to learn that the people who are supposed to be changed by it actually are -- and they leave.  I remember years ago when the movie JESUS CAMP came out and everyone kept saying how shocking and scary it was, and had I seen it, and did I know what was happening in churches today?  So my sisters and I watched it, and we howled our way through -- it was church camp as we knew it.  It probably wasn't even as intense as we remember.  But the difference is that we didn't remain static like the children in the film, we grew up, like people do.  And all three of us left that world eventually for another world.  All that intensity, all of that "indoctrination" all of those sermons on hell, on the second coming, on the importance of a godly government -- and you ended up with three pro-choice, liberal suburban women.  Oh, the irony.....maybe if my parents had had one more that child would have stayed!  :)

 

Edited November 3, 2014 by GEML

[Rhondinella]

I remember years ago when the movie JESUS CAMP came out and everyone kept saying how shocking and scary it was, and had I seen it, and did I know what was happening in churches today?  So my sisters and I watched it, and we howled our way through -- it was church camp as we knew it.  It probably wasn't even as intense as we remember.

 

 

I haven't seen the Salon articles yet, but as someone raised in a moderate Christian tradition (def not fundamentalist) that has nevertheless been influenced by evangelicalism, I have had this same experience. I often read articles or see news pieces or documentaries that act as if they are revealing or uncovering some kind of completely outrageous, fringe activities or belief, and I just look at it and say, "Well, duh.  Like where have you all been for the last 100 years?"  I mean, some of it is so incredibly commonplace in large swaths of the country, and not just within small pockets of the Appalachians or something, that it always genuinely surprises me when the news media treats Christians in general, and the more conservative types in particular, as some rare species of indigenous lizard that just crawled out from under a rock and which the zoologists all scramble to photograph and document.  News flash, news media: there are TENS OF MILLIONS of deeply religious people in this country, and not just in the middle part either.  Try getting out of the house a bit more.

[cmr2014]

I don't know that these articles are like that -- although that's just my perspective. I am not an evangelical, but I have lived in deeply religious areas for a large part of my life, and know a lot of devout Christians. From my perspective, the Duggars are extreme. I thought that they were extreme even among conservative evangelicals. I was surprised by some of the things I read.

 

I had never heard of accountability groups -- where young men are supposed to confess their impure thoughts to one another. Is that a common thing?

 

I did not know about the "princess" motif within the purity movement. I saw a picture of Mackenzie Duggar in a princess costume, and was pleased that Josh and Anna might be allowing her to play dress-up. I had no idea that this was simply part of the religious message.

 

I thought the idea of "saving the first kiss for marriage" was a preposterous bit of Gothardism. I had no idea that it had broader appeal, and there were other sects practicing this bit of 19th century relationship advice.

 

I didn't get the impression from the articles that these things are common among all evangelicals, but within a narrow slice of ultra-conservative, reactionary groups. My surprise was simply that these things were not just Gothard tropes, or things that JB and J'chelle had made up because they're control freaks.

[GEML]

I think the "princess" motif within these circles is simple a knock-off of the secular Disney princess obsession. This is what the religious world does - it takes something from the secular world and "sanctifies" it in a way to try and make it possible for their children not to be completely denied something from the culture, but in their own way.

And accountability groups come and go in fashion. I'm now officially old enough to remember at least three rounds of them. The biggest and most visible round was during the "promise keeper" years, which are nearly 20 years ago now. Most accountability movements don't last more than 5-10 years. Part of the problem is that they become a hot bed for gossip among both men and women and complaining about your life instead of focusing on the problems you are having. It's also the truth that just because someone is spiritually mature doesn't make them a good confessor, and a good confessor may not be spiritually mature.

But all of these articles seem, to me, frozen in contemporary time, as if we will for always be young people trapped in this world. When we really are young people in this world for a very small period of time. And most of us will leave. It's like when someone takes something that is really important to you - say you are a scientist - and only ever writes about your high school science classes and how you were a nerd and were bullied and never asked to prom.

[3girlsforus]

Brought this back over here since it wasn't really about Jessa/Ben... it came up on the other thread that Kirk Cameron and clan were at the Jessa/Ben wedding and a few joked about him putting a down payment on a Duggar for one of his brood (or more LOL). I looked it up to see how old Kirk's kids are and some of them are adopted. Do you think that would eliminate them as possible Duggar courters? 

[GEML]

I would say probably yes, since JB is basically selecting the mates.  And while I don't think he would like to admit it, even to himself, I don't think he could bring himself to match one of his children up with an adopted spouse.  I think the message, even if he says that he doesn't agree with it, is probably too deep within him at this point.  It would be another thing if one of the children spontaneously fell in love with an adopted person and brought them into the family -- in that case I do think that JB and Michelle would be able to handle it.  I do think that they have, actually, "liberalized" quite a bit since the show began.  But I'm not sure that they could do it deliberately themselves.  And since we know the children't aren't finding their own spouses, I don't think JB would set one up.

[questionfear]

I would say probably yes, since JB is basically selecting the mates.  And while I don't think he would like to admit it, even to himself, I don't think he could bring himself to match one of his children up with an adopted spouse.  I think the message, even if he says that he doesn't agree with it, is probably too deep within him at this point.  It would be another thing if one of the children spontaneously fell in love with an adopted person and brought them into the family -- in that case I do think that JB and Michelle would be able to handle it.  I do think that they have, actually, "liberalized" quite a bit since the show began.  But I'm not sure that they could do it deliberately themselves.  And since we know the children't aren't finding their own spouses, I don't think JB would set one up.

I think, though, if it were Kirk Cameron's kiddo he might find that the kid was absolved of sin because he/she grew up in such a "godly" household. The allure of bringing Kirk Cameron into his circle of influence, and the potential for more TLC interest/fame as a result might be too much.

 

Admit it, hearing that Kirk Cameron was going to be recurring on 19k&c would bring in a ton of curious viewers. 

[GEML]

Would it? I mean, I grew up during the years he was at the height of his fame (1980's) and I doubt most non-Fundy Millennials know who he is. GROWING PAINS isn't a show that is on perpetual reruns. And to be honest, I've never seen JB and Michelle be that impressed with anyone because of high status with the exception of Dr. Charles Stanley. I really don't think, on their end, they care a lot about KC as a status person, but they probably like him as a fellow Fundy. Would this be enough to push over a pretty strong taboo? I personally don't think so, but that is only a guess.

[Fosca]

In the world the Duggars are in, though, I think Kirk Cameron is royalty. And I can see Jim-Bob wanting to give TLC more of a reason to keep them on the air, or maybe create a spin-off. That might be enough to get them past the adoption thing.

[WTFFF]

Someone told me that Ben was adopted, so if that's the case, it wouldn't put Kirk Cameron's kids out of the running.

[3girlsforus]

Someone told me that Ben was adopted, so if that's the case, it wouldn't put Kirk Cameron's kids out of the running.

You mean Ben ... as in Jessa and Ben??? I am sure he's not adopted. All the things I've read about him, his parents always talk about 'when we had him'. That is not verbiage that adopted parents use about their adopted children. 

Would it? I mean, I grew up during the years he was at the height of his fame (1980's) and I doubt most non-Fundy Millennials know who he is. GROWING PAINS isn't a show that is on perpetual reruns. And to be honest, I've never seen JB and Michelle be that impressed with anyone because of high status with the exception of Dr. Charles Stanley. I really don't think, on their end, they care a lot about KC as a status person, but they probably like him as a fellow Fundy. Would this be enough to push over a pretty strong taboo? I personally don't think so, but that is only a guess.

I tend to agree with you but I guess we don't really know what constitutes 'royalty match' for Fundies... and what would balance out such a taboo. I guess my kids are safe. They aren't adopted but I am so their genes are still messed up :-). Not to mention they are mixed race. I don't think I want to know what the Duggars think about that.

[WTFFF]

I thought it was surprising, but hell, I don't know much about the Seewalds besides "they're fucking crazy," so I figured it was possible.  Though if it's not the case I would hardly be surprised either. 

[GEML]

I think that Kirk Cameron might be royalty in Duggar world, but keep in mind that only a very very narrow slice has the anti-adoption bias (thank God.)  The Seewalds, for instance, wouldn't have it, and Kirk Cameron was associated with the film festival (natch) that was part of that subgroup run by Doug Philips, which is the group the Seewalds affiliated with.  So while KC may be royalty, that doesn't mean it would be enough to match a Duggar child with an adopted child, given that the Duggars aren't in the same subgroup.

If Ben Seewald actually is adopted, then I'm completely wrong, and I will say that it is a huge step forward for the Duggars to marry their daughter to someone who is adopted.  We may not see that it is, but it really is, and good for them.  A lot of times I do give opinions on things, and I would love to not be right.  But I hadn't heard that before.  I was under the impression that he was their biological child.

[msblossom]

Would it? I mean, I grew up during the years he was at the height of his fame (1980's) and I doubt most non-Fundy Millennials know who he is. GROWING PAINS isn't a show that is on perpetual reruns. And to be honest, I've never seen JB and Michelle be that impressed with anyone because of high status with the exception of Dr. Charles Stanley. I really don't think, on their end, they care a lot about KC as a status person, but they probably like him as a fellow Fundy. Would this be enough to push over a pretty strong taboo? I personally don't think so, but that is only a guess.

Hmm -- I don't know, seems like JB, Josh, and several Duggars were a bit starstruck with KC after watching Fireproof at some film festival award ceremony they attended this season. I'd bet there's a good chance JB and Michelle might welcome a match with any of KC's kids, adopted or not.

Ben Seewald looks a lot like Michael and Guinn.

[floridamom]

Ben is not adopted. Derick's mother, Cathy, was adopted by her parents.

[GEML]

I did know about Cathy - which is why I don't think the Duggars would shut someone out who came into the family organically. (Say a child genuinely fell in love with an adopted child, or Jessa and Ben adopted.) But I do think that sitting there and "praying" on it, Jim Bob would have a hard time breaking the taboo actively choosing that person for his child, no matter what sort of childhood that person had. He likely would see it as just great a risk.

[homeperm]

I did know about Cathy - which is why I don't think the Duggars would shut someone out who came into the family organically. (Say a child genuinely fell in love with an adopted child, or Jessa and Ben adopted.) But I do think that sitting there and "praying" on it, Jim Bob would have a hard time breaking the taboo actively choosing that person for his child, no matter what sort of childhood that person had. He likely would see it as just great a risk.

This entire concept is so awful. A child has no say in how they come to be adopted. What do they think is to become of children that have been put up for adoption? Are they to be discarded? Live lives alone? Doesn't sound very Christian to me.

[GEML]

It's not Christian at all. And like a lot of Gothard's teaching, is twisted and ugly distortion of Biblical verses deliberately used by a warped man to control other people.

[homeperm]

I know this is an unanswerable question, because there's nothing real or logical about them, but how do they reconcile these kinds of ideas? I'm an atheist, but I have all kinds of respect for honestly religious people and I love a lot of things about Christianity. How can they possibly square Jesus' teachings with shunning SO many groups of people? It's baffling.

[msblossom]

By the sounds of things it looks like Kirk Cameron and his daughters spent a 3-day weekend with the Duggars.

From Facebook:

Duggar Wedding Couple!

Aren't they adorable? My daughters and I were invited to Jessa and Ben's wedding and we took this photo during the rehearsal dinner the night before. They were bursting with anticipation! We flew to the Duggar hometown, not only to be part of the fun and excitement of honoring this precious couple, but as a father, I want my daughters to see what it looks like when a couple reserves their "first kiss" for at the altar. Wow! This kind of moral excellence and purity is rare today, but our sons and daughters are priceless. This dad has only a few years to etch these meaningful images on the minds of his children. I wish I could tell you details of the wedding, but I am sworn to absolute secrecy by the Duggars! What I can say, is that it was beautiful, meaningful, and ... surprising! We were also invited to the Duggars house after for volleyball, campfire singing, and dessert till 1:30 am. We even got to worship together at church the next morning and Jim Bob and Michelle were excited to share with family and friends about Saving Christmas (www.SavingChristmas.com)! Be sure to watch the wedding episode of 19 and Counting on TLC!!

[juneday]

I thought Kirk Cameron was just a really conservative Christian. Interesting to know that he's Fundy as well. He doesn't seem as...legalistic and controlling as the Duggars, though. Maybe I'm wrong?

And I hope they put the younger children to bed before 1:30 AM. Even for a special occasion, that's late for the really small children like Miracle and Jordyn.

[mimionthebeach]

I thought Kirk Cameron was just a really conservative Christian. Interesting to know that he's Fundy as well. He doesn't seem as...legalistic and controlling as the Duggars, though. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

Kirk Cameron is tight with Ray Comfort of Living Waters and that fundy radio show Josh has been on.

[Joe Jitsu913]

By the sounds of things it looks like Kirk Cameron and his daughters spent a 3-day weekend with the Duggars.

From Facebook:

Duggar Wedding Couple!

Aren't they adorable? My daughters and I were invited to Jessa and Ben's wedding and we took this photo during the rehearsal dinner the night before. They were bursting with anticipation! We flew to the Duggar hometown, not only to be part of the fun and excitement of honoring this precious couple, but as a father, I want my daughters to see what it looks like when a couple reserves their "first kiss" for at the altar. Wow! This kind of moral excellence and purity is rare today, but our sons and daughters are priceless. This dad has only a few years to etch these meaningful images on the minds of his children. I wish I could tell you details of the wedding, but I am sworn to absolute secrecy by the Duggars! What I can say, is that it was beautiful, meaningful, and ... surprising! We were also invited to the Duggars house after for volleyball, campfire singing, and dessert till 1:30 am. We even got to worship together at church the next morning and Jim Bob and Michelle were excited to share with family and friends about Saving Christmas (www.SavingChristmas.com)! Be sure to watch the wedding episode of 19 and Counting on TLC!!

OMG, ass kisser supreme and smug to boot. Kirk Cameron has always seemed like a smug douche, even on his show as a teen.

[3girlsforus]

I thought Kirk Cameron was just a really conservative Christian. Interesting to know that he's Fundy as well. He doesn't seem as...legalistic and controlling as the Duggars, though. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

I always felt like he was on the Fundy side of conservative but I agree that I was under the impression he would be less legalistic than the Duggars. However, his FB quote about going to the wedding makes me wonder. He specifically talks about showing his DAUGHTERS purity and saving the kiss for marriage. Obviously it's hard to know but to me differentiating girls for purity is a Fundy sign to me. 

[GEML]

Oh no, Kirk Cameron drank a full glass of Kool-aid!

In fairness, he probably took his daughters because weddings are more fun for girls than boys. Everyone in the secular media harps on the purity side of girls, but it's no fun being a young male and basically told that you're a rapist who lusts and has night dreams that prove how evil your mind is, etc. In many ways, at least girls have a way to be pure. Boys don't. If they want to do a number on you, they can, and there is absolutely nothing a boy with anything approaching a normal sex drive can do about it because, well, hormones happen. Girls can at least pretend.

Edited November 4, 2014 by GEML

[BradandJanet]

I think Jim Bob and Michelle and their fellow believers lick a finger and test the direction of the wind more than they would like us to believe. Legalistic groups I've known are constantly testing what's sustainable and what needs tweaking. It's about maintaining as much control as possible without actually jeopardizing the future of the group. 

[GEML]

There's a lot of truth to this. You can see how much they have changed just since doing the show. And now that Gothard himself has been at least SOMEWHAT shifted out (not to mention the changes with Doug Philips in the Seewald group Vision Forum) I suspect both groups will undergo quite a bit of change as their children's generation begins to take on more leadership opportunities.

[3girlsforus]

Oh no, Kirk Cameron drank a full glass of Kool-aid!

In fairness, he probably took his daughters because weddings are more fun for girls than boys. Everyone in the secular media harps on the purity side of girls, but it's no fun being a young male and basically told that you're a rapist who lusts and has night dreams that prove how evil your mind is, etc. In many ways, at least girls have a way to be pure. Boys don't. If they want to do a number on you, they can, and there is absolutely nothing a boy with anything approaching a normal sex drive can do about it because, well, hormones happen. Girls can at least pretend.

Very true. It stinks on both sides. They treat boys like a giant hormone with no self control and with feelings that are evil. And the tell girls that every time a boy "stumbles" or has a normal feeling it's their fault because they weren't pure and modest enough.

[Barb23]

Hmm -- I don't know, seems like JB, Josh, and several Duggars were a bit starstruck with KC after watching Fireproof at some film festival award ceremony they attended this season. I'd bet there's a good chance JB and Michelle might welcome a match with any of KC's kids, adopted or not.

Ben Seewald looks a lot like Michael and Guinn.

Remember the episode where Boob & MEchelle met with Kirk Cameron & his son at the BBQ place in DC? A lady asked Kirk to take a picture of her with Boob & MEchelle. MEchelle just squealed that she couldn't believe the lady didn't recognize Kirk. I probably wouldn't have either. Also Kirk tried to pay for the meal with those phony bills they pass out with character qualities, prayers or whatever is on them.

Kirk was recently on the Hallmark Channels Home & Family show to promote his new movie. It was an OK interview. They reminisced about Growing Pains, how he married his wife who he met on show, talked about his kids, etc. Kirk was also showing some of the dance moves from the movie. He said his sister (not Candace who was on Dancing w/stars but another one) is a really good dancer & is in the movie. Nothing was mentioned of his religious affiliations.

Wonder if the Duggars will see the movie since it has dancing in it? Maybe Kirk can get them a "censored" version without dancing.

[msblossom]

Yes -- that was hilarious. KC has spent such a long time out of the mainstream, that people don't know who he is or have forgotten about him.

I do think he comes across as a nice guy, but he has always given me a works-salvation vibe since becoming a bigger voice in evangelical circles, although in last couple years I thought he toned that down. I haven't given him much thought until I saw he attended the wedding this weekend. I hope he's rubbing off more on the Duggars than the other way around.

[NausetGirl]

I wonder where he gets his news and learns about current events. Do they get a newspaper? Do they have a TV in their bedroom? Does the RNC just send him a list of talking points each morning?

 

God, I'd give anything to see Boob on a "Meet the Press" panel some Sunday morning. Can you imagine? Talk about tripping over his own tongue...