The Duggars and Their World: Fashion, Food, Finance, Schoolin’ and Child Rearin'

[Marigold]

The girls look sloppy. If we think back to when the show first aired, the kids looked wacky in their odd clothes but they did look neat.  

Rocking the "I picked this off of the floor" look?  And the foot ware "hey, I can't find my shoes. Does anyone have a matching pair I can use?"

 

Goes to show that it was the older girls (Jessa, Jinger, Jill, Jana) who kept the kids looking reasonably neat, matched and hair combed. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Marigold

[Churchhoney]

Is it just my Duggar-depression or does nobody's smile extend to the eyes in that picture? 

[ariel]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Is it just my Duggar-depression or does nobody's smile extend to the eyes in that picture? 

I think it is look happy or else there will "consequents" for not looking happy & clappy. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by ariel

[louannems]

10 hours ago, Absolom said:

It's nice to see that Anna knows a modest dress is fine and doesn't find a need to add t-shirt and leggings to it.

But she shouldn't be wearing Anna's flip-flops!

[queenanne]

7 hours ago, Arwen Evenstar said:

Salads for MeChelle and Jana, but what is everyone else eating?  Bread pudding? One or two orders of something cut up? 

Cornbread?  It looks the right thickness and shape to be a mini loaf Boston Market type thing.

Those dresses all do look wrong. I think it is the size.  They look like a collection who escaped from Miss Hannigan's.

Edited October 9, 2017 by queenanne

[Marigold]

5 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Is it just my Duggar-depression or does nobody's smile extend to the eyes in that picture? 

That group of girls often appear miserable in pictures.  Maybe they are happy kids in real life, we don't know. But in pictures? They look very sad. Their outings also seem very "forced".  Michelle poses. Jana smiles.  The girls wear poorly fitting clothes, too large sandals and have a weak smile.  They look so dysfunctional and emotionally disengaged. 

[dargosmydaddy]

Wow, Mack looks so much like Josh in that picture. And Johannah.

Jordyn resembles Jana. She and Jenni are very pretty girls. Wish they had some real joy in their lives, and someone to treat them like they're truly special, not just numbers.

[DawgMom]

Holy crap on a cracker... has this been a topic yet? How do I get this over here.  There's a clip of Josie & MEchelle tasting cakes with an intended Duggar and Josie pops up in their faces to nab a bite of cake when MEchelle taps here arm... the look on that child's face... OMG  That is the creepiest horrified look on a child I have ever seen.  Damn!  It is harsh. How do I share it?  [http://wtffundiefamilies.tumblr.com/page/2]  Have y'all already discussed?

[BitterApple]

2 hours ago, DawgMom said:

Holy crap on a cracker... has this been a topic yet? How do I get this over here.  There's a clip of Josie & MEchelle tasting cakes with an intended Duggar and Josie pops up in their faces to nab a bite of cake when MEchelle taps here arm... the look on that child's face... OMG  That is the creepiest horrified look on a child I have ever seen.  Damn!  It is harsh. How do I share it?  [http://wtffundiefamilies.tumblr.com/page/2]  Have y'all already discussed?

What the fuck?! Why did they give Josie a fork if she wasn't allowed to eat the cake? Believe me, I'm not one for babying children, but that's pretty shitty to bring a 7 year-old to a tasting, stick a platter of samples in front of her face and then smack her on the wrist when she tries to eat them. I thought the whole point of bringing her was to make her feel involved? Poor Josie. No wonder those younger girls always look clinically depressed. 

I didn't see the episode, and after looking at the clips it looks like Michelle was reprimanding her for not letting Joy and Austin go first, but that should've been explained to Josie before they even started. 

Edited October 9, 2017 by BitterApple

[Absolom]

Perhaps she was told and didn't listen or remember in the excitement of seeing the cakes.  It does happen even with seven year olds.  If you don't have their full attention when giving directions, you might as well not bother.  

[DawgMom]

I readily agree about any normal kid... it was just the weird way she backed down and had that weird smile at the end.  I would imagine a kid to be all pouty and grumpy not getting the sweet treat... heck I would be all tears and tantrums as an adult. It was just that weird look on her face and that weird smile as she slinked back, that got to me after only a small finger tap on the arm.  I would like to have seen from the other angle and get MEchelle's facial expression.  Brrr it gives me chills.

[GeeGolly]

Poor Josie, she has been allowed and even encouraged to eat and go after food in anyway that pleased her and now at age 7 its a problem. Maybe if she hadn't been allowed to eat with her hands while propped on a counter a year ago she wouldn't have been so quick to jump at the cake samples.

She knew her Mama meant business though.

[cmr2014]

2 hours ago, Absolom said:

Perhaps she was told and didn't listen or remember in the excitement of seeing the cakes.  It does happen even with seven year olds.  If you don't have their full attention when giving directions, you might as well not bother.  

I agree that it isn't beyond the realm of comprehension that a seven year old would not listen to a parent and jump onto the cake, but we have enough experience with J'chelle's "parenting" at this point to question the scenario. I don't think that there are any clear rules or boundaries for any of the kids, since there is no actual "parenting." When J'chelle is actually around and actually  notices something she doesn't like, they get reprimanded. I don't think they have any inkling of what they did wrong. I think that J'chelle just assumes that they know how to behave because "Jesus" and because she is MOTY, not because she has given them any clear guidance on what is expected.

I used to live in NYC and I used to really enjoy watching the Hasidic children, and the Amish children who came into the city with their parents for farmers' markets. I wouldn't want to live in either environment, but the kids always looked happy. The parents were strict and their lives were, by my standards, really repressive, but the kids knew the rules. They knew what to expect and how to behave, and their worlds were very structured and secure.

It really looks like Josie's already internalizing disappointment and pasting a fake smile on her face. That's pretty sad.

[Natalie68]

17 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

I agree that it isn't beyond the realm of comprehension that a seven year old would not listen to a parent and jump onto the cake, but we have enough experience with J'chelle's "parenting" at this point to question the scenario. I don't think that there are any clear rules or boundaries for any of the kids, since there is no actual "parenting." When J'chelle is actually around and actually  notices something she doesn't like, they get reprimanded. I don't think they have any inkling of what they did wrong. I think that J'chelle just assumes that they know how to behave because "Jesus" and because she is MOTY, not because she has given them any clear guidance on what is expected.

I used to live in NYC and I used to really enjoy watching the Hasidic children, and the Amish children who came into the city with their parents for farmers' markets. I wouldn't want to live in either environment, but the kids always looked happy. The parents were strict and their lives were, by my standards, really repressive, but the kids knew the rules. They knew what to expect and how to behave, and their worlds were very structured and secure.

It really looks like Josie's already internalizing disappointment and pasting a fake smile on her face. That's pretty sad.

It reminded me of 'smile therapy' from Ally McBeal.  Her expression was weird and as you said sad.  I have also noticed that Jills eyes have no life or joy.  Like in one of my favorite movies Jaws and Quint is talking about the USS Indianapolis and the sharks that killed a bunch of the men:  'he’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes'.  That is what I hear in my head when I see her eyes.  

[Churchhoney]

Just to show where the preaching adjacents are coming from -- here are takes on homosexuality by the two main church guys Der and Jer are following these days (and hoping to be employed -- or at least noticed -- by?) 

Here's a book about the Gay Agenda by Ronnie Floyd, head honcho of the Cross Church network -- https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Gay_Agenda.html?id=dZrm04MGyWUC     -- so, you know, Der's role model and sorta employer. You can see that Der's language about this reflects Floyd's language about it. 

And here's a spiel on converting somebody from homosexuality through Jesus by John MacArthur, of Grace Church, in LA -- https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-322/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuality  -- Jer shadows him a lot. In this one, too, seems to me Jer's language is apparent. 

Both these guys are massive big shots not only in their own organizations but in the conservative Christian community generally. Floyd's the current head of the National Day of Prayer, that May prayer day that's supposed to be multifaith, although it hasn't necessarily worked out that way. It was officially created by Congress back in the early 50s. So the Duggar adjacency boyz are parrots, in fine Duggarling tradition. Bin's chosen pastors have made many similar pronouncements. But I have a feeling Jessa's told Bin that they will shut up about their beliefs in the interest of TeeVee money since we haven't heard much preaching at all from him for quite a while, as far as I can tell. 

[Aja]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Just to show where the preaching adjacents are coming from -- here are takes on homosexuality by the two main church guys Der and Jer are following these days (and hoping to be employed -- or at least noticed -- by?) 

Here's a book about the Gay Agenda by Ronnie Floyd, head honcho of the Cross Church network -- https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Gay_Agenda.html?id=dZrm04MGyWUC     -- so, you know, Der's role model and sorta employer. You can see that Der's language about this reflects Floyd's language about it. 

And here's a spiel on converting somebody from homosexuality through Jesus by John MacArthur, of Grace Church, in LA -- https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-322/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuality  -- Jer shadows him a lot. In this one, too, seems to me Jer's language is apparent. 

Both these guys are massive big shots not only in their own organizations but in the conservative Christian community generally. Floyd's the current head of the National Day of Prayer, that May prayer day that's supposed to be multifaith, although it hasn't necessarily worked out that way. It was officially created by Congress back in the early 50s. So the Duggar adjacency boyz are parrots, in fine Duggarling tradition. Bin's chosen pastors have made many similar pronouncements. But I have a feeling Jessa's told Bin that they will shut up about their beliefs in the interest of TeeVee money since we haven't heard much preaching at all from him for quite a while, as far as I can tell. 

Oh man, I wish I hadn't gone there.

Quote

I want you to look at 1 Corinthians chapter 6, and all I want to do is just give you a biblical picture so that you’ll know how God views this kind of behavior. And let me say at the very beginning, and I will show you this, but I want to say it because I want you to understand it. Homosexual sin is nothing more or nothing less than a perverse sexual act, or acts...it is no more than that, it is no less than that. It is a perverse abnormal sexual behavior. I’m reluctant even to call someone a homosexual because that seems to identify them with some kind of staple character that draws them into that behavior. It is no more or no less than a perverse act or acts.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 6, go down to verse 9, the Apostle Paul writes these words, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

The first paragraph literally brought tears to my eyes. WOW, man.  I'm reluctant to even call him a human being because that would identify him with actual human beings. .

The second paragraph--for some reason I do not happen to have a Bible on me, but if anyone has access to one--does Corinthians explicitly forbid being EFFEMINATE?? I don't know, that kinda sounds like the King Billy Bob version to me. If it's true, though, several Duggar boys are in big trouble. 

[Churchhoney]

56 minutes ago, Aja said:

Oh man, I wish I hadn't gone there.

The first paragraph literally brought tears to my eyes. WOW, man.  I'm reluctant to even call him a human being because that would identify him with actual human beings. .

 

I'm sorry I upset you, Aja! .... I think we might as well see what the opposition is really like, though. This is being preached to large groups, even now. 

I can't for the life of me figure out why people like Der and Jer are so attracted to it -- although I suppose that, like the Duggars, they were brought up with it, although in a less extremist-seeming way. But in the past virtually everybody was brought up with this, and yet by now the majority have cleared their heads and seen how wrong it is. So what's their problem? 

 

King James says "effeminate." The Douay-Rheims says both "effeminate" and "liers with mankind." Other (later) versions say variously "sexual perverts," "men who have sex with men," "behaves like a homosexual" (WTF?) ... Hard to tell what range of these was actually meant by the original language, obviously. The "effeminate" connotation seems to have been abandoned by most, though not all, of the 20th/21st century translations. 

[Aja]

8 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I'm sorry I upset you, Aja! .... I think we might as well see what the opposition is really like, though. This is being preached to large groups, even now. 

I can't for the life of me figure out why people like Der and Jer are so attracted to it -- although I suppose that, like the Duggars, they were brought up with it, although in a less extremist-seeming way. But in the past virtually everybody was brought up with this, and yet by now the majority have cleared their heads and seen how wrong it is. So what's their problem? 

 

King James says "effeminate." The Douay-Rheims says both "effeminate" and "liers with mankind." Other (later) versions say variously "sexual perverts," "men who have sex with men," "behaves like a homosexual" (WTF?) ... Hard to tell what range of these was actually meant by the original language, obviously. The "effeminate" connotation seems to have been abandoned by most, though not all, of the 20th/21st century translations. 

Oh Churchie, of the 283743892734 things that upset me on a daily basis, you are NEVER one of them!

I'd be really interested to know what WAS meant in the original language, though I suppose that doesn't have any bearing on anything at the end of the day. Funny, too, how adamant the Bible seems to be about MALE homosexuality. 

True story: My platonic office life-partner is Jewish, and he came to me one Monday morning and said, "I talked to my rabbi about you yesterday."

I said, "What did you say?"

"I said to him that the Bible is very clear about mens' sexual behavior. Don't sleep with each other, don't sleep with your sisters, don't sleep with animals. But I don't recall anything specific about women and homosexuality."

"What did the rabbi say?"

"He said 'Well...everybody likes hot lesbians.'"

 

Hilarious but also very astute. I think the rabbi pretty much hit the nail on the head. 

[Sew Sumi]

Wow, Jeremy's mentor is delusional. My blood boiled as I slogged through that morass of hate disguised as salvation. I am sickened that any LGBTQ+ person has to read that.

[Arwen Evenstar]

@Aja, I have heard /read that rabbinical scholars say the same thing as your friend who consulted his rabbi.  Homosexuality is mentioned only a few times in the OT and only a few times in the NT.   The Law seems to be more preoccupied with male-male behavior than female-female behavior.  It seems given the very few verses devoted to homosexuality, that there were other human behaviors (such as the treatment of others) that were far more disconcerting to the early church than who people love.

[Aja]

10 minutes ago, Arwen Evenstar said:

@Aja, I have heard /read that rabbinical scholars say the same thing as your friend who consulted his rabbi.  Homosexuality is mentioned only a few times in the OT and only a few times in the NT.   The Law seems to be more preoccupied with male-male behavior than female-female behavior.  It seems given the very few verses devoted to homosexuality, that there were other human behaviors (such as the treatment of others) that were far more disconcerting to the early church than who people love.

Thanks, Arwen! I'd actually never heard that before--although it makes perfect sense to me, considering that a) principles are all well and good, but two chicks together gives most men a non-threatening erection, so principles schminciples, b) much easier to keep women/society under control with extremely narrow gender roles; c) it also likely encouraged family alliances, which in those days was all tied up in political power. I also love your point about how there are only a few mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, yet pages and pages and pages and pages about how you're supposed to treat others to honor God. With the Duggars, and all fundies, you'd think it was the other way around.

[toodles]

48 minutes ago, Aja said:

Thanks, Arwen! I'd actually never heard that before--although it makes perfect sense to me, considering that a) principles are all well and good, but two chicks together gives most men a non-threatening erection, so principles schminciples, b) much easier to keep women/society under control with extremely narrow gender roles; c) it also likely encouraged family alliances, which in those days was all tied up in political power. I also love your point about how there are only a few mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, yet pages and pages and pages and pages about how you're supposed to treat others to honor God. With the Duggars, and all fundies, you'd think it was the other way around.

I think the fundies are way more preoccupied with making sure people love the right way, i.e. man and woman, than being loving and kind to people in general.  

Well, loving the right way as they see it.  

[kalamac]

1 hour ago, Arwen Evenstar said:

@Aja, I have heard /read that rabbinical scholars say the same thing as your friend who consulted his rabbi.  Homosexuality is mentioned only a few times in the OT and only a few times in the NT.   The Law seems to be more preoccupied with male-male behavior than female-female behavior.  It seems given the very few verses devoted to homosexuality, that there were other human behaviors (such as the treatment of others) that were far more disconcerting to the early church than who people love.

A friend’s son, who is studying theology says he interprets that Leviticus quote about a man not lying with a man as he would with a woman as being less about the sexual act, and more about how men were not supposed to be submissive to another man, unless they were slaves.

And since these particular cults don’t have equality of the sexes, they have men being headships, to women they are supposed to control, they can’t wrap their heads around a relationship of equals, so if two men are together, they assume one must be in the so-called “womanly” submissive role. Which is wrong in their view.

[Arwen Evenstar]

4 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

Wow, Jeremy's mentor is delusional. My blood boiled as I slogged through that morass of hate disguised as salvation. I am sickened that any LGBTQ+ person has to read that.

Jeremy is doing a great disservice to Jesus by telling everyone that LGBTQ people are somewhat lesser beings, because it's clear to anyone who has read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John that Jesus defended those who society tried to marginalize or shun. God don't like ugly, Jeremy. 

[GeeGolly]

The way these people quote the Bible one might think it was the original Master's and Johnson's for the narrow minded.

[Rabbittron]

I was bored at work and I was thinking because they are so pro baby  when they get their period each month do they mourn the loss of a baby?

[floridamom]

I had a small suspicion that at least Michelle 'mourned' each month that she had her period that 'one got away'.  I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this thought cross their mind. Perhaps Anna and Jill feel this way too.

[Arwen Evenstar]

6 hours ago, floridamom said:

I had a small suspicion that at least Michelle 'mourned' each month that she had her period that 'one got away'.  I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this thought cross their mind. Perhaps Anna and Jill feel this way too.

Jill has enough reason to look like Eeyore every day because she’s married to that blithering idiot, but let’s not give her any ideas of something else to get all maudlin about.  I’m sure she does look mournfully at her pee stick, though, and then remembers wayward shower caddies and starts sniveling again.

[ariel]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:34 PM, Rabbittron said:

I was bored at work and I was thinking because they are so pro baby  when they get their period each month do they mourn the loss of a baby?

I think Anna was peeing on a stick from day one of her honeymoon.

[lianau]

On 9.10.2017 at 10:37 PM, DawgMom said:

Holy crap on a cracker... has this been a topic yet? How do I get this over here.  There's a clip of Josie & MEchelle tasting cakes with an intended Duggar and Josie pops up in their faces to nab a bite of cake when MEchelle taps here arm... the look on that child's face... OMG  That is the creepiest horrified look on a child I have ever seen.  Damn!  It is harsh. How do I share it?  [http://wtffundiefamilies.tumblr.com/page/2]  Have y'all already discussed?

the direct link , for future book keeping

[Rabbittron]

when I am bored at work I think about the Duggars and now I want to know if the Duggar girls wore leggings under their long prairie dresses before the Smuggar incident?

[Nysha]

11 hours ago, Rabbittron said:

when I am bored at work I think about the Duggars and now I want to know if the Duggar girls wore leggings under their long prairie dresses before the Smuggar incident?

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure the leggings were put in place to make it more difficult for Josh to get beneath their clothes. Prior to being molested, any type of pants would have been considered ungodly and heathenish.

[cmr2014]

I really think that if this was anything other than a white, Christian family, that all of these humpers would be screaming bloody murder and speed-dialing DCS to have the children removed from the home.

If this was an African-American family living in poverty, feeding their family with 'love offerings,' and stacking their children like cord-wood in a tiny house, those same humpers would be outraged.

If this was a Muslim family keeping their children out of school to prevent them from being 'tainted' by the world, and selling their children into arranged marriages, they would be furious that they refuse to assimilate and be part of main-stream American culture.

If they were any sort of brown-skinned American family and the girls were married off as help-meets and kept slovenly homes and didn't know how to cook, they would all shake their heads about the natural indolence of 'those people.'

I could be wrong, of course, and the humpers could all be wonderful, loving people who simply adore large, religious families, but I don't think  so.

[bigskygirl]

Do the Duggars even celebrate Halloween or do they avoid it since it could be considered worshipping the devil. I knew someone who would not let her kids go out in her neighborhood door to door for candy and wear cute customs because she thought the day was for worshipping the devil. I hate to see kids miss out of having fun because their parents have certain fears or bias against one day of the year where we all can enjoy activities in the crazy messed up world we live in.

Edited November 1, 2017 by bigskygirl

[louannems]

When I was a Seventh Day Adventist, back in the 80's and 90's, no way did those kids get to go trick or treating!  Neither did many Evangelical Christians I knew.  The ? day for sure!!!

[ariel]

46 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

Do the Duggars even celebrate Halloween or do they avoid it since it could be considered worshipping the devil. 

I don't think so.  When I was a kid there was a fundy family  that gave out religious tracks instead of candy.  Maybe the Duggars  do that too or maybe the locals know to stay far, far away from the D's on Halloween. They are the Adams family without the charm.

[cmr2014]

2 minutes ago, ariel said:

I don't think so.  When I was a kid there was a fundy family  that gave out religious tracks instead of candy.  Maybe the Duggars  do that too or maybe the locals know to stay far, far away from the D's on Halloween. They are the Adams family without the charm.

I don't think anyone would go to their house. It's fenced and not accessible from the street; it's not part of a neighborhood and not close to other houses; and JB is a notorious cheapskate -- if they weren't religious nuts, he'd probably give out the cheapest candy imaginable.

I think that there are pictures of the oldest children dressed in costume when they were very young -- probably before the hard-core Gothard days. Even if they weren't religious zealots, they would have given up trick-or-treating a long time ago because they have SO MANY KIDS, and dressing them all up, and getting them all organized to go is too much work, and there are TOO MANY KIDS to supervise how much candy they are eating.

[AnnieBeez]

Now they just dress as pirates and cows to get free food. 

[Rabbittron]

4 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

there are TOO MANY KIDS to supervise how much candy they are eating.

They don't supervise what the kids eat now so what would be the difference? 

[queenanne]

Yeah, you don't even need to ask that one...  My parents do hand out the candy, because little kids dressed in costume are cute, and they also couldn't be bothered to try and work up a subterfuge pretending not to be home while people ring and knock; but once we moved to a church where they lectured against it, that was the end of my trick-or-treating days.

[Aja]

16 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

I really think that if this was anything other than a white, Christian family, that all of these humpers would be screaming bloody murder and speed-dialing DCS to have the children removed from the home.

If this was an African-American family living in poverty, feeding their family with 'love offerings,' and stacking their children like cord-wood in a tiny house, those same humpers would be outraged.

If this was a Muslim family keeping their children out of school to prevent them from being 'tainted' by the world, and selling their children into arranged marriages, they would be furious that they refuse to assimilate and be part of main-stream American culture.

If they were any sort of brown-skinned American family and the girls were married off as help-meets and kept slovenly homes and didn't know how to cook, they would all shake their heads about the natural indolence of 'those people.'

I could be wrong, of course, and the humpers could all be wonderful, loving people who simply adore large, religious families, but I don't think  so.

You aren't.

[flyingdi]

15 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

I don't think anyone would go to their house. It's fenced and not accessible from the street; it's not part of a neighborhood and not close to other houses; and JB is a notorious cheapskate -- if they weren't religious nuts, he'd probably give out the cheapest candy imaginable.

I think that there are pictures of the oldest children dressed in costume when they were very young -- probably before the hard-core Gothard days. Even if they weren't religious zealots, they would have given up trick-or-treating a long time ago because they have SO MANY KIDS, and dressing them all up, and getting them all organized to go is too much work, and there are TOO MANY KIDS to supervise how much candy they are eating.

I think they used to dress up because they took part in a Tonnitown parade where the kids threw candy.

[Sew Sumi]

There was video of said parade. I tried to find it yesterday, without luck. The JSlaves are really young and in their best Little House wear (which people probably thought were costumes). I think either Joy or Josiah weren't even toddlers yet, and of course Mechelle was knocked up again.

I clearly remember the girls attacking the food.

[louannems]

Was that the awesome parade video where Michelle had a suckling infant sticking out sideways under her breast friend?

[LilJen]

20 hours ago, bigskygirl said:

Do the Duggars even celebrate Halloween or do they avoid it since it could be considered worshipping the devil. I knew someone who would not let her kids go out in her neighborhood door to door for candy and wear cute customs because she thought the day was for worshipping the devil. I hate to see kids miss out of having fun because their parents have certain fears or bias against one day of the year where we all can enjoy activities in the crazy messed up world we live in.

It *could* be said that Halloween is in fact a Christian holiday. All Saints' Day came first (so far as I know), on which we celebrate the faith and lives of those who have gone before us, and Halloween is a 'laughing at evil' thing because yay All Saints' Day and the resurrection say  FOOEY to death and evil. Um, if that makes any sense.

A friend posted this on her FB wall today: A woman's recovery from "Accelerated Christian Education" My friend was glad to have been in this program for only a year. Sounds a whole lot like the SOTDRT.

[mynextmistake]

5 hours ago, louannems said:

Was that the awesome parade video where Michelle had a suckling infant sticking out sideways under her breast friend?

Classy. I bet she got the breast friend used and saved the difference.

[awaken]

5 hours ago, LilJen said:

It *could* be said that Halloween is in fact a Christian holiday. All Saints' Day came first (so far as I know), on which we celebrate the faith and lives of those who have gone before us, and Halloween is a 'laughing at evil' thing because yay All Saints' Day and the resurrection say  FOOEY to death and evil. Um, if that makes any sense.

A friend posted this on her FB wall today: A woman's recovery from "Accelerated Christian Education" My friend was glad to have been in this program for only a year. Sounds a whole lot like the SOTDRT.

Wow. I did ACE for several classes in my Christian middle and high school. Just sat by myself and did basic workbooks on history and science. (As described in the article, teachers had no credentials although some were Bob Jones U or Pensacola grads). That was the extent of my education until I had a rude awakening in college as to what real, grade level work is.  I still feel like I'm playing catch up, learning-wise, in my forties, for all I missed out on. I do all of my middle and high-schoolers' homework along with them so I can re-do what I missed because of ACE!  

[Nysha]

11 hours ago, LilJen said:

A friend posted this on her FB wall today: A woman's recovery from "Accelerated Christian Education" My friend was glad to have been in this program for only a year. Sounds a whole lot like the SOTDRT.

The third page, on how ACE regards children as slaves for God, is how I believe Gothardites regard children. The author also discusses how difficult it has been to overcome the brainwashing she experienced at school, and it's implied that her parents supported the school without necessarily reinforcing their beliefs at home. How much harder will it be for the Duggar children who are brainwashed from birth until marriage that they are slaves to God, to never question what they're taught, and that their wants/needs/desires are worthless, to overcome their conditioning?

[Arwen Evenstar]

9 hours ago, Nysha said:

The third page, on how ACE regards children as slaves for God, is how I believe Gothardites regard children. The author also discusses how difficult it has been to overcome the brainwashing she experienced at school, and it's implied that her parents supported the school without necessarily reinforcing their beliefs at home. How much harder will it be for the Duggar children who are brainwashed from birth until marriage that they are slaves to God, to never question what they're taught, and that their wants/needs/desires are worthless, to overcome their conditioning?

THIS!  I went to a private Christian school for part of my upbringing.  They used mostly ABEKA curriculum, but I do remember their math books were excellent.  Even though my parents didn’t attend the church at the school and found most of the beliefs extreme, they did believe that for the most part that private schools provided a better education, or was supposed to since public school was something that was “free” and you still had to pay property tax even when your kids went to private schools.

When I got to public school, I found myself behind from where I wanted to be academically.  I think if my parents knew that public school had an advanced/honors tier and kids weren’t painting their toenails in class there.  I also found myself very socially awkward and I knew that I had been warped by the crazy religious teaching. I felt like a pariah, because I was perceived as being “one of those weirdos” when I had little to do with it.  I wore pants every day of my life to school after I got out of that prison. Fortunately, my parents learned their childrens’ education was more important.

[sixlets]

I also went to a private Christian school from 1st-4th grades.  It was an Assembly of God Church, and they used PACES for education.  I loved & thrived with the 'work at my own pace' attitude, and managed to get done early one year & got an extra vacation.  The tuition was crazy, but my parents and I all belonged to the church.  They were forced to close during the summer, and I had to start public school at 5th grade.  I had a teacher (in public) who told me I would never amount to anything in life, I would never graduate, and my parents set me up for failure by sending me to private.  That year was hell for me, and I still 'see' that little girl begging my mom to keep me home.  The private school allowed me to attend even though I was too young, so I never went to kinder AND became the youngest in my class.   I began my freshman year of college at 17.  If I started in public from the start, I would have graduated a year later.  There are kids from that class a full year older than me.  It definitely had some ups and downs over the years.  The biggest up was meeting my now-husband in high school.  We've been together 21+ years, and we just celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary.  I just turned 38 two weeks ago, but Mr. Six (in that pesky class ahead of me) won't turn 38 until next June.