Josh Duggar resigns from Family Research Council after sexual abuse allegations
“Josh Duggar, of TLC’s ‘19 Kids and Counting,’ resigned his position at the Family Research Council Thursday after reports surfaced that he allegedly sexually assaulted four female siblings in the large family, plus an additional female victim.” Josh Duggar resigns
Related: What You Need to Know about the Josh Duggar Police Report
- 34 views
so far I haven’t seen all that much citing of the KJV. There has been Scripture cited but the KJV hasn’t been used to amplify it. And it’s cite not sight.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I imagine a lot of you may backtrack on how hateful you have been to the Duggars after hearing their interview. Pastor Dan Burrell said a great lesson to be learned from this situation is to wait till everything has been investigated before throwing around your opinion on situations like this. I have been very thankful that a show that promotes Christian values has been on TLC through the Duggars. They seem to be real. They call themselves Christians- they live their convictions- they help out others on a weekly and yearly basis- read their Bibles and pray- and have a burden to be used by God. Sure I might not agree with everything they believe but I still can rejoice that this witness is clearly presented on TLC and points the unsaved to God. Let’s stop shooting each other- put away our guns- and work toward reaching an unsaved world for Christ!
Jim Racke
[Mark_Smith]You don’t believe physicists about the age of the universe, for example, but you are MORE THAN WILLING to trust godless psychology to rehabilitate a boy with this problem? How is that consistent?
I am actually an old earth creationist……
[Mark_Smith]You don’t believe physicists about the age of the universe, for example, but you are MORE THAN WILLING to trust godless psychology to rehabilitate a boy with this problem? How is that consistent?
I am actually an old earth creationist. And I am far from being a nouthetic in my counseling philosophy so actually I am quite consistant.
“And notice the inconsistency of your argument about “Gothardites.” You imply that Gothard’s moral failures must therefore be passed on to all who once identified with him in any way. That would be hundreds of thousands of American Christians, but maybe you’re too young to remember. I am not”
I have not implied anything to the sort about Gothard’s moral failure. Don’t you see that you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say? My reason for bringing it up is that being counseled in a work group by Bill Gothardites is hardly professional counseling, very contrary to what the church elders recommended. The church elders recommended professional counseling. Instead, Josh received moralism, which doesn’t deal with the heart of the problem. Praise God and his sovereignty that God changed Josh, despite all the mistakes made by his family. By the way, I grew up going to Bill Gothard seminars throughout my teenage and college years. I know what they teach and it is moralism-centered rather than gospel-centered.
[Joel Shaffer]“And notice the inconsistency of your argument about “Gothardites.” You imply that Gothard’s moral failures must therefore be passed on to all who once identified with him in any way. That would be hundreds of thousands of American Christians, but maybe you’re too young to remember. I am not”
I have not implied anything to the sort about Gothard’s moral failure. Don’t you see that you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say? My reason for bringing it up is that being counseled in a work group by Bill Gothardites is hardly professional counseling, very contrary to what the church elders recommended. The church elders recommended professional counseling. Instead, Josh received moralism, which doesn’t deal with the heart of the problem. Praise God and his sovereignty that God changed Josh, despite all the mistakes made by his family. By the way, I grew up going to Bill Gothard seminars throughout my teenage and college years. I know what they teach and it is moralism-centered rather than gospel-centered.
I did put words in your mouth about Gothard. We have been discussing moral issues, and nowadays Gothard’s pecadillos usually wind up somewhere in the conversation. I didn’t pick up on the moralism issue you were implying, which you equated with the Gothardites. Well, to be honest, most people back in the 70s didn’t pick up on that either. Hundreds of Bible-believing pastors — graduates of good evangelical and fundamental seminaries — didn’t see it either. I don’t remember Gothard implying that it was the job of Christians to clean up society and thus to help bring in a kingdom. He always spoke about the Christian experience of salvation as becoming a “new creature in Christ.” I don’t want to carry on a discussion of moralism because it diverts attention from the subject of this blog. I wonder if the later Gothard teaching that you might have been exposed to was modified from the earliest days of Gothard.
I am appalled and disgusted by the way society - and even many so called ‘Christians’ - are showing morbid outrage to the point of even dismissing the actual victims testimony. So many lies have been told and perpetuate for an agenda which is about ‘destroying’ rather than finding the truth. Talk about abuse by the masses.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/reality-star-my-brother-molested-m…
To be very honest, I thought the Fox interview last night made the Duggars look bad for many reasons. It is interesting how Duggar fans see it very differently from how I (and many friends) saw it. I don’t necessarily want to go into all the things that made me shake my head and wince but there were plenty.
Reaction to Duggars’ Fox interview is harsh; ‘19 Kids and Counting’s’ future looks bleak
Adgate said he believes that the public reaction to the Duggars will make it “an impossible task” to get advertisers to support the program if it ever returned. A number of major companies have already said they will not run their spots in “19 Kids and Counting,” which was pulled from the TLC schedule on May 22.
.“Advertisers are concerned about the environment they place their ads in and in this day of social media — it’s changed from days of letter writing,” Adgate said. “There is much more pressure that consumers can place on advertisers if they are sponsoring a show that is inappropriate, and today you can do it in real time.”
Twitter users slam Duggars after interview
The negative reaction on social media to the Duggars’ interview was explosive. Viewers slammed the Duggar parents’ defense of their actions, particularly their claim that Josh is not a pedophile because he was too young at the time of his offenses.
Kelly, who previously claimed her interview “will not be a ‘gotcha’ or an attempt to bring down the Duggars,” was also the target of criticism from viewers who thought she went too soft on the parents.
Imagine an ultra Conservative, way cheesier and infinitely more annoying version of the Kardashians; a family so ludicrously pure and pious in its self-acclaimed ethos they make the Osmonds look like gangsters.
The Duggars are devout Independent Baptists and strict adherents of the Christian patriarchy movement.
Like me, I’m sure most of you have little idea what this entails. How clean-living are they? Well, there are myriad rules that even nuns would consider absurd.
But my favorite is that skirts above the knee are banned in the household because Michelle believes they don’t just reveal thighs, they reveal ‘nakedness and shame’ and ‘defraud’ men by encouraging ‘lustful thoughts’.
You get the drift. They’re the kind of people I would literally cross continents to avoid. Partly because I know I’d find them incredibly irritating. But also to prevent myself contaminating them with my general sinful behavior.
Yet the Duggars’ collective perfect halo took a crashing great big dent last week when Josh Duggar, one of the leading lights of the family and a lobbyist for the Family Research Council, was exposed as a teenage sex offender.
A ____ parent’s reaction to the Fox News Duggar interview
I am disgusted even further by these two comments made by the Duggars during the interview, which seem like attempts to minimize the seriousness of the abuse.
From Michelle Duggar: “They’ve been victimized more by what has happened these last couple of weeks than they were 12 years ago, because they honestly didn’t even understand or know what happened until after the fact, when they were told about it.”
From Jim Bob Duggar: “This was not rape or anything like that. This was touching somebody over their clothes. There were a couple of incidents where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds.”
WHAT?
Their daughters deserve better than that. Yes, it complicates matters when the molester is a family member. But it shouldn’t stop a parent from protecting. Should it matter if the girls were asleep or awake, clothed or unclothed? Should it matter if they didn’t understand what was happening to them at the time? No. We are the eyes and ears and moral compass for our young children — at all times. It’s a job we can’t punch the clock on.
These parents’ instincts seemed way off here, as they did when they signed on to a reality show five years later splashing their children’s lives across every TV screen in America.
[GregH]To be very honest, I thought the Fox interview last night made the Duggars look bad for many reasons. It is interesting how Duggar fans see it very differently from how I (and many friends) saw it. I don’t necessarily want to go into all the things that made me shake my head and wince but there were plenty.
What is the opposite of “Dugger fans”? “Duggar enemies”? I don’t this it is helpful to cast aspersions on those who believe the tabloids, the liberal media, and some ill-informed opponents of the moral positions the Duggars hold by referring to them as “fans.” I thought the interview cleared up a number of issues that justified their thinking. Does that make me a “fan”? What the interview and the following discussion did do was demonstrate the reason for protecting minors from the curiosity of a nosey media that doesn’t care a whit about the damage done to these minors when the indiscretions and errors of their youth are spread across the front page of a tabloid. The lawyer who argued for ignoring the law that protects minors said that the public’s right to know trumps the privacy of the minor. Is that the society we have become? This same media goes to great lengths to hide the blatant wrongdoing of some of its darling politicians.
[Jim]I find it strange that this post seems to have selectively quoted Twitter feeds that condemn everything about the Duggars. Otherwise it would have posted some other views. By slanting the message, Jim, it appears that you are in agreement, not only with the accusations, but also with the tone. Here there is ridicule for Independent Baptists, for the concept of the father as head of the family, clean living that must be hypocrisy, strict rules, modesty that has gone out the window, people so obnoxious one would go to any length to avoid. You may respond that “you didn’t say those things,” but by posting them here with no word of criticism, you give your approval.
It is the poor man’s way of making an attack while denying responsibility.
[Jim]A ____ parent’s reaction to the Fox News Duggar interview
I am disgusted even further by these two comments made by the Duggars during the interview, which seem like attempts to minimize the seriousness of the abuse.
From Michelle Duggar: “They’ve been victimized more by what has happened these last couple of weeks than they were 12 years ago, because they honestly didn’t even understand or know what happened until after the fact, when they were told about it.”
From Jim Bob Duggar: “This was not rape or anything like that. This was touching somebody over their clothes. There were a couple of incidents where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds.”
WHAT?
Their daughters deserve better than that. Yes, it complicates matters when the molester is a family member. But it shouldn’t stop a parent from protecting. Should it matter if the girls were asleep or awake, clothed or unclothed? Should it matter if they didn’t understand what was happening to them at the time? No. We are the eyes and ears and moral compass for our young children — at all times. It’s a job we can’t punch the clock on.
These parents’ instincts seemed way off here, as they did when they signed on to a reality show five years later splashing their children’s lives across every TV screen in America.
Seems to me that you are “interpreting” Michelle’s words. The point was that the girls did not even know anything had occurred when they were asked about it. She didn’t play down the seriousness of what Josh had done. What she was saying was that all the media attention and insistence by many of exposing them to shame have injured them more than the actual touching. And you can’t understand that? WHAT?
You can’t understand the difference between rape and touching someone over their clothes? WHAT? This was the point. We are not talking about a metaphoric use of the word “rape,” such as “I felt raped by his gaze,” or “I felt raped by his verbal insinuation,” etc., etc.
Michelle does not say or infer that “it does not matter.” I am wondering if you even saw the interview with an open mind. Throughout, they spoke often of the awful thing Josh had done, called it a sin, and were prepared for his being taken away, recognized his need of counsel, made efforts to deal with the wrongdoing, helped their girls to deal with it through counsel, etc. You have not told us what you would have done as a parent (not as a critical bystander), but as a parent. There were two mothers who claimed the baby before Solomon. Which mother was the true mother? Think about it.
Discussion