Duggar Free Discussion December

Please use this for Duggar sightings, speculation, or general discussion. Note that this is Duggar discussion not other families, TV shows, or personal stories.

359 comments:

1 – 200 of 359   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

What is the definition of "defraud" as used by the Duggars? This is another word that I hear used in a somewhat unusual context.

-Katydid

Im_in_PR said...

What is the definition of "defraud" as used by the Duggars? This is another word that I hear used in a somewhat unusual context.

-Katydid
______________________________________________________________


1. To deprive of right, either by obtaining something by deception or artifice, or by taking something wrongfully without the knowledge or consent of the owner; to cheat; to cozen; followed by of before the thing taken; as, to defraud; a man of his right.

We have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man. 2 Cor. 7.

The agent who embezzles public property, defrauds the state.

The man who by deception obtains a price for a commodity above its value, defrauds the purchaser.

2. To withhold wrongfully from another what is due to him. Defraud not the hireling of his wages.

3. To prevent one wrongfully from obtaining what he may justly claim.

A man of fortune who permits his son to consume the season of education in hunting, shooting, or in frequenting horse-races, assemblies, &c., defrauds the community of a benefactor, and bequeaths them a nuissance.

4. To defeat or frustrate wrongfully.

By the duties deserted-by the claims defrauded.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,defraud

Anonymous said...

Hmm...The next question I have is, at what point does the "defraudee" (for lack of a better term) claim responsibility for their unwarranted frustrations or unfulfilled desires?

Why, for example, is it the "defrauder's" fault for creating an expection that cannot be fulfilled by dancing or wearing pants? Dancing, for example, might simply be because the Spirit moved you, not trying to attract a mate.

-Katydid

Im_in_PR said...

Why, for example, is it the "defrauder's" fault for creating an expection that cannot be fulfilled by dancing or wearing pants? Dancing, for example, might simply be because the Spirit moved you, not trying to attract a mate.

I'm just guessing here, but I'd say that dancing in worship is a complete different animal than dancing to attract the opposite sex.

Kat said...

Well, since the Duggars don't permit ANY dancing (even a 4-year-old jumping around to a music box), any distinctions between the *intent* of the dance are lost on them.

I'M guessing "defraud" is another one of those Gothard terms that has its own peculiar definition to those who adhere to his beliefs. Looking it up in the dictionary is not going to be very useful in that context. Like "purposing" to do something. I've never heard anyone else use "purpose" as a verb.

Anonymous said...

Im in PR - This is one of the things that bothers me the most about the family, although I love them. I don't believe they do make this distinction. As Kat metntioned, even toddlers moving around does not fall under acceptable standards. It's fine not to believe in "sinful" dancing, but I believe they are terribly misguided to believe that all moving around is related to lust. I could go on forever, and I have posted several times about this exact issue. If they Duggars didn't believe in recreational dancing of certain types, that would be one thing. However, it's just another thing they have banned as sinful altogether, like Gothard's movie theatres. It's just one example. Michelle and JB also mentioned that they don't have a TV because they couldn't stop themselves from watching it all the time earlier in their marriage. Rather than practice self control, they just ban things altogether, and it really bothers me.
-Christina

Cyn said...

Kat said...

Well, since the Duggars don't permit ANY dancing (even a 4-year-old jumping around to a music box), any distinctions between the *intent* of the dance are lost on them.

I'M guessing "defraud" is another one of those Gothard terms that has its own peculiar definition to those who adhere to his beliefs. Looking it up in the dictionary is not going to be very useful in that context. Like "purposing" to do something. I've never heard anyone else use "purpose" as a verb.

12/02/2009 12:52 AM
*************************
It's not so much a Gothard thing as a KJV thing... most of the 'strange' words and definitions of those words are from the King James Version of the bible.

Strong's Number: g650 Greek: apostereo

Defraud:
signifies "to rob, despoil, defraud," Mar 10:19; 1Cr 6:8; 7:5 (of that which is due to the condition of natural relationship of husband and wife); in the Middle Voice, "to allow oneself to be defrauded," 1Cr 6:7; in the Passive Voice, "bereft," 1Ti 6:5, RV, with reference to the truth, with the suggestion of being retributively "robbed" of the truth, through the corrupt condition of the mind. Some mss. have this verb in Jam 5:4 for aphustereo, "to keep back by fraud."
See BEREFT, DESTITUTE, FRAUD. In the Sept., Exd 21:10; in some mss., Deu 24:14.

I didn't mean for this to be preachy and if it is let me know.... I know people LIKE the Duggars and have heard this type of language all my life, so though I cringe to hear it on national TV and the way it's taken by most who are NOT used to it... I do understand it.

Im_in_PR said...

Well, since the Duggars don't permit ANY dancing (even a 4-year-old jumping around to a music box), any distinctions between the *intent* of the dance are lost on them.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that "intent" could be confused between those two types of dance.....

For example, when I was growing up and got the chance to watch Soul Train, I was not confused at all about what type of dance that was....

Im_in_PR said...

Regarding the was the Duggars speah in regards to using Biblical terms and words, it really isn't so much of a Gothard thing as much as it is using the King James Version of the Bible.

The KJV has an amazing ability to become part of your vocabulary, especially if you practice Scripture memorization, as the Duggar's so.

I have always found that MOST Gothardites are not near as well versed in Scripture as the Duggars are. Gothardites tend to refer to the "Big Red Book" that contains the teachings of Gothard.

Kat said...

Cyn - I don't pretend to be a Bible expert by any means, but I grew up using the KJV, and in all those passages you and Im_in_PR cited, I can understand them in the context of the "usual" meaning of the word defraud. I don't have to contort the definition into some kind of psychic defiling of another's mind through my innocent actions. I agree with Katydid that if the definition of this word as used by the Duggars means putting the responsibility on someone else for *your* interpretation of their actions, then that's a pretty broad leap for the usual and normal usage of the word, even from a Biblical POV. I won't dispute your familiarity with this usage, but most of my relatives are pretty evangelical Christian types, and I have never heard them use "defraud" or "purpose" the way the Duggars do.

Maybe someone should send this in as a question for their next Q&A show.

Somebody's Nana said...

Christina said:
"This is one of the things that bothers me the most about the family, although I love them. I don't believe they do make this distinction. As Kat metntioned, even toddlers moving around does not fall under acceptable standards."

If you feel that something is wrong, you don't let your children do it. To illustrate, a two year old might hit when they're angry. A good parent gently but firmly stops them from hitting so that they learn not to hit. I see Michelle's actions in the same way here.

It's fine not to believe in "sinful" dancing, but I believe they are terribly misguided to believe that all moving around is related to lust.

You have your opinions and your way of raising your children; they have theirs. I doubt that you would change your ways because of the opinions of others.

Michelle and JB also mentioned that they don't have a TV because they couldn't stop themselves from watching it all the time earlier in their marriage. Rather than practice self control, they just ban things altogether, and it really bothers me.

I'm confused. They admit that as adults they had a hard time resisting temptation, so they removed the temptation, but you think they should just let their children have a go at resisting? I doubt you meant to say that, but that is the actual outcome if they just abandon their kids to make decisions on their own. Plenty of people who are non-religious do not have televisions in their home because they do not feel the shows have any redeeming value (for whatever reason) and this situation is no different. You can somewhat object to the fact that they make a living being on television, but they could make the claim that their show has some redeeming value. I think you probably do disagree with them on that point as well.

I didn't choose to raise my children that way, but my half-brothers were raised in this manner. They are actually quite well educated and hardworking young men. Do I agree with all of their positions on things? No. But they don't agree with me as well, and we agree to disagree.

Somebody's Nana said...

This may have been answered before, but I didn't see it. Forgive me if I'm redundant. :)

Anonymous said...
Hmm...The next question I have is, at what point does the "defraudee" (for lack of a better term) claim responsibility for their unwarranted frustrations or unfulfilled desires?

Why, for example, is it the "defrauder's" fault for creating an expection that cannot be fulfilled by dancing or wearing pants? Dancing, for example, might simply be because the Spirit moved you, not trying to attract a mate.


It's not that their view is that someone else is totally responsible for the potential sins of the other, but that they are all responsible for each other. It is of course the individual who sins who is ultimately responsible before God, but they believe that each member of the Christian body (and especially family members) have a duty to help each other avoid temptation. If you have the opportunity to help someone avoid sin, and you don't do it, you are responsible for your lack of help, not for the actual sin itself. I could quote the scriptures they (and other Christians use) but this is not the place. :) The fact that you see the girls as the ones who usually give the "Nike" call is more likely because girls are more observant at that age and quick to follow guidelines than boys are. Also, the fact that the girls don't have the same "code word" is likely because biologically, men are more inclined to be "lookers" than women are. I'm sure if they found that one of their sisters was in fact staring at men, they would institute a similar "code".

Cyn said...

I won't dispute your familiarity with this usage, but most of my relatives are pretty evangelical Christian types, and I have never heard them use "defraud" or "purpose" the way the Duggars do.
*********************

Kat I really really didn't mean to sound superior in ANY way... I was trying to explain why I understood it. I grew up around strict southern baptists and my grandmother used these words in just these ways all my life.

Maybe it's just something in the water the southern baptists drink lol (JOKE) but the ones I grew up with would NOT see even a 4yr old jumping around to music as innocent, because of another saying I heard over and over again "if you give a man an inch he will take a mile" in other words the simple jumping around today COULD turn into something more later on so stop it now before it becomes something different.

The Duggars practice the same things. If it COULD become a problem down the road simply not allowing it to begin with solves the problem in the long run.

BTW I grew up on Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince... and was NOT allowed to bring my radio or cassettes when I visited that side of the family simply to avoid the arguments.

On the other hand with that side of the family I did memorize large chunks of the bible (most of which I can still remember today) and learned my love of long flowing skirts and at 37 still feel half naked if I go outside the house in anything that shows above my knee.

lol But that's just me my brothers and sister do not have these issues at all.

Anonymous said...

Somebody's Nana, yours is the best explanation I've seen. While I still tend to think that Jim Bob & Michelle view the world in terms of black and white, (while I see many, many shades of gray) I do appreciate the insight.

-Katydid

Im_in_PR said...

Kat said I won't dispute your familiarity with this usage, but most of my relatives are pretty evangelical Christian types, and I have never heard them use "defraud" or "purpose" the way the Duggars do.

I've moved from Evangelical circles to a more conservative brand of Baptist, and I never heard any evangelicals such as Southern Baptist even address the issues behind the words "defraud" (as it is defined by Scripture.)

In my observations, it seems that Evangelicals become more like the world to "win" the world, (an example would be their near constant use of rock music in their churches) where as fundamentalist like the Duggars pull further away from the world, especially as they have kids and do not want their kids to be immersed in worldy things.

Which is sort of neat to me, because that is why the Pilgrims left Holland all those years ago. So I do not attach a negative to that mindset.

roddma said...

I understand the Duggar 'defraud 'means to incite lusts that cant be fulfilled.

I think they make blanket rules because it would be hard to keep up with the tv habits of 18 kids. Michelle mentioned being more liberal than the bates one time since the Bates dont allow TV at all. Banning them completely is inane. There are plenty of documentaries children and grown ups can learn from and even cartoons teach lessons.

And if not Whats the harm in watching Flinstones, Scooby Doo, Blues Clues, Sponge Bob, or Jetsons sometimes At least the older teens should have more control over thier lives and be allowed to go online and watch TV> Not all dancing is lude. Why take all the fun out of life? Michelle and JB mentioned listening to rock music.

Anonymous said...

Somebody's Nana - In response to your comment...I do not disagree with their argument for having their show on TV, and I recognize its redeeming value. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I love the Duggars, and I love their show.
I also was not trying to say that they should expose their children to temptation and let them have a go at resisting it. All I was trying to say is that it's fine to disagree with dancing, but I wish they would make a distinction between certain types of dancing or that they would at least explore why they disagree with dancing and what harm it really does to have a toddler moving around. I brought up the TV example because I was trying to point out that just because one part of something can be unhealthy, it doesn't mean the entire thing is. Not all TV is "bad," as evidenced by the Duggar's show. I just wish they could recognize these things sometimes. I'm not saying they should throw temptation in front of their childrens' faces, but I'm saying that I wish they would allow their children (and themselves) to see the difference between things, such as "bad" television and "good" television, like their show, and "bad" dancing and "good" dancing, such as worship dancing, rather than writing the whole thing off as sinful. They still sing, although most songs do not contain godly lyrics. They still read books, although most books are not about God. Why can't they do the same for dancing and just choose not to participate in certain types, while still allowing their toddlers to "jump for joy?"
I think you misunderstood me, because I really, really love the Duggars.
-Christina

Anonymous said...

I think the point people are trying to make is that the Duggars don't have to love dancing or TV, but it doesn't make sense that they pick and choose what to allow their kids to do or what they don't believe in. If they don't want to dance they don't have to, but why is it that they single out dancing and "correct" an innocent toddler and have a show on TV, which proves that some TV shows aren't harmful, yet they don't seem to believe in watching TV at all, even though they are proof that not all TV is the same?

Bubbles said...

From I'm in PR's post:
1. To deprive of right, either by obtaining something by deception or artifice, or by taking something wrongfully without the knowledge or consent of the owner; to cheat; to cozen; followed by of before the thing taken; as, to defraud; a man of his right.

To me I see the use of the word in this context to mean people who are dressed immodestly could be defrauded by others, as in, others taking pleasure from viewing them without their knowledge. In this context it is both teaching self control & showing respect for others.

Anonymous said...

The Duggars seem like a nice family, there are some things I may not agree with but otherwise live and let live.
I still laugh at to this day is when Michelle and Jim Bob commented about how their latest baby was conceived on Father's Day.
My parents,grandmother and myself could not stop laughing when my 85 year old grandmother said" they do not allow television or dancing in their home, but it is okay for them to announce to the world and their children they were having sex on Father's Day? How gross is that!!"

Sandie said...

I do not watch this show (I don't watch a lot of tv).

I got sucked into the 'other' family almost a year ago due to some of my kid's telling me how mean 'this mom was'...which led me to the other site, which led me to this one.
I started reading the comments on both sites to see opinions on both families, from people that watch the shows.

Since so many are now saying that reality tv is harmful to children (and I agree), the best thing for everyone to do is to stop watching all reality shows involving children.

In the end, you are putting their best interests ahead of the viewer's entertainment satisfaction.

I am far from perfect, but once you know that it is wrong for minors to be on reality tv (whether you like the family or not), you are furthering their exploitation. Right?

The best thing all viewers can do, is turn off the tv and play a game with their own children. Why do we as a society have to watch another family interact for some sort of emotional satisfaction?? The whole thing puzzles me. It does not speak well of our society.

Anonymous said...

One thing that bothers me about the Duggar's sellout to TLC is that I don't think the family realizes how much they are being mocked or made fun of by the network. I know they obviously have good relationships with the producers to some extent, as evidenced by one of the producers (Scott, I think?) bringing his girls to play with the Duggars, and I know Sean Overbeek makes friendly comments on cousin Amy's Facebook page. I also know that the point of the show is to show the contrast between the Duggars and other families, or there wouldn't be much of a show. So, some of the comparisons shown in the little text box in the corner are understandable, but sometimes I think they go over the top.

I wonder what the Duggars think when they watch their show, like they did on James's birthday. Some of the shots they take, such as cutting to their faces whenever they see someone dancing (although I agree that their reactions in the Ethiopian restaurant, for example were rude)seem to be just to make the Duggars seem even more "odd." The most recent example I noticed is the title of the episode "Jump for Joy." This is the phrase one of the girls used to describe one of the younger boy's behavior when the producers asked whether or not he was dancing.
I just don't see how the Duggars don't realize the extent of how they are being made fun of or mocked by the network. Maybe they wouldn't care if they did know, and maybe they expected it. However, I just feel a little bad for them and wonder if they think can really be that naive to not notice that their show that they believe will "encourage" others is really painting them in a different light than they probably had in mind.

I know the producers can't edit IN things that didn't actually happen (such as the faces during the dancing), and I completely understand TLC's side, or there wouldn't be much of a show, but I just don't see how the Duggars don't realize how biased the presentation is.
-Christina

Kat said...

Cyn - No offense, didn't see you as claiming "superiority" of any kind. Just baffled, because half of my family lives/comes from very near to where the Duggars live, so I would've expected to hear that language from them if it was common. But they were/are southern Methodists, not Baptists - maybe that's the difference! LOL...

Im_in_PR - I wasn't trying to attach any "negative" connotation to their use of these words, but just trying to figure out exactly what they *meant* by them, as the usual definition of the words did not seem applicable in their context, and they've never explained what these words mean to them. I'm a writer, so when a word is used in a context that is unfamiliar to me, I'm intrigued and want to understand.

Anonymous said...

On other threads, there have been discussions about violence, laser tag and how the boys play with toy guns. Some people say they don't believe it is harmful for children to play with toy guys or play laser tag. I understand the argument, BUT, on the episode where the family goes to the elementary school, the producers ask the kids what they want to be when they grow up. Justin or Jackson said "I want to be a police officer, because they get to shoot guns." Hmmmm... there was something VERY disturbing about such a young kid (maybe 4?) saying that. My kids would have no idea what a gun was at that age.

Anonymous said...

To add to my previous comment, when the kids at the elementary school were dancing, Michelle said "They are probably trying to get their energy out. I do other things to get my kids' energy out." Yeah, like having them run around with guns!

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the Duggar girls learned to play the piano. I just watched a video of Jana playing the piano, and they are all really good piano players. Some are also pretty good at violin. Does Michelle play the piano, or do they allow the girls to take private lessons from someone else? Just curious. I find it interesting that they have learned something so difficult and technical as reading and playing music, yet from the impression we get, they seem to learn everything from their parents and in their own home.

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering what kinds of rights the kids have in terms of not being filmed if they don't want to be.

I was watching a rerun of the episode from earlier this year when Jana and Jill had their wisdom teeth taken out.

I was surprised at how much they allowed to be filmed, specially with the way Jill was breaking down and didn't want to do it.

I had my wisdom teeth taken out less than a month ago and I didn't want to be seen by even my immediate family for the first few days, much less being seen by possibly millions of people.

So do they have rights? Can the kids say "hey, I don't want this filmed"?

Seems like Jill probably would have said no, if she had a choice of being filmed or not.

Are they going the route of the Gosselins and not caring about their children's personal, private moments?

Sarah said...

Duggar sighting: Today at the Sarah Palin book signing in Fayetteville. I was not there but my friend was. Apparently the whole lot of the Duggars were there (I have seen some of them, usually the older girls only, at Sam's Club before). They bypassed the whole line.

Sarah said...

And I forgot to add, my friend shook Jim Bob's hand and received a Christmas card from them. It is a photo of them in their kitchen with violins with their web address and reference to Proverbs 3:5-6.

Anonymous said...

I think the Duggar's belief goes way beyond any sort of Southern Baptist teachings. If you Google the "Patriarchy Movement" its very eye opening and you can see a great deal of this "movement" reflected in the Duggars life choices.

-Blue

Diane said...

I think that I have seen a music teacher come into the home (also dressed in a long skirt, so probably another Gothardite). Not to knock the Duggars' music, since I do think it is pretty impressive that they have tried to have the kids learn instruments, but the level of play is pretty low, both on piano and violin. Yes, they play, but no one plays at all well.

I still like that the family includes music in their lives, although I wish they could dance or listen to any music with a beat, including Christian music.

And to the poster who asked if the kids have a choice in being filmed, I doubt it. Would any of us want some of the moments they have filmed on TV (example: Jill's teeth, or Jana's mortified look as her father pulled her down the slip-n-slide when she was wearing that awful modest bathing suit)? The only people who are certainly acting of free will are Jim Bob and Josh (who certainly made the choice to have his daughter's birth filmed at home, although it compromised their family's privacy during one of the most intimate moments possible)...

CappuccinoLife said...

"Justin or Jackson said "I want to be a police officer, because they get to shoot guns." Hmmmm... there was something VERY disturbing about such a young kid (maybe 4?) saying that. My kids would have no idea what a gun was at that age."

lol. To me, that comment was just boy-talk. Their younger set of children makes me laugh all the time, they are so much like my kids. They don't know what they're saying. They're not disturbed or twisted kids.

This morning my two year old took his magic marker and fashioned it into a gun. When he was 1, long before he'd seen anything like it on movies, he picked up a stick and took up the classic fencing stance, and ever after has begged anyone near by to "swordfight" with him. We are not violence-loving people, we've never played laser tag, or paintball, we own no video games and their TV watching is primarily PBS kid stuff. And yet they will make *anything* into a weapon.

I'm sure many people who disagree strongly with the Duggar's on many other issues would disagree with your assessment of laser-tag and gun play being disturbing. Since the Duggar's aren't pacifists, or anti-war, or anti-military (as far as I know), there's no reason to expect that they'd take a guns-are-evil approach in raising their children.

Im_in_PR said...

I think the Duggar's belief goes way beyond any sort of Southern Baptist teachings. If you Google the "Patriarchy Movement" its very eye opening and you can see a great deal of this "movement" reflected in the Duggars life choices.

-Blue


They show some slight signs of being influenced by some aspects of the "Patriarchy Movement." But their biggest influence seems to be Gothard first, and then Independent Fundamental Baptist leanings, second.

I suspect that the majority of Southern Baptist today would not at all identify themselves as fundamentalists, but the IFB's would, and gladly so.

The Patriarchal Movement contains different Christian denominations, some conservative Presbyterians, but mostly Baptists and home-church folks. They are loosely connected in most senses and they usually share the identifying tag of "Calvinist."

Most Independent Fundamental Baptist are not Calvinistic. Some Southern Baptist are.

Doug Phillips is considered something of a leader amongst the Patriarchal movement.

Im_in_PR said...

To add to my previous comment, when the kids at the elementary school were dancing, Michelle said "They are probably trying to get their energy out. I do other things to get my kids' energy out." Yeah, like having them run around with guns!

In the South, a kid running around playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians with play guns is very common.

Im_in_PR said...

Kat said Im_in_PR - I wasn't trying to attach any "negative" connotation to their use of these words, but just trying to figure out exactly what they *meant* by them, as the usual definition of the words did not seem applicable in their context, and they've never explained what these words mean to them. I'm a writer, so when a word is used in a context that is unfamiliar to me, I'm intrigued and want to understand.

I am sorry if I left the impression that I thought YOU attached a negative to the separatist mindset!! I just get so accustomed to defending the idea that I like to throw in the Pilgrims and WHY they came here every once in a while just to remind folks. :-)

I thoroughly enjoy discussing these issues. So thanks for your input!

Im_in_PR said...

They bypassed the whole line.

Ok, now that's just wrong.

Cyn said...

Im_in_PR said...

They bypassed the whole line.

Ok, now that's just wrong.
12/03/2009 6:06 PM


Depends... if the Camera's were there Sams club may have just wanted them out of there so they could get back to NORMAL working conditions.... it's IS Christmas after all....

OR
Years ago when I had a Sams club card you could upgrade it to a different type of card that would let you "slide ahead" of the rest... Actually it was just a different kind of line that you had to pay extra for.... Now I dunno if the Duggars would pay the extra money or if Sams still has that option but it could be either case.

NOW if there were no cameras and there is no longer that special card then yeah I would agree... Cutting line is just WRONG I don't care how many people you have in your 'party' wait in line with the rest of us.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous (Christina) said: In response to your comment...I do not disagree with their argument for having their show on TV, and I recognize its redeeming value. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I love the Duggars, and I love their show.

Sorry to misunderstand you. I've only just begun to sort out the different anonymous writers. :)

I also was not trying to say that they should expose their children to temptation and let them have a go at resisting it. All I was trying to say is that it's fine to disagree with dancing, but I wish they would make a distinction between certain types of dancing or that they would at least explore why they disagree with dancing and what harm it really does to have a toddler moving around.

Dancing seems to be a touchpoint with many people. And while I agree with many of you, I was simply trying to express it from their perspective as I was raised with the same rules.

I brought up the TV example because I was trying to point out that just because one part of something can be unhealthy, it doesn't mean the entire thing is. Not all TV is "bad," as evidenced by the Duggar's show. I just wish they could recognize these things sometimes.

To be fair to the Duggars, there have been a lot of people who can't see the different variations in other spheres. Some people are astounded that they are modest, yet seem to celebrate sex (I'm not saying it's you - just using this as an example) and criticize them for it. Yet the Bible celebrates sex within marriage and forbids it outside of marriage, something that most people in today's world find hard to grasp. That is their viewpoint.

I'm not saying they should throw temptation in front of their childrens' faces, but I'm saying that I wish they would allow their children (and themselves) to see the difference between things, such as "bad" television and "good" television, like their show, and "bad" dancing and "good" dancing, such as worship dancing, rather than writing the whole thing off as sinful. They still sing, although most songs do not contain godly lyrics. They still read books, although most books are not about God. Why can't they do the same for dancing and just choose not to participate in certain types, while still allowing their toddlers to "jump for joy?"
I think you misunderstood me, because I really, really love the Duggars.
-Christina


I think they don't allow their children to dance because they don't view ANY dancing as acceptable. I know that you and I can disagree and find scripture to back us up, but the truth is that they don't see it that way. I was even taught as a child that the word "dance" in the Bible didn't mean dancing in the way we do today. A weak explanation, and hermeneutically (the science of interpreting the scriptures) wrong, but it's what they believe.

I too, like the Duggars.

Somebody's Nana said...

Diane said: Not to knock the Duggars' music, since I do think it is pretty impressive that they have tried to have the kids learn instruments, but the level of play is pretty low, both on piano and violin. Yes, they play, but no one plays at all well.

I still like that the family includes music in their lives, although I wish they could dance or listen to any music with a beat, including Christian music.


I agree with all of your points. Many of us learned an instrument but never learned it well - learning to read music is a good thing, either way. (wish I had more talent!)

As to the music, I get frustrated with those who hold to only singing hymns myself - there is so much more really good music with lyrics that are actually more Biblical than some of the hymns, yet it is ignored as too modern.

The other thing that really bothers me is that very few of them realize that many of the old hymns were set to folk music, meaning that some of the music itself was actually sung with other words in pubs, etc. Putting new words to familiar music is an age-old way of introducing new concepts to illiterate people - music was easy to remember.

Following strict rules without examining them doesn't make any sense.

Im_in_PR said...

Interesting interview with the Duggars in which they speak about some of the things they forsee for their children, their future and education.

http://www.lilsugar.com/2727153

Im_in_PR said...

Somebody's Nana said...The other thing that really bothers me is that very few of them realize that many of the old hymns were set to folk music, meaning that some of the music itself was actually sung with other words in pubs, etc.

HI Nana, I thought I might interject an argument regarding whether or not bar music was used for traditional hymns, like the Duggars use. But I found that this gentleman has stated it so much better than I!“Why should the World have all the good tunes?

Somebody's Nana said...

Im_in_PR said...
Interesting interview with the Duggars in which they speak about some of the things they forsee for their children, their future and education.

http://www.lilsugar.com/2727153


Thanks for the link! I have a better idea of what Michelle is like from that. If I can take it at face value, I think TLC is losing something in the translation! Maybe if they didn't try to point out all the differences between the Duggars and the "real world" it would be better. Ya think? :)

Somebody's Nana said...

Im_in_PR said:Somebody's Nana said...The other thing that really bothers me is that very few of them realize that many of the old hymns were set to folk music, meaning that some of the music itself was actually sung with other words in pubs, etc.

HI Nana, I thought I might interject an argument regarding whether or not bar music was used for traditional hymns, like the Duggars use. But I found that this gentleman has stated it so much better than I!
“Why should the World have all the good tunes?"

That'll teach me to make a point without having my facts in front of me! :) I've heard all that before, but other historians dispute it as well. I also distinctly remember an attribution in my church hymnal listing the melody as "traditional marching tune" etc. Unfortunately, the hymnal that could back me up has disappeared in several recent moves.

But read the article you posted. Along the way, people objected to anything new. What was "old" or "current" was considered "good". New tunes suspect. So I still have a problem with the Duggars' (to bring it back to topic!) dogmatic stand against anything but hymns. That isn't to say that I think Christian rock is worship music - but that doesn't make it evil either.

Keep challenging me - I love it. Love the discussions, too.

Cyn said...

Im_in_PR said...

Somebody's Nana said...The other thing that really bothers me is that very few of them realize that many of the old hymns were set to folk music, meaning that some of the music itself was actually sung with other words in pubs, etc.

HI Nana, I thought I might interject an argument regarding whether or not bar music was used for traditional hymns, like the Duggars use. But I found that this gentleman has stated it so much better than I!“Why should the World have all the good tunes?

12/03/2009 7:16 PM

******************************
Though I agree Luther did NOT write words to "bar" or "tavern" music...

The SOUTH has been singing folk hymns for forever ;) (the Bates sing lots of them on the Local TV broadcast called Ciderville Music) =

http://www.arts.state.ms.us/crossroads/music/sacred_harp/mu4_text.html

this one lists books written about southern folk hymns = http://www.loc.gov/folklife/guides/BibShapeNote.html

There are others sites they just make you either buy the book OR pay to read the rest of the article. Simply Google "southern folk hymns" OR "southern shape-note hymns"

luvmybabies said...

Thanks for the link, ImInPr. That really was an elightening interview. This family really is amazing. It was interesting to hear about their philosphy of when their children will leave home.

It answers the questions about college for their kids. You know, although I'm a huge college advocate, I see their point. They're non-traditional, and there are valid and productive ways to earn a living without college. I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to get my nursing degree, that I'm still paying for. But then I think of my friend who spent three months getting a real estate license and made more money in one year than I could make in three. (probably couldn't happen with the way the real estate market is now, but this is an example). Or my sister-in-law who earned an education degree but doesn't use it - instead she sells laser hair-removal packages at a laser clinic and makes nearly six figures a year doing it. Michelle says that her girls are go-getters and could provide for themselves if they wanted or needed to - I believe that. They aren't doomed to lives of drudgery and no choices because they aren't in college right now.

Jill's answer to the question of "the older girls raising their siblings" was beautiful - it brought tears to my eyes. What a sweetheart.

Samantha said...

What people seem to constantly forget or not know is that only about 25% of the jobs in the country require a college degree. Pushing all children to want to go to college or to feel that they must is doing a disservice to many who don't have the desire or ability and either feel put down or waste time and money needlessly. I'd like to think that if a child truly wanted to go to college the Duggars would help them find a way to go and I'd like to see the kids doing more things like starting business ventures but I don't think they all need to be bustled off to college either.

sandra said...

Samantha said...

What people seem to constantly forget or not know is that only about 25% of the jobs in the country require a college degree. Pushing all children to want to go to college or to feel that they must is doing a disservice to many who don't have the desire or ability and either feel put down or waste time and money needlessly. I'd like to think that if a child truly wanted to go to college the Duggars would help them find a way to go and I'd like to see the kids doing more things like starting business ventures but I don't think they all need to be bustled off to college either.
_______________

I never saw a college degree HURT anyone's ability to get a job. NOT having one certainly dampers an ability to get a job that extends benefits...
as a mother of several teenagers and some older, yes, they ARE required to get a college degree..one has a degree, one is working on one, another kid is headed off to college next year...and the others will follow.

college isn't just about finding a job..it is about discovering who you are and becoming independent from your family, among other things.
I would cringe to think who I would be, if I hadn't attended college..it helped mold who I am today.

Mrs. Nesh said...

"I think the point people are trying to make is that the Duggars don't have to love dancing or TV, but it doesn't make sense that they pick and choose what to allow their kids to do or what they don't believe in. "
===============================
That's what parents do...they make judgments on what they feel is appropriate or inappropriate for their children. So if something doesn't align with their values, why would they allow it? So that YOU can feel comfortable with it?

Your "point" doesn't make sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I have seen a college degree hurt someone's ability to get a job. They weren't highly qualified in the field of their choice and with the degree couldn't get into much of anything else because employers thought they'd leave soon. That happened repeatedly at my last job.

Also because your kids are college material doesn't make it right for anyone else's. All of my children have advanced degrees. That doesn't mean yours or anyone else's should also.

I believe the other poster's point is that the Duggars can become qualified for 75% of the job market without going to college so it isn't the huge, huge deal some people make it out to be.

DianeD. said...

I cringe everytime I see the Duggars singing or playing their instruments. It's like they are little robots with wind-up keys in their backs. While they may have some technical proficiency, there's no heart or soul behind their music. They're not allowed to move or sway to their own notes. There's just no expression, and it's like they are playing because they have to.

Diane said...

I don't think the point is whether or not the kids go to college, although I am a strong believer in higher education. The point is that the Duggar older teens seem to have nothing at all towards which they are aspiring at the moment. It doesn't matter if they want to be a chef or midwife or plumber or surgeon. There are many important and interesting jobs that don't require a college degree.

But I would like to see even one of those kids pursuing SOMETHING, aside from the care of Michelle's children (which can't be considered an independent pursuit, since they all "fell into those jobs" without much of a choice!). The fact is that we don't see any of them express any interest in anything (or the previously expressed interests, like John David's piloting or Jana's midwifery, have gone nowhere). They should be exploring interests now, at this point in their lives, but there is no incentive or encouragement from their parents.

I doubt any of them will go to college, and it certainly isn;t the case that 19 children will be better off without college degrees. Without any marketable skills or trades, it is highly possible that a whole bunch of those kids could end up on public assistance.

Im_in_PR said...

Nana said I also distinctly remember an attribution in my church hymnal listing the melody as "traditional marching tune" etc.

Hi S. Nana, I fully believe that some older hymns were set to traditional marching music. :-)

Anonymous said...

Regarding the topic of college, I agree that whether or not they actually go to college isn't exactly the point - just that they are pursuing something. Maybe they are - we don't see EVERYTHING they do.
Anyway... I have very strong feelings about the college thing. I went to a private university and graduated with a Bachelor's degree, but because of my school schedule, I didn't have a job. I have no skills other than my degree. No one will hire me because of my lack of job experience. Plenty of people have degrees. I honestly believe they are overrated. Of course they are helpful in moving up and being promoted to certain positions, but a person can certainly be succesful without having a college degree. It's been my experience so far that employers would rather hire someone who has a verifiable work history and less education than I do than me, who has a Bachelor's degree but no work experience. I have plenty of friends who did not go to college but have worked since high school at jobs that did not require a degree, and they have quite a bit of money saved up at this point, while I'm in massive amounts of debt. College isn't for everyone, and if they Duggars have ambitions that don't require college, then I don't think it's a big deal if they don't choose to go, although I agree that they should do SOMETHING, and I'm sure they will.
-Christina

Anonymous said...

a prior poster said: " Michelle says that her girls are go-getters and could provide for themselves if they wanted or needed to - I believe that."

What skills do those girls have that they could provide for themselves? They are go-getters? In what field or occupation?

They like to cook, but that doesn't make them chefs. They need additional training beyond the dining-room-table-school to be a chef.

They can do laundry, change diapers, and give home-perms ("because Jim Bob likes their hair that way") but that doesn't constitute much of a resume.

Anonymous said...

I'm watching the episode where the family goes to the ATI conference. JB is talking about autographing a girl's hairspray bottle, and he said that before he used loads of hairspray "every hour on the hour, I used to be looking in the mirror fixing my hair and making sure it looked good." He's the one who seems like a narcissist to me.

Cyn said...

Anonymous said...

What skills do those girls have that they could provide for themselves? They are go-getters? In what field or occupation?

They like to cook, but that doesn't make them chefs. They need additional training beyond the dining-room-table-school to be a chef.

They can do laundry, change diapers, and give home-perms ("because Jim Bob likes their hair that way") but that doesn't constitute much of a resume.
*****************
Their work ethics alone and willingness to actually WORK and not just collect a paycheck would get them hired at 95% of first time job places (ie Fast food, Restaurants, Grocery stores and things like that) and with that same work ethic combined with a 'go getter' attitude I would predict they would be managers of the store in less than 2 years and regional managers in less than 5 years.

The girls alone could be hired as nannies or au pairs and make some serious money.

They could start several different kinds businesses like house cleaning services, girl Friday services, simply caring for the elderly in their homes. (not medically but having helped take care of g'pa in the later stages of his cancer would have given them the experience)

Lots of elderly people just need some one to come check on them, help clean up the house, make home cooked meals, and just be company for them. (think meals on wheels, shut-ins)

Owning those kinds of business can make in to the 6 figure incomes.

Josh already runs his own towing business and THOSE tend to make a really nice incomes as well.

The list goes on and on, with "simple domestic" skills. With a little creativity and a willingness to WORK they do NOT need college to succeed.

BTW Bill Gates dropped OUT of college and look where he is now. Thomas Jefferson schooled himself and we all know how he turned out. Mary Kay Ash of the Mary Kay cosmetics didn't attend college either she got her skills for selling selling books door to door.

The United States is full of people they either by choice or design did not get a degree and went on to make themselves highly successful.

Anonymous said...

On going to college...

I don't believe college is right for everyone, but I do believe everyone should get SOME kind of training that provides them with a specfic skill or certification that will get them a job. For some people this does mean going to a four year college. For others, it means going to community college, vocational school, or doing an apprenticeship/journeyman's program. We don't see any of the Duggars doing this. They may talk about how some of their kids have showed an interest in this or that, but none of the kids who have finished high school have actually started any kind of job-training program. I worry about their futures.

Also, just because some people go into debt, doesn't mean you HAVE to go into debt to get a degree. I am currently 2 semesters away from having my master's degree and I don't have a single penny of college debt. In fact, the money for the remainder of my tuition is sitting in the savings account. All it takes is wise choices: going to public rather than private schools, living at home with mom and dad instead of going away when possible, working while going to school, only going part-time (in grad school when you pay by the credit hour, rather than the semester), and living within your means. It's possible. I've done it.

On the Duggars no dancing/extremely limiited TV...

I respect that parents want to protect young children from negative influences. However, as children get older they need to be taught how to discern between what is negative and positive by themselves so they can make good choices as an adult. Instead of saying, "Dancing is bad! All dancing is a slippery slope!" I wish the Duggars would teach their children to look at things and use the wisdom God has given them to determine if it is negative. By the time a kid is a certain age they should be able to say, "Hm, is there harm in the hokey-pokey? The electric slide? Ball room dancing?" or "Is there harm in watching the local news? Hannah Montana? Law and Order?" By teaching children how to make these distinctions, instead of just making a blanket restriction, they are better prepared to make wise choices. I can honestly say that in most areas my parents used they "teach kids how to make wise choices" approach, but there was one area where they used the "blanket restriction" approach and that is the area where I spun out of control as a young adult because I had no idea how to handle it.

Just my thoughts! Thanks for letting me share!
Emily

Somebody's Nana said...

Cyn said:Though I agree Luther did NOT write words to "bar" or "tavern" music...

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I never even mentioned Luther at all. I mentioned "hymns" and Luther is not the only writer of hymns. Just wanted to set the record straight

Cyn said...

Nana...

I know you didn't say it was Luther. Im_in_PR's comment was talking about Luther and that comment included some of yours. It was actually a response to his(?).

I knew LUTHER didn't do it but I did know that several Hymns I grew up singing in church were also folk songs.

It must be those hollers full of relatives that taught them to me ;) I grew up in the foothills of Appalachia mountains in TN.

pumpkin said...

The Duggars have four kids with birthdays this month... we should get some future episode material out of the assorted happy occasions.

Jinger, Jedidiah, Jerimiah, and Jordyn-Grace.

I hope they give the kids a chance to enjoy their special day and don't lump them together in one group party. I would have been annoyed to have my Sweet Sixteen shared with my one year old baby sister, but that's just me.

Safety First said...

"The girls alone could be hired as nannies or au pairs and make some serious money."

I wouldn't hire anyone to be a nanny when I've watched that person on national tv (Jill) allow a handful of very young children to lean over an open oven door while she (Jill) was taking brownies out of the oven.

What's more important, the brownies or the children?

luvmybabies said...

a prior poster said: " Michelle says that her girls are go-getters and could provide for themselves if they wanted or needed to - I believe that."

What skills do those girls have that they could provide for themselves? They are go-getters? In what field or occupation?

They like to cook, but that doesn't make them chefs. They need additional training beyond the dining-room-table-school to be a chef.

They can do laundry, change diapers, and give home-perms ("because Jim Bob likes their hair that way") but that doesn't constitute much of a resume."

I agree with everything Cyn said to counter this...My point was that Michelle was saying her girls have a good work ethic and a go-getter attitude which means they could achieve whatever they want or need to do in the future. She wasn't saying that they currently have a specific skill or trade that can instantly be turned into money - although Cyn's impressive list of entrepreneurial possibilities could be accomplished with what they currently do have.

Also, for how many people there are who give lip service to saying that stay-at-home moms have the most important job and it's totally respected, etc...It doesn't seem like many of these same people truly believe that inside. If that were true, then why are we upset that the Duggar girls' skills lie in this area? I will say that as a registered nurse I managed the care for up to 25 critical people at a time, managed other nurses, and dealt with numerous life-or-death situations - and it wasn't nearly as challenging (in more ways than one) as the career I have now as a home manager homeschooling seven children. This is just my observations and persepctive.


Also, to the poster who commented that some of the 19 kids will likely end up on public assistance without "marketable skills or trades"...do you really think this family fits the profile of people likely to use public assitance? No way...this family values work, self-sufficiency, frugality and serving others. People who value those things rarely, if ever, end up on public assistance. They're most often the ones giving assistance.

Cyn said...

Safety First said...

"The girls alone could be hired as nannies or au pairs and make some serious money."

I wouldn't hire anyone to be a nanny when I've watched that person on national tv (Jill) allow a handful of very young children to lean over an open oven door while she (Jill) was taking brownies out of the oven.

What's more important, the brownies or the children?
*******************************

Since I saw that SAME girl tell the children repeatedly to back up or you will get burned. I also saw her gently push those same children back away from the oven door several times either.

That same girl (I can't remember her name) was going out that night to babysit and has been babysitting for years.

Im_in_PR said...

I knew LUTHER didn't do it but I did know that several Hymns I grew up singing in church were also folk songs.

Interestingly enough, many folk songs in Appalachia were found in the common hymnody of the time. During the pre-civil war days most gatherings were at church, so you had the most singing taking place at church.

Then of course the advent of the radio started to change that.

Jane in California said...

I will offer my thoughts as to why I think encouraging children to seek higher education is so important.

Look around at our economy - it is in shambles. Sadly, a lot of the manufacturing work that used to be done in the U.S. is done in other countries now. The middle class is shrinking, because a lot of blue collar jobs are going, going, gone.

A college degree is no guarantee of a job anymore either, as many college graduates are painfully learning.

However, a higher education of some kind is a valuable thing. Every child has strengths and interests - and the opportunity to grow in those areas should be encouraged. The more education and training you have, the more flexible you will become in this changing job market. I am also having my child learn other languages, so that if he needs to leave the U.S. for a better job market in another country, maybe he'll be one step ahead by knowing two or three languages.

I don't want my son qualified for working in a used car lot and not much else. If I had a daughter, I would most definitely want her to be able to earn her own living, knowing that life is uncertain, husbands can lose their jobs, or sometimes two incomes are better than one. Why wouldn't I want my child to have more options, rather than less?

That's the practical. Now for the less practical but equally important reasons I feel strongly about college, etc. It is such a wonderful opportunity for a 19-25 year old to spread his or her wings - be exposed to all sorts of new people, cultures and beliefs, to have the opportunity to learn new things, learn what life is like outside of the protective wing of mom and dad, prepare for the "real world," gain a degree in the process, and grow as a human being.

It's a big world out there -- I had the opportunity to be a college student and enjoy that experience and it's like no other. My son is so bright, he will succeed at anything he puts his mind to -- but I am going to be sure he is given the tools so that he can pick and choose his path. I want his options to be many, not few. I am not afraid of him spreading his wings and flying away -- he is not mine to keep, only mine to raise and to love, no matter what.

mamawama said...

I don't think it is wrong for the Duggars to allow no tv or no dancing. Ninety percent of what is on TV is negative. Think of all the murders, sex, and alcohol that you see even in COMMERCIALS! On the Disney Channel you can watch 12 yo's make out. TV is also a time waster. Think of all the hours the Duggars are NOT wasting by sitting there looking at a screen. Their kids have an imagination.

Where would you draw the line on dancing? If colonial line dances are ok? Why not line dances like electric slide? It is hard to find just the right place to draw the line, so they just don't allow it.

The Duggars don't worship education like many in our country. Most colleges today have a liberal slant. TCU, near me, is teaching a class this semester in vampires. That is a PRIVATE CHRISTIAN college. I don't blame the Duggars at all for not sending their children there.

If they Duggars did everything suggested in this thread, they would be just regular people with rebellious teenagers, and out of control screaming toddlers. What would be interesting in watching that?

I think the fact that their way is working makes people nervous.

Nancy said...

Although college isn't for everyone, I think that it would be nice if the Duggar kids got the opportunity to go visit colleges, vocational schools, etc. and see what they have to offer. Then they could decide if they were interested or not in pursuing anything there. I don't think anyone is denigrating the position of homemaker or mother but what if there is something else they would like to do as well? What if they can't have a child for some reason? I liked being a stay home Mom and I like working. I think it's just sad that they aren't able to decide for themselves (the way Michelle chose this lifestyle).

J Stone said...

As a southerner, I think I might be able to shed some light on some of the questions upthread.

A four-year-old with a toy gun is very common in the south. Getting to go to the woods for deer hunting for a youngster (both boys and girls) is a rite of passage here. When a child shoots his or her first deer, there's even a kind of ceremony that takes place called "blooding."

In addition, LOTS of law abiding citizens are armed. That's true for men and women here. A doctor friend told me that the discussion on the hospital floor turned to guns recently, and everyone started pulling guns out of purses, briefcases, etc. Our capitol city has a high crime rate and our state has a castle law, so we carry.

I know many people disagree with this idea, but it's really a part of our culture in the south. Guns are used for hunting and for protection. Many people view it as a constitutional issue, as well. In fact, my neighbor has a bumper sticker that reads, "Fear the government that fears your guns."

---continued in next post---

J Stone said...

As far as the Duggars use of the words "purposed" and "defraud", I was raised Southern Baptist and I had NEVER heard those words used in that way before I heard the Duggars use the words. (As an English teacher, using "purpose" as a verb is bothersome to me. But it's not as bad as "prioritize" :-). Why not just use "aimed", a more common expression?)

Southern Baptists were very opposed to dancing when I was growing up, though I understand that there is less focus on this idea now. I once heard a pastor refer to dancing as "a vertical expression of a horizontal idea."

Apparently the Duggars are Baptist, but not traditional Southern Baptist. The long skirts and long hair are seen more around here amongst Pentecostal religions. My sense is that the Duggars are some mix of the two, with a little Gothard and Quiverful thrown in.

Enough with the Multiples said...

Regarding the kids futures/professions:
I think it will be very interesting to see what all 19 kids grow up to do. I hope TLC follows them in one way or another, if only as a occasional special.

However, I have serious doubts that all 19 kids will be able to follow their parents' lifestyle and manage as well economically. I think Jim Bob and Michelle are an exception. I would really like to see how Josh manages to support a super-sized family on his car business. I think the Duggars downplay education a bit too much and rely way too much on experiences obtained through a limited circle of people. So far both Josh and John David are following in Jim Bob's old career paths. And can Jim Bob really find family run businesses for all 10 boys??? While it might work for some, I think that in the long run, they might be more sucessful if they started out with more formal training through a technical/trade school or employement with an already established business.

Im_in_PR said...

I would really like to see how Josh manages to support a super-sized family on his car business.

Josh stated (on which ever morning news show he and Anna were on) that they would be happy with 2 or 3 and that they would certainly not try and set any records.

Im_in_PR said...

JStone said "Apparently the Duggars are Baptist, but not traditional Southern Baptist. The long skirts and long hair are seen more around here amongst Pentecostal religions. My sense is that the Duggars are some mix of the two, with a little Gothard and Quiverful thrown in."

Doctrinally speaking, and dress code speaking, they have far more in common with Independent Fundamental Baptist, a loose group, if you could even call them that, that either formed on their own (as a local IFB here did) or pulled out of the Southern Baptist Convention due to its liberal bent.Most IFB's use the KJV Bible, lots of them homeschool, and their dress code can lean to modest dressing. They also tend to stick with traditional hymns and do not for the most part partake in the modern rock/worship music favored by Southern Baptist.

Independent Baptist believe that salvation is by grace alone, and that once saved, someone is always saved, unlike the Pentacostals.

Doctrinally, Pentacostals believe you can lose your salvation, and they usually do not wear make up. So as far as beliefs go, the Duggars are very far removed from Pentacostals, except for wearing dresses.

Interestingly enough, Gothardism spreads across denominations, with many different groups taking part and following his big red book. The same can be said for Quiverfulls.

MomOfThree said...

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the Duggar girls learned to play the piano. I just watched a video of Jana playing the piano, and they are all really good piano players. Some are also pretty good at violin. Does Michelle play the piano, or do they allow the girls to take private lessons from someone else?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On page 192/193/194, Michelle explains the childrens' music lessons. The Duggar family piano lessons were begun when Josh was six years old. Later on violin lessons were added for each child, then harp lessons for some of the girls. All are taught by folks outside of the family. Michelle tells us that a church member was offering piano lessons at half price for others attending the same church. (The Duggars have stated on many occasions that they "home church" but apparently, at one point, were members of a church
congregation.)

BTW, this is an instance, IMO, of them contradicting themselves, this time their "thriftiness". I understand that with all those children corners must be cut somewhere, but oftentimes I question the family's logic as to what. In this case, unless one of my kids showed great promise, personally, I could not justify doling out money for music lessons (even at half price) while my children walked around in thrift store shoes and clothes and were buckled into yard sale car seats. I know this is what these kids were raised on and the "buy-used,-save-the-difference" mantra is ingrained in them, but even one of the little boys once said he didn't like to wear "out-of-style" clothes that sometimes were found at the second hand stores.

Just my two cents, but it seems Jim Bob and Michelle are very frugal with certain spending and not so with others.

Anonymous said...

mamawama said...

I don't think it is wrong for the Duggars to allow no tv or no dancing. Ninety percent of what is on TV is negative. Think of all the murders, sex, and alcohol that you see even in COMMERCIALS! On the Disney Channel you can watch 12 yo's make out. TV is also a time waster. Think of all the hours the Duggars are NOT wasting by sitting there looking at a screen. Their kids have an imagination.

Where would you draw the line on dancing? If colonial line dances are ok? Why not line dances like electric slide? It is hard to find just the right place to draw the line, so they just don't allow it.

--------------

What I have a problem with is that instead of teaching their kids to make wise choices about things, they just forbid anything that could have negative consequences.

There are so many things in this world that can lead to negative consequences, but that doesn't mean they always will.

Teaching your kids to make wise choices about what they watch on tv, movies they watch, music they listen to, friends they hang out with, activities they take part in, etc is better parenting than just saying "NO, you can't do that because it Could lead to something bad".

^That's just my opinion on it anyway.

Im_in_PR said...

In this case, unless one of my kids showed great promise, personally, I could not justify doling out money for music lessons (even at half price) while my children walked around in thrift store shoes and clothes and were buckled into yard sale car seats.

I think I am the opposite. If one of my kids showed any talent for a musical instrument, or even a talent in any of the arts, I'd gladly wear anything from a thrift store to provide lessons for them!!

MomOfThree said...

Anonymous said...

I'm watching the episode where the family goes to the ATI conference. JB is talking about autographing a girl's hairspray bottle, and he said that before he used loads of hairspray "every hour on the hour, I used to be looking in the mirror fixing my hair and making sure it looked good." He's the one who seems like a narcissist to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In their book, Jim Bob tells of being too poor as a child to afford haircuts. His mom used to do the honors, with bad results, so he just let his hair grow long; once at a skating rink he was mistaken for a girl. A kind neighbor who had a hair salon then offered to give him a "makeover"...the style very similar to what still wears today.

I believe that this fixation with his hair stems from the self-esteem boost he got all those years ago. It just makes him feel good to have his hair "in place".

In fact, a lot of who Jim Bob is today was formed from those years of childhood poverty...something he, himself, says in the book.

It is not too difficult to figure out that his being very poor as a kid led to his being very frugal, looking out for "deals" and saving his money as an adult. Not having food to eat one breakfasttime probably led to his having a large, well-stocked pantry now. There are other examples I have noticed, but you get the point. IMO, it seems that perhaps fear or feelings of inferiority fuel alot of his "ways".

Overall, to me, he seems like an adult just now letting his guard down and getting to experience his childhood, with his kids. He often seems as amazed and that he is enjoying the new experiences as much as they are.

Anonymous said...

on the topic of college...i've watched every show, special and interview...many times...and they have NEVER said that their kids could not go to college or school...JB has even said they he understands that some of them, girls included, may be headed in that direction for midwifery or beauty school and they are trying to prepare them for that secular life...they have NEVER said that school is forbidden, just that at this time, none of them are going

i will also say this...i have an 80k bachelor's degree and absolutely no marketable skills...these kids, girls included (don't kid yourselves) are able to do carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and any number of handman type jobs that i have no clue how to do and probably never will...what's wrong with teaching your kids that before they leave the nest? Teaching them all to build that house--yes the girls did the work too--was the smartest thing they could have done--Jana can lay tile! And JB taught them all how to change the oil and a tire--39 yrs old and can't do either of those so...more power to them. And while they get grief for taking care of the little ones, I had my 1st at 37 and knew nothing and was lost. So those girls will be great moms one day.

As for the music lessons, I agree on some points. I think in the beginning, it's good to teach them, then see who has real skill and drive and talent, and let them go on and run with it. Those who don't seem to have the "knack" well let them go on to something they really do have a joy for. I took piano as a child and it just wasn't my "gift", but i'm glad i did. Some of those kids are very talented musicians and do enjoy it, I'm sure some of them suffer through it because they have to. I also find it a little lame that they are all taking lessons because JB and Michelle don't play any instruments...well JB and Michelle should be taking the lessons then..what's stopping them? why force your kids to do something you never got to do? Michelle looks longingly at that piano and you can tell she wants to play---she's the one who should be taking the lessons!

And as for the dancing. I know the reason. They both have high school educations and frankly, aren't that "smart." Ok, they aren't stupid, but they aren't wise. I am not bragging, but I have a genius IQ and because of that I'm smart enough to realize the difference between what's sinful and what isn't. They've decided that they just can't and they're banning it all. Same thing with music. I listen to heavy metal and I know it isn't going to kill me. Thankfully I'm Jewish and don't believe in Hell. hahaha

Cyn said...

MomOfThree said...On page 192/193/194, Michelle explains the childrens' music lessons. The Duggar family piano lessons were begun when Josh was six years old. Later on violin lessons were added for each child, then harp lessons for some of the girls. All are taught by folks outside of the family. Michelle tells us that a church member was offering piano lessons at half price for others attending the same church. (The Duggars have stated on many occasions that they "home church" but apparently, at one point, were members of a church
congregation.)
****************************
The Duggars home church (as of the first special) had over 100 members And could frankly have more than that now.... Also since The Duggars have so many enrolled in music lessons they may actually get an even better discount NOW than the one she mentioned in her book (when they started the lessons)


MomOfThree said...
Just my two cents, but it seems Jim Bob and Michelle are very frugal with certain spending and not so with others.


Michelle has answered this in different shows... they save the difference in some places so they can splurge in others.

Some would not go out the door unless they were dressed in the latest fashion but would buy generic in other areas.

Music is important to the Duggars. Clothing other than it be modest is not on the high list of their priorities.

*****************
but Christmas cards (especially with one's family photo) are personal and should be reserved for only family and friends...not people you happen to encounter at a book signing.


Quite a few politicians and public people send out massive amounts of those exact type of Christmas cards with their families photo's on them. And since the Duggars are well known simply because OF the family that being on the Christmas card would make sense.
Also printing those in mass amounts would make those cards pennies each.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster who talked about marketable skills vs. a college degree. As I've stated in a previous post, I have a Bachelor's Degree and no work experience or marketable skills, and I'm dirt poor because of it. While the economy may be in trouble and things may be manufactured in other countries (as a previous poster stated), there will always be a need for practical (although less glamorous) jobs, such as plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, tile layers, etc. The list goes on. We all depend on these trades, although we may not recognize them. Someone has to do it. To the posters who mention that college is a great opportunity for one to learn and spread his/her wings... that's exactly why the Duggars would be unlikely to send their kids! I'm not saying I disagree with a college education, but if the family feels this is in their kids' best interest, that is certainly their right. I'm sure they know all of the traditional reasons why we all value the college experience so much, and that's exactly what they do NOT value and are probably attempting to avoid. I say more power to them, although it's not for me. Just my two cents.
-Christina

roddma said...

The Duggars dont want their kids in postsecodary education or public school because it encourages free thinking outside the box. If someone wants to study vampires who am I to stop them? It sounds interesting. That is the problem with the world today too many closed minded people. What if one decides to be a journalist or something that isnt in line with domestic careers? What if the girls decide to do something besides raise children? True they are learning a valuable skill but to raise is soemthing diffrent. It seems no other choice exists for them. That is the point others and I are trying to make with the college thing.

Anonymous said...

Choice and college aren't the same thing though.

Cyn said...

roddma said...

The Duggars dont want their kids in postsecodary education or public school because it encourages free thinking outside the box. If someone wants to study vampires who am I to stop them? It sounds interesting. That is the problem with the world today too many closed minded people. What if one decides to be a journalist or something that isnt in line with domestic careers? What if the girls decide to do something besides raise children? True they are learning a valuable skill but to raise is soemthing diffrent. It seems no other choice exists for them. That is the point others and I are trying to make with the college thing.
*****************

Michelle and JimBob have BOTH said college was not out of the question...

Simply that the ones that are old enough for the 'higher education' aren't currently interested in it... Leaving the decision up to the KIDS themselves.


A point many seemed to have missed.

Kat said...

"Where would you draw the line on dancing? If colonial line dances are ok? Why not line dances like electric slide? It is hard to find just the right place to draw the line, so they just don't allow it."
----------------------
Well, I think that this is why many of us are curious. They seem to be able to draw the line for music, and clothing, and TV, and movies, etc.. Why is bodily movement to music singled out for a complete ban? If I ever heard a coherent explanation, it would cease to be of interest to me. Instead we hear vague references to "defrauding" that provide no clue.

Same with the clothing. JB cites a Bible passage that refers to "naked thighs" or some such thing, but that doesn't explain why pants are "strongly discouraged" (he has said they're not formally forbidden) for girls, and it doesn't explain why shorts are not allowed for boys, or why jeans are considered more modest than sweatpants.

If they truly want the rest of us to understand, they would stop speaking in tongues when they discuss it. Which leads me to think this is a belief they have adopted (Gothard), and don't truly understand themselves. They just know it's "bad," but not exactly why.

Diane said...

In that home, education is not encouraged and the mind is not nurtured. I would be very surprised if we see any of the children go to college. They have minimal education, as it is, and are likely poorly prepared for college anyway.

But again, I don't think whether they go or don't go to college is the point. In my opinion, the point is whether or not any of the children begin to be able to think independently, make individual choices (including deciding what they are interested in and pursuing it), and those pursuits don't have to include college.

At the moment, we don't see any of the children really independently doing anything. Even Josh is in his grandparents' home with a family used car lot. Somewhere, his interest in being a lawyer got lost. Same with John David's piloting interest or Jana's midwifery.

It's about allowing ones children to grow up and become independent thinking adults with their own interests, not necessarily whether or not they go to college (which would be great for Duggar kids, but is highly, highly unlikely given the family's lack of proclivity and interest in education).

Anonymous said...

Of course the the oldest Duggar children are not currently interested in college. They are getting WAY more excitement out of the trips & perks provided by TLC. I know they say they have traveled before, but I'm not sure that the ATI conference and missionary work can compete with multiple trips to NYC and meeting he likes of Dolly Parton. (IMO despite their denials, there is no way JB & M didn't remember/know what she is all about.)

Also, what mom & dad say on camera is one thing. I can imagine a scenario offscreen where it's either stated directly or implied that family comes first (think J-O-Y)and their mother "needs" their help so the girls in particular must stick close by.

-Katydid

J Stone said...

I'm in PR, you may be right about the Independent Baptist thing. There aren't any of those in my area that I'm aware of, so I hadn't considered that.

Mamawama said, "The Duggars don't worship education like many in our country. Most colleges today have a liberal slant. TCU, near me, is teaching a class this semester in vampires. That is a PRIVATE CHRISTIAN college. I don't blame the Duggars at all for not sending their children there."

Obviously, students have a choice as to their course schedules. I teach in a community college, and the vampire course just sounds silly to me. There are lots of goofy electives available in colleges, though, and the idea is to give students some choices that interest them.

By the way, all private Christian colleges are not evangelical. The vampire course would not be scandalous here http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/jackson-ms/millsaps-college-2414 for example.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Duggars and think they're doing what they think is best for their kids. Some of it does seem to be working, and they're apparently rearing some great kids.

I'm concerned about the weakness in their education, though. I was appalled when I saw the episode in which the girls visit a school and discuss their favorite books. Hardly challenging reading.

I sense that the Duggar children are not academically prepared for college, but I suspect that if any wanted to go to college they would be going to a private evangelical college where that might be less of an issue.

Another Observer said...

"Simply that the ones that are old enough for the 'higher education' aren't currently interested in it... Leaving the decision up to the KIDS themselves".

If you are old enough for college, you're not a "kid", you are a young adult and should have earned the right to make your own decisions.

However, it appears in the Duggar household, the girls can't even choose their own hairstyle....i.e. watch the episode where the girls are giving each other home-perms and are asked where the unique Duggar female style of hair comes from, and the older girl says, "My dad likes it that way".

I doubt, seriously, those girls would ever do anything against their parents wishes, and I don't believe for a second that JB & Michelle wish for those children to pursue ANY kind of post-homeschool education (notice I say ANY kind, not just college).

Anonymous said...

The girls couldn't go to college or move from home for a job, even if the parents didn't oppose it (which they and Gothard, do, since it is explicitly stated that children live at home until they marry), because Michelle cannot run that home without the older girls, particularly Jana and Jill. She hasn't run the home since the oldest five were infants and toddlers, and admits as much.

Given their needs at home, a courtship is likely not even in the cards for Jana and Jill yet. I suspect it is John David who will be courting first, since the family can run without him at home.

Anonymous said...

Some would consider the "Hymns only" sing.listening that the Duggars do a bit liberal. Some Calvinists believe in only sing the Psalms and very some very Conservative Calvinists believe in only sing Psalms without instrument accompaniment.

Everyone draws the line on what they believe is acceptable some place.

Melissa said...

Sarah said...

Duggar sighting: Today at the Sarah Palin book signing in Fayetteville. I was not there but my friend was. Apparently the whole lot of the Duggars were there (I have seen some of them, usually the older girls only, at Sam's Club before). They bypassed the whole line.

-----------------------

Oh, wow. I'm surprised that wasn't all over Fox News.

You know, I think it's odd that Jim Bob was a politician, yet they've shied away from any political talk. Other than them being Pro-Life and Republicans (I remember seeing McCain/Palin bumper stickers) I don't think they've ever said anything.

I am curious to know if they would support one of their kids having different political views. Sometimes a conservative upbringing raises a liberal - that's how I came about.

What do you all think?

Anonymous said...

The kids have been part of anti-abortion rallies. Anti-abortion was the biggest part of Jim Bobs political platform. This isn't a political commentary on abortion one way or the other, it is just a fact about Jim Bob's most important political interest.

Anonymous said...

Kat - you have summed up every post I have made about dancing into one! That's all I have been trying to get across. If they feel they can't draw a line, then that's fine, but why can they draw a line on everything else? (Singing while most songs arne't godly, playing music while most music isn't godly, reading while most books aren't godly, watching movies although most movies aren't godly, the list goes on). They choose to turn those other things into something positive or something that fits their beliefs, so that's why we are all so confused that they can't do the same for dancing. It's obvious that they aren't using any sort of logic.
-Christina

Anonymous said...

From what I've seen, JimBob and Michelle are pretty vague on what they'd like to see their children do with their lives. Not clearly for higher education, nor against it either. I don't think enough of the children have graduated for me to really be able to tell what the college situation will be yet. Only four, possibly five, have graduated and none of them act like they would be the rebels of the family. Josh comes across a lot like his father and seems to really like the attention that the show brings. It seems natural that he would stick near his parents and jump right into starting his own family so he could be on-air. The twins come across different than Josh; just as nice kids who are pretty shy. Probably not the type who would want to rush out and be on their own. I know people who haven't attended college simply because they are too shy and/or intimidated. Jill on the otherhand is quite outgoing, but she seems to legitimately enjoy cooking and taking care of the younger children. I can imagine her getting married young or doing more babysitting-type work. Jessa may have already graduated, but even so, she's still a minor. That could make it difficult for her to attend college, even if she wanted to. I haven't seen that much of her, nor have I seen a lot of Jinger and Joseph. I know Jinger seems like she may want to be a bit more independant. Once Michelle mentioned something about Joseph not being much of a "talker", but I can't tell whether he's more shy or uninterested. He seems bored a lot; normal teen boy I guess. It will be interesting to see a few more of the Duggars come of age.

Im_in_PR said...

If they truly want the rest of us to understand, they would stop speaking in tongues when they discuss it. Which leads me to think this is a belief they have adopted (Gothard), and don't truly understand themselves. They just know it's "bad," but not exactly why.

I think that they have explained it well enough. At least well enough that I grasped it, and trust me, I'm not that smart. :-)

When asked why they didn't wear shorts, Jim Bob quoted several Old Testament verses that that speaks to what God considers nakedness. One of which is Exodus 28:42

When asked about why they wear dresses, Michelle mentioned 1 Timothy 2:9, a verse that speaks to the Christian woman being modest.

Personally, I have known a lot of Gothardites. None of them wore dresses, in their day to day life, but sometimes did at church. But they were of a charismatic persuasion, which here in the South is a little more liberal as far as dress code goes. But they lived Gothardism and ATI.

Im_in_PR said...

Diane said...

In that home, education is not encouraged and the mind is not nurtured. I would be very surprised if we see any of the children go to college. They have minimal education, as it is, and are likely poorly prepared for college anyway.


I thought some might be interested in the Duggars Homeschool curriculum.

It includes physics and pre-calculus.

Nancy said...

Well, it would be interesting to see if any of these kids actually know much about calculus or physics. My husband was a physics major and they spent a great deal of time discussing the origins of the universe. I don't think most of those lessons would align very well with the creationist beliefs of the Duggars. Do they modify the laws of physics to match these beliefs??

Sharla said...

Anonymous comments are coming in about Michelle's health and the current pregnancy based on a blog posting and other discussion boards. Until confirmation is found from a more reputable source, we will not be encouraging reporting of or discussion of these rumors.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the new photo up on Josh & Anna's website of them and their little girl? Too cute.

Nichole said...

In regards to the discussion about the Duggars choosing to cut certain things out of their lives completely: my friend has a recovering alcoholic husband. Last year, our co-worker was throwing a birthday party for her husband, and I asked my friend if she and her husband would be attending. She said that she knew there would be alcohol there, and that her husband couldn't go because of that. Let me also say that he has been sober for YEARS and is not a newly recovered alcoholic.

I just don't understand the mindset behind these extremist rules. You have to be able to instruct someone as to the proper way to enjoy things, to know the destructive and/or detrimental sides of them, and trust in them enough to know the difference when confronted with it.

pumpkin said...

That is a great photo of the 3 "next gen" Duggars. Anna has lost a lot of the weight around her face and she looks great.

Cyn said...

Nichole said...

In regards to the discussion about the Duggars choosing to cut certain things out of their lives completely: my friend has a recovering alcoholic husband. Last year, our co-worker was throwing a birthday party for her husband, and I asked my friend if she and her husband would be attending. She said that she knew there would be alcohol there, and that her husband couldn't go because of that. Let me also say that he has been sober for YEARS and is not a newly recovered alcoholic.

I just don't understand the mindset behind these extremist rules. You have to be able to instruct someone as to the proper way to enjoy things, to know the destructive and/or detrimental sides of them, and trust in them enough to know the difference when confronted with it.
***********************************

For an alcoholic just the SMELL is enough to drive the need for a drink to the point where they can think of NOTHING else. They HAVE to stay completely away from it or it will make them want to drink.

An alcoholic or a drug user has a chemical addiction to those substances sometimes it takes just the thought that it is around to make them want to lie, cheat, steal and even KILL to get what their body tells them it needs. In these people there is no "one drink won't kill me" because one drink WILL kill them because they can not stop at just one that's what makes them an addict.

Dancing or not dancing is completely different.

Nichole said...

Cyn said...
For an alcoholic just the SMELL is enough to drive the need for a drink to the point where they can think of NOTHING else. They HAVE to stay completely away from it or it will make them want to drink.

An alcoholic or a drug user has a chemical addiction to those substances sometimes it takes just the thought that it is around to make them want to lie, cheat, steal and even KILL to get what their body tells them it needs. In these people there is no "one drink won't kill me" because one drink WILL kill them because they can not stop at just one that's what makes them an addict.

Dancing or not dancing is completely different.
__________________________________


I certainly don't mean to downplay the plight of a recovering drug or alcohol addict -- I just meant it as another kind of extremist behavior. I've known many alcoholics who are still sober and can go to parties, restaurants and events and STILL maintain their sobriety, so that was where I was drawing my (admittedly poor) example.

Anyway, to also comment on another topic - I would say that the Duggars do fit the typical image of Pentecostal women that live in this area of my state. They all have the poofy bang and permed hair, long skirts, and makeup. Perhaps the Pentecostals in this region are a little more relaxed, as I have yet to see any that completely shun the use of makeup.

Cyn said...

Nichole said...

I certainly don't mean to downplay the plight of a recovering drug or alcohol addict -- I just meant it as another kind of extremist behavior. I've known many alcoholics who are still sober and can go to parties, restaurants and events and STILL maintain their sobriety, so that was where I was drawing my (admittedly poor) example.

Anyway, to also comment on another topic - I would say that the Duggars do fit the typical image of Pentecostal women that live in this area of my state. They all have the poofy bang and permed hair, long skirts, and makeup. Perhaps the Pentecostals in this region are a little more relaxed, as I have yet to see any that completely shun the use of makeup.
12/07/2009 5:14 PM
***********************

Sorry I did snap back and I shouldn't have.... I just have several recovering people in and around me and it just hit me wrong....


There are as many different branches of Pentecostals as there are baptists. Some would shun for life if you permed your hair or dyed it or wore makeup. Other camps don't care if you wear shorts to church as long you speak in tongues... and everything in between.

Kat said...

When asked why they didn't wear shorts, Jim Bob quoted several Old Testament verses that that speaks to what God considers nakedness. One of which is Exodus 28:42

When asked about why they wear dresses, Michelle mentioned 1 Timothy 2:9, a verse that speaks to the Christian woman being modest
**********************

There are plenty of shorts that go down to the knee, and would be far more comfortable in an Arkansas summer than jeans. Even lightweight fabric (linen, anyone?) pants would be more comfortable than jeans.

Timothy 2:9 does not require dresses by any interpretation. And on a windy day, pants could be a lot more modest than a dress. However, it does speak against "broided hair," and the Duggar girls frequently wear braids, pigtails, bows, headbands, etc. And I suspect had Toni perms been invented in Biblical times, they, too, would have fallen under the "broided hair" edict.

So I guess I'm not as smart as other posters, who have it all figured out.

Im_in_PR said...

Perhaps the Pentecostals in this region are a little more relaxed, as I have yet to see any that completely shun the use of makeup.

Not all Pentacostals shun the makeup, and some even wear pants.

There is a certain brand of them that are here in the South that do shun pants and makeup. I wish I could remember their name. I promise, if you see them in the grocery store, you could pick them out as being a member of this group. They tend to were this funny front leaning bouffant thing, with a bun behind it and bangs in front of it. It's amazing in its construction.

Im_in_PR said...

Ok, the brand I am thinking of are members of the UPC. United Pentacostal Church. And I just spent 10 minutes of my life watching a video of how they do their hair and it was fascinating!

Nichole said...

Im_in_PR said...
Ok, the brand I am thinking of are members of the UPC. United Pentacostal Church. And I just spent 10 minutes of my life watching a video of how they do their hair and it was fascinating!
**********************************

The ladies around here have hairstyles that would withstand a hurricane, I believe.

As another person pointed out - do the Duggars ever suffer from wardrobe malfunctions? I'm sure Michelle has given them reminders of how to carry themselves, especially since some of the girls are choosing to wear shorter skirts now. I also always thought it would irritate the older girls that the baby girls could wear leggings under their skirts. I imagine that would be so freeing for them - not having to worry about accidental slips of the skirt.

Joanna said...

The older girls "do" wear leggings underneath their skirts. I remember seeing Jill with leggings on during the episode Mckenzie was born and I've noticed it a couple of other times. They do wear leggings if they have to or want to.

Cyn said...

Im_in_PR said...

Ok, the brand I am thinking of are members of the UPC. United Pentacostal Church. And I just spent 10 minutes of my life watching a video of how they do their hair and it was fascinating!
12/07/2009 6:38 PM
**********************************
LOL you only spent 10 min I've been on a video site for the last 45 min watching all the different videos on how they wear the different buns and what not.... I'm with you it is fascinating how they do that.

Anonymous said...

My husband and I are expecting our first kid and I was doing a little reading on how personality traits are inherited. I found a study that compared identical twins that had been raised together to identical twins that had been separated at birth. Interestingly, the personality trait they found was most influenced by genetics (rather than training) is what they called the "need for security" vs the "tolerance for ambiguity."

I personally enjoy examining the "gray" areas of life and trying out new approaches to problems. But I can tell that Michelle and JB gain emotional peace and happiness from seeing the world in black and white terms. They have a system that works for them and they are sticking to it. I imagine many of their children feel the same way -- not because they are brainwashed, but because they feel comfortable in that lifestyle and have no personal urge to branch out.

With so many kids, though, the Duggars are bound to have a few that naturally feel a need to question. And we may or may not see it on camera, but I'm sure there are some who have and will continue to disagree with their parents. This might be difficult or disappointing for JB and Michelle... But I don't think they manipulate or imprison their children :-)

-RachelB

Anonymous said...

One thing that has been really worrying me lately is "What if this child has special needs?" We all know that a woman of M's age is more likely to have complications during pregnancy, but it's also a fact that risks for certain birth defects and conditions also spike sharply when the mother is above a certain age.

Little disclaimer: I am NOT opposed to women having children late in life, that is what my mother did and what I intend to do. However, my parents also made sure before they had every child that they could care for ALL potential needs of the child.

The reason I am concerned is that my sister has some special needs. Now, she is of normal functionality, so her needs are very, VERY minor as far as these things go, but the amount of time and assistance she needs is much more than a normal child. I don't see how she could be raised to succeed in a household like the Duggars'.

The fact is, you CAN NOT pass off a special needs child to a sibling. They need adult care. And lots of it. What if this next Duggar has special needs? What even if they had very serious food allergies that required a restricted diet? The Duggar family structure works right now, but if something like this were to force JB+M to actually step back in and PARENT a child, I'm concerned about the effects on the rest of family.
--Mei

Cyn said...

The fact is, you CAN NOT pass off a special needs child to a sibling. They need adult care. And lots of it. What if this next Duggar has special needs? What even if they had very serious food allergies that required a restricted diet? The Duggar family structure works right now, but if something like this were to force JB+M to actually step back in and PARENT a child, I'm concerned about the effects on the rest of family.
--Mei
***********************************
Adults currently in the Duggar household:
JimBob Duggar
Michelle Duggar
Jana Duggar
John David Duggar
Jill Duggar
Jessa Duggar
G'ma Duggar

Also Available to them if they needed more help than those 7 adults would be:
JimBob's sister (don't know her name)
Amy Duggar (if NOTHING else she could help with the other kids when she's not flaking out)

Church Member's: (in the very first special they had over 100 members) Those same church members bring dinners for the WHOLE clan the first week(s?) and I am quite sure they would set up schedules to help out when needed.

I don't think having a special needs child would slow this family down in any way at all. G'pa Duggar lived with them till the end and they had a hospital bed and what not set up in the house with them, not to mention the fact that I'm quite sure they could hire a nurse to help and educate the family if the disability was bad enough.

Im_in_PR said...

LOL you only spent 10 min I've been on a video site for the last 45 min watching all the different videos on how they wear the different buns and what not.... I'm with you it is fascinating how they do that.

I will confess that after I made that post I went back to youtube and watched SEVERAL more of those videos! It was fascinating! I felt like a sociologist for a few moments!

Im_in_PR said...

So I guess I'm not as smart as other posters, who have it all figured out.

Be that as it may, I'm just one of the posters who accepts that the Duggars believe the Biblical admonition for Christian women to be modest includes them not wearing pants.

However, I can agree somewhat about the hair.

Marybeth said...

I am an Orthodox Jew and we actually attend an Chassidic Temple which is basically the Jewish version of the Duggars...they don't listen to modern music (Jewish only, but they do dance and it does have an upbeat sound) ...Jewish movies and videos only....we dress modestly only we take it further...married women cover their hair...i don't wear a wig but i do wear a head scarf or snood when i leave the house...and we wear long sleeves, the duggars don't wear long sleeves...we read the paper ...we have the internet...we do homeschool with the help of local school districts as well as online Hebrew school....and we believe in having lots and lots of kids...my Rabbi is one of 14 and my Rabbi's wife is one of 16....they have 8...

i switched over to the modest form of dress after i got married and i love it...i feel amazing when i go out knowing that only my husband sees me...it's an unusual form of sexiness...and this is from a woman that sold her 20 mini skirts on ebay after she got married!

my family compromises...we do watch tv (on line) and we do believe in the real world--we're smart enough to know sin when we see it....and we listen to modern music...we keep kosher in the sense that the food is on the whole kosher but not technically kosher (no kosher butcher in our town) but we don't eat non-kosher animals and we'll eat in restaurants that aren't certified kosher...we do our best to follow the rules

i think that's why i love the duggars so much...it's about doing your best to follow the rules without disparaging others, without trying to recruit others, without trying to make others feel like badly...and they aren't hypocrites...they live their beliefs...i may not agree with them, but they live what they believe and i respect that :)

Anonymous said...

My father was raised Pentecostal in Florida but did not raise us that way.I was raised catholic by my mother and we had our own set of do's and dont's.But the conversation about the Duggars style of dress and hairstyles reminded me of the strict no pants and certain hairstyles that some of my family wears. Although I understand the reason by the no pants amongst women but can someone explain the reason for women wearing their hair in those styles? I was raised to believe that women shouldnt cut their hair (although we did) but I never understood why they expect women to wear certain styles. I watched the videos on how to and those young ladies are actually from the same area I am from (Baytown, Texas). I am just curious if someone can explain the hairstyle thing to me.

Sandra said...

As much interest as there is in the Bates family, one would wonder if TLC has offered them their own show. If they were offered, I wonder if they would agree?

Anonymous said...

Speaking for myself, I don't expect the Duggars to explain their decisions to the point where I agree with them. I accept that everybody's attitudes are largely influenced by the culture, socioeconomic class, and family they grow up in. And many of our individual decisions are made based on our feelings or instincts rather than hard, cold logic.

It is a bit annoying to come across people who believe they know the "only right way" of doing things. And I also don't like it when people say they make their decisions based on the Bible, without admitting that the Bible's teachings are subject to many different interpretations and priority systems. So I understand that the Duggars can be frustrating at times.

But, for me, I think most of their explanations are good enough... I can see where they are coming from when they explain most of their rules. I don't personally agree with them; but I don't think they are doing any harm. I think if Jana secretly wants to wear a bikini and John David secretly wants to wear short-shorts... Well, someday soon they will be able to do just that :-)

-RachelB

CappuccinoLife said...

" I don't see how she could be raised to succeed in a household like the Duggars'. "

Whyever not? A special-needs child in a large family with a close and supportive community can do very, very well. Help from the community, encouragement from siblings, a whole lot of people supporting and helping that person towards as much physical health and independence as is possible for them.

" What if this next Duggar has special needs? What even if they had very serious food allergies that required a restricted diet? The Duggar family structure works right now, but if something like this were to force JB+M to actually step back in and PARENT a child, I'm concerned about the effects on the rest of family."

I guess we're viewing them through different glasses. I see Jim-Bob and Michelle PARENTING all the time. Particularly with the younger, and thus needier, members of the family. I don't think a special-needs child would phase them at all, and I think they'd make whatever changes needed to include that child and give him or her the best life possible.

Cyn said...

Sandra said...

As much interest as there is in the Bates family, one would wonder if TLC has offered them their own show. If they were offered, I wonder if they would agree?
*******************************
Until they had the bigger house built could you see getting a camera crew in that house with them????

My thinking would be the Bates would NOT do it. Be on the Duggars show now and then yes.... do their own... they don't have the time for it with everything else they do in their community and with their church.

Hopewell said...

Here's my gripe. Can't those boys come up with something more original than used cars and a towing service?? Daddy's already done that. Maybe they could think up their own businesses?

I think it's disgraceful how little Michelle seems to interact with her kids--although gripes on this board and others have given us staged glimpses of her doing "Mommy" things, being affectionate, etc.

I'm totally sick of the stunts--like last night's bungee jump and ready to barf over all the PDA--Jb/Mchll--we GET IT you are MARRIED. It was gross enough when the newlyweds were all over each other with that yucky hand-holding, but these two will cause me to lose my lunch! It's supposed to be a "reality" show--show us REALITY and not stunts, paid trips, etc.

kels said...

Cyn said,

"Adults currently in the Duggar household:
JimBob Duggar
Michelle Duggar
Jana Duggar
John David Duggar
Jill Duggar
Jessa Duggar
G'ma Duggar"

The problem I have with that, is that 4 out of the 7 adults you listed are very young adults that are on their way OUT of the Duggar house. None of them will be there forever. They will be getting married and having families of their own. And technically, the only people that should hold responsibility for any new child, disabled or not, are Jim Bob and Michelle. I do believe that the older children should help, but I do not believe that they should be vital in keeping the household from downing in itself.

Would they continue to have children if one of them was born with disabilities that could be related to Michelle's age?

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if anyone saw Michelle and Jim Bob's little commercial ... I mean um, "interview" with abc 36. It's on Youtube. They are practically endorsing Pigeon Forge. They have officially sold out.

Cyn said...

The problem I have with that, is that 4 out of the 7 adults you listed are very young adults that are on their way OUT of the Duggar house.
**************************
Those are only the ones living in the house I also listed other adults and other ways they would have to take care of disabled children.


Would they continue to have children if one of them was born with disabilities that could be related to Michelle's age?

**********************************
Simple answer : YES
Reason: Because their God will supply all their needs and will provide ways to take care of 1 with disabilities or 10 with disabilities or God wouldn't have given them that child to raise.

It's what they believe and it's how they live their life...

Whether you or I agree with them or not. (I stopped at 5 cause I liked to died with the last preg and frankly 5 was enough, and no I'm not quiverfull either.)

Anonymous said...

While most of the Duggar kids will probably grow up leading similar lifestyles, I have a feeling they'll still end up making some changes. Lots of people do the opposite of something they hated as a kid and at least a few of the kids seem to find some sort of pet peeve with the family. I can already tell Jinger will in no way give her kids names that all begin with the same later. She sort of cringed at the talk of naming Josh and Anna's kids names that begin with the same letter. Who can blame her though, she was only their sixth and a "G" name spelled with a J was the best they could come up with? Jana seemed to be really embarassed by those modest-suits. I can imagine her breaking away from those, at least to a skirted tankini or rash guard. It looks like Josh has already started to switch to buying newer/nicer things. Many items in their house look new, he's been wearing more modern-looking clothes and brand names, like Aeropostale, and even drives a Jaguar (okay, so not a very nice one, but it's still a Jag and he seems to think it's pretty special). I'm betting we'll see a lot of subtle changes if nothing else...

Anonymous said...

Hopewell - I completely agree with you about the PDA. I was watching an older episode where the family was getting ready to go somewhere(Pigeon Forge, maybe?) and they found out Josh was 30 minutes away. Someone said, "Josh is about 30 minutes away," and Michelle said "30 minutes?!" Then Jim Bob stood there and said, "You know... you don't look like you've had 18 kids. You look great," and started kissing her. It came out of NOWHERE, and he said it like it was some kind of announcement. I don't know why he feels the need to do these random announcements and displays. It's really annoying to watch.
-Christina

msrylee said...

Hopewell, I also agree with you regarding PDA. I especially remember the clay-shaping episode with M and JB seemingly recreating a scene shown in "Ghost". I felt very uncomfortable watching what was a very intimate and sensual interaction between them. IMO, those interactions between a couple should be private. Even if M and JB hadn't viewed the movie, and didn't know about the scene, they still fully participated.

It surprises me that a couple who practices modesty with regard to dress and personal conduct, would act in such a manner.

Nancy said...

I guess I just can't get on board with the idea that "their God" will provide everything they need if they have a disabled child or if they have 8 more than they can truly afford. "My" God has already not provided for all kinds of children in the world. Whether because their parents have passed away, or are drug addicts, or simply because they were born in the wrong place. (Darfur, etc.) Are you suggesting that God prefers the Duggars to all these other people?

And I completely agree with the poster who said that the parents should be the ones taking care of a disabled child, not the other children. My Aunt has a wonderful daughter who is disabled. We all love her and have helped out where we can. She and my uncle have taken care of her (and they are now in their 70s and she is in her late 30s) and will continue to do so as long as they can. Their other children were allowed to be teenagers and move out to go to college without guilt or the responsibility of a child they did not bear - even though they love her.

She Rocks said...

"I was wondering if anyone saw Michelle and Jim Bob's little commercial ... I mean um, "interview" with abc 36. It's on Youtube. They are practically endorsing Pigeon Forge. They have officially sold out."

What's wrong with them endorsing something they throughly enjoyed?

Hannah W. said...

Anonymous said...
Hopewell - I completely agree with you about the PDA. I was watching an older episode where the family was getting ready to go somewhere(Pigeon Forge, maybe?) and they found out Josh was 30 minutes away. Someone said, "Josh is about 30 minutes away," and Michelle said "30 minutes?!" Then Jim Bob stood there and said, "You know... you don't look like you've had 18 kids. You look great," and started kissing her. It came out of NOWHERE, and he said it like it was some kind of announcement. I don't know why he feels the need to do these random announcements and displays. It's really annoying to watch.
-Christina

--------------------------------

That almost sounds like he was trying to distract her from the fact that Josh was 30 minutes away. Like he was trying to change the subject. But I do agree that many times he'll just have random announcements. Like with Joy's birthday, for example.

Cyn said...

@ Nancy... I didn't SAY I agreed with it the other poster asked if they would continue to have children and I only stated the answer the DUGGARS' themselves have given.

A different poster said something about adults taking care of a disabled child. EVEN if the Duggars only had ONE child the Adults would need occasional help and or breaks... and no one has YET to mention the fact that I also named several OTHER adults that could and would help them.

And where have the Duggars EVER used guilt as a way to get the children to do things?

They teach the children to think of Jesus first others second yourself last. (J-O-Y) Why is this a BAD thing?... or maybe the question should be "Why is it bad to put others before yourself?" It's what the christian religion is based upon. In this concept there is no onus or guilt attached.

@ anyone who wants to reply:

Any one remember the song of the 60's era “Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together try to love one another right now." ?

Love is an action word. And the Duggars show their love for each other by helping each other. (and the PDA's are annoying but not what I am talking about here)By caring for each other, being with a sick sibling, cooking dinner, teaching a younger sibling reading, the list is endless.

People complain that the older siblings (both boys and girls) do to much of these types of things, but who TAUGHT them to do them and who continues to do those chores WITH them; Michelle and JimBob (though I would think it was more Michelle's influence).

Forgive me if I get the girls mixed up in the following sentences I don't have the names memorized with the faces....

What if Jana is just the better cook should Michelle still be the cook?

If Jill is the better organizer and LIKES doing it should Michelle be the only one doing it just because she is the mother?

If Josiah LIKES organizing the pantry and is good at it should JimBob do it simply because he is the ADULT?

If Jinger and Jessa LIKE teaching their siblings to read why does it only have to be Michelle?

I have no idea who does what, when, and how, but the questions themselves are still valid, the kids have the opportunity all the time to flat out SAY if they they thought they were taken advantage of (older girls) if nothing else they could tell the camera crew and then rumors would be leaking out all over the place. But we don't hear any rumors.

In fact what we do hear is that the Duggars are the same OFF camera as they are on (kids and adults alike)

Hard as this may be to understand by most of us (I included myself) The Duggars like the way they are currently living their lives and when they no longer like it they will change it. (Either the older girls as they leave home or Michelle and JimBob will change when parts are no longer working for them)

Cyn said...

PS to Nancy:
In Response to the question you asked me =
Are you suggesting that God prefers the Duggars to all these other people?

I won't answer that here in any detail because it would come out preachy and use way to much theology and bible verses. And the short answer can and probably would start a tangent I don't want to go down.

I will say THIS though... I didn't suggest it or even imply it. People that have strong faith and convictions DO believe that things happen to every one for a reason and these verses are where they draw those convictions from:

Phil 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

AND
Phl 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

And the last one:
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.


Cyn

By Faith Also Sara said...

What if Jana is just the better cook should Michelle still be the cook?

If Jill is
If Josiah LIKES

If Jinger and Jessa LIKE....


Snipped for brevity, but I think the point was trying to be made that "why should it be JimBob and Michelle doing household chores if one of the kids is better at it?"

For me, the point is not that they use the older kids for so much of the manual labor around the house. I think you should teach your kids to work and work cheerfully. But JB and Michelle should not push so much of their PARENTING duties off on the older children just because they can. And I'll tell you why.

Personally I like the Duggars and I agree with some of what they believe. For example, when their beliefs coincide with what the Bible says, I usually agree, with limits. Which is to say that I do not agree with their Gothardism and to some degree their misguided Quiverfullism. And I've recently come to that conclusion, about disagreeing with their Quiverfullism.

Many years ago, when someone first introduced me to QF, I could totally see it as being a logical following of the Bible. But as I have studied it further just in these past few weeks, I see a chink in it. It is as follows:

QF's base their belief strictly on Old Testament passages from the Bible. Namely Psalms 127:5 and Psalms 127:3. I don't think that anyone would disagree that children are a blessing and to those among us that believe the Bible, we may also view our children as a reward from God. No arguments from me there.

But if you move further into the Scriptures, especially those that are directed specifically at the New Testament Christian, one notes that that certain passages MIGHT lead one to believe that taking care of the children you have is a responsibility BEFORE adding more to the family, just for the number.

What do you folks think?

Anonymous said...

LOL. What do I think of quiverful and Gothard and all that OT quoting? I think they should go gather some stones and build a micva. I'm a new Covenant Christian and believe that we no longer must follow the strict rules of the OT. For if we fail in one, we fail in all. We are saved by grace or we aren't saved at all. Picking and choosing amongst OT rules, laws, and such is not Biblical. If they want to do OT, then they need to really read the NT and do it all or none. There really isn't a middle ground. But that is just my opinion.

By Faith Also Sara said...

Picking and choosing amongst OT rules, laws, and such is not Biblical.

I agree with you in theory, but wanted to add that the OT verses the Duggars use as a proof text for their large family are not actually laws or rules that were given to the Jewish people. The verses they use are just Psalms.

Anonymous said...

Which makes it even less reasonable to take on as an article of faith and practice.

Nancy said...

Cyn - there is nothing wrong with J-O-Y as a philosophy. Most religions (not just Christian) have similar philosophies. Personally, I think that Michele and JB put themselves first by continuing to have children that they have their kids parent. I think they put their own desires before the possible health complications that a child could have to live with forever (if they had a child at an age where she was advised not to). I understand that they believe they are putting Jesus first by doing all this. I disagree. I absolutely agree that it takes a village to raise a child and that people should always step up to help others. In fact, I quit an extremely lucrative job to devote 100% of my former work time to charity efforts - many involve working with kids who are in terrible situations. I just believe that people were given free will for a reason and that some of their decisions are selfish. I am free to believe that just as they are free to believe that God just keeps giving them babies because he is so darn pleased with them.

Cyn said...

@ By Faith Also Sara said...
For me, the point is not that they use the older kids for so much of the manual labor around the house. I think you should teach your kids to work and work cheerfully. But JB and Michelle should not push so much of their PARENTING duties off on the older children just because they can. And I'll tell you why.

Can you help me out here please…. If it’s not the chores people see as parenting duties what exactly IS the parenting things you see the older girls doing?

The reason I ask if because when I have asked this before other places or reading through them here it was usually different chores that was addressed which is why I made the comments on the chores.

********
Personally I like the Duggars and I agree with some of what they believe. For example, when their beliefs coincide with what the Bible says, I usually agree, with limits. Which is to say that I do not agree with their Gothardism and to some degree their misguided Quiverfullism. And I've recently come to that conclusion, about disagreeing with their Quiverfullism.


The Duggars themselves have said they are not quiverfull or following any certain group in an interview they did in June of this year it's less than a 2 min clip. Currently posted on you tube = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WRJOL0_X0

Enough with the Multiples said...

RE: Can you help me out here please…. If it’s not the chores people see as parenting duties what exactly IS the parenting things you see the older girls doing?
------------------------
I think it's kinda bothersome that it is usually the other girls carrying or pushing the toddlers in strollers while Jim Bob and Michelle walk along hand-in-hand like newlyweds on outings.

I also think it's convenient for J/M that they only have the youngest in the room with them and all the other little kids are roomed with their older siblings. Yes, I know they claim that's how the kids wanted it but I'm guessing that also means that if Jennifer or Joahanna has a bad dream, needs a drink, or gets sick at night that it's Jana or Jill up tending to them. Now that is a mother or father's responsibity to me, not a siblings! And I bet if the little kids were in a room alone together, they might come wake up J/M instead of their sisters.

Cyn said...

Nancy I'll ask you the same question what parenting do you see the Older siblings doing that is "parenting" if it's not the chores??

I see Michelle doing the disciplining, I see Michelle doing the explaining of the rules and why they have them. I see Michelle asking them if they have finished their chore cards. I have seen Michelle show them how to speak softly and not in anger (even when provoked)...

I see JimBob leading the Bible studies, I see Jimbob teaching car repair (and how to hog a camera spot light). Stretching their horizons (they did most of the building of that house by themselves) they may not stretch them as far or where we would like them to but how many 12 yr old GIRLS can lay tile, (safety issues not withstanding) lay heating tubes, put up drywall, mud and tape, sand and paint???

I see Michelle and JimBob setting the limits... I see Michelle and Jimbob teaching them budgeting, how to run a business, (both of the older boys worked with him before starting their own) how to do lots of different things they will need in every day life...

Anonymous said...

The Duggars continue to deny that they are Quiverful, but their actions betray their claims.

Nancy said...

Cyn - I just want to clarify that I am not questioning your belief system or even that of the Duggars. Just my own - and how I view some of things they do. I work with a lot of disadvantaged kids by day, and at night as an adjunct professor and lately have seen a lot of things that make me question the world around me (and the Creator) more than I used to.

If the Duggars are happy and continue to be successful I'm glad for them as I would be for anyone.

Cyn said...

@ Enough with the Multiples said... I also think it's convenient for J/M that they only have the youngest in the room with them and all the other little kids are roomed with their older siblings. Yes, I know they claim that's how the kids wanted it but I'm guessing that also means that if Jennifer or Joahanna has a bad dream, needs a drink, or gets sick at night that it's Jana or Jill up tending to them. Now that is a mother or father's responsibity to me, not a siblings! And I bet if the little kids were in a room alone together, they might come wake up J/M instead of their sisters.
********************

I do not know what happens at the Duggar house but I can tell you what happens at mine.

All three of my girls sleep in the same room... (on a different floor than my room) when they have nightmares they come to my room not the older sibling (who spent most of their toddler-hood trying to convince them SHE was the mommy), when they are sick they come to me, when they wet the bed ect.

When they need a drink they get it themselves and leave the mess behind to be cleaned up in the morning. LOL

As for carrying the toddlers and or pushing the strollers.... I have seen Jimbob carrying them as well (think movie episode)(several prayer times he's holding one)In One of the New York visits he's carrying one... Michelle can not lift more than 20lbs (if that much) when she's pregnant but I have seen them in her lap and what not.

But in any case thank you for answering the question.

PS @ Nancy I gots no issues with you either. (southern accent on purpose) ;) Just trying to understand what the 'parenting issue' is.

By Faith Also Sara said...

From Cyn "I see Michelle doing the disciplining, I see Michelle doing the explaining of the rules and why they have them. I see Michelle asking them if they have finished their chore cards. I have seen Michelle show them how to speak softly and not in anger (even when provoked)..."

**************************************************
You see Michelle managing a household while other people do her work, including nurturing her younger children.

I object to that because the Bible says that children should be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. THAT'S for New Testament Christians. And it's a parental duty, not a sibling duty.

If you have so many children that you can't nurture them, is your Christian duty being done?

Cyn said...

@ By Faith Also Sara said...
You see Michelle managing a household while other people do her work, including nurturing her younger children.

I object to that because the Bible says that children should be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. THAT'S for New Testament Christians. And it's a parental duty, not a sibling duty.
***********************************
ahhhhhhhhhh

There's the difference I see the nurturing from Michelle and others don't.... thank you.

luvmybabies said...

The Duggars have said on numerous occasions that their "take all the children God wants to give them" philosophy came from a conviction the Lord placed on their hearts, not from strictly adhering to OT laws or teachings.

Also, there has been a lot of books written in the past few years that discuss how the prevailing parenting philosophies have swung from the extreme of being "parent-centered" in generations and times past, to currently being "child-centered". Both are extremes that are detrimental to raising well-adjusted, capable, compassionate and strong adults. Child-centered parenting creates adults who tend to be superficial, selfish, and lazy, among other things.

I'll probably get blasted for my viewpoint, but it seems to me that the outcry over the Duggars having "more kids than they can care for" and that they aren't parenting them themselves stems from a child-centered outlook. The happy and healthy medium, I believe, is family-centered parenting. This is what the Duggars do. The family works together as a team to run the home, care for the youngers, and achieve the family goals. And in the process the children grow up to be loving, unselfish, and capable, with strong family bonds. Sounds good to me.

The parents stand at the head and manage, direct, and yes do a lot of work themselves. You don't have to do all the stinkin' work yourself to be considered a true parent and head of the home. A company CEO or president doesn't do all the work themselves either - they delegate, direct, manage and teach - and they are still the head.

As other posters have pointed out, if the older kids don't like it, they're certainly old enough to blow that taco stand if they're sick of it. If Jana is fed up with cooking, then one day she'll be her own home manager and can delegate the cooking to one of her kids if she wants to and she'll never have to do it again.

Anonymous said...

Nancy I'll ask you the same question what parenting do you see the Older siblings doing that is "parenting" if it's not the chores??

=================================

Let first state that I do like the Duggars and this is probably the nicest internet 'duggar discussion' place I found

but to answer your question....

I have seen Jana comfort a sick Johanna...not JB or M

I have seen Jennifer cry and reach for Jill (as she said "Dill")...not JB or M

not to mention every outing I see all of the older girls pushing strollers while JB and M are holding hands, not paying attention to the kids at all

again, I think the Duggars are very likeable but this does bother me

kathie

Anonymous said...

To claim that "child centered parenting" creates selfish, unloving, uncapable children is no more true than that the type of parenting that the Duggars do creates the opposite. That is quite the broad brush.

As with everything, I think there is a happy medium. I think the Duggars are far too hands off, and give too much responsibility to their daughters. I think some child-centered parents are walked on by their children, and provide no limits and boundaries.

Neither is optimal, and something in the middle is what creates secure, confident, independent and individualistic children. That is what I strived to do with my children, since I would never want spoiled brats OR kids like the Duggars who are quite dependent and childish, even the ones who are near 20 years old.

Anonymous said...

A thought crossed my mind. If the Duggars, some posters on this blog, and others believe that "God keeps giving them children because he is so darn pleased with them" (to quote another blogger making a facetious remark), what would those people say about Kelly Bates's two miscarriages?
-Christina

noelle said...

"...I see all of the older girls pushing strollers while JB and M are holding hands, not paying attention to the kids at all".

Everyone can make as many excuses as they want but a picture really is worth a thousand words.

M has stated in the past that once the weaning process is complete, the youngest is passed off to a buddy. (not exact words but you get the idea).

That is not the way our children were raised. Mom and Dad were number 1 at all times, and siblings were allowed to enjoy age appropriate activities.

No wonder they're so carefree and relaxed, the older 9 take care of the younger 9.

The reason most of us don't have 19 children is because we want to be able to nurture each and every one to the best of our ability. Just because you have 19 or 20 kids doesn't make you a mother in the true sense of the word.

One more vent, .. I don't find it all that remarkable that they have that many children. JB isn't such a manly man/studly stud because he has this many kids. All that says it that he's had intercourse with his wife that many times without the use of birth control or family planning. I almost wonder if in his NAIVE way he thinks that makes him manly or something.

I would venture to guess that most married men his age have had sex 20 times. Quit bragging you're such a stud JB. The amount of children you have has nothing to do with your manliness hair spray man.

Bible Mam said...

uvmybabies said...

The Duggars have said on numerous occasions that their "take all the children God wants to give them" philosophy came from a conviction the Lord placed on their hearts, not from strictly adhering to OT laws or teachings.
**********************************************

I have heard them say specifically that they base that on Psalms 127:3.  Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

Psalms=OT

CappuccinoLife said...

"A thought crossed my mind. If the Duggars, some posters on this blog, and others believe that "God keeps giving them children because he is so darn pleased with them" (to quote another blogger making a facetious remark), what would those people say about Kelly Bates's two miscarriages? "

As you said, you are quoting someone else's facetious remark, and not the Duggar's. ;) Because the remark is not accurate, your implied conclusion is incorrect.

Michelle lost a baby too, early on.

I believe the same as the Duggar' and the Bates about family planning (ie: none, lol) and I have had two miscarriages. I didn't get my living children because I'm so special that I deserve them as some sort of good-behavior reward, and I didn't lose my two to miscarriage because God was punishing me. Christianity is all about the *undeserved* blessings and gifts from God. What we believe is that *all* children are created by God, for a purpose, and are a blessing (whether thier birth parents recognize it or not). I am sure the Duggar's do not think themselves "extra holy" and the Bateses (or anyone with less children) "less holy". They've never given any indication of believing that, and that is not the QF philosophy anyway.

CappuccinoLife said...

Cyn, thank you for pointing out instances in which we've seen Jim Bob and Michelle parenting. I've seen it quite a lot and wondered if there is another Duggar show that shows the children being slaves to drudgework and their parents directing things while eating bon-bons and smooching on the couch.

We only see 30 short minutes per week of this family's life. Often several episodes are taken from one family event/outing. We certainly aren't seeing much of their day to day life.

I have observed both Jim Bob and Michelle participating in chores (the "drudge work") and doing those parental and nurturing things that they're supposed to. JB often has a toddler in his arms or little boys hanging off his pants legs. When discipline is required, one or the other *parent* takes care of it, and in a very wonderful way, I might add. If Michelle didn't care for her little ones, there'd be no reason to complain about the way she feeds them. ;) I was totally sad when Johanna was sick and her mommy wasn't there, but we do not know why Michelle wasn't in the frame at that moment, and we have no reason to believe she's a neglectful uncaring mother who wouldn't have been there if she could.

CappuccinoLife said...

"Psalms=OT"

But not part of The Law. It is a principle. The Duggars have been convicted to follow it as applicable to them, that children are great blessings from God, and that having many children is not a curse.

By Faith Also Sara said...

CappuccinoLife said...

"But not part of The Law. It is a principle. The Duggars have been convicted to follow it as applicable to them, that children are great blessings from God, and that having many children is not a curse."

**********************************************************************************

I don't think anyone said that having a lot of children was a curse, certainly not amongst the people currently discussing the issue.

I'm submitting for opinions the idea that instead of placing one's self under OT verses to decide one's family size, it would be more prudent for the New Testament Christian to place themselves under passages about child rearing that are directed at Christians.

Sharla said...

Please be aware of how you phrase your comments. If you had a comment rejected tonight, there is a good chance it was not what you said but HOW you said it. Thank you.

luvmybabies said...

Anonymous said "To claim that "child centered parenting" creates selfish, unloving, uncapable children is no more true than that the type of parenting that the Duggars do creates the opposite. That is quite the broad brush.

As with everything, I think there is a happy medium. I think the Duggars are far too hands off, and give too much responsibility to their daughters."

It isn't overgeneralizing to say that either extreme of parent- or child-centered parenting creates mediocre (at best) results. As I said, I believe a happy medium approach is best also. While some disagree with the Duggars' execution, it is family-centered, and while the children may end up with some issues (most children do), selfishness or laziness probably won't be one of them. If individualism and confidence are the top values you want to instill in your children, then you would probably make different choices. But the Duggars' primary values, as they've said, are to teach unselfishness, a servant's heart, and hard working. Their parenting methods appear to be accomplishing this.

Cyn said...

@ Kathie....
I have seen Jana comfort a sick Johanna...not JB or M
>>>>>
It was a short shot and we do not know where Michelle was at the time or if Michelle herself was in another bathroom upchucking herself.

I have had those times where the smell turned my stomach so bad I had to leave the toddler with a sibling not 5 yrs older cause the older sibling had the iron stomach while I ran to empty my queasy one and came back to clean them both up.

I have seen Jennifer cry and reach for Jill (as she said "Dill")...not JB or M
>>>>>

Could "Dill" simply been the one she saw first? We don't know simply because again it was a short shot in a 30 min show usually comprised of 2-3 days of shooting and they cram snippets into 30 mins of air time.

not to mention every outing I see all of the older girls pushing strollers while JB and M are holding hands, not paying attention to the kids at all
>>>>>>>
In the outing shows I have seen JimBob carrying a toddler or two and I listed several of them in another response.

again, I think the Duggars are very likeable but this does bother me

kathie
******************************
IF though it was only the older siblings that offered comfort to the younger ones you would never see them curl up to Mom and Dad or do their best to get mom's attention and I have seen the younger ones do this.

Not in every episode no but yet again we are talking 2-3 days crammed into 30 min segments of air time. Other times they take a 2-3 week trip and make 3-4 episodes out of it... and lets be honest we all know TLC edits these to create drama and or interest.

Lets take for example the shots of one of the toddlers (I do not know the names well enough to remember which one) wandering all over the house "unsupervised". I would lay money the shots were taken with some one actually following the child besides the camera guy; be it Michelle or one of the older girls. But the editing made it appear that the toddler was just wandering all over the house with no one keeping an eye on her.

Anonymous said...

Michelle Duggar delivered baby 19 by emergency C-section a few hours ago.

Enough with the Multiples said...

Re:
As other posters have pointed out, if the older kids don't like it, they're certainly old enough to blow that taco stand if they're sick of it. If Jana is fed up with cooking, then one day she'll be her own home manager and can delegate the cooking to one of her kids if she wants to and she'll never have to do it again.
-----------------------
But this is what is concerning about the family....several of the kids are clearly old enough to be out of the house living their own life but they seem to be raised in a manner that does not encourage (to use Michelle's favorite word) exploring life outside their family/church. I don't know if Jana loves or hates the cooking and childrearing but I'd venture a guess that this is the only lifestyle that she has been brought up to find acceptable. I definitely don't see her someday living a carerr single life in the city, eating out at restraunts several times a week:)


Re:
I have seen Jana comfort a sick Johanna...not JB or M
>>>>>
It was a short shot and we do not know where Michelle was at the time or if Michelle herself was in another bathroom upchucking herself.
-------------------------------
I seem to recall that was the episode where Michelle was outside annoucing her 19th pregnancy at the time Jana was caring for a puking todler.

Virginia said...

I just saw on TLC's website that Michelle's baby was born by C-section yesterday. Her name is Josie and she weighed a little over one pound.

gayle said...

Just saw where baby 19 was delivered via emergency c-section. Little girl, Josie. 1lb and 6 oz. Pray for her!

Anna said...

Michelle had the new baby last night by emergency C-section. It's a little girl, 1 pound, 6 oz, and is listed as being in "stable" condition.

By Faith Also Sara said...

Cyn, I think the point people are trying to make is that we are basing our objections to siblings raising their parent's children not just on what we see ever week, but what the Duggars tell us they do, which is have the siblings raise the weaned children.

They don't really have a problem with their system, and they talk about it at length, in the book and on TV.

Children (the older siblings) are not sufficiently mature enough to raise a child. I think we see MUCH evidence of that in how willful the younger "sibling raised" kids are.

I believe it's a burden that should not be placed on the shoulders of a sibling.

Paul specifically states that the parents should be "laying up" for the children, not the children for the parents. (In the sense of leaving an inheritance and caring for the family.)

But in this family it is backwards. The children do all the work, in laying up for the parents.

jaxmom said...

Sad news about the emergency c-section.

I'll be keeping the newest little Duggar in my prayers (and Michelle as well).

CappuccinoLife said...

"but what the Duggars tell us they do, which is have the siblings raise the weaned children."

That is *not* what the Duggar's have stated. Not ever.

The older siblings have responsibilities. Some disagree with the level of responsibility, some don't.

The older children do help with their siblings, and what help they give is laid out specifically, which differentiates the Duggars from many other families where we might find families pulling together and working together, just not in as organized a manner. And the younger siblings help their older "buddy" with various chores, learning the basics of household maintenance while pulling their weight as a member of the family.

I have seen no indication that the parents just pass off the children to their siblings at a certain age, and leave the rest of the work to them. Even in the tiny segment of thier lives that we see, JB and Michelle are very obviously in the midst of it, *parenting*. That is, teaching, training, disciplining, working, playing, nurturing. Cyn has pointed out many instances of that, and I have as well. They also make an effort to give their older children a regular break from the daily grind, because they do appreciate the help they give.

Whether or not you agree with how much work the older children do, it is very unfair to portray Mr. and Mrs. Duggar as refusing to parent.

Kat said...

Whatever any of us think about the parenting and life choices made by the Duggars, it will be challenging for them at best over the next couple of months, as they have one child in a NICU far away (3-4 hour drive) from home. They will have to choose between being at home for their other children, or being with Josie. Having had a child in similar circumstances, although we lived only 25 minutes away from the hospital, I know the balancing act that will be required.

While children born at Josie's gestational age have a reasonably good chance of survival, any parent of an acute preemie will tell you that things can change in a blink of an eye. A child that is a week away from going home can suddenly succumb to infection despite all the best efforts and prayers.

Best thoughts to Josie, as she faces the challenges of the next few months.

Marybeth said...

So anytime you're in a mall, or a restaurant and you see an older sibling tending to a younger sibling you just assume that the parents aren't parenting their children, but leaving it to the siblings to do? Did it ever occur to you that the older siblings maybe just CARE about their each other? ....So you base your whold view of their entire lives on 30 minutes of tv time?


One of the girls has said she wants to be a chef..so yes she does a lot of the cooking. One of the girls LOVES babies, so yes she tends to care for them. Is that wrong? Don't kid yourselves, Michelle and JB are in control of that household and are raising ALL of their children. Having chores is not wrong. They are raising strong and well-rounded kids. I wish my parents had been more strict about chores when I was growing up--i don't know 1/2 what those kids know about running a household and i'm 39.

As for having lives outside the home, those older girls do. They have hobbies and friends and activities that take them away from the house. They aren't prisoners.

And on a final note, I think it's wonderful that after 25 years of marriage, JB and Michelle are still so much in love that they feel open to show it. They are showing their kids what true love really is. They are laying the foundation for happy and healthy and open marriages for their children. I'd rather have parents that showed affection and showed each other love than parents that didn't.

Bubbles said...

First of all, I am keeping the tiny baby girl in my thoughts & prayers. So fragile!

Secondly, a question. Leave aside the debate over whether or not a family should have so many children, and share your opinion of how a family with this many children should be managed. I see many comments criticizing how the Duggars are doing it, and I'm interested in knowing the opinions of how it should be done instead.

I know that I personally could not manage so many children, but it has been interesting to learn about the Duggars & how they are raising their family.

Enough Already said...

Enough with the pregnancies! Really. It's not cute and in fact, has seemed rather neurotic for some time now. Enough.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather have parents that showed affection and showed each other love than parents that didn't.

I think I'd rather have parents that took all their PDA to the bedroom and instead took that time previously holding hands and making out in front of their kids, and spent it on their little ones.

I think the children need love and affection far more than two mature adults need to have constant PDA.

Somebody's Nana said...

I see quite a bit of discussion as to the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" verse and various interpretations of whether or not the Duggars are actually living by what they say (as in "they don't seem to nurture" comments)

I see plenty of nurturing going on from mom and dad - but my observation aside, I feel I have to respond to the verse being used to support the argument against the Duggars.

Ephesians 6:4 must be interpreted in light of what it meant when it was written which means going back to the original language, time and place. Since the KJV (King James Version) was an interpretation using the language of its time, it is better to go back to the original greek.

From one of my commentaries: NURTURE* kjv rendition of a Greek word (paideia, Eph 6:4) better translated as “discipline.”
Elwell, Walter A. ; Comfort, Philip Wesley: Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2001 (Tyndale Reference Library), S. 965


The discipline and comfort refer not to the parents, but to the discipline found in following God, and the comfort HE provides.

From another commentary:
4. Nurture and admonition In classical usage, that which is applied to train and educate a child. So Plato: “Education is the constraining and directing of youth toward that right reason which the law affirms, and which the experience of the best of our elders has agreed to be truly right” [snip] The kindred verb νουθετέω to warn or admonish, is found only in Paul’s letters, with the single exception of Acts 20:31 (see note). Its distinctive feature is training by word of mouth, as is shown by its classical usage in connection with words meaning to exhort or teach. [snip] Thus Plato, speaking of public instruction in music, says that the spectators were [snip]Admonition is a mode of discipline, so that the two words nurture and admonition stand related as general and special.


This is what I believe is the true interpretation of the verse, and what the Duggars believe: We are instructed to raise our children to understand God in context of a disciplined viewpoint that is guided to teach them about God and His many attributes.

While the Duggars obviously love and nurture their children, they see their obligation to teach their children about God as their primary duty.

You may not agree with their philosophy, but many people do, including people of many different social and economic groups.

Lydia said...

Ephesians 6:4 must be interpreted in light of what it meant when it was written

I have to completely disagree with you. You are placing man's ideas about the Bible over believing and accepting what the Bible says.

I'm not faulting anyone who does or does not believe the Bible.
However, I am saying that I reject the mindset that one can not understand what the Bible clearly says without "going to the Greek" or being a student of the historical times in which it was written.

Yes, the verse says to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord which anyone would know (without having to study ancient Greek) means that the Christian parent is duty bound to teach their child about Christ.

Within that equation is the fact that the non-nurturing, non-hands on parent will have a very hard time teaching about a Christ that they do not have time exhibit to ALL of their children, especially when another sibling is that child's main caretaker.

Somebody's Nana said...

@Lydia "Within that equation is the fact that the non-nurturing, non-hands on parent will have a very hard time teaching about a Christ that they do not have time exhibit to ALL of their children, especially when another sibling is that child's main caretaker."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a Bible scholar, I stand behind my assertion that understanding begins with what the original meant to the original listener in light of the totality of scripture. You are free to disagree.

Regarding your comment above, however, you seem to imply that there is only one way of nurturing a child within a family. If you look at ancient families, especially those of the Bible, (the original audience of this scripture) you will find that the Duggar's way of raising them is closer to the Biblical model. A nuclear family unit is a very modern invention.

Knowing how "reality" television works, it is reasonable to assume that the network is emphasizing various aspects of the Duggars' lives over others in order to frame the family in a way that actually invites discussion and disagreement. To present them from one end of the day to the other without editing would be boring and not contribute to ratings at all. So the fact that we more of the older children raising the younger children is, in my view, designed to create this very controversy. The fact that we see more "chaos" in the more recent shows is more likely because they are not edited out, not because they didn't exist before.

In fact, the very aspect of their lives that require all family members to contribute to the welfare of the rest of the family is more in line with the scriptural model of the church than is a nuclear family that emphasizes individualism over group.

As to the Duggars, I would never take the position they have taken regarding the number of children, but I do understand how they came to this point, scripturally speaking. In fact, I acknowledge and believe the same scriptures, but how I live them out is between me and God.

I think you and I (and the Duggars) probably agree on more than we disagree. :)

CappuccinoLife said...

Somebody's Nana, thank you for your posts. Those were great. :)

Proof that it is possible to reach different conclusions from the Duggars and still respect them and not have a need to shred their beliefs or assume the worst of them. :)

Lydia said...

Somebody's Nana said...As a Bible scholar, I stand behind my assertion...

No problem. :-)

And as a Bible Believer, I stand by my assertion.

2 Timothy 3:16
 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Lydia said...

So the fact that we more of the older children raising the younger children is, in my view, designed to create this very controversy.

I disagree because we also have Michelle and Jimbob bragging about their buddy system in their book and online interviews.

I'm not saying it's wrong to have older children help. I have an older child that helps. But I think, when it starts getting to the point that you have SO MANY kids that you can not spend time with them and nurture them, it's time to reanalyze the system.

Jane in California said...

Anonymous said:

I think I'd rather have parents that took all their PDA to the bedroom and instead took that time previously holding hands and making out in front of their kids, and spent it on their little ones.

I think the children need love and affection far more than two mature adults need to have constant PDA.
* * * *

I think it's very nice to see a husband and wife greet each other when one of them returns home at the end of the day from work, with a hug and a kiss. It's lovely to see them walk arm in arm occasionally, or hand in hand. But I also agree that it's not really appropriate to be walking hand in hand when you are out with all your little ones that need adult supervision. Save that for when the two of you are enjoying a walk alone.

Any other PDA should also be reserve to when the couple has alone time. There are many ways to express love without kissing, hugging, snuggling, etc. all the time. A simple warm look, a sincere compliment on a meal well made, a momentary touch to the upper arm in passing - these are all ways to show love and caring to our family.

I know what sometimes bothers me about the Duggars -- it feels like they want to present this perfect facade to the world. Michelle - loving, demure, soft spoken, submissive, and most of all, fertile. JB - outgoing, funny, "wonderful" and most of all, potent.

The children - obedient, girls modestly dressed and boys --- well, boys will be boys.

It's an Ozzie and Harriet dream world. I watch it, because it's like an alternate universe. I keep looking for the cracks, to see the reality underneath. I'm sure that's not fair -- but it just seems so unreal that Michelle, especially, never raises her voice with all those noisy kids racing around the house, tearing it up. And never gets annoyed at JB who is always around! What wife doesn't go a little crazy when husband is always underfoot?

Momof3kidsand3dogs said...

Does anyone know when/if the Duggars are finished filming this season? I do wonder how the unfortunate circumstances surrounding baby Josie's birth will affect their show. Surely, caring for this dear child will take precedent and they will stop filming if they haven't already. Would TLC be kind enough to let them out of their contract? This combined with the loss of the Gosselins will take quite a toll on the network. However, I just can't see the Duggars continuing to film. Does any one know more about the situation?

Enough with the Multiples said...

It will be interesting to see how the family functions in regards to the premature birth of Josie and the surrounding circumstances. I certainly am curious to see how such a large family adapts to this changing family situation. Michelle will likely have to stay near the hospital or travel back and forth for several months. And even when Josie comes home, she will certainly require special care. It's possibly a catch 22.

If the family functions as normal with M/JB away at the hospital for an extended time, then it's obvious that the older girls (and possibly even Grandma Duggar) do way more than they should.

On the other hand, if chaos and disorder takes over in M/JB's absense than that just goes to the argument that they have been taking way too many chances having more children than they can handle.

On an educational note, while I fully support homeschooling, I have to wonder if M/JB would consider placing the children in public school for the remainder of the school year??? Unless they have other homeschooling parents near by that would be willing to help out overseeing lessons (or the Bates come help out), it seems unfair to place the children's education, meals, laundry, bedtime routine, etc. on the older girls and Grandma D. Perhaps temporarily, it would be beneficial for the school age kids to be away at public school during the day, thus reducing the duties on the "graduated" kids and Grandma D for several hours each day and ensuring that the school age kids were getting adequate schooling. (As it is, I've seen too many times where there was chaos in the house while the school age kids were trying to do lessons).

Snap! said...

The Duggars did use birth control then decided not to after a miscarriage. Could they not change their minds again and decide to use it to protect Michelle's health? It seems to me they make up their religion as they go along....

Lydia said...

I think it would be more chaotic to the structure of the family to try and enroll that many kids in a public school and get them all there every day by 8:00 a.m.

It would also be pretty hard emotionally on those younger kids to be taken from the bosom of the family and placed in a public school setting.

While I don't totally agree with their buddy system and think Michele and JB should spend more time with the children they have, you can't beat this system for carrying them through a crisis like this with as little upheaval as possible.

Christmas break is coming up soon, so that will give everyone a break, the students and the older kids teaching the students. Even with MIchelle and JB gone and at the hospital so much, I fully believe that their older children are more than capable of keeping the home fires burning.

All families pull together in times of need, they just have more hands to grab the ropes.

Lydia said...

Snap! said...

The Duggars did use birth control then decided not to after a miscarriage. Could they not change their minds again and decide to use it to protect Michelle's health? It seems to me they make up their religion as they go along....

When they made their decision about that, it was what, about 15 years ago? I personally no longer agree with the conclusion they came to about what the Bible says on the issue, but that certainly doesn't mean they make it us as they go along.

Snap! said...

The Duggars dated, kissed, used birth control etc. Now they are ultra conservative and expect the same from their children. Their extended families seem more mainstream. I'm just wondering why they can't swing back to where they come from and use birth control, let the girls wear pants and let their children explore a life away from their way of thinking. They seem like a good family. I don't think modifying some of their beliefs would alter that. My beliefs change as I mature and my childrens' change also. It's part of life and evolving as a person.

Kat said...

JB always says that he "leaves it up to Michelle" as to whether to have more children or not. Since they don't use birth control, I'm assuming he means the cessation of sex? That's the only surefire way I know of.

Also, did anyone get the feeling that perhaps Jordyn was *intended* to be the last child? I thought at the time it was a bit strange how Michelle kept saying "This could be my last baby," and they bought that complete layette for her BRAND NEW (ok, the store probably donated it, but still...). I mean, Michelle is only 42, right? So it's not as if she is on the brink of menopause or anything that would naturally end her ability to bear children. Maybe there were "warning signs" with that pregnancy that they chose not to make public.

Lydia said...

I'm just wondering why they can't swing back to where they come from and use birth control, let the girls wear pants and let their children explore a life away from their way of thinking. They seem like a good family. I don't think modifying some of their beliefs would alter that.

I doubt that they would suspend their belief system and how the raise their children based on what total strangers think. I wouldn't expect them to. As fundamentalist Christians I believe they fully expect to be castigated for their beliefs.

By the same token, I wouldn't expect you to change your belief system and the way you raise your kids based on what the Duggars have chosen for their family.

I don't agree with all they do, but I am thankful that we live in the USA where we can worship God and live according to the dictates of our conciseness. :-)

Anonymous said...

I have a question about the buddy system. Do the older boys have buddies? In the originial special it seemed like they did, but lately I've hardly seen Josiah, Joseph and John David help with the little kids. Lately it's actually looked like the older girls have been caring for them as a whole (when Michelle isn't) and not as much specifically for one child anymore. Is this just editing or have they changed their system?

Also, according to Wikipedia (not the most reputable source, I know), it lists this week's episode as the last until the end of January. After that, it doesn't list the dates for any more. As the last one listed is a Christmas special which obviously has not yet been filmed (unless they've gone Gosselin and staged it ahead of time), I would assume it is the season finale where they will talk about Josie. When it picks up after the Christmas episode, they will probably change their name to "19 Kids & Counting". Hopefully this all means that the show won't pick up again for a few months so they'll get a break from filming while Josie is in the NICU.

Snap! said...

But they did change their belief system afer they had Josh. I am not saying they should change their belief system. What I am saying is that they did change it once- why can't they modify it now.

Marybeth said...

Actually, they don't "expect" their children to live the way they do. Their children know the truth about their miscarriage while they were using the pill, they know what birth control is, and they know how their parents view the Bible, however JB and Michelle also want their kids to live their lives as they believe they feel G-d is leading them. Both Josh and Anna have said that they are leaving it up to G-d to decide how many children they have, but at the same time, they are not out to set any records and 3 or 4 will be just fine. My husband and I don't use BC and have 1 child.

This family is not from the stone age. They have prepared their children to move out into a secular world and navigate as they see fit. Michelle and JB realise that they are, in fact, an anomoly. Michelle figured she was close to the end of her child-rearing days at the age of 42 just as a matter of averages, so yes, Josie was a "surprise."

How they interpret this birth is anyone's guess, and frankly none of our business. They could see it as G-d saying "no more." And therefore they might use some kind of BC, or perhaps there could be so much damage that she may not be able to have anymore regardless, and again, that's none of our business. But it's how they view G-d, now how we view them viewing G-d.

Unfortunately, people tend to view this family as some kind of a cult, raising their kids as cult members to follow in their exact footsteps. I find that sad, because if you read between the lines in their book and on their show, you'll see that it isn't true.

The girls have activities of their own and are allowed to go to school if they choose. If they want careers they can have them. They have friends that aren't family members and are allowed out of the house unescorted. The boys can go to college and choose whatever career they want.

None of them are forced into courting and that has been stressed on all of the "josh and anna" engagement episodes. Everyone just assumes it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a girl or two that becomes a missionary and doesn't get married or gets married later. One may date and not court. One may have a career. And I'm sure oen or more son may be a missionary as well and not marry until later or not at all.

Jane in California said...

One more thought on the issue of parents making arrangements for their adult children's courships:

I was friends with a couple in college. My roommate and her boyfriend had met in junior college and were friends. At their graduation, she met his mom and dad. The boy's dad later told him, "If I was in your shoes, I think I'd ask that girl out on a date."

It was a very gentle nudge, but one that he needed. Apparently, he'd been attracted but too shy to do anything about it. Then his dad's comment got him thinking more, and so he asked her out.

Anyway - they've been married for over 20 years now, with 4 kids.

That kind of parental intervention is wonderful.

Lydia said...

MaryBeth said How they interpret this birth is anyone's guess, and frankly none of our business.

Well, actually, as long as they are selling the family on TV to make money, and have willingly been so forthcoming regarding how their view the births of all their children, why should this one be any different?

Lydia said...

But they did change their belief system afer they had Josh. I am not saying they should change their belief system. What I am saying is that they did change it once- why can't they modify it now.

They changed before, because they believed they were wrong. So to change again, they'd have to decide to go back to being "wrong" or come up with a reason why it isn't now "wrong" to use Birth Control.

Eliza said...

As an Arkansan and an adult child in a family that homeschools I may be able to clear something up for everyone. Arkansas law states that NO ONE other than the ONE person who signs the notice of intent with the school district they live in is allowed to do the actual teaching. The laws are also a little different for each age group for instance state mandated testing is required every so often, so if the kids really were uneducated the state would step in and require public education.
It kinda bothers me that I can't teach my favorite subjects to my siblings, but they can break the law on TV
Regardless of your feelings about the state of AR, and I do beleive that many people get the wrong idea of AR because of the way the Duggars are portrayed, we have very good education available and a very strict no child left behind policy.
Even though they do not homeschool through the public school system they are still bound by Arkansas law, therefore if the kids were uneuducated JB&M would be in trouble for truancy and the kids would be educated by whatever means neccessary.
arkedu.state.ar.us/commemos/.../HOME_SCHOOL_LAW-A.C.A.doc
I can't post enough links to cover everything I said, so if you must, simply google Arkansas homeschool laws, or Arkansas notice of intent.
I personally think the kids are educated, at least better than some. It's a TV show, we only see what TLC wants us to.

Anonymous said...

Michelle herself has said that the older girls are responsible for teaching their "buddies". I would personally be shocked if these "high school graduates" at age 16 know anywhere near enough to pass any sort of exam. We know for a fact too that Michelle and Jim Bob (who must have signed the homeschooling contract) don't teach the older kids. They teach themselves on a computer, for whatever that is worth.

This isn't to diss homeschoolers in Arkansas in the slightest. I am sure there are well educated homeschooled families in Arkansas and elsewhere. I just don't happen to believe that the Duggars are one of those families.

Safety First said...

Eliza said...
As an Arkansan and an adult child in a family that homeschools I may be able to clear something up for everyone. Arkansas law states that NO ONE other than the ONE person who signs the notice of intent with the school district they live in is allowed to do the actual teaching.
-------

Well, unless the state of Arkansas has surplus money in it's budget to station a school district employee (an education-patrolman of sorts) at the Duggars dining room table, the ONE person doing the actual teaching could be any one of the Duggars.

If that's the law, then why did Michelle state in an episode that Jessa's jurisdiction is the homeschool ?

Anonymous said...

Jessa's jurisdiction does not mean that she is the teacher responsible for all aspects. A child's jurisdiction being the kitchen does not mean that they prepare all meals and do all the shopping. It could mean that she is responsible for keeping the material in order, checking on computer problems, and assisting under her mother's direction just like an aid or parent volunteer at a public school.

Anonymous said...

The "graduated" students have all passed the state high school equivalency exam so yes they have passed a standardized test the GED.

Snap! said...

I don't think what someone believes or practices is our business. But the Duggars put it out there for us to discuss. If I discuss my life, beliefs, birth control, conception dates with someone- I would expect them to have an opinion and share their beliefs with me. If I keep quiet about my life- then they should mind their own business. The
Duggars decided to be on a reality show. Isn't this an invitation to discuss them and have opinions about them? All these opinions will be different and we should listen to them not say your opinions are wrong.

Cyn said...

Anonymous said...

The "graduated" students have all passed the state high school equivalency exam so yes they have passed a standardized test the GED.
12/15/2009 8:48 AM

They also had to pass the same tests the public school kids did either yearly or ever three years depending on the grade level of the child. Those Tests are administered at another location by some one other than the Duggars or related to the Duggars in any way. ALL home school kids have to do this by federal law.

In TN (not sure about other states) it was t-caps.

luvmybabies said...

Marybeth said... "And on a final note, I think it's wonderful that after 25 years of marriage, JB and Michelle are still so much in love that they feel open to show it. They are showing their kids what true love really is. They are laying the foundation for happy and healthy and open marriages for their children. I'd rather have parents that showed affection and showed each other love than parents that didn't."

I completely agree. The "PDA" I see is that JB & M hold hands and give each other a frequent quick little kiss. Okaaaay...not seeing the problem here. The "conceived on Father's Day" comment was definitely TMI and unnecessary, but other than that I think the affection between the parents gives the children a feeling of security and puts a blanket of love over the whole family. It teaches children that marriage is something to look forward to. I don't think the children need JB & M to be giving them affection instead every time they are giving each other affection, as some have said.

I would have loved it if my parents had shown each other the love and affection that these parents do, instead of the distance that was there between them. The affection my parents showed me individually wasn't comforting because there was a huge hole in the family where the parents' affection was supposed to be.

I think JimBob and Michelle have it right.

Somebody's Nana, your posts were interesting and informative. People assume the Duggars' way of doing things is wrong because it doesn't fit the modern model. This isn't necessarily the case.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 359   Newer› Newest»