Duggar Free Discussion January 2010

Please use this for Duggar sightings, speculation, or general discussion. Note that this is Duggar discussion not other families, TV shows, or personal stories. If you wish to discuss other TLC shows, please visit TLCwithoutpity.blogspot.com. Thank you!

420 comments:

1 – 200 of 420   Newer›   Newest»
SuzanneDeAZ said...

So do you think this new year will bring in a new Duggar baby?

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling that Michelle's doctors are going to extremely caution her against another child so soon. After this, who knows if she can even have any more, but I don't think they will do anything to prevent it. They may do their best to listen to the doctor if she says it will threaten Michelle's life, but they won't use birth control, they have stated that vehemently before. Perhaps they will use natural methods to avoid pregnancy. I guess only time will tell, but I do wish them all the best.

Not a math major said...

I'm just trying to do the math regarding how soon Muchelle can be pregnant again. Since she is pumping and not nursing, she will probably start ovulating very soon. So she could be pregnany withing 3-4 weeks of Josie's birth.

Anonymous said...

they follow Gothard,and say they abstain for a period of time after a birth...I think it's 60 days for a boy,and 80 for a girl? someone correct me if I'm wrong on the no. of days.it's in their book.
but since they had a girl,obviously the time will be extended for that vs if they'd had a boy.
whatever happens,I hope they don't end up with another early birth or baby in nicu!

Not a math major said...

So when was Josie born? 12/10/09. So they can start trying to conceive again on Feb. 10, give or take a few days. If they conceive on Feb. 10, the next baby would be born around Nov. 10, 2010, when Josie is 11 months old.

roddma said...

I read it was 40 days after a boy and 80 for a girl. I wonder what the reasonsings are.

Cyn said...

Biblical law states 33+7 for a boy 66+14 for a girl....

Bible also states no sex for 7 days after the start of menstruation.

I have no idea what Gothard teaches.

WHY they would follow this law for the Jews is beyond me... but the Jews had it LONG before Gothard showed up :P

Somebody's Nana said...

Waiting to resume relations after childbirth: if the Duggars follow the Old Testament, Leviticus 12:4-5 indicates that it is 33 days for a male child; 66 days for a girl child.

Anonymous said...

I love Duggar family. However, when I watch it lately, I get worried about the older children. John and Jana are almost 20 yrs old, they got their GEDs a long time ago, and they are still at home. We never were shown that either of them was studying for any college classes at least online. The same goes for Jill, who is 18, and Jessa (17). Will they stay at home too?? I have a feeling that they are not allowed by their parents to move out to college or just pursue some study, that could bring them real future. Sewing and cooking if good, but you need to have a profession!

And if they don't want to study, they could get jobs (not only babysitting). Now would be a good chance for Jana, for example, to get some part-time job at the Little Rock, AK hospital, that could lead her to another job or maybe a nursing school.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope and pray that Michelle values her life more than trying for an even 20. At almost 44 years old, with four c-sections, life threatening pre-eclampsia and a sick preemie, I think she should concentrate on the blessings she already has.

Risking her life for another child would be ludicrous, IMO, but then again, I believe mothers are critical to their children's well being (and I wouldn't pass off my kids to my older teens either).

kaekae said...

I seriously doubt they will have another one. After all, they don't want to risk the baby's (or Michelle's) life.
By guess is that they will abstain during ovulation.
Or they may try a barrier method but I think they will use the calendar and avoid certain days - it's cheaper.

Marybeth said...

They follow several Old Testament rules that Jews follow--the manner of dress for example--similar to Chassidic Jews (of which I am one.) Why? Why not? Just because they are Christians doesn't mean that they have to turn their back on the Old Testament. She has said that they use the guildlines for sex after pregnancy and menstruation because it's healthy, she also sees it as a way for JB to honour her and respect her. She has said that it makes their "coming together again" even that more special. Frankly I think that's kind of nice. Whether they have more children or not really isn't for us to say, or for them to say--it's in G-d's hands. My husband and I haven't used birth control for 4 years now and we only have 1 child--so it really is up to G-d, not us.

However I don't think they are stupid people--they won't risk her life.

As for Jana and John-David--they aren't prisoners in their home. Just because we don't see things happening in 30 minutes of a tv show, doesn't mean that they aren't. Their parents have said repeatedly that they are welcome to continue their education if they want to--it's up to them. John-David has started a towing business that compliments Josh's car lot. And I find it funny that people think it's strange that they are following in their father's footsteps. Since when is going into your parent's line of work odd?

Anonymous said...

Jana is almost 20, still sharing a room with her baby siblings. We have no idea whether she would like to go to college, midwifery school, or get a job outside the home, but anyone who has 20 year olds (I do) knows that the last thing they want to do is NOTHING at home all day. Yes, I know Jana is busy with the younger kids' care, but that really isn't HER life at all.

When will those kids get to live THEIR lives? WHen they are 25? 30?

Anonymous said...

Their whole lives, those kids have been taught that secular schools and liberal universities are full of bad people and influences that will try and teach them bad things and there will be tons of bad temptation. WHO would choose that?

Not a single graduate from that household has shown interest in college, trade school, or furthering of education of any kind. None of the girls have jobs. It is such wasted potential.

They are such great kids that have been raised to be honest, kind, respectful, and hard working. But instead of putting those kids out into society, they are being kept at home, or taking over Jim Bob's business. What a shame.

Judy said...

I would be really surprised if they didn't try to conceive again. Yes, I'm sure doctors will warn her not to, but doctors probably warned her against birthing vaginally after her two sections, (the twins and Jackson, I think) yet she did. Most health professionals would advise against nineteen children in the first place. . yet she had them. If they really, really want to keep to their beliefs, they will continue not to use any birth control and believe that God will do what's right. And though women generally lose their fertility with age, Michelle conceived very, very quickly after the last baby -- when she was six months and still nursing, so I wouldn't be surprised if she were pregnant again in a matter of months.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said:Not a single graduate from that household has shown interest in college, trade school, or furthering of education of any kind. None of the girls have jobs. It is such wasted potential.

They are such great kids that have been raised to be honest, kind, respectful, and hard working. But instead of putting those kids out into society, they are being kept at home, or taking over Jim Bob's business. What a shame.


The implicaton of your statements are that marriage and working at a family job is not as valuable as other options. I take exception to both statements. The family is the base for all of society. It is where values are taught, love is shared, and people feel secure. That other families may not be as loving does not devalue the impact of those who are. The Duggars value family; it is a valid choice.

While working in a family business may not seem as glamorous as going to college, it is an honorable way to support a family. The majority of the world would give their eye teeth to be able to have a job that simply provides for a family.

Yes, a secular college may pull the kids away from their family and values. I see that as a very valid reason for not encouraging them to go away to school. But I don't think the Duggars would discourage the kids from taking classes while living at home if they chose to.

If your goal in life is to accumulate more and have more, than you probably can't see any benefit to the Duggar's way of life. However, if you can reduce life expectations to basic principles like honesty, hard work, caring, giving, etc., then the Duggars have it mastered.

As for marriage being the end of all choices for the Duggar girls, I beg to differ. There are choices in life all along the way. And of all the things I have done and will do, marriage and family are my most treasured successes.

Anonymous said...

SuzanneDeAZ said...

So do you think this new year will bring in a new Duggar baby?

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

Michelle might be lost without being pregnant and having a baby. I believe that that is how she finds her identity...being pregnant.

nccalgal said...

If JB is as "forward-thinking" as the book and show are supposed to be portraying him to be, then he would have realized that at some time in the future the older ones might not want to share a room with the younger siblings and designed the bedrooms in such a way that they could be partitioned into at least two or three rooms each so that the older ones could have some privacy and the younger ones could be put to be at a decent time and not restrict the older ones from using their rooms while the youger ones are going to sleep. They mention that they asked Jana is she wanted a separate room, but nothing about the older boys having that choice, but in either case, they had to know at some point the age gap was going to need to be addressed. The older girls probably don't want to "rock the boat", but that doesn't mean the parents should ignore their need for separate space.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

WHY they would follow this law for the Jews is beyond me... but the Jews had it LONG before Gothard showed up...

They only do it because Bill Gothard says to.

roddma said...

I dont think following in your parents footsteps is odd if you want to do it. I cant see the big deal living at home at 20. Most do anyway as living expenses arent cheap. If the younger Duggar adults are allowed the option of indpendence and careers we are sure not seeing it. Josh wanted to be alwayer but that hasnt happened yet.

I agree with annonyous A 20 year old would want to do something besides look after siblings the biggest part of her day. Maybe they dont know how to start living independently and feel safe in their comfort zone. Someone has provided the bread for the all this time.

Anonymous said...

Roddma - I can understand your point about their comfort zone (this is how I felt at that age), but I actually believe the older girls look like they would do really well on their own. Growing up, I never learned any skills, really. Then, I got married and had no idea how to cook, clean or do anything, which is why I missed my "comfort zone." I just don't see the Duggar girls feeling this way. They may like the comfort of their family, but they certainly have more life skills than my friends and I did at that age.
-Christina

Anonymous said...

I guess the question is how could they prevent any future pregnancies other than nature ending Michelle's reproductive stage or or abstaining from sexual relations all together? The Duugars don't believe in birth control and since Michelle is, at this point,still able to menstrate, how in the world would she not continue to get pregnant? I am fearful for her life and he life of any future babies she may attempt to have. I am all for trusting in God and following his words but at what point does one say "ok time to use some common sense and stop"? If you trust in God you will know that what you are doing is not against his word. I feel like Michelle is sacrifing herself for some unknown reason. God forbid she suffer some life threatening situation and she can no longer be there for her kids. It's one thing for a parent to be temporarily absent but it would be tragic if they lost her, although I know this can happen anyway.

I often wondered do the Duggars view sex as a part of a loving marriage or do they see it solely as a way to reproduce?

MOM IN TEXAS

Anonymous said...

"The implicaton of your statements are that marriage and working at a family job is not as valuable as other options. "

That was not my implication at all.

Working at a family job is absolutely valid and a wonderful option. For Josh and maybe John David. But there are 17 other siblings that will be looking for jobs one day to support their families. And no, I do not think that Jim Bob and Michelle are preparing them for that part of life. Will Jim Bob pass a business down to every son?

And I find extraordinary value in family. Nothing that I said devalues family or marriage, in my opinion. I think you can further your education, find jobs, go to trade school, be in an internship, find a spouse or just participate in life outside your parent's household and still have value for family. What is Jana doing in regards to her future? She is at an age where you begin to branch out and start forming your OWN family and your OWN life, college or not. It appears that all she is currently doing is being her mom's helper.

You also stated "Yes, a secular college may pull the kids away from their family and values."

Whether or not that is true, the point is that they cannot shelter them from secular ideas for the rest of their lives. Eventually, the kids will have to face the world on their own. Eventually, Jim Bob and Michelle have to let go of control. And I think they have absolutely nothing to worry about. As I stated earlier, I believe they have raised great kids.

Anonymous said...

Nothing is wrong with marriage and family. Most of the posters, or those that have alluded to it, are married with families.

The point is that none of those kids have been allowed or shown to have interests of their own. They have no individuality. One cannot even keep straight some of them because they all blend together.

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a mother. But even a mother can like to crochet, or paint, or ride a bicycle, or....

Cyn said...

Josh and John David's Businesses are not family businesses IF you mean that Dad started it and the older boys are just taking it over for him.

JimBob sold the towing business to the driver he hired back when the kids were still younger (and less of them)

He sold the car lot business when he he became a state rep.

BUT if you meant that they were following in theirs footsteps by having the same businesses then you would be correct.

Hades though both enterprises worked so well for JimBob why not try the same things again for younger boys that at the time did NOT have to support young families...

And frankly having read the book and the way JimBob and Michelle ran those businesses

Michelle lived in the house the car lot was on and during the day while Jim Bob was off at his main job Michelle would show the car but couldn't answer a lot of the questions. Then if the perspective buyers were interested they would come back in the evenings when JimBob was home to sell the car.

The towing business started out just as haphazard... He would tow cars when he could get to them in the evenings or the weekends till he hired the driver...

Neither on the surface look as though they would make enough money but some how it did. By selling off the car inventory in the course of almost a year he had enough money to buy the first commercial real-estate and then turned around and dang near tripled his investment. AND all with NO borrowing after the very FIRST home they purchased.


PS to those that have an issue with JimBob trying to get discounts on everything or getting it for free even, the finical seminar they took teaches that so do quite a few others (like Dave Ramsey) It's a bargaining technique but you have to have the ability to just walk away of they say no, and go try some where else. The Duggars aren't the only ones that do it, simply the only ones in reality TV that do it well. (Kate whined till she got what she wanted)

Anonymous said...

We have seen the Duggars "accumulate more and have more", since the show. They have a gigantic home, their own basketball court, lots of vehicles to drive, plenty of "stuff" around, including name brand clothing, Iphones, other cell phones, makeup and tanning.

I don't think the Duggars are as ascetic as some want to make them out to be. They don't have goats and chickens and show self sufficiency and lack of interest in material things like the Amish. The Duggars are again, hypocritical, because they act as if they don't want all these things, but they have them all anyway.

And then there's the modesty thing---wearing long skirts but showing ultrasounds and births on tv. Why on earth would private and modest people do that, except for the money? There is no showing ANYTHING Godly or Christian in filming private moments like that. It could only be for the money.

Nancy said...

Somebody's Nana said - "If your goal in life is to accumulate more and have more, than you probably can't see any benefit to the Duggar's way of life. However, if you can reduce life expectations to basic principles like honesty, hard work, caring, giving, etc., then the Duggars have it mastered."

I am sorry you feel that the only way to have a life based on working hard, caring, giving, etc. is to live like the Duggars. That is somewhat offensive to those of us who have worked our whole lives, raised children (or not), spent time in service or volunteer activities and caring for others. My husband and I have been lucky enough to end up with material possessions through working very hard(which honestly the Duggars have so much - I don't understand the suggestion that they have given up material items!) through working hard. I ultimately gave up a lucrative career to teach and spend my time primarily on volunteer opportunities. We both went to college. Our three sons all went to college. All are sweet, hard working young men. I don't understand - how does wearing long skirts, having tons of kids, not going to college, and following Gothard make them more honest, hard working, etc?
I don't really judge the Duggars - it is their life and they are free to live it as they wish. But judging others as inferior morally because they choose something different is not how I interpret Christian behavior either.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said: Michelle might be lost without being pregnant and having a baby. I believe that that is how she finds her identity...being pregnant.


I don't think she gets her identity from being pregnant per se, but from being a wife and mother. Her delight in babies is no more intense than those of us who have only 2 or 3; it's simply magnified by the number in their family. When I watched her discussing the fact that she knew that she would soon be unable to have babies due to her age, it reminded me exactly of my own feeling when I contemplated that my youngest would be my last. Most of us, even if we know we do not want any more children, are a little misty-eyed at the realization that this part of our life is coming to an end. Even as we feel those emotions, though, we gladly move forward with the next stage of life. I think Michelle will do the same, much to the disappointment of those who really do want to paint her as some poor, pathetic, male-dominated, unbalanced woman.

winsomeone said...

Why was John David given a towing business, and Jana nothing? Are just the males in the family going to be set up with a living in the future?

Amanda said...

I know this has been said but...JB and Michelle don't encourage their children to be independent, to make their own choices.

Like music, television and the Nike thing. The kids (even the older ones) are given the opportunity to do the right thing because they don't have a choice.

Like reading. I know they want the kids to read uplifting, Christian books but there is so much good Christian fiction out today that you can have a pick of genre and have as good a read as non-Christian but as far as we know the kids are encouraged to read a few select books.

Same thing with music. Hymns are great but so is the newer praise music. At one point Amazing Grace was a new song.

Okay...one more thing (I have a lot of bones to pick today) As a Christian I don't like people who pick and choose what Old Testament laws they are going to follow and which one they aren't. (You have to wait so long before intercourse, you have to wear dresses as not to look like a man)
But they can eat pork and shellfish. I am thankful that Christ died for my sins so that I don't have to worry about breaking laws anymore.

One more bone then I'm done...I don't have any children and I am convinced that the Duggars took my portion ;)

Bubbles said...

I saw 20 Years, 20 Duggars today and while Michelle was talking about her pregnancies & deliveries with each of the kids, she said she developed pre-eclampsia while pregnant with John David & Jana which is why she had her first c-section. So, it wasn't the first time when it happened with little Josie, although it obviously was much earlier in the pregnancy this time.

It's such a contrast to listen to her talk about her kids compared to Kate Gosselin...it's clear that even with 18 of them she knows them better than Kate knows her children.

Somebody's Nana said...

Bubbles saidI saw 20 Years, 20 Duggars today and while Michelle was talking about her pregnancies & deliveries with each of the kids, she said she developed pre-eclampsia while pregnant with John David & Jana which is why she had her first c-section. So, it wasn't the first time when it happened with little Josie, although it obviously was much earlier in the pregnancy this time.


A good bit of evidence to counter the claim that she cannot have any more children because she had preeclampsia in this one. There were 15 normal pregancies in between, if I'm counting correctly.

GrandmasPreggo said...

Anonymous said...

SuzanneDeAZ said...

So do you think this new year will bring in a new Duggar baby?

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

Michelle might be lost without being pregnant and having a baby. I believe that that is how she finds her identity...being pregnant.

1/01/2010 7:33 PM
***************************

"What's TAKING so Long!!!??!"
LOL
I mean come ON, it's been almost a MONTH now! Jeesh.

Anonymous: dittos.

Michelle "needs" to be Pg and frankly, once she truly canNOT become Pg anymore (and that day WILL come, Michelle), I have no idea what she will "Do." Yes, I agree with someone who posted this phrase awhile back, she truly is a "one-trick pony." Really, what ELSE does she "do??"
And please do not say she mothers her children! (unless you are referring to those who are YOUNG infants)
As for glomming-on to the grandbabies ....(most grandmothers look forward to that): Meh. Don't see it in the future. I mean, just LOOK at how much Michelle is involved with MacKenzie! (yes ,yes, I know, Grandma's been unavoidably busy with her own and latest baby)
Just that statement alone speaks volumes.
DIdn't J.Blob say in one show recently, as he held MacKenzie, that "Grandma is Pregnant!"
Gah!!

roddma said...

Very well said Nancy I couldnt have put it better. There are those who cant have children or dont want them. Are these people inferior or less moral? No. Im one of them at almost 40. we cant pick and choose our life. I read on infertility boards and blogs sad stories of those who feel like a fish out of water because they dont have kids. TV shows like the Duggars dont help them feel any more confident. I watch them out of curiosity more than anything. Im not against big families. I am against making it look easy regardless of size.

Gothard never married or had children so who is he to dole out advice? Furthermore, the Duggars met Dolly Parton who has no kids.

I learned to cook and clean without 18 siblings. It doesnt hurt boys to learn those skills too. My husband did it for years himself.

Anonymous said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oprah offered to pay for the older girls to attend college and Mr. Duggar turned her down, saying that they would not be attending. I remember reading this in a few places last fall, but I cannot recall the sources right now.

I don't wish anyone ill will and certainly don't want to tell someone how to raise their children, but I do feel it is not fair to siblings when parents have so many children where older siblings are responsible for a good deal of their care when they are just a few months old. With the case of their new daughter, being a mico-preemie, hoping and assuming she does okay, her home care will be very intense and she will be medically fragile for quite some time (I have been an NICU RN for 20 + years). In the event (hopefully not) that she has complications with lasting sequelae, she could possibly go home on a ventilator with a tracheostomy and a gastric feeding tube, multiple medications and so on.... it would be extremely trying for those with no other children and tons of support, let alone parenting & attending to the daily (not counting emotional) needs of 19 other children, several of them not even school-aged yet. Are their girls going to have to deal with a situation like this, and what if a 21st child is added to the mix? I'm rambling here, but are the older sons held to the same principle too? The girls (as do all the children) seem to be great kids, but just that...kids. How can they experience life when they are held responsible for their ongoing addition of siblings? Are they just supposed to hope that they will be courted eventually and that's it? After all is said and done, I would hope that they would be encouraged to get out and live a little. Do the girls' lives have to be programmed by their parents?

Cyn said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oprah offered to pay for the older girls to attend college and Mr. Duggar turned her down, saying that they would not be attending. I remember reading this in a few places last fall, but I cannot recall the sources right now.

This one has already been discussed in the fact or fiction section and it's FICTION all started by ONE blog post that included the stupid Josh rumor.

Anonymous said...

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oprah offered to pay for the older girls to attend college and Mr. Duggar turned her down, saying that they would not be attending. I remember reading this in a few places last fall, but I cannot recall the sources right now.

This one has already been discussed in the fact or fiction section and it's FICTION all started by ONE blog post that included the stupid Josh rumor."

Actually, Oprah did offer to pay for the girls to attend schooling for midwifery. Jim Bob said they were too young to move away from home. I remember it very clearly.

Anonymous said...

>A good bit of evidence to counter the claim that she cannot have any more children because she had preeclampsia in this one. There were 15 normal pregancies in between, if I'm counting correctly.
------------------------------------

BUT..you still need to factor in AGE.She is not getting any younger.
It's kind of like saying I've been going up and down my staircase all my life,so that proves I can still keep on doing it.Yet I know the day will come when I no longer can go up and down the stairs..due to AGE.And thus it is the same with Michelle.
The preeclampsia with the twins may have just been that..because she was having twins.
Their book also says that the second set of twins were born several weeks early,and JB doesn't say exactly *why that was,so she may have had it again with the 2nd set of twins.

Anonymous said...

For the umpteenth time, the Duggars are "judged" (on blogs such as this, among many others) because they made a conscious choice to put their family out there on national television.

Had they maintained their private life in AR, they could have had their 20 kids and no one nationally (although I am sure they would create a stir locally anyway!) would know or care.

When Jim Bob sold his family to TLC, he sold their privacy, and their rights not to be judged. I do not feel guilty at all in judging the family, because they have a reality TV show, and that's what we do with families who are reality TV stars.

NewWester said...

The only new Duggar baby for 2010 will not be from Michelle and JB , but from Josh and Anna. I predict an announcement from them by spring.
Whether or not Michelle has anymore children time will tell. Even if Josie is her last child (I hope she is doing well) it is not as if she has no young children
at home!
Michelle and JB have a long time to go before they have a "empty nest"!

Ohio Buckeye said...

Somebody's Nana said, "your goal in life is to accumulate more and have more, than you probably can't see any benefit to the Duggar's way of life. However, if you can reduce life expectations to basic principles like honesty, hard work, caring, giving, etc., then the Duggars have it mastered.

As for marriage being the end of all choices for the Duggar girls, I beg to differ. There are choices in life all along the way. And of all the things I have done and will do, marriage and family are my most treasured successes."
********************************

I enjoy your comments, Someone's Nana, because they are usually well written, so thank you for that.

But there is often a tone of judgment that your/Duggar way is somehow superior to other lifestyles, and I find that hard to condone.

Many of us more liberal leaning also believe in "reducing life expectations to basic principles like honesty, hard work, caring, giving, etc.," but we do not find it necessary to live the restricted-thinking lifestyle of the Duggars.

Please do not assume that those of us who do not agree with the Duggar lifestyle are somehow less ethical, more materialistic, and, somehow inferior to the Duggar conservative mindset.

Further, just because you do not find something offensive (conservatives attempting to thwart the rights of others, i.e. liquor sales), does not mean, by definition, this action is not offensive. Please allow for others to decide for themselves what is or is not offensive to them personally.

Thanks, and all due respect inteneded to all.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

When Jim Bob sold his family to TLC, he sold their privacy, and their rights not to be judged.

I totally agree!! They invited the speculation in.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye saidPlease do not assume that those of us who do not agree with the Duggar lifestyle are somehow less ethical, more materialistic, and, somehow inferior to the Duggar conservative mindset.

Thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post. However, I find many of you to be equally engaging to read.

I think somehow the nuances of online writing have caused a few things to be overlooked. I do not subscribe to the Duggars way of life. The only things we share in common are the fact that we are both evangelical Christians and married. It ends there.

My arguments that may seem over the top are often at the end of a discussion cycle where the same point has been emphasized over and over again and I'm simply trying to get the other writer to see another side. If one can't see another side of an issue, than asking a question seems to me to be a useless endeavor.

The other aspect that may seem a little too hard-hitting (and I am sorry for that appearance) is when someone claims that they are being hypocritical when they change something. Coming out of a legalistic background, I struggle with people who use the word "hypocritical" loosely.

My only intention is to counter the criticism that could run downhill and be used by others to demonize the Duggars because they make different choices. I think the Duggars, while fully believing what they do and putting it into practice, have been some of the LESS legalistic people I have known when it comes to how they interact with others who do not share their faith. I received much more disapproval from my father, even though I am the only one of my six siblings who still identifies themselves as a Christian.

For the record: I did use birth control; I do wear bathing suits in public (although there are people who might wish I didn't); I do have an occasional glass of wine or beer; I have been known to show my knees in a skirt (when I was a bit younger) and I do wear sleeveless shirts in the summer. I do have debt, much of it related to education costs for my daughters and myself; I do work, and have worked for years outside the home.

So you see, I am not proposing that the Duggars are making the only possible right choices, but simply saying that their choices are reasonable differences of opinion and trying to explain them to people who don't understand.

Please forgive me if I sounded arrogant because I am not, and never have any intention of becoming so.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said:Anonymous said...
Nothing is wrong with marriage and family. Most of the posters, or those that have alluded to it, are married with families.

The point is that none of those kids have been allowed or shown to have interests of their own. They have no individuality. One cannot even keep straight some of them because they all blend together.

I think this is some of the problem with misunderstandings right here on the board! It is sometimes hard to know whether it is the same person or different persons posting under "anonymous" so often what is a response based on perception of one person is in fact misunderstanding a second person. Even if you want to remain anonymous, you can type in a made up name in the name box and at least know that your point is separate from others. [smile] Just a thought...

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a mother. But even a mother can like to crochet, or paint, or ride a bicycle, or....


I agree. I'd also like to see the girls and JD in school to learn a trade. My original post was in objection to the phrasing that seemed to imply that marriage was a side goal and not worthy of being a primary goal.

I do see some evidence of their individual personalities just in how they seem to respond to things non-verbally, but I wonder if the kids even want to have their lives exposed or showcased. What if they wish to keep that part of their life private? What if the other people they hang around with want to keep their life private? I'm just thinking as a person who, if I did know them personally, would NOT want the cameras in my house or around me at all!

Anonymous said...

My wish for the 2010, that there are no announcements from the Duggar’s regarding a birth or impending birth of a child.
Here is my concern-that they knew that there was something wrong with Josie and possibly Michelle, prior to the birth. So they told the older girls if something happened to Michelle, they would have to stay home and take care of the family, until JimBoob found another wife. I have seen this happen in large families. That is not fair to those girls; they have no free choice for their lives.
Micro preemies require a lot of care when they get home. One of the biggest needs is a quiet and calm location for them to sleep in; I don’t see that happening at the Duggar house. Also she will probably have food allergies, which will require them to quit buying processed food; maybe just maybe it will improve their diet. I predict that one of the older girls have been told that Josie is going to be her charge; her life has been chosen for her no questions. Josie is going to require a lot of care for the first year or longer after she leaves the hospital, no more carting the entire family around the country in the bus it is not an environment that will help her.
Regarding the medical bills, just to give you all a little insight to them-
MediAvac to Little Rock- $15,000 - $17,000 for the helicopter just to take off, then $55.00 per mile, this is not covered by most insurance.
Josie’s stay is approx $200,000 to $250,000 per week for first 4-6 weeks then it drops to 175,000 to 100,000 per week for the next 3-4 weeks and if she is doing well the remaining time it will be 100,000 to 75,000 per week. So just for her we are talking about over a million dollars. So I hope JimBoob has a lot of money in reserve for this.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye Further, just because you do not find something offensive (conservatives attempting to thwart the rights of others, i.e. liquor sales), does not mean, by definition, this action is not offensive. Please allow for others to decide for themselves what is or is not offensive to them personally.

If I remember correctly, I didn't dispute that you may interpret it as offensive. What I said was that she was not doing anything illegal, nor was she taking away the rights of others when she exercised her right to go to the hearing. There are many times when people exercise their rights and thwart my ideas of what should happen, but they are not taking away my rights, simply exerising theirs. Disagree all you want with her position on alcohol. Just don't accuse her of taking away the owners' rights - his only rights until the decision was made were to apply for a license and advocate for that license. I'm sure he'll reapply, and likely he'll get it this time around because he will be prepared for the opposition (which he should have done the last time). [Note: it should be noted that I am not anti-alcohol.]

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Ohio Buckeye, for saying exactly what I was thinking.

kaekae said...

Okay...one more thing (I have a lot of bones to pick today) As a Christian I don't like people who pick and choose what Old Testament laws they are going to follow and which one they aren't. (You have to wait so long before intercourse, you have to wear dresses as not to look like a man)
But they can eat pork and shellfish. I am thankful that Christ died for my sins so that I don't have to worry about breaking laws anymore.

I sincerely doubt that the Duggars or others who have similar beliefs are "picking and choosing" as it suits them - I bet if you ask them why they eat pork/shellfish they would point you to a NT Bible verse that says you can eat what you like now. (Acts 10 or Romans 14 maybe) and I bet they can say why they follow the "laws" they do. Now granted, I don't know them but speaking for myself (I share some of their beliefs) as a lady who doesn't wear pants but who loves ham and shrimp - I know why I believe what I believe and do what I do and it isn't because I am afraid of breaking laws. (although Romans 6:1 and James 4:17 do come to mind when I make my decisions and they may also with the Duggars)
Again, I am not a Duggar and I can't read minds or tell the future but I bet that they could share "chapter and verse" of their beliefs if asked (personally, because I think they try to be circumspect when they are on TV and it sometimes seems a bit wishy-washy to me)

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said: My wish for the 2010, that there are no announcements from the Duggar’s regarding a birth or impending birth of a child.

I think I will take it one step further and say that I hope they either find a way to get out of their contract in an honorable way, or limit their visibility as much as possible until the contract expires. Leaving the public eye is my wish for them.

Cyn said...

Anonymous said...

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oprah offered to pay for the older girls to attend college and Mr. Duggar turned her down, saying that they would not be attending. I remember reading this in a few places last fall, but I cannot recall the sources right now.

This one has already been discussed in the fact or fiction section and it's FICTION all started by ONE blog post that included the stupid Josh rumor."

Actually, Oprah did offer to pay for the girls to attend schooling for midwifery. Jim Bob said they were too young to move away from home. I remember it very clearly.
1/02/2010 11:25 PM

**********************************
Can you find an actual NEWS story with that information in it... or is it only on blogs attached to variations of the rumors?

I have looked several different times and all I find is the different rumors but never a real news story.

The rumor varies from Oprah was going to call CPS over Josh, to was going to give scholarships to the girls till she found out, until JimBob said no they are to young...

It spreads and changes every time it's rewritten. But NO news site has it...

Anonymous said...

Nana. I also would not want cameras in my face, and share your view that the Duggars leaving the public eye is my wish too.

Ollie said...

I agree. I'd also like to see the girls and JD in school to learn a trade. My original post was in objection to the phrasing that seemed to imply that marriage was a side goal and not worthy of being a primary goal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off let me say that I have no problem with marriage being a primary goal in a person's life. I knew from the time I was a little girl that I wanted to grow up and raise a large family and I consider being a wife and mother the most important job I could ever have. I do, however, have a problem with marriage being the only goal of anyone, male or female. It simply isn't something you can count on as a guarantee. Even if you plan to get married and take steps in that direction you simply may not meet the right person right away. I always figured I'd meet my future husband as a teenager and get married by twenty-one, I didn't even meet my husband until I was twenty-two and out of college and didn't get married for two more years. Some people will never get married, even if they wanted to, because life simply doesn't work out that way for them.
Even if you do get married there is always a chance that things won't work out the way you planned, i.e. your spouse could become ill or die young. That's why I think everyone needs to be prepared to earn their own living so they can support themselves and a family if necessary. Now the oldest Duggar boys have their own businesses, which is good, but we see nothing being done to educate any of the girls beyond teaching them to raise kids and keep house. This simply isn't a very realistic view of life. For as long as I can remember my father told me that he wouldn't give his blessing to my marriage unless I had first prepared for a career or trade. As he liked to say "What if something happens to both me and your husband? No daughter of mine is going to be dependent on relatives or the tax payers simply because I didn't prepare her for life." So I went to college and got a degree in elementary education. I don't use it, beyond teaching my own children, but it's there and I have a way to support myself and my children should something happen.
I have to wonder if the Duggars even think of this possibility for their daughters, or do the boys plan to be a backup plan for their sisters for the rest of their lives? I'm an only child, so that was never going to be an option for me anyways, but I can't imagine anyone would want to be forced to live on the charity of family for possibly years on end. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with family helping each other out, that's what family is supposed to do, I just don't think it's fair to anyone to have that be your only backup plan.
I worry for the future of these girls should life throw them some curve balls, they are only being prepared for one course of action. I'm not saying they all have to go to college, or even technical training, but even some experience working outside the home would help prepare them for the future.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Someone's Nana, perhaps I misunderstood or perhaps I've not been clear about my point, so I hope noone minds if I attempt to further clarify my feelings.

Someone's Nana, you stated, "It is not offensive in and of itself to speak out for or against something. It's only offensive if you attack people and call them names for believing differently."

For whatever it's worth, and, obviously this is JMO, but I respectfully disagree with this statement.

It IS offensive to me when ultraconservatives attempt to foist their restrictions and belief systems on others. Two examples right off the top of my head are the liquor sales issue herein the Duggar blog and various separation of church and state issues.

Yes, it is true Ms. Duggar was exercising her legal right to appear at the hearing. I fully support her right.

However, at the same time, I am offended that she is attempting to thwart the legal rights of others to purchase alcohol.

Here's what is offensive and, just to me, is the crux of the issue between ultra conservatives and the more moderate to liberal of us:
it feels to me that there is an underlying belief held by ultra conservatives that ultra conservative values are somehow inherently more moral than moderate-to-liberal mores.

More power to those who choose to abstain from alcohol. But please stop trying to foist your (not you, personally, Someone's Nana, just a general 'your') restrictions on the rest of us who do not share your belief that alcohol is inherently immoral or dangerous.

It feels to me that ultra conservatives fully believe theirs is a morally superior belief system and, so, they should get to stamp out things they find 'sinful' or 'an occasion of sin', no matter how this action may trample the rights of others. It is this self righteousness and the unwillingness to allow the rest of us our freedoms that offends me personally.

This attitude (and its corresponding efforts to deny legal rights to others based on an ultra conservative code) is as incorrect as it is unkind and offensive IMO.

I fully support Ms. Duggar's right to appear at the hearing. However, I'd respect her alot more if she'd be willing to be as tolerant and respectful of those who do not find alcohol inherently evil as those of us who go to bat for her family to live their private lives in ways that we may find unenlightened and in ways even irresponsible. And a way to show tolerance and respect would be for her to adopt a 'live and let live' approach and stop attempting to rid the world of all 'occasions of sin,' which is an exercise in futility if ever there was one.

As some others have commented here that alcohol seekers are free to simply go to a different mini mart to purchase their alcohol. So, too, can the Duggars choose to refrain from patronizing stores that sell alcohol and choose instead to make all their purchases from stores who, of their own free will, choose to abstain from alcohol sales.

Equal tolerance and respect across the spectrum from ultra conservatives to ultra liberals. Surely we can find some common ground and pull together in this world.

Someone's Nana, I enjoy 'chatting' with you and appreciate that you help keep the discussion herein thought-provoking and lively. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to hearing and learning more from you.

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether Oprah actually offered scholarships or not, but the fact is that none of the kids go to college, either community college or on-line, which would be very easy to control (no green haired people, like Erin Bates fears, or those "secular" types that both the Duggars and Bates seem not to want to mingle with).

They have the money for college. It is CHEAP to do on-line or community college and live at home. Not a one of the kids who has finished with their "high school degree" has gone on to any sort of higher education at all.

So, whether or not Oprah offered or didn't, the kids still aren't going to school. Them's the facts.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ollie said: I have to wonder if the Duggars even think of this possibility for their daughters, or do the boys plan to be a backup plan for their sisters for the rest of their lives? I'm an only child, so that was never going to be an option for me anyways, but I can't imagine anyone would want to be forced to live on the charity of family for possibly years on end. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with family helping each other out, that's what family is supposed to do, I just don't think it's fair to anyone to have that be your only backup plan.

I don't know what the Duggars have in mind. I do know that what you and I think is normal is not necessarily the "normal" for others. I look at the Amish in my community and there are those who don't marry for one reason or another. They find their purpose in caring for their parents, helping siblings with children, working outside the home during the day, etc. In return, they know they will always have a room in someone's home. Is it ideal? I don't think so. But that is their normal.

I do sincerely hope that they consider at least a couple of years of tech training/certification for each of the older children in a viable field. But I also hope we don't hear about it until it is done, as I don't think that part of the children's lives should be public at all. Can you imagine having your grades posted for all the world to see, or your friendships ruined by mindless speculation? [shudder]

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that the Duggars find birth control pills or birth control of any kind to be an immoral choice because it is "playing God" in a sense. Therefore they leave fertility up to God. Now they have a sick little girl being kept alive and well by tons of advanced medical technology, and they've got no problems with that scientific technology. Without it, that child probably would not have lived. Isn't that playing God too? If it were God's will for little Josie to live, wouldn't she live anyway without the advanced medical treatment she is currently receiving? Why is one technology more moral than the other? They are both essentially standing in the way of what God may or may not want.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous said, "I find it ironic that the Duggars find birth control pills or birth control of any kind to be an immoral choice because it is "playing God" in a sense. Therefore they leave fertility up to God. Now they have a sick little girl being kept alive and well by tons of advanced medical technology, and they've got no problems with that scientific technology. Without it, that child probably would not have lived. Isn't that playing God too? If it were God's will for little Josie to live, wouldn't she live anyway without the advanced medical treatment she is currently receiving? Why is one technology more moral than the other? They are both essentially standing in the way of what God may or may not want."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Excellent point.

Another question I have re: Quiverful: If they believe in 'accepting god's will regarding fertility,' do they also believe in accepting god's plan in the case of infertility, or are fertility treatments acceptable to this group?

Jane in California said...

Ollie said:
For as long as I can remember my father told me that he wouldn't give his blessing to my marriage unless I had first prepared for a career or trade. As he liked to say "What if something happens to both me and your husband? No daughter of mine is going to be dependent on relatives or the tax payers simply because I didn't prepare her for life."

* * * *

Smart man, your dad :)

Young man or woman, it is always better to have more options in life rather than less. It is never a wise idea to be fully dependent on another, because the unthinkable does indeed happen. Your spouse may become disabled, pass away, or perhaps you end up divorced. It happened to a woman I know - left with 2 young kids to raise. Fortunately, she was trained as a court reporter. Between the life insurance to help through the hard times, and her own hard work, she was able to raise her children, although it wasn't easy. But imagine how much harder it would have been if she had no valuable job skills or training!

I've known women who have felt trapped in marriage because they know they can't support themselves and/or their children on their own. So they stay stuck in a bad situation. It's heartbreaking.

I hope all the Duggar children will feel the desire to learn some valuable skill, trade or profession. They can't all work in a used car lot or tow trucks their whole life.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Here's a thought: With the growing numbers of adult children in the Duggar home, in their particular (conservative) locale, would it be financially feasible for one or some of the adult Duggar children to own/operate an alcohol-free mini mart business? This would allow them to be true to their own beliefs, give their adult kids a way to make a living for themselves, AND they would not be restricting anyone's rights to buy or sell alcohol.

Just a thought...

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Another question I have re: Quiverful: If they believe in 'accepting god's will regarding fertility,' do they also believe in accepting god's plan in the case of infertility, or are fertility treatments acceptable to this group?

You have different mind sets among the various people who are of a Quiverfull leaning. Some people are opposed to certain aspects of assisted conception. Some people draw the line at invitro. (My sister and BIL drew the line there, but availed themselves of IUP.)I've heard it from all various degrees, from "none is ok" to "whatever gets the job done."

Im in PR said...

Ohio Buckeye said It feels to me that ultra conservatives fully believe theirs is a morally superior belief system

Doesn't everyone believe that they system they adhere to is best? Why else would anyone adhere to a belief system?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I find it ironic that the Duggars find birth control pills or birth control of any kind to be an immoral choice because it is "playing God" in a sense. Therefore they leave fertility up to God. Now they have a sick little girl being kept alive and well by tons of advanced medical technology, and they've got no problems with that scientific technology. Without it, that child probably would not have lived. Isn't that playing God too?
,br>This is the way it was explained in an early Quiverfull book that I read: Prohibiting conception is stopping something from working that is already working. So the purpose in prohibiting conception is not to heal or make better.

The purpose in availing ones self or family of healthcare is to heal or fix what isn't working. To make better. (Simplified version.)

kaekae said...

Another question I have re: Quiverful: If they believe in 'accepting god's will regarding fertility,' do they also believe in accepting god's plan in the case of infertility, or are fertility treatments acceptable to this group?
Now granted there is no 1 group there are individual belief systems. I don't know the Duggars belief system but I don't think they would advocate "extreme" fertility treatments (IVF) but fixing a medical issue that can cause infertility would probably be OK (aka - no ovulation) - for one reason at least is that IVF involves the creation of embryos and then the (probable) destruction of the embryos that aren't implanted. If someone believes that life begins at conception (like the Duggars) then that would be abhorrent to them.
and just as some don't even like abstinence as BC (a very few I would think) some won't like any kind of fertility treatment including fixing simple issues.
and some (even fewer) advocate as many babies as possible by "any" means necessary.
If I hear in Christian circles I am around that someone is "leaving it in God's hands" then by definition they aren't doing fertility treatments or chemical BC, but they may (possibly) decide to either abstain on certain days or have a lot of fun on certain days depending on the desired outcome. :D Or they may just have fun whenever they feel like it and let the chips fall where they may. :D

Farmgrl said...

It is my understanding that fertility treatments are not acceptable in the QF movement as they interfere with God's will. As to whether or not they feel the same about the technology keeping Josie alive, I think that's comparing apples and oranges. The Duggars, as far as I know, have never been against medical science/technology for general health/well-being. It's just the conception issue. JMO

emergencyRN said...

There is so much to say about all of this. Anonymous, your post on the difficulties of raising a micro-preemie was spot on. While I am a critical care transport nurse and emergency room nurse rather than NICU, I have seen so many chronically ill children over the years. I belive that the Duggars will accept whatever comes their way, but it will be a whole new ballgame. I really hope that one of the older girls is not deemed a "buddy" for this baby. That would be inappropriate in so many ways. That baby will need round the clock care for quite some time. While I truly enjoy Michelle's optimism and sweet demeanor; this may be a wake up call. I find so much of their ideas to be pie in the sky idealism.

I wish JB could spend the day in an inner city ER and see how many God fearing people suffer despite their faith. Many are women who believed in having a family with their husbands; got married young, had children close together, and now the husband left, is abusive, a drinker, a cheater, etc. Many of these women gave up their opportunity to go to college and/or develop a career because they thought they would have a family life. Many of them are now on the "dole" out of necessity. So many thought they did everything right. It's just not realistic to think that they can control the outcomes of things so much. Life has no guarantees, with or without faith. I've seen way too many children hurt, terminally ill, and dying to belive that JB and M can control everything.

While I admire their family devotion, I think they send a message to all of their children (and viewers)that if the man is the provider and the woman submits, than all will be OK. That's just not always the case. I really hope that some of the kids get a formal education. Additionally, there has been mention that some of the girls had considered midwifery. That is again a pie in the sky idea. None of the girls have HS diplomas, just GEDs. They will have to take placement tests just to start general classes at a community college. A well ranked university is probably (I stress probably; some conservative Christian schools may be more forgiving of home schooling.) out of the question. Nursing is VERY competitive right now, esp. with the economy. An RN is a minimum of 2 years of full-time schooling. In order to be a midwife, the RN must have a BSN (another 2 years), several years experience, and then proceed to a Master's degree. JB needs to get informed if he REALLY wants to provide for his children.

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought: With the growing numbers of adult children in the Duggar home, in their particular Re:(conservative) locale, would it be financially feasible for one or some of the adult Duggar children to own/operate an alcohol-free mini mart business? This would allow them to be true to their own beliefs, give their adult kids a way to make a living for themselves, AND they would not be restricting anyone's rights to buy or sell alcohol.

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

JB and Michelle did own and run a few such stores at one time,but sold them in the end and JB complained they only made a meager profit at best (I think he said something like minimum wage).So I'm guessing they would not encourage that,although it would be better than nothing.
This also brings up the fact JB and Michelle already know the owner of the store they protested against will probably not be able to scrape out more than a meager living as long as he is not able to sell alcohol.

roddma said...

I find it offensive getting called child haters, heathens and what not by ultra conservatives beacuse others choose to live different. Name calling works both ways. IF the Duiggars dont want to dance buy alcohol listen to rock music then fine for them but dont infringe my right. changes happen at the last minute all the time in TV world. obviously something happened to make her not air the Duggar episode. Maybe she just changed her mind about and aired something she thought more interesting.

Anonymous said...

Farmgrl - I understand your statement that medical treatment v. conception issues is apples to oranges. Obviously, the Duggars feel this way. However, pushing their reasoning to its logical conclusion, these things can and should be compared to uncover exactly what a person believes and why. This is why some of us are curious.
-Christina

Kara said...

re: Quiverful: If they believe in 'accepting god's will regarding fertility,' do they also believe in accepting god's plan in the case of infertility, or are fertility treatments acceptable to this group?
_________________________________

The mindset of the Quiverful people in my area is that fertility treatments that do not risk killing an embryo or require sin (i.e. asking a man to give a sperm sample) are acceptable. Technology is a human choice and meant to better our lives, as long as it's not used in a sinful matter, like everything in life. This analogy may be kind of a stretch... but it's like farming for food instead of just "expecting" G-d will always provide. I do not know what the Duggars would feel about it though. Some Quiverful circles do feel that infertility is the result of sin. It really varies regionally.

Somebody's Nana said...

Nancy said... Somebody's Nana said - "If your goal in life is to accumulate more and have more, than you probably can't see any benefit to the Duggar's way of life. However, if you can reduce life expectations to basic principles like honesty, hard work, caring, giving, etc., then the Duggars have it mastered."


I am sorry you feel that the only way to have a life based on working hard, caring, giving, etc. is to live like the Duggars. That is somewhat offensive to those of us who have worked our whole lives, raised children (or not), spent time in service or volunteer activities and caring for others. My husband and I have been lucky enough to end up with material possessions through working very hard(which honestly the Duggars have so much - I don't understand the suggestion that they have given up material items!) through working hard.


I'm sorry that response wasn't clear. At the time, I was addressing the idea that "money" was the object, including the idea that money should be the only reason for doing the show (in other posts). The difficulty is that not all "anonymous" are the same person, and it is inevitable that some responses overlap. Sorry about that.

While I don't even remotely live my life as the Duggars do, and I certainly don't think it's the only "right" way to live, there is a part of me that admires what they are able to do.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye said: Here's a thought: With the growing numbers of adult children in the Duggar home, in their particular (conservative) locale, would it be financially feasible for one or some of the adult Duggar children to own/operate an alcohol-free mini mart business? This would allow them to be true to their own beliefs, give their adult kids a way to make a living for themselves, AND they would not be restricting anyone's rights to buy or sell alcohol.

GREAT idea!

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye said:It IS offensive to me when ultraconservatives attempt to foist their restrictions and belief systems on others. Two examples right off the top of my head are the liquor sales issue herein the Duggar blog and various separation of church and state issues.

I think the tension between belief systems (and even single issues) is inevitable. /SOME people take it to extremes and others are more reasonable. There are many times when conservatives feel the same way you do, that others are trying to foist their beliefs on them. An ongoing discussion, such as this one, helps each side to better understand the other. I think many conservatives can also list times when they feel that the other side is foisting their beliefs on them! (this is not the place to do so)

I agree with the separation of church/state because I do not want the government involved in my church.

The alcohol license is a situation where there is supposed to be community involvement in the process, by law. The Duggars took the opportunity to express their view; others can do the same.

I think the greater offense would be if we tried to take away the right of one group to speak out. The next time it might be your and/or my group that has an issue, and we'd be unable to address it. As my mother would say, we would have "cut off our nose to spite our face."

The purpose of free speech is to allow for differences of opinion and to actually create opportunities for debate and free exchange without demonizing or outlawing any point of view. Offensive as it seems to you, Michelle Duggar was exercising free speech.

These discussions are part of our country's hallmark of free speech. Can you imagine this blog in China? Yike! Your perspective is always thoughtfully written. [I may disappear for a couple of weeks - I'm sure I'll have a lot to catch up on when I return!]

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said: BUT..you still need to factor in AGE.She is not getting any younger.

To me, that's a more valid argument. But I don't see that happening, based on others who have the same beliefs. There are MANY 40+ mothers around here, and having grandchildren at the same time does not seem to be a problem with either generation. It's part of their belief system, and in their minds, perfectly normal. As long as they don't expect me to keep having babies, I'm fine with it.

Bubbles said...

Have the Duggars ever said they believe no one should use contraception, or have they just said that they personally do not choose to do so?

I have observed that many people seem to feel that because the Duggars do or don't do certain things that they are judging others, whereas I see it as them stating their beliefs to explain why they live the way they do but don't try to tell others how to live.

The alcohol/mini-mart issue is the only instance I can think of where the Duggars are somewhat imposing their beliefs on others, and even then I see it as more of a matter of their right to express an opinion than a full-on imposition of their lifestyle onto others.

CappuccinoLife said...

"Another question I have re: Quiverful: If they believe in 'accepting god's will regarding fertility,' do they also believe in accepting god's plan in the case of infertility, or are fertility treatments acceptable to this group?"

Technically fertility treatments are just the other side of the coin and using them wouldn't be trusting God any more than using birth control would. But I don't know how individual QF folks feel on this. The ones I know wouldn't use fertility treatments at all.

QF do differentiate between disease and fertility. It is not so much an issue of never taking any action on anything and trusting God in that way. QF believe that the creation of new human beings is God's realm and how many are created and when they arrive is best left up to Him, and that fertility and the resultant children are a blessing and a gift. Dealing with disease and other results of living in a "fallen" world is entirely seperate from fertility, in the QF pov

Just for thoughts... said...

So... the duggars are following medical advice (Josie being in the Nicu) to live but.... will probably not listen to a md if they encourage birth control to save michelle's life... The bible says be fruitful and multiply... I was always taught this was not only refering to having children but to take the current population and teach them christian ways... I also was taught the birth control in a marrital relationship was ok and if god wants you to have x number of children you will regardless... Sorry to ramble about myself but I guess I belong to a less conservative church than the Duggars but differnt strokes for differnt folks :-) Just wanted to compare and contrast some ideas :-).

BioEnger said...

I think Jana might be taking classes at the same place that Erin Bates is taking music classes, Crown College in TN. The webisode about Erin at college shows her walking around campus with Jana.

I think Jim Bob is doing the whole family a disservice by always allowing them to be late. The children have no sense of punctuality as Jim Bob and even Michelle can never get their acts together to get out the door on time. Yes it is tough with a lot of kids, but they have had a lot of kids for a long time and they know they should get up earlier, plan to get ready sooner.

Ohio Buckeye said...

@Nancy: Bravo for your comments!

@I'mInPR: Good point!

There's a difference, though, between thinking my personal belief system is best for me vs. thinking my belief system is best for everyone.

Live and let live.
Or, as my grandma used to say, "just watch your OWN plate."

Ohio Buckeye said...

@Anonymous: :Their whole lives, those kids have been taught that secular schools and liberal universities are full of bad people and influences that will try and teach them bad things and there will be tons of bad temptation. WHO would choose that?

Not a single graduate from that household has shown interest in college, trade school, or furthering of education of any kind. None of the girls have jobs. It is such wasted potential.

They are such great kids that have been raised to be honest, kind, respectful, and hard working. But instead of putting those kids out into society, they are being kept at home, or taking over Jim Bob's business. What a shame."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Amen. Seems sad and unfair to raise offspring with a belief that the world at large is there but to make them sinners.

JMO, better to help kids also recognize all the good in life and in people - there's so much of it that it's just a shame to teach them to fear and judge everything and everyone who does not share an ultra conservative belief system.

Ohio Buckeye, RN said...

Emergency RN: Thank you for a great post. You are SO right. As RN's we often see firsthand how much differnt life plays out than planned by an individual. And faith, no matter how conservative and 'god fearing' is no guarantee against this reality. Bad things DO happen to very good people - best to give kids all the tools they need to survive when life takes them down an unanticipated detour.

Enjoyed your comment, Emergency RN.

Ohio Buckeye said...

To All: thank you for the info about Quiverful. I appreciate your sharing the info, as I'd never heard of this movement prior to the Duggars. Thanks.

Farmgrl said...

Anonymous--I agree that there is definitely a discrepancy in this thinking and what I meant by apples and oranges was not meant to say we shouldn't discuss. I believe that when Josie comes home safe and sound, the Duggars will most likely believe that it was God's will--and that's their right...As to whether the Duggars will have more children--the simple answer is if Michelle gets pregnant again, they will have more children. Those who think that they should use BC are entitled to their opinions, but I don't see it happening. They are grounded in these beliefs and have been for over 20 years. I don't necessarily agree with the choice, but it is a choice--and as a feminist, I am happy she has that choice. Just my thoughts on this.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Hey, Somebody's Nana, I enjoyed your most recent post.

Just to be clear, I fully support everyone's right to speak up and have never suggested Ms. Duggar was wrong for doing so.

I just wish things that are legal can just be left alone - for those who wish to abstain, abstain. But for those who wish to partake, leave them alone - partaking of alcohol, like speaking up at a town meeting, is also a legal right, so it'd be nice if we'd all just keep a check on our conscience, leaving everyone else to theirs.

Hope your absence doesn't mean something is wrong - best wishes to you and yours.

clink said...

I find it ironic that the Duggars find birth control pills or birth control of any kind to be an immoral choice because it is "playing God" in a sense.

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

Immoral??? When in the world did they say that???

The Duggars beliefs are not mine, and maybe because of that (or because of the implosion of another reality TV family) I have certainly tried to find serious fault in their beliefs or how they live them... but honestly, I cannot.

The Duggars have developed some clear principles by which they live their lives and guide their children. So have we! All of us! Granted, some of us may not be aware of what drives us, or might not have articulated it so strongly, but we ALL make choices for ourselves and our families based on SOMETHING.

Yet despite their sometimes radically conservative beliefs, the Duggars remain some of the least judgmental people I've seen. With the exception of allowing television cameras to chronicle their lives (and that is an admittedly glaring exception), they really do not seem to have an agenda of pushing their beliefs on the rest of us.

Yes, THEY don't believe in using birth control... for themselves. I haven't yet seen them make that choice for or try to unduly influence others.

I don't think we have any reason to feel defensive, or think the Duggars are making a morality statement, when their beliefs differ from ours... nor do I believe the Duggars want us to.

(Unless, of course, we want to sell alcohol down the street from them...lol)

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

but.... will probably not listen to a md if they encourage birth control to save michelle's life...

No one actually knows the answer to that right now, except the Duggars and God.

Enough with the Multiples said...

I think Michelle and Jim Bob need to discuss with their doctor sterilization and consider it a medical issue rather than a birth control issue. They need to take into account that they now have 19 children that need them and that it would be reckless to risk Michelle's life just to have 20 children.
It really bothers me that Michelle always seems so distraught at the idea of having an empty nest. If Josie or Jordyn are 20 when they leave home, Michelle will be in her sixties with most likely dozens of grandchildren. They will never really have an empty nest.

I don't think it's fair to the older daughters to get stuck raising their siblings if something were to happen to Michelle. In fact, Michelle needs to consider that it's time for the tables to turn--her daughters will start their own families some day soon and I hope Michelle gives them as much help and assistance with their children as what they have given her.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Enough With The Multiples said, "It really bothers me that Michelle always seems so distraught at the idea of having an empty nest. If Josie or Jordyn are 20 when they leave home, Michelle will be in her sixties with most likely dozens of grandchildren. They will never really have an empty nest.

... Michelle needs to consider that it's time for the tables to turn--her daughters will start their own families some day soon and I hope Michelle gives them as much help and assistance with their children as what they have given her."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Really valid points, Enough, IMO.

Being a wife and mom is a wonderful thing. But there are different seasons in life, all of which bring their own unique gifts, so why the fear/dread of the 'empty nest'?

Also question the fairness/wisdom of expecting grown daughters to essentially act as live in nannies to the younger kids. When is it the turn of the older female siblings to spread their wings and fly to discover their OWN goals, talents, dreams?

Just wondering....

MamaWama said...

Just for thoughts,

I agree that God could override birth control at anytime and give a couple the amount of children He wanted for them. When you are giving someone a gift, do you want them to say " no thanks", " I have enough of those", or " yuck those things poop!" No, you want someone to take your gift and love it. I don't believe that God will often force his blessing of children on people who don't want them, and are on birth control to try to avoid the gifts.

The quiverfull people that I know believe that if the body is not working as God intended ( like a tube is blocked etc) then that should be fixed. You would correct a problem to make your heart work correctly, so your baby making stuff should work too :)

If it requires test tubes, invitro, and babies being frozen, most quiverfull people are against it. I believe they see that as trying to play God.

Am I the only one who hopes there is one more Duggar baby? They need one more to make it 20!

Anonymous said...

I was watching part of a pre-Christmas Duggar marathon and saw an interesting contradiction in the Duggars' approaches to how they teaching their children about romantic love and parental love.

On one hand, Josh, during the proposal and wedding episodes, explained that when it comes to romantic love, you leave 'pieces of yourself' with every partner you have, and therefore want to preserve more of 'your whole self' for your life-long mate.

On the other hand, the older Duggar girls in another episode (maybe the father's day pregnancy announcement) can explain how 'love multiplies; it doesn't divide'.

I see a clear contradiction about the heart's capacity to divide when it comes to love/sex partners, yet multiply when it comes to having children. I wish the Duggar homeschooling curriculum included some lessons on critical thinking!

Sounds like fairy tale guidance from the adults to the children using false constructions about what the 'heart' is capable of or not. I'd like to hear other peoples' views on this, am I in the wrong here?

Nony Mouse said...

***I see a clear contradiction about the heart's capacity to divide when it comes to love/sex partners, yet multiply when it comes to having children.********

I don't see a contradiction at all. It's two different things completely.

Past dating relationships pale in comparison to how much you love your kids. Each additional child adds to the family and expands it not only numerical, but the new child brings and creates new and more love.

Old dating relationships usually just bring memories of regret for wasted time.

And if within that dating relationship you gave of yourself in an intimate manner, you have certainly lost something you can never get back.

I think the Duggars are wise for teaching their kids to keep their hearts with all diligence.

Nony Mouse said...

**********"I hope Michelle gives them as much help and assistance with their children as what they have given her."****************

Realistically speaking, Michelle won't really be able to offer to much in the way of hands on support to her daughters and daughters in law. She'll be far too busy taking care of the now babies, toddlers, preschoolers and younger kids.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Or, as my grandma used to say, "just watch your OWN plate."

I understand that mindset, but part of the Christian belief system is to tell others about the good thing you have found. To them it would seem selfish to keep the good news to themselves and just look out for their own interest.

CappuccinoLife said...

I've never seen Michelle *distraught* over the thought of an empty nest.

I enjoy my little ones so much. I will absolutely miss this stage of life. I'm sure I'll enter the "empty nest" stage with some sadness and a sense of time having gone by way too fast. Each of my children is very different and uniquely wonderful. When I reach the stage that I know my newest one will be my last one, I know I will feel some sadness over that.

That does not equal distraught, and I've not seen any emotion from Michelle above and beyond the normal contemplation of kids growing up and seasons of life changing. That she's not raring to leave the toddler years behind, or planning her "freedom cruise" when all the kids are up and out doesn't mean she has psychiatric problems.

Nancy said...

I sure don't hope for another baby for the Duggars. I already disagree with the entire notion that God doesn't give babies to those who don't want them or who won't take care of them. Working with homeless teens on a regular basis I can tell you for certain that is NOT the case - not even close.
I realize that the Duggars want and love all of their children. I don't think that they provide them with the one-on-one nurturing that children deserve. I have huge issues with the amount of work that the older girls do as well. I think they are nice people but they are by no means the example of Christian behavior that I find inspiring.
Quite honestly I know tons of nice people. Long skirts, lack of education and huge amounts of babies does not an example make. (IMO)

Jane in California said...

Nancy said:
I realize that the Duggars want and love all of their children. I don't think that they provide them with the one-on-one nurturing that children deserve. I have huge issues with the amount of work that the older girls do as well. I think they are nice people but they are by no means the example of Christian behavior that I find inspiring.
* * *

I agree. They are nice people, kind-hearted and only mean well. But i too have huge issues with the amount of work and child rearing/free nanny-ing the older girls must do. I remember when Josh was engaged and the older girls went to Anna's home to help sew the bridesmaid dresses. They couldn't stay very long because they were sorely needed/missed back at home. I found that sad -- that their "break" so to speak, was to go do other sort of work, sewing bridesmaid dresses. But it was still a break from the constant tending to the young children, cooking and cleaning that they normally must do every day.

By all means, have as many children as you wish and your body allows - but only if you can care for them and your household without putting your daughters in some sort of indentured servitude. Did Michelle have to raise her younger siblings? I don't think so, as I seem to recall she was either the youngest in her family or one of the youngest. Perhaps that explains her lack of perspective in this matter.

I am a middle child of 8 children. The older siblings helped with the younger -- but not to such an extent that they couldn't be away for a week without the whole house falling apart. I love my siblings, and I supervised them when my mom or dad wasn't around -- but it was such a minor thing. I certainly was not responsible for dressing my younger brothers or sisters, cooking dinner nightly, cleaning the house, etc. My mom was a very hands on mom. Some might say,
'oh she only had 8'. I say that she and my dad planned a little better, and spaced the children about 2 years apart. They weren't trying for some fantastical number to impress the rest of the world.

I'm grateful to my parents for allowing me to be a child until I was an adult. I'm grateful that they gladly accepted and fulfilled their parental responsibilities and didn't expect or require any of us to raise our siblings because they had too many, too close together, to handle it.

I was initially curious about the differences between the Duggars and my own life. Now I have a hard time getting past all the free labor they get from those older girls, while Michele seems intent on breaking some world record for child birthing.

CappuccinoLife said...

"I sure don't hope for another baby for the Duggars. I already disagree with the entire notion that God doesn't give babies to those who don't want them or who won't take care of them."

That is not what the Duggar's believe, or the QF belief in general.

They believe that God creates every child, has a plan for every child, and that every child is a blessing and a gift from God, and that within marriage, it is not necessary to restrict fertility because of that.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye said: Hope your absence doesn't mean something is wrong - best wishes to you and yours.

Thanks! But no, nothing is wrong. I'm just taking a very intense two-week grad level course and after tomorrow morning, I'll need to avoid the internet!

So tonight, I'm catching up and then it'll be cold turkey, no internet for me. I hope nothing major happens in Duggar world in the meantime. LOL

Anonymous said...

I've heard a lot of people on this blog comment about Michelle not being able to cope without a newborn. I think she'll do just fine. I see her as the type of mom to baby her youngest child as long as possible. If Josie has a perminant dissability the babying could last a lifetime.

Also, I think that this emergency demonstrates the pitfalls of the Duggars disconnection from the world. Why did the entire family need to pickup and move together? Couldn't they leave their older kids in the care of friends, J&A, Grandma, adult daughters, cousin Amy or JB's sister? Is this an issue of trust or control?

Red Line said...

"Did Michelle have to raise her younger siblings? I don't think so, as I seem to recall she was either the youngest in her family or one of the youngest. Perhaps that explains her lack of perspective in this matter."

That's a good point, I've never thought of that. I think she is the youngest. And I believe that in their book, Michelle said she barely kept her room clean as a child. What a drastic difference from her daughters!

I also take issue with the fact that their lifestyle choice relies on their daughters.

Anonymous said...

Re: Also, I think that this emergency demonstrates the pitfalls of the Duggars disconnection from the world. Why did the entire family need to pickup and move together? Couldn't they leave their older kids in the care of friends, J&A, Grandma, adult daughters, cousin Amy or JB's sister? Is this an issue of trust or control?

I suspect it's more an issue of TLC needing them to all be together so they can film them.
I wonder if JB and M are starting to suspect they sold their souls to the devil when they signed the contract with them.I have a feeling the network is able to dictate a lot of their lives and what amt of filming and all goes on,to some extent.So I'm not necessarily finding fault with them on this matter.Just not sure the whole thing was thought through.I don't think the family ever expected anything like this to ever happen.

KYgirl said...

RE - going to college:

Wouldn't one make the argument that going to a liberal college is just the thing that the Duggar children need to do? If they are so concerned for the fate of the world and the people who go to these institutions of learning, wouldn't they consider it "ground zero" for sharing their world view?

Just think - they could get a valuable education, learn to interact with a more varied population AND spread their knowledge of God to those that might not know of Him. I would see that to be a great calling.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

"CappuccinoLife has left a new comment on the post "Duggar Free Discussion January 2010":

"I sure don't hope for another baby for the Duggars. I already disagree with the entire notion that God doesn't give babies to those who don't want them or who won't take care of them."

That is not what the Duggar's believe, or the QF belief in general.

They believe that God creates every child, has a plan for every child, and that every child is a blessing and a gift from God, and that within marriage, it is not necessary to restrict fertility because of that."


CappuccinoLife, I agree with you. I do not know why some people just do not "get" it why the Duggars want children. How does one take what they believe and make it out to say that God does not give children to those who do not want them or can not take care of them?
One would have to be blind to see that there are many children born in this world, especially in 3rd world country who starve everyday because they were born into families that can not feed nor take care of them. I do not believe anyone believes that statement so why would they think the Duggars believe that? Thanks for setting the record straight.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

"Also, I think that this emergency demonstrates the pitfalls of the Duggars disconnection from the world. Why did the entire family need to pickup and move together? Couldn't they leave their older kids in the care of friends, J&A, Grandma, adult daughters, cousin Amy or JB's sister? Is this an issue of trust or control? "

I am flabbergasted that someone would think that moving the children to a home near them would be because of control. This family wants to be together. Do not other families who have children or a child in a hospital for a long period of time want their whole famlies together? I think yes, and that is why some children's hospital have a Ronald McDonald home.

You know if they did not make an effort to have their children move so the family would be together many would be saying bad things about that. So it seems regardless what they do there will be someone who will make a negative statement about their choices.

SteelMagnolia said...

Anonymous said . . .

Also, I think that this emergency demonstrates the pitfalls of the Duggars disconnection from the world. Why did the entire family need to pickup and move together? Couldn't they leave their older kids in the care of friends, J&A, Grandma, adult daughters, cousin Amy or JB's sister? Is this an issue of trust or control?

1/04/2010 9:42 PM
_______________________

A good point, Anonymous.

While I admire the Duggars' show of solidarity in this difficult situation, the fact that they all had to move "en masse" in order to deal with it just points out to me that either there is a trust or control issue (as you stated) OR that none of them are prepared to face life issues as individuals. While it is great that they have each other to lean on, shouldn't they be prepared for events where they have to stand on their on strengths?

Anonymous said...

The Duggars may believe that the heart is divided or ruined or whatever by past relationships, but a lot of us don't believe anything of the sort. Most people feel that they have grown tremendously from their past relationships, and that each one brings them closer to knowing what they really want in a life partner (something I doubt a 19 or 20 year old can even fathom yet).

I also know that my son has a lot of girls as "friends", not girlfriends, and he gets a unique perspective on different ideas as a result of these relationships. How sad to deny ones children the chance to get to know people of the opposite gender as real PEOPLE, not just sex objects or love partners!

It isn't morally SUPERIOR to limit ones life in those ways---to never have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender, friendship or more, and to never have a chance to discuss or develop ideas with someone unless it is a courtship (supervised, and chaperoned, of course). I feel sorry for people who do not allow their children the chance to get to know a lot of different people (and no, I don't mean sexually, I mean as different individuals). It is so important!

CappuccinoLife said...

"Couldn't they leave their older kids in the care of friends, J&A, Grandma, adult daughters, cousin Amy or JB's sister? Is this an issue of trust or control?"

Maybe, just maybe, they didnt' feel it would be beneficial to split up the family?

If they did, we know the criticism then would be, "Look how they have to farm out their kids because there's too many to pick up and move closer to the hospital! Shame on them for taking advantage of their relatives like that!"

emergencyRN said...

Thank you, Ohio BuckeyeRN for your kind words (Enjoyed Ohio when I was there BTW!!!).

Jane and Nancy, I agree with you whole heartedly. As much as I enjoy Michelle's personality; I hate what they are doing to those girls. Yes, it is important to work together as a family and to pitch in and have responsibilities. However, the extent to which the older girls' run the house is disturbing to me. Did anyone catch the episode when the family went to Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC? The film crew showed old washing machines and JB was like, "Hey girls, come and see this!" What!?!?! The boys can't be interested in a washing machine? They probably would have loved to have seen how they worked-and in the interest of saving money, they should know how household appliance work and are repaired anyway. My son does his wash at 9-with help from mom and dad, of course.

The level of misogyny is truly disturbing. I was raised a Christian and I was always told that Jesus was the first feminist. I believe that JB's attitude towards the girls is very harmful. He doesn't seem to view them as fully valuable, whole human beings.

I know that it would be arrogant of me to speak for G-d, but I just don't think that strict gender roles are what he had in mind. Additionally, Michelle has been cared for by female doctors. What if those women had been treated the same way? What if Florence Nightingale, Clara Barton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Francis Oldham Kelsey, Margaret Mead, or Helen Keller fell lockstep with those roles (I could list thousands of amazing women!!) Everyone has unique gifts and potential. It is a parents job to provide a nurturing and safe environment for children so that they can reach their potential and make contributions to the world. This can be done in congruence with the family value system. For some women, child-rearing is their gift, for some it is not. All of the kids seem bright; I just hope that they can use the gifts they were given to their fullest potential.

As far as caring for a potentially chronically ill child (let's hope Josie grows and develops and is healthy!), I am not convinced that Michelle is equipped. A very sick baby is a 30 hour a day, 8 day a week job. The baby may be on a vent with a trach, a tube feed and apnea monitor. Having so many kids in the house puts her at an increased risk for infection. Her development may be significantly delayed, so the normal routine for child rearing in the house is TOTALLY out the window. I am saying this from an experienced, professional viewpoint, not my wish or perception of Michelle's ability. This is factual, not conjecture from a lay person. I just hope the baby is OK.

winsomeone said...

I wonder if Josh and Anna will move closer to the hospital with the rest of their family. If they do, that will put to rest the notion that they are self sufficient money wise I think, as who could run a car lot from 200 miles away? The same for John David's towing business.

Anonymous said...

And if within that dating relationship you gave of yourself in an intimate manner, you have certainly lost something you can never get back.

I think the Duggars are wise for teaching their kids to keep their hearts with all diligence.

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

It's all about how you frame the issue. If you teach your children, as the Duggars have, that every relationship or sexual encounter *not* ending with marriage is to be seen as a 'loss', it could be devastating.

You can, however, let you children learn on their own that, yes, you can love many times in a lifetime, which is true for a lot of people. Secular people in North America find each other and become partners and can come to terms with each others' previous experiences all the time. To me, it feels like this strange metaphor about having to 'divide your heart' is keeping the Duggar kids from developing the emotional maturity to come to terms with other peoples' pasts. Doesn't it also force a person to see every past relationship as a 'failure' instead of appreciating the good memories and lessons learned along the way?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

SuzanneDeAZ said"...So it seems regardless what they do there will be someone who will make a negative statement about their choices."

That is what happens when you willingly sell your privacy and the privacy of your underage children to the highest bidder.

Also, if folks are feeling angst about opinions that differ from whatever it is that the Duggars have chosen to do, it might help to keep in mind that everyone is viewing this from a different perspective, and not necessarily a more correct or less correct position.

For instance, I have lost a preemie and I can't fathom for one minute leaving the side of my newborn to advance my political agenda and place that agenda before being with my child. But I've stood at the side of a small open grave and would have given anything for one more hour with my child. So perhaps those of you who defend Michelle's actions in leaving the baby to further her personal political agenda do not have my perspective and see nothing at all wrong with her doing that.

That doesn't make either one of us more right or more wrong. It just means we look at it from different perspectives and enjoy discussing it.

There are probably a hundred other examples we could all come up with, why we view things differently. But we do. And as long as the Duggars willingly pursue publicity and sell their privacy, I reckon we'll keep discussing it. :-)

SuzanneDeAZ said...

anonymous said:

"You can, however, let you children learn on their own that, yes, you can love many times in a lifetime, which is true for a lot of people. Secular people in North America find each other and become partners and can come to terms with each others' previous experiences all the time. To me, it feels like this strange metaphor about having to 'divide your heart' is keeping the Duggar kids from developing the emotional maturity to come to terms with other peoples' pasts. Doesn't it also force a person to see every past relationship as a "

I do believe like the Duggars that it is better not to give your heart away to another before marriage. You claim that people get married and remarried and can deal with each other's state of mind regardless of a previous relationship. Do you know that second marriages have a less survival rate than a first marriage.

Nancy said...

SuzannedeAz - Although the Duggars may or may not believe that God only gives babies to those who will love and care for them they do constantly espouse the belief that God is the one "opening" or "closing" the womb - thus delivering these little babies to whomever. I have read on several Quiverful blogs that they even believe He will bypass birth control if He wants you to have a baby. (I don't totally understand the infertility thing - are those people being punished or???) I have heard many people on this board discuss how "God won't give them (the Duggars) more than they can handle". I probably jumped to my assertion that those things are related but it is hard for me to imagine that God is really up there "opening" the womb of some pretty horrible people. The Duggars seem very nice and I completely understand why people want a lot of children. I don't really believe they seem very engaged with the ones they have though - Michelle in particular seems to mainly connect with babies.

Jane in California said...

Im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

In the Christian worldview, which condemns sexual impurity of all types and condones sex within marriage only, it would be devastating. That is what they seek to avoid.
* * *

I would only add the caveat that this is not necessarily the entire Christian world view, but more strongly held by fundamentalist or more conservative religions. Of course, most "mainstream" Christian religions do emphasize that sexual relations are sacred and should only occur within the confines of a committed marriage.

I wouldn't say I was taught that it would be devastating if a relationship didn't work out (raised Catholic and despite what some say, it is a Christian faith - lol). I was certainly raised to believe sex outside of marriage was a sin, and they laid on plenty of guilt for all sorts of things, which I don't plan to subject my son to.

But since the Duggars are what I'd call extremely conservative Christians, I also fully understand that they probably would only condone a second marriage in the event of the death of a spouse.

It's interesting - I find the Duggars even more conservative than my Mormon relatives. I have two female cousins (now long since married and grandparents!). When they were young women of marrying age, of course the focus was on finding a good husband. They did not date, per se, but they did many group functions at the church, or as part of a church group. They had dances, outings, etc. It was all to allow young men and women to get to know each other better, while still in a safe environment.

One cousin did become attached to a boy, but then something happened and he broke it off. It was sad for her, but not devastating. She found another young man and ended up quite happily married.

I am definitely a liberal, but yet I have many conservative values. One is the belief that as parents, we should at least gently guide our children toward appropriate relationships. I would never be as controlling as the Duggars, but I can see that they come from a place of caring very deeply for their children and their well being.

ellie said...

I hope this belongs here, but: The video clip on TLC of the Bates family with their pony really disturbed me. Those children needed closed-toed shoes and helmets if they were going to ride. The pony is small and there was a grownup nearby, yes, but even the smallest horses have sharp hooves and kick hard, and it only takes one second to have a terrible accident. I wish the Duggars and the Bates would take safety more seriously.

Anonymous said...

Nancy said "Although the Duggars may or may not believe that God only gives babies to those who will love and care for them they do constantly espouse the belief that God is the one "opening" or "closing" the womb - thus delivering these little babies to whomever. I have read on several Quiverful blogs that they even believe He will bypass birth control if He wants you to have a baby. (I don't totally understand the infertility thing - are those people being punished or???)"

I can't speak for how the Duggars actual feel on this but I can tell you. How my family growing up ( I was an only child, not on purpose my parents wanted more just did not receive more ) and I'm a parent of two in a big family world. My friends do not see my small family as less blessed by God. they see me (and my mother) has needing smaller families because of the need God had for us (example the calling of my mother to care on teaching of special needs children and the teaching and organization of the Christian Education in the church).

So I would think that those with infertility are not considered punished just called differently, asked to do a different job so to speak.

I know several people even not in the Quiverfull monument that believe that God and override Birth control to bring a baby into this world if he choose. I know several of those babies personally (a few even born after the husband had a Vasectomy)

Anonymous said...

Again, not all relationships are sexual in nature. The Duggars have a rather gigantic emphasis on all things sexual, which is interesting for a family that appears to be so opposed to it.

Jane in California said...

I don't know who originally said this: "And if within that dating relationship you gave of yourself in an intimate manner, you have certainly lost something you can never get back."

I would only say again, that it is a matter of perspective. I admit that I occasionally watch this show just to see a family and a viewpoint that is often very drastically different than my own. I do it in part to educate myself as to how other people live, and to hopefully bring me a greater understanding.

What also naturally happens is a comparison of their beliefs versus mine. Sometimes I am critical (as in having the older girls do so much raising of the younger kids, etc.), other times I smile when I see a big family enjoying spending time together.

As to the losing part of yourself you can never get back -- I don't happen to agree. Love is love, whether it lasts forever or only a few years. I used to think of my first relationship as a failure, until I realized that it had been a truly loving experience, we treated each other kindly, but we simply grew apart. It was not a waste of time - because real love was given and received.

Anonymous said...

The other thing is that the Duggar way of thinking emphasizes only ONE love, or one male/female relationship...in a lifetime. The fact is that not all relationships have to involve sexual intimacy, and that people can have rewarding relationships without, where they gain a huge amount. And...they can even have relationships that DO include sexual intimacy, which can be monogamous, giving, caring and consensual. That does not make them wrong either, just a different way of doing things than the Duggars.

Celestie said...

If the girls continue to be held in emotional bondage, will they be able to make wise choices for a mates? Will some of them choose to marry the wrong person, just to escape the never-ending child care and house tending? Will they stay with mates because they have no skills to make their way otherwise?

If all the girls marry, will the pack of, now, little boys be able to pick up the slack, clean the house, make the meals, tend the babies night and day in their room?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I would only add the caveat that this is not necessarily the entire Christian world view,

Perhaps I should have said the Biblical world view?

Joanna said...

I have read on several Quiverful blogs that they even believe He will bypass birth control if He wants you to have a baby.

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

I believe that with all my heart and I'm certainly not Quiverful. I've seen it happen many times. We can say that the birth control wasn't being used correctly, but if God wants a couple to have concieve a baby, it will happen. Even if you've had your tubes tightly tied or had a vasovasostomy, God will bypass thoughs if He wants a couple to concieve.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

Anonymous said:

"So I would think that those with infertility are not considered punished just called differently, asked to do a different job so to speak."

I totally agree. Growing up I always thought I would be married and have a large family as I love kids. God had a different plan for me. I got married at age 36 and was blessed with our one and only child at age 41. While I am glad I am a mom I am also glad that I have been able to sow into the lives of many children. My role as aunt and great aunt has been very blessed. Also serving as a teacher too has had its rewards. Had I had a family with a lot of children I would have not been able to sow into the lives of so many other children.

Anonymous said...

And for those who suffer from infertility of miscarriages, is it that God DOESN'T want them to conceive? It's pretty sad if that is how people think.

Midwest Mom said...

SuzanneDeAZ said..."So it seems regardless what they do there will be someone who will make a negative statement about their choices."

As long as the Duggars continue to sell themselves out on television, oops...I meant to say "share their message" as they say it....then yes, there are going to be people who don't agree with something the Duggars are doing. It's no different than someone who agrees with absolutely everything the Duggars do and say.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Respectfully-intended question:

Re: the theory that once a person has deeply and intimately loved another, they've given themselves away and 'can never get back' what they've lovingly given another:

According to this concept, what happens when a person who has been in a deeply loving, deeply committed marriage, but becomes widowed.

Are they to abandon all hope of ever being able to bask in the joy of giving and receiving love in a subsequent marriage, because they've already 'given those pieces' away to their first spouse?

I'm not following the logic here...

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous said, "Again, not all relationships are sexual in nature. The Duggars have a rather gigantic emphasis on all things sexual, which is interesting for a family that appears to be so opposed to it.'

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

It seems so to me too, for whatever that's worth.

Ohio Buckeye said...

JMO, but a god who sends children to parents who don't want them (the overriding birth control concept god, yet punishes with infertility those that ache for parenthood, is scary.

I'd hope for more kindness from most humans than that.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I'm not following the logic here...

In the Biblical world view, there is legally having sex, within marriage, or going about it the wrong way, which is outside of marriage.

The person who is a widow was certainly within the Biblical bounds of having sex. The Bible says that the marriage bed is not defiled. So the sexual past of the widow would certainly not carry a negative connotation at all, whereas the woman/man who was promiscuous outside of marriage would.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

JMO, but a god who sends children to parents who don't want them (the overriding birth control concept god, yet punishes with infertility those that ache for parenthood, is scary.

I'd hope for more kindness from most humans than that.


Often we Christians struggle with wanting to place our thoughts and mores onto God. And many things we may not understand. However, our thoughts are not God's thoughts.

Anonymous said...

There are many people who have sex before marriage and go on to have totally committed, monogamous marriages. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Midwest Mom said, "SuzanneDeAZ said..."So it seems regardless what they do there will be someone who will make a negative statement about their choices."

As long as the Duggars continue to sell themselves out on television, oops...I meant to say "share their message" as they say it....then yes, there are going to be people who don't agree with something the Duggars are doing. It's no different than someone who agrees with absolutely everything the Duggars do and say.'
"
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Well said, Midwest Mom.

Whenever a person chooses to put his/her life out there, for all to see, no matter what the reason (fame, fortune, 'sharing a message'), it is simply part of the turf that you will be admired by some, while others may consider you misguided at best.

Anyone who chooses to put their family under the TLC microscope has to expect and accept this spectrum of reaction.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of that kitchen."

Anonymous said...

But what could be God's thoughts, in having 16 year olds get pregnant and not loving parents? I am curious how Christians like the Duggars make sense of that. Or do they not question it?

Ohio Buckeye said...

Thanks, I'm in PR.

I am still not following the part about once you've given a part of yourself to another, you can never regain it. (early comments mentioned Josh Duggar making some such statement to explain why he and Anna do not believe in kissing before marriage, something about if you kiss another while dating, that's a piece you are unable to give to your subsequent wife.

That's the part that I'm not following.

Betty said...

Regarding sixteen year olds getting pregnant, God doesn't promise to keep us from the consequences of the actions we choose with our own free will at least not according to the churches that I have attended. I am not quiverful, however, but do believe in Divine guidance but not that God will step in front of me to prevent my own stupidity or arrogance from getting me into bad situations.

Nancy said...

Ohio Buckeye, I too am not following the stuff about giving a piece of yourself away that can never be recovered. And for the record, although I married the only person I have ever slept with, I surely would not want my kids to not have had the opportunity to date and get to know (not necessarily in a sexual way) various girls. But then I still don't quite grasp why God is micro-managing the baby-making so much. If I had been infertile, and believed this stuff I think I would have believed I was being punished (regardless of commentary to the contrary)

But then I am Agnostic (and Catholic - haha - once catholic always Catholic) so I really don't understand many of these "rules". I spent several years reading intensely about different religions and just never could figure out why so much just didn't make sense to me.

Good for the Duggars if they are truly happy living this way. I am a bit skeptical about whether all of their children (and children's children) will continue this lifestyle unquestioningly in perpetuity.

Betty said...

I found some info on the internet that says about 3/4 of children stay with the religion of their parents. So the Duggars are now up to about five kids departing from the ultra conservative beliefs.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous said, "... How sad to deny ones children the chance to get to know people of the opposite gender as real PEOPLE, not just sex objects or love partners!

It isn't morally SUPERIOR to limit ones life in those ways---to never have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender, friendship or more, and to never have a chance to discuss or develop ideas with someone unless it is a courtship (supervised, and chaperoned, of course). I feel sorry for people who do not allow their children the chance to get to know a lot of different people (and no, I don't mean sexually, I mean as different individuals). It is so important!"

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Sing it, Sister! I agree with you.

I, too, have wanted my children to learn, ponder, discuss, decide for themselves about what they think and feel about life issues.

Life is rich in its diversity and its experiences, so why would I want to discourage in my children the very critical thinking skills that would help them define and evaluate and appreciate as they go through life?

Raising "Kool Aid Kids" was never my goal. I would've felt that I short changed my children had I tried to present life as a absolutely defined, tightly-wrapped, taped, sealed little package. Life is anything but. And therein lies the meaning and joy.

IMO.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Hey, Nancy! I, too, know about those 'indelible marks on our souls' and 'occasions of sin' and patriarchal religion. And (LOL) you are so right: you can take the girl out of Catholic school, but it's really hard to get all the Catholic out of the girl"!!! :)

And, I agree with you also that

'Good for the Duggars if they are truly happy living this way."

More power to them if it's working for all of them.

But I've 'chosen a different path, and it has made all the difference' to quote Robert Frost. I think I see you on this same path! I'm glad!

JZ said...

MamaWama said:
"Am I the only one who hopes there is one more Duggar baby? They need one more to make it 20!"

The uterus is not a clown car, in my opinion.

Deb W said...

What did I miss??? I may not have read ALL 138 posts here, but....about 3/4 of the way down, one of the 'Anonymous' posts said the whole Duggar family moved to Little Rock? Did I understand that right? When did this happen? Right after the new baby was born, or more recently? Where are they living? It can't be simple to find lodging for 20+ people. Surely they're not living in the bus?

Has anyone seen any updates on the baby's condition? I haven't seen anything after those first few days.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

The Duggars moved into a home of a friend. The family has 3 houses all next to one another. The house in the middle is a mansion and the other two are 5000 square feet each. I believe this family bought all of the properties in order to have more space each year for their Christmas lights.

I believed they moved in just before Christmas.

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Duggar-Family-Moving-To-Be-Near-Hospitalized-Baby-For-Holiday-1313886.html

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the goal for the Duggars is NOT to have their children develop critical thinking skills and the ability to analyze and think about different experiences...and to learn from them. It seems the desire to shelter the children so much prevents them from any independent or critical thinking, particularly that outside of the family dogma.

I still hope a couple of them will break away, and see that there is a whole life out there, ready to be seized and enjoyed. And one can still be part of a large, loving family, even with different thoughts and viewpoints. It makes for much more interesting dinner table conversation anyway!

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I am still not following the part about once you've given a part of yourself to another, you can never regain it.

Well, we are talking about people who view the marriage relationship as sacred and sanctified. So the try it before you buy it mentality is at diametric odds with theirs.

Again speaking bluntly here, it is extremely hard to be very close to someone emotionally and not be equally as close to them physically. So it is best to avoid making close emotional ties with the opposite sex until such a time as your are prepared to fulfill those ties physically, in a marriage relationship.

Ohio Buckeye said...

I'm in PR, I think I understand where you are coming from about the emotional closeness possibly/probably leading toward physical closeness. I get that part.

But my query has more to do with the aspect mentioned on an earlier blogger's comment, something to the effect that once you 'give away' a piece of yourself (whether it be emotionally or physically), it is irretrievable, so you are unable to give that piece of yourself (NOT talking virginity here) to the partner you choose to marry. And thus, my question is: so, what happens to a happily devoted married individual when his/her spouse dies? According to this logic, is the widow/widower unable to fully love again, since he/she gave his/her whole self to the now-dead spouse?

Thanks and sorry I'm not being clear enough about what it is I'm trying to comprehend here about this particular belief system.

Thanks for your patience and respect in trying to answer. I appreciate it.

I enjoy trying to understand different ideas and concepts and how others think about life.

Nancy said...

I actually consider marriage sacred also so that doesn't really clear it up for me. Thank you for trying though. Taking sex out of the equation (assuming that is to be reserved for marriage - which I myself do not necessarily agree with) - what has the sanctity of marriage really got to do with making a friend of the opposite sex when you are a teenager? Dating a few times? Meeting lots of girls (or boys) and deciding which qualities you really want in a forever spouse. Still doesn't work with my overall world view but definitely none of my business if the Duggars ascribe to such thinking.

I guess my main issue with all of it is that Michelle and Jim Bob CHOSE this lifestyle after trying a more mainstream (though hardly wild) lifestyle. I think I would be more comfortable with the situation if they allowed their kids a bit more freedom of choice in the matter. I realize they say that they give them the choice but I believe that is an illusion. Kids want to please their parents - especially when raised like those kids have been.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

But my query has more to do with the aspect mentioned on an earlier blogger's comment, something to the effect that once you 'give away' a piece of yourself (whether it be emotionally or physically), it is irretrievable, so you are unable to give that piece of yourself (NOT talking virginity here) to the partner you choose to marry.

I'd just be guessing at what Josh meant, and personally don't think what he said was the best example of a reason to remain pure before marriage, but perhaps parsing it in these terms will help: The intimate emotional relationship (not physical) is a series of "firsts" in ones lifetime/lifelong emotional landscape. When those experiences happen prematurely and with someone you end up NOT married to, it does take away from the "joy of discovery" if you will, that the young couple bent on marrying should experience and bond through.

Jane in California said...

im.in.PR said:
Also, and please forgive me for being blunt, but the young lady who gives up her virginity to someone outside of marriage has indeed lost something precious that she can never get back.
* * * *

I most definitely respect your opinion (and everyone else's) in this matter. We just have differing opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that :)

BTW, I'm not advocating casual sex. But I won't go any further, as I know I'm going far afield from the Duggars and their show.

Cyn said...

I guess my main issue with all of it is that Michelle and Jim Bob CHOSE this lifestyle after trying a more mainstream (though hardly wild) lifestyle. I think I would be more comfortable with the situation if they allowed their kids a bit more freedom of choice in the matter. I realize they say that they give them the choice but I believe that is an illusion. Kids want to please their parents - especially when raised like those kids have been.

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

Every adult in that house wakes up each morning and makes the CHOICE to stay there. John David, Jessa, Janna, and Jill. Because those choices please their parents is irrelevant. Once they turned 18 they could have left at any time.

They still could leave at any time. Any employer in that area would hire any of them simply on the work ethic alone, they could move in with Josh and Anna, or with the Aunt if they don't want to completely break with the family.

They have skills that are employable anywhere and useful in any economy: hard work, determination, can do attitude, polite to customers and employers alike, cleaning, babysitting, daycare, construction, this list goes on and on.

They chose to stay there for any number of reasons, only THEY (the grown children) truly know.

Every thing else is OUR speculations.

Anonymous said...

In all fairness to those over 18 year old Duggar kids, I can't imagine a one of them leaving the family home unless blessed by Jim Bob (a selected courtship, for example). It is clearly discouraged, and the expectation is that the children stay there.

Also, I imagine that there is a level of fear. Even a Duggar child who might like to leave home (and I don't think any of those older ones show any independence or rebelliousness---it will be interesting to see what happens with Jinger or the younger ones) would most likely worry that they would be disowned or lose the respect of their parents. I don't think any of the kids who are over 18 would dream of risking that, especially since they have been so sheltered they have never been anywhere at all alone. To "strike out on their own" at 18, when they have never even driven a car alone, is hardly a reasonable expectation.

This is why parents owe it to their children to help encourage independence. The goal of having children is not to have them living with you forever, but to help them become independent adults, who can live on their own. Now, the Duggar goal is to get the daughters married, but at the moment, they can't do without the girls' help. I imagine maybe Jana will be let out of the house in the next year or two, but she and Jill run things, and there is no way that both Jana and Jill will be leaving anytime soon, and certainly not within short succession of one another.

Those girls know and understand their family responsibilties. It's all they have ever done, and it would take a lot more independent and rebellious child than any of the older Duggars to say, "I'm leaving", once they turn 18. That is why Michelle and Jim Bob have done their children a terrible disservice. By smothering and overprotecting their children, they have made it very hard for them to really grow up into independent adults (and I feel that Josh is just play acting as an adult---he still seems like a big baby to me).

Count MeOut said...

I agree with Cyn.

Don't millions of young people make choices at least in part to please (or not hurt) their parents?

Aren't there pressures and influences on all young people from their parents, according to the parents lifestyles and beliefs?

For example, wealthy and professional parents often EXPECT their children to attend college (and often grad school), and for the child to choose not to pursue higher education can cause huge problems in the family.

If a parent who wants these things for their child had their daughter approach them at age 20 and say, "I'm getting married and want to have 18 kids" would cause the parents to freak out, I'll bet.

Orthodox Jews influence their kids to live the same cultural lifestyle, as do the Amish, many Catholics, etc. Asian cultures have values that they try to cultivate in their youth, as do Middle Eastern cultures, etc.

It's all about where you're coming from culturally, but to accuse the Duggars of "forcing" the choices on the kids is unfair, and I suspect that if they influenced their kids to do things that fit in with more people's standards, it would not be such a bone of contention.

emergencyRN said...

Every adult in that house wakes up each morning and makes the CHOICE to stay there. John David, Jessa, Janna, and Jill. Because those choices please their parents is irrelevant. Once they turned 18 they could have left at any time.

They still could leave at any time. Any employer in that area would hire any of them simply on the work ethic alone, they could move in with Josh and Anna, or with the Aunt if they don't want to completely break with the family.

They have skills that are employable anywhere and useful in any economy: hard work, determination, can do attitude, polite to customers and employers alike, cleaning, babysitting, daycare, construction, this list goes on and on.

They chose to stay there for any number of reasons, only THEY (the grown children) truly know.

Every thing else is OUR speculations.

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

I must respectfully disagree with you on this one. First off, the economy is awful right now and I am not sure there are even jobs to be had. That being said, I would not hire one of the Duggar boys for construction based on the building of family homes, of which I am unsure of how many they helped build. I WOULD hire a local kid who graduated from the local technical school with training in construction. I imagine the liability at having a minimally experienced construction worker on a job site would be significant.

Cleaning, babysitting, and daycare are hardly high paying jobs. I am not sure that even working 2 full-time jobs in those fields would provide enough income to support oneself. (Of course, I live in the Northeast, where cost of living is significantly higher than AR, but so are the wages.)

I am not convinced that those kids even know they have a choice. It appears to me that their experiences and development of objective critical thinking have been severely restricted by their parents. I don't believe they have the financial, educational, experiential or occupational resources to leave at any time. I am sorry, but I just don't think that is realistic. It takes a lot more than household chores and babysitting to know how to live independently.

Anonymous said...

Cyn said: "They have skills that are employable anywhere and useful in any economy: hard work, determination, can do attitude, polite to customers and employers alike, cleaning, babysitting, daycare, construction, this list goes on and on."

Wow, if all it takes to get a job in this economy is hard work and a can-do attitude, then please explain to the current millions of unemployed people out there why there aren't enough jobs to go around!

What is going to set the Duggar children apart from all the other enthusiastic and more-qualified people out there looking for a job?

Out of curiosity, I phoned two of our local daycare centers and spoke with the director of each, asking what qualifications are necessary to work (even part-time) at their facilities. Both managers told me the same thing: at a minimum, they would require the person to have a 2-year degree in Early Childhood Education from an accredited vocational school or community college.

Yes, a can-do attitude is right up there on the list of things employers want, but with the current unemployment rate, employers also want to see some formal training and experience. Saying to a potential employer, "See, I babysat for the neighbors kids and it was shown on TLC television" won't qualify you to work in a daycare center in this part of the country.

Enough with the Multiples said...

re: the young lady who gives up her virginity to someone outside of marriage has indeed lost something precious that she can never get back.
-----------------------

While it's true that once you lose your virginity, you can not get it back; not all people view this as a tramatic event. There are plenty of people who have had fullfulling sexual experiences outside of marriage that they did not later regret.

It is one thing for the Jim Bob and Michelle to believe in waiting for marriage for sex and to share those beliefs with their children in the hopes that they follow that belief as well. But I found the episode where they discussed courtship and the "whole heart" issue rather naive and distrubing. They seem to have impressed upon their children that simple dating will lead to terrible heartache that will leave them emotionally scarred and incomplete. Then they seemed to have scared the children more by sited Michelle as someone who had such experiences. (Yet they didn't elaborate on what exactly happened with her.)
Yet, the reality in life is that while heartbreak and hurt feelings are a possibility in any relationship, it is not the only outcome. Dating provides much social and emotion development--it's a way of learning more about yourself and what you value in another person/mate. And not-so-pleasant dating experiences can offer insight and learning experiences that make you a more rounded person, better able to cope with future problems or difficulties down the road.

While J/M may have sweet intentions of sheltering their children from heartache, they are not doing them any favors.

Anonymous said...

From the Duggar family official website is a link to a series of self-help tapes/videos from a Dr. S.M.Davis. The series is entitled "Solve Family Problems."

It always saddens me when I see Michelle interacting so very little with her children. Now I know why: she is following the teachings of this "Dr. Davis". This is an exact quote from his website regarding little babies:

"Crying is another area where babies take control, sometimes at a very young age. Sometimes they just want to be held and don’t ever want to be put down. Some parents think that they need to pick up the baby every time that he cries. If they are clean, fed and nothing is wrong, remember they are born with a sin nature and they are probably just having a, “I want to be the center of attention” moment."

This is so sad I want to cry. I'm imagining little preemie Josie Duggar crying in the NICU and Michelle not reaching her hand into the isolet to comfort her own child lest she be "spoiled".

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Nancy said "I think I would be more comfortable with the situation if they allowed their kids a bit more freedom of choice in the matter."

I'm all for raising ones kids in the manner one believes is best. Personally, while there are a few major points of disagreement I have with the Duggars, (Gothardism, older girls doing all Michelle's work) I pretty much believe they are doing right in raising their kids in the sense that they do protect them.

Kids being kids, they are vulnerable and not equipped with all the wisdom they need to make good choices yet.

CappuccinoLife said...

"And for those who suffer from infertility of miscarriages, is it that God DOESN'T want them to conceive? It's pretty sad if that is how people think."

I am QF and have had two known miscarriages in the last year. It may be three but that third one was early and I hadn't taken a test, so I'll never know for sure.

No, I don't believe God is punishing me, or that he's withholding blessings. Children are not the *only* blessings from God and I am richly blessed in many areas.

We live in a world that is plagued with sin and disease, and the physical consequences of that extend far beyond the first sin of Adam and Eve. The babies I lost were unhealthy and did not survive to adulthood. I view them as I would a child lost at 5 or 10 or 30--someone I was privelaged to nurture for a short time, someone who's early loss I grieve, and who I will see again in eternity.

As to why the many months in between my living children and the ones I lost where I did not conceive, that is not "punishment" either. Since I put my trust in God, I trust that he has a reason for my small family just as he does for the Duggar's mega-sized family.

From hearing what they've said, and reading their book, I would be very surprised if the Duggar's believed differently. They have made friends with and spent time with much smaller families than their own and don't seem to have any disdain for them or give any sense that those families are "less blessed" or in punishment.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Yet, the reality in life is that while heartbreak and hurt feelings are a possibility in any relationship, it is not the only outcome.

Well, the reality is that most people are hurt when someone breaks up with them. The more people you date, the more your raise the risk of emotional damage. People spend years and years on the therapist couch trying to rid themselves of the baggage. It's smarter then to just avoid that kind of emotional entanglements until such a time as you are prepared to marry.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

This is so sad I want to cry. I'm imagining little preemie Josie Duggar crying in the NICU and Michelle not reaching her hand into the isolet to comfort her own child lest she be "spoiled".

That's quite a stretch isn't it? Besides, if Josie is still on the vent, she isn't doing much crying....

Anonymous said...

Part of growing up is learning from ones mistakes. If parents pad the world for their children, never allowing any opportunities for growth and development (and yes, this includes some heartache, which isn't all bad), one cannot expect to grow into a fully functional and mature adult. This is what I see with Josh and Anna, who really seem to be playing house, rather than acting as two mature adults with a baby.

Sure, kids are vulnerable, which is why there are developmentally appropriate activities. I don't think any of the wise parents here are suggesting that two 15 year olds be left alone in the basement of the house, or that an 8 year old walk alone several miles to the store, crossing busy streets. But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with older children going places alone, having friends of both genders, experiencing interests that their parents might not even share!

I think some parents want to protect their children so much that they simply don't allow them to develop appropriately into normal adults. I really do not understand this way of thinking, so more input here will be helpful.

emergencyRN said...

For example, wealthy and professional parents often EXPECT their children to attend college (and often grad school), and for the child to choose not to pursue higher education can cause huge problems in the family.

***************************************************
I understand why this statement would be made, however I think in the interest of everyone reading, that it is REALLY important to address this statement. Education is a way out of poverty and oppression. My parents were college drop outs who were by no means wealthy. Even though my father was an old-fashioned Italian who on some level believed women ran the homestead, he also believed that an educated mother is a better mother. He insisted we get an education so that we could protect and care for ourselves and that we were in a marriage out of love and not necessity. Though I disagree with him on many things, I am grateful for his insistence that we discover and live up to our potential. He felt it was his duty as the man of the house to show the girls that they deserved equal respect, were equally capable and equally intelligent. (We were all "enrichment" students.)

My parents were not pushing a professional or liberal agenda. It was about the well being and security of their children, independent of the parents. That is one of the problems that I have with JB and Michelle. I believe they are putting their children's well being at risk by sheltering them so much.

The focus on the girls getting married prior to getting a formal college education brings me to tears. My mother married her "first love". As a Catholic who thought sex and marriage were sacred, she had more children than she could care for. She is a very bright woman who got married at 17 and had children right away (sound familiar?) My sister and I tended to the younger children for quite some time and as a result, I chose to have only 1 child and she chose 2, but wanted to stop at 1. My mother fell into severe depression and neglected us all severely. Not every woman is like Michelle and I believe the message they are sending is harmful to woman AND children. To be honest, the damage that was done to the children far outweighs the damage done by losing your virginity to someone you don't marry. Honestly, using the assumption (I know things happen, but please just go with me on this one) that there is no pregnancy or STD, what's the big deal? The big deal is that people make it a crazy big deal. So my mom would have been sad if they broke up and had some wounds to heal. It would have been better than "raising" 7 kids in a loveless marriage in which the wife was depressed for a decade.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous said, ""Crying is another area where babies take control, sometimes at a very young age. Sometimes they just want to be held and don’t ever want to be put down. Some parents think that they need to pick up the baby every time that he cries. If they are clean, fed and nothing is wrong, remember they are born with a sin nature and they are probably just having a, “I want to be the center of attention” moment."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

This is right up there with the top three MOST IGNORANT statements these eyes have ever read.

Just how unenlightened does one have to be to actually buy into this religilo-psychobabble?

I'm trying my best, but it is very difficult to respect anyone who actually believes this stuff about newborns.

And what, may I ask, is Dr. Bozo's credentials to decide 'babies are born with a SIN nature' (what a horrible assumption to lay upon innocent sweet new little lives )(and please spare me the 'original sin' explanation - I'm aware of that rationale and find it absolutely nonsensical and offensive), and babies 'want to take control' and have an 'I want to be center of attention moment'?????!!! SERIOUSLY, what's wrong with this guy??!!

With such blazing ignorance beaming forth from this guy's book, I wouldn't want this person to touch my DOG, muchless my precious baby.

Re: Josie in the NICU: not to worry, the RN's will hold and cuddle her as much as time and her condition permits.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Enough With The Multiples: APPLAUSE for an excellent thought and comment. Thank you.

Sarah S said...

Anonymous post this quote:

"Crying is another area where babies take control, sometimes at a very young age. Sometimes they just want to be held and don’t ever want to be put down. Some parents think that they need to pick up the baby every time that he cries. If they are clean, fed and nothing is wrong, remember they are born with a sin nature and they are probably just having a, “I want to be the center of attention” moment."

_________________________________

I agree with this quote completely. Babies know how to get the attention of those around them. I have learned this so much working in our church nursery (where we have over 100 babies born every year). You can always tell the babies whose moms always hold them all the time.

I need to add that I highly doubt that Michelle is doing this with her newborn, as baby Josie needs so much tender loving care right now. I believe the Duggars possess the discernment to know that.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous: Bingo! on the current job market and the need for some kind of education/training to be competitive in this economic downturn with 10% unemployment rate.

THIS is a reality in the REAL WORLD. Perhaps it is nice for the Duggars to live in Duggar Bubbleville, but for the rest of us, we have some harsh realities to face about getting and keeping our jobs.

I feel sorry for those kids. They are being prepared for a life that exists pretty much only in the heads of JimBob & Michelle. Good luck with that.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Emergency RN: another insightful and accurate statement.

How can these kids make an 'informed decision' when they have not been INFORMED about what possibilities and avenues and dreams exist for them outside the family compound?

Anonymous said...

I really believe that none of the Duggar children will "strike out" on their own. It takes a lot of self confidence and nerve to leave a family like that and try to make it on your own. The girls are used to having JB take care of everything and I don't think he has prepared them to fend for themselves. He has instead prepared them for marriage and homemaking.
I too had little preparation for living alone and stayed at home until I got married.
Sometimes I wish, even though I love being married that I would have had a chance to live away from home and find out how I liked to do things first.
I am pretty sure JB wishes to protect his girls and keep them close until he turns them over to a mate. I just hope that they find good ones.

emergencyRN said...

Crying is the ONLY way a baby can express its needs. Their minds are not developed enough to manipulate and control parents. That is utterly ridiculous. What is this guy's "doctorate" in? Statements like that by someone who won't even list where he earned his education are dangerous and abusive to children.

My friend's son cried a lot. As it turns out, he had severe Celiac disease that went undiagnosed/misdiagnosed for years. He was crying out in pain. That is the ONLY was he could communicate!!!! Crying is a sign that the baby needs something. It is an archaic notion that babies become spoiled from crying. Please, read what a developmental pediatrician has to say about this, not some preacher with an unknown "doctorate".

I know we need to be respectful on this blog, but this makes me see red. I think these comments regarding a baby controlling a house, etc. show a fundamental lack of a scientific education-what I have been trying to say all along!

emergencyRN said...

Thanks for you kind words Ohio Buckeye. We seem to be on the same page. Perhaps being nurses, dealing with harsh realities everyday makes us see the world in a similar light.

Midwest Mom said...

Just a reminder, the quote about babies crying from being spoiled was a quote from a link on the Duggar Family Website. The quote is attributed to it's author, a Dr. Davis, a minister who published a series of books about solving family problems. The Anonymous poster who quoted it is not the author of the quote !

I read some of Dr. Davis' writings, and after about 2 minutes, I couldn't take it anymore.

He sells MP3 downloads of his lectures. Perhaps his teachings are what the teen Duggar girls (Jess? Jinger?) are always listening to on their iPods. If that's the case, my stomach is nauseated on their behalf.

Anonymous said...

Ohio Buckeye said
"But my query has more to do with the aspect mentioned on an earlier blogger's comment, something to the effect that once you 'give away' a piece of yourself (whether it be emotionally or physically), it is irretrievable, so you are unable to give that piece of yourself (NOT talking virginity here) to the partner you choose to marry. And thus, my question is: so, what happens to a happily devoted married individual when his/her spouse dies? According to this logic, is the widow/widower unable to fully love again, since he/she gave his/her whole self to the now-dead spouse?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very good question. I look forward to others answers on this question.

My mom, a widow, is of the "never able to love another again" mind set. My grandmother (her mother) was of this mind also.

I grew up believing/taught that if you married someone other than the one destined for you (the correct one, your "soul mate") that you would be less happy in your marriage than if you had married your destined one. And that your wrong choice would affect the marriages (or permanent single state) of the ones you both had been destined for.

Celestie said...

Babies like to be held, it feels good. So what is wrong with feeling good, cared for and secure in someone's loving arms?

Enough with the Multiples said...

Re: Well, the reality is that most people are hurt when someone breaks up with them. The more people you date, the more your raise the risk of emotional damage. People spend years and years on the therapist couch trying to rid themselves of the baggage. It's smarter then to just avoid that kind of emotional entanglements until such a time as you are prepared to marry.
------------------------------

But the key is that most people, when hurt in a relationship, also move on and learn from those experiences. Avoiding emotional entanglements prior to marriage does not guarentee bliss during marriage. If anything, the Duggar children's lack of experience in the dating field might actually make them less equipted to deal with problems and communication in their marriage because they've had so little experience with the opposite sex. Chaperoned courtship can not lend itself to very in-depth or personal conversations that are pivotal to relationship development. How prepared are they really for marriage???

I've often wondered if Anna would have had more opportunities to date other boys if she would have picked Josh??? She does not seem like someone that would miss TLC and the public appearances lifeystyle of the Duggars one bit if they went away, yet I suspect Josh would. I really get the impression that Anna was more blown away by the excitement and attention of Josh than by Josh himself.

I've also wondered that perhaps Michelle's "baggage" actually made her marriage to Jim Bob more special. Perhaps dating a few jerks made her love and appreciate Jim Bob all the more. They do seem to have a loving and supportive marriage. But they did not have the sheltered life they have given their kids.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Emergency RN, you are exactly right about working as an RN possibly contributing to our apparently similar beliefs.

I wasn't raised in a Duggar bubble, but I WAS brought up in a Catholic 'bubble'.

While I'm grateful to my parents for all they did, once I began working as an RN, my life and world views changed drastically, as I realized many of concepts presented as 'true' and absolute simply did not hold up as valid in the real world.

Once I learned that so many people had FAR more difficult lives than I'd ever imagined, I realized much of the belief system I was taught was just too simplistic to make any real sense in the real world.

I'm sure others who are RNs would disagree, but this was my own personal experience and journey.

Anonymous said...

I have just never understood letting a baby cry things out. I always picked mine up and cared for them. I never once thought they were trying to manipulate me.
I now have well rounded. independant, caring, children. Go figure.
Now maybe if I had 14 instead of 4 it would be a different story. I am happy that I got to spend so much time with them as babies.

Ohio Buckeye said...

@I'm in PR: "...Well, the reality is that most people are hurt when someone breaks up with them. The more people you date, the more your raise the risk of emotional damage. People spend years and years on the therapist couch trying to rid themselves of the baggage. It's smarter then to just avoid that kind of emotional entanglements until such a time as you are prepared to marry."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Being emotionally hurt does not necessarily result in 'damage' and baggage.

Sometimes painful experiences bring the gift of wisdom and appreciation and growth.

Attempting to live an emotionally painfree life seems unrealstic and not necessarily the best approach for a full life, IMO. (Sorry to disagree again, PR!! :-) )

SteelMagnolia said...

Excuse me, but this guy who says that infants cry just to get attention sounds like a total idiot to me!

I was not blessed with children, BUT I WAS the oldest of a "blended" family and so I basically raised my youngest sibling.

This man's theory is CRAZY!

Babies cry FOR A REASON!

God help the Duggars if they are following this line of thinking!

Mellie said...

I am on the same page at OhioBuckeye and EmergencyRN.

It is hard for me to comprehend that people think babies cry for attention. Yet, the sad truth is that a lot of people feel this way. I actually had a friend tell me to "not pick up my newborn baby all the time because it would spoil her." I quickly responded back my disagreement, and she hurriedly said, "Oh, I mean when she's older like 6 months..."

I will say, though, that from what I've seen from the Duggar's, I don't think they neglect their babies. The big sisters love to hold the babies so much, that I think the babies do get adequate physical attention. Also, I was so glad when Michelle politely interrupted a previous interview session to go check on Jordyn who was crying.

Jane in California said...

"Crying is another area where babies take control, sometimes at a very young age. Sometimes they just want to be held and don’t ever want to be put down. Some parents think that they need to pick up the baby every time that he cries. If they are clean, fed and nothing is wrong, remember they are born with a sin nature and they are probably just having a, “I want to be the center of attention” moment."
* * *

Was this written by a man? I'll bet you anything it was.

This saddens and angers me to no end. A baby is only an infant for a brief period of time. You cannot love and hold that precious infant too much. Their only way to express want is through crying -- they can't speak yet, they can't smile, wink, wave their hand except randomly.

To lack the understanding that a baby has more needs than to be "clean, fed and nothing is wrong" is a cold-hearted way to view infants, or anyone for that matter.

I only have one child, and by the time I had him, I knew he would be my one and only. I rocked that boy to sleep every night for the first 12 months, and I am so thankful I did. Those were some of my most precious moments of the day, and remain a treasured memory. I can feel his tiny warm body nestled into my neck, hear his breathing slow down, as I rocked him to sleep.

And yes, when he cried, I picked him up and soothed him. He'll be 12 in a few months, and he no more runs the household than our cat. I'm the one in charge. Treating him with TLC when he was an infant was the right thing to do.

I don't know about this nonsense. What an unpleasant world view this individual must have, to ascribe such motivations to infants and toddlers. Yuck.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Honestly, using the assumption (I know things happen, but please just go with me on this one) that there is no pregnancy or STD, what's the big deal?

As so many of anti-Duggars keep reminding us, THIS IS THE REAL WORLD, and STD's and unwanted pregnancies and abortions are the result of sleeping around before marriage. Not to mention cancer of the cervix.

People make it a big deal quite simply because it is.

Ollie said...

Right on to all the comments about the Duggar kids not being able to find jobs! Are church has been offering assistance to several families this past year because the parents can't find employment. Most of these people are professionals with advanced degrees and years of experience, but there just aren't jobs out there right now, even if you're willing to look for jobs in other parts of the country. Even entry level non-skilled jobs are hard to get right now because so many otherwise skilled workers are forced to take them just to survive. And as for the Duggar children being such great catches as employees to begin with, they are chronically late, have only a high school education, and if Josh's always closed car lot is any indication, they all don't have the best work ethic. Add to that the fact that they would probably be gone a lot for TLC trips with the family and you have a far from model employee, even in good economics times.
The Duggars may be nice people who try hard, but I honestly don't think they have prepared their children to be competitive in the job market.

Josie said...

I really like the Duggar family and believe that they are doing what they feel is best in each area of their lives. I just wonder what besides losing a baby early in their marriage made them so very conservative in their beliefs?
Both of their families do not seem to be as extreme as they are.

i said...

Attempting to live an emotionally painfree life seems unrealstic and not necessarily the best approach for a full life, IMO. (Sorry to disagree again, PR!! :-) )

No problem for me, if anyone disagrees with me. I imagine that we all speak from where ever we are, so to speak. In my case there's about a million miles of road in my past that I wish I'd never been down, but that's just me. :-)

Anonymous said...

I have seen the babies carried a lot too (by the older girls), but also have read that JB and M used "blanket training" on the older kids. This may be why they seem so much better behaved than the younger ones, who have been raised in front of TV cameras (and very likely NO blanket).

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

About Dr. S.M Davis. I agree with his take on crying babies. As a mother, I have noticed more than a few times when my infants were crying for reasons not related to their true needs. And how about that red faced screaming infant crying when his will is thwarted? Yep, happens every day.

I don't imagine I'd agree with everything Davis teaches. But my only objection to Davis is that he charges so much for his materials.

Cyn said...

I have seen the babies carried a lot too (by the older girls), but also have read that JB and M used "blanket training" on the older kids. This may be why they seem so much better behaved than the younger ones, who have been raised in front of TV cameras (and very likely NO blanket).
***********************************
Michelle has used blanket training all the kids not just the oldest ones.

Cyn said...

Right on to all the comments about the Duggar kids not being able to find jobs! Are church has been offering assistance to several families this past year because the parents can't find employment. Most of these people are professionals with advanced degrees and years of experience, but there just aren't jobs out there right now, even if you're willing to look for jobs in other parts of the country. Even entry level non-skilled jobs are hard to get right now because so many otherwise skilled workers are forced to take them just to survive. And as for the Duggar children being such great catches as employees to begin with, they are chronically late, have only a high school education, and if Josh's always closed car lot is any indication, they all don't have the best work ethic. Add to that the fact that they would probably be gone a lot for TLC trips with the family and you have a far from model employee, even in good economics times.
The Duggars may be nice people who try hard, but I honestly don't think they have prepared their children to be competitive in the job market.

**********************************
Josh and his parents are chronically late. The older girls and John David we don't know if they are "late" as well...

When the girls were going camping with the Dad... the girls were ready quite some time before Dad got around to being ready. Shows me that when it does matter at least the GIRLS can be ready on time.

Jane in California said...

Ohio Buckeye said:

Attempting to live an emotionally painfree life seems unrealstic and not necessarily the best approach for a full life, IMO. (Sorry to disagree again, PR!! :-)
* * *

It also sounds unlike the life Christ would want or expect his followers to lead. Living in a safe bubble, where you avoid all temptation, is a rather dry and barren existence. What have you proven at the end of your life? That you're a real warrior or that you're afraid of the world around you?

You have only to read the New Testament to see that Christ was very much of the world he lived in, and went freely among all sorts of people, unafraid that he might be "contaminated" by ideas or beliefs that differed from his own. Can you imagine Christ having a sister who yelled out "Sheep!" every time Christ passed a woman whose face wasn't fully covered?

Can you imagine if Christ was raised that he should mingle as little as possible with people of differing beliefs? A Christ who followed a very careful path, attempting at every turn to avoid temptation?

I'll go even farther and say that it is only through living, making mistakes (or sins), having regrets, and truly repenting -- that one becomes a better, wiser person. Truly facing temptation, maybe even succumbing at times, and then fighting the battle and choosing the right, that is where you become stronger. Not in living safely in the cocoon of your family where your main temptation is whether you sneak a second piece of candy or sneak a peek at a lady in a low cut top, only to be pulled back to "goodness" because your sister yells Nike in your ear.

Anonymous said...

In relation to the quote about babies crying, I DO believe the Duggars follow this to some extent or at least that they downplay their "little ones'" needs. Two examples come to mind - when Jordyn had a breathing problem and had to go to the hospital, she was clearly uncomfortable. Michelle said something along the lines of, "She has a little cough, but other than that she's just great." Then when Johannah was sick, Jana said, "Johannah is sick, and I think she's wanting to let everyone know." No, she was about to THROW UP! I love Jana, but she just assumed that Johannah was exaggerating for attention, when in reality she was getting ready to vomit.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Jane in California: What a beautiful post! Thank you for your thoughts and insight.

Here's something I've always wondered:

Regardless of whether you believe Jesus was god or merely a very notable person in history, it seems he was a fairly forward-thinking individual. He did not suggest emulating life as it existed 2000 years ago - he lived his life as those of his time.

Neither did he strive to live his life in a bubble. Rather, he befriended prostitutes and others who had suffered great difficulties and misfortunes in life.

So, if one's goal is to strive to emulate Jesus, why isn't part of the equation a) an acceptance of current-day life and b) stop assuming those who do not share your personal belief system are sinners and just lying in wait to pull YOU into sin?

Current-day life does not have to equate to an immoral or amoral lifestyle. It's sad to me that some teach their children they can only remain 'holy' by setting themselves apart from the real world.

It IS possible to be fully IN the world but not OF it.

Ohio Buckeye said...

I am unfamiliar with the reference to "Nike" mentioned several times. What's this about?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion Duggar’s are doing a very big disservice to their children in the way they restrict their courting and education.
Education is the biggie for me-I have seen too many women, who have married the first guy that shows them any attention or in their case asks JimBoob for the opportunity to court their daughter, then their marriage goes bad big time or her husband dies. Here is a woman with a couple of kids and no means to support them. Because they do not have an education or marketable skills except for homemaking skills. They end up living in poverty. From what I know the Q/F and ATI families do not believe in Life Insurance or accepting any type of government assistance, so what are they going to do? They need more education that School of the Dinning Room Table or some unaccredited Christian On Line School.
Courting thing just drives me crazy, how can a two people get to know each other and figure out if them compatible, if they always have one or two siblings with them all the time? No private conservations, expressing your future plans and dreams on private bases. Everything you say will go directly back to parents. That is really sad. I think that is why Josh and J’Anna look like a couple of teenager’s playing house. Please quit eating out of plastic glasses with plastic spoons, don’t they have crockery and silverware? Come on grow up, also take down the U of Arkansas crap in your living room and get some art work or pictures.
Regarding questioning and commenting on their life style, well they are fair game since they decided to become framewhores on TLC. Showing the homebirth put me over the top and I quit watching the show that was so disrespectable to J’Anna in so many ways. I guess if you can’t sell cars, then you have to sell your soul to TLC.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Dare I ask what "blanket training" is?

If, though, it's another theory by Gothard or Dr. Davis, nevermind. No amount of explanation will EVER enable me to understand these mindsets.

Anonymous said...

In relation to the quote about babies crying, I DO believe the Duggars follow this to some extent or at least that they downplay their "little ones'" needs. Two examples come to mind - when Jordyn had a breathing problem and had to go to the hospital, she was clearly uncomfortable. Michelle said something along the lines of, "She has a little cough, but other than that she's just great." Then when Johannah was sick, Jana said, "Johannah is sick, and I think she's wanting to let everyone know." No, she was about to THROW UP! I love Jana, but she just assumed that Johannah was exaggerating for attention, when in reality she was getting ready to vomit.
Well that will change when Josie comes home. She will need a lot of attention and care. They can not be so lackadaisical with her or there will be some serious issues. I also wonder since they have always said that they never have relied on any government assistance, will them now since they are looking at about $2 million dollars worth of medical bills for Josie over the next 12-18 months.

Nancy said...

My husband's company hires a lot of people and I have hired many business professionals over the years. Neither of us would be likely to hire the Duggar children into anything but the lowest level jobs. There is nothing wrong with those jobs, however, in our current economy they do not pay a living wage. The children may or may not be able to get positions but none of them will make the kind of money that supports the lifestyle currently provided by their parents (and TLC).. It is not elitist to acknowledge reality.

Also, I could not disagree more with the philosophy that believes a crying baby is somehow manipulative or self centered. I find that truly disturbing and sad.

The Duggars seem like nice people. I don't doubt that they mean well but their life makes me more comfortable in my agnostic beliefs.

Unchurched said...

Longtime lurker, first-time poster.

To Anonymous Jane in California @ 1/06/2010 5:54 PM.

I just had to say ... "wow" and can I get an "amen" to that!

Beautifully said. It's statements like this that foster in me — an agnostic — renewed respect and understanding for those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.

This is a wonderful discussion - kudos to all of you - conservative and liberal - for the respectful and lively back-and-forth. I've learned a lot just reading.

Jane in California said...

Ohio Buckeye:

Nike is a word that the girls say or call out if the family is out in public, maybe walking down a street or elsewhere, and they pass a woman who has a revealing, lowcut or tight blouse on. This is called out to remind the boys not to look "there" and have sinful thoughts.

The blanket training is putting the infant on a blanket and then teaching he/she to stay there by first gentle reprimands and then if the baby keeps crawling off, I guess you escalate and maybe smack it's hands or give it a spanking?

Basically, your training the baby to stay on the blanket, rather than following the natural inclination to explore. I am only speculating that the reason they wouldn't simply use a playpen instead of a blanket, is that they want to teach the child at a very young age to obey.

Anonymous said...

I have a 10 month old baby - my FIFTH, and he cries for attention on a daily basis. He also hits and throws when he does not get his way. Whether or not you believe in God and the theory of original sin, it is very clear to see that even at such a young age he wants his own way.

Now there is a big difference between a 10 month old baby and a newborn, but don't tell me every time a baby cries it is because they need something. No, sometimes it's just because they WANT something, and that's when, as parents, you can decide if you desire to give them their wants.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter to me if the Duggars go to college or not. It's their life and their choice to make.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye said: Regardless of whether you believe Jesus was god or merely a very notable person in history, it seems he was a fairly forward-thinking individual. He did not suggest emulating life as it existed 2000 years ago - he lived his life as those of his time.

Neither did he strive to live his life in a bubble. Rather, he befriended prostitutes and others who had suffered great difficulties and misfortunes in life


A different perspective, if I may?

I agree with you that Jesus challenged the status quo, but He did it within the context of a life He expected us to live - reaching out to others. The Duggars do that and are involved in many things that are not filmed. The missions trips were not added for the camera, but have been part of their lives for a long time.

It is an erroneous assumption to think that Jesus went among the people and accepted them as they were. He loved them as they were, but He expected a life change from each of them. If you reread the Biblical passages, you will see that none of the people in question returned to their former life, except the rich man who rejected the truth when he discovered that his love of money was an impediment.

The other aspect of your comment that makes no sense is that you expect the Duggars to allow their children to mingle among the "people" as Jesus did, but Jesus was a grown man of 30 before we hear stories of Him, and the children are just that, children.

Even within the evangelical movement there is disagreement about when to let children into "the world" and when to hold them back for more grounding in their faith. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this debate - each family has to work out for themselves how they will handle it.

I do agree that Jesus challenged the religious leaders of their day, but not because of their faith. He challenged them because their "religion" had gotten bigger than the God it was intended to glorify. I feel that way about many of our churches today, but it doesn't change my belief in God. I think the Duggars do something similar - they don't align themselves with any one church, per se, but try to live their lives according to how they see their God. Do they make mistakes along the way in whom they listen to for advice? Possibly - that is the issue for debate- but it doesn't negate the underlying belief.

:) ...just a different perspective for discussion...

HopeWings said...

Sure; it is their choice if they want to go to college or not...I think the point here is that JB and M never encouraged that for their children, and that to me--is a huge disservice.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 420   Newer› Newest»