Duggar Son Accused of Child Molestation

[Guest MormonGator]

And I honestly don't know that much about the family research council, but in fairness to me my wife and I don't have kids so we don't pay attention to a lot of that stuff. Are they like Focus on the Family? 

[Vort]

 Agree 100%. It's the double standard you just have to accept. Like I said, it isn't fair in the least but it's not going to change. 

 

Not sure what your point is here, Gator. Are you suggesting that it's useless for us to point out the left's lying hypocrisies, and that we should just ignore it and respond to all the allegations they make against members of the right?

[Guest MormonGator]

Not sure what your point is here, Gator. Are you suggesting that it's useless for us to point out the left's lying hypocrisies, and that we should just ignore it and respond to all the allegations they make against members of the right?

Oh no, my apologies Vort if it came out that way. I'm so dense sometimes. We gators spend a lot of time out in the sun and bakes what little brain cells we have left. 

 

Continue to debate and inform people of the double standard-I'll be right there with you 100%. Just don't expect it to change. 

Edited May 22, 2015 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

And I honestly don't know that much about the family research council, but in fairness to me my wife and I don't have kids so we don't pay attention to a lot of that stuff. Are they like Focus on the Family? 

 

I believe so, yes--especially prominent in the gay marriage debate, I think.

[Guest]

Shining light on secrets isn't a bad thing. The way this was done isn't great, and I agree that it was done more as a shock piece for ratings than anything. 

 

But the longer people are allowed to sweep things under the rug, and the longer girls are taught to keep quiet to protect the family image, the longer this kind of thing will go on. 

 

It's good for those who have been victims as children to know that they aren't alone, and that it's NOT OKAY when it happens. It's not normal, it's absolutely not their fault. I have my doubts that the girls that this happened to have been helped as much as they need to have been. I can't imagine how they've felt all these years, seeing their molester publicly marketed as a good, virtuous Christian man (yes, I believe in repentance, but it requires more than forsaking. Restitution seems to be lacking). I know how it feels as a parent when something happens to your child and the family protects the feelings and reputation of the guilty party over the well-being of your child. . . I can't imagine how it would feel as the child when the ones who are supposed to protect you are protecting the abuser over the victims. 

 

Actually, I do have an idea. My mother-in-law, at almost 70, is still very much affected by her brother allowing to do very similar things as Josh Duggar has done, while her parents turned their heads and then kept it secret. 

 

I don't really know how it "should" have been done, beyond not putting your family's life out there for fame and profit, especially with such an ugly skeleton in the closet. I do know that secrets are bad. Things kept in the dark are bad. Shining light on them can only be good. I don't think I'd call this 'news story' light, really, but I also don't think that keeping the secret and putting Josh out there with the image that they have is good for the victims at all. It has to just do more damage. 

[estradling75]

Shining light on secrets isn't a bad thing. The way this was done isn't great, and I agree that it was done more as a shock piece for ratings than anything. 

 

But the longer people are allowed to sweep things under the rug, and the longer girls are taught to keep quiet to protect the family image, the longer this kind of thing will go on. 

 

It's good for those who have been victims as children to know that they aren't alone, and that it's NOT OKAY when it happens. It's not normal, it's absolutely not their fault. I have my doubts that the girls that this happened to have been helped as much as they need to have been. I can't imagine how they've felt all these years, seeing their molester publicly marketed as a good, virtuous Christian man (yes, I believe in repentance, but it requires more than forsaking. Restitution seems to be lacking). I know how it feels as a parent when something happens to your child and the family protects the feelings and reputation of the guilty party over the well-being of your child. . . I can't imagine how it would feel as the child when the ones who are supposed to protect you are protecting the abuser over the victims. 

 

Actually, I do have an idea. My mother-in-law, at almost 70, is still very much affected by her brother allowing to do very similar things as Josh Duggar has done, while her parents turned their heads and then kept it secret. 

 

I don't really know how it "should" have been done, beyond not putting your family's life out there for fame and profit, especially with such an ugly skeleton in the closet. I do know that secrets are bad. Things kept in the dark are bad. Shining light on them can only be good. I don't think I'd call this 'news story' light, really, but I also don't think that keeping the secret and putting Josh out there with the image that they have is good for the victims at all. It has to just do more damage. 

 

 

But that is just it... at the time of this "revelation" the truth had been made known.  the cops had been called, the legal process run to it conclusion...  This wasn't about bringing some unresolved secret to the surface so healing can begin... this was about ripping off the bandages and making everyone (including the victims) wounds bleed again.  That is not healing or helpful that is vindictive, spiteful and selfish

[Leah]

The thread was started because the rules apply to all of us, even those who are modest and good Christians. Just because he's a Christian doesn't mean we can excuse his bad behavior. What he did was flat out disgusting. It's also disturbing. 

 

His juvenile records were unsealed because he chose to be a celebrity. No one forced him. When you put yourself in the public eye you must accept that there will be unfair attacks against you. It's like an ER nurse complaining she doesn't like the sight of blood-if you don't like it, you could have chosen to live a nice, quiet life with your beautiful family. There is nothing wrong with that. 

 

Everyone cares about the girls. 

 

No one here has been gleeful about discussing it. It's in the news and it needs to be discussed. 

 

The atonement extends to everyone. 

 

I get how all of us Christians want to rally around the troops when one of our own gets accused of something but we simply cannot point to Lena Dunham or Woody Allen or anyone else (Two vile people, by the way) -just pointing out another wrong doesn't justify the wrong he committed. IE-If I commit arson and burn my neighbors house down I can't say "Well John down the street got a DUI. Why don't we arrest him and leave me alone?"

 

Why exactly does it need to be discussed here?  How is this particular story relevant to this particular forum?  Why discuss this and none of the other "celebrities"?

 

I don't see where he or any of his family made excuses.  Everyone acknowledged that what he did was wrong and took steps to make sure it never happened again.  There are plenty of families out there who just look the other way when something like this happens, much less bring in the authorities.

 

Please share with us that law that states that is okay to release sealed juvenile records simply because one is in the public eye?  The hypocrisy in applying different standards to a "celebrity" is very telling.  It's the other side of the same hypocrisy that you are whining about.

 

Juvenile records are sealed for very valid reasons.  One of them has to do with the opportunity to be rehabilitated.  Apparently, the majority of the people commenting on this story don't believe in that opportunity, or seek to deny to those whom they would choose.  I hope they all remember that when they are seeking forgiveness and a chance to right their wrongs. 

 

"Everyone" cares about the girls?  Really?  Even those who took sealed records and made them public to the world for their own personal (and probably monetary) gain?  Did they - or all of the people obsessed with this story - ever stop to consider that the girls involved did not want the whole world to know?  Was it okay to take that choice away from them to fit someone else's personal agenda?  Was any consideration given to re-opening wounds from years ago would have on them?  I have been in a similar situation myself, worked hard on moving forward and healing.  To have the public gossiping obsessively about something I successfully moved past is abusive and selfish and causes harm.  But, hey, let's not let the needs of someone else get in the way of our need to judge and condemn and gossip about those we don't even know. 

 

Please show me exactly where I said that the existence of the crimes of Lena Dunham and Woody Allen make this situation okay.  Even Josh Duggar is not saying it's okay!

 

But let's not have a thread about Lena Dunham because hey...it was just non-consensual sexual contact against her own sister and that's cool, cuz anything same-sex related is politically correct and acceptable and no one was harmed, right?  Let's not lynch her and cancel her show because that would be perceived as bigotry against the LGBT community.  Because we all know that everything there is natural and normal, don't we?

 

And let's not talk about the incestuous Woody Allen.  I mean, geez, the man's an artist!  Let's not pick on him!

 

Apparently the atonement does NOT extend to everyone.  We have a person who recognized their wrong-doing, took steps to change his direction, repented....all of the things we are supposed to do, but because what?  He's a Dugger?  A celebrity?  We are going to sit in judgment of him and revel in our condemnation?

 

I can't help but think about the funeral I attended of the young man here who brought a gun to school and killed another student and then killed himself.  No one was in denial about what he did but the Christlike love that was present at the funeral was powerful.  It was so palpable I would not have been surprised to see Jesus himself sitting in the chapel with the rest of us.

 

I am comforted to know that real justice is not decided by this world.

[NeuroTypical]

I am comforted to know that real justice is not decided by this world.

 

I still haven't clicked on the links, and still don't know who the Duggars are, and still don't care, but when it comes to child sex abuse, we're in total agreement.

[Leah]

Shining light on secrets isn't a bad thing. The way this was done isn't great, and I agree that it was done more as a shock piece for ratings than anything. 

 

But the longer people are allowed to sweep things under the rug, and the longer girls are taught to keep quiet to protect the family image, the longer this kind of thing will go on. 

 

It's good for those who have been victims as children to know that they aren't alone, and that it's NOT OKAY when it happens. It's not normal, it's absolutely not their fault. I have my doubts that the girls that this happened to have been helped as much as they need to have been. I can't imagine how they've felt all these years, seeing their molester publicly marketed as a good, virtuous Christian man (yes, I believe in repentance, but it requires more than forsaking. Restitution seems to be lacking). I know how it feels as a parent when something happens to your child and the family protects the feelings and reputation of the guilty party over the well-being of your child. . . I can't imagine how it would feel as the child when the ones who are supposed to protect you are protecting the abuser over the victims. 

 

Actually, I do have an idea. My mother-in-law, at almost 70, is still very much affected by her brother allowing to do very similar things as Josh Duggar has done, while her parents turned their heads and then kept it secret. 

 

I don't really know how it "should" have been done, beyond not putting your family's life out there for fame and profit, especially with such an ugly skeleton in the closet. I do know that secrets are bad. Things kept in the dark are bad. Shining light on them can only be good. I don't think I'd call this 'news story' light, really, but I also don't think that keeping the secret and putting Josh out there with the image that they have is good for the victims at all. It has to just do more damage. 

 

I have just one more comment and then I am done with participating in this gossip mill.

 

So you know with absolute certainly that the girls "kept quiet" to protect the family reputation?  Have you spoken with them?

 

We talk about forgiveness and the atonement but most only give it lip service.  Is it totally impossible that the girls aren't talking about it publicly because they have dealt with it (it did happen years ago), worked through it, been able to forgive him and it serves absolutely no purpose for them to speak about it publicly now?  Does the public have the right to know the identity of every single person this happens to?  One of the reasons the records were destroyed was to protect the girls!

 

I am a survivor of child sexual abuse.  I dealt with it and moved forward with my life.  Must I trot out that information forevermore?  Should I wear some sort of identifying badge?  If I become a celebrity (yuck) am I somehow obligated to reveal this information about myself?  Do I not get a choice about who, when and if I reveal this?

[Guest]

It's like y'all didn't even read my post. 

 

To a couple of you, a seemingly unrelated but general reminder, using the words of Marvin J Ashton:

 

 

 

We need to be reminded that contention is a striving against one another, especially in controversy or argument. It is to struggle, fight, battle, quarrel, or dispute. Contention never was and never will be an ally of progress. Our loyalty will never be measured by our participation in controversy. Some misunderstand the realm, scope, and dangers of contention. Too many of us are inclined to declare, “Who, me? I am not contentious, and I’ll fight anyone who says I am.” There are still those among us who would rather lose a friend than an argument. How important it is to know how to disagree without being disagreeable. It behooves all of us to be in the position to involve ourselves in factual discussions and meaningful study, but never in bitter arguments and contention.

 

 

That looks like a good signature, actually.

[mirkwood]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-duggars-arent-hypocrites-progressives-are/

[Guest]

He makes some valid points, but I still think Matt Walsh is the Oscar the Grouch of the blogging world.

[jerome1232]

I think people have not read the article. What girls kept quiet? The article I read states they told his dad, his father and mother counciled him and sent him to hard labor for a few months. It was reported to the police.

The guy even told his wife and her family about his past before they got married. What do you guys expect for him to do? Write a book about his shameful past? Blog about it for everyone to see?

[Crypto]

I've never watched the show or anything, but since this is related to the discussion

TLC Pulls '19 Kids and Counting' in Wake of Josh Duggar Molestation Admission
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/tlc-pulls-19-kids-and-counting-in-wake-of-josh-119614188615.html

I feel sorry for the innocent family members.

[jerome1232]

He makes some valid points, but I still think Matt Walsh is the Oscar the Grouch of the blogging world.

That's why I like him ;-). I liked him more before he started working for Glenn Beck though.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-duggars-arent-hypocrites-progressives-are/

 

Here's my thoughts on Matt Walsh's blog post:

 

 

After admitting to these acts...

 

Josh only "admitted" to it when one of his victims came forward. The family handled that however (we haven't been told) and then nine months later another victim came forward. So either Josh did not stop, or he didn't admit everything the first time...or both. Either way...don't think he came forward voluntarily.

 

" . . .his parents presented the situation to their church’s leadership, and Josh was sent to a family friend in Little Rock where he spent several months doing physical labor. When he came home, his parents brought him to a state trooper. The trooper talked to the boy, but no arrest was made. A police report was filed, though, and Josh and his sisters received counseling."

 

The state trooper was a family friend who gave Josh a "stern talking to" and did not file charges...that was my understanding from the article that started this discussion. Josh did NOT receive counseling, as Matt just said he was sent to do physical labor. I work in a program that gives counseling to teen sex offenders...real counseling, not "hard work".  

We can reasonably hypothesize from this what kind of "counseling" the victims received. The "forgive and forget" magic bullet of counseling, which I can tell you as a survivor does not help. For me that counsel made things so much worse and drove me AWAY from God.

 

"The behavior stopped there, and Josh has been upfront about it to anyone who actually needs to know this information. "

 

We HOPE the behavior stopped there...but since Josh only came forward when his victims did....all we can say for sure is that no other victims have come forward.

Whether or not Josh has been upfront about this is a matter of opinion. I think his claims that he had counseling, and "admitted" to his wrong show him to NOT be very upfront about it.

 

"Not because Josh’s actions were terrible — though they were, of course — but because the Duggars are a prominent Christian family who regularly speak out on contentious social issues like gay marriage."

 

I just can't even go here....no it couldn't be that the problem is Josh made a choice, a choice! That will haunt him and his victims for the rest of their lives....no, it must be because of someone else's actions that he is suffering. Nope, I'm not buying it. 

Yes, I will agree that his stance on a hot issue like gay marriage has fanned the flames, but all I can say about that is people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. At least in a gay marriage both of the partners are consenting. CONSENT is something that Josh did not have. He is no better than those he condemns.

 

ETA: the police report came, not when they talked to the family friend who was a State Trooper, but later when word accidentally leaked outside of their little circle.  When the police called Jim Bob and asked to talk to Josh, Jim Bob refused and called a lawyer.  Two lawyers turned him down, and at some point Josh did have to meet with the police, and that is when the report was written.  Some of the charges were felonies, but Josh could not be prosecuted because the Statue of Limitation had expired (because his parents didn't call the police when they first found out!)

Edited May 23, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

A couple of observations, based on things I've gleaned working in the juvenile court system for the past year:

 

1.  If this had been timely reported, Josh would have gone through the system, appropriate treatments/therapies would have been done, Josh would have aged out of the juvenile court system at 21 . . .

 

6.  Dude.  Josh.  I recognize the road you've walked, and I feel for the hell you must have gone through, and I understand the concept of forgiveness and all that.  And I admire you for discussing this openly with your wife before your marriage.  But . . . taking a job at the Family Research Council?  Really?

 

Just wanted to say thanks for this whole post, especially these two parts.  

 

 

 

 

It's good for those who have been victims as children to know that they aren't alone, and that it's NOT OKAY when it happens. It's not normal, it's absolutely not their fault. I have my doubts that the girls that this happened to have been helped as much as they need to have been. I can't imagine how they've felt all these years, seeing their molester publicly marketed as a good, virtuous Christian man (yes, I believe in repentance, but it requires more than forsaking. Restitution seems to be lacking). I know how it feels as a parent when something happens to your child and the family protects the feelings and reputation of the guilty party over the well-being of your child. . . I can't imagine how it would feel as the child when the ones who are supposed to protect you are protecting the abuser over the victims. 

 

 

I love this whole post Eowyn,  I just edited to my favorite part to highlight it (and for brevity).

Along this line:

 

"Child victims who do not receive appropriate support after disclosing their abuse to their families often go on to struggle with depression, have trouble forming healthy relationships as adults, and turn to substance abuse and self-harm as adults, Marsh says. 

 

Furthermore, she adds, if victims who have been abused by a family member feel that their family is siding with the perpetrator — and in turn feel not loved, not supported, and not as important to their family as their abuser is — they are at even greater risk for negative health behaviors."

The Worst Part of the Josh Duggar Child Molestation Situation

 

 

[Backroads]

I'm confused on one thing: who unsealed the records?

[pam]

Don't know if this has been mentioned.  I just saw it this morning. TLC has pulled the show from its lineup on tv due to the allegations.

[estradling75]

ETA: the police report came, not when they talked to the family friend who was a State Trooper, but later when word accidentally leaked outside of their little circle.  When the police called Jim Bob and asked to talk to Josh, Jim Bob refused and called a lawyer.  Two lawyers turned him down, and at some point Josh did have to meet with the police, and that is when the report was written.  Some of the charges were felonies, but Josh could not be prosecuted because the Statue of Limitation had expired (because his parents didn't call the police when they first found out!)

 

Totally missing the fact that it did get out...  The Legal system did run..  Those who committed crimes, got investigated, those who made mistakes got looked into...  And then it was closed out years ago.  The only point served by bringing it up now is as a hack job.  To reopen old wounds and make sure no one can heal.

 

After all the article is not trying to make the case that investigation, when it happened was crap... Because then it would focus on the investigators that screwed it up (allegedly).   It is simply rehashing events that the legal system already handled, and that is just being vindictive unless you actually have new evidence that fundamentally changes the investigation.  None has been presented 

[Just_A_Guy]

ETA: the police report came, not when they talked to the family friend who was a State Trooper, but later when word accidentally leaked outside of their little circle.  When the police called Jim Bob and asked to talk to Josh, Jim Bob refused and called a lawyer.  Two lawyers turned him down, and at some point Josh did have to meet with the police, and that is when the report was written.  Some of the charges were felonies, but Josh could not be prosecuted because the Statue of Limitation had expired (because his parents didn't call the police when they first found out!)

 

Well . . . in my line of work, we don't consider it a bad thing to call a lawyer before talking to police.    Frankly, sometimes these kinds of allegations come up and the alleged perp really is innocent; and my experience (sorry, Mirkwood) is that often, a police interrogation is geared more towards confirming the narrative the police think they've already put together, than it is about being open to a fresh perspective on the case.  Nor am I bothered by the fact that two different lawyers turned down the case--I turn away clients all the time, for a variety of reasons.

 

And frankly--as I recall the allegations came out in 2006 for conduct that occured around 2003.  Now, I haven't looked it up; but I would be flabbergasted to hear that any state had a three-year statute of limitation for sex abuse of a child.  I think people might just be assuming that since Josh Duggar is a free man today and there are no publicly-accessible court records, charges must never have been brought; and that's a whopper of an assumption to make under the circumstances.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Estradling, for the most part I agree. The media that dug up the story only cared about rating not the victims or justice.

In my comment you quoted, I just meant to disagree with Matt Walsh's assertion that the parents had responded properly to the situation.

JAG, good points. I thought 3 yrs statute of limitations seemed very short but that is what the article said. And we know the media is always right... :)

You are right that calling attorney is a normal response. My frustration here is that the parents didn't contact the police themselves.

For example if your son came home and said he was in an accident and fled the scene...wouldn't a reasonable response be to call a lawyer, and then call the police and turn yourself in. But the Duggar tried to avoid the notifying the police step.

Edited May 23, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

You are right that calling attorney is a normal response. My frustration here is that the parents didn't contact the police when they first heard about it.

For example if your son came home and said he was in an accident and fled the scene...wouldn't a reasonable response be to call a lawyer, and then call the police and turn yourself in. But the Duggar tried to avoid the notifying the police step.

 

 

That to me seems to be a very human parenting thing to do...

 

The did not ignore the issue... but they did try to 'protect' everyone (Sent him away got help from people they trusted)...  In fact a hack job like what has just happened reinforces that idea .

 

Still the law is quite clear on the matter of what they should have done.  And it is clear from the redacted report that it did happen... eventually

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

That to me seems to be a very human parenting thing to do...

The did not ignore the issue... but they did try to 'protect' everyone (Sent him away got help from people they trusted)... In fact a hack job like what has just happened reinforces that idea .

Still the law is quite clear on the matter of what they should have done. And it is clear from the redacted report that it did happen... eventually

To be fair, I agree they were trying to protect everyone. I don't think harm was intended on the parents part, but they still broke the law and in my opinion made things much worse for everyone involved by doing so.

This same mistake is made far too often by parents and church leaders (in our church and other churches). Honestly, I don't get it. I don't think any parent or church leader would be okay with not notifying the police when property damage is involved...so why is it considered okay to break the law when sex is the crime?

Shouldn't we value people more than property? Rhetorical question. Our actions suggest we don't though.

It also seems to me that sexual abuse is taken far less seriously by all churches than immortality. If it's wrong for two people are not married to have sex, isn't it far worse to force sex on someone else?

That seems like a no brained but again actions speak louder than words.

[estradling75]

To be fair, I agree they were trying to protect everyone. I don't think harm was intended on the parents part, but they still broke the law and in my opinion made things much worse for everyone involved by doing so.

This same mistake is made far too often by parents and church leaders (in our church and other churches). Honestly, I don't get it. I don't think any parent or church leader would be okay with not notifying the police when property damage is involved...so why is it considered okay to break the law when sex is the crime?

Shouldn't we value people more than property? Rhetorical question. Our actions suggest we don't though.

It also seems to me that sexual abuse is taken far less seriously by all churches than immortality. If it's wrong for two people are not married to have sex, isn't it far worse to force sex on someone else?

That seems like a no brained but again actions speak louder than words.

 

Protect which people???...  Should we brand in scarlet everyone whom has any accusation made against them???  That seems to be the direction we are going in.

 

The simple fact is that you can believe someone but feel that there is simply not enough evidence to destroy someone else's life and livelihood based on the persons word alone.

 

Unfortunately in many cases of sex crimes (unlike property damage) it comes down to "He said", "She said"  There is no smoking gun of hard evidence either way.  Now it has been shown the people lie, they can lie about doing it, they can lie about having it done unto them.  So who do we believe?  Do we automatically believe the accuser?  If we do that opens it up to all kinds of problems.  In reality we as a people tend to believe that which we want to believe irregardless of facts

 

Legally we as a country have chosen Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  This means that sometimes the guilty go free because we can't prove their crime, that is not a good thing.  But generally we consider it better case then having the innocent being punished.

 

So you can say you wish more people would believe one half of the equation...  and I could agree with that.  In addition we also say "I wish more people would let the investigation run and accept the outcome of such (whatever they might be) unless they had hard proof that the investigation was corrupted somehow"

 

Because until you do you are only valuing half the people in the situation.  Isn't every person more valuable then property???  Isn't it important to believe everyone?  Rather then choose a side?  Yet to many of us pick a side and then disregard any other option, and by so doing belittle half of the people involved.

 

Instead we should let the (presumably trained and neutral)  investigators do their job and make the call on what needs to happen next. And we should accept the call they make (again unless we can prove they messed up somehow)