The Duggars Respond to Reports That Josh Duggar Was Accused of Child Molestation

[seaton2005]

Apparently no place for forgiveness either.

He’s now 27. The question is whether he’s repented, sought forgiveness, and made restitution. It sounds like all of this was done. His family has moved on. Why can’t others?

You can forgive, but an individual who has harmed a child does not belong in Christian ministry, period.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

“No” there cannot be redemption? Or “No” you aren’t saying there cannot be redemption?

I know pharmacists that were druggies in college. And I’d gladly have them fill my prescriptions now. My wife knew druggies in nursing school. And she’s not concerned about the quality of care they provide now. And if a rapist were an Ob/Gyn and they’ve been an Ob/Gyn for the last 13 years with no incidents, I wouldn’t be concerned.

So, just because somebody 13 years ago as a 14 year old abused his sisters, and has no history of repeating such behavior, does not mean I would reject them as a babysitter or teacher.

Were they convicted? Or were they typical college kids who experimented? I know student that isn’t allowed into nursing school because of a DUI 5 years ago, no school around will accept her, because the state doesn’t accept it.
I’m sure pharmacists would be similar.
I feel sorry for any wife who’s husband thinks a rapist is a fine OB/GYN

 

[Dawnia]

I would assume there was a pact to keep it ‘in house’. Otherwise Jim Bob would have gone to the local police station rather than seek out a ‘friend’ cop.

It’s possible the police just brushed it under the rug. When I was growing up, you just didn’t involve cops in this type of thing. The cops likely wouldn’t respond anyway.

To be honest, I know why Jim Bob took that route. It’s your own child and you want to give them a chance based on your paternal love albeit limited knowledge of psychiatric predatory behaviour.

People do all sorts of things to lie to themselves, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he rationized the abuse away. I see it all the time working with CPS cases. Parents will come up with the craziest excuses of why x, y or z happened. Little Billy wasn’t trying to crush in Sally’s scull with the hammer, they were just playing “Chucky”. Billy really likes that movie.

When people commit these types of crime and they aren’t brought to the court of justice… they can feel a bit more invincible. This is the time for justice. If he is scrutinised and found to be reformed and safe… excellent. If there are still areas of uncertainty, it is good that he can now face those and be accountable to the community and his family. That is the way of true justice.

Depends. Not every child is taught that this behavior is wrong. If you don’t think it’s wrong, there is no feeling like you got away with anything. I had friends who grew up in a family like that. Kids were home alone a lot and pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted. That led to all sorts of things that should never have happened. Nothing was ever reported (we just didn’t do that) and we all grew up to be normal adults who are far more watchful of our own children because of what we went through.

As a victim myself, I wouldn’t want it to constantly be following me around. So, I pray that if Duggar has put that in his past, that people let it drop. Because they aren’t just punishing the guy for the abuse, they are punishing the victims too.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Terribly sad to hear about. Prayers for his victims.

I’m a bit bewildered though on why this matter was dropped from criminal prosecution when it occurred. By all fathomable accounts that I can conceive, he should have been classified as a child sex offender for life at the very least.

 

[Tiber_Pilgrim]

So many, with stones in their hands, ready to throw them. Even on this thread. Will we ever truly heed His words?

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” (John 8:3-11)

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)

 

[LongingSoul]

So many, with stones in their hands, ready to throw them. Even on this thread. Will we ever truly heed His words?

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” (John 8:3-11)

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)

That doesn’t really equate. We aren’t throwing stones at a sinner. We are proposing legal redress for a crime and throwing defense arguments at criminal behaviours for the sake of the safety of minor children. Jesus didn’t address the sexual abuse of children because natural law is so clear about that it didn’t need to be addressed.

 

[Tiber_Pilgrim]

That doesn’t really equate. We aren’t throwing stones at a sinner. We are proposing legal redress for a crime and throwing defense arguments at criminal behaviours

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” (John 8:3-5)

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Whether or not Josh Duggar repented and asked forgiveness is completely irrelevant. He engaged in prolonged sexual abuse of four of his younger sisters and never received any treatment for it. Now he has three children of his own and a compliant wife who accepts his past behavior. Anyone who is okay with that scenario has no understanding of the realities of sexual abuse. I’m not saying he should be condemned but he should absolutely be in therapy and someone other than his naive, sheltered wife should be taking some responsibility for the safety of his kids.

Plus, just because there haven’t been any reported instances of further abuse doesn’t mean there haven’t been any further cases of abuse. Jim Bob and Michelle were willing to cover it up when their show and livelihood didn’t depend on it. How much more likely would they be now to hide further instances of abuse in their home?

 

[LongingSoul]

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” (John 8:3-5)

I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. Adultery is the consensual act of sin between a man and a woman. It isn’t a ‘crime’ involving minors. When one of the parties involved is forcibly constrained in the course of the act, that constitutes a crime and justice needs to be not only done, but seen to be done.

 

[oneofmany]

Wouldn’t it be great if the media threw such a fit over all the politicians who do these types of things. Clinton for the main one. Now his wife who covered for his sexual escapades is running for president and no one cares about what they did or do.

 

[LongingSoul]

There are two problems with that logic. First of all, it’s not fair. We’re all poor sinners. Anyone of us can fall into grave sin if we aren’t carefully guarding ourselves against it. Being a believer doesn’t shield us from such temptations. Indeed, believers are often attacked by the devil more than unbelievers precisely to make them fall and be held up to unfair scrutiny and shaming by the very world that lets others get away with horrenous crimes against their fellow men.

If we are attacked by the devil and fail, we naturally lose our pedestal that comes with pristine integrity. No one can expect to retain that sort of sacred trust once they’ve fallen. Sure there were saints like Paul, Augustine, Ignatius, who repented and reformed and converted… but if they’d fallen into sin again they wouldn’t have been so esteemed even despite being forgiven. We have to accept that ‘demotion’ as follower of Christ. That’s just how life is.

Secondly, he was a child at the time himself. Like a lot of young boys he had newly discovered urges he didn’t know how to appropriately deal with. I fault the parents there. Good, solid sex education by parents is vital for young people entering their teens. They should have had “the talk” with him and made sure he understood what was appropriate sexual behavior and what wasn’t. Just being in a religious family is no guarantee that their values will “rub off” on their children.

Whether it was the parents fault or something flawed in the boy… what he did was a crime that has recognizably pathological elements. It’s simply naive to write it off as a passing phase. There is something disordered in the personality here and that has to be addressed.

I too experienced a young man touching me sexually when I was a girl. I told my parents. They told his parents, who wouldn’t own up to it–all too typical I’m afraid. My parents made sure we never saw that kid again. But the Duggars reacted properly when they found out. They took all the right actions with the result that their son and the girls involved were able to heal and move on. Our sick, anti-religious culture won’t let people move on from such mistakes/sins–not unless they’re famous and one of their own, like Woody Allen. I say there is a double standard in the way society judges these cases. This is a case in point.

Maybe the ‘sick anti-religious culture’ has staked a claim in this argument… but there are also those who have dealt with psychiatric and pathological disorders in people before that see the need to address the crime for what it was for the sake of children that may be affected in the future.

 

[Tiber_Pilgrim]

I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. Adultery is the consensual act of sin between a man and a woman. It isn’t a ‘crime’ involving minors. When one of the parties involved is forcibly constrained in the course of the act, that constitutes a crime and justice needs to be not only done, but seen to be done.

In first century Judea, adultery was a crime punishable by the death penalty (although only the Roman governor had the power to condemn a person to death). Thus, the Scribes and Pharisees were attempting to “trip” Jesus up with legal wrangling. They were having a legal discussion with Jesus in an attempt to trap him. Jesus saw through this though and got to the heart of the matter while avoiding the “trap”.

The point is simply that Jesus was dealing with a “crime” as well when He was asked what should be done to that woman. He chose mercy over perceived justice though and in doing so, he taught us a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, it is a lesson many fail to embrace unless of course, they are the ones desiring mercy.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

In first century Judea, adultery was a crime punishable by the death penalty (although only the Roman governor had the power to condemn a person to death). Thus, the Scribes and Pharisees were attempting to “trip” Jesus up with legal wrangling. They were having a legal discussion with Jesus in an attempt to trap him. Jesus saw through this though and got to the heart of the matter while avoiding the “trap”.

The point is simply that Jesus was dealing with a “crime” as well when He was asked what should be done to that woman. He chose mercy over perceived justice though and in doing so, he taught us a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, it is a lesson many fail to embrace unless of course, they are the ones desiring mercy.

I really hope you’re able to comprehend that there’s a difference between two adults engaging in consensual sex and a child being forcibly molested. Forcing those girls to live in close quarters with their abusers isn’t “mercy” no matter how much Jim Bob claims Josh repented for what he did.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I really hope you’re able to comprehend that there’s a difference between two adults engaging in consensual sex and a child being forcibly molested. Forcing those girls to live in close quarters with their abusers isn’t “mercy” no matter how much Jim Bob claims Josh repented for what he did.

Most definitely not mercy.
Why can’t people see this?

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Most definitely not mercy.
Why can’t people see this?

I think there’s a massive mental disconnect for some people when it comes to certain examples of sexual assault. The creepy guy up the road who rapes a woman at knife point is clearly a bad guy. The young kid–whether he’s a friend, family member or on a TV show you like–who lets his hormones get the best of him is just a good-hearted person who made a bad choice (even when it’s with four of his sisters over and over and over again). They see a very clear, distinct difference between the two. However, there’s really not a difference. Both guys committed a horrible, sexual crime. They violated a woman in a horrendous way. The fact that so many want to dismiss it even though these were his sisters is absolutely disgusting.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I really hope you’re able to comprehend that there’s a difference between two adults engaging in consensual sex and a child being forcibly molested. Forcing those girls to live in close quarters with their abusers isn’t “mercy” no matter how much Jim Bob claims Josh repented for what he did.

The girls weren’t even aware it had happened until they were told. It was Josh who bought it all to light by admitting it to his parents. He touched them through their clothings, all bar one time (when he touched a girl very briefly though a hole in her jeans). Once the parents became aware they made the girls aware and told them no one was to touch them between the neck and the knees and to tell them (the parents) if it happened.

Perhaps the parents were willing to have the girls live in close quarters with Josh because they weren’t traumatised? I don’t know whether or not they were, but given that they have no memories of the events it’s quite possible they weren’t.

To suggest that this is anything like a man raping a woman at knife point is a ludicrous claim at best. They’re two completely different situations.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think there’s a massive mental disconnect for some people when it comes to certain examples of sexual assault. The creepy guy up the road who rapes a woman at knife point is clearly a bad guy. The young kid–whether he’s a friend, family member or on a TV show you like–who lets his hormones get the best of him is just a good-hearted person who made a bad choice (even when it’s with four of his sisters over and over and over again).

I think some of the “let’s forgive and forget” crowd are also assuming that no lasting harm was done to the victims here, simply because they assume because of what they see on TV, that the Duggars are a happy functional family. Therefore they assume “hey, obviously his sisters got over what he did pretty quick” and therefore, what he did was no big deal.

But the truth is that we DON’T know if they got over it. We don’t know if they’ve actually forgiven and forgotten. Because we haven’t actually heard from his victims, we don’t even know who they were. We’re going by the words of the perp himself and the family patriarch, who both have motives to minimize the consequences of what they did. That is a very patriarchal approach to the situation.

Also, while I don’t quite agree with the “rape culture” argument put forth by some activists that implies the majority of us condone rape, I also think SOME people actually don’t find much wrong with non-consensual sexual acts themselves. If they do, they see them as just a variant of sexual sin in general, as can be seen by posters comparing what Josh did to adultery, consensual homosexual sex, etc… Many of the Josh defenders are essentially excusing his actions as normal adolescent sexual experimentation, and shying away from the idea that he VIOLATED his sisters.

But even when the perps are adults, if a woman is raped at knifepoint, that’s bad because the perp used violence and scared the woman. But if a man rapes a woman who is passed out drunk, well that’s no big deal because the woman didn’t actually suffer, she might not even know it happened, so why should we ruin a man’s life because he made a mistake? Maybe he was drunk too, so it’s a wash.

I think many people unfortunately think “nonviolent” sexual assault itself is as minor a crime as vandalism or public intoxication, and should be treated the same way, and should only rise to the level of a felony if violence was used, if the victim sustained major injuries, etc.

In this case, I think many people are assuming that “since we don’t see any proof any of the Duggar girls actually suffered, this is no big deal”. But we don’t have any proof that they DIDN’T. I mean, is this the real reason why some of the older daughters aren’t in relationships, or why they’re so accepting of the strict courtship rules regarding physical contact?

We also have no idea at all what happened to the victim who was NOT a sister. We haven’t seen her on TV as far as we know.

 

[estesbob]

I’m really shocked by some of what I’ve read in this thread. Josh repeatedly victimized five young girls, four of whom were his sisters. For the record, nowhere does it say that the one who wasn’t a sister wasn’t a family member; she just didn’t live at the house. The fact that he’s a serial child molester and that neither he nor his victims have ever received treatment is a huge deal. If they lived near me, family services would be investigating the Duggars and there’s a very high probability they would lose custody at least temporarily of all the minor children.

I don’t believe that the people defending Josh by saying that he was 13-14 when this happened and there’s no evidence that he’s re-offended have any clue what they’re talking about. The earlier claim that child molesters have a low recidivism rate is irresponsible and false. When a juvenile offender molests a family member, is reported early and receives appropriate counseling soon after, the recidivism rate is low. The more they offend and the longer they go without treatment, the higher the rate goes. Which group does Josh fall into?

Perhaps the most ridiculous statements in here are the ones who state or imply that because he sought God’s forgiveness and vowed not to do it again, people should take him at his word. The level of ignorance in these comments is astounding, especially coming from Catholics who should be all too aware of the recent, long history of priests who molested kids, repented, vowed not to do it again, got shuffled to another parish and kept molesting without missing a beat. Did Josh just repent better than they did?

Does Josh deserve our sympathy and prayers? Absolutely. But his sisters deserve that and much more. They deserve to be protected. They need to feel safe. They need to be free from the repeated victimization of having to be around their abuser and not having a say in the matter. And they need some reassurance that the same abuse isn’t going to be spread to their nieces. There’s no indication that any of that has happened here.

Good analysis. I was rather agnostic about this whole thing as I read through this thread until I hit your post .

 

[KendraDZ1902]

The girls weren’t even aware it had happened until they were told. It was Josh who bought it all to light by admitting it to his parents. He touched them through their clothings, all bar one time (when he touched a girl very briefly though a hole in her jeans). Once the parents became aware they made the girls aware and told them no one was to touch them between the neck and the knees and to tell them (the parents) if it happened.

Perhaps the parents were willing to have the girls live in close quarters with Josh because they weren’t traumatised? I don’t know whether or not they were, but given that they have no memories of the events it’s quite possible they weren’t.

To suggest that this is anything like a man raping a woman at knife point is a ludicrous claim at best. They’re two completely different situations.

Being unaware of a crime makes it ok? So, if someone were to come up behind someone, break their neck, killing them instantly, this person shouldn’t be in trouble? You know, because the victim didn’t know it was coming or even felt anything.

It is ludicrous that people don’t see molesting siblings, multiple times, as a major problem.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

A family where adult children have to have approval by their father to even date a guy. A family where adult children have their texts read by their parents? A family where daughters are literally given away and go from dad’s care to husband’s care? Yeah, those sisters would NEVER go against what their parents have told them to say. Who cares what his parents have to say? They aren’t the victims and I don’t trust them. Those girls may not even be able to talk about the experience or express how it makes them feel.