Mythical Creation Science: What about "Living Fossils"?

This chapter of The New Answers Book 4 (TNA4) edited by Ken Ham is one of the better written chapters in the whole series.  Written by Dr. John Whitmore, the chapter is a rare example of YEC literature that is readable by a scientist.

Some benefits:

• Dr. Whitmore uses the correct scientific terminology for geographic ages and the scientific names of organisms.  This allows readers to double-check his assertions.
• He's brave enough to attempt to label the geologic time periods with the YEC periods.  This is pretty handy because entire chunks of the series makes claims without ever grounding them in a geologic time period.
• The Paleozoic Era (542-250 million years ago(MYA)) is the Early Flood.
• The Mesozoic Era (250-70 MYA) is Late Flood.
• The Cenozoic Era (70 MYA - now) is Post-Flood.
• Unlike most of the authors of the other chapters, he uses YEC assumptions (6,000 year old Earth; the Bible must be right) when talking about YEC ideas.  When talking about science ideas, he actually uses science assumptions (Earth is 4.5 billion years old; Bible isn't a science document). 

Review of Dr. Whitmore's arguments:

Basic overview:

• A living fossil is a currently extant organism that also has fossils in the same genus or species that show very little change over a long time.
• States that since YEC believe in a shorter timespan on Earth, living fossils may be more common in a YEC world than a science based world.

Experimental Design:

• Ran inquiries for 26 phyla in the Paleobology Database (pbdb.org) and counted up the number of genera found that have roots in the Paleozoic (n = 99 species) , Mesozoic (n= 548 species) and Cenozoic (n = 2594 species) Eras. 
• Made a graph that shows that the number of "living fossils" increases as you move closer to the present.

Arguments against Evolution:

• If an old Earth existed, how could so many species remain unchanged through the ice ages, mass extinctions and sea levels changes?
• Refutes Steven Jay Gould's argument that low genetic diversity may leave certain organisms unchanged over long periods of time by arguing that low genetic diversity often leads to extinction and that many diverse families and genera have shown little change over time.

Arguments for YEC

• The Flood would have killed off a whole lot of families of organisms, so that's why the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras have fewer living fossils than the Cenozoic.
• The Cenozoic is after the flood so fewer organisms would have gone extinct.  Plus, the ark was filled with different "kinds" (similar to the Family level today) that rapidly diversified to fill niches after the Flood.

Rebuttal:

• Biologists hate - HATE! - the term "living fossil".  The term implies that the organisms alive today that are also found in the fossil record have not evolved during the intervening time.  A better way to look at a "living fossil" is an organism that hit on a winning combination that hasn't needed much improvement over time AND happened to fossilize well.  The standard example brought up are horseshoe crabs. 
• Have they evolved over time?  Yup.  One specific genus has gone extinct (ie - failed to survive a changing environment); three others are alive and well today. 
• Do they fossilize well? Hell, yeah!  Horseshoe crabs are a giant carapace (exoskeleton) that spends its life in marine sand or mud.  Since exoskeletons resist decay after death and the horseshoe crab is already in prime fossil making territory, we'd be more amazed if we didn't find lots of fossils of these.
• How certain can scientists be that a genus or species has been evolutionarily unchanged by comparing fossils to living creatures?  If you want to start a brawl, ask the question to a mixed group of paleontologists and biologists.  Paleontologists tend to support lumping fossils that look like living organisms into current genera; biologists tend to prefer splitting them into a different species.  As a trained biologist, I'm biased toward being very cautious about deciding that a fossil that looks like a current species IS the current species.  This is because I use the species definition that requires organisms to be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring - which we can't determine from fossils.  I concede that I may be overly cautious and cause some extraneous species to be formed.
• How many species actually remained unchanged?  (Fair warning: I went nerd math crazy.)
• I went to the same webpage that Dr. Whitmore used - it's a reputable paleobiology site and ran the 26 taxa he listed through the three eras.  
• From the data in the book, 3% of living fossils are from the Paleozoic, 17% are from the Mesozoic and 80% are from the Cenozoic.
• This is where I ran into a problem.  He lists 26 kingdoms/phyla that he included in his search, but he reports out the number of genera that are living fossils.  In layman's terms, he listed terms like "cars", "trucks" and "airplanes" and reported out terms like "1987 Yugo GV", "2010 Ford F-150" and "Cessna 350".  I find it hard to believe that he searched each living and extinct known genera individually through this data base; in Plantae alone, that would be over 300,000 species to search.  Also, he only reported out his data in a graph with the total number of living fossils found in each 10 million year period, so I don't have the actual list of species.
• Here was my solution.  I searched each Era by the 26 kingdom/phyla he reported and collected the number of fossils recorded in the database.  This likely introduced some errors, but I will do my best to be clear about them.
• These are the total number of fossil records for each Era.  This likely overcounts the number of taxa represented.

	Number of records
Phylum	Paleozoic	Mesozoic	Cenozoic
Annelida	509	974	292
Arthropoda	16333	3200	2583
Brachiopoda	28308	8958	604
Chaetognatha	151	0	0
Chordata	5808	10891	11579
Cnidaria	8174	2728	2168
Coeloscleritophora	296	2	0
Ctenophora	3	0	2
Cyanobacteria	526	165	7
Echinodermata	5358	2756	1183
Ectoprocta	6856	594	1183
Entoprocta	5	0	603
Foraminafera	3585	0	0
Hemichordata	1632	2220	1061
Hyolitha	917	1	0
Mollusca	19360	25620	8749
Nematoda	6	6	18
Nematomorpha	89	0	0
Onychophora	76	0	2
Phoronida	1	12	0
Plantae	2391	3199	1996
Platyhelminthes	1	1	1
Porifera	4089	1286	156
Radiolaria	465	2008	0
Sipuncula	4	1	0
Tardigrada	0	1	110
Sum of records	104943	64623	32297
Number of "living fossils"	99	548	2594
Percentage of fossils made of "living fossils"	0.09	0.85	8.03

Look at what a tiny fraction of all records the "living fossils" make up!

If my method is accurate, 0.09% of Paleozoic fossils are of "living fossils".  0.85% of Mesozoic fossils and 8% of Cenozoic fossils are living fossils.  These numbers are substantially different from Dr. Whitmore's 3% Paleozoic, 17% Mesozoic and 80% Cenozoic.
 

Let's say I am off by a power of 10.  This means that the 509 annelid fossils actually make up ~51 genera instead of ~510 genera.

Sum of records	10498.3	6466.3	3232.5
Number of "living fossils"	99	548	2594
Percentage of fossils made of "living fossils"	0.94	8.47	80.2



 Well, that gets the numbers closer - especially the Cenozoic Era.  The Mesozoic is still off by a power of 2 and the Paleozoic is off by a power of 3. 

The problem is that for my math to be off by a power of ten, I have to assume that ALL of the genera that have ever existed have fossilized, the fossils have been recovered and all of those fossils have been entered in the database.    Scientists currently think we have 300,000 species of plants.  The database pulled ~7,600 plant fossils. 

 I feel pretty comfortable with my original numbers.


 So, 0.09% of Paleozoic fossils,  0.85% of Mesozoic fossils, and  8% of Cenozoic fossils are "living fossils".  I find it impossible to reconcile a 99.9% extinction rate over 6,000 years.  Now, over 542 million years, the fact that anything even appears to be a "living fossil" is pretty awesome.

 

 

 

Mythical Creation Science: Faint Sun Paradox

This one caught my attention in The New Answers Book 4 (TNA 4) in a chapter titled "What Are Some of the Best Evidence in Science of a Young Creation."  This was number 4 in a list of 10  evidences for YEC within science.

What do they claim?

TNA 4 explains that the nuclear fusion in the Sun's core would have been weaker leading to a Sun that was 25% fainter 3.5 billion years ago.  This decreased luminescence would lead to a temperature on Earth that was below freezing during the time that life was beginning to form on Earth.   TNA 4 allows that scientists have proposed several solutions including increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, but claims that there is no evidence for this and that there is no way that the greenhouse gas levels and the sun's luminosity could change in sync.

Where's the problem?

This explanation is a great example of a YEC propaganda trick I think of as "Tell the truth, just not the whole truth."  I'm going to recopy the previous paragraph and underline all of the true statements in the paragraph.  I'm also going to bold a true statement that TNA 4 hoped you missed.

TNA 4 explains that the nuclear fusion in the Sun's core would have been weaker leading to a Sun that was 25% fainter 3.5 billion years ago.  This decreased luminescence would lead to a temperature on Earth that was below freezing during the time that life was beginning to form on Earth.   TNA 4 allows that scientists have proposed several solutions including increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, but claims that there is no evidence for this and that there is no way that the greenhouse gas levels and the sun's luminosity could change in sync.

The vast majority of what is in TNA 4 for this section is true, but incomplete.

What does science really say?

The Faint Young Sun Paradox was proposed by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972.  They were bringing up a good point - the Sun was warming the Earth so much less that the Earth should have been frozen 2.3 billion years ago.  However, even as they brought this up, the proposed one of the current solutions.

From the abstract published in Science (an very prestigious and selective journal), they state "Solar evolution implies, for contemporary albedos and atmospheric composition, global mean temperatures below the freezing point of seawater less than 2.3 aeons ago, contrary to geologic and paleontological evidence."

Two important points:

• Sagan and Mullen did the math based on current albedos (reflectiveness of the Earth's surface) and the percentage and characteristics of gases found in the atmosphere now.  They never state that the albedo or atmosphere characteristics were unchanging; in fact, they demonstrate how adding some greenhouse gases at certain points removes the problem.
• Sagan and Mullen imply that the geologic and paleontological record - which was solid in 1972 and has advanced mightily since then - show that the Earth wasn't freezing 2.3 billion years ago.

How come the Earth wasn't a giant snowball if the Sun was cooler?

 That's where the "several solutions" come into play.

1) The atmosphere was different.  Scientists have neat tricks for capturing tiny gas bubbles trapped in ancient zircons to get an idea of what gases were present and in what amounts.  Scientists aren't exactly sure of the atmospheric composition, but there was more than enough carbon dioxide to wrap the Earth in a greenhouse effect atmosphere.

2) The Earth was still cooling down from formation and heat generated by radioactive decay.  Again, scientists are currently working out the details from age of zircons, but the Earth itself was releasing more heat 3 to 4 billion years ago than it is today.

3) The planet as a whole was darker colored leading to better capture of heat and had fewer clouds.  The darker color came from the fact that the continents were in the process of forming.  Continental rocks are lighter in color than the oceans so a world with more oceans captured sunlight more efficiently.  The fewer clouds idea is based on the fact that most clouds form around biological nuclei that allow water to condense.  Since life was just getting started, there were fewer nuclei and fewer clouds.

These solutions may work together as well.  The warmer Earth could have heat captured from the Sun more effectively by the oceans and both sources of heat were better maintained by an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases.


What about the intricate interplay of solar luminosity and greenhouse gases brought up by TNA 4?

Strawman.    No one - well, outside of YEC - has claimed that solar luminosity and greenhouse gases moved in perfect sync.  Changes in the rock cycle and plate tectonics eventually dropped the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Meanwhile, the Sun's fusion power got stronger and stronger.  The two are correlated in a vague way but there is no causation that I've seen evidence of.

Mythical Creation Science: The Beginning

I'd like to start a series of blog posts on the problems with "Creation Science".  Since I've been reading NLQ, I realized that some parents who home-schooled while in CP/QF then left or kids who have grown up in that system may realize that "Creation Science" seems...wrong....but don't entirely know how to explain the actual sciences involved well enough to fix their educational gaps.

I'd like to try and fill some of those gaps.

I have solid credentials as an educator and a scientist. I have a Bachelors' Degree with a Major in Biology and Secondary Education and a minor in Chemistry.  I taught for 8 years in an urban, low socioeconomic status, high English Language Learner population.  I've recently returned to graduate school full-time where I started in an evolutionary biology lab and transferred to a sustainable agriculture/education project while teaching undergraduate science lab classes.

What I don't have is a good grounding in "Creation Science".  I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools where we were taught real science in science classes and religion - including the literary-historical criticism method of reading the Bible - in a separate class.  What I've learned so far has been gleaned by reading all four of the published "The New Answers 1-4" (TNA 1-4) which is edited by Ken Ham. 

So far, there seem to me to be a few rules in "Creation Science" that'd I'd like to discuss and/or debunk.

1) The Bible was written as a scientific and historic document in the style of similar books written after the Enlightenment.

The Bible was written long before the Enlightenment Period.  The Bible is a series of books compiled by Christians explaining how their relationship with God came into being and has changed over time. 

Using the Bible as a scientific document makes as much sense as using Beowulf or the Epic of Gilgamesh as scientific documents.
2) The Bible is ALWAYS right on scientific and historic events.

I have problems with this on two levels. 

First, the Bible doesn't match much of what the universe, Earth and life in general tell us about science.  For most people, that's a non-issue due to a non-literal understanding of the Bible.  For literalists, though, I would like to know why God supposedly gave us a science and historical book that doesn't match our planet.  That seems callous and mean-spirited.

Secondly, the authors in the compiled chapters state clearly that "Creation Science" removes the need for faith because "Creation Science" proves the Bible is true.   This to me treats believers as children - unable to have a relationship beyond what they can see and hear.

3) If the Bible appears to be wrong, that means the science is flawed or part of a conspiracy by atheists.



The problem is that they can't explain WHY the science is flawed or make the science sound flawed by ignoring /misunderstanding most of the theory. 

The conspiracy theory is an affront to the generations of ardent believers of Abrahamic faith traditions and Eastern traditions who have advanced science.

4) Creation scientists are not bound by laws of nature when proposing how the Bible can be right.



In fact, they simply change laws of physics, earth science and biology as needed.  This leads to some freaking hilarious storylines put together to make Genesis true.

5) Creation scientists don't need to read updated science papers or even cite them.
Real academics cite papers early and often.  If an idea isn't common knowledge, it should be followed by a citation or footnote.   The authors that compiled these volumes often cite "creation science" journals and books, but are haphazard about citing the original scientific paper they are discussing.

In addition, science progresses in real time.  Scientific papers from the 1970's have probably had lines of current research that support or refute them.  A credible scientist would have more recent citations (within 5 years).
6) There are people out there called "evolutionists".
Nope.  Those are a mythical critter. 

We have evolutionary biologists, astrophysicists, geologists, astronomers, historians and linguists as very broad categories with many subtypes. 

If you spell all of that out, though, it really makes the "atheists' conspiracy to bring down Christianity" sound even stupider..........

7) If an "evolutionist" posits a problem about a current science idea, that means the entire theory is massively flawed.
Biologists had a rip-roaring argument going on in the 1980's about the speed at which evolution occurs.  Some argued for a slow, steady rate of mutation (gradualists) while others argued for periods of stasis followed by rapid mutations (punctuated equilibrium or punk eeks). 

Creationists argued that the sides were proving that evolution didn't exist.  Both groups of biologists pointed out that they were arguing about a sub-point of the time scale of evolution - NOT that evolution didn't exist.

I'll be revisiting these ideas - and more! - in future posts.

Preparing to Be a Help Meet: Power of Stinking Thinking -Part Two

Part Two of the un-named epic failure - in Debi's eyes - of a woman who dared obey her husband without enough joy in her heart. 

Her husband is the one who lacked spiritual clarity but wanted to go to Bible College in a different country while wrecking their finances and refusing to have children for at least 5 years.  (Anyone else wonder what Vaughn Olman would think of this marriage?)

Anyway, she continues wringing her hands...
All day at work my mind churned over and over with insecurities and doubts about his motives and his leadership.  Did Jude hate me now?  Did I displease God somehow?  Did I marry the wrong man? My brooding thoughts constantly blamed him for my unhappiness.  And so the sweetness vanished.

You married a man who seems willing to call audibles on all major life decisions.  I can't say that you married the wrong man because Jude seems to change his mind hourly on everything.  I don't know who you married - and probably you don't either.

He said that I would only have to work while he finished a one-year degree, but his schooling lasted longer.

Why did his schooling last longer?  Was he getting additional degrees?  Did he miscalculate how long his first degree would take?  Do any of these scenarios lead to a decent paying job - actually, well-paying job since the Pearls are mostly anti-women working after marriage and childbearing - or is this just a sad, prolonged adolescence?

 I kept hoping I would get pregnant so I could at least take a break from the demanding job at the ad agency.  Then the biggest blow came; a doctor told us that we were not able to have children.  My dream of motherhood was shattered.  Depression called my name daily.


This woman sounds miserable.  She hates her job - but can't leave because Jude can't get his act together.  She's wanted to be a mom and was told by her husband he wanted to wait 5 years before trying to have kids.  Then they find out that they're infertile.  That sucks.

Usually, adoption is an option - but these two are so out of sync with each other that I doubt they could get through a home study.

His management of our finances, which resulted in accumulating debt, really made me fall apart.  I was a nervous wreck and he avoided dealing with it.  Remember what I loved most about him when we met?  He was so spontaneous, so he balanced out my methodical personality.  Jude was still Jude.  He had not changed.

If Jude is so horrible at finances, why won't he hand them off to his wife?  He's already got her supporting the family.   


There's also a big difference between innate personality characteristics - like spontaneity - and acquiring life skills - like living within a budget.    Acting like Jude's irresponsible financial decisions are part of his personality and immutable does a huge disservice to Jude.

After awhile he just stopped talking to me.  He stayed away for hours.  When he was home he would sit and stare at me with confusion on his face, as if trying to piece together what had happened to bring us to this place.

I still think Jude is having an affair. 
Then one day, after six years of marriage, I came home and he was gone.  It wasn't like he just packed a bag; his clothes, his clutter, his stuff...everything that said "Jude" was just gone.  It had never dawned on me that he might actually leave me.

Wait, what? 

Was the unnamed wife abusive?  If she was, more power to Jude for making a clean escape.

If she wasn't - and I don't see much support for that - Jude's a douchebag.  In my world, a spouse who wants out of a marriage that is not abusive has an obligation to give the other spouse a chance to change.  The spouse who wants out is more than free to set timelines, boundaries, whatever, but you can't just bail.

I know because I've been there.

My husband and I went through a rough patch in our marriage.  I was miserable and he seemed clueless.  I gave him a six-month warning: If he didn't change certain patterns in his life that were badly unhealthy for him, I would get a legal separation at the end of that six month period.

That was the hardest thing I've ever done.  My husband was shocked - and hurting a lot more than he let on.  We worked through it slowly and are still working.  I worked at being less codependent (I wanted to solve all our problems myself - hint: it doesn't work at all) while he worked at taking better care of his health.  He's doing well - he underwent gastric sleeve surgery and is working hard having a more balanced life.  I've had a hard six months but our marriage is healthier.

As a side note: a complete move-out is hard to pull off without help and planning.  Jude has been planning this for quite a while.

We were Christians.  We were preparing to go into the ministry...right?  I mean, that's why he was going to Bible College, so surely he would come back, and I would forgive him and we would be lovers again and go on into ministry.  He had a reputation to uphold; this would disgrace the Savior.  Jude had vowed to love and protect me; divorce was not an option...ever...right?

I don't really know what Jude was doing - honestly.  He might have been attending Bible College and then had a whole breakdown.  Or he could have been messing around on the side while not attending Bible College at all - that would explain why he kept such a tight hold on the bills even when he sucked at paying them.
But he was gone.  I had slowly, but surely eroded his spirit with my contempt, condescension and disapproval.  But never would I have believed this would have lead to his leaving.  He loved me...I know he loved me.  We were perfect for each other.  Everyone said so.  Why would he leave?  We could work this out with a little counsel if he would just....

I'll assume she was acting with contempt, condescension and disapproval and that hurt Jude.  Jude was making unilateral decisions and ignoring his wife's pain and depression - and that hurt his wife. 


Marriage is a two-way street.  She may have been screwing up, but so was he.
Now I was terribly, terribly alone.  It was not like being single again; it was like being ripped into pieces.  Visions of camping out on his doorstep to bring him back whirled around in my mind; maybe that would make him love me again.  I prayed earnestly that he would come back, but he never did.

I wish she had.  I doubt that would have brought him back, but she'd have figured out if he was having an affair.  I find it sad that she doesn't even think that's a possibility - probably because he wants to be a minister.
So what is it like to lose the love of your life?  You are a tangled mess of needs that cannot express themselves properly - the need to deal with the loss of a relationship without a funeral or comforting friends or family; the need to feel a sense of purpose again; the need for a way to provide for yourself; the need to keep a lid on your hormones; the need for legal and financial advice; these are some of the many things you face.

These are true statements - but not necessarily true for this lady.

I'll assume she didn't have any family or friend support which is really sad.  She should, however, be more than able to support herself if she's working at a demanding job at an ad agency.

I assume the "hormones" remark is an allusion to being sexually frustrated - but there are plenty of ways to deal with that. 

She would need legal and financial advice - but a divorce after six years of marriage is easier than if she had passed the ten year mark. In this case, I recommend a really good P.I. because I think Jude is up to something on the side and studies have found that proof of an affair or ongoing breach of trust gains the injured party 10-20% better settlement.  (The authors pointed out the better settlement seems to be based on a sense of guilt or fear of exposure from the cheating party; it's not a direct legal strategy.)
While this situation sucks, it sucks less than be married to Jude.

 Add this to the shame of being a Christian with the black letter "D" on your resume.  So after three miserable months of being alone I went back to my parents' home a dismal failure.  The vision that kept coming up before me was of a Treasure Chest turned into a coffin with all my hopes and dreams inside. At age 31, my life was over.

And yet, she didn't die.  She's 31.  That's not very old, honestly.  If she got some therapy, she'd be much happier pretty quickly and likely be in a place to look for a new partner if she wanted to.
[Long story short: She refuses to sign the divorce papers for 9 years while he's waiting to marry someone he fell in love with.  Her life is changed by reading "No Greater Joy" magazine, surprise! ]


Folks, waiting nine years - even to punish your ex-husband - is not a win for you.  The unnamed woman is now 40 years old and still enmeshed with a loser.

Finally, I was willing to admit the man I was married to many years earlier was no longer my husband.  It was at last clear to me that I had to let him go if that was his wish.  I wonder what might have happened if I had, with a free heart, let him go years earlier? Would he have changed his mind in the process?  Would he have forgiven me?  It is too late to know.

*blinks repeatedly*

If you had divorced him nine years ago, you would have been divorced nine years earlier.

I can't figure out how signing the papers faster would have made him come running back.  That makes no freaking sense.  I don't know how the author thinks that signing the papers earlier would have caused him to come running back, either....
Over the years my bitterness had made him distrust my intentions.  When he heard my voice over the phone his answering tone was angry.

Um - can you blame him?   You've been refusing a divorce for 9 years.  I'd be pissed off, too.

I told him in a matter-of-fact-way, "I am truly sorry. I will sign the papers." As we talked it was like a window shade came up on his soul.  He sounded more and more friendly, like the man I had married.  Was God giving me a second chance to be the person I should have become towards this man?  I didn't know, but regardless of the outcome I would be thankful.  We talked five times that day.  It was my 40th birthday. It was one of the happiest days of my life.  In the end, he sent me "the papers".  I had to accept his decision with grace.  I finally, after all these years, obeyed my husband.

Jesus Christ.  She's still fawning over him like a dog.  Ugh.[Long story short: She's lonely at first.  She meets some kids in the neighborhood and enjoys teaching them gardening and quilting.  She finds a graphic design job for a ministry that she likes.]

In other words,  once she left Jude - body and heart - she did great.   The only problem I see with this story is that she lost 9 years waiting for him to come back.

AntiPearl:

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela

Preparing to Be a Help Meet: Power of Stinking Thinking - Part One

Only two more chapters left!  *happy dance*

Debi ends the last chapter with an apology for the sad, depressing, scary story that follows because a woman didn't respect her husband.

I've found all of her stories so far terrifying or boring so I'm excited about this one.

He came at a moment in my life where I was really lonely.  I had moved to a college town to be a volunteer for a thriving ministry.  We were busy with lots of Bible studies, meetings, memorizing Scripture, conferences and friends eating together and talking.  Then, one day, out of the blue, I was dismissed from the ministry.  I was several hours from home, had expenses to pay, and a job I had just begun so I decided to stay put for a while to get my bearings and give myself time to decide how to move forward.  I was more than just a little lonely; I had a great big need to be needed.

Those are some huge red flags, kiddo.

First, I've been involved as a volunteer in many secular and sacred ministries - but none of them have ever asked me to move to a different city.

Second, how do you get dismissed out of the blue?  Either you are not being truthful about your actions (ie, I was starting internecine warfare between my housemates between prayer meetings) or you got yourself into a cult or cult-like group.

Third, loneliness can blind you to the flaws of potential friends and lovers.  I've been there; done that; lived to regret it.


I thought a lot about the kind of man I wanted to marry.  I knew he would have to be real, not a Christian automation.  Being outside my group now, alone in the world, I wondered how I would meet him.

Worrying about meeting someone is oddly counterproductive.  Ask someone to set you up. 
Then one day it happened while I was running an errand.  On impulse I shot into the coffee shop, ordered a latte, and sat down by a friend who was having lunch.  She poked me in the ribs, "Don't turn around now, but you should know that a gorgeous man sitting at your right is checking you out.  He looks Middle-Eastern or something, but I've seen him in church, so he must be a Christian.

*rolls eyes*

Glad we've decided he's a Christian.  That's so important if the person is not clearly a WASP.  Also, since he's a Christian, there's no way he's an axe murderer.....

When she gave me the word I turned to look.  He was beautiful with black curly hair and a big moustache.

I'm not that to moustaches so this section made me giggle like a teenager because I kept visualizing Ned Flanders from the Simpsons.

  He suddenly turned my way so our eyes met.  I could feel my face blushing.  I saw him grin before I dropped my eyes.

A couple of days later I was running another errand when suddenly he was right there in front of me.  It was one heart-stopping magnificent moment.  We both just stared into each other's eyes and laughed.  It was one of those moments when it seems something was meant to be.

You say magnificent; I say bit creepy.  How big is this college town? 

Jude started dropping by work, we took walks, ate ice cream, or visited some out of the way restaurant.  I loved his voice.  He was charming, spontaneous,  people-orientated, fun and independent, which balanced my methodical, steadfast personality.

That's nice if vague...

This type of thing goes on for awhile so I'm gonna summarize.

•  The author mentions her depression lifted when she was with Jude. 
• Her parents met him twice before he proposed after several months of dating. 
• They got married. 
•  Early married life was nice in the goofy way early married life often is.

It happened so slowly I never even noticed until one day, it seems out of nowhere, fiery darts started flying at my soul, like a bad dream from who-knows-where; accusing thoughts, irritated feelings, doubt and insecurity nibbled at my soul.  Things in our courtship I could overlook now invaded my mind, not allowing me to think clearly.  Baggage from my youth clouded my soul like a foul odor.

You may not know this, but after the honeymoon - which traditionally also described the early part of a marriage where both partners are still being overly deferential to their spouse - comes the adjustment period.  

The point where you start noticing that when your spouse adds seasonings to a dish you were finished cooking that you feel angry because you didn't want that spice on the dish.

Don't get me started on chores, finances, or who voted which way on which Proposal.....

My point is that these rubs and annoyances are happening because you are seeing clearly how your life as a couple is unfolding.

If you need proof that Debi wrote this section, look no farther than the last sentence of the section above.



Being taught to submit as a wife, I knew there was no way out except to obey, but it was with a heavy heart and a bitter grudge.

No.  Talking is always an option - a great option if you want to have a healthy marriage.


  Then my Prophet-type Jude decided to go to Bible college 3,500 miles away...in another country!  His grand ideas were foreign to me.  I harbored continual disapproval of him.  I began to question his motives.  I talked down to him because I felt he was stupid in the way he handled our money.  He seemed to lack spiritual clarity.  I wanted to start a family; Jude wanted to wait five years before having children!  Why should he be the one to decide?  I have my convictions.  I have to do as I know God says, not him.Those are some huge differences in life choices.  With the exception of "lacking spiritual clarity", each of the other choices Jude made should be a joint decision by both spouses.  Moving to another country - whether it's one spouse or both spouses- is such a big decision that both people need to be on board.  Waiting 5 years before having children is a big commitment that runs the risk of potentially not having children (although most Pearlites seem to marry really young).  Not being able to handle money is very problematic for both members of the family.

I'd question his motives, too.  He's spending recklessly, wants to move to another country to pursue a "Bible College " degree while being spiritually flaky, and doesn't want to have kids for the next half-decade.

IMHO, Jude sounds like he's having an affair.

AntiPearl: I think this quote explains a lot of CP/QF...

The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool.

Stephen King

Preparing to Be a Help Meet: Fleas - Part Five

Last bit on Patricia....

That brings us to Lesson Three.  In the back of my mind I began to wonder if the fleas might be God's way of getting my attention concerning my lack of honor toward my husband.  But I reasoned that at this point the flea thing might still, maybe, be a happenstance-just a fluke.

I agree with you, Patricia.  The flea incidents were random and not divine punishment.




We had friends who put a lovely house on the market, but it was not selling.  We decided to exchange fixing the house up for a decrease in the rent and live there until it sold.

This is the first and only decent financial advice in the whole book.  (Assuming everyone nails down the details ahead of time....)
During the hot, dry month of August I decided to try growing grass in the dustbowl of a back yard.  I asked my husband to help with the work.  He agreed after some hesitation, but cautioned, "Don't you think it's too hot to plant grass seed?"

Yes.  August is a horrible time to plant anything unless you are planning on watering daily.
I chided him, thinking, "Why does he always drag his feet?" I am sure he read my thoughts, as my face must have reflected my dishonor, but he went along with me...again.  We purchased the seed and then went to a local farm to purchase bales of hay.  We prepared the ground, planted the seed and spread the hay.

I'm wiling to bet good money that she bought bales of straw, not hay.  Hay is dried grasses and legumes that are cut and dried while the plants are actively growing.    Straw is the dried stalks of cereals after the grains have been harvested.  Hay runs at least twice the price of straw.
While sitting in church the next day I noticed one of my sons scratching.  He leaned over to me and said, "I think fleas are biting me." If he had said he had leprosy it would have not affected me more than the word fleas.

Nice use of hyperbole...I hope.
It was fleas from the hay which my husband had said was a waste of time to spread.  Once again my family had to endure the consequences of my stubbornness in not listening to my husband's gentle caution.
Did I better understand submission by that time?  You better believe I did.  Did the grass grow?  Of course not!




Divine intervention and punishment - three minor moments of "disobedience" lead to fleas.  Wow.

[skipped several boring paragraphs]
It was easy to dismiss my husband's wishes without feeling rebellious because he never actually commanded me in anything.  He never lorded me over me; he has what some would call a 'quiet voice'.  He clearly wanted me to honor him, but he wanted me to honor from my heart, not from his demand. I knew, and he knew that I knew, what he wanted me to do.  He wanted me to obey him.Um...yeah.  This is a great example of a marriage where some counseling and communication skills work is in order.  I don't have a problem with Patricia's "disobedience".  She can be dismissive of her husband and that can be very toxic to a marriage.  The odd thing about this story is Patricia is the person who identifies her "sin" and decides that the fleas are due to her "sin".  Jesse doesn't seem to care much one way or the other if Patricia "obeys" him.  (I suspect he'd prefer fewer fleas incidents, but that's normal.)  All of this exists in Patricia's head - and that's scary.

AntiPearl:

The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.

Francis Bacon

The moments my heart stopped: Jill and Jessa's Interviews

Jill and Jessa's interview with Megyn Kelly terrified me. 

The talking points were creepy as hell - and nearly identical to the Duggar parents talking points.

• Being molested isn't so bad because we didn't even know what happened until our parents told us!
• We found out about the molestation about 30 seconds before Josh left for Little Rock. 
• Our parents are awesome! 

What scared me more were some of the outright lies that Jill and Jessa have internalized:

Internalization One: Josh didn't molest us.

Jessa: " But I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist some people are saying. That is so overboard and a lie really. I mean, people will get mad at me for saying that but I'm like I can say this. You know? I was one of the victims, so I can speak out and I can say this and set the record straight here."

Reality Check: Josh molested you.  Josh molested Jill.  Josh molested two of your sisters and a babysitter.  He's a child molester.

Internalization Two: All the victims were unconscious which makes it not so bad.
Jill: We didn't even know about it until he went and confessed it to my parents and they shared it with us.
KELLY: Neither of you knew?
Jessa: None of the victims were aware of what happened until Joshua confessed.
Jill: It wasn't like we were keeping secret afraid or something.

Reality Check: One of the two of you saw the time Josh molested a sibling in the laundry room according to your police report.  You may not have known prior to March 2002 but by March 2003, at least one of you was aware that he was still molesting your siblings.  But, since your parents never got you counseling (according to their interview), I can see why this script is much, much safer for both of you.

Internalization Three  Other people have been abused so much worse.KELLY: You had no memory of it?
Jessa: I didn't know. I didn't understand, okay, this is what's happened until my parents told me. And so I think at that point it was just kind of like, it's like, you never think like this will happen to me or something.
Jill: Yes. And in our case, you know, it's very mild compared to what happened to some.
Jessa: I know so many girls --

[From later]
Jill: And I feel for the other families out there. I mean, statistics say two-thirds of families deal with something like that and that's only the families who are reporting it.

Reality Check: 
*I stopped cold here*


Why do the Duggar family know so many families where sexual abuse occurs? 
  Why is being molested by your brother "mild"?  It's not mild. Again, the script is more comforting than the truth.

The statistic is something like 67% of people know of someone who has been sexually abused at some point during their life.  That's not the same as 67% of families having abuse in them.  Not even close.

Internalization Four:  The year between March 2002-March 2003 never happened.
Kelly: So, you had the family meeting. Did Josh go away right after that?
Jessa: He did pretty soon. At the time I was young so it kind of seems like everything was a whirlwind or whatever.
KELLY: Was there time that you were in house with Josh knowing this prior to him going away?
Jessa: Not really. I think that whenever it was brought to my attention. It wasn't very long after that Josh went away that I knew.
KELLY: Do you remember the dynamic of being in the house thinking --
Jill: We were sad.
Reality Check: Josh left the house one year after he confessed to molesting Jessa and Jill.  According to the Duggars, they told Jill and Jessa about Josh's confession in the spring of 2002.  They were in the house with Josh for over a year before he left.

Internalization Five:  My parents put in great safeguards that kept us all safe.
Jill: I was going to say not, you know, being alone. My parents said, okay, we're not going to do this hide and seek thing where two people go off and hide together and not baby-sitting the girls.
KELLY: At night in your room?
Jill: Locks on the doors, you know, everybody's in bed, girls in the girls' room, boys in the boys' room. And so, yes. And as a mother now, I look back and I think, you know, my parents did such an amazing job. For me, even when we went through the DHS investigation, they complimented my parents on what an amazing job they did through that process. And so, I think not only taking the legal actions that they did and then going the extra mile and I see as a mom I hope that I can set the same safeguards in my family that they did and, you know, reaching the heart of their children. And not only trying to take care of Josh but us girls.

Reality Check:
Why does everyone have to sleep in a locked bedroom?  Because Josh molested a babysitter on the couch after he told your parents.
Why can't the boys baby sit the girls?  Because Josh molested one of your sisters when she was left home with him after your parents knew about Josh.
Both Michelle and Jill brought up "no playing hide and seek" which scares me that someone else was molested by Josh and it was never reported.
Either way - NOT great parenting skills.

 Internalization Six:  Outsiders agree!  Mom and Dad handled this like champs.
Jill: You know, we had dealt with that when investigation with our family was closed after all those months, they said your parents have done an amazing job. They were praising our parents and said, your home is a safe place for children.
Reality Check:
I'm sure the Duggars will be more than happy to supply the name and rank of anyone who was praising the family after the police report.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

Internalization Seven:  NONE of us were hurt.  Not even the younger girls who remembered.
KELLY: Do you feel like you're speaking on behalf of your other sisters, too? To your younger sisters?
Jill: No, we can't. We can't speak for the other ones. But I feel like as far as --
Jessa: I can speak for the others as far as saying that everybody's angry that it's been publicized.
Jill: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
KELLY: How about when it comes to forgiving Josh?
Jessa: Oh, everybody is forgiven. We've all forgiven. And we've all moved on.
Jill: That was long ago.
KELLY: How about the baby-sitter? Her too? The baby-sitter as well?
Jessa: Yes. Definitely.

Reality Check:
Jill's real self broke through for a second and she refused to white-wash her sisters' experience. 
Jessa brought forward the party line "Everyone is great!"

Internalization Eight:  We got counseling.  Not the creepy ATI kind; REAL counseling.
Jill: I mean, we all went through professional counseling, but Josh did, too, and.
KELLY: Yes.
Jill: . I mean, he had to pay for his own and.
KELLY: Did you have to work that out? I mean, what -- what were you working out there?
Jill: You know, what you do in counseling. You talk about what happened, you talk about the actions that have been taken you. You just -- we really wanted to make sure that everything in our hearts was dealt with.
(CROSSTALK)
KELLY: Was it cathartic for you?
Jill: Not anything.
KELLY: Did you - did you solve some things in there?
Jessa: It was - it was really good and I'm really grateful that - that my parents encouraged us to -- to go through that, to get that licensed counseling and all what. I think it was - it was really helpful for us to just kind of close that chapter.
Jill: Closure.

Reality check:Real counseling costs a lot of money.  Josh would have been racking up a $400 dollar bill per month for counseling.  How exactly did he pay that back at 14-15 years old?  Oh, wait.  Illegal remodeling work crew.  Got it.
[I didn't mean to laugh, but "You know, what you do in counseling" is such a classic teen attempt to hide missing an event.  "What did you do at church today?  Oh, you know, prayed." ]

I've seen a psychologist for depression and anxiety for 14 years.  These women have clearly never seen a counselor since the words "feelings" are absent while "closure" is present.  

I hope - for their sake - that they do see a real counselor some day who can help them process the hell they have lived through. 

How many lies can you find? Part Two - JimBob and Michelle on Fox

To keep things straight, I've made a cheat sheet based off the Duggar Police Report of 2006.

March 2002: Josh (14 years) confesses to Jim Bob and Michelle that he's molested Daughters "A" and "D" while they were sleeping (when at least one girl was sleeping on the couch of the living room).  "D" doesn't remember the abuse; "A" woke up at one point and thought in her half-awake state that Josh was stealing her blanket.

May 2002: Josh confesses to Jim Bob and Michelle that he molested Non-Duggar "H" while she was babysitting / sleeping over on the couch in the living room.  She doesn't remember being molested, but has been kept away from Josh since he returned from Little Rock.

March 2003: Josh (most likely but possibly a sibling) confesses to Jim Bob that he molested Daughter "C" while babysitting her while the parents were out.  Around this time, Jim Bob and Michelle find out that Daughter "B" was molested by Josh near the laundry room.  Daughter "D" saw at least some of what happened between Daughter "B" and Josh and was disturbed enough by the memory of that AND/OR the fact she was molested in her sleep to cry during the interview with police.  

To be clear: Daughters "C" and "B" remember the abuse clearly enough to report what happened in 2006 AND Daughter "D" was disturbed enough what she saw and/or experienced to cry during a police interview.

Josh is shipped off to a friend of the family to help remodel a building in Little Rock for three months.  He is now 15 years.  (FYI: Probably not legal for a 15 year old to be remodeling a building. )

July 2003: Josh returns to the family.  He's escorted by Jim Bob to the police station where Sgt. Hutchins lectures him sternly and fails to report abuse as mandated.

December 2006: A concerned person sends Harpo Studios and the local police an email/fax warning of abuse in the Duggar family.  The police report that should have been filed in 2003 was finally filed, but the statute of limitation have passed.

The bolded, italicized sections are added by the author to point out the lies.

Lie One: " And so we went, and the first thing was to protect the girls. And so we went in --"
Truth: Josh molested three known victims - Daughters "B" and "C" as well as "H" - after Jim Bob and Michelle  decided to protect the girls. 

Lie Two:
"KELLY: The girls all slept together?
M. DUGGAR: Hm-mm.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes. The girls had two bedrooms at the time.
KELLY: How many girls are we talking about?
J. B. DUGGAR: We had five girls at the time."

Truth: Assuming Jim Bob and Michelle are speaking strictly of what they knew in March 2002, they were aware that at least one daughter had been molested outside of the girls' bedroom.  By the time Josh was sent away, 80% of his victims had been molested outside of their bedroom.   Why bother lying about such a small thing?  Door locks and door alarms.  There's a reason Jill and Jessa started talking about door locks - if the Duggars imply that Josh was sneaking into the girls' bedrooms, putting up door locks is a (pathetic) safety move.  Since he was molesting outside of the bedrooms - and during the day - it's a pointless attempt by JimBob and Michelle to look like responsible parents.


Lie Three:
"KELLY: OK. But neither one had any recollection of [being molested].
J. B. DUGGAR: They did not know."

Truth: Daughter "A" remembered Josh pulling a blanket off of her during one of the attacks.  She remembered something.  This is the beginning of Jim Bob and Michelle's theme: NO MEMORY-NO PROBLEM.

Lie Four:
"J.B. Duggar:  But really, looking back, we did the best we could under the circumstances."

Truth: Josh molested two more sisters and a guest after he confessed the first time.  The Duggar parents should be hideously ashamed at their efforts - because they CLEARLY FAILED.
Lie Five:
"J.B. Duggar: And so we talked to him, we put all kinds of punishments on him, we watched him, like, all the time. I took him to work with me, and he just -- I mean, we just poured our life into it."

Truth: Well, except when you had a female family friend over and she fell asleep on the couch.  How did you forget to warn her?  Oh, and that time you left him at home with your daughter "C" while you were out at dinner.  Yup.  Watched him like a hawk.


Lies Six, Seven and Eight:
"J. B. DUGGAR: OK. So, we had safeguards that protected them from that. But there was another incident where -- two different incidents where the girls were, like, laying on the couch, and it was -- he had touched, like, over the couch and actually touched their breast while they were asleep. And so
M. DUGGAR: Over their clothes.
J. B. DUGGAR: -- over their clothes."

Truth: The "girls' bedroom as danger area" is a strawman.  The Duggars knew by March 2002 that Josh molested his sister "A" in the living room on the couch and did nothing to protect non-Duggar "H".  Sister "C" was molested on the couch - but she was awake and touched under her clothing. Touching "over the clothing" is NO less abusive than "under the clothing".
Freaking Improbable One:
J.B. Duggar: "But as we talked to other parents and different ones since then, a lot of families have said that they've had similar things happen in their families."

 
Reality Check One: There is nothing normal about molesting 4 siblings and at least 1 unrelated girl.  I cannot, however, disprove Jim Bob's statement that his family regularly interacts with other abusive families.

The Moment the Ground should have swallowed him:
"J.B. Duggar: "All of these -- again, this was not rape or anything like that, this was like touching somebody over their clothes. There were a couple incidents where he touched them under J. B. DUGGAR: You know, what? As parents you're not mandatory reporters. The law allows for parents to do what they think is best for their child.their clothes, but it was like a few seconds and then he came to us and was crying and told us what happened, and it was after that third time he came to us is where we really felt like, you know what? We have done everything we can as parents to handle this in-house. We need to get help."

Reality Check Two: Molestation isn't OK.  Your attempts to handle this "in-house" allowed Josh to molest three more victims.  Jim Bob, you make me sick.The moment that leads to changes in mandated reporting laws:"J. B. DUGGAR: You know, what? As parents you're not mandatory reporters. The law allows for parents to do what they think is best for their child."



 Reality Check Three: Which kid?  Josh - he asked for help; you never gave it to him.  Daughter "D" - you let her see her sister "B" be molested after being molested herself.  Daughters "B" and "C" who were attacked while you were trying to cover it in-house.  Which kid did you help?

Lies Nine and Ten:
"KELLY: And we'll going to get to that in one second. The subsequent incidents after the first one involved daughters who were awake, at least a couple of them?
J. B. DUGGAR: There was a couple, yes. And they didn't really understand, though, what happened.
KELLY: Yes. What --
M. DUGGAR: It was more his heart, his intent. He knew that it was wrong. But in theirs they weren't even aware. They were like, you know, it wasn't -- to them they didn't probably even understand that it was an improper touch."
 
Truth: The police reports make it clear that "B" and "C" knew that Josh molested them.  Remember, all of this happen while Jim Bob and Michelle were "pouring their life into" watching Josh. 

Lie Eleven and Twelve:
"KELLY: And prior to him leaving, were you concerned for the safety of your daughters?
M. DUGGAR: Well, we definitely put safeguards in our home.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes, and we also talked to our daughters and reminded them about wrong and right touch and about if anybody ever touched you in a wrong way for you to come and tell your mom immediately."

Truth: You said that the girls didn't know Josh touched them in a wrong way. Not even two minutes ago - you said that.  Also, at the risk of beating a dead horse, your safeguards still allowed Josh to molest at least three more times.

Lie Thirteen:"J. B. DUGGAR: You know, I think it was a situation where we felt like our son's heart had gone astray. I think Jesus shared a story about he had a hundred sheep and one went astray, and there he was. He took care of the 99 but he also went after the one that went astray. And so, as parents we still loved Josh and we love our other ones, but we're going to protect those that are in our hands, but also we're going to make sure Josh doesn't make any wrong choices.
M. DUGGAR: It doesn't mean that you're not a good shepherd. Jesus is a good shepherd but he went after that one that went astray. And so I think as parents we were trying to do the best that we knew how to help this one and protect these. And I feel like through that, as we came to that point where, you know, Josh shared, you know, improperly touching a young one, we were devastated and we said, we've got to send him out of the home. He has got to go and seek counsel and get help."

Truth: It's gotta hurt like hell to be an "older" Duggar girl.  Your parents are reasonably OK with you being molested compared to your little sister.

Let's chat for a sec about how you "helped" Josh at home.   Oh, wait.  You did nothing.  Josh self-reported 4 of the 5 known assaults.  One of the victims or witness reported the fifth.  No counseling.  No removal to a grandparent, aunt /uncle or cousin without children. No emergency foster care. Not a freaking thing. 

Jim Bob and Michelle are not Good Shepards.

Lie 14:
"KELLY: All this you learned from Josh.
J. B. DUGGAR: And actually none of the victims really knew about this or understood what he had done until we told them.

Truth:
One: We've covered this: Daughters "B", "C" and "D" were awake and aware of being molested or seeing a sister be molested.
Two: NO MEMORY-NO PROBLEM is sick logic.

Please, let this be a lie:

"KELLY: I'm asking you more as the father of your girls than as the father of Josh. You know, it must have been very hard to look at your little one and know the behavior had been ongoing, as difficult as your position was.
J. B. DUGGAR: Right. I was so thankful, though, that Josh came and told us. And our girls, even though this was a very bad situation, as we've talked to other families who have had, you know, other things happen, a lot of their stories were even worse.
KELLY: And just to clarify, it was four daughters and there was a babysitter outside the family.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes."


Or else the truth is: Jim-Bob knows situations where one abuser hurt more than 5 people in one year and he's OK with that.


Lie Fifteen:"KELLY: We're getting into that. First I want to ask you about the counseling because the counseling Josh got in that treatment center was that the only counseling he ever received. What about your daughters?
J.B. DUGGAR: No. Josh actually went and had complete professional...
KELLY: The real licensed therapist counseling?
M. DUGGAR: All of our children received professional counseling, including Josh. After this, all of our children received professional counseling, including Josh, who paid for his own counseling himself.
J.B. DUGGAR: It was an accredited professional counselor.

Truth: To paraphrase Michelle, he was a mentor  "kind of "......but not licensed.










Lie Sixteen:
KELLY: Did you ever worry that the treatment didn't work, especially with so many young children in the house?
J.B. DUGGAR: No. No. Josh was a changed person.
M. DUGGAR: We still had those safeguards in place. I mean, there were a lot of things that changed in our understanding as parents with this first child, first son to come to this place in his life, we're like, there were things we learned even since then that I think, you know what, we don't let boys baby-sit. They don't play hide and seek together, the two don't go off and hide. There are just a lot of things we've put in place.  You're not alone in a room with someone else. Always be out visible, and, you know, little ones don't sit on big boys' laps or people that you don't know or even family members, unless it's your daddy. So we just -- there's boundaries that we've learned --
Truth: Those safeguards appeared after the police report in 2006 - if ever.  Son "F" stated that Josh and he both babysat - just for short times.  You know, when Michelle and Jim Bob couldn't find anyone else to pawn their offspring on.



Lie Seventeen:"M. DUGGAR: I think that protecting young girls and not allowing young men or men in general to go into a girls' locker room is just common sense."Truth: That is NOT what your robocall was about.  Woman, you let four of your daughters and one babysitter be molested under your roof - you have NO place to lecture us on common sense.


Lie Eighteen and Nineteen:

"KELLY: What happens to the Duggars from here?
J.B. DUGGAR: I don't know if the rest of the family should be punished for acts of our children that happened 12 years ago or not, but, you know, we are fine whether they film us or not. We're going to go ahead and live life and serve god and make a difference in the world."


Truth: Why is Jim Bob so reluctant to express anger or outrage at the fact his daughters were molested?  Because he blames the girls AND Josh equally.  Let's not be stupid; you need the cash to keep your lifestyle going.
 
Lie 20:
"M. DUGGAR: What's devastating as a mom for me is we took our children to the children safety center. We trusted them. We trusted the police department. Our children poured out their hearts. They shared everything.  And then to have their trust betrayed? And for all of their information and everything they share to be turned over to a tabloid, for those things to be twisted and shared in a slanderous way, story after story, tabloid after tabloid. That breaks my heart for my girls because I think this is such a horrible -- they've been victimized more by what has happened in these last couple weeks than they were 12 years ago because they honestly - - they didn't even understand or know that anything had happened until after the fact when they were told about it. And so I think there's not -- in our hearts before god, we haven't been keeping secrets, we have been protecting those that, honestly, should be protected. And now what's happened is they've been victimized. But people with an agenda, and for whatever profit they think they're going to get? But in this, one thing I know is god is going to use all of this for good."

THE TRUTH: The following children TRUSTED you, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar: Daughter "A", Daughter "B", Daughter "C", Daughter "D", the babysitter "H", and Josh Duggar. 

You BETRAYED them in 2002, 2003 and 2015 for money and fame.  

The worst part is still to come, Jim Bob and Michelle.

Your daughters are growing...beginning their own families.

With maturity, your daughters will realize that you were willing to sacrifice them - not to save Josh - but to avoid inconveniencing yourself.

I only have one question:  How do you sleep at night?