Joy and Austin Forsyth just posted a new Q&A video, in which they answer questions about life, faith, and family. Two of the queries are related to Counting the Cost: Do the Forsyths' still follow IBLP, and are they going to read Jill's book?
Monday, September 18, 2023
53 comments:
Thanks for leaving your comments! We answer as many of your questions as we can, but due to the number of comments we receive daily, we are unable to answer every one. Our aim is to post all points of view, but we do not post anything that is profane, insulting, derogatory, or in poor taste.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not watching that video, but you know the entire Duggar family, close and far, are reading that book, whether they admit it or not.
ReplyDeleteJoy and Austin said, "We're Bible-believing Christians." and they go to a Baptist church that is the closest to what they believe and they don't follow men. Good for you two for saying so. My family is similar. We were never a part of IBLP but it's good that people leave that. It's extremism. We came to the conclusion we shouldn't follow men either and that's why we stopped calling ourselves "Baptists" and instead say "Christian" because we follow Jesus Christ not John the Baptist. The differences between us and Joy is my family left the Baptist denomination for good but we still wear only skirts and dresses. I want to go on record: pants vs dresses/skirts is NOT a modesty issue. If that were the case then men should wear robes and tunics. If you study it out from that perspective you're going to come up with a blank from the Bible. I never bought that perspective growing up. It was my hobby study of fashion history that it suddenly dawned on me: I should study it out from a gender distinction perspective. And voila Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV made total sense. I dress in skirts and dresses because I'm a woman. I know people are gonna disagree, but before you start saying I'm crazy, study it out from that viewpoint. As for me, I saw the light!
ReplyDeleteMy family and I attend a Baptist church and they follow The Bible also. Many women wear dresses and skirts. I have, as I like to do so and many do not. There is no strict dress code but it's nice that people dress nice and not sloppy. The teens dress well too, which I'm glad to see.
DeleteI love Joy and Austin. In their video they mentioned not following IBLP. They apparently don't follow it, yet they still have a good relationship with her parents.
DeleteI completely understand your point of gender distinction. However, I don't believe that means girls shouldn't wear pants. I just believe that we shouldn't try to deceive others by dressing opposite of our sex. A girl can wear pants and be both modest and feminine. A girl can also wear pants and dress in a way that is very masculine. Dressing opposite of our sex is what is not pleasing to God.
DeleteI dress in pants because they're more comfortable and more practical. So far God has not shown up at my door to personally tell me I'm doing wrong. Quite the opposite. My life has been blessed. I don't think something scribbled on a scroll 2000 years ago and translated over and over should be taken so literally that it dictates what you put on your legs today. My pants are in no way provocative (the silly "cause men to stumble" business) but that's because I don't want anything hugging my thighs uncomfortably. I don't wear leggings, just regular trouser-type pants and jeans. Jinger, Jill, Jessa, and even Anna have all worn "pants" way tighter than mine. Why is this even a big deal or a moral issue anyway?? Sheesh.
Delete3:50 Clothing choices are entirely subjective and based on cultural influences as to what is masculine or feminine. Boys used to wear dresses, men wore tights and wigs, and no one thought a thing about it.
Delete@3:50 I'm glad you understand and that we should dress according to our sex, but I'm sorry you still think pants can be worn by women. Do a study on the history of pants. I did and they were meant from the start to be a man's garment. 4,500 years ago Noah's flood ended. During that time men's clothes went from robes and long tunics to pants-like garments to pants. Alongside these changes women continued to wear dresses/skirts. As a matter of fact, women did not start to wear pants until after they entered the workforce to get men's jobs. The flappers of the Roaring 20s were the first to dare to wear pants, but pants were not worn on a regular basis by women until the 70s, just over fifty years ago. Skirts/dresses on women did not disappear for the most part from mainstream society until the 90s to early 2000s. So women in pants as the norm is only 25-50 years old. For 4,450 years they wore skirts/dresses while men wore pants from their inception some 8 to 9 centuries ago. That's why God, in Duet 22:5 said simply to men "Don't wear a woman's garment." and to women, "Don't wear that which pertaineth to a man." see the difference in the wording? God did that on purpose because he knew men's fashions would change while women's have remained the same all through the ages. Still today skirts and dresses are a woman's garment. No one has tried to normalize men wearing a skirt. Pants pertain to men. I believe God told us not to wear that.
Delete@5:50pm I wear dresses and skirts only too and I love it.
Delete@7:48 You left out some important part in pants history. Katharine Hepburn and other Hollywood stars wore them on-screen in the 1930's and 40's, creating a pants craze among women. Up to then, women could actually be arrested for wearing pants in public in some places! WW2 threw a monkey wrench in fashion due to lack of fabric. Skirts got shorter and tighter to conserve fabric, women started wearing little "rompers" (shorts sets), and they had to make do with what was available with ration coupons. They also made over old clothes into whatever fashion could be salvaged, including turning old skirts into shorts. Stockings and girdles all but disappeared, so it was either paint your legs with make-up or wear pants. Women wore overalls in all the war factories, here and in England. Although jeans for women had been around since the '30's, the 50's brought a blue jeans revolution, which lasted well into the 60's, along with the addition of pedal-pushers and stretch pants. (All Baby Boomers remember those.) Pants suits for women appeared in the 60's and were hugely popular (still are). So there wasn't a 4000+ year period of women only wearing skirts. In fact, you can go back to the 1800's (or earlier) and find women in pants, especially in Europe and Asia. Men in skirts not normal? That was the traditional Scottish wear for men from ancient times. Kilts were battle wear and used to identify your clan. Roman men wore skirts, too. The Bible may say one thing, but it certainly did not dictate practical fashion history world-wide! Oh, and women didn't "get" men's jobs. They HAD to work because the men were off at war. In England, women 18 and up were conscripted and assigned factory jobs, whether they wanted to work or not. They couldn't choose where to work, they got assignments for the duration of the war. All of these subjects are of interest to me, I've read extensively on them, and some I lived through personally.
Delete@7:48 Culturally over time wardrobes change. Men once wore skirts and robes, not today. Today, pants are a part of womens attire. I completely agree those pants should be worn modestly and in a feminine way. But they are no longer seen as a man's garment.
Delete@4:05, No i didn't miss it, the point of my comment was that women did not wear pants as the mainstay of their wardrobe until the 70s. Women wore pants off and on for different reasons since the 20s. I am well aware of all you said believe me. A big thing to consider about why these women wore pants is because they were doing jobs that traditionally had only belonged to MEN. So they wore MEN'S clothes while on the job. Homemaker vs. career woman is another debate. But the two go hand in hand because it is a fact that because women began getting men's jobs that wearing pants suddenly "had" to become socially acceptable.
DeleteHello! The whole Biblical admonition was about cross-dressing, dressing to appear as though you are the opposite sex. It's not about women wearing pants while presenting themselves as women or men wearing skirts while presenting themselves as men -- otherwise Scottish men in kilts would be sinning. Come on!
DeleteNeddy constant
ReplyDeleteI hope they do. I read Jill's book
Not in person but posts on
Reddit. I read that Michelle went to
Jill & Derek's house late at night
To send a letter. So there been
Stories that JB Is trying to
Use his grown up kids to go
To church or whatever to slam
Jill of reading bible stuff..
Austin and Joy aren't a part of IBLP anymore and they have good relationships with her parents. Someone is not telling the truth here..
DeleteIt wasn't a letter, it was a copy of the contract(s) Jill was duped into signing. The deadline for delivering that was the next day, or the legal axe would fall so to speak. Michelle showed up at midnight and scared them all by pounding on the door, then left the contracts inside the storm door. Why she would have done that is absurd. Nobody seems to know if she did it with Jim Bob's approval or behind his back. It's all too strange.
Delete3:41- I somehow doubt that happened.. that doesn't sound like something Michelle would do..
Delete@11:05 It happened. It was the only way Jill & Derick got to see the entire contract that they waited years to see. It was what they needed to move forward with this. Of course it doesn't sound like the Michelle you saw on TV. This is the kind of stuff that happened off-camera.
DeleteI'm pretty sure we don't know the whole Michelle -- we know only what we've seen on TV.
DeleteNeddy constant
ReplyDeleteYes they would.
These two are such a class act.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I would believe everything that Jill's siblings have to say.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed their little Q and A segment. I can't believe how big the children have gotten!
ReplyDeleteYES!!!! AND DID, WATCH A VID ON JOY'S PAGE WITH AUSTIN!!!
ReplyDeleteThe book was really well done. I am so happy for Jill finally telling her story and I really think this book will help other people in the IBLP.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone in the IBLP would ever buy her book. If someone is ripping apart your belief system then why would you even consider paying them to do that by spending money on their book. IBLP is not Jills target audience, it is all the Duggar haters who are willing to spend money to promote their Duggar hate. Jill wants money, end of story.
DeleteYou know who will read her book is people raised in IBLP who want to get out or have gotten out. There are many.
DeleteThe only way the public can stop this parade of videos,books etc.. is to deny the Duggars (i.e. Jim Bob) their cash cow. Do not watch any video by any Duggar family member. I refuse to waste my precious time watching yet another video about their lives. Who cares if some young women reads her sister's book? I don't.
ReplyDeleteWell, you're here commenting on the subject, so you must care somewhat.
DeleteI commented so others would think about their actions. I see that it is not happening.
DeleteWell I’m not sure if Joy and Austin will read the book, but I was able to. After the interviews done on TV and their happy go lucky attitude at book signing I wanted to see what was written in the text. I’m careful what I bring into the house, since we do have various Bible Studies at our home and and didn’t want this book to be in my library and a stumbling block to baby Christians. My adult daughter has unlimited kindle and even though she had no interest to read or purchase for her Kindle library, she was willing to let me use her kindle to read it, then return to kindle. So anyway..what Jim Bob did with the investments is none of anyone’s business and I’m kinda disturb that she is so willing to expose financial information, without the benefit of knowing the other side. It’s clear in the book that Jill has definitely given up on her parents, I’ve seen this before in different families but not in such a public or toxic way. It’s clear when she mentions that her and Derrick were constantly fighting that she has chosen her marriage over her dad. The little comments and digs to her father don’t seem like something a daughter would do..such as “I never thought I’d be cheated by someone I loved”..and putting him down as just being a car salesman..any positive thing she mentioned was not in a sincere way. Bringing up the fact that her dear brothers were harassing her by coming over and trying to follow New Testament scripture by trying to reason with her shows her willingness to ignore the positive they were trying to do. My conclusion is this book was inspired, written and edited by Derrick with Jill providing some information. Unless the Holy Spirit convicts her I don’t think she will ever regret that she has deprived her boys of a special relationship with their grandparents, not to mention the relationships she could of had with her nieces and nephews.
ReplyDeleteWow.. that is so sad. Jill was a favorite, but after this I just pity her. She's young and unfortunately there's always a rebel in the family. I thought it might be Jinger but boy, was I wrong! I hope she sees what consequences can arise from this and make peace.
Delete(A) What Jim Bob did with the money the whole family helped earn IS everyone in the family's business. (B) Jill "knew the other side" of Jim Bob's financial things and that's why she needed the contract copies and a lawyer, to get paid her fair share of what she knew Jim Bob was pocketing. (C) The comments and digs her father made don't seem like something a father should do to any daughter. (D) Those brothers were sent over by her father to continue to badger her to see his side. How'd you like to see someone like that show up at your door continually? (E) My conclusion is this book is Jill's words and Jill's testimony. (F) Jim Bob blew it as far as a relationship with his grandsons, NOT Jill. He blew it long before any book was ever written.
DeleteThis book says written by Jill Duggar and Derrick Dillard. No one will ever know how much Derrick is responsible for the book. It’s hard for most people to believe Jill would turn on her family like this, but it may be possible.
DeleteI read the book and felt that she genuinely loves both her parents. She paid them compliments. She also told the truth about her disappointment at her father's refusal to be fair and honest regarding finances and the tv shows. I don't recall her referring to her father as "just a car salesman". She called IBLP a cult and rightfully so. I don't understand why JB and Michelle can't see the cost of their participation in this organization.
Delete@2:38 pm. I think she did the right thing by choosing her marriage over her controlling father. That is Biblical actually and it is something that every couple should do. My husband and I chose our marriage over the controlling behavior of my MIL. Best choice we ever made. I'm not sure why you even stated such a comment.
DeleteThank You anon @ 3:46 . Well Said!
DeleteYes, one thing is for sure her actions are not one of those who is controlled by the Holy Spirit. We have no idea if Jill is a Christian, obviously she is not displaying any fruits of the spirit. Most Bible believing churches would have confronted their members about public display of slandering. In our church you would be asked to leave, maybe they aren’t members of a church.
DeleteWonder when Anna is going to write a book?
ReplyDeleteAnna is too classy to do that
DeleteI wish she would...
DeleteSoon I hope. I like fiction.
DeleteI love your comment, 9:06!
DeleteAnybody want to give us a summary? I don't have time to watch these videos.
ReplyDeleteIt's basically a me me me whine fest..
DeleteWord salad with no substance. Don't bother to watch.
DeleteThey seem to spend a lot of time talking out of both sides of their mouths. Who knows what they really will do?
ReplyDeleteJoy isn't wearing her wedding ring and Gideon is still sucking his thumb, but other than that, things are pretty much normal around Camp Forsyth.
ReplyDeleteMost likely she doesn't want to scratch the baby
DeleteFlat wedding rings don't scratch anyone.
DeleteI’d like to read a book by Jim.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to read Jim's accounting books.
DeleteThey might read the book secretly and hope Jim Bob doesn't find out. Not that there's anything in it they don't already know.
ReplyDelete