You owe me a keyboard.
It’s certainly interesting, and this is the first time I’ve heard about it. Thanks for edumacating me!
I live in South Carolina.
The marriage question is hard to tell. On the one hand, not much choice, because I would be limited to boys from roughly my age (so, 13) through to any unmarried adult men in our church group. (Not many unmarried men around, because the stigma was very strong against them.) I COULD have married someone from our ‘obvious’ church, but that was highly discouraged for girls, where boys were encouraged to find someone from outside churches and ‘save them from the world’ for the sake of her future children.
So, there were maybe 6-8 boys of varying ages in the group that could have been potentials. Ideally, the father of one of the boys would go to the church elders and say their son was ready to court, and the church elders would sort of nudge them to say a preferred family or specific girl. If no preference, then the elder would decide, based on temperament and family/church politics. Then he’d go talk to the girl’s dad, and ask him to consider letting the two court.
If the dad is nice, then he’ll ask the girl if she likes the boy ok, and if she does, then the match is on, and if she doesn’t (and is brave enough to admit it) then the dad will say she’s not ready, or suggest an alternative if the girl had her cap set for someone.
If the dad is not nice, or is politically ambitious, or he’s getting pressured by the church elders, then the girl’s opinions don’t matter at all.
My dad never gave a shit, nor was he very involved, so our family wasn’t sought after. I probably had a strong shot at perhaps marrying someone from our larger official church, rather than one of the quiverfull boys.
You’re ok, Count. I’ve got a pretty sarcastic and morbid sense of humor myself.
I appreciate your sympathy. It’s hard to think about sometimes, because for most of my childhood, it was just the way things were, and I was pretty happy. It’s only looking back do I realize how very limited and restrictive things were. It makes for an odd dissonance to agree with someone about how unfortunate my happily remembered childhood was. 
[QUOTE=RivkahChaya]
Cripes, I’ve spent a lot of time with Haredi (what some people call ultra-Orthodox) Jews, and they are totally normal compared to what I hear about the way-out fundie Christians.
[/QUOTE]
How so? Not snarking just genuinely curious. The two groups seem very similar to me, both in basis for practice and in the practices themselves. Isolation from the rest of society, eleventy-billion kids, women have to dress modestly, very strict gender segregation . . .
Actually now that I think about it that may be one area of difference. Haredi seem more into separation of the genders (like physically separated spaces) while Quiverful types are more concerned with separation of gender roles. So Haredi may be more okay with men changing diapers while Quiverful are more okay with both sexes sharing a beach or bus. Also Haredi women may have a more equal status and not be considered below a “headship.”
How many people raised in a quiverful upbringing do you think were happy vs. unhappy about it, and would have preferred it over a secular public-schooled life?
Roughly 70/30% happy, ‘yes I’d take this over secular’ vs. unhappy, ‘no, I’d prefer secular’?
50% vs. 50%?
I’m going to take this as a sincere question despite your earlier attacking commentary.
First, I think ‘recruit’ is a bit of a loaded term. In my experience, it’s more of a slow getting to know someone, then inviting them over once you’re pretty sure they’d be a good fit. What good does it do anyone to act strangely in front of outsiders who will then be scared off or judgmental?
As far as seeing a church full of people acting strangely, that’s just unlikely to ever happen. For one thing, we all attended regular churches, and weren’t any stranger on casual introduction than anyone else. Most women in the south wear dresses to church, and we didn’t even have the mass of kids as a giveaway.
Even if you came to one of the core family’s houses for dinner or introductions, it would seem normal, if a bit formal or old-fashioned. Sit-down dinner, dad would say grace, mom and elder siblings would help the little ones get their food (if you watched closely, you might notice that only the older sisters are helping - the boys are likely in conversation with dad and you as the honored guest.) Dinner’s over, girls and mom take the dishes into the kitchen and motion your wife to come and socialize with girl talk and coo over the babies while the boys and men would retire to the den to chat. That’s pretty normal. It sounds like every Thanksgiving my ‘christmas and easter’ relatives have, to be totally honest.
If you came to church, other than it being at a stripmall cube or in someone’s living room, there’d be nothing weird there either - singing, some scriptures read and commented on, a sermon or lesson, and more singing. The middle-school through teen girls would offer to take your kids outside for ‘children’s church’ with all the other kiddies, and the preaching and singing might be a bit rough and unprofessional.
I think if you think of it as more of a club or social association, like a shotgun club or a women’s knitting clique, it might make more sense to you as a small, insular, “hidden in plain sight” sort of group.
I’m away from the computer now, but I’ll get back to the next set as soon as I can later this afternoon.
I hope it’s been interesting for people, and if anyone wants a clarification or expansion or to tell me that I totally missed the point of their question, just pop it into the queue and I’ll get to it!
Did children run away, like some of the more noted FLDS escapees?
It sounds as if there’s a good bit of exogamy, so inherited defects weren’t probably an issue, but how was the birth of a Down syndrome child greeted? Were parents considered cursed? What would happen if a child developed autism?
Thanks so much for this, Lasciel. It’s been incredibly informative.
To me, the biggest difference that can’t be attributed to general cultural background is that for the super-large families I know, “since we can provide for them” was a key point - the current generation (my own) has generally had less children, but whether they’re religious or not, the “being able to provide” is key.
Lasciel, was this one of those churches which follow the Gospel of Prosperity, that is, if you’re doing OK financially it’s because God is happy with you and if you’re not it’s because of your sins? With said “sins” being, not economic errors such as “spending more than you earn”, but completely unrelated ones such as “having inappropriate thoughts”.
No, I never met any Gothardites, thank heavens. We all tithed for a few of our core families to go to one of the conferences, and they enjoyed it greatly, but we were not interested nor able to go personally, and I am very grateful. The further away from that hotbed of insanity the better.
As for dancing and hugging, I always figured that was one of the holdovers from really conservative Baptist practice, in addition to simply being avoiding the appearance of evil. I didn’t dance (not counting twirling around in skirts at home as a child) until college. Hugs weren’t prohibited in our group, but adult men and women were a little standoffish with each other. Everyone showed physical affection to children, regardless of whose kid.
And yes, you’re right on the nose about indentured servitude for the girls, but it isn’t much better for the guys - expected to carry this enormous famlly without help from a very early age, and to always be right, and always be the ‘expert’ and alway be the savior of the family. By making it so diametrically opposite and so very regimented for both boys and girls, it really just sucks all around. But yes, I tend to think that it’s much worse for girls.
When we started, we lived in a subdivision, as did most families. The core families had a ‘homestead’ that they had shared ownership of, with separate homes for each family and a great big barn and later a set of school trailers. We all went to regular churches, even the core families, and then sunday nights and wednesday nights and saturdays we attended church within the group. So yes, there was a lot of communal time, but we all went back to our homes afterwards to sleep and to do school before they started up their own school.
Mom and dad had wanted to live in the country (part of what drew them to this group, I think) so about halfway through childhood we moved out into the country near the group homestead also. Several other families did likewise, but a few stayed in town as well. I never noticed any favoritism towards the people who moved or who stayed.
For the foster kids, the most I remember at one time is four. We had a set of sisters who lived with us for nearly 4 years, and then other kids would come and go for much shorter time periods. I don’t know where we got them… Where-ever one gets foster children from - the state department? People in suits would drop them off at our house with a suitcase, and we’d try to make them feel welcome and secure while they stayed.
Lasciel, do you think the problem lies with the religion or the practitioners?
In other words, “is Scripture right but its followers don’t follow it as it says, or is Scripture wrong and its followers do follow what it says?”
I miss my childhood certainty. I knew what was true, I knew what was right, and I knew my place in the world. It’s hard to go from that safety to being an adult and an atheist, where I’m absolutely on my own in the world.
I think that the exclusivity is very purposeful, and I think that it can very easily become malignant, but I would like to think that the original purpose was to provide a secure harbor for people who didn’t quite mesh with modernity. Like the Amish: they don’t spend much time with outsiders, and sometimes that leads to horrid things like beard-cuttings or school shootings, but mostly it just means that they spend time with people who they like and who understand where they’re coming from. Same concept, smaller population.
In my more cynical moments I think that the strictures and requirements were created purposefully to make it very difficult to threaten the status quo.
Thanks, Lasciel, for this thread. I’d heard about the QF movement but knew very little about it. Fascinating. Here’s the Wiki article on it: Quiverfull - Wikipedia
I have some questions of my own, if I may:
How much access do typical QF kids have to pop culture - movies, music, TV, the Internet, etc.?
Were state or national politics discussed much? Would QF leaders tell people how to vote? If women voted, were they expected to obey their husbands as to which candidates to support?
Did you hear much racism expressed by QF members?
Would you like to go to college or get more education than you have now?
Did you know of any QF folk who would draw welfare or other public benefits, despite not being eligible for it?
As to dancing, a man I know who had a very strict Lutheran upbringing once joked, “My people were opposed to premarital sex because it might lead to dancing.”
This is from Psalm 127, I see: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+127&version=KJV
How are the Duggars perceived? Are they seen as heroes? Wayward publicity hounds? Or just ignored?
Actually most recently, the impetus for coverage seems to come from people like me who were in the movement and left for various reasons, most much more traumatized than I was. I don’t see much in the way of mainstream people coming looking for people to write exposes about, there aren’t that many quiverfullers to mock in the first place, and most people simply associate them with the Duggars or Honey Boo Boo - weird outliers of Americana. The few who have been featured are the hard-core Gothardites or the Pearls, and they are abusive, and deserve what negative attention they’ve gotten and more.
As far as how many - heavens, I don’t know. It isn’t like they’re waving their arms around to be counted by Caesar. I’d say there are fewer Quiverfullers than mainstream Mormons, and more Quiverfullers than there are FLDS, but I’m totally pulling that out of my ass based on convention membership claims and online presence.
I’ve not seen much South Park at all. Is it terrible? I might have to check it out sometime, or show it to my husband. He was raised all normal and European, and has trouble wrapping his head around totally normal things like Jesus Camp.
Oh, probably.
I will say that for a very long time, I would not have been able to do a thread like this, because of the amount of anger and sadness and cognitive dissonance involved. Time helps a lot, but I am still personally hurt by the people who represented this movement, and everything I have seen afterwards indicates that they are a representative sample. That stings, not going to deny it.
On the other hand, I have done a lot of research into Biblical studies and Patriarchy, and I do think that I can prove rationally and with research that Patriarchy is innately harmful to women and children. I don’t have problems with some of Quiverfullers’ beliefs and practices, and like I mentioned earlier, my own memories of most of my childhood and young-teen age are fairly good. I just feel now like I somehow barely escaped from a prison I wasn’t even able to see at the time.