Another (adopted) child dead due to parents using Pearl methods..........

[SonshineLearner]

Be nice.... no one was being too cheeky:-) I think at the end of the day, what we can agree about, is that the poor children are the ones to suffer at the hands of their parents. Suffer is too little to say about it when one of your siblings is basically beat to death. May I say that parenting is hard, these parents might have had the best of intentions... but something... somewhere... went wrong... very wrong... I'd like to know where to fix it... how to fix it. Perhaps mandated courses about RAD and such??

[Daisy]

Here was a great blog post on this tragedy today. I couldn't agree more with the blogger.

 

http://mommypress.com/rebecca/this-made-me-cry-today.htm

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am shocked and dismayed that there are supporters of the Pearl's and their brand of parenting which includes corporal punishment with implements:ack2:

 

I am also shocked that someone would tag this thread as pot-stirring:eek: One would think that the the whole hive could agree that this sort of parenting is atrocious.

 

 

IMHO, even if the Pearl's had some good advice, the really bad advice makes the whole thing garbage and an abomination:thumbdown:

[EthiopianFood]

This article also talks about how training can be done without "the rod," but that it won't work as well, and that you should only refuse to spank if you absolutely must. If you refrain because you believe it is wrong, you are "an emotional coward." The quote is in reference to children who have recently come out of foster care and are acting up:

Now we who are not emotionally involved are inclined to see the situation from the child’s point of view. The poor children have been emotionally deprived and abused. It is not their fault that they were jerked up and passed around like a piece of rental equipment. They are hostile because they have never known love and security. They have never had anyone they could trust to always be there. They are products of the adults surrounding them.

However, if we now handle them under our own shadow of guilt and sympathy they will be further ruined. If our understanding of their plight causes us to sympathize, we will only authenticate their hostilities. You must remember, children raised under the best of circumstances, in a home of love and security, are nonetheless inclined to selfish domination and independent action against the rule of law. If a child is "left to himself" he does not grow up beautiful, he grows up to be a little devil and will "bring his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15)." Her children are what they are because of neglect, but they are only being themselves. It is not a matter of just bad habits, it is now a case of bad character—yes, even at two years old.

 

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/july/01/rodless-training/

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

We've been over this a million times. If this was chicken poo, it would be nice rich compost by now.

 

The Pearl's materials are horrible. We've all read the quotes. Quotes that weren't misunderstood due to lack of context.

 

This is a horrible tragedy. Unfortunately, too many Christian parents seem to think they can buy a book that will work a magic transformation on their children. Steps 1-12 for making instantly obedient, completely compliant mini Christians. Parenting doesn't work that way.

 

I think the books should be thrown in the trash. **If** the Pearls are just misunderstood horrible writers, then the minute their materials lead to the death of a child, they would have yanked them off the shelves and rewritten them.

 

Disgusting.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

IMHO, even if the Pearl's had some good advice, the really bad advice makes the whole thing garbage and an abomination:thumbdown:

I completely agree. I am not going to put garbage in my head so that I can try to sift out the good. What if I have trouble getting the garbage out?

[dtb1999]

I am disturbed by the tag (pot-stirring 101) on this thread. Seriously. :glare:

[Peek a Boo]

Sometimes motive is persuasive to a jury but not an element that has to be proven . The Pearls give explicit instructions for the use of a weapon and further how to avoid detection by those who object to child abuse. As I am a lawyer I will not continue to debate this with a non lawyer who uses words with a highly specific legal meaning in a colloquial manner. Not an insult, I simply do not have the time to both clarify terms and debate the relative merits of a possible claim that could be brought against the Pearls.

 

elizabeth, since you're a lawyer why don't you lead the legal charge against the Pearls? Don't bother debating it with ME, do it in a court of law and put your words to work with another lawyer.

But there are likely OTHER lawyers that would disagree with you.

 

there IS no legal debate.

If there was there would be a host of legal indictments against them.

 

They describe the use of a weapon. They do NOT describe how to beat a child TO DEATH with it. We see this in firearm instruction all the time.

We can find plenty of organizations that offer advice on how to avoid detection from those who disagree with specific practices.

 

like I said-- good luck in a court of law.

[Peek a Boo]

These people are brainless sheep. Sheep do not own choices. The Pearls know these sheep are out there using their book. They know there have been and will continue to be casualties. They don't care or they would pull the book off the market. They are as responsible as if they had held the hose in their own hands.

 

 

I'll expect to see you sitting next to elizabeth in a court of law making that very case.

 

The "Brainless Sheep" tactic. very effective.......

 

good luck.

[justamouse]

Pot stirring? Too afraid to say you love the Pearls and how they espouse beating children? Too afraid to admit that you're too weak to think for yourself and blindly follow anyone? Jim Jones?

 

Oh, but then they just say you are possessed!! You see, if you criticize them, they say you are deranged, demented, and a persecutor of righteousness. It's a very effective way to curtail dialogue, that's for sure.

 

That's how most of them do it, which is why once a 'minister' starts using that tactic? I stop listening.

 

What these parents did makes me want to support the death penalty.

 

I'd love to ask the parents if they feel they are being unjustly persecuted and I'm wondering if they think their God is going to save them from this? I wonder if when they go to bed in jail each night, they believe they are suffering like Paul did, for their faith? I wonder if it will occur to them that getting life in prison will make them realize that what they did wasn't God's will? I wonder how many children will die before people realize that the Pearls are cult leaders who need to be brought to justice?

[nrg]

As we discuss this tragedy and bring it around to accepting responsibility, it becomes clear that their really are two levels of responsibility. The parents absolutely made their own choice. They could see the wounds on their children; they have heard other parenting philosophies; they KNEW what they were doing. At the same time, the Pearls also have made a choice. They have read of the misinterpretations of their writings; they have heard of the deaths; they KNOW these families get their start from them, yet they continue to promote this approach. At some level they care more about their own business success than about potential abuses.

 

A poster wrote that the Pearls never imagined or advocated beating unto death, but they did specifically say to beat unto repentance. If there was no repentance, what is to stop the rabid follower from continued beating?

 

We all must be careful with the advice we give. How dangerous it is that someone might take advice to the extent that they ignore all sensory input, other information, and other advice to follow it. How desperate or demented these parents must have been to go this far!

 

Many years ago, I read the Pearl's book. I knew it would never work with my severely ADHD, very difficult son. I knew him; I recognized the darkness I felt when reading; I threw the book away. But I do understand the desperate parent with a different, difficult, impossible child. That book was a real danger to me and my family at that time.

 

My heart aches for the children, all of the children, of families who "switch" them into submission. It's time to get the word out again. After all, we are about schooling and how children learn.

[Audrey]

logically speaking:

 

If the Pearls actually orchestrated the attack on the child and made a video announcing the planned death and destruction then I might agree with you.

 

there are very explicit rules to be considered an accessory to a crime.

motive is a big one.

The Pearls simply do not call for beating a child TO DEATH.

 

eta:

for everyone else-- here's a wiki to bin Laden's beliefs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden

 

The problem is: you are not "logically speaking."

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't take one to google the law on accessory, which states (bolded part referring to the actions specific to the Pearls) :

A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support.

 

No genius need be to understand that a volume of "advice" on how to apply brute physical force (spankings) upon a child with an implement could lead to death. And, then there is the matter of their "advice" on how to lie and cover up the evidence of beatings, so as to avoid prosecution. The Pearls may not have known ahead of time that this particular death might ensue, but they certainly know after the previous fact (see the link re: Sean Paddock), which would indicate they did, indeed, have knowledge that their "advice" has resulted in deaths already. In other words, there is a precedence for the connection between the Pearls "advice" and the death of beaten children, not restricted to this latest death.

 

Now... I have no idea if a prosecutor would take all that up and run with it, but I would hope that one out there might do just that before another child falls victim to the "advice" of those vile beasts called the Pearls.

[OnTheBrink]

Pot stirring? Too afraid to say you love the Pearls and how they espouse beating children? Too afraid to admit that you're too weak to think for yourself and blindly follow anyone? Jim Jones?

 

 

 

That's how most of them do it, which is why once a 'minister' starts using that tactic? I stop listening.

 

What these parents did makes me want to support the death penalty.

 

I'd love to ask the parents if they feel they are being unjustly persecuted and I'm wondering if they think their God is going to save them from this? I wonder if when they go to bed in jail each night, they believe they are suffering like Paul did, for their faith? I wonder if it will occur to them that getting life in prison will make them realize that what they did wasn't God's will? I wonder how many children will die before people realize that the Pearls are cult leaders who need to be brought to justice?

 

My pastor always says that if you're a Christian, and you break the law and go to jail, you're not being persecuted for your faith, you're being prosecuted for breaking the law, and that law applies to everyone.

 

I truly hope these parents realize that difference and realize that they're in jail because they broke the law and killed their child. And, as disgusting as I think the Pearls' theology/philosophy is, the Shatzes made the decision to beat their children. No one else.

[Peek a Boo]

The problem is: you are not "logically speaking."

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't take one to google the law on accessory, which states (bolded part referring to the actions specific to the Pearls) :

A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support.

 

No genius need be to understand that a volume of "advice" on how to apply brute physical force (spankings) upon a child with an implement could lead to death. And, then there is the matter of their "advice" on how to lie and cover up the evidence of beatings, so as to avoid prosecution. The Pearls may not have known ahead of time that this particular death might ensue, but they certainly know after the previous fact (see the link re: Sean Paddock), which would indicate they did, indeed, have knowledge that their "advice" has resulted in deaths already. In other words, there is a precedence for the connection between the Pearls "advice" and the death of beaten children, not restricted to this latest death.

 

Now... I have no idea if a prosecutor would take all that up and run with it, but I would hope that one out there might do just that before another child falls victim to the "advice" of those vile beasts called the Pearls.

 

logic dictates that the "brute force" of most spankings don't lead to death and aren't legally considered "abuse".

 

logic dictates that one take the entire counsel of a person's advice when considering their motive.

 

logic dictates that children have been beaten to death long before the Pearls ever entered the scene.

 

good luck proving that the Pearls were aware of this child being beaten to death,when they are also aware of LOTS of other children that have NOT died under their methods.

 

sounds like y'all need to get w/ elizabeth and work up a case and present it to a court.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Peek a Boo
typos.

[LibraryLover]

MY belief is that Jesus himself would love our children, and not harm them with sticks and whips. That is all I need to know. There is no reason to ever lay a harsh hand on a little child . There is never a good reason for a whipping. Ever ever ever. There is never a good reason to whack a baby's hand. There is never a good reason to spank or purposely inflict physical pain on a child. This is why so many of of us see this brand of American Christianity as fringe.

 

I am an atheist who actually likes the Duggers. I have never seen them lay a harsh hand on a child. I don't see any of their kids robbing banks, or any of their little kids doing anything out of the range of totally normal. Love and patience go a long way.

 

Pearl and Ezzo folks are evil, and do nothing to bring the love of Jesus to anyone. I think of Ezzo and Pearl as S & M porn sights. What kind of person thinks causing physical pain to a baby makes sense? One has to be sick or in great emotional pain to think this is any sort of good idea. Spanking, blanket training, training babies, blah blah blah are only code words and phrases for abuse and madness.

 

 

Stop beating children. Just stop it. In the name of Jesus, desist.

 

I am shocked and dismayed that there are supporters of the Pearl's and their brand of parenting which includes corporal punishment with implements:ack2:

 

I am also shocked that someone would tag this thread as pot-stirring:eek: One would think that the the whole hive could agree that this sort of parenting is atrocious.

 

 

IMHO, even if the Pearl's had some good advice, the really bad advice makes the whole thing garbage and an abomination:thumbdown:

Edited February 16, 2010 by LibraryLover

[justamouse]

My pastor always says that if you're a Christian, and you break the law and go to jail, you're not being persecuted for your faith, you're being prosecuted for breaking the law, and that law applies to everyone.

 

I truly hope these parents realize that difference and realize that they're in jail because they broke the law and killed their child. And, as disgusting as I think the Pearls' theology/philosophy is, the Shatzes made the decision to beat their children. No one else.

 

I see it all the time, Christians who don't think for themselves, who are bullied into believing-it's psychological pressure and manipulation by men who they believe have a God given ministry.

 

The Pearls are just as culpable. And although I haven't read their books, nor will I, by the posts I've read they have enough truth in their propaganda to make pass the Christian sniff test.

[Audrey]

logic dictates that the "brute force" of most spankings don't lead to death and aren't legally considered "abuse".

 

logic dictates that one take the entire counsel of a person's advice when considering their motive.

 

logic dictates that children have been neaten to death long before the Pearls ever entered the scene.

 

good luck proving that the Pearls were aware of this child being beaten to death,when they are also aware of LOTS of other children that have NOT died under their methods.

 

sounds like y'all need to get w/ elizabeth and work up a case and present it to a court.

 

Really Peek. :rolleyes: Logic doesn't "dictate" any of those things. You've walked out the door on logic with this argument, and need to pick up either a dictionary or a thesaurus at the least, as your use of the phrase "logic dictates" resembles neither logic nor dictation. To be expected though.... I should have left your ramblings on ignore.

 

Hasta la vista.

[Audrey]

I completely agree. I am not going to put garbage in my head so that I can try to sift out the good. What if I have trouble getting the garbage out?

 

 

Good point, Carmen. And what about the stain that garbage leaves behind? As the saying goes... "you can't un-see something." Likewise, you can't un-read something. The Pearls are poisonous, poisonous stuff.

[mirth]

How does anyone know it was (or it was only) the parents? The 16 yo could've had a hand in this since she was a trainee. Sounds like the police only know what they do based on questioning the kids.

 

Do district attorneys generally speculate publicly so much as to motive?

[OnTheBrink]

I see it all the time, Christians who don't think for themselves, who are bullied into believing-it's psychological pressure and manipulation by men who they believe have a God given ministry.

 

The Pearls are just as culpable. And although I haven't read their books, nor will I, by the posts I've read they have enough truth in their propaganda to make pass the Christian sniff test.

 

My Christian experience has been really different, so I guess my awareness of this kind of thing is limited.

 

I don't see HOW the Pearls could be legally implicated. I'm not defending them at all, not do I advocate any of their practices, but where does personal responsibility come into play? People write books all the time that are junk and full of bad advice, but are those authors responsible for what their readers actually do? I think that would be hard to prove.

[justamouse]

My Christian experience has been really different, so I guess my awareness of this kind of thing is limited.

 

I don't see HOW the Pearls could be legally implicated. I'm not defending them at all, not do I advocate any of their practices, but where does personal responsibility come into play? People write books all the time that are junk and full of bad advice, but are those authors responsible for what their readers actually do? I think that would be hard to prove.

 

I don't know how they could be implicated either, but I wish they would be.

 

Be happy you've never seen it. I've never NOT seen it. It split my family apart for years. My parents loved these totally manipulative Pastors who Mom swore were men of God with gifts. I don't know one church that I've been to where emotional and spiritual bullying wasn't used to conform the sheep. The Pearls sound like another pair.

[coffeefreak]

Sick. It just makes me sick. I hate it that I ever read their books, even if I never did the things they told me to do. I hate it that they're still in existence because of the serious harm they do. And I hate it that these poor little girls had to endure that kind of treatment.

 

Sick.

:mad:

[Audrey]

My Christian experience has been really different, so I guess my awareness of this kind of thing is limited.

 

I don't see HOW the Pearls could be legally implicated. I'm not defending them at all, not do I advocate any of their practices, but where does personal responsibility come into play? People write books all the time that are junk and full of bad advice, but are those authors responsible for what their readers actually do? I think that would be hard to prove.

 

 

Michelle, even though I grew up Christian, I, too, never knew of this kind of "christian." I don't really want to give them the credence of calling them christians, since they do not at all resemble anything I have ever experienced, personally, from Christianity or other Christians.

 

I have brought up the Pearls, once or twice, with a particular Christian friend of mine, who was truly shocked. She has been more in the Christian world (and around the Christian world) than I will ever be, so I would tend to trust her opinion that the Pearls and their ilk are truly a minute faction. Unfortunately, their materials have made the rounds enough to build some kind of misguided following.

 

How can you stop someone like that from spreading a false gospel? Can other Christians take them to task for their warping of Scripture? Would that even make a difference, or just give them more fuel for their fire? I'm asking quasi-rhetorically here.

[Parrothead]

This has gotten pretty convoluted. Peek, are you arguing for the Pearls?

I was beginning to wonder the same thing.

[Peek a Boo]

This has gotten pretty convoluted. Peek, are you arguing for the Pearls?

 

no.

 

If you read my first post in the thread you'll see that I'm arguing about who is RESPONSIBLE for this child's death.

 

as much as i dislike the Pearls, they are not the ones culpable here.

 

Absolutely i like to discuss and debate a point -- that's why i visit a discussion board that has a variety of opinions.

 

but in THIS case, there's a very real point to be made for personal responsibility and whether the Pearls have a legal culpability here.

 

I don't think they do, and I have yet to hear someone make a solid case FOR them being legally culpable. and if someone thinks they can, then i would expect to see it handled in a court of law: arguing it here would be a futile effort.

[OnTheBrink]

How can you stop someone like that from spreading a false gospel? Can other Christians take them to task for their warping of Scripture? Would that even make a difference, or just give them more fuel for their fire? I'm asking quasi-rhetorically here.

 

You can't stop them, sadly. You can show them scripture, you can dig into the Greek and Hebrew, throw around all the hermeneutics and homiletics ( I know I misspelled those) you want and they won't get it. The only thing Christians can really do is to disassociate from them.

 

I once saw a program where some of the Phelps family (the godhatesf*gs people) were being called on their misrepresentation of scripture and they just wouldn't hear anything other than what they thought. It was maddening to watch, because they didn't WANT to understand, they wanted to be hateful and call themselves Christians at the same time. It's just...baffling.

[sheryl]

http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_14378467

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14371777

http://www.chicoer.com/ci_14388171?source=most_viewed

http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/DA-Deadly-Child-Abuse-Case-Linked-To-Biblical/v9e-rmj-dk6t5b2Dx8U_gA.cspx

 

The reason I included adopted in the subject line is that adopted kids are more at risk. They are at risk because of the increase chance of behavioral issues (stemming from organic, emotional or RAD issues) and because parents using an extreme discipline philosophy on challenging adopted kids run the risk of harm. Indeed, what the Pearls' type of parenting offers is completely counter to good parenting of adopted kids *especially*.

 

All parents in this scenario, the murderers and torturers and those who offer the written fuel for it, should be brought to justice.

 

This is very sad. I just do not understand it.

[justamouse]

How can you stop someone like that from spreading a false gospel? Can other Christians take them to task for their warping of Scripture? Would that even make a difference, or just give them more fuel for their fire? I'm asking quasi-rhetorically here.

 

Calling them out over it. Educating people. But it's so hard. Really, really hard. People see what they want to see. Churches go to marketing seminars, how to grow their churches, how to get people to tithe (not that tithing is bad). It's advertising campaigns. Manipulation.

 

Many Christians believe that if a person has such a huge ministry they must be blessed by God. It's an automatic point in the 'minister's' favor. Christians have a dialect and these Ministers know how to use it. They are gifted communicators with a bent towards emotional manipulation and if you think about it-Christianity, Jesus, calls out to those who are hurting. The down trodden. It's supposed to give people hope. What better people to prey on?

 

To give the Pearls the benefit of the doubt, I don't think most Pastors/Ministers/Priests do it consciously.

Edited February 16, 2010 by justamouse

[Peek a Boo]

How can you stop someone like that from spreading a false gospel?

 

You can't. not yet,anyway. ;)

Even if the Pearls disappeared, we are warned that others will spring up. In fact, where do you think the Pearls got THEIR ideas?

 

just like I can't stop y'all from spreading the "false gospel" of atheism/agnosticism/whatever-ism, so also can we NOT stop the Pearls and their false beliefs.

 

 

Can other Christians take them to task for their warping of Scripture? Would that even make a difference, or just give them more fuel for their fire? I'm asking quasi-rhetorically here.

 

 

Yes, we can, and we do.

 

There is an entire blog that goes through one of their books point by point. I forward that to people I know who are considering reading the book.

I mark up the copies of books that I read, and forward those comments. I actually READ the book so I can speak w/ authority on the book and refer to the entire context.

 

But when you are fighting a battle, it does little good to appeal strictly to emotion. You must arm yourself with cold hard facts. And you can't get those in bits and pieces.

 

right now, I am going with what i know so far: that the Pearls have not condoned beating a child to death. When i'm DONE reading the book,if I find out otherwise, I'll be happy to sit next to elizabeth and bring them to justice in a court of law. until then, I will use my freedom of speech to speak against them where I believe them to be wrong, and prevent them from being wrongfully accused where i don't think they are guilty of the crime that was committed.

[Aubrey]

W/ regard to the Pearls' responsibility:

 

Scripturally, I think it's easy: Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better for him if he'd never been born.

 

By the standards of scripture, I think it's reasonable to argue that *they* have committed murder many times over w/ their callous advice.

 

Legally--what about when a person gives medical advice w/out a license & w/out the proper note at the bottom? As far as I know, that's never been applied to psychological/child rearing advice, but that seems like at least a reasonable step. And then something like a surgeon general's warning could be required on materials like the Pearls'. Has been known to cause death in some children.

 

But of course, they'd just call that persecution, wouldn't they?

 

I'm sure there's got to be a way to hold them legally responsible, even the way current laws are written. Not that I have legal experience, but...it seems like if something is so obviously, logically WRONG, there should be no problem prosecuting it. What about the shouting fire in a burning building rule? Maybe that could apply. Something.

 

Because otherwise, someone could write a child molesting manual, & that would be ok, too. I mean, not to *follow* the manual. Just to *write* it.

 

In this *particular* case, it's fine to talk about personal responsibility w/ regard to the parents. But *their* responsibility does NOT equal the Pearls' innocence. Of COURSE a writer should be responsible for his work. Just like doctors. Just like teachers, salesmen, anybody, really.

 

(Except lawyers. Sorry. Couldn't resist!)

[Joanne]

I've been gone all afternoon and evening.

 

Re: The pot-stirring tag. Eh. It's a "homeschooling" family who killed their homeschool, adopted child having embraced an extreme application of discipline tools shared by some of the homeschooling community. Seems on topic to me.

 

I've read the Pearls' book and took pearls from it and left the rest. I think that to claim that someone else made you do it is crazy. I read their magazine and what I read is so.... "Charlotte Masonee".... It's gentle, kind and I just don't see anything even remotely close to this. I believe that parents who are prone to abuse... read a book that means to give your child a couple of swats... and freak on their children. I think they did improperly say a few things... and the things the said... and others took wrongly... have serious consequences. I do think it would be a good thing for some Christian leaders to ask them if they'd like to think about revising some of their advise. Overall, I think I would be considered a loving parent, and I believe they are loving as well. BUT, I think that the goal and method of what they are trying for... is lost when you can't use your common sense. I was homeschooled... I've seen a lot of advise... and I really think it boils down to logic... and using yours.

I feel VERY bad for the children... and know that this isn't what the Pearls would advocate....

 

I read their materials again as recently as this fall for a research paper. I can't imagine comparing them to Charlotte Mason. My analogy is that if there is only a little bit of poison in food, do you still want to eat it?

 

 

only the first page, but what's sad is that the children likely DID have RAD or attachment issues, which means they also had trauma issues/PTSD. So while trying to beat their children into submission, they caused them to go into their "fight or flight mode" which paralyzed them from being CAPABLE of saying any word right. The fear brought them back to their trauma state which rendered them UNABLE to do what was asked.

__________________

 

 

This is important and part of the reason I posted. I believe ALL children parenting using Pearl philosophy are at risk, but certain kids are MORE at risk -special needs and adopted children.

 

 

Originally Posted by SolaMichella

My Christian experience has been really different, so I guess my awareness of this kind of thing is limited.

 

I don't see HOW the Pearls could be legally implicated. I'm not defending them at all, not do I advocate any of their practices, but where does personal responsibility come into play? People write books all the time that are junk and full of bad advice, but are those authors responsible for what their readers actually do? I think that would be hard to prove.

 

Cradle Christian here (Presbyterian, USA mostly) and I never heard of discipline of children being preached, let alone put forth as a ministry on how to create Godly, obedient children. It's only since homeschooling that I became aware of the relatively few who do buy into the Pearl's ideas.

 

RE: Personal responsibility.

 

Personal responsibility does not imply exclusive repsonsibility. Andrea Yates killed her kids. And the actions of her medical professionals, husband and MIL did also. That doesn't make her crime less or give her immunity or a pass. But the fact that she did it doesn't mean the other named people don't have bloody hands.

 

Charles Manson didn't kill most of the people he was in jail for having been murdered.

 

The philosophy behind the Pearl materials can (and does) lead to abuse and death. It's a sick and twisted pedagogy. Using their methods on an at risk population (adopted kids) is litigation worthy. And I am not suggesting that the murdering parents are any LESS culpable.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I've been gone all afternoon and evening.

 

Re: The pot-stirring tag. Eh. It's a "homeschooling" family who killed their homeschool, adopted child having embraced an extreme application of discipline tools shared by some of the homeschooling community. Seems on topic to me.

 

 

 

I read their materials again as recently as this fall for a research paper. I can't imagine comparing them to Charlotte Mason. My analogy is that if there is only a little bit of poison in food, do you still want to eat it?

 

 

 

 

 

This is important and part of the reason I posted. I believe ALL children parenting using Pearl philosophy are at risk, but certain kids are MORE at risk -special needs and adopted children.

 

 

 

 

Cradle Christian here (Presbyterian, USA mostly) and I never heard of discipline of children being preached, let alone put forth as a ministry on how to create Godly, obedient children. It's only since homeschooling that I became aware of the relatively few who do buy into the Pearl's ideas.

 

RE: Personal responsibility.

 

Personal responsibility does not imply exclusive repsonsibility. Andrea Yates killed her kids. And the actions of her medical professionals, husband and MIL did also. That doesn't make her crime less or give her immunity or a pass. But the fact that she did it doesn't mean the other named people don't have bloody hands.

 

Charles Manson didn't kill most of the people he was in jail for having been murdered.

 

The philosophy behind the Pearl materials can (and does) lead to abuse and death. It's a sick and twisted pedagogy. Using their methods on an at risk population (adopted kids) is litigation worthy. And I am not suggesting that the murdering parents are any LESS culpable.

 

Well said

[Denisemomof4]

I see it all the time, Christians who don't think for themselves, who are bullied into believing-it's psychological pressure and manipulation by men who they believe have a God given ministry.

 

The things I've seen people be ok with and follow, simply because the pastor was their reference point, has deeply troubled me.

[OnTheBrink]

I think there's a difference between the Pearls and Andrea Yates and the Mansons.

 

The Pearls (what an ironic name) have no direct relationship with the Shatzes (that I'm aware of, anyway). Despite the fact they write their toxic books, they did not directly instruct them to murder their child. Freedom of speech allows them spew whatever ideology they like, and they have the legal right to publish the same. The didn't, afaik, directly instruct or even know the Shatz family.

 

Andrea Yates' husband and doctors KNEW of her condition and were negligent. She was the one to kill her children, but had she been appropriately cared for by her medical team, this may not have happened. I don't want to say "definitely wouldn't have happened" and I'm normally one who believes people need to own their choices, but in her specific case, I'm not convinced she had the frame of mind to discern the wrong choice. I do believe her husband and doctors were to blame for that tragedy, even though she did the actual crime.

 

Manson directly instructed people, his own personal followers, to murder, based on his own warped perception of reality. I believe his followers had the mental capacity to discern right from wrong (as opposed to Yates) and made the choice to align themselves with his idealogy, regardless of the consequences. IMO, that makes Manson just as culpable as his followers for the deaths of everyone at the Polanski/Tate home, as well as the LaBianca home.

 

So, while I absolutely don't defend what the Pearls believe or practice, I just can't, at this point, categorize them with the Manson family or the Yates incident.

[LibraryLover]

Personality of the cult, be it the Pearls or Charlie Mason or any other person preyng on the worries of others, has one thing in common: They tell their followers they have THE answer. A religious person can be swayed. Andrea Yates was swayed, or at least her family was swayed to believe that no preschool, no Mother's Morning Out program etc., was safe for these children. Never mind that they would be alive today if they had not followed cult teachings about 'the family' vs Evil Institutional society.

 

Jim Jones got people to drink the kool aid because he taught them that all institutions beyond him were corrupt. He abused them, he controlled them, he stole their minds and hearts because he only cared for his own power.

 

These Chico people tortured their children and killed one of them. They followed particular Chirstian teachings which maintained the outside world is tainted, and the only way to heaven is through this set of teacings, which includes beating small children. The parents may have believed that beating children was their only way to salvation, and maybe what they wished for above all else was salvation. Why isn't anyone in Christianity screaming and teaching that it is ever OK to hit children? Or withhold food until they clean their rooms? This is such a bastardization of Jesus, and I can't understand how anyone could look into the eyes of their beloved children and believe a word of it.

 

It's all about mind control. It's all about getting people to see everything in the outside world as 'evil' and everything not of that world as right and good.

 

Homeschooling can be great, but kids are most at danger of abuse at the hands of people they know and to whom they are related. A homeschooled child never seen in the world (nobody knew these children were being abused) may truly be at a much greater risk of abuse, even though we know children who attend scool are also abused by their parents. We have not heard the last of it. It might take years, but today's books about abused Catholic children of the past will be replaced by abused children who were 'hoomeschooled'. Unless all of these children are killed before they can tell their stories and speak to lawyers, Amazon, Barns & Noble etc., will be sadly filled with these accounts.

 

This family was never involved with child services prior, but only because they hid their children from the rest of the world.

Edited February 16, 2010 by LibraryLover

[sunshine]

http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_14378467

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14371777

http://www.chicoer.com/ci_14388171?source=most_viewed

http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/DA-Deadly-Child-Abuse-Case-Linked-To-Biblical/v9e-rmj-dk6t5b2Dx8U_gA.cspx

 

The reason I included adopted in the subject line is that adopted kids are more at risk. They are at risk because of the increase chance of behavioral issues (stemming from organic, emotional or RAD issues) and because parents using an extreme discipline philosophy on challenging adopted kids run the risk of harm. Indeed, what the Pearls' type of parenting offers is completely counter to good parenting of adopted kids *especially*.

 

All parents in this scenario, the murderers and torturers and those who offer the written fuel for it, should be brought to justice.

 

 

Forwarded this to Michael Pearl for his input. It seems only fair since he is the one being accused of accessory to murder.

[coffeefreak]

Forwarded this to Michael Pearl for his input. It seems only fair since he is the one being accused of accessory to murder.

 

The Thread or the articles?

[sunshine]

The Thread or the articles?

 

The Thread. And the articles. I wonder what he will say.

[LibraryLover]

I am about to invoke Goodwin's Law.

 

Adolf, can you tell us why you think Jews should be sent to the gas chambers? Surely you have your reasons?

 

Mr Christian, can you tell us why you think babies and children should be whipped? Surely you have your reasons?

[LibraryLover]

I see the tags for this thread is gone, but not the trash can. Interesting.

 

It's like the Vatican's old stance on abuse. Shhhhhhhhhhhh.

Edited February 16, 2010 by LibraryLover

[elizabeth]

Oh . My . Goodness. That is so inappropriate and absolutely intrusive in manner to silence those who dare disagree or offer their perspective on any number of topics. I thought I had seen everything . What a breach of etiquette, decency and trust among those who seem to be able to agree to disagree.

[SonshineLearner]

I am about to invoke Goodwin's Law.

 

Adolf, can you tell us why you think Jews should be sent to the gas chambers? Surely you have your reasons?

 

Mr Christian, can you tell us why you think babies and children should be whipped? Surely you have your reasons?

 

Wow, can we stop bashing each other yet? No one things that babies and children should be whipped, and mentioning the Jews sent to gas chambers? That's really too much.

 

Perhaps we should stop. Perhaps this isn't civil anymore.

 

As one who loves Jews and hates what happened, please let's not mention this or keep it going.

 

I love babies and children too. Could we stop now?

:grouphug:

[coffeefreak]

The Thread. And the articles. I wonder what he will say.

 

They usually say those of us that don't agree simply don't understand and we're agents of the enemy.

 

As for what they'll say about the articles, they don't agree with the "world view," hence why they live separate from the world and encourage other Christians to do so. Since they don't agree or live with the world, I would imagine they won't see it as anything other than attack on Christianity. As a matter of fact, I think they would say, we're a bunch of "Jezabels" (I've heard them use that term before) who need to get about the business of keeping our homes instead of wasting time on the internet.

 

Dorinda

 

FWIW- I'm just saying what I've heard/read them say about moms who seek out personal time on the internet. I do not think we're Jezabels. I love my time here. Can't stand the Pearls. Just wanted to make that clearer.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coffeefreak

[LibraryLover]

Wow, can we stop bashing each other yet? No one things that babies and children should be whipped, and mentioning the Jews sent to gas chambers? That's really too much.

 

Perhaps we should stop. Perhaps this isn't civil anymore.

 

As one who loves Jews and hates what happened, please let's not mention this or keep it going.

 

I love babies and children too. Could we stop now?

:grouphug:

 

Do you love babies enough to not hit them?

 

Be fair. I warned you I was about to envoke about Goodwin's Law.

 

But no, it is not different. Any egomaniac can come up with a reason why their brand of abuse is fine and right.

 

Christians need to take a stand. Tell other Christians that hitting/beating/whipping is wrong. Stop looking the other way when babies are smacked.

[Joy at Home]

Oh . My . Goodness. That is so inappropriate and absolutely intrusive in manner to silence those who dare disagree or offer their perspective on any number of topics. I thought I had seen everything . What a breach of etiquette, decency and trust among those who seem to be able to agree to disagree.

 

I just read this thread. To which post are you referring (there are so many deleted ones, I'm not sure which one was more offensive).

 

I think this whole thing is tragic. I ache for those poor children.

[sunshine]

They usually say those of us that don't agree simply don't understand and we're agents of the enemy.

 

As for what they'll say about the articles, they don't agree with the "world view," hence why they live separate from the world and encourage other Christians to do so. Since they don't agree or live with the world, I would imagine they won't see it as anything other than attack on Christianity. As a matter of fact, I think they would say, we're a bunch of "Jezabels" (I've heard them use that term before) who need to get about the business of keeping our homes instead of wasting time on the internet.

 

Dorinda

 

I must say that I spend waaayyy too much time here and on the internet. It is a time sucker and family divider. So that I couldn't argue with. But while my views over time have gone else where and my methods are different for the most part, I will say that I read To Train Up A Child. I did not use the piece of plastic tubing. It hurt too much in my opinion when I hit myself with it. I did use a plastic spatula and a wooden spoon. I will also say in the book that you were to swat, not beat, not hit hard, but to cause a sting, not a bruise, not a gash, and that if used consistently with a smile and lots of hugs and kisses after One Spanking, and talk and pray with them. He also stressed NEVER let yourself get angry, that you must be in full control and smile at your child so that your child would know that you love them. I have spoken in person several times to him and his wife along with his older two married daughters and they are all the happiest family I think I have ever met. They are loving and in tune with one another. Their little children are joyful and very affectionate to their parents. Not afraid and definitely not jumpy when their parents called them or verbally instructed them. But they were obedient and happily complying children full of energy and playfulness. The Pearls genuinely seemed to enjoy their children's loud and boistrous activity. A far cry from the mind controlling ogre he is portrayed to be.

 

A person's countenance is something that can be read. You can have a fearful one, a timid one, an angry one, a sad one or a very controlled one. The one that I saw across the board in the Pearl's immediate and extended family was one of joy. Pure happiness and a feeling of belonging that they had together as a family unit. I haven't heard of one of them being arrested yet for drugs or child abuse. I am sure that they have been brought to their local authorities attention numerous times by "enemies" of his methods. And every one of his children are Godly young men and women who have not left and gone astray. So he must have done something right. And they love and enjoy his company. They send their kids to his house. That in itself says something to me that they trust him with their own children.

 

You can take any advice, and pervert it. Those people who killed their daughter were child absuers. They were not innocent parents taken captive by false teaching and forced to beat a child to death. It takes deep anger, perversness and an extremely cruel heart to look at a little baby girl and beat her to death. You know you are doing it. You Know IT. It is no surprise when she stops breathing because her little heart was broken with the first blows from the ones she wanted to love. Those People should be hanged. They killed a little girl over a period of time and intentionally tortured her. And now they are trying to cover it up by screaming they were using a "technique". They are murderers and have no part in the Kingdom of God. It was a malicious and deliberate death.

Edited February 16, 2010 by sunshine

[Audrey]

Do you love babies enough to not hit them?

 

Be fair. I warned you I was about to envoke about Goodwin's Law.

 

But no, it is not different. Any egomaniac can come up with a reason why their brand of abuse is fine and right.

 

Christians need to take a stand. Tell other Christians that hitting/beating/whipping is wrong. Stop looking the other way when babies are smacked.

 

 

Well, to be fair, I think that there is a decent number of Christians on this thread alone who've already said they disagree with the Pearls. I do wish they could reach out to the ones who are duped into child beating and show them a better way, but I haven't a clue how they should do that.

 

As for me, I would be proud if the Pearls declared me a Jezabel. It would consider it confirmation that, at least on the issue of child rearing, I'm doing it right. :D

[keptwoman]

He also stressed NEVER let yourself get angry, that you must be in full control and smile at your child so that your child would know that you love them.

I can not imagine smiling at a child while hitting them with an implement, to me that does not speak love, but something much uglier that I really don't even have a name for in a parent-child relationship.

My parents hit me and while I disagree with that and do not parent that way myself, I am very thankful that they did not smile while doing it. What an ugly thought :confused:

[elizabeth]

I just read this thread. To which post are you referring (there are so many deleted ones, I'm not sure which one was more offensive).

 

I think this whole thing is tragic. I ache for those poor children.

The forwarding of the entire thread and such to Mr Pearl by a poster here. I certainly respect every person's right to speak and certainly think that their words will not be forwarded to public figures especially those who have noteriety . I did not read most of the other threads so who knows what was said... The bottom line for me is that although this is a quasi public forum I think there is a reasonable expectation that our debates, questions, conundrums, and heartfelt convictions are not going to be shared with public figures particularly those who use violence and intimidation in their own home and church. It seems to be a way to achieve control over those who post by the constant threat that if a public figure is discussed unfavorably then that person needs to worry about whether the post will be shared with the public figure. Essentially how would you feel if you were debating a public policy issue with someone and instead of disagreeing politely they cut and pasted your post and sent it to the politician you were discussing. Not comfortable and frankly in my estimation a breach of good taste and netiquette.

I agree with you that this is just awful for those poor children. If they survive, who knows what their future will hold. Children are resilient though and I can only hope for the best for them.

[SonshineLearner]

I can not imagine smiling at a child while hitting them with an implement, to me that does not speak love, but something much uglier that I really don't even have a name for in a parent-child relationship.

My parents hit me and while I disagree with that and do not parent that way myself, I am very thankful that they did not smile while doing it. What an ugly thought :confused:

 

I have to think that this is after you give them a spank, when you're trying to smooth things over and talk things through... not while....

:confused: