I know this is controversial but I can't help it...

[Rivka]

Their writing is very seductive. It's especially compelling for people of a particular conservative Christian mindset.

They also present parenting as two alternatives: you can be weak and not discipline your kids at all, while they run roughshod over you and everyone else, or you can start whipping them when they're seven months old and break their spirits with the rod. In the first way, they say, no one will be safe or happy. In their way, everyone will be safe and happy.

 

They never mention (and probably don't conceive of) a middle ground in which loving, firm, non-punitive parental guidance is consistently applied.

[Katiebug_1976]

I have not read the Pearls EVER, they have always reeked of fundamentalism to me, however, I don't think even they would suggest the extreme this family went to to punish their child.

 

What did really bother me though was that their first response when they found out what had happened was, "Well, we wanted to find out if WE would be implicated in this." :glare: Their first response should be, "How could someone have taken our teaching to such horrible extremes? This is terrible."

 

Dawn

 

:iagree: I have not read any of their books either, but have read an article or two from thier magazine. When I watched the links, it upset me to see them come across as "Me first! Are we going to be blamed?" instead of showing concern, compassion and sympothy for the children involved in this horrible situation. I cannot believe that these people claim to be christians. True christian parents would never abuse their children like that!

[ma23peas]

The conservative Christian culture that holds steadfast to an Old Testament type God of vengence, wrath, power, and punishment is to blame.

 

People who buy, distribute, and sell punitive parenting books are to blame.

 

Selling the seductiveness of "easy" answers for parenting is to blame.

 

Under-education on developmental stages and realities is to blame.

 

Clergy and Christian leaders who preach similar content from the pulpit and in groups are to blame.

.

 

While I applaud the offense of this book and their followers...I think you're trying to wipe way too wide a brush stroke...

 

I am highly conservative and Christian, and have no belief in this system...to lump those two adjectives together is unfair...I would say extremist in their delusional beliefs...I don't call anyone who adopts these tactics as Christian or conservative.

 

Anyone who sells these are not to blame, it's a free society, pornography produces much more trauma and damage but we do not blame the 7-Eleven or Mapco for selling them, it ultimately comes down to the people perpetrating the behavior. In a perfect world, no one would want to view porno or watch those types of shows (heck, I consider some commercials today bordering porno!) but I just opt not to watch commercials, Tivo only for us. I would much rather have a free society than a Big Brother deciding what is right or not, let society speak up with their dollar or their outrage...that will pull this stuff off the shelf.

 

As for the rest of it, in my experience, it is the removal of God/prayer/Christian values from our society that is at fault...without a moral standard to stand by, you'll continue to see these extremes.

[Sparkle]

The video made me want to puke. I'm familiar with the Schatz case because it happened not all that far from me. There was very little local media coverage though. The Pearls are revolting.

 

Thanks for the article you linked, Nance. Very good analysis of the Pearl's teachings.

[Parrothead]

Blaming the parents and the Pearls is not enough.

 

Legalism is to blame.

 

The idea that formulaic parenting can create perfect, saved, obedient, healthy children is to blame.

 

The punitive model for parenting is to blame.

 

Taking *poetic* verses, created to be hyperbole and metaphoric literally is to blame.

 

The conservative Christian culture that holds steadfast to an Old Testament type God of vengence, wrath, power, and punishment is to blame.

 

A system that creats children born into situations in which these children develop RAD is to blame.

 

A system that fails to support, education, and fully equip parents of RAD children is to blame.

 

A system that fails to adequately screen adoptive, foster, and other homes for placement of children is to blame.

 

People who buy, distribute, and sell punitive parenting books are to blame.

 

Selling the seductiveness of "easy" answers for parenting is to blame.

 

Under-education on developmental stages and realities is to blame.

 

Clergy and Christian leaders who preach similar content from the pulpit and in groups are to blame.

 

Every time "we" are aware of a family who spanks as the primary method of discipline and we adopt a form of "to each their own", we are to blame.

 

The ONLY blameless in this situation (and those like it) are the wounded or dead children.

 

The rest of us have a hand in it.

 

The system, institutional and personal, is broken. The damage done by punitive parenting is in a continuum. This is the extreme end of the continuum. Make no mistake, however. Ezzo is on the continuum. Tripp is on the continuum. Reb Bradley, Dobson, Trumbull, Welchel are on the continuum.

 

Until we, as Christians, and citizens of the world, start working towards healthy parenting individually and in community, the Pearls will continue to have power, and those on the continuum with them will seem ok, because they seem so much better.

 

It's one big, ugly, terrorfying dynamic.

Very well said.

[laughing lioness]

While I applaud the offense of this book and their followers...I think you're trying to wipe way too wide a brush stroke...

 

I am highly conservative and Christian, and have no belief in this system...to lump those two adjectives together is unfair...I would say extremist in their delusional beliefs...

.

:iagree:

An in-depth study (culture, language, history) of the O.T. does not reveal an "Old Testament type God of vengence, wrath, power, and punishment." Quite the opposite.

 

While I DO NOT condone these parents tactics of child abuse/control/discipline I think it's important to think for a moment about the kind of people they might have been. They were TRYING to minister to orphans. They were trying to train up their kids. It's easy to condem from afar but the reality is they were trying to live out their beliefs.

It's easy to condems FLDS members, too. I just read a autobio of a survivor of polygomy. She truly belived being one of x # of wives and having 11 kids was serving God. To me, the dependency of these people is laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

 

I have a friend who adopted a special needs baby from Haiti. It is the most challenging/horrible thing she's ever done. But she can't give the baby back = what would that convey to her other kids?? And, seriously, the baby would be dead if she had stayed in Haiti.

Some people get stuck and can see no way out.

I pity this family. It is a broken tragedy. I pity the Pearls, but for far different reasons.

[Joanne]

They also present parenting as two alternatives: you can be weak and not discipline your kids at all, while they run roughshod over you and everyone else, or you can start whipping them when they're seven months old and break their spirits with the rod. In the first way, they say, no one will be safe or happy. In their way, everyone will be safe and happy.

 

They never mention (and probably don't conceive of) a middle ground in which loving, firm, non-punitive parental guidance is consistently applied.

 

John Rosemond does the same thing.

[Joanne]

While I applaud the offense of this book and their followers...I think you're trying to wipe way too wide a brush stroke...

 

I am highly conservative and Christian, and have no belief in this system...to lump those two adjectives together is unfair...I would say extremist in their delusional beliefs...I don't call anyone who adopts these tactics as Christian or conservative.

 

Anyone who sells these are not to blame, it's a free society, pornography produces much more trauma and damage but we do not blame the 7-Eleven or Mapco for selling them, it ultimately comes down to the people perpetrating the behavior. In a perfect world, no one would want to view porno or watch those types of shows (heck, I consider some commercials today bordering porno!) but I just opt not to watch commercials, Tivo only for us. I would much rather have a free society than a Big Brother deciding what is right or not, let society speak up with their dollar or their outrage...that will pull this stuff off the shelf.

 

As for the rest of it, in my experience, it is the removal of God/prayer/Christian values from our society that is at fault...without a moral standard to stand by, you'll continue to see these extremes.

 

Actually, I *do* blame 7-11 as part of the problem of the porn industry.

 

I don't believe that a person needs to have God/prayer/Christian values in order to have morality. In many ways, I believe it is *more* ethical (which I know is distinct from morality) to have principles that are bifurcated from Christianity.

 

"Christian" principles are a misnomer unless they related directly to Christ. Most princples that Christians claim exist in culture and literature before Christ, and in non Christian spiritual and secular settings.

 

I stand by my post; the culture of punitive parenting IS entrenched in many conservative spiritual paradigms; Christian included. I speak to Chritians in this one because the original story is about that religion.

[reign]

I cannot stand the Pearls. How very awful that this happened.

[Retired]

The quote from Proverbs is "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." The way I had this explained to me is that the "rod" refers to a shepherd's staff. The shepherd didn't use it to beat the sheep but to guide them and used it to defend the sheep against predators. Psalm 23 says, "Your rod and your staff comfort me." I don't think a rod would comfort anyone if it was used as a beating stick. And discipline is so different than punishment. It implies guidance and training. You are right, that verse is so often used to justify awful things.

 

I think the Pearl's teachings give certain parents license to go way too far. If my in-laws had received this advice long ago, my DH would be one of those kids beaten to death. I know people who believe there is ONE right way to do something and if it is the right way, then they (or tragically someone else in these cases) will die before they give way. If they are convinced that they have to beat a child until the child repents, then they will, without considering the consequences.

 

We require disclaimers on hot cups of coffee now. At the very least, the Pearls should provide a disclaimer in their books that some children will never act repentant. With some kids all it takes is a scowl and they burst into tears and are so sorry for what they did. And, good grief, isn't the point of discipline to change the child's heart? Who wants a child to obey simply out of sheer terror?

 

You did a great job of explaining exactly what I was thinking! I have a rural southern Christian father that parented a lot like the Pearls. Its kinda of in the redneck DNA. I am very strong willed and no amount of the belt, switch, or what ever would get me to be controlled. My parents loved me but took the rod verse literally when I was child. But by the time I had went full rebellions they repented and raised my sibling without the "rod" (belt or switch in my case) I use to watch my very submissive mother just let him spank/whip me and wonder why she just let him do it. I wanted her to stop him.

 

I have healed and love my parents but the whip in to submission will not work on anybody.

[twoforjoy]

While I DO NOT condone these parents tactics of child abuse/control/discipline I think it's important to think for a moment about the kind of people they might have been. They were TRYING to minister to orphans. They were trying to train up their kids. It's easy to condem from afar but the reality is they were trying to live out their beliefs.

 

Right. It's very, very sad. I don't know enough to know if these are just cruel, abusive people who didn't have their kids best interest at heart, or if they were people who wanted to do what was right and crossed a line.

 

But I can see how they could be the latter. They were dealing with a child who had issues the Pearls' don't consider when they give their advice on the one and only way to raise a child. Again, it's this idea that you have to keep spanking until you "break" the child. It doesn't take into consideration that some kids respond very counter-intuitively to a spanking. Rather than feeling remorseful, broken, or genuinely repentant, they just get more and more defiant and angry. And a child who's come from a difficult background is probably even more likely to respond that way.

 

AFAIK, the Pearls make no room for that. So, yeah, they probably would say, if asked directly, that you shouldn't spank a child for seven hours. But, there are children who can be spanked for seven hours and still not have their will broken or be genuinely remorseful. If you advocate spanking until those things happen, as the Pearls do, then you should be aware that that could easily lead to some children being spanked for an unreasonably long period of time or with too much force. And when you tell the parents that their child's future behavior and eternal destination are dependent upon them striking them until repentance, then I don't see how you can't expect this sort of tragedy will at least occasionally happen.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Of course, then there are considerations of why these two particular children, but that is another topic.

 

I'm just getting back but saw this part of my post quoted a couple times and wanted to go back and go ahead and clarify. I would guess that it had nothing to do with these children being black. It likely wasn't that they were adopted in and of itself either (btw, I was unaware that the white children were biologically theirs...if that is the case). I was thinking more along the line of the issues with adopting non-infants. Between possible trauma, attachment issues, prior abuse, etc, it is likely these children had more issues so it was more likely they'd be abused anyway.

 

As a parent with three children with attachment issues, trauma issues, and then child specific issues, I can tell you that it is *very* challenging. Add that we have a houseful (though not nine), it sometimes is even more harry, especially if several spike in behaviors simultaneously. Thankfully, I'm much more likely to go all the way the other way and be gentler and more loving and find ways within that, but it isn't easy. When I was researching parenting attachment disordered children, some of what is available is scary and some of it EASILY could be taken too far. It *has* been taken too far. And yet people still advocate for certain types of therapy and parenting.

 

I'm so thankful we found another way which has NO possibility of being abusive in the least. And I wouldn't have gone certain directions because of my beliefs. But still....

 

In the end, ALL parenting is challenging at times. We all want to do best by our children. We want the very best for them. We fear for their futures if _________ (and that blank can be SOOOOOOO many things). Sometimes we want a magic pill rather than having to work for it.

[Supertechmom]

..... But, there are children who can be spanked for seven hours and still not have their will broken or be genuinely remorseful. .....

 

I was and still am one of those children. My Mom was crazy and had it backwards. She spanked until you did cry and then spanked until you shut up. I complied many a time but the hardness it created in me toward her will never be resolved. I can still remember standing there thinking "I will make sure I never get caught. I will still do it but I won't get caught" . By the time I was early elementary school, I didn't get in trouble. I was a horrible child but I had learned very very well how to make sure I never let on, got caught, or made sure there was a fall guy. Of course, it helped tremendously in my career as I had no problem eating people up and spitting them out!

 

those strong willed children simply become masters of deception and learn to hate and not to trust. You might change the outward behavior but you never change their heart.

 

And Joanne, Whenever I can I snatch up Pearl books and Ezzo books. Especially at Goodwill stores and consignment shops and free tables at book sales. People are quicker to pick them up when they are very cheap or free. I burn them when I get home. getting them out of circulation is important to me.

[mamajudy]

I didn't read all of the posts, but was that video made after the little girl died?? If so, it is very disturbing that the Pearls don't seem sad about it at all (even if they weren't responsible).

[JulieH]

Their writing is very seductive. It's especially compelling for people of a particular conservative Christian mindset.

 

I don't know..I'm of a very conservative Christian mindset, but I have common sense..and I found NOTHING seductive or compelling in their writing. Blech!

[Pamela H in Texas]

I'd argue that this discussion is being carried out by people who were never members of the churches/groups you described above.

 

Truth?

 

I belonged to a very "Little House on the Prairie" Baptist church in a suburb of Houston. I loved that church and the people in it. I tried very hard to learn from the older women. When I expressed concern about my son's behavior, I was told how things were done in these households. I was given books like God, The Rod, and Your Child's Bod. I was "helped" to put aside my own deep fear and hurt of hitting my child.

 

We moved to Louisiana.

 

Two incidents happened with my young toddler. The first was where I made a mistake (something EVERY person I've shared this with has sworn has NEVER happened to them and COULDN'T happen to them in a spanking situation). My child had a medical condition, not a defiance issue. The second was a situation where my son simply would not submit PERIOD. NO MATTER WHAT. The part I have trouble understanding is why we decided not to abuse, even kill, our son while others just keep at it to these devastating results. Of course, I'm glad we had enough sense.

 

We never hit our son again. I wish we had had enough sense not to have ever hit him in the first place. Considering that second situation has brought my husband to tears.

 

We worked HARD to find better ways. There ARE better ways. I studied and found literally a hundred plus scriptures talking about teaching, guiding, disciplining. They encouraged persistence and kindness, patience, understanding, consistency, constancy, reasoning, love, mildness and gentleness. The scriptures say that LOVE never fails. We have now gone all the way the other way to love-based discipline with teaching-based discipline being secondary (teaching-based being what I've touted on this board for years). Just as we had to learn better for our son, we've learned even better still for our dear little ones. They've had enough trauma, child abuse, mistreatment, punishment, spanking, consequences, and control. The scriptures do have the answer.

 

ETA: One defense of these families (and ours when we went that direction). NEVER would anyone have claimed that spanking was the primary form of discipline. In fact, the families I was involved with had some of the best discipline otherwise I've seen anywhere. I have met *very* few people who had as much good discipline going on in the last 15 years. It would be mistaken to suggest otherwise. Spanking was one tool, not the entire toolbox.

Edited August 17, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[Runningmom80]

Something tells me I don't even want to click those links or read anymore in this thread - I've never heard of these people and it's probably best to keep it that way! :mad:

 

 

Ditto. I'm completely against corporal punishment in any way shape or form.

[twoforjoy]

I don't know..I'm of a very conservative Christian mindset, but I have common sense..and I found NOTHING seductive or compelling in their writing. Blech!

 

My concern is that the advice is most compelling to the parents who have kids who will respond least well to it. Because if you've got a difficult, defiant child, it's going to be very appealing when somebody tells you they've got the solution, and if you just follow their plan you'll have perfectly-behaved kids. Those are exactly the kids who will resist these methods the most, and with whom it's most likely that a parent could, quite innocently, end up crossing a line.

[SeekingHim77]

I watched the videos (which took forever!!!). I honestly can't see where some of you are coming from with your remarks. Her "fake" smile? That they don't seem concerned about the poor child who was beaten to death? That they only seem concerned about themselves? C'mon! We all know how these type of shows edit interviews to get their biased point across. We have no clue how long after the incident mentioned that these interviews took place. We have no clue as to what was edited out. That's just silly. If you're ever interviewed, you'll find out real quickly how someone can (and will) twist your words and edit your interview to make you sound however they want you to.

 

Once again, I am not saying anyone should follow their teachings or that they are right in any way shape or form. I just think some of the comments on here are ridiculous

[twoxcell]

I had never even heard of the Pearls before joining the Hive. Haven't read anything they've written.

 

While what I have heard is repugnant (hence why I haven't read anything), these parents chose to beat their child to death. There's something seriously wrong with the parents, imo, and while they might claim that what the Pearls wrote justifies their actions, I honestly don't see how any rational, thinking human being could get 'beat your child for seven hours' from ANY book, no matter how repellant.

 

These parents chose to torture those poor babies. Saying a book made them do it just negates their personal responsibility, imo.

 

:iagree:

[dangermom]

I'm just getting back but saw this part of my post quoted a couple times and wanted to go back and go ahead and clarify. I would guess that it had nothing to do with these children being black. It likely wasn't that they were adopted in and of itself either (btw, I was unaware that the white children were biologically theirs...if that is the case). I was thinking more along the line of the issues with adopting non-infants. Between possible trauma, attachment issues, prior abuse, etc, it is likely these children had more issues so it was more likely they'd be abused anyway.

 

The Schatzes had six biological children, and then adopted the three girls from Liberia. Those girls were survivors of a civil war and almost certainly (except the baby) suffering from various forms of trauma and neglect. To apply the Pearls' methods to children who had been through severe trauma like that---well, of course it went badly. But apparently there were some fundamentalist people doing adoptions out of Liberia that were very unethical, and these three sisters came to the US as part of that (which has since been shut down). And it was part of a whole network and culture that essentially thought that the children could be 'saved' and made into good Christians by adopting them and using the Pearls' methods.

 

Right. It's very, very sad. I don't know enough to know if these are just cruel, abusive people who didn't have their kids best interest at heart, or if they were people who wanted to do what was right and crossed a line.

I do believe that they were the latter--and it was a big, fat, obvious line. I think they were enmeshed in a culture and belief system that told them that this was the only way to parent, and that if they didn't beat their children all the time they were dooming them to Hell. I met Mrs. Schatz once, and she was just like a lot of CC homeschooling moms--she had the whole 'meek and quiet' thing going on, wore a denim jumper, and spoke in a quiet, nervous voice about how women shouldn't get advanced degrees because then they didn't stay home with their kids (I popped right up and said "I have a master's degree and I stay home!"). She was certainly more obviously CC than many homeschooling moms in my area (who often wear pants), but they did the outings with the other Christian homeschooling families and no one had a clue of what was going on.

 

I live in the area, and it's true that there hasn't been a ton of coverage on this; why it hasn't turned into this year's Andrea Yates case I do not know. I'm kind of grateful, since I don't particularly want the media descending upon my head, and kind of wish that more attention would be paid so that the Pearls could be more exposed. I would very much like to see a book published in the Christian market, detailing these cases (Lydia and Sean both) and giving an anti-'rod' case from the CC POV. I wish some writer would do that, and the proceeds could go to some charity.

Edited August 17, 2011 by dangermom

[Abigail4476]

I hate the Pearls, too. Child-abusing sickos.

 

Have you seen the article Deborah Markus of Secular Homeschooling Magazine wrote about them?

 

http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/011/pearls.html

 

Great article. Thanks.

[Joanne]

I don't know..I'm of a very conservative Christian mindset, but I have common sense..and I found NOTHING seductive or compelling in their writing. Blech!

 

Come on, Julie. You know this isn't a logical rebuttal to my post. The fact that *you* weren't seduced by the writings does not mean that they aren't seductive.

 

The popularity of the Pearls among a sub-set of conservative Christians is due to how they write, the authority with which they write, combined with the content which speaks to nice promises of Christian marriages, Christian children, and a lovely Christian family.

[Joanne]

I live in the area, and it's true that there hasn't been a ton of coverage on this; why it hasn't turned into this year's Andrea Yates case I do not know. I'm kind of grateful, since I don't particularly want the media descending upon my head, and kind of wish that more attention would be paid so that the Pearls could be more exposed. I would very much like to see a book published in the Christian market, detailing these cases (Lydia and Sean both) and giving an anti-'rod' case from the CC POV. I wish some writer would do that, and the proceeds could go to some charity.

 

He doesn't address this case, but the Clarksons publish some Christian material that are in opposition to the punitive mindset found in the Pearls and other writings.

 

There are also some other Christian authors, less well known in this circle.

[Carol in Cal.]

I wish some writer would do that, and the proceeds could go to some charity.

 

I wish Joanne would do that, and that the proceeds would go to her!:001_smile:

[Abigail4476]

I don't know..I'm of a very conservative Christian mindset, but I have common sense..and I found NOTHING seductive or compelling in their writing. Blech!

 

I do believe you have to have some level of ignorance to begin with in order to fall prey to such teaching.

 

However, people who start with a sincere desire to please God in all things can be manipulated into making poor decisions. All you have to do is convince them that GOD wants them to do this or that, and they will override their own warning bells in an effort to please the Almighty. It works with women who allow their husbands to abuse them in the name of being "submissive" (per scriptural *mandate*), and it works with parents who abuse their children because someone convinced them it was the right thing to do. I'm convinced that there are people who do this out of sheer ignorance and not much more.

 

I know of at least one preacher who taught husbands that it reflected badly on their character if they didn't keep their wives in submission, so then the onus was placed on the husband to enforce his own will. In the name of it being God's will, of course.

 

Terrible, manipulative trash in the name of religion. All the more reason to raise children who know how to think for themselves, and who question and critically examine everything they are taught. Truth doesn't fear analysis.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know..I'm of a very conservative Christian mindset, but I have common sense..and I found NOTHING seductive or compelling in their writing. Blech!

 

I am not trying to be argumentative but you hang out on a board with people of all different faiths and beliefs.

[dangermom]

I wish Joanne would do that, and that the proceeds would go to her!:001_smile:

 

Well, if Joanne (or anyone else) wants to take on the project, my rather crowded house is open for staying at. Not that we have an extra bed, I'm just sayin'. :001_smile:

[JulieH]

Come on, Julie. You know this isn't a logical rebuttal to my post. The fact that *you* weren't seduced by the writings does not mean that they aren't seductive.

 

The popularity of the Pearls among a sub-set of conservative Christians is due to how they write, the authority with which they write, combined with the content which speaks to nice promises of Christian marriages, Christian children, and a lovely Christian family.

 

I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to you, but it really bothers me the way "conservative Christians" are portrayed. I know you said "sub-set". However, I know there is a very large majority of "conservative Christians" that think they (the Pearls) are quacks! All too often, whether it be here on these boards or elsewhere, as soon as a crazy idea comes up, it's the "conservative Christians". That is unfair. Extremists or legalists is more accurate.

 

It's not just me. There are way more "conservative Christians" than not, that find nothing seductive at all about them or their teachings, and have the intelligence, Biblical knowledge and understanding, and common sense not to fall into the Pearl's cultish trap.

Edited August 17, 2011 by JulieH

[Ellesmere]

I'm coming in a little late to respond to a lot of good posts here. But here's just a few thoughts.
 

That's why I don't think we should be so fast to let them off the hook entirely.

If somebody is telling you, "You MUST do this to be a good Christian, and if you don't you're children will be horrible little hellions forever," and also "If you do this, then you will have wonderful, perfect, obedient children (and if you don't it's because you aren't doing it right)," then there's a lot of room for a parent to take things too far. If you must hit your infant with piping in order to obey God and raise children who aren't horrible, selfish, undisciplined monsters, and if hitting your infant will result in good behavior if done right, then not only are you going to feel like you must hit your infant, but if hitting them once doesn't get the result you've been promised, of course you might conclude that you just didn't hit them enough.

It just seems so easy for advice like this to be taken too far, especially by a desperate and exhausted parent, and I think anybody writing a parenting book has to think through how their advice might be applied by parents in the real world.

Right. The Pearls present themselves, and are often presented by religious authorities, as experts. And they do explicitly say in TTUAC that you should not stop physical punishment until the child's will is broken. More than that: they say that the child's salvation rests on having her will broken in that way.

There are a lot of horrible things that may become acceptable to do to a child if an expert has directed it as being in the child's best interests. Withholding food and water from a child about to have surgery, restraining a child who is ill enough to be confused, giving a child medications with negative side effects, etc. I think they genuinely thought the Pearls' advice fell in that category.

I am not excusing those parents at all. They killed their child, and they should be duly punished. But they were influenced by "experts" teaching them that it was the right thing to do and those "experts" should share some blame as well.

I do believe you have to have some level of ignorance to begin with in order to fall prey to such teaching.

However, people who start with a sincere desire to please God in all things can be manipulated into making poor decisions. All you have to do is convince them that GOD wants them to do this or that, and they will override their own warning bells in an effort to please the Almighty. It works with women who allow their husbands to abuse them in the name of being "submissive" (per scriptural *mandate*), and it works with parents who abuse their children because someone convinced them it was the right thing to do. I'm convinced that there are people who do this out of sheer ignorance and not much more.

I know of at least one preacher who taught husbands that it reflected badly on their character if they didn't keep their wives in submission, so then the onus was placed on the husband to enforce his own will. In the name of it being God's will, of course.

Terrible, manipulative trash in the name of religion. All the more reason to raise children who know how to think for themselves, and who question and critically examine everything they are taught. Truth doesn't fear analysis.

:iagree:
Having spent time in a church that used the Ezzo books as their parenting textbook (and that is one reason why it is very much our former church), I somewhat understand the spiritually abusive, manipulative, controlling environment for some impressionable, vulnerable, and yes, ignorant parents. (Keep in mind that they aren't just surrounded by "church" people on Sundays. They are often at church for many hours a week and a majority of their friends/family/socialization is within this circle. And if they homeschool or private school in this environment, it is even more closed.)

Some are born and raised in these churches and know of nothing else. They watched their baby siblings "disciplined" from infancy to adolescence and know of no other way. Their family seems happy and well-mannered, so they follow Ezzo/Pearl-like teachings in when they grow up and have children of their own. It's is sad. And this isn't isolated to little, obscure churches. I know of several large ones that subscribe to these teachings with members that are also influential members of the community. One has several area police officers, nurses, professors, teachers and other professionals as members.

 

[JulieH]

I am not trying to be argumentative but you hang out on a board with people of all different faiths and beliefs.

 

I realize that of course!:001_smile: I don't get your point? I'm trying to stick up for the "conservative Christians" and point out that many of "us" do not agree at all with the Pearls. It seems sometimes that "conservative Christians" are lumped in with some pretty far out ideas!

[Slartibartfast]

I realize that of course!:001_smile: I don't get your point? I'm trying to stick up for the "conservative Christians" and point out that many of "us" do not agree at all with the Pearls. It seems sometimes that "conservative Christians" are lumped in with some pretty far out ideas!

 

Oh I just mean that some would judge you for that. You might be Conservative but some conservatives wouldn't post among people who shared different beliefs.

 

Conservative is just a blanket term and not really a good descriptor. There are some far out ideas among Conservatives, maybe you just aren't quite as Conservative as UBER Conservatives. :lol:

Edited August 17, 2011 by Sis

[Dobela]

I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to you, but it really bothers me the way "conservative Christians" are portrayed. I know you said "sub-set". However, I know there is a very large majority of "conservative Christians" that think they are quacks! All too often, whether it be here on these boards or elsewhere, as soon as a crazy idea comes up, it's the "conservative Christians". That is unfair. Extremists or legalists is more accurate.

 

It's not just me. There are way more "conservative Christians" than not, that find nothing seductive at all about them or their teachings, and have the intelligence, Biblical knowledge and understanding, and common sense not to fall into the Pearl's cultish trap.

I am another very conservative Christian that doen't like being lumped in with others. I have never believed their teachings and honestly, until I had homeschooled, I had never heard of them. They would be thrown out of our church if they ever tried to bring their teaching there. Do they have a cultish following? ?? yES, but I think it is the mindset of the parents who allow themselves to be carried away with this. They are just another Jim Jones, Hari Chrishna, David Koresh type with people who follow them and we don't understand why.

[JulieH]

Oh I just mean that some would judge you for that. You might be conservative but some conservatives wouldn't post among people who shared different beliefs.

 

Conservative is just a blanket term and not really a good descriptor.

 

I know..and I just don't understand why??? The world would be an awefully boring place if we were all the same!

 

Anyway...back to our regularly scheduled program.:001_smile:

[WishboneDawn]

I am another very conservative Christian that doen't like being lumped in with others. I have never believed their teachings and honestly, until I had homeschooled, I had never heard of them. They would be thrown out of our church if they ever tried to bring their teaching there. Do they have a cultish following? ?? yES, but I think it is the mindset of the parents who allow themselves to be carried away with this. They are just another Jim Jones, Hari Chrishna, David Koresh type with people who follow them and we don't understand why.

 

I'm a liberal Christian myself but I've seen conservative's and fundamentalists getting lumped into categories that would best be labeled "pandering" and "unthinking".

 

I've known too many conservatives, conservative Christians and fundamentalists now to believe that. I've known too many fellow Liberals to think we're free of pandering unthinkers.;)

[Slartibartfast]

I know..and I just don't understand why??? The world would be an awefully boring place if we were all the same!

 

Anyway...back to our regularly scheduled program.:001_smile:

 

In fairness, the Bible does give the story of Diana and people do use that as a reason not to associate with people who believe differently.

 

I suppose we should say "Fundamentalists" but that is also a bad descriptor.

 

There is SUCH a huge range in Christians...the words used to describe them never seem right.

[Mommy22alyns]

Disgusting and horrifying.

[Audrey]

I loathe the Pearls, their books, anything to do with them. Truly LOATHE them with a fiery passion. Did anyone else see this on Anderson Cooper's blog?

 

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/video-spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child/?hpt=ac_mid

 

And part two

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/16/video-spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child-part-2/?hpt=ac_t1

 

 

I want to cry and scream and then use the same punishment on those parents AND the Pearls.

 

I believe the Pearls are evil walking.

 

So, again, you and I agree. People are going to start thinking we're up to something, Heather. ;)

[WishboneDawn]

I'm a liberal Christian myself but I've seen conservative's and fundamentalists getting lumped into categories that would best be labeled "pandering" and "unthinking".

 

I've known too many conservatives, conservative Christians and fundamentalists now to believe that. I've known too many fellow Liberals to think we're free of pandering unthinkers.;)

 

:eek::eek::eek::eek: Apologies to the kitten I just killed!!!

[SweetBean]

Oh I just mean that some would judge you for that. You might be Conservative but some conservatives wouldn't post among people who shared different beliefs.

 

Conservative is just a blanket term and not really a good descriptor. There are some far out ideas among Conservatives, maybe you just aren't quite as Conservative as UBER Conservatives. :lol:

Hmm. I consider myself very conservative, and yet I have no problem hanging out on a board, or even in person with a diverse crowd, or IRL for that matter. Perhaps we are making wide spread false generalizations about a group of people (conservatives). Furthermore, not only do I not follow the Pearl's parenting advice, I don't even spank. Thank you very much.

[Robin M]

When I was pregnant with James one of my co-workers gave me the pearl's book - how to train up a child and the helpmeet one. I've never thrown books away before. After reading both and being thoroughly disgusted, they went right in the thrash.

[elizabeth]

I do not understand how can a cognitively and mentally healthy, functional adult resort to excuses for their own actions which were fully under their own control. It does not matter the least bit what a random book says - it is up to an individual with thinking faculties to sort out the information they read and take responsibility for what they did with what they read / interpreted. Even if somebody really, openly, explicitly advocated seven hours of beating your children (and I do not know of such a case), it would still not excuse you for having actually done that. People are affected by literature they read only as much as they allow themselves to be affected - nothing written can make you a child abuser without your full consent, no matter what and by whom it is. I am very alarmed that a book gets blamed for this horrible instance of abuse and parental lack of self-control.

 

No such thing as "gave them ideas". The world is full of very sick, evil and very wrong ideas, but people still get to choose what they get to consume, what attitude they take towards what they read, and whether, and to what extent, they are going to apply it. It is that scary thing called freedom, which goes hand in hand with that other scary thing called responsibility. No such thing as "the book made me feel X", "the film made me do Y", and so forth - not in mentally, emotionally, cognitively mature people. And those that are not on that level of maturity yet, in my un-PC view, should most certainly not have children until they get there - exactly because of horrible instances like this. If you cannot reasonably control yourself to a point that you may beat somebody to death, you should definitely not presume to "raise" any other persons.

 

This is the best post ever. Ever.

[SweetBean]

I just went back and watched the videos with the Pearl's. She pulled her babies' hair when they bit her during breastfeeding? :eek: They both come across as being ignorant.

[Sparkle]

I watched the videos (which took forever!!!). I honestly can't see where some of you are coming from with your remarks. Her "fake" smile? That they don't seem concerned about the poor child who was beaten to death? That they only seem concerned about themselves? C'mon! We all know how these type of shows edit interviews to get their biased point across. We have no clue how long after the incident mentioned that these interviews took place. We have no clue as to what was edited out. That's just silly. If you're ever interviewed, you'll find out real quickly how someone can (and will) twist your words and edit your interview to make you sound however they want you to.

 

Once again, I am not saying anyone should follow their teachings or that they are right in any way shape or form. I just think some of the comments on here are ridiculous

 

You can read their response to the criticisms that came out against them after Lydia Schatz died: http://pearlchildtraining.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-pearl-laughs-at-critics.html

 

There is a whole detailed coverage of this case on TulipGirl's blog: http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/category/michaelanddebipearl/

[sewingmama]

I disagree. The Pearls teach that you should spank 'till the child is submissive and acknowledges that they were wrong. That stopping before that point is letting the child "win", and that you *cannot* let the child win if you intend to be a good parent. Sure, they say stop before you hit the point of abuse, but since many of their examples go way beyond non-abusive spankings, they really distort what constitutes abuse.

 

In the Schatz case, they were dealing with an older adopted child who seems to have been suffering from attachment issues that caused her to being unwilling/unable to admit she was wrong not matter what was done to her.

 

:001_huh:

 

I have a child that is very resistant to admitting they are wrong i.e apologising, etc. If I used this method that child would be dead by now from the constant beating.

 

As for the baby beating - the Pearls are forming a premise based on the false assumption that infants can understand cause and effect. Sure the baby might stop crying or whatever after numerous switchings but they do it from fear - they work out that if they stop crying at all then they will recieve no pain - thus they psycologically shut down just like kids in Russian orphanages who stop crying because no one responds to them.

 

They might not being making marks on the kids bodies but they are leaving a lot of scars on their psychological well-being.

[sewingmama]

I was wrong. I don't think it is in the Helpmeet book (in which Debi tells a women whose husband tried to murder her with a butcher knife to "go back and be a better wife".) It was on their website:

 

Quote from: michael Pearl

 

 

But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court.

Have him do about 10 to 20 years,

and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever.

 

 

The Pearls sure do think highly of themselves if they think they are the ones who get to choose the sentancing for a child molestor. :glare: Most likely the person IF he goes to jail at all will be out in less then 3 years. I've known plenty of child molestors who got no prison sentance at all - especially if it was their own children they molested -usually what happens is they get a court order to stay away from the kids and that's it.

[Sparkle]

And more from the Pearls: http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=19127&q=michael+pearl

"Pearl explained that the media and liberalism have diminished the use of chastisement for training children by labeling it as "corporal punishment."

 

Pearl writes, "If the Federal or State agencies take me to court over advocating corporal chastisement, this will be part of my defense."

 

Pearl said children love the biblical training method and are not fearful but bold and creative. He said discipline by parents should always be loving and gentle.

 

---------------------------

Pearl said chastisement should only be used on children who have developed mental processes for understanding consequences.

 

He said some mothers begin when a child is breast-feeding.

 

"If the baby is biting too hard, you can pull its hair just a little bit," Pearl said.

 

-------------------------------------------

Lynn Paddock, a North Carolina woman accused of suffocating her 4-year-old son with blankets in 2006, said she looked on No Greater Joy Ministry's Web site for advice on child training.

 

Investigators found 2-foot lengths of plumbing supply line, similar to the type mentioned on the Web site, in Paddock's home.

 

Pearl said they have no record of Paddock buying their books or attending their seminars.

 

He said anyone could go to their Web site, but it does not mean they have taught that person.

 

"You won't find anything on our Web site about smothering children," Pearl said with a chuckle."

--------------------------------

"Pearl said he has received more than 150,000 letters from satisfied parents with only about 15 people adamant about discouraging his teachings.

 

"There is a group of lesbian home-schoolers that always try to protest our seminars," Pearl said. "We don't have anything to hide because it's quite legal to spank children.""

[kalanamak]

Aside from all the obvious, what really gets my goat is the pompous and unbending opinion that all children who don't get this treatment will be criminals, failures, or whiny self-centered horrors whom no one will tolerate.

 

Because HE hasn't met a decent person who wasn't spanked there AREN'T any decent people who weren't spanked. You'd think someone of that age would know better, but he probably sells more books and feels so much more important not knowing better.

[SeekingHim77]

You can read their response to the criticisms that came out against them after Lydia Schatz died: http://pearlchildtraining.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-pearl-laughs-at-critics.html

 

There is a whole detailed coverage of this case on TulipGirl's blog: http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/category/michaelanddebipearl/

 

I didn't see anything on the first link showing that they were responding to those exact criticisms-just criticism in general.

 

I did check out the second link too and it was very well done. :-)

 

Once again, I am not advocating taking their advice. I just thought some of the accusations were unfounded.

 

I do think the Pearls are extremely cocky. I remarked to a friend some time ago that they act like they've never made a mistake in their parenting. Mr. Pearl says he has never seen Debi lose her patience with the kids and all they every talk about is how they've done everything right regarding child training.

 

Mr. Pearl states his advice in such an arrogant way-as if he were the voice of God Himself. He never says I think, or maybe, or I believe God is saying this. He just says God is saying this or this is the way to handle such and such situation.

[Guest submarines]

I finally watched the documentary. I cried when the 11 year old girl told the police officer she might throw up. Poor, poor, child. Beaten to the point of vomitting. How horrific.

 

Now, about the possible bias in the interview. I don't think the bias was against the Pearls at all. Care was taken as not to portray them too negatively, and I wonder why the CNN was so careful as not to offend them. I don't think it is possible to say that there was bias against the Pearls in that interview. It was as neutral as possible, a little bit too neutral for my taste!

 

When he spanked the interviewer, for example, he used a light flexible twig (or what was it?). The interviewer said that it hurt, but didn't even wince, or at least it wasn't shown. While minutes prior, the Pearls mentioned that a spatula (flexible? really?) or PVS tubing should be used for 'spanking'. I seriously doubt the interviewer would have remained so calm during a "proper" spanking with a "proper" tool.

 

Before becoming a mother I worked with the mentally ill. The wife definitely looks like someone with mental illness. Scary.