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

[dangermom]

This is the Schatz case, right? I don't have time to watch the videos right now, but I sure hope no one else has done this lately.

 

In case it doesn't say, they were due for trial a few months ago, and pled guilty at the last minute just as the trial was about to begin. So they are both in jail for a long time, and the kids are all in foster care.

[Zoo Keeper]

The very unbiblical extreme that the Pearls (and others like them, i. e. Ezzo) advocate is horrible.

 

My prayers right now are with the other remaining children in that family. They must be so confused, sad, and upset. I hope that they can begin to heal and be loved.

[Carol in Cal.]

I watched the first video, and that is more than enough.

 

I agree that the wife looked fake (smiling fakely).

[LucyStoner]

They are discussing a dead child. Why is Mrs. Pearl maintaining her sugary smile? That just seems cold hearted to me. My fault or not, my lips are not going to be able to form a smile when discussing a dead child anywhere.

 

What a tragedy.

[SeekingHim77]

Though I completely disagree with the Pearls, I still don't think they are to blame for this incident. I read their books years ago and they clearly outline their method for spanking and it would never cause the kind of damage these parents caused. They make sure and state that the spankings are only to cause a stinging sensation, never to leave a mark and that parents are only to spank when they are calm and feel love for their child. A parent following these methods would never beat their child and definitely not bring about their child's death!

 

I am definitely not advocating for following the Pearl's advice. I certainly didn't. I'm just noting that the Pearls cannot be blamed considering these parents were not even following advice from their book-they were taking it to the extreme just as all abusive parents do.

[Retired]

I have known a few followers of the Pearl's. The thing is the bible does mention the rod and just like with all types of religions there are always folks that "twist" it to their needs.

 

I am not surprised because I hate to say this but I have seen folks that adopt kids that the behavioral issue like RAD and stuff. The adoptive parents read crap like the Pearls and think that it can be "whipped" out of the child.

 

I am just wondering cause I know of a family that biological kids obeyed the way the Parents dictated but the 6 adoptive kids had discipline issue and the parents where in my point of view cruel. This family was reported by several of us but the kids where not removed . But the oldest child (biological) got her license at 16 and went straight to DH and told them about the home life. The kids are all in foster care now.

[Dobela]

I believe strongly in personal responsibility and fact is that the Pearls do not advocate 7 hour torture sessions that end in death. The parents were out of control. Of course, then there are considerations of why these two particular children, but that is another topic.]

 

I wondered if anyone else noticed this too. It appears that only the adopted children were subjected to this. No mention was made of it happening to their biological children.

In one of ther videos (the second one??) they say that all of the children were abused in that way but the most severely abused were the 2 girls adopted from Africa.

 

 

For this particular family, the Pearls advocate as discipline "spanking" a child until the child doesn't cry. If the child cries, she's still in rebellion, and the spankings must continue. From what I remember, that's what happened here. The little girl just kept crying. As to that that she was very dark skinned, with white parents, and the parents couldn't physically see the amount of damage they caused until it was entirely too late because they simply didn't know what to look for. I'm NOT EXCUSING these parents. What they did was inexcusable, BUT... they were following the Pearls' teachings to the letter. How Michael Pearl can say with a straight face he bears no responsibility in this is incomprehensible to me. He might not be held responsible in human courts, but I have no doubt God will deal with him accordingly.

Did you watch the videos? There are pictures of the girl who lived. Graphic ones of the brusies and small cuts. On her legs, her shoulders, and so on. Even with dark skin there is no doubt that she is hurt and was being injured by the beatings. Her having dark skin is no excuse.

 

They are discussing a dead child. Why is Mrs. Pearl maintaining her sugary smile? That just seems cold hearted to me. My fault or not, my lips are not going to be able to form a smile when discussing a dead child anywhere.

 

What a tragedy.

Both of them in the video just make me ill.

[Ester Maria]

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.

[HRAAB]

I do believe the Pearls bear some responsibility in this death. If this were the first and only case I had heard of, I might not think that. But, this is not the only case. There was a boy that died from beating, and his mother used the method advocated by TTUAC. (Google around and you can find it.)

 

I kept looking for some sign of sadness or regret over the death of this child, and I saw none. There was a thread last week talking about evil and does it exist. Yes, evil does exist, in the form of Michael Pearl.

 

eta: They are also writing to a susceptible audience: parents who are trying to raise Godly children according to the Bible, and this book tell them exactly how to do that - according to Pearl anyway.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Ishki

[simka2]

I disagree. I don't think the Pearls bear all the blame, obviously. But, you have to know your audience. The Pearls are writing to the parents of young children. They have to know how stressful and difficult that can be, and how desperate parents can be to change their children's behavior. Because of that, they have a responsibility to think through how their advice might sound to a frazzled, exhausted, frustrated parent desperate to see some changes in their child. If there is any possible way that such a parent could conclude from their writing that, if hitting a baby with a switch a few times is good, doing it even more times is better, then that's a serious problem.

 

Sure, there's lots of bad parenting advice out there, but I'm not aware of anybody but the Pearls who advocate hitting infants with piping.[/QUOTE]

:iagree:

I believe the Pearl's are very resposible. I hope that they are held accountable one day!

[Slartibartfast]

Though I completely disagree with the Pearls, I still don't think they are to blame for this incident. I read their books years ago and they clearly outline their method for spanking and it would never cause the kind of damage these parents caused. They make sure and state that the spankings are only to cause a stinging sensation, never to leave a mark and that parents are only to spank when they are calm and feel love for their child. A parent following these methods would never beat their child and definitely not bring about their child's death!

 

I am definitely not advocating for following the Pearl's advice. I certainly didn't. I'm just noting that the Pearls cannot be blamed considering these parents were not even following advice from their book-they were taking it to the extreme just as all abusive parents do.

 

A parent using their method *is* beating their child. Hitting an infant is not ok. Hitting a child with a belt is not ok.

 

Even recommending hitting an infant is crazy and following that recommendation is crazier. It is an extreme method of discipline, that someone took it to extremes is not at all surprising and they are not the first couple to do so.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Sis

[Guest submarines]

I would hope it isn't a controversial topic and that most sane people would realize that what they teach is outright abuse.

 

:iagree:

[Impish]

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.

:iagree:

[forty-two]

Though I completely disagree with the Pearls, I still don't think they are to blame for this incident. I read their books years ago and they clearly outline their method for spanking and it would never cause the kind of damage these parents caused. They make sure and state that the spankings are only to cause a stinging sensation, never to leave a mark and that parents are only to spank when they are calm and feel love for their child. A parent following these methods would never beat their child and definitely not bring about their child's death!

 

I am definitely not advocating for following the Pearl's advice. I certainly didn't. I'm just noting that the Pearls cannot be blamed considering these parents were not even following advice from their book-they were taking it to the extreme just as all abusive parents do.

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. Combine that with the parents being desensitized to high levels of spanking/switching after over a year of following the Pearls, it's not that out there that they could have (relatively) calmly made the choice to keep going, believing that the alternative - stopping - was worse :(.

 

Sure, the parents were ultimately culpable; but to deny that the Pearls' teaching contributed to this tragedy is farcical.

[simka2]

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.

 

I agree with you when we are dealing in the real of semi-normal :D. The problem is with those who read these books....and choose to implement their teachings. In that scenario the Pearls have an almost cult leader like ability to control. "Do this and you will save your child from Hell."

 

Lets take Warren Jeff's for example. If he had written a book advocating marriage to multiple young children and then taught others how to do it...we would hold HIM accountable as well as those participating in that heinous practice.

 

That is how my logic tracks, but it may be faulty ;).

[KungFuPanda]

I'm having trouble following the logic that the Pearls are in any way responsible. Yes, they are weirdos that wrote a ridiculous book! But they are certainly not responsible for this girl's death any more than Nabokov is responsible that people commit pedophilia or God is responsible that people beat their children because they believe The Bible guides them to do so.

 

There has ALWAYS been a responsibility to THINK, and there is no set of rules that you can follow to the letter to make things perfect and good. These rules ALWAYS get corrupted by people who focus on following the rules and ignore the reasons they were written.

[twoforjoy]

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.

 

I think we're underestimating the enormous pressure that having a very difficult infant or child can put a parent under, especially when they are coming from a culture that has rigid behavioral expectations and demands first-time, cheerful obedience from children.

 

I'm not excusing the parents, at all. But, I know from experience how difficult and frustrating some children can be, and how feeling like a horrible failure as a parent can lead to desperate measures. I do not believe in spanking. I think it's wrong. I am very, very cognitively committed to the idea that spanking is wrong. I'm a pacifist, for goodness sake. And yet I did spank my son. More than once, and a few times harder than I should have. Why? Because I was so desperate to see behavioral changes, was feeling like such a failure, and was just so beaten down by feeling like a failure that I decided that I'd try anything. I had friends who swear by spanking, and figured that I had a duty as a parent to try anything and everything to bring about better behavior. So I went against some of my deepest convictions, both as a parent and as a Christian (which I feel demands a commitment to total non-violence), because I felt that lost and frazzled and desperate as a parent.

 

And people like the Pearl's both create the desperation in some parents, by insisting on things like first-time obedience (it was when I was spending a lot of time with a few moms who believed in FTO that I began to feel like I HAD to spank because I just couldn't get my son to do it--spanking didn't lead to FTO for him, either, though), which is setting up a lot of parents to feel like failures, and then presenting their plan as the only way to get there.

 

Anyway, I'm not letting the parents off the hook. But, I can see why a good person can be led to do things they don't feel right about as a parent--or even that they know are wrong--because they are so tired, frustrated, and desperate, and really do want to do the best thing for their child. Maybe that wasn't the case here, and these are just abusive jerks who don't care about their kids, but I don't doubt a lot of good people have wronged their kids--and know they did--because they took the Pearl's advice out of desperation.

[Slartibartfast]

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. Combine that with the parents being desensitized to high levels of spanking/switching after over a year of following the Pearls, it's not that out there that they could have (relatively) calmly made the choice to keep going, believing that the alternative - stopping - was worse :(.

 

Sure, the parents were ultimately culpable; but to deny that the Pearls' teaching contributed to this tragedy is farcical.

 

I agree, if the point is combined with the fact that some churches recommend these methods and there may be additional pressures.

 

How many churches have they spoken at? How many churches push their methods?

 

Of course the parents are to blame. Of course it was their own horrific acts that lead to this poor child's death.

 

The Bible says we will know someone by their fruit, this is their fruit.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Sis

[Parrothead]

How Michael Pearl can say with a straight face he bears no responsibility in this is incomprehensible to me. He might not be held responsible in human courts, but I have no doubt God will deal with him accordingly.

:iagree: I think he is a sick individual. His wife is no better and the parents that follow him and his need a reality check.

 

Anyone who advocates striking an infant is one sick puppy. Then to advocate it in the name of God is just evil.

[forty-two]

Anyway, I'm not letting the parents off the hook. But, I can see why a good person can be led to do things they don't feel right about as a parent--or even that they know are wrong--because they are so tired, frustrated, and desperate, and really do want to do the best thing for their child. Maybe that wasn't the case here, and these are just abusive jerks who don't care about their kids, but I don't doubt a lot of good people have wronged their kids--and know they did--because they took the Pearl's advice out of desperation.

:iagree: The Pearls don't help by making a big deal about not following one's instincts, that if your instincts disagree with their method, you're being deceived by Satan. Since some churches teach the same basic thing, parents are primed to accept it.

 

People are responsible for their own actions - but when those actions stem from abusive teachings, those abusive teachers certainly bear moral culpability. When highly manipulative and spiritually abusive techniques are used to get people to accede to a worldview, it's not a completely free choice anymore.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

One of the gems in Debi Pearl's book "To Be His Helpmeet" or some such is about how the wife of a child molester (who molested his own kids!) should call the police, testify against him, visit him in prison and then welcome him again with open arms.

 

The Pearl's lack of understanding (let's just call it what it is: ignorance) in the fields of child development and criminal justice is simply appalling......and apparently, dangerous.

Edited August 17, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Slartibartfast]

I do believe the Pearls bear some responsibility in this death. If this were the first and only case I had heard of, I might not think that. But, this is not the only case. There was a boy that died from beating, and his mother used the method advocated by TTUAC. (Google around and you can find it.)

 

I kept looking for some sign of sadness or regret over the death of this child, and I saw none. There was a thread last week talking about evil and does it exist. Yes, evil does exist, in the form of Michael Pearl.

 

eta: They are also writing to a susceptible audience: parents who are trying to raise Godly children according to the Bible, and this book tell them exactly how to do that - according to Pearl anyway.

 

Sean Paddock

[JulieH]

One of the gems in Debi Pearl's book "To Be His Helpmeet" or some such is about how the wife of a child molester (who molested his own kids!) should call the police, testify against him, visit him in prison and then welcome him again with open arms.

 

The Pearl's lack of understanding (let's just call it what it is: ignorance) in the field's of child development and criminal justice is simply appalling......and apparently, dangerous.

 

No. Bloody. Way. Seriously????

[ThatCyndiGirl]

No. Bloody. Way. Seriously????

 

Seriously. In this way he can be available to now molest the grandchildren. Isn't it GRAND?!:glare:

[NicAnn]

Yes, they are truly horrible people.

 

I hate that I have met MANY people, who when finding out I'm a huge parenting advocate and Christian, tell me how they could never be Christian because of all the stuff about beating your kids in the Bible. They get this view from people like Pearls and Ezzo. I tell them, that when I read the Bible, I learn 100 ways to discipline WITHOUT spanking, hitting, or abusing. It's just all so sad and preventable.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

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.

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I just want to contribute this: Even though the feelings of horror and sadness are overwhelming, it is so healing and so good to read this long thread full of posts by homeschoolers who see the truth about the Pearls.

 

10 years ago I prayed so fervently that the homeschooling community would have their eyes opened before another generation became ensnared. It was so hard back then, wasn't it, to feel like we were raging against a brick wall when we tried to warn friends about the Pearls. Some of us were rejected by churches, family members, and homeschool support groups (online and IRL) when we flatly refused to raise our babies this way.

 

I am heartbroken that Sean and Lydia had to die before people began to wake up, but I am so very thankful that the new crop of homeschool mommies will be repulsed by these events and never be mesmerized by Michael Pearl.

 

BTW, Karen Campbell of www.thatmom.com has more links and information if anyone needs catching up on the history of this 'ministry.'

[dangermom]

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. Combine that with the parents being desensitized to high levels of spanking/switching after over a year of following the Pearls, it's not that out there that they could have (relatively) calmly made the choice to keep going, believing that the alternative - stopping - was worse :(.

 

Sure, the parents were ultimately culpable; but to deny that the Pearls' teaching contributed to this tragedy is farcical.

 

Exactly. (Except for the bit about Lydia, I don't know that she was "unable to admit that she was wrong"--I only know that the Schatzes perceived her as being in rebellion because she didn't stop crying, since after all she was experiencing severe abuse.) Anyway, the Pearls teach that if you don't follow their system, you're dooming your child to Hell. Buying into that can get you to deny a lot of your 'Satan-inspired' instincts of when to stop.

 

Of course the Schatzes are culpable for what they did. But the Pearls teach an incredibly dangerous and evil philosophy disguised as Christian parenting and a lot of people fall for it. They contributed to this too, and are completely unrepentant.

[goldberry]

I agree with you when we are dealing in the real of semi-normal :D. The problem is with those who read these books....and choose to implement their teachings. In that scenario the Pearls have an almost cult leader like ability to control. "Do this and you will save your child from Hell."

 

Lets take Warren Jeff's for example. If he had written a book advocating marriage to multiple young children and then taught others how to do it...we would hold HIM accountable as well as those participating in that heinous practice.

 

That is how my logic tracks, but it may be faulty ;).

 

The concept of "choice" is overrated in certain situations. The adult children in polygamist communities have a "choice" to leave. But when they have been raised and all they know is that God wants them to STAY THERE and lead this life, and that the world outside means ****ation...what kind of "choice" is there?

 

I believe the Pearls may exert that kind of cult-like control over some...HOWEVER, there is higher level of responsibility to the individual for allowing that to happen with just a book, as opposed to a certain situation where one is totally isolated and has no other exposure or choices. Then there becomes a responsibility for what YOU CHOOSE to let influence you.

 

Of course, one could argue that there is clearly some mental illness or other issue involved to let that happen. Which further degrades the idea of "choice".

 

I guess that is why it is comforting that God will be the one to judge them (the parents and the Pearls) in the end.

 

What a horrible story.

[AvasMom]

:iagree:

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: As much as I despise the Pearls' and wish they would fall off a cliff somewhere, I can't see how they can be blamed for someone beating a child to death.

[sunflowerlady]

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.

 

 

You are not wrong. It is in the Helpmeet book. It may on the website also, but it is in the book. I happen to still own the book.

[Soror]

That makes me want to vomit. I love Pearl saying that for the 7 yo that hit his sister he would get 10-15 licks and be told what he did was violent and yet he doesn't see the hypocrisy in that. Make sure you use an implement as you want it to hurt. I don't think the bear all the burden but when you start agreeing with this kind of logic it seems a logical conclusion, they were trying to get her to submit and she wouldn't according to their definition. They used the proper "tool".

 

Are these not the same ones that say you can only feed the baby every 4 hrs, regardless if it acts like it is hungry. It seems as I had read there were starving deaths in relation to that advice. And hitting the infant, shudder.

[pdalley]

The concept of "choice" is overrated in certain situations. The adult children in polygamist communities have a "choice" to leave. But when they have been raised and all they know is that God wants them to STAY THERE and lead this life, and that the world outside means ****ation...what kind of "choice" is there?

 

I believe the Pearls may exert that kind of cult-like control over some...HOWEVER, there is higher level of responsibility to the individual for allowing that to happen with just a book, as opposed to a certain situation where one is totally isolated and has no other exposure or choices. Then there becomes a responsibility for what YOU CHOOSE to let influence you.

 

Of course, one could argue that there is clearly some mental illness or other issue involved to let that happen. Which further degrades the idea of "choice".

 

I guess that is why it is comforting that God will be the one to judge them (the parents and the Pearls) in the end.

 

What a horrible story.

 

 

The Pearls are responsible for using these horrific methods of abuse on their own kids at the very least - IMO.

 

And these 'parents' chose to hurt their own kids and follow such codswap on their own.

[Ester Maria]

I agree with you when we are dealing in the real of semi-normal :D. The problem is with those who read these books....and choose to implement their teachings. In that scenario the Pearls have an almost cult leader like ability to control. "Do this and you will save your child from Hell."

There are so many choices involved there, though: a choice to belong to that "cult", a choice to go with everything the "cult" says rather than pick and choose for yourself and adapt to your situation, a choice to blindly follow the theological interpretations, a choice to read that book, a choice to parent that way, a choice to implement the book, a choice to take the book even farther than it is meant to be taken, etc.

I'm a pacifist, for goodness sake. And yet I did spank my son. More than once, and a few times harder than I should have. Why? Because I was so desperate to see behavioral changes, was feeling like such a failure, and was just so beaten down by feeling like a failure that I decided that I'd try anything. I had friends who swear by spanking, and figured that I had a duty as a parent to try anything and everything to bring about better behavior. So I went against some of my deepest convictions, both as a parent and as a Christian (which I feel demands a commitment to total non-violence), because I felt that lost and frazzled and desperate as a parent.

:grouphug:

 

My second child was a bit of a challenge, one of those children that make you rethink some aspects of the conventional parenting wisdom, but based on other people's experiences, I find that I got a very mild version of a challenging child. There were a few instances, though, in which I marveled myself afterward for not having hit her - I was that close. And those, in my view, were the situations of a comparatively well self-controlled adult and a comparatively mild "difficult" child - so if I extrapolate that, I can certainly see how way more difficult children can lead their parents to desperation and considering parenting methods they originally found entirely repulsive, because they just want something to work, even if it means throwing some of their principles away.

 

However, I still find there is an enormous difference between reluctantly conceding that, for this particular child, some parenting methods which we would normally not use should be implemented on one hand - and losing control with the intensity / dosage on the other hand. As much as I loathe the idea of slapping another person - a typical slap is still miles away from a knockout. As much as I am in the non-spanking camp myself - a swat on the bottom is still definitely not the kind of beating that is going to leave those marks seen in the video. As much as I do not think withdrawing food from your children is a good parenting method - sending a child once or twice to bed without dinner is not the same as starving the child. THIS, in my view, that not so subtle difference between an unpleasant parenting method and outright abuse, should be something an average mature adult person should KNOW how to recognize way before they get there - they should just know, and if they cannot, it is really not safe that they be parents in the first place. A parent HAS to have the mental / emotional / self-control faculties which will prevent the unpleasant methods they reluctantly adopted for that particular challenging child turn into fully fledged abuse. When it comes to that aspect, I simply cannot see how reading a book would magically "erase" that grey area in a parent's mind and make them think that abuse is okay - even if somebody actively preaches that, we are talking common sense here.

 

My main problem with the Pearls is that they view hitting, in principle, as a parental virtue. Not like you or me as something which is in principle a very bad thing, but that there might be some extreme situations in which a very small controlled dose of that might be an optimal choice - not necessarily a good one, we would still view it as a very bad thing in and of itself, but all factors considered, possibly the least of evils for that particular child and that particular situation. I think those two mindsets are miles away, and that parents with that second mindset are truly not as susceptible to become child abusers, EVEN if they come in contact with people who view hitting as a virtue. It is the people who come from that first mindset originally and then read the book, who adopt it as a virtue, along with the whole package of "breaking your child's will" and "total obedience", who are going to make headlines like these.

 

But then we come to that typical question of personal responsibility: I do think that subscribing to that particular package of "parenting wisdom" is an active choice as well. And that is where I cannot excuse parents: they led a lifestyle they chose to lead, within a worldview they put as a framework for all their actions, in the realm of theological interpretations they adopted. I know that sheep behavior is very common among humans, and that especially for people raised within a particular mindset it can be enormously difficult to break off it, but at some point, you have to admit personal responsibility for your life, your values, your actions. Belonging to a church which furthers these teachings is also a choice - there is a freedom of association, right? Heck, reading that book in the first place is a choice, let alone implementing it to the letter.

 

The consequence of free speech and free press is that there will be very dangerous ideas circling around vested in seemingly innocous words and formulations. That is the price of freedom - one has to make choices and choose what they consume, adhere to, approach ideas critically, choose their associations. I do not really think a person can be "led" so easily as we make it sound - if they can, that in itself is a huge problem.

 

Do not get me wrong - I DO think there is a responsibility which comes with publishing a book in which you advocate certain approaches and techniques to child-rearing, under your full name and legal accountability, and that written words can be very, very dangerous, easy to manipulate so as to write one thing vested more innocently, etc. I agree with that entirely. It is just that I think that the blame is still with people who actually go for it, act upon it, lose it, rather than on the idea itself or a person who published it. The world is filled with very wrong ideas - one does not HAVE to consume them, associate with people who consume or promote them, implement them, promote them, etc. In situations like this, I tend to err on the side of personal responsibility.

[twoforjoy]

I believe the Pearls may exert that kind of cult-like control over some...HOWEVER, there is higher level of responsibility to the individual for allowing that to happen with just a book, as opposed to a certain situation where one is totally isolated and has no other exposure or choices. Then there becomes a responsibility for what YOU CHOOSE to let influence you.

 

I agree, but I also think that any time you have somebody advocating striking a child until the child demonstrates an acceptable level of "repentance" or "brokenness," you are setting the stage for abuse. I don't think they are legally responsible, but I do think they bear some moral responsibility.

 

Some kids will not have that kind of response unless you cross the line into abuse. Some kids will not have that kind of response, ever. Aside from our moral qualms, we had a good practical reason to stop spanking our DS, which is that it just didn't work. He would just get angrier and more defiant. My DH, who is a big guy, got to the point where he was afraid to spank, because he knew that in order to get DS to care about the spanking, he'd have to hit him hard enough that he could very, very easily hurt him. Once he realized that, he was done.

 

And we're not people who would follow the Pearls. My husband's an atheist-leaning agnostic, and I'm a liberal Episcopalian. We never believed we were commanded by God to spank or that our child's eternal destiny rested on it. We were just frustrated, exhausted, sleep-deprived, desperate, demoralized parents who had no idea what to do with a very stubborn, defiant, and challenging kid, and who felt like we HAD to try everything. And even with all that, I can still see how easy it could have been for either of us, given DS's personality, to cross the line. If we had felt like we had a duty to spank until we saw "repentance," we probably would have crossed that line.

Edited August 17, 2011 by twoforjoy

[KungFuPanda]

I just want to contribute this: Even though the feelings of horror and sadness are overwhelming, it is so healing and so good to read this long thread full of posts by homeschoolers who see the truth about the Pearls.

 

10 years ago I prayed so fervently that the homeschooling community would have their eyes opened before another generation became ensnared. It was so hard back then, wasn't it, to feel like we were raging against a brick wall when we tried to warn friends about the Pearls. Some of us were rejected by churches, family members, and homeschool support groups (online and IRL) when we flatly refused to raise our babies this way.

 

I am heartbroken that Sean and Lydia had to die before people began to wake up, but I am so very thankful that the new crop of homeschool mommies will be repulsed by these events and never be mesmerized by Michael Pearl.

 

BTW, Karen Campbell of www.thatmom.com has more links and information if anyone needs catching up on the history of this 'ministry.'

 

I'd argue that this discussion is being carried out by people who were never members of the churches/groups you described above. I'm not sure that this thread indicates progress in those groups, so much as a conversation with a completely different group of homeschoolers.

[Impish]

I guess what it boils down to, for me, is that ppl have free will.

 

No author, no matter how cracked, has the power to take that away.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'd argue that this discussion is being carried out by people who were never members of the churches/groups you described above. I'm not sure that this thread indicates progress in those groups, so much as a conversation with a completely different group of homeschoolers.

 

I'm sure that's how it appears, but I was on these very boards in the past when we couldn't really discuss this topic without it devolving into simplistic and foolish camps, each side being so upset about it that discussion was impossible. Pearl's teachings are deliberately divisive, and even have that effect on people not of his religion!

 

If you took a poll, I think you'd find that we are the same people who couldn't talk about the Pearls in the past, finally able to talk about it because the paradigm has been identified correctly: It is not 'atheists versus Christians.' It is 'people who believe in beating children versus people who don't.'

 

That's what the argument always should have been about, but Pearl obfuscated it by wrapping it all up in biblical language and spiritual manipulation. Because of the deaths of two precious children, scales have fallen from people's eyes. Those who are not Christians are conceding that they do know Christians who would never do this thing. Christians are conceding that the Pearls' teachings were never from our Holy Book in the first place.

 

We can talk about it now, because the truth has come to the forefront for all.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Cricket]

I have known a few followers of the Pearl's. The thing is the bible does mention the rod and just like with all types of religions there are always folks that "twist" it to their needs.

 

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?

[Abigail4476]

Disgusting parental behavior.

Disgusting advice and practices proffered by the Pearl's.

Horrifying all around.

 

I have to say that while I do weakly support a parent's right to choose the way they discipline their child, I am SO tired of religious people in particular using scripture as an excuse to be abusive, that I wouldn't mind if spanking were outlawed. It wouldn't bother me in the least. Spanking is not necessary to raising well-behaved children; discipline is. Discipline does not have to include spanking in order to be effective. IMO, it's less effective with spanking.

 

And I don't believe for a second that the way that M. Pearl was hitting the reporter's leg is how he really spanks. I've seen (and experienced) too many spankings to believe that he's really that gentle. The fact that he believes you should spank until children are in pain, and then spank them until they stop crying is enough to negate that little farce.

[justamouse]

The concept of "choice" is overrated in certain situations. The adult children in polygamist communities have a "choice" to leave. But when they have been raised and all they know is that God wants them to STAY THERE and lead this life, and that the world outside means ****ation...what kind of "choice" is there?

 

I believe the Pearls may exert that kind of cult-like control over some...HOWEVER, there is higher level of responsibility to the individual for allowing that to happen with just a book, as opposed to a certain situation where one is totally isolated and has no other exposure or choices. Then there becomes a responsibility for what YOU CHOOSE to let influence you.

 

Of course, one could argue that there is clearly some mental illness or other issue involved to let that happen. Which further degrades the idea of "choice".

 

I guess that is why it is comforting that God will be the one to judge them (the parents and the Pearls) in the end.

 

What a horrible story.

 

I agree with yo, but the bolded, yes. The people who buy this book and have it's worm slither into their hearts are people that are not well grounded to begin with-and I even wonder about that because a PP had said before as she was reading the books for her degrees and already had a bias, STILL their words were enticing. But I don't hold the Pearls any less responsible. They are spiritually manipulative and and have no virtue of temperance in this regard.

Edited August 17, 2011 by justamouse

[Abigail4476]

I agree with yo, but the bolded, yes. The people who buy this book and have it's worm slither into their hearts are people that are not well grounded to begin with. But I don't hold the Pearls any less responsible. they are spiritually manipulative and that's that.

 

I agree. When people twist scripture to support evil, they should be shunned by the Christian community; not welcomed with open arms and have their stupidity and wickedness supported. Some people check their brains at the church door--or the door of the local Christian bookstore.

[Joanne]

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.

[NanceXToo]

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

[lauranc]

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.[/indent]

 

:001_huh: What the...? I'm coming into the discussion late, I know.. but this is just.. too much.

 

I saw the CNN video yesterday, and had never heard of the Pearls before someone on this board mentioned them awhile back. I just don't understand how people can check their mind at the door. Maybe it's just because I know a bit about child development, but it just seems that what this couple teaches is so far out there (and obviously wrong) and I don't understand how anyone could follow them.

 

I don't know that I agree that the Pearls are 'to blame' for the parents' atrocities-- we are, after all responsible for our own actions-- but I find it disheartening that parents are really listening to this couple. It's very sad.

[8circles]

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.

 

Well-said Joanne. Its humbling but true IMO.

[Rivka]

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. Combine that with the parents being desensitized to high levels of spanking/switching after over a year of following the Pearls, it's not that out there that they could have (relatively) calmly made the choice to keep going, believing that the alternative - stopping - was worse :(.

 

Sure, the parents were ultimately culpable; but to deny that the Pearls' teaching contributed to this tragedy is farcical.

 

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.

[TCB]

I had heard a little about the Pearls on this forum but had never seen them or heard them speak until today. Having heard about their following and popularity in some circles, I was absolutely astounded to see what they were like. How on earth can people like that be so influential to some?? I haven't read their books, but all I can say is they must write very persuasively, because their appearance and demeanor are not persuasive in the least!!

[Rivka]

I agree, but I also think that any time you have somebody advocating striking a child until the child demonstrates an acceptable level of "repentance" or "brokenness," you are setting the stage for abuse. I don't think they are legally responsible, but I do think they bear some moral responsibility.

 

Some kids will not have that kind of response unless you cross the line into abuse. Some kids will not have that kind of response, ever. Aside from our moral qualms, we had a good practical reason to stop spanking our DS, which is that it just didn't work. He would just get angrier and more defiant. My DH, who is a big guy, got to the point where he was afraid to spank, because he knew that in order to get DS to care about the spanking, he'd have to hit him hard enough that he could very, very easily hurt him. Once he realized that, he was done.

 

And we're not people who would follow the Pearls. My husband's an atheist-leaning agnostic, and I'm a liberal Episcopalian. We never believed we were commanded by God to spank or that our child's eternal destiny rested on it. We were just frustrated, exhausted, sleep-deprived, desperate, demoralized parents who had no idea what to do with a very stubborn, defiant, and challenging kid, and who felt like we HAD to try everything. And even with all that, I can still see how easy it could have been for either of us, given DS's personality, to cross the line. If we had felt like we had a duty to spank until we saw "repentance," we probably would have crossed that line.

 

Very wise words. Thank you for being so honest about your process with this.

 

I did my Ph.D. research on physical abuse of children. Most people seem to have an idea in their head that people who physically abuse their children are motivated by sadism, that they set out to hurt the kids on purpose out of meanness. But episodes of abuse are almost always failed attempts at discipline. Abusive parents are trying to teach/punish/correct their kids when they abuse them. They lose control of their anger, or they're desperate enough to keep.going.further, or they do something terrible because they've seen it done or had it done to them when they were kids so it doesn't seem out of bounds. But almost always, it's discipline. That's the motivation.

 

I don't ever hit my kids, and it's not because I don't want to. I have a temper. My kids can really frustrate me, and it's a lot worse when I'm under external stress. If I don't ever start spanking them, I can't ever go too far with it.

[Joanne]

I had heard a little about the Pearls on this forum but had never seen them or heard them speak until today. Having heard about their following and popularity in some circles, I was absolutely astounded to see what they were like. How on earth can people like that be so influential to some?? I haven't read their books, but all I can say is they must write very persuasively, because their appearance and demeanor are not persuasive in the least!!

 

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