Are Michael and Debi Pearl “Guilty as Charged?� by Rebekah Anast

[AngelBee]

I don't either. I think people use their works as an excuse to abuse their own children. The Pearls do not advocate beating children for hours until they die. They advocate things that shock me, but what the couple in question did? They never told anyone to do that...

 

People use religion ALL THE TIME to excuse deplorable behavior. This is no different. Reading a book doesn't make you kill your child. I read the same book and became aware of how damaging it is for me to yell. (I come from a very Italian loud family :001_huh: )

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Babies are for luvvin' and kissin', not for hittin'.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't either. I think people use their works as an excuse to abuse their own children. The Pearls do not advocate beating children for hours until they die. They advocate things that shock me, but what the couple in question did? They never told anyone to do that...

 

They do advocate beating a child until they are out of breath. They also teach parents that children are manipulative, sinful creatures.

 

Does that excuse those who go to extremes after reading this garbage? Absolutely not.

 

However, those who write that nonsense are to blame for spreading it to the ignorant.

[LucyStoner]

Babies are for luvvin' and kissin', not for hittin'.

:iagree:

[momofkhm]

I have blanket trained a child and boundary trained MANY children. I did so pretty rapidly; no hitting.

 

When I was still watching the show, Michelle Duggar blanket trains her kids. I can't imagine a more gentle mom. (At least the way she is portrayed on TV.) I can't believe she would swat a child to train this. In fact I think she said that you just keep picking them up and putting them back on the blanket.

 

I sure wish someone had told me this was possible when mine were small! :001_smile:

 

I haven't read TTUAC, but I have read stuff by the Pearls. I do with their advice what I do with everyone else's: I take what makes sense and leave the rest. Some of their stuff does make sense. The article about a man mentoring a previously abused young lady. The young lady turned to the man in a hero worship sort of way and the relationship became sexual. They stated that this should not be done, not be allowed by the wife. But the articles about potty training an infant - at 6mo or less - no, that's training me, not the child. Take some, leave others.

 

I have TTUAC up on my bookshelf. My kids are beyond the target ages, I would think. I almost want to read it just to see what I think about their stuff.

[AngelBee]

When I was still watching the show, Michelle Duggar blanket trains her kids. I can't imagine a more gentle mom. (At least the way she is portrayed on TV.) I can't believe she would swat a child to train this. In fact I think she said that you just keep picking them up and putting them back on the blanket.

 

I sure wish someone had told me this was possible when mine were small! :001_smile:

 

I haven't read TTUAC, but I have read stuff by the Pearls. I do with their advice what I do with everyone else's: I take what makes sense and leave the rest. Some of their stuff does make sense. The article about a man mentoring a previously abused young lady. The young lady turned to the man in a hero worship sort of way and the relationship became sexual. They stated that this should not be done, not be allowed by the wife. But the articles about potty training an infant - at 6mo or less - no, that's training me, not the child. Take some, leave others.

 

I have TTUAC up on my bookshelf. My kids are beyond the target ages, I would think. I almost want to read it just to see what I think about their stuff.

:iagree:

[Ellesmere]

I can't believe I am about to do this. I am really a very non-confrontational person, so my heart is pounding just thinking about posting this. But, I feel compelled to share a little of the "other side of the story" when it comes to the Pearls. I'm going to out myself a bit in the process here, so I hope not too many folks feel they have to block me.

 

It makes my heart hurt to read the most recent thread about the Pearls. First and foremost, because of what happened to that poor little child. It is a tragedy and makes me sick that someone could do that to their own child!!

 

OP, I can understand some of what you feel. I can even understand you seeing a different side to the Pearls. I was close to a church leader involved in a local scandal. He seemed very kind, warm, generous, even outsiders. The local press did not paint an accurate picture of the church or the leader at all. However, I could not deny that there was truth in many of the accusations. I know that there are twists and manipulations of the truth. It frustrates me to see exaggerations about people or organizations because it takes away from the truth that needs to be shared.

 

Some of the people seeking to expose the Pearls do engage in ugly behavior that is as abusive as what they escaped from.

 

Indoctrination does a lot of damage.

 

I am not saying that the Pearls advocate what happened to in that heartbreaking death. But ... with the following quotes ...

 

People who know nothing but abuse take a long time to realize they've been abused. Sometimes they never know what life is like without.

 

Abuse is abuse and sugar coating it doesn't make it right.

 

To be fair, many who've been critical of them have been conservatives AND have said they read the book.

 

It is possible to "train your child" to accept limits, boundaries, and that no means no without physically hurting him/her.

 

Perhaps if they were decent, caring people, the Pearls would realize that their advice is worded in a way that causes some people to take it to extremes.

But they don't. So they aren't.

 

I simply agree. Agree. Agree. Agree.

[justamouse]

Robin Sampson of Heart of Wisdom, who is so extremely conservative that I never have been quite able to use her materials (and I consider myself to be conservative) wrote an excellent blog post here.

 

At the end she has a long list of others who have spoken out, including the owners of Timberdoodle. They also are very conservative.

 

This is not about believer vs. unbeliever, conservative vs. liberal, or spanking vs. non-spanking. I won't let those paradigms be resurrected, because they are false.

 

This blog posts has QUOTE from the books in them. And they are hair raising.

 

You know, I grew up in a punitive household. I didn't know any different and I always used to tell my mom she didn't spank me hard enough. But I couldn't see out. I, having spent my life like that, didn't realize the paradigm I was viewing parenting from. Only after I destroyed my relationship with my oldest because of the same parenting did I realize that it did not work. I HAD to learn another way. And, I never put two and two together that my mother had ruined OUR relationship, too, because of teachings like these.

 

You really DON'T see it when you are IN it. You can't understand why people are so angry and upset at them. So if you can't understand, perhaps you need to look at your OWN default and examine it a bit more.

[kalanamak]

People use religion ALL THE TIME to excuse deplorable behavior. This is no different.

 

What I read of the Paddock trial and (Lydia's), the parents did not try to excuse themselves. Lynn Paddock couldn't believe the child was dead, and stated she wished she had died instead. I see this more as religion pushing people to deplorable behavior, rather than people trying to snake out of owning up to it. Now then, the recent Jeffs trial, he was trying to excuse behavior.

 

And, as a question, if you saw the interview from the other thread, Mr. Pearl stated clearly that the only good people he knew were spanked. If you don't spank, by his words, he believes your children will not turn out well. I'm suspecting you don't agree with that.

 

We have a human job to evaluate people. Stalin was reportedly a *lovely* grand dad. It would be hard to find a person you couldn't find some good ideas from. Ann Rule worked next to Ted Bundy on a crisis line. He seemed a fine fellow to her. I'm making extreme examples to point out that even if you learned a great deal about not yelling and making fellowship with your children, many others notice the other parts of what the Pearls say.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Babies are for luvvin' and kissin', not for hittin'.

 

Hey, we've had a similar conversation here. http://edufunmom.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/little-boys-and-girls/

[LucyStoner]

I am not against conservative Christians. I am against anyone and everyone who thinks that it is ok to switch or whip a child, most especially tiny babies and toddlers. I personally don't know any Christians, conservative or otherwise, IRL who think that it is either. I have read through some of TTUAC and what they describe clearly falls into the realm of abuse. They also show literally no understanding for what is developmentally appropriate behavior, like an infant crying because they are hungry or need something. Babies communicate discomfort with crying. It is perfectly normal and the only young children who stop crying ever are the ones that are neglected to the point that they know it is pointless or abused enough to stop trying to communicate.

 

I have no doubt that the Pearls, as horrible as I think they are, love their kids and their kids love them. But guess what? There often love in abusive families and it is that love that causes children and adult children to rationalize their parent's abuse as love. That is why their children defend them. I have seen this phenomenon up close with my mother (who was beaten as a child to the point of head injuries resulting in permanent epilepsy and near deafness.) I have seen it in my husband and his brother...they both love their dad but my husband acknowledges that they were abused. My BIL does not, despite physical scars, and it was my husband who was ostracized from the family for being honest about the abusive situation.

 

It is not Christian to hit children. It is not necessary to hit children to be a Christian or a good parent. I was raised in a very devout home and my parents never hit us. The biblical quotes used to defend this are grossly misused here. Besides if everything mentioned in the bible was ok, slavery and attacking men who have just had circumcisions that you tricked them into would be ok too. :001_huh:

Edited August 19, 2011 by kijipt

[Joanne]

The poisoned food analogy fits here:

 

Would you eat food, knowing it was "only a little poisoned?" That is how I view the Pearls' writing.

 

Tying heartstrings doesn't impress me. Any non-special needs parent with a minimum of knowledge knows that children take time, relationship, and guiding. Wrapping "tying heartstrings" around a punitive, adversarial, abusive mindset doesn't elevate the parenting approach to acceptable.

 

It's absurd to think you can (or should) punish (oops, I mean "train") a child into another developmental stage. Blanket train your baby if you'd like. I'd rather cuddle, coo, distract, and play and simply wait until they have matured naturally, according to God's physiology.

 

What I haven't seen addressed is the abysmal theology of the Pearls'. I am NOT talking about "spanking is Biblical" stuff in isolation. I am talking about elevating spanking/corporal punishment to the status of salvational, and making parents intercessories of their children's salvation. I wrote a 20 page research paper on the topic of punitive parenting, Christian parenting authors, and bad theology. The Pearls figured prominently on the dark side.

 

I HAVE read their books, numerous times. They are abusive by any reasonable standard. There is NOTHING in their books worth learning that is not available in decent, or better, resources.

[TravelingChris]

I can't understand how anyone doesn't think it is abusive to hit an infant with plumbing line? Or to keep spanking a child until the child is out of breath? Using branches to hit a seven year old? Rulers for infants??? My older brother went to Catholic school and the nuns would whacvk a students's hand with a ruler for disobedience but those were school aged kids and only one whack.

 

I also noticed that the children who died after parents adopted the Pearl method (albeit to extreme) were doing this to adopted children. Seems like I have read a lot about deaths of children by adoptive parents and by far, almost all of them didn't follow the Pearls so I think more of the reason for the deaths may have been the adoptions. Nonetheless, I think the Pearls are wrong theologically and wrong in their child rearing ideas. I am a conservative Christian too.

[justamouse]

The poisoned food analogy fits here:

 

Would you eat food, knowing it was "only a little poisoned?" That is how I view the Pearls' writing.

 

Tying heartstrings doesn't impress me. Any non-special needs parent with a minimum of knowledge knows that children take time, relationship, and guiding. Wrapping "tying heartstrings" around a punitive, adversarial, abusive mindset doesn't elevate the parenting approach to acceptable.

 

It's absurd to think you can (or should) punish (oops, I mean "train") a child into another developmental stage. Blanket train your baby if you'd like. I'd rather cuddle, coo, distract, and play and simply wait until they have matured naturally, according to God's physiology.

 

What I haven't seen addressed is the abysmal theology of the Pearls'. I am NOT talking about "spanking is Biblical" stuff in isolation. I am talking about elevating spanking/corporal punishment to the status of salvational, and making parents intercessories of their children's salvation. I wrote a 20 page research paper on the topic of punitive parenting, Christian parenting authors, and bad theology. The Pearls figured prominently on the dark side.

 

I HAVE read their books, numerous times. They are abusive by any reasonable standard. There is NOTHING in their books worth learning that is not available in decent, or better, resources.

 

It's actually a heresy, what they believe. They believe that sin starts in the flesh, which is a gnostic heresy. This is why they 'beat' the 'sin' out of them.

 

This is not scriptural AT ALL. The whole of it is corrupt.

[Imprimis]

The poisoned food analogy fits here:

 

Would you eat food, knowing it was "only a little poisoned?" That is how I view the Pearls' writing.

 

 

 

Yes. I was just going to post that someone on a similar thread a while back used the "poisoned food" analogy (must have been you!) and I thought it was a fitting analogy.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's actually a heresy, what they believe. They believe that sin starts in the flesh, which is a gnostic heresy. This is why they 'beat' the 'sin' out of them.

 

This is not scriptural AT ALL. The whole of it is corrupt.

 

:iagree:

[justamouse]

 

I have no doubt that the Pearls, as horrible as I think they are, love their kids and their kids love them. But guess what? There often love in abusive families and it is that love that causes children and adult children to rationalize their parent's abuse as love. That is why their children defend them. I have seen this phenomenon up close with my mother (who was beaten as a child to the point of head injuries resulting in permanent epilepsy and near deafness.) I have seen it in my husband and his brother...they both love their dad but my husband acknowledges that they were abused. My BIL does not, despite physical scars, and it was my husband who was ostracized from the family for being honest about the abusive situation.

 

 

I'm sure if one of the kids actually spoke out against the Pearl parents they would be ostracized, too. That'd take one strong person to cut ties forever like that.

[LisaKinVA]

I also think it is insane to thump a child's cheek or pull their hair when they are nursing. Place your finger in you mouth and take them off the breast. Say, "no bite", and try it again. If they bite again, again tell them, "no bite", and be done with the feeding.

 

BTDT, gave up breastfeeding my 3rd at 9mos. He just didn't care. He LOVED it when I jumped from pain, or cried out, He thought it was funny and would look at me and giggle. I had grown to FEAR breastfeeding this child. I would stress out about the "next time." (FWIW, he is a very loving, very snuggly child... he just thought I was being funny, and it was related to something he did...)

 

I have another one (currently 2yo) who would pull hair, on purpose, to get a response and be gleeful about an "owww, that hurt mommy." Absolutely giggle hysterically. What made her stop? I pulled her hair just a tad (not yanking). That child just needed to understand what it felt like. She no longer pulls hair.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I have read the TTUAC, and feel it IS harmful (especially some of the quoted passages regarding breaking the children... you're actually BULLYING them). The problem is that they spend most of their time teaching how to "spank." The book may "mention" the importance of building ties, but the how-to's are on dominating and subjecting the child.

 

IME, corporal punishment has a place in the tool box -- but it should not be used for everything, or exclusive of other disciplines. I have one child for which positive reinforcement works like magic. I have one child who responds neither to carrots, nor sticks. I have three others who do very well with many other forms of positive rewards and punitive actions. Each child is different. There is no "one" way TTUAC. I do wish it were that simple.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LisaK in VA

[LucyStoner]

I'm sure if one of the kids actually spoke out against the Pearl parents they would be ostracized, too. That'd take one strong person to cut ties forever like that.

 

:iagree: Abusive families protect the abusers and hurt the abused. It took my mother until her 50s to stop trying to rationalize her mother's abuse of her and she was one of the strongest people I will ever know. It takes a strong person to stop a generations long cycle of physical abuse and she did it in that she had three children and never abused any of us. She converted to Catholicism as an adult and really practiced her beliefs to the fullest. My mother's mother OTH was still trying to emotionally abuse my mother from 3000 miles away until the year my mother died. She actually had the audacity to threaten her dying daughter (my mother had cancer) with hell because my mother was Catholic and not TV evangelical like her. Finally, I just moved my mother in with me and never gave my grandmother the number. I told her to stay away from bother her deathbed and her funeral.

[SonshineLearner]

Hmmmm, I am sad that they are writers of books. Very sad indeed:( I had an infant that bit me from age 5 months-almost a year.... like. every. single. day! I tried all sorts of things; people have tons of ideas to try. (Say "no" and pull away.... hold nose so they "let go".....) Lots of things! Funny, she only stopped when I ignored it... finally! But, giving a little "pinch" or "thump" doesn't seem abusive. I certainly wasn't trying to cause her great pain. Just trying to give her a sense of a "bad reaction" when she clamped down on me... causing pain and problems for me. I spanked my children, too, and if I had it to do over again... would choose other methods. Probably. I didn't view it as everything, but it didn't serve my children very well. I couldn't do it consistently, and I was always trying to decide if I should spank or time-out or just talk... etc. My child who is stubborn... didn't really change... and my soft hearted child.... just didn't like what I saw. I would probably spank some, but for less.

Now, when I just saw a news show of the Pearls, it said that he would spank a 7 year old about 10-15 times. I would have to shoot someone who did that to my child. (and he suggested a belt)

A couple of swats on a 7 year old... with something much less than a belt wouldn't have made him sound/be such a wacko.

I had read the article about their daughter, and can't reconcile how she's so happy with her childhood... if her dad seriously gave her 10-15 swats with a sizeable switch. Also, there's no way that doesn't cause marks.

:( If it was just a book about "tying relationships" it would have been much more help for families... including families who adopt. And, the whole molestation thing... that is for SURE a reason to divorce. Regardless of what you think about how HORRIBLE molesting any child.... and then think your own child... is.... it's not being faithful to your wife. Under NO circumstance would I stay with him, and what might be waiting for someone who did that... after spending 10-20 years in jail... would be a shotgun. Seriously that is CRAZY!! What about the g-kids that would be around? (well, they wouldn't be if the parents had been raised right, to hate molesters) I'd like to think that they thought they were doing good, and just got turned in the wrong direction. The very wrong direction :(

[justamouse]

:iagree: Abusive families protect the abusers and hurt the abused. It took my mother until her 50s to stop trying to rationalize her mother's abuse of her and she was one of the strongest people I will ever know. It takes a strong person to stop a generations long cycle of physical abuse and she did it in that she had three children and never abused any of us. She converted to Catholicism as an adult and really practiced her beliefs to the fullest. My mother's mother OTH was still trying to emotionally abuse my mother from 3000 miles away until the year my mother died. She actually had the audacity to threaten her dying daughter (my mother had cancer) with hell because my mother was Catholic and not TV evangelical like her. Finally, I just moved my mother in with me and never gave my grandmother the number. I told her to stay away from bother her deathbed and her funeral.

 

I'm glad you gave her a safe place to live the rest of her life. I can't even imagine. :grouphug:

[simka2]

I remember only one spanking. I remember it because I laughed all the way through it, and so did my Dad. I had played a prank that was dangerous, but funny, and fully deserved a spanking for it, but my parents were unable to spank me without laughing. That is the only spanking I clearly remember.

 

The others were so well-deserved my conscience was able to write off the memory once the deed was paid for.

 

.

Did anyone else notice this? The others were so well deserved she doesn't remember them. Do you know what it takes to block out a memory? Oh my goodness! This poor woman.

 

 

As far as my experience with the Pearls. Well since it is true confessions night, I will step up. I was a once a staunch supporter of them. In fact I used to teach women's small groups using the Helpmeet book. The grief I bear for my part in leading those beautiful young ladies down a potentialy dangerous path, stabs my heart. :crying:

 

Most of them I have been able to track down and explain why I have changed my position. I have been able to recommend much healthier resources.

 

Sometimes, I am so angry with myself for putting the blinders on!!! :banghead: Just because I naturally couldn't cross the line they advocated, did not mean they didn't advocate it! I was an immature fool. I saw them thru the lens of my own beliefs and did not accept the truth about them. You could say, I saw them better than they wrote themselves.

 

I believe these people to be mentally ill. That doesn't mean they do not have some sort of love for their children, it just means that the way they express it is twisted, vile and dangerous.

[scrappyhappymama]

HITTING AN INFANT IS ABUSE. An infant? A little baby who can't even crawl or speak? There is no way around it. IT IS ABUSE. An infant does not pull your hair because he is NAUGHTY. He pulls your hair because he is an infant and they have reflexes and one of them is reaching for and grabbing things. Study child development for goodness sake.

 

If you cannot handle the ups and downs of parenting an INFANT without resorting to physically harming that infant then DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.

 

 

Heather, I do not abuse my babies. If I thump my baby's hand when he pulls my hair, it is NOT to punish him. It much less painful than a baby bumping his head on the floor when he is learning to roll over. It hurts me everytime I see it (and yes, I do try to prevent it when I can!), but babies learn from little winces of pain, it's a biological fact. It's the same reason babies learn not to poke their finger in their own eye, because it's uncomfortable when they do it. As a mom, I choose to help my wee ones learn that pulling hair or biting or whipping my glasses off my face is not ok. A thump on that hand accomplishes it nicely. I would never, never, never, NEVER physically harm them to do so.

 

What was condescending about saying that Rebekah Anast was basically indoctrinated to believe that child abuse is okay? Many people would believe that to be the case. Myself included. Many people are "dismissive" of those whose beliefs include "switching" babies. Myself included. I will never, ever condone that. What in the world does that have to do with being a "diverse group of homeschooling moms"...? And why is it okay for you to post your opinion but it isn't okay for the person you quoted...? And why are you remotely surprised that there are people who will speak out against child abuse when someone attempts to show it in a positive light?

 

Really? Rebekah sounds like a lovely person. If we didn't know who her parents were, I think most of us would read her essay and be proud to have a daughter like her.

 

I don't begrudge you your opinion, but I think it does a disservice to people who are truly abused and hurting to lump them in with well-adjusted, happy adults who fully denounce they were abused. Unless you have actual evidence that her parents abused her, why would we jump to this conclusion?

 

 

No, they are not good people. Good people do not advocate hitting small children with PVC pipe.

 

 

It doesn't seem like they advocate thumping or a hair tweak. Seems like they advocate more than that.

 

Diminishing the reality of what they espouse doesn't make it better.

 

Just to clarify, because this is another common misconception, but they do not advocate using PVC pipe, as in the big white tubes used in plumbing. They mention PVC piping, as in thin, flexible, clear tubing. It may make no difference in your opinion of them, especially if one does not believe in spanking period, but surely there is a distinction here! Among people who do spank, a wooden spoon is not an unusual choice of paddle. But if I were against there form of discipline and told others they beat their child with a 2x4, then I am not being intellectually honest but going for the sensational.

 

I am not trying to diminish what they espouse. I am simply trying to demonstrate that they may not espouse exactly what they are being accused of.

 

I know Michael Pearl is rough around the edges. He has a manner of speaking that comes off abrasive, especially in print, and especially from folks from a different background. When he says "sit on the kid if you have to" I honestly and completely do not believe that he means a parent should forcefully and angrily hold a child down and beat them. He means it in the same way my old grandfather would say "I'ma gonna beat that boy within an inch of his life!" That is to say, not literally. At all. In fact, I never ever saw my grandfather lift his hand against anyone. In the context of the Pearl's books, where he reiterates over and over that parents should never spank in anger and that parents must develop close bonds of love and affection with their children. His point is that parents need to stand their ground when it is time to discipline and not give in to begging or cajoling or bad attitudes from their children and decide not to discipline them at all. And all of this needs to be taken with a healthy dose of common sense. They are not talking here about children with special needs or who were abused or who have other issues going on. Maybe they should clarify this point and make it clear. But honestly, if you have read through their materials, there is no way one would come away thinking they would advocate beating a child to death, or abusing a child like this.

 

 

A good person doesn't give advice like this:

"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 ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception."

 

I won't say the Pearls are evil, but I will not accept they are "good people".

 

This is a doctrinal difference I have with them as well. In my opinion, there are good and valid and Biblical "exceptions" for divorce, and sexual immorality, which includes molesting children, is a big one. On the other hand, if a woman *chooses* to forgive her repentant husband of sexual immorality and stay with him anyway, I would never condemn her for that choice. If believe Debi Pearl is trying to express the lengths to which some women will choose to be their husband's help meet, even in the face un unthinkable betrayal. I wish she would have shared it as an extreme example and not so much as a recommendation, as it seems to come across in this quote.

 

The things I read myself from the Pearls include using a switch on their 4 month old. That is in their book To Train Up a Child. Did you even read that? It seems you didn't from your post. Also, their encouragement to wives to stay with men who have sexually abused their children. They were quoted on that in the other thread.

 

Can you explain to me, please, why these things are okay?

 

I did read the book. I've watched some of their videos. I've even seen them in person. And Debi sat there with that same broad smile during her husband's lecture then as well. I think she sees it as her way of always publicly supporting her husband.

 

They use a little thin tube of plastic to pop their babies on the thigh. I pop my babies on the back of the hand with my finger. But again, it's not about punishment or about hurting the baby. It's about training them, and it is far more gentle then "switching a four month old sounds."

 

Not only do I agree, I will go a step further and say I don't agree with the idea of "training" infants. The only thing infants need is love.

 

I know this will probably shock you, but other than the spanking and discipline issue, I am an attachment, crunchy mama. We co-sleep, I wear my babies A LOT, I'm still nursing my two year old, we don't do Ezzo-style sleep training. I do believe that infants thrive on love. I just happen to believe that helping them set boundaries and learn their way in this world is another expression of love.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

There is no church other than the one in Michael Pearl's head where it is taught that a parent can deliver a child from sin by beating the child. That is not a Christian doctrine. It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of a proverb from the time of Solomon.

 

Jesus Christ paid the price for the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

If people could be delivered from sin by a parenting method, Jesus would have never gone to the cross! God would have just sent a prophet with a wagon full of plumbing supply line, then, and no Savior of mankind would have had to give himself for us all, out of love. For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Hear that? Daddy doesn't deliver you from sin with his belt or spoon or whip. By that abuse you are not absolved, having paid for your crime! It is by Christ's stripes that we are healed, not by a baby's stripes inflicted by her own father.

 

This is part of the deception: Families are flat ignoring the teachings of their own churches, willing to be seduced by the promises of perfect children. They are not measuring Pearl's theology with their own, or that of their church. But Pearl's bad methodology is driven by his bad theology. It matters.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I haven't read the book. I've poked around their website enough to know that they give disgusting advice. Among the things I read were suggestions to use plumbing line as a switch (because it stings good without leaving marks) and advice to bring molesting fathers back into the home.

 

Babies are for luvvin' and kissin', not for hittin'.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

When I was still watching the show, Michelle Duggar blanket trains her kids. I can't imagine a more gentle mom. (At least the way she is portrayed on TV.) I can't believe she would swat a child to train this. In fact I think she said that you just keep picking them up and putting them back on the blanket.

 

While I agree that Michelle Duggar seems quite patient and gentle, I find the whole concept of blanket training repugnant. Why kill their natural curiosity and inquisitiveness in infancy (or at all)? It never ceases to amaze me that I find proponents of this on a homeschooling board, where that same curiosity and inquisitiveness in older ages is viewed as desirable.

[obsidian]

There is no church other than the one in Michael Pearl's head where it is taught that a parent can deliver a child from sin by beating the child. That is not a Christian doctrine. It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of a proverb from the time of Solomon.

 

Jesus Christ paid the price for the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

If people could be delivered from sin by a parenting method, Jesus would have never gone to the cross! God would have just sent a prophet with a wagon full of plumbing supply line, then, and no Savior of mankind would have had to give himself for us all, out of love. For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Hear that? Daddy doesn't deliver you from sin with his belt or spoon or whip. By that abuse you are not absolved, having paid for your crime! It is by Christ's stripes that we are healed, not by a baby's stripes inflicted by her own father.

 

This is part of the deception: Families are flat ignoring the teachings of their own churches, willing to be seduced by the promises of perfect children. They are not measuring Pearl's theology with their own, or that of their church. But Pearl's bad methodology is driven by his bad theology. It matters.

 

:iagree:

Well written.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

FTR, calling it a "thump" a "pop" a "spat" or a "tap" does not diminish the fact that they advocate using force against a child, sometimes as an INFANT. We show adults more respect than we show children. If I were to use physical force against an adult they can have me charged with ASSAULT, but it is still legally protected in some areas (most, I believe) to strike a child. Repugnant and unbelievable.

 

And, I'm sorry, but pvc pipe vs. plumbing supply line is puh-TAY-to/puh-TAH-to. The implement with which they advocate a parent STRIKE THEIR CHILD is irrelevant, imo.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[justamouse]

 

Just to clarify, because this is another common misconception, but they do not advocate using PVC pipe, as in the big white tubes used in plumbing. They mention PVC piping, as in thin, flexible, clear tubing. It may make no difference in your opinion of them, especially if one does not believe in spanking period, but surely there is a distinction here! Among people who do spank, a wooden spoon is not an unusual choice of paddle. But if I were against there form of discipline and told others they beat their child with a 2x4, then I am not being intellectually honest but going for the sensational.

 

 

Spanking with a hand is bad enough. Using an instument, no matter how flexible, is still using an instrument to spank an infant.

 

I am not trying to diminish what they espouse. I am simply trying to demonstrate that they may not espouse exactly what they are being accused of.

 

yes, you are trying to diminish it. Here are their words.

 

Clipping this from the blog Tibbie posted.

 

On pulling the hair of a breastfeeding baby (p.7).

“One particularly painful experience of nursing mothers is the biting baby. My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for bald-headed babies).”

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No” with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.”

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?” My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.” The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.” With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.”

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest” and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally broken”:

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.” He should very contritely wipe up the water.

On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her:

If a father is attempting to make a child eat his oats, and the child cries for his mother, then the mother should respond by spanking him for whining for her and for not eating his oats. He will then be glad to be dealing only with the father.

I know this will probably shock you, but other than the spanking and discipline issue, I am an attachment, crunchy mama. We co-sleep, I wear my babies A LOT, I'm still nursing my two year old, we don't do Ezzo-style sleep training. I do believe that infants thrive on love. I just happen to believe that helping them set boundaries and learn their way in this world is another expression of love.

 

It doesn't shock me that you are like that. The guy that abused me had some really great ideas, was smart, loved his daughter, had the best parents ever, went to a prestigious college, came from tons of money--and yet he still smashed my head against a stone wall, repeatedly. Then he became the best guy ever, until he punched me in the jaw so hard, that I got two black eyes and it still clicks when I talk and chew.

 

I am NOT saying that you are an abusive parent. What I AM saying is that abusive people smile, they hug their kids, they laugh, they SEEM normal and you try and rationalize the evil they do because you're actually suffering cognitive dissonance from it.

Edited August 19, 2011 by justamouse

[Joker]

 

 

 

This is a doctrinal difference I have with them as well. In my opinion, there are good and valid and Biblical "exceptions" for divorce, and sexual immorality, which includes molesting children, is a big one. On the other hand, if a woman *chooses* to forgive her repentant husband of sexual immorality and stay with him anyway, I would never condemn her for that choice. If believe Debi Pearl is trying to express the lengths to which some women will choose to be their husband's help meet, even in the face un unthinkable betrayal. I wish she would have shared it as an extreme example and not so much as a recommendation, as it seems to come across in this quote.

 

 

 

.

 

I will think badly of a woman choosing to stay with her husband when he has sexually abused their children. I honestly don't understand another woman who wouldn't do the same. I really don't get how you can say this is ok. I can't believe you're trying to defend it.

[justamouse]

There is no church other than the one in Michael Pearl's head where it is taught that a parent can deliver a child from sin by beating the child. That is not a Christian doctrine. It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of a proverb from the time of Solomon.

 

Jesus Christ paid the price for the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

If people could be delivered from sin by a parenting method, Jesus would have never gone to the cross! God would have just sent a prophet with a wagon full of plumbing supply line, then, and no Savior of mankind would have had to give himself for us all, out of love. For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Hear that? Daddy doesn't deliver you from sin with his belt or spoon or whip. By that abuse you are not absolved, having paid for your crime! It is by Christ's stripes that we are healed, not by a baby's stripes inflicted by her own father.

 

This is part of the deception: Families are flat ignoring the teachings of their own churches, willing to be seduced by the promises of perfect children. They are not measuring Pearl's theology with their own, or that of their church. But Pearl's bad methodology is driven by his bad theology. It matters.

Yes. So wonderfully written.

[AmyTompkins]

It would seem the most dangerous thing about this entire conversation are people who read anything written by anybody and do not use a lick of common sense. I can read a book about how to make a bomb, but that doesn't mean I have to make one. Or growing marijuana. Or stealing a car. Or beating a small child. Get a grip people.

 

Also, I do think there is a huge difference between "beating" or "hurting" a child, no matter the age, and making a connection between "no" and a bit of physical discomfort. Similar to the difference between telling a little one "no" endlessly and them finally beating you to the hot stove to touch it. I bet they only do that a time or two whereas you are still saying "no" if they do not experience an unpleasant reaction.

 

Again common sense. What you read does not need to be what you carry out. Ridiculous to blame others for your own actions. Grow up.:chillpill:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Just to clarify, because this is another common misconception, but they do not advocate using PVC pipe, as in the big white tubes used in plumbing. They mention PVC piping, as in thin, flexible, clear tubing. It may make no difference in your opinion of them, especially if one does not believe in spanking period, but surely there is a distinction here! Among people who do spank, a wooden spoon is not an unusual choice of paddle. But if I were against there form of discipline and told others they beat their child with a 2x4, then I am not being intellectually honest but going for the sensational.

 

Nope. No distinction. There is no reason to strike a small child with something purchased at Home Depot.

I find it sad and disturbing that you defend the use of the piping. Wow.

 

I am not trying to diminish what they espouse. I am simply trying to demonstrate that they may not espouse exactly what they are being accused of.

 

No, you are quite clearly trying to diminish their twisted teachings.

 

I know Michael Pearl is rough around the edges. He has a manner of speaking that comes off abrasive, especially in print, and especially from folks from a different background. When he says "sit on the kid if you have to" I honestly and completely do not believe that he means a parent should forcefully and angrily hold a child down and beat them. He means it in the same way my old grandfather would say "I'ma gonna beat that boy within an inch of his life!" That is to say, not literally. At all.

 

Absolute nonsense. Based on all of their writings, there is no reason to believe that he does not mean that literally. He advocates spanking a child until they have trouble breathing. He advocates beating a child until they fully submit (and an example of lovely doing so to a 15mo old she is babysitting to force him/her to play with a specific toy makes it clear this is not misunderstood). Why on earth would I believe he doesn't mean that literally? If he doesn't perhaps he should quit writing books until he figures out how to express himself correctly?

 

In fact, I never ever saw my grandfather lift his hand against anyone.

 

And he isn't Michael Pearl.

 

In the context of the Pearl's books, where he reiterates over and over that parents should never spank in anger and that parents must develop close bonds of love and affection with their children. His point is that parents need to stand their ground when it is time to discipline and not give in to begging or cajoling or bad attitudes from their children and decide not to discipline them at all. And all of this needs to be taken with a healthy dose of common sense. They are not talking here about children with special needs or who were abused or who have other issues going on. Maybe they should clarify this point and make it clear. But honestly, if you have read through their materials, there is no way one would come away thinking they would advocate beating a child to death, or abusing a child like this.

 

No one has said the intended to advocate someone should beat their child to death. I do believe that there advice is dangerous, and that their ignorant, uneducated writings display a complete misunderstanding of normal childhood development which can lead others to misapply their "advice".

 

This is a doctrinal difference I have with them as well. In my opinion, there are good and valid and Biblical "exceptions" for divorce, and sexual immorality, which includes molesting children, is a big one. On the other hand, if a woman *chooses* to forgive her repentant husband of sexual immorality and stay with him anyway, I would never condemn her for that choice. If believe Debi Pearl is trying to express the lengths to which some women will choose to be their husband's help meet, even in the face un unthinkable betrayal. I wish she would have shared it as an extreme example and not so much as a recommendation, as it seems to come across in this quote.

 

And again, that is why these people have no reason to be giving advice to anyone.

 

 

I did read the book. I've watched some of their videos. I've even seen them in person. And Debi sat there with that same broad smile during her husband's lecture then as well. I think she sees it as her way of always publicly supporting her husband.

 

They use a little thin tube of plastic to pop their babies on the thigh. I pop my babies on the back of the hand with my finger. But again, it's not about punishment or about hurting the baby. It's about training them, and it is far more gentle then "switching a four month old sounds."

 

Four month olds don't need to be trained. They certainly don't need to be smacked with "piping". There certainly is nothing gentle or normal about advocating such a practice.

 

 

I know this will probably shock you, but other than the spanking and discipline issue, I am an attachment, crunchy mama. We co-sleep, I wear my babies A LOT, I'm still nursing my two year old, we don't do Ezzo-style sleep training. I do believe that infants thrive on love. I just happen to believe that helping them set boundaries and learn their way in this world is another expression of love.

 

My children learned boundaries without being beaten with piping.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It would seem the most dangerous thing about this entire conversation are people who read anything written by anybody and do not use a lick of common sense. I can read a book about how to make a bomb, but that doesn't mean I have to make one. Or growing marijuana. Or stealing a car. Or beating a small child. Get a grip people.

 

Also, I do think there is a huge difference between "beating" or "hurting" a child, no matter the age, and making a connection between "no" and a bit of physical discomfort. Similar to the difference between telling a little one "no" endlessly and them finally beating you to the hot stove to touch it. I bet they only do that a time or two whereas you are still saying "no" if they do not experience an unpleasant reaction.

 

Again common sense. What you read does not need to be what you carry out. Ridiculous to blame others for your own actions. Grow up.:chillpill:

 

And non-experts who promote themselves as such who provide dangerous advice should also be responsible for their actions.

 

Again, if the Pearls were actually rational, decent people, they would see that at the minimum, some of what they write is being seriously misunderstood.

[LittleIzumi]

There is no church other than the one in Michael Pearl's head where it is taught that a parent can deliver a child from sin by beating the child. That is not a Christian doctrine. It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of a proverb from the time of Solomon.

 

Jesus Christ paid the price for the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

If people could be delivered from sin by a parenting method, Jesus would have never gone to the cross! God would have just sent a prophet with a wagon full of plumbing supply line, then, and no Savior of mankind would have had to give himself for us all, out of love. For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Hear that? Daddy doesn't deliver you from sin with his belt or spoon or whip. By that abuse you are not absolved, having paid for your crime! It is by Christ's stripes that we are healed, not by a baby's stripes inflicted by her own father.

 

This is part of the deception: Families are flat ignoring the teachings of their own churches, willing to be seduced by the promises of perfect children. They are not measuring Pearl's theology with their own, or that of their church. But Pearl's bad methodology is driven by his bad theology. It matters.

 

I love you. :lol: I so want to post that on Facebook now.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Changed my mind. I've heard this all before, and there is nothing more to say.

 

Except this: Not all of us are willing to stand by while children are beaten with hardware and cooking implements. I can and I have stopped the abuse when it crops up in my presence. More people should do the same. Either call the police, or wrest the 'rod' from the parent's hand. Enough of this wickedness.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Impish]

I have seen the Moms with plumbing supply lines and wooden spoons tucked into pockets and diaper bags. I can't even talk about that.

*gag*

 

And no offence, but could you leave 'formula feeding' out of a possible list of 'lesser than' criteria? Some of us have no other options.

[AmyTompkins]

And non-experts who promote themselves as such who provide dangerous advice should also be responsible for their actions.

 

Well, my friend, that would mean A LOT less books on the shelves and A LOT more subject area for us to argue over. Until people accept that exercising personal responsibility is absolute, then there isn't much more to discuss.

[ByGrace3]

My ds 4 just called out from his room. "Mommy, Daddy!" I went to him, he told me he was thirsty. I got him some water, tucked him back in, rubbed his back, brushed back his hair, and whispered, " I love you." In his sleepy state, he whispers back, "I love you too."

 

What a precious moment to cherish. He had a need, I met it. Yes, I have trained him to that end. I am here when you need me. I suppose I could call him selfish and needy. Me too, sometimes I need a drink of water in the middle of the night. I can guarantee we would not have had that sweet moment had I started "switching" him at 4 months old for sitting up in his bed. An infant has no such voice. He cannot express his "needs." It is that thought that drags me out of bed when my infants cry. If your 4 or 8 yo cried out in the middle of the night, would you ignore them?

 

 

I have several friends that grew up in this method of child rearing (and I use that term loosely). They are confident their parents were wonderful and did nothing wrong. I saw the bruises, the welts. I know they are wrong. I love them, but as they now become parents, I fear for them and their children.

 

And the thought of someone laughing while switching his child seem maniacal...

 

For some strange reason I feel the need to place a disclaimer: I am a Christian, and a rather conservative one at that ;)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Every single Pearl mama I know claims to be an attachment parent. Slings, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, homeschooling and herbal health care.

 

That happens to be my style as well, but I'll say something I truly believe:

 

I'd rather see a child raised by a formula-feeding mother who plans to send him to public school at age 5, fully vaccinated and with Cheetos in his Nascar lunchbox....if that 'mainstream' mother has lived every moment trying to point her little one to Jesus through patience and love instead of trying to become a twisted Messiah figure in her baby's eyes.

 

I have seen the Moms with plumbing supply lines and wooden spoons tucked into pockets and diaper bags. I can't even talk about that.

 

:iagree:

[AmyTompkins]

Again, if the Pearls were actually rational, decent people, they would see that at the minimum, some of what they write is being seriously misunderstood.

 

I feel the same way about Lady Gaga. :lol:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And non-experts who promote themselves as such who provide dangerous advice should also be responsible for their actions.

 

Well, my friend, that would mean A LOT less books on the shelves and A LOT more subject area for us to argue over. Until people accept that exercising personal responsibility is absolute, then there isn't much more to discuss.

 

 

I am sorry, but no. This isn't just bad parenting advice - it is dangerous. Michael and Debi KNOW that, again at the MINIMUM, their advice is being seriously misinterpreted. Their response? Deny, deflect, and keep advocating parenting techniques that are, at best, borderline abusive.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

*gag*

 

And no offence, but could you leave 'formula feeding' out of a possible list of 'lesser than' criteria? Some of us have no other options.

 

Impish, I'm not comparing. I've used formula feeding before, and I don't sit in any judgment on that or think it is 'lesser than.'

 

I was specifically addressing the concept that a mother can do all the 'good mommy' things that impress everybody and undo it by using plumbing supply line on her children.

 

People who use the Pearls' ways always point out that they are 'attachment parents.' I say, so what? Even something as beneficial and precious as breastfeeding becomes an immaterial external if the relationship is so very damaged through these methods we're discussing. Drop the checklist and listen to your heart, mothers.

[simka2]

Impish, I'm not comparing. I've used formula feeding before, and I don't sit in any judgment on that or think it is 'lesser than.'

 

I was specifically addressing the concept that a mother can do all the 'good mommy' things that impress everybody and undo it by using plumbing supply line on her children.

 

People who use the Pearls' ways always point out that they are 'attachment parents.' I say, so what? Even something as beneficial and precious as breastfeeding becomes an immaterial external if the relationship is so very damaged through these methods we're discussing. Drop the checklist and listen to your heart, mothers.

 

:iagree:I cannot agree more.

[AmyTompkins]

 

 

I am sorry, but no. This isn't just bad parenting advice - it is dangerous. Michael and Debi KNOW that, again at the MINIMUM, their advice is being seriously misinterpreted. Their response? Deny, deflect, and keep advocating parenting techniques that are, at best, borderline abusive.

 

 

Still leaving the reader of said materials in complete charge of their actions.

[clarkacademy]

If I listen to anyone who advocates forgiving a man for molesting my child, well then I am crazier than him. To welcome a husband home who was not only unfaithful but unfaithful with my child?? Are you kidding? How can anything good come of that EVER? I want to meet a woman who actually followed this advice. I really wanna know how happy and meaningful her marriage is knowing that her husband would rather force himself on a child than be with his wife.

 

I have meant children who were around this nonsense and they are not children I would even want to babysit let alone have as my own. Give me my rowdy happy yellers any day over a baby who is too scared to nurse because someone may yank it's hair or a child who cringes at sticks and plumbing pieces.

[Joanne]

 

 

Still leaving the reader of said materials in complete charge of their actions.

 

 

Books like The Surrendered Wife, Power of a Praying Wife, Created to Be His Helpmeet, and The Excellent Wife read by an abused wife serve to perpetuate the abuse.

 

TTUAC, which is abusive by any reasonable standard, becomes deadly in the heads of people severely challenged as parents (such as dealing with the special demands of RAD) who are striving to train good, Godly, Christian children.

 

The parents killed the child, but they are not the only ones with dirty hands.

[simka2]

 

 

Still leaving the reader of said materials in complete charge of their actions.

 

I disagree, even though I know it is not popular. There is reason why a parishoner cannot consent to sex with a Pastor, doctor, or therapist. There is the problem of power and authority. The Pearls lay a foundation of God's authority thru the vehicle of the annointed (them), before they tell you how to beat your children. Therefore you cannot disagree without risking your and your childrens soul to the pit of hell.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Still leaving the reader of said materials in complete charge of their actions.

 

Which doesn't exonerate the Pearls for theirs.

[clarkacademy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a doctrinal difference I have with them as well. In my opinion, there are good and valid and Biblical "exceptions" for divorce, and sexual immorality, which includes molesting children, is a big one. On the other hand, if a woman *chooses* to forgive her repentant husband of sexual immorality and stay with him anyway, I would never condemn her for that choice. If believe Debi Pearl is trying to express the lengths to which some women will choose to be their husband's help meet, even in the face un unthinkable betrayal. I wish she would have shared it as an extreme example and not so much as a recommendation, as it seems to come across in this quote.

 

 

 

.

 

Why would any woman want to be any help whatever to a man who gets his jollies off their kids? That is horrible. Not that my mother was married to my abuser but if she had been and behaved like this I would hate her even more. To damage me so badly then my mother my own mother to welcome him with open arms? That is twisted and it is beyond things I can say on this board

[LittleIzumi]

I was just listening to a talk that included, "Before you act, picture the Savior standing at your side and ask yourself, “Would I think it, would I say it, or would I do it knowing He is there?” For surely He is there."

 

I can not even imagine doing a single thing I have read from the Pearls in front of Christ. The thought makes me cringe or ill, depending on which part of their books. What really makes me sad is that the Pearls or their followers might, and oh the lesson that would follow. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." :(

 

And it's not about making the child better in the sight of God & man--"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Little children are of heaven, not some beastly sinful nature that needs to be forced out.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LittleIzumi