How would you answer this statement about a Pearl book?

[SKL]

And you didn't even blink at the fact that they recommended using a tree branch on a baby.

 

...the poor babies don't stand a chance.

 

You have personally read the book in order to be sure that the book, on balance, with all things taken in context, recommends abuse?

 

"Tree branch" is a nice way to sensationalize the quote previously posted. How many other teachings are being oversensationalized to support an opinion?

 

As for the poor babies not standing a chance - I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I've seen many babies grow up to be fine, happy adults despite being physically disciplined at an early age.

 

You know what I think is awful? People putting their kids in diapers and forcing them to eliminate on themselves past the age when they can biologically go on a potty/toilet. And a whole list of other things I could think of if I didn't have a conference call in 2 minutes, LOL. Maybe I should write a book.

[Rivka]

These quotes are referenced on a site that talks about the book (I don't have a copy of it), so I assume they are the references she was referring to:

 

 

Ps 23:4: Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort

 

Are you kidding me with this?! What kind of a sicko reads the 23rd psalm and decides that it's about how wonderful it is for kids to be beaten?

 

That beautiful psalm uses the extended metaphor of "the Lord is my shepherd" to talk about how blessed it is to be under God's care and protection. A shepherd provides for his sheep's needs, as God provides for the psalmist's needs. The sheep don't need to fear enemies, because the shepherd is armed with a stout rod and staff to drive away predators. The psalmist can even walk in the valley of the shadow of death without fear, because he is comforted knowing that his God is strong and will drive away his enemies.

 

I'm sorry - that is just twisted, to take the line about "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me" and decide that it means your tiny children will be comforted if you beat the cr@p out of them. I would not trust that man to interpret my scriptures.

[NanceXToo]

Um yes I've read the book and what other sort of 10 to 12 inch branch stripped of knots do YOU think they were talking about if not a tree branch? They used the word branch themselves. I'm sorry, me adding tree made it worse or more sensational? Please.

[SKL]

Um yes I've read the book and what other sort of 10 to 12 inch branch stripped of knots do YOU think they were talking about if not a tree branch? They used the word branch themselves. I'm sorry, me adding tree made it worse or more sensational? Please.

 

Obviously "tree branch" brings forth images of a big, hard stick. Not something flexible and 1/8" in diameter.

 

I get that you are against corporal punishment. You would not like my smacking my kids' hands, either (which would hurt more than using a willow twig). You are against what the majority of Americans do, and that is fine.

 

I'm glad to hear that you read the book. At least you have read the comments in context. I have not and will withhold judgment unless and until I do. (It is unlikely that I ever will, because I don't personally look to self-righteous humans to tell me how to raise my kids.)

 

It just concerns me that so many people consider an open-minded reading of a book to be enough to end a friendship. Especially when that attitude is often based on hearsay (of the "beat a baby with a tree branch" variety).

[astrid]

It just concerns me that so many people consider an open-minded reading of a book to be enough to end a friendship. Especially when that attitude is often based on hearsay (of the "beat a baby with a tree branch" variety).

 

Oh I don't know....I'd be willing to bet many here and in the larger conservative Christian community have ended friendships over Harry Potter and the like, and that's pure fiction for pete's sake.

 

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. ;)

 

astrid

[Truscifi]

Obviously "tree branch" brings forth images of a big, hard stick. Not something flexible and 1/8" in diameter.

 

I get that you are against corporal punishment. You would not like my smacking my kids' hands, either (which would hurt more than using a willow twig). You are against what the majority of Americans do, and that is fine.

 

I'm glad to hear that you read the book. At least you have read the comments in context. I have not and will withhold judgment unless and until I do. (It is unlikely that I ever will, because I don't personally look to self-righteous humans to tell me how to raise my kids.)

 

It just concerns me that so many people consider an open-minded reading of a book to be enough to end a friendship. Especially when that attitude is often based on hearsay (of the "beat a baby with a tree branch" variety).

 

Leaving aside the assumptions you are making about Nance's views on discipline in general, this did not start as an open minded reading of a book. The OP has already told the friend she disagrees. The friend has brought it up again. The OP feels the friend will continue to bring it up despite attempts to pass the bean dip. The friend has already told the OP she should be "hiding" her children more (as in spanking them). Based on all that, yeah, I wouldn't want to continue the relationship either.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I get that you are against corporal punishment. You would not like my smacking my kids' hands, either (which would hurt more than using a willow twig). You are against what the majority of Americans do, and that is fine.

 

 

 

You know, I never decided to take a completely anti-corporal punishment stance. However, I don't think that CP is as germane as it was when masters routinely hit their apprentices, when fist fights 'settled' things, and when the government used public whippings as part of their laws. In adult life, physical abuse is just not common anymore, at least in the US and Europe. And that is fairly new, historically, from only the last 150 years or so. Maybe less.

 

CP doesn't prepare kids for 'normal' life. It teaches them a behavior is that is reserved only for very young children in today's society, and that they themselves are unable to use on other children without significant problems. It is dysfuntional in the true sense of the word.

 

The purpose of it is to teach safety procedures and proper ways of dealing with others.

 

When I thought this through, I decided that I would be very careful to teach those things no matter what, as they are crucial, but that I would try to avoid physical punishment. And guess what? Like many others I found that I didn't need this tool to teach safety. I needed to be absolute in demanding it, and consistent in reminders about it, but I did not need to hit. And that was the main 'exception' that I had reserved for myself--that it's much better to swat a kid to keep him safe than to risk him. I didn't need it for that, so I didn't need it for anything.

 

More than anything, though, I needed to be fully engaged. I needed to train and teach and to do it through other means. That's the piece that tends to be missing in these kinds of discussions. The larger question is how to pass on values and behavior standards and morals to children--with or without those swats. People who only hit and do not teach otherwise are not parenting properly. Neither are those who teach ineffectively, whether they hit or not.

[Pamela H in Texas]

TUAC is available, in full, online.

 

Though I agree with some of the discipline standards (strictness?) of the Pearls, their methods are definitely child abuse. There is a huge difference between slapping a baby's hands away something dangerous and intentionally putting things in her path so you can hit her when she reaches for it. There is a huge difference between two quick swats and hitting them 8-12 times. There is a difference between swatting a 5month old, a 5 year old, and a 15yo.

 

I've blanket trained a baby and boundary trained several children (babies/toddlers). I believe it is helpful. I also did it without hitting them. Go figure. A parent can *choose* to get similar results without hitting if they so choose.

Edited February 27, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[SKL]

She did tell me yesterday that, "I should have given my children more hidings".

 

I've told her that we should just agree to disagree (and I strongly disagree!) on this issue, but I know she is not going to let it drop and I need to be able to have some replies ready for her as I don't know that I'll be able to pass the bean-dip on this either.

 

I understood the "more hidings" comment to be in reference to the friend's own kids, not the OP's kids. I guess I could be wrong.

 

I also do not get the impression that this friend brings this up continually. It may come up again and the OP can and should state her opinion. But end the friendship? Yes, if the woman endlessly harps on it and pushes it as "the way" (as opposed to merely mentioning it). Not just for reading it with an open mind.

 

Of course, I wasn't there in the original discussion, but that's my opinion based on what I read.

[astrid]

Well said.

 

astrid

[Spy Car]

How many children have to die before people understand the Pearl's methods are evil child abuse?

 

Bill

[astrid]

Sickening.

 

 

astrid

[Brilliant]

I understood the "more hidings" comment to be in reference to the friend's own kids, not the OP's kids. I guess I could be wrong.

 

 

Yes, that's the impression I got, too, which is still alarming. The friend is reading the book and coming away from it with guilt that she hasn't given her girls enough "hidings"!

 

Poor girls. :(

[Hannah]

I understood the "more hidings" comment to be in reference to the friend's own kids, not the OP's kids. I guess I could be wrong.

 

I also do not get the impression that this friend brings this up continually. It may come up again and the OP can and should state her opinion. But end the friendship? Yes, if the woman endlessly harps on it and pushes it as "the way" (as opposed to merely mentioning it). Not just for reading it with an open mind.

 

Of course, I wasn't there in the original discussion, but that's my opinion based on what I read.

 

Yes, the 'more hidings' comment was in reference to her own children. I don't think that she will spank the oldest two (who are already taller than I am) again, but I know that the youngest still gets spanked.

 

I am not going to end 10 years of friendship over this. We have always had our differences about corporal punishment and have managed to stay friends in spite of it. She is the only other homeschooler in the area who has similar academic standards and we have been supporting each other for years.

 

My friend won't push her opinions on me. I think my unusually vehement criticism of and opposition to the Pearls has caught her off guard and that is why she wants to pursue the discussion.

 

The links provided up thread have been very helpful - thank you to the PP's who posted them. I feel better prepared for any future discussions and will be able to counter some of her arguments directly.

 

ETA: I have read the book myself and it is the only book I've ever thrown into the trash.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Hannah

[Lang Syne Boardie]

How many children have to die before people understand the Pearl's methods are evil child abuse?

 

Bill

 

More still, I'm afraid. :crying:

 

Whenever the name Pearl comes up I only see the faces of Sean and Lydia. I will never forget those children.

[elfgivas]

Obviously "tree branch" brings forth images of a big, hard stick. Not something flexible and 1/8" in diameter.

 

I get that you are against corporal punishment. You would not like my smacking my kids' hands, either (which would hurt more than using a willow twig). You are against what the majority of Americans do, and that is fine.

 

I'm glad to hear that you read the book. At least you have read the comments in context. I have not and will withhold judgment unless and until I do. (It is unlikely that I ever will, because I don't personally look to self-righteous humans to tell me how to raise my kids.)

 

It just concerns me that so many people consider an open-minded reading of a book to be enough to end a friendship. Especially when that attitude is often based on hearsay (of the "beat a baby with a tree branch" variety).

 

there are some things i am not prepared to be open minded about.

 

eg. beating your wife is not okay. there is nothing you can say to me that will make it okay. whether you beat her with a tree branch or a small stick doesn't make it okay. whether you can quote me bible passages about disciplining your wife or not doesn't make it okay.

 

if you are reading a book that recommends beating your wife, that is enough for me to end a friendship over. i am actually not prepared to be friends with or be around and influenced by someone who believes that is okay. particularly not if they read the book and announce "i should have beaten my wife more".

 

sigh....

 

eta: yes, i know the pearls are discussing children, not wives. but one technique for checking one's reasoning for undiscovered biases and/or prejudices is to substitute something else in and see if the reasoning holds.....

Edited February 27, 2012 by elfgivas@yahoo.com

[astrid]

Yes, that's the impression I got, too, which is still alarming. The friend is reading the book and coming away from it with guilt that she hasn't given her girls enough "hidings"!

 

Poor girls. :(

 

When I read that quotation in the OP I was immediately reminded of Andrea Yates.

 

astrid

[SKL]

When I read that quotation in the OP I was immediately reminded of Andrea Yates.

 

astrid

 

Andrea Yates is severely mentally ill, went off her meds, and intentionally drowned her five children. Not sure what that has to do with the Pearls. Do the Pearl books instruct parents to drown their children in the bathtub?

 

The friend said that she felt she didn't discipline her kids enough. Many parents have said that. Many kids have even said it about their own parents. Sometimes it's true. The word "hidings" is just a substitute word for "spanking."

 

Really, I'm getting a little scared hearing people jump from "I should have spanked my kid more" to "I drowned my five kids in the bathtub."

[Truscifi]

Yes, the 'more hidings' comment was in reference to her own children. I don't think that she will spank the oldest two (who are already taller than I am) again, but I know that the youngest still gets spanked.

 

I am not going to end 10 years of friendship over this. We have always had our differences about corporal punishment and have managed to stay friends in spite of it. She is the only other homeschooler in the area who has similar academic standards and we have been supporting each other for years.

 

My friend won't push her opinions on me. I think my unusually vehement criticism of and opposition to the Pearls has caught her off guard and that is why she wants to pursue the discussion.

 

The links provided up thread have been very helpful - thank you to the PP's who posted them. I feel better prepared for any future discussions and will be able to counter some of her arguments directly.

 

ETA: I have read the book myself and it is the only book I've ever thrown into the trash.

 

I see that I misinterpreted what you originally posted. If she is not pushing her views on you and not commenting on your childrearing techniques, and you feel comfortable continuing to be friends with her, by all means go ahead. I am still not sure I would want to spend time with her if this is what she wants to talk about.

 

And yes, I have read the book.

[Rivka]

SKL, I find it ironic that you are vigorously defending a book you haven't read, while criticizing many of us who have read it in its entirety for jumping to conclusions or misrepresenting the text.

[NanceXToo]

And really I'm getting a little scared hearing people find ways to shrug off beating infants with tree branches and other such forms of abuse as normal and ok and repeatedly justifying and defending and validating such a thing.

[justasque]

OP, I'm going to take a different direction to this than previous posters.

Your friend is reading this book, even though her kids are older than the target age of the book. She (OP's friend) seems to be wondering whether she did the right thing when her kids were younger.

 

I would gently explore with her why she's revisiting the past. What is going on in the present that is making this book resonate with her now? Is she feeling concerned or anxious about her children, especially as they hit the teen years? Have they reached an age where the parent can no longer completely control them and their world, something that your friend might be finding scary?

 

I would not end the friendship at this point. Rather, I'd use my status as "friend" to help her explore her feelings, dig a bit to see what the underlying issues are, etc. I wouldn't want someone who is at something of a juncture in their lives to be marginalized and cut off from gentle input from those with a different point of view. I'd want her to have a variety of friends, each of whom may have a different perspective, so the friend could weigh the various angles and decide in her heart how to proceed.

[brehon]

SKL, I find it ironic that you are vigorously defending a book you haven't read, while criticizing many of us who have read it in its entirety for jumping to conclusions or misrepresenting the text.

 

Yeah, I noticed that, too. :001_huh:

[SKL]

SKL, I find it ironic that you are vigorously defending a book you haven't read, while criticizing many of us who have read it in its entirety for jumping to conclusions or misrepresenting the text.

 

I'm not defending the book. I'm saying that ending a friendship over open-mindedly reading (and discussing) ANY book is way over the top.

[astrid]

Andrea Yates is severely mentally ill, went off her meds, and intentionally drowned her five children. Not sure what that has to do with the Pearls. Do the Pearl books instruct parents to drown their children in the bathtub?

 

The friend said that she felt she didn't discipline her kids enough. Many parents have said that. Many kids have even said it about their own parents. Sometimes it's true. The word "hidings" is just a substitute word for "spanking."

 

Really, I'm getting a little scared hearing people jump from "I should have spanked my kid more" to "I drowned my five kids in the bathtub."

 

Well by "people" I think you mean "person," me. I haven't seen anyone else state that, but maybe I've missed a post.

 

That said, you're making a whole lot of assumptions here. The post of mine to which you're referring is one sentence. That's it. I said the phrase "I should have given my girls more hidings" reminded me of the statements of Andrea Yates. Period. I did not say the OP's friend will drown her children in a bathtub. Please. Poor Andrea Yates uttered many, many cries for help, most of which were ignored or worse, before taking the lives of her children. In my opinion, anyone who believes it is acceptable to beat infants IS mentally ill.

 

And really, I"m getting a little scared by the fact that several people in this thread are condoning the beating of infants with tree switches and other methods of Pearl abuse. CHILDREN HAVE DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE TEACHINGS ESPOUSED BY THE PEARLS IN THIS BOOK. Your blind defense of a book you admittedly have not read, in the face of numerous graphic quotations concerns me. I HAVE read it, not because I was in any way toying with the idea of employing the techniques, but because I wrote a paper for a class about corporal punishment. I suggest you read the book as others have before you jump to any more conclusions about the teachings and techniques therein.

 

astrid

[Pink Fairy]

TUAC is available, in full, online.

 

Though I agree with some of the discipline standards (strictness?) of the Pearls, their methods are definitely child abuse. There is a huge difference between slapping a baby's hands away something dangerous and intentionally putting things in her path so you can hit her when she reaches for it. There is a huge difference between two quick swats and hitting them 8-12 times. There is a difference between swatting a 5month old, a 5 year old, and a 15yo.

I've blanket trained a baby and boundary trained several children (babies/toddlers). I believe it is helpful. I also did it without hitting them. Go figure. A parent can *choose* to get similar results without hitting if they so choose.

 

I agree with the bolded. And although I've never tried blanket training, I am fairly certain it would work the way everything else works with my kids--those who are already naturally compliant would be "trained." The others would rather die (hyperbole) than submit.

[SpecialClassical]

I have not read every post. How about suggesting she read the Bible and use commentaries and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries to understand the Scriptures better. Along with prayer for guidance she can't go wrong in her child rearing with that approach.

[Pink Fairy]

I have not read every post. How about suggesting she read the Bible and use commentaries and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries to understand the Scriptures better. Along with prayer for guidance she can't go wrong in her child rearing with that approach.

 

I don't know. People have been using Holy Scripture to justify wrongdoing pretty much since there was scripture to distort. Think of the pharisees and Satan tempting Jesus in the desert.

 

If she is already heading down that path, she may find that reading the scriptures with a Pearl mindset will reinforce their teachings.

[SKL]

Your blind defense of a book you admittedly have not read, in the face of numerous graphic quotations concerns me. I HAVE read it, not because I was in any way toying with the idea of employing the techniques, but because I wrote a paper for a class about corporal punishment. I suggest you read the book as others have before you jump to any more conclusions about the teachings and techniques therein.

 

astrid

 

Like I said, I am not defending the book, but rather disagreeing that the OP should end a friendship over the open-minded reading of it. I just went back and read all of my posts, and I have not defended the book ever.

 

As for the final sentence of the above quote, you seem to be OK with people demonizing the Pearls despite never having read the book based on "jumping to conclusions . . . ." I have openly disclaimed any direct knowledge of what the books say, but I clearly see people using sensational language to influence others' opinions - here and in other threads I've read.

 

Of the commenters here who have read the books, some are horrified and some are in agreement with the authors. I say, that's a good enough reason for someone to want to read the books WITH AN OPEN MIND (which, based on your motive stated above, was not how you read them).

[aggieamy]

Whoa, I thought this was strictly a BAC text??? Catholics are using this?

 

Cradle Catholic jumping in here. This is NOT a Catholic thing. I've never seen nor heard a Catholic supporting this book. Myself and my Catholic friends tend towards the 'no spanking' method of discipline.

 

there are some things i am not prepared to be open minded about.

 

eg. beating your wife is not okay. there is nothing you can say to me that will make it okay. whether you beat her with a tree branch or a small stick doesn't make it okay. whether you can quote me bible passages about disciplining your wife or not doesn't make it okay.

 

if you are reading a book that recommends beating your wife, that is enough for me to end a friendship over. i am actually not prepared to be friends with or be around and influenced by someone who believes that is okay. particularly not if they read the book and announce "i should have beaten my wife more".

 

sigh....

 

eta: yes, i know the pearls are discussing children, not wives. but one technique for checking one's reasoning for undiscovered biases and/or prejudices is to substitute something else in and see if the reasoning holds.....

 

I could subsititute the word "dog" for "wife" and it still wouldn't be okay.

[TranquilMind]

I know, not another Pearl thread, but I really need advice.

 

My friend is reading the Pearl's "To Train Up a Child".

 

I've told her that I think their teachings are dangerous and how it has lead to child abuse and even death.

 

.

 

I don't think stating something baldly like this is effective or even accurate. This is the kind of thing that just turns people off, as it is unsubstantiated opinion.

 

You might say something about having concerns because you read a news item where some parent took Pearl's teachings to an extreme (fill in details/dates, etc...I do remember a case), and this sort of thing causes you to be extremely wary and why.

 

To simply say something like this is exactly like saying, "Cars kill people, so driving is dangerous." or "Guns have been used to kill people, so no one should ever listen to Joe Blow of the NRA".

[TranquilMind]

Rosy: I am no fan of the Pearls, but there are many, many people who read their stuff and don't become child abusers. I think the Pearl books are most dangerous in the hands of people who have extreme personalities or a black-and-white view of the world. If she seems to be a healthy, solid person in general and has a good relationship with her husband, you probably don't need to worry about her.

 

 

Exactly.

[astrid]

As for the final sentence of the above quote, you seem to be OK with people demonizing the Pearls despite never having read the book based on "jumping to conclusions . . . ." I have openly disclaimed any direct knowledge of what the books say, but I clearly see people using sensational language to influence others' opinions - here and in other threads I've read.

 

Of the commenters here who have read the books, some are horrified and some are in agreement with the authors. I say, that's a good enough reason for someone to want to read the books WITH AN OPEN MIND (which, based on your motive stated above, was not how you read them).

 

First bolded quote: Not exactly sure what you mean here. I HAVE read the book, and others by them. I"m okay with demonizing the Pearls because they espouse beating very young children with sticks and plumbing supply lines for their inherent evil. In modern, civilized society, that's known as abuse and is against the law. Not having read the book "without jumping to conclusions?" Not sure what you mean, unless it's the second bolded quotation.

 

In which case, you are ASSUMING I read the book without an open mind. You're ASSUMING I read the book while writing a position paper AGAINST corporal punishment. I did not state this. I said I read it as I wrote a paper ABOUT corporal punishment. YOU assumed I did not haven an open mind. Do you not think I'm capable of reading something and forming my own opinions?

 

astrid

[TranquilMind]

SKL: With all the stuff out there that people read, I can't agree that reading a book (assuming a sane mind) is going to lead to a crime. People read and watch fiction and nonfiction about things more horrible than a normal brain could even imagine, and then they go about their business without hurting others.

 

No freaking kidding. I can't even believe what I'm reading here, about telling the woman there is no way you can be friends with her at all because she - at this point in time - approves of some of the principles she read in a book.

 

I guess everyone who reads that stupid Twilight series is ready to suck your blood too, by that logic.

 

I haven't read the Pearls, but I've read plenty of books I either completely or partly disagree with. (Including books encouraging permissiveness and overly child-centered worlds.) When I read something I hadn't thought of before, my mind goes through a stretching exercise and I come to my own conclusion (or reconfirmation) which may be the exact opposite of what I have read. I am pretty sure that's what most others do as well.

 

Yes. In most topics like this, it is wise to read various viewpoints.

 

Would you prevent your child from reading Mark Twain because you don't want him to become a racist? I wouldn't. I read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn (as a kid) and managed to take the good and leave the bad. I give sane adults that much credit.

 

Thank you.

 

I think you did enough by telling the woman that some parents put the Pearls above common sense and go way too far. Your friend acknowledged that the book is not to be followed blindly. I would let it go. If you witness actual legal abuse of her kids, or if she tries to tell you that you should be beating your kids, that's a different issue.

 

Exactly. There are some very harsh people here who would eliminate a friendship because the friend read a book and agreed with some -not all- of the principles. Unbelievable. If she does anything dangerous, that would be another matter, but she's...read a book.

[SKL]

First bolded quote: Not exactly sure what you mean here. I HAVE read the book, and others by them. I"m okay with demonizing the Pearls because they espouse beating very young children with sticks and plumbing supply lines for their inherent evil. In modern, civilized society, that's known as abuse and is against the law. Not having read the book "without jumping to conclusions?" Not sure what you mean, unless it's the second bolded quotation.

 

In which case, you are ASSUMING I read the book without an open mind. You're ASSUMING I read the book while writing a position paper AGAINST corporal punishment. I did not state this. I said I read it as I wrote a paper ABOUT corporal punishment. YOU assumed I did not haven an open mind. Do you not think I'm capable of reading something and forming my own opinions?

 

astrid

 

Let me clarify. What I meant was that you seem to be OK with other people, who have not read the book, jumping to NEGATIVE conclusions based on hearsay. So it's not "jumping to conclusions" that bothers you, really, it's my willingness to be open to another interpretation.

 

And yes, I'm assuming that you read the book without an open mind. Which is your right - lots of people do it. But reading it with an open mind should be allowed too - don't you think? No, based on what I've read here, that would be an unforgivable offense.

[TranquilMind]

ThatCyndiGirl: I would not let this person around my children.

 

I think that they are so blinded by the writings of child abusers who gleefully condone child rape that they will not hear any dissent.

 

Sick.

 

 

 

??? I don't even understand what this means. The Pearls are "blinded by the writings of child abusers who gleefully condone child rape"? I'm pretty sure they advocate calling the police on someone who abuses or rapes a child.

 

Link, please, for support of your statement?

[TranquilMind]

I could say all of this about Blue Algea (which a "friend" energetically tried to sell me on), but I declined to buy that also.

 

We're not talking about computers. We're talking about humans with the capacity to reason and to know when they've gone too far.

 

If every case of child abuse were connected with the Pearls, you might have a point. But the fact is, some people are abusers. They will abuse their kids whether they ever hear of the Pearls or not.

 

OP, you know your friend as a seasoned parent. If she has not abused her kids before, she's not going to start now. If she is already an abuser, the book is not to blame.

Right.

[Ellesmere]

It's not the same. The Pearls are very dangerous. They can be very seductive. They claim to know how to raise perfectly obedient children and go on about how you can have kids who will obey the first time every time and how this is good for your kids and your relationship because it will lead to harmony in the relationship and so on and so forth and then you can enjoy your kids, and they'll always listen to you. They talk about how this can even save your kids because once in a dangerous situation their kids listened when it counted no questions asked and its important for kids to do that. They lure parents into thinking, can it really be that way? Will my kids really be that obedient if I just follow these teachings, and will it really make my relationship better in the long run? Then, to make it worse, they get the religious/Christian parents by throwing in all this bible stuff. Plus, they say, the bible TELLS you to do this. We can prove it. And they go on and on about how the bible and Jesus and so on says this is what you should do, and you would not believe how CONVINCING they can be. And they go on and on about their "success stories," and they've got people buying into it left and right, wanting to believe them, wanting to be doing the "right" thing (ironic!), and the "biblical" thing. And they manage to get so many of those conservative religious parents scared that they're dooming their kids to hell if they don't do what they're told. Even some people thinking, well, maybe I don't have to do it that extreme. But if at first it doesn't work they're told, well, but you didn't REALLY follow it, you can't just half way follow it, you have to go ALL IN and believe us, it will work, and then you won't HAVE to do it so much anymore and blah blah blah... it's such a dangerous horrible slippery slope but people are DOING IT!!

 

I've seen people right here on this board admit they subscribe to the Pearls' followings.

 

It's nowhere NEAR the same thing as some off-hand remark about how reading Mark Twain could make someone a racist.

:iagree:Only I'm not smiling. It is all too sad.

 

 

OP, I'm going to take a different direction to this than previous posters.

Your friend is reading this book, even though her kids are older than the target age of the book. She (OP's friend) seems to be wondering whether she did the right thing when her kids were younger.

 

I would gently explore with her why she's revisiting the past. What is going on in the present that is making this book resonate with her now? Is she feeling concerned or anxious about her children, especially as they hit the teen years? Have they reached an age where the parent can no longer completely control them and their world, something that your friend might be finding scary?

 

I would not end the friendship at this point. Rather, I'd use my status as "friend" to help her explore her feelings, dig a bit to see what the underlying issues are, etc. I wouldn't want someone who is at something of a juncture in their lives to be marginalized and cut off from gentle input from those with a different point of view. I'd want her to have a variety of friends, each of whom may have a different perspective, so the friend could weigh the various angles and decide in her heart how to proceed.

 

I agree. OP, you have to take care of yourself first if she tries pushing this line of thinking on you. But as long as she respects you, if there's an opportunity to be a rational voice in her life, she needs it. If she pushes you away, that's her choice, but the worst thing that can happen is if she is only surrounded by people that agree with her.

 

Not that it is easy. I'm still trying to weigh how to proceed in a similar situation. Due to other reasons, I've had to step away. But I've tried to stay in touch casually and just be around in case she ever listens to the doubts about this kind of "parenting advice" and needs someone with a different perspective.

[TranquilMind]

I have not read the Pearl books.

 

But when I was growing up, people definitely spanked babies under a year old. It was very normal. It was to teach them not to touch stuff that could hurt them. Nobody even thought twice about it. Somewhere along the line someone convinced people that they need to get all emotional about what used to be normal discipline.

 

I spanked my 10mo's hands on occasion to teach her not to do unsafe things. It was rarely needed because she learned quite readily. She had a lot of freedom and a low frustration level as a kid thanks to her early development of self-control. Disciplined kids are generally happy kids.

This is true. Spanking as in tapping their hands. I actually found it better to take the little hand and hold it while saying, "NO, don't touch this. HOT, HOT! OW!" Things like that, acting it out myself (without actually touching).

 

Every generation before this one did this routinely. Now, in the present generation, there is outrage. I'm all for gentle discipline if it works. But I'm not against a small smack on the hand of a kid who just WILL NOT LISTEN. I didn't have one like that (when little anyway) but I know people whose kids were always touching the stove or sticking things in the light sockets.

[astrid]

I can't speak for everyone, but I read the OP to mean that her friend told her that HER (the OP's) children hadn't been given enough "hidings." Since, the OP has clarified.

 

Personally, I find a big difference between reading the Twilight fiction series and reading the Pearls, employing their techniques and then recommending I do the same.

 

Could you be friends with someone who engaged in something you find completely abusive? Everyone's entitled to their opinions here.

 

So just to clarify....you're saying that all those Conservative Christians who break ties with former friends over books such as "Harry Potter," etc. are in the wrong, too, correct?

 

astrid

[Spy Car]

There would be pedophiles without the man-boy love association too, doesn't mean we have to read their literature to know they are sickos.

 

The Pearls are the scum of the earth. Children have died as a result of parents following their twisted advice. How many more have been beaten with plumbing supply-lines and other whips?

 

I can not believe people are defending proponents of child abuse.

 

Bill

Edited February 27, 2012 by Spy Car

[Heidi]

I have always been taught that the rod in the scriptures symbolizes the word of God. The Word of God would be a comfort to the child.

 

Not sure right now where to back this up though...

 

"Canon" is of Greek origin, originally meaning "a rod for testing straightness."

[coffeefreak]

I know, not another Pearl thread, but I really need advice.

 

My friend is reading the Pearl's "To Train Up a Child".

 

I've told her that I think their teachings are dangerous and how it has lead to child abuse and even death.

 

Her answer is that their principles are biblical (she says she is reading the book with the Bible at her side and can't find fault with their theology) and that their advice in the second half of the book is just their interpretation of these principles. According to her things like having to use a tool for spanking, lashing a child 10 times are 'just their opinion' and that one can take the good from the book without taking it to extremes.

 

She did tell me yesterday that, "I should have given my children more hidings". She quotes the scriptures (used in the book) that say that physical punishment cleanses the soul and that the rod is a comfort to the child. Apparently she 'missed this' before. I really have no answer to this.

 

I've told her that we should just agree to disagree (and I strongly disagree!) on this issue, but I know she is not going to let it drop and I need to be able to have some replies ready for her as I don't know that I'll be able to pass the bean-dip on this either.

 

Honestly, you may not be able to be around her while she's in this phase. I say phase because I've had many friends go through this and they absolutely WILL NOT agree to let it drop. They drop comments, judge my kids, post on facebook, and quote the Pearls all the freaking time. Nothing I say makes a difference. I'm in sin, they are not, and their children are somehow going to turn out perfect while mine will be hedonistic sinners the rest of their lives.

 

Some are still in this phase and we rarely talk. Some are not and we have discussions about how the Pearls almost ruined our lives. I'd say pray, and if she won't agree to drop it, you'll have to distance yourself from her.

:grouphug:

Blessings!

Dorinda

[coffeefreak]

And no, I didn't read the rest of the thread before I posted. I know better on these Pearl threads. Best to just state my opinion and get out.;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I was going to reply but Ann, Mrs. Mungo, NanceX and ThatCyndiGirl have it covered!

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[SKL]

So just to clarify....you're saying that all those Conservative Christians who break ties with former friends over books such as "Harry Potter," etc. are in the wrong, too, correct?

 

I would not advise someone to break a friendship over Harry Potter. I think anyone who would offer such advice would be wrong. Does that answer your question?

[astrid]

Bottom line is the Pearls advocate child abuse, in may forms. Children have died as a result of their teachings. I did read their book initially with an open mind, contrary to your belief. About four pages in, whilst reading about how exactly to beat an infant so as not to leave bruises for the rest of the world to see, I formed an opinion.

 

You are certainly free to agree or disagree with me. But I will not waver in my belief (shared by many) that the Pearls are evil, their teachings are evil, and I would not be friends with anyone who not only employed their techniques but felt I should as well.

 

Couch it in whatever terms you please. Advocating the beating of children with tools until they cannot breath and no longer flee is abuse. I will not condone it by failing to stand up against it.

 

astrid

[TranquilMind]

SKL: You have personally read the book in order to be sure that the book, on balance, with all things taken in context, recommends abuse?

 

I've noticed that a number of people say they have not even read the book, but they sure are heaping condemnation on the friend of the poster.

 

"Tree branch" is a nice way to sensationalize the quote previously posted. How many other teachings are being oversensationalized to support an opinion?

 

Exactly. I guess I can say that I got "beaten" with a "redwood tree" when I was a child, but that wouldn't accurately represent what happened (a couple of times, and I never did this; it was common in that era though).

 

As for the poor babies not standing a chance - I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I've seen many babies grow up to be fine, happy adults despite being physically disciplined at an early age.

 

I guess all the poor babies of the 40's, 50's and 60's all failed at life because they were "beaten". Oh, wait....

 

You know what I think is awful? People putting their kids in diapers and forcing them to eliminate on themselves past the age when they can biologically go on a potty/toilet.

 

Amen! True. We do that all backwards. I did too, because that is all I knew, but if I had a baby today, I would see if he/she would be ready a little earlier. I know my daughter could have been one of those babies who let you know she had to go. Gee, some kids are still in those pull up things at 4 or 5 years old today.

[Lovedtodeath]

Her answer is that their principles are biblical (she says she is reading the book with the Bible at her side and can't find fault with their theology)

This is true of many false teachers. How else would they get followers? Read Mrs. Mungo's links and look at Common hermeneutical errors.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, that's the impression I got, too, which is still alarming. The friend is reading the book and coming away from it with guilt that she hasn't given her girls enough "hidings"!

 

Poor girls. :(

What it tells me is not that she regrets not giving them enough "hidings" as if that is important in itself, but she regrets how they have turned out in some ways, and thinks she should have done something differently. She's thinking maybe spanking them might have helped. Who knows. It could have hurt or helped. Millions of people are raised with spankings or without and turn out well either way (or not).

 

It's kind of late to do anything like that differently now, anyway.