Can We Talk about the Pearls Here?

[Rebecca in GA]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, Kim, and I respect you for it. You sound like a very good mom.

 

Michael Pearl is not funny to me, though, and I was born and raised in the South. I am not ignorant of his writings when I pass "harsh" judgment. Multiple times now, I've read TTUAC, three No Greater Joy compilation books, Debi's Created to be His Help Meet and the NGJ magazine, in addition to the website. My friends and I discussed his methods at length. In fact, I followed his teachings to the letter for a period of time until my children started flinching when I tried to hug or help them.

 

Perhaps the Pearls have a relevant ministry and perhaps Michael Pearl is a good man. I don't really care. All I know is that my family started working better as soon as I trashed TTUAC, picked up my Bible and started praying for wisdom for my husband, children and self.

[astrid]

Exactly. So much of his writing here (and I didn't read all of it as it make me feel sick) sounds like he's training an animal. These poor, poor children.

 

I"m a reasonably successful competitive dog trainer and I would never employ any of the Pearl's "tactics" on any animal, let alone human being. All I can say is this..... and it's a phrase that in itself bugs me quite often, but since the Pearls are all about their Godly life and raising Godly kids and being all Godly, I ask the question anyway.......

 

WWJD?

I"m certainly no expert, but I"m pretty sure he'd be appalled at beating babies with plumbing supply lines and ridiculing children who try to defend themselves.

 

Shaking my head......

[bairnmama]

Bairnmama,

 

WHY choose swatting (switching, belting, smacking, spanking, etc) when other methods work just as well? When it all comes down to consistently training, why NOT do it in a different way that doesn't require hitting in some manner or another?

 

In my experience, depending on the child of course, other methods do NOT work just as well. I babysat a pair of siblings in my home for 3 weeks (the last week being dropped off on Sun and picked up on Fri due to family issues) and I could redirect, move the object in question when possible, move the child (he was 9 months and crawling fast & climbing) all day with no result. As they were not my kids, I did not use the method of hand thumping I used on my own. For 2 weeks this persisted until I asked permission to thump his little hand with my middle finger no more than twice for each occurance. The father agreed and within 1 hour the next day the matter was resolved.

 

 

I can see people swatting a 3, 4, 5 yr old for a handful of things a handful of times. I have a REALLY hard time seeing swatting an infant or toddler. The very idea upsets me. These are people who have not had the time, relationship, opportunity to learn yet.

 

 

Yes, they have not had the time to learn yet, which is precisely why I would thump immediately... to facilitate the learning that this was something not to touched or played with. (My household case may have been special as my dh was bringing home used rocket launchers, gas masks, expensive optics, etc due to his military specialty. There are not many places to put these things out of reach besides normal household cleaners/medicines/etc. in a 640 sq. ft. house with no carport/garage and only 3 closets.:001_unsure:) I did not change from thumping the hand to an actual, like most people think of, spanking until my children were almost 3. I made sure they could understand what I was saying and why I was spanking before I went to that step. And then, I only spank for outright defiance and disobediance. They are children and will behave childishly. I tend to let natural consequences fall for childish behavior. A child writing on the walls gets their crayons taken away and help to clean it off, while locking the car door and laughing when I come around to buckle them in, *after* being told never to lock the door when I am not in the car, gets a spanking.

 

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it just hasn't been the case in my experience.

[Melissa in CA]

So, if I understand you correctly, my daughter with more than the average number of piercings and a tattoo is a vulgar mouthed, rebellious teenager?

 

No, I did not mean to imply they all go hand in hand. I know some very clean cut kids who have horribly filthy gutter mouths...'Christians' no less...and some tattooed and pierced who do not. It was a blanket statement encompassing a variety of situations/children who are exhibiting different forms of rebellion. Because one is tattooed does not make one rebellious...unless they are going against their parents specific wishes.

 

 

all the problems in the world today are because of the humanists?

 

Again, no. Nor are all the problems in the world due to fundamental Christianity as I have heard some say. The problems in this world are far too complex to lay specific blame.

 

My dd with multiple piercings and a tattoo is a lovely, respectful, sweet spoken young lady. She intelligent, hard working and respected by her elders and employers. She is active in her church youth group. In fact, a previous employer called her yesterday asking her to come back to work for a couple months because she was the best young employee he had.

 

That is fantastic! I am sure you are very proud of her, and rightly so. ;)

 

 

Of course, if you feel having piercings or tattoos is immoral, I know quite a few Christians who would fit that description also.

 

No, that is not the immorality I was speaking of. I would not say piercings and tattoos are "immoral." I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Tutor]

I could have written this post, too! (Probably have. LOL :001_smile: )

 

I have gained some wonderful helps and encouragements through my readings of To Train Up a Child and On Becoming Babywise. The mothers who recommended them to me gave these and other books and advice to me with the reminder that I am the mom and an intelligent person and to filter everything I read, whether it be on schooling, childrearing, money, or whatever, through Scripture and to compare it to my family's beliefs, philosophies and talents.

 

I do recommend To Train Up a Child and Babywise to new parents still. (ETA: There have been a few families I have not recommended these books to because I think they are too unsure of themselves as parents yet, and would not measure what they read before applying it.) However, I give them the same warning/ advice/ admonition I was given. I do this no matter what I recommend. There is as much of a lesson for new parents in analyzing the information they get, no matter the source, as in receiving the information in the first place.

 

To blame a book. movie, philosophy, etc for our own sinful acts is immature. These things can have great influence over us, but for a healthy adult, part of maturity is taking responsibility for your own actions and not being so quick to pass the buck. It happens way to much in our world (I know, I've done it myself), and it makes me sad.

 

 

I have gotten some benefit from both the Pearls and the Babywise book. But - I read their materials with discretion and only chose to use those things that seemed to be of benefit to me.

 

From the Pearls:

 

1. I like the idea of "tying heart-strings" that was talked about in one of their books (I think it was the "Train up Your Child" book). What they talked about was taking the time to sit down with your child and mend the relationship when things had gotten "off" between you.

 

2. I learned that it was much more important to train your child in what he/she should do instead of just focusing on what he/she shouldn't do.

 

3. I learned (in a series of articles on kids "jumping ship") that it is important to have fun with your children and to let them see that living a godly life is a blast instead of a dark dreary thing (that they would love to get away from as soon as they can).

 

From Babywise:

 

1. I learned that having a routine (not a schedule tied to the clock) is a beneficial thing for me and my baby and made things easier for us in the toddler years. I did not make my babies wait to eat if they were hungry.

[Kelli in TN]

Moira, you're right. Forgive me. I was only speaking of my own personal humanist friends and how differently we think morally. That does not mean that I don't respect them. We get along famously. I truly am not the judgmental, do-it-my-way-or-you're-wrong sort, nor do I like to debate...well...anything! :D

 

I should not have mentioned anything about Humanism in my initial post...I was not thinking (nor do I often post in the general boards...with good reason ;))

 

I'm sorry if I offended. Truly.

 

You classy lady, you.

 

We all do it!! It is so hard to get across what is really in your heart when you are looking at the little white posting space on the computer screen.

 

If we kept a record of how many times a poster had to backtrack and apologize, I am sure I would get some sort of trophy.

 

Please don't leave the general board. It's not always this intense. Sometimes we just have fun or compare dishwash detergent!!

[astrid]

 

Why do I focus on Michael Pearl's comments (small or otherwise) about using physical correction? Because they reveal him to be a person whose opinion is not worthy of my consideration. It's as simple as that.

 

 

Well said, Colleen! :001_smile:

[Kelli in TN]

 

To blame a book. movie, philosophy, etc for our own sinful acts is immature. These things can have great influence over us, but for a healthy adult, part of maturity is taking responsibility for your own actions and not being so quick to pass the buck. It happens way to much in our world (I know, I've done it myself), and it makes me sad.

 

I take complete responsibility for the lost childhood years that tore my family apart. I may have learned my methods from the Pearls and the Ezzos and their fan clubs, but I made the choice to follow it. I don't think pointing out the twisted theology, anti-woman, emotionally and physically abusive dogma in Mr. Pearl's written and spoken teachings is quite the same thing as passing the buck.

 

Many of us have plenty of guilt over following those clowns. I know who to blame every time I look in the mirror.

[Tutor]

Thank you for pointing this out, Kelli. I know that many (probably most) who have followed a method, philosophy, suggestion, whatever that they have later found to be flawed, wrong, or otherwise often do take responsibility for their actions. It is the ones who don't that seem to stand out and drive me crazy. It seems to be what we (via the media and whatnot) focus on.

 

To be honest, I have only read the two books I mentioned and I did not see any of the "twisted theology, anti-woman, emotionally and physically abusive dogma" that you mentioned. I honestly haven't. Now, I read the Pearl's book 12 years ago, and the Ezzo book (for the fourth time) about 5 years ago, so maybe time or the fact that I just filtered it as I read means I don't remember it accurately, but I would be surprised to have missed this much. I am just always amazed at how vehement people are against these people when I 1) don't see the same things as others apparently do in these two books (as I understand, there are two versions of the Ezzo book, so maybe that explains that) and 2) see articles like the one mentioned by the OP when there are so many places where things went terribly wrong for this poor child but the Pearls seem to catch all the blame. It just baffles me. I don't understand it. I understand speaking against a philosophy you think is wrong. That's fine. I am just always caught off-guard and surprised with the passion directed against the Pearls and Ezzos.

[Kelli in TN]

To be honest, I have only read the two books I mentioned and I did not see any of the "twisted theology, anti-woman, emotionally and physically abusive dogma" that you mentioned.

 

This is my experience with them.

That is why I am so passionate about it.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yes, my initial post was in regards to the thought that spanking in any form is bad, bad, bad. I was just disagreeing and giving our experience. I didn't expect such a backlash for it.

 

I sure didn't know I had to take the time to present my experience LOGICALLY! :lol: Goodness...that is just way too taxing for my pea brain! ;)

 

I guess the thing is, I've not read anybody *here* arguing that spanking in any form is bad, bad, bad.

 

It's just that it read like, "Well, it's a good thing our kids were spanked and that we're not humanists, otherwise our kids would be hooligans like those permissive folks who don't spank and therefore don't discipline and who are, by the way, humanists.

 

Anyhow, I'm sorry you are feeling that we're holding your feet to the fire -- I know you only meant to say, "Too bad so many of our youth have no discipline. That's a hard thing to have happen to our society."

And to that I offer a hearty :iagree:. On an inclusive board with some people who don't spank and *do* discipline and who have respectful, delightfully reared children and who *are* humanists, you just have to expect that those of us who are one or more of these things will probably speak up and say, "Hey! Watch who you're painting with that broad brush of yours."

 

:001_smile:

 

ETA: I'm sorry that I didn't read the whole thread before replying. I see you have addressed this further into the discussion.

[LisaNY]

Ironically enough, I just received their NGJ (No Greater Joy) newsletter yesterday, and as I was thumbing through it, I was struck by how the passionate negativity expressed by so many here, was contrasted by the tone of the newsletter. It was about silly boys, missionary training and evangelism, etc. with many pictures of little ones expressing joy. It is not that I agree with everything that the Pearl's teach. I don't. But, I'm not sure that I've read or listened to any "parenting" teachers that I have not disagreed with on some level, some where.

 

Yes, I received their newsletter today, too. I chuck it in the garbage when it comes, but since we have been discussing it, I decided to read some of it this time. I thought the articles on silliness served to confirm my reservations about them. Here is a quote: (which is discussing the negative influences of Hollywood, etc.)

 

"Their hearts and minds are receiving daily infusions directly from the veins of queers, fornicators, atheists, evolutionists, and irreverent fools."

 

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but how can you call yourself a Christian and justify calling them "queers"? I'm sorry, but that just says it all about a person's heart. Yeshua/Jesus died for them, too. Anyone who says that should be ashamed of themselves, but not Michael Pearl. I don't sense that he would feel ashamed at all. :glare: When you classify a people group as "queers", you have minimized their value as people. It's wrong.

 

I think a lot has been blown way out of proportion over what they teach. Again, they are a product of a Southern culture that is just as warm and nurturing as any, but has a level of "humor" that some may not get if you haven't been around it. It is not the intent to mock or belittle a child. It is to add "lightness" and in a sense to mirror back to a child how "immature" the behavior is.

 

 

Really? That is not how they tell you to deal with it according to this part of the article:

"But you can't save your child from being a fool just by preventing bad company. Put a boy in a man's world and his foolishness will go the way of baby talk and wet diapers. Daddy and his friends will respond to foolishness like they would a cat licking its XXX. (nice, little illustration,huh?) Try that nonsense in their presence and no one will be entertained. They will look at the kid like, "What's the problem?" and then return to their conversation. The cold critical looks of three men will do more to slap the sillies out of a kid than all the lectures in the world."

 

I kept looking for the part where they would say, "Okay, we know every kid, and even adults get silly at times. It's okay to joke around and be silly once in a while." But, I didn't read anything like that. Just lots of admonitions to be sober-minded and manly.

 

And, they finalize the article with the following advice to deal with silliness:

"What can a parent do? At the first foolish word or deed, bring it to their attention; tell them how silly it is, and express your displeasure in proportion to the act and situation. Arrange a consequence for every foolish thing they do, while exhorting them to be sober-minded. Show them with your own life how we should live soberly. Hold each child accountable according to their level of maturity. If your son is already foolish, how do you correct the problem? The Bible clearly tells us what action(s) we must take if we are going to produce wise and sober children.

(They go on to list all of the "rod of correction" verses, and "the blueness of the wound" verse.)

 

Two people can read the same article and walk away with such different impressions. I will add that I am not against spanking, so this isn't coming from an anti-spanking perspective.

[Michelle in MO]

Yes, I received their newsletter today, too. I chuck it in the garbage when it comes, but since we have been discussing it, I decided to read some of it this time. I thought the articles on silliness served to confirm my reservations about them. Here is a quote: (which is discussing the negative influences of Hollywood, etc.)

 

"Their hearts and minds are receiving daily infusions directly from the veins of queers, fornicators, atheists, evolutionists, and irreverent fools."

 

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but how can you call yourself a Christian and justify calling them "queers"? I'm sorry, but that just says it all about a person's heart. Yeshua/Jesus died for them, too. Anyone who says that should be ashamed of themselves, but not Michael Pearl. I don't sense that he would feel ashamed at all. :glare: When you classify a people group as "queers", you have minimized their value as people. It's wrong.

 

here, as I've only posted once before about this topic. It's obviously a sensitive issue with many people. In my previous post, I mentioned that someone gave me one of the Pearl's books on wives submitting to their husbands. My impression, upon leafing through the book, was very negative, and I had no desire to read it.

 

At any rate, if what Lisa in NY says is true, that the Pearls make these broad generalizations about people in their newsletters, I would have to agree with Lisa. This leaves such a hateful, negative view of Christianity. I realize in stating this that I'm diverting somewhat from the overall point of this thread. Please forgive me for that.

 

Let me just share one story: the line quoted above is very reminiscent of a group of three evangelists who used to come to the University of Minnesota, where I went to college. Apparently this same crew came to the University of Missouri-Columbia, where my husband went to law school. They would make similar statements, and it just left such a bad, bad impression of Christians and Christianity. I'm not sure that anyone was converted under their ministry. I would listen for a few minutes while crowds gathered to boo and make cat-calls. Then I would leave, wanting to crawl under a rock.

 

This is not the Christ that I know.

 

Please forgive the diversion---I realize that some may have found some positive things to be gained from the Pearls, and I also realize I speak from very, very little experience with them. However, they should not be making such statements, IMO.

[Tutor]

I can see why you are so passionate against the Pearls' teachings. I have obviously had a completely different experience with them only reading the book.

[bkpan]

here, as I've only posted once before about this topic. It's obviously a sensitive issue with many people. In my previous post, I mentioned that someone gave me one of the Pearl's books on wives submitting to their husbands. My impression, upon leafing through the book, was very negative, and I had no desire to read it.

 

At any rate, if what Lisa in NY says is true, that the Pearls make these broad generalizations about people in their newsletters, I would have to agree with Lisa. This leaves such a hateful, negative view of Christianity. I realize in stating this that I'm diverting somewhat from the overall point of this thread. Please forgive me for that.

 

Let me just share one story: the line quoted above is very reminiscent of a group of three evangelists who used to come to the University of Minnesota, where I went to college. Apparently this same crew came to the University of Missouri-Columbia, where my husband went to law school. They would make similar statements, and it just left such a bad, bad impression of Christians and Christianity. I'm not sure that anyone was converted under their ministry. I would listen for a few minutes while crowds gathered to boo and make cat-calls. Then I would leave, wanting to crawl under a rock.

 

This is not the Christ that I know.

 

Please forgive the diversion---I realize that some may have found some positive things to be gained from the Pearls, and I also realize I speak from very, very little experience with them. However, they should not be making such statements, IMO.

 

Those words are a poor choice to me as well and they do sound hateful.

 

Kim

[Ashleen]

Let me just share one story: the line quoted above is very reminiscent of a group of three evangelists who used to come to the University of Minnesota, where I went to college. Apparently this same crew came to the University of Missouri-Columbia, where my husband went to law school. They would make similar statements, and it just left such a bad, bad impression of Christians and Christianity. I'm not sure that anyone was converted under their ministry. I would listen for a few minutes while crowds gathered to boo and make cat-calls. Then I would leave, wanting to crawl under a rock.

 

Are you by any chance talking about Brother Jed? He used to go to Ohio State, sometimes with a Sister Somebody. People would gather around the oval and make fun of Christianity because of the circus atmosphere he'd create, ranting and raving about "lipstick lesbians" and the Wh*re of Babylon or whatever. Never once did I see him lead anyone to Christ, but I sure saw a lot of people turned off to Christianity by him.

[Kelli in TN]

Are you by any chance talking about Brother Jed? He used to go to Ohio State, sometimes with a Sister Somebody. People would gather around the oval and make fun of Christianity because of the circus atmosphere he'd create, ranting and raving about "lipstick lesbians" and the Wh*re of Babylon or whatever. Never once did I see him lead anyone to Christ, but I sure saw a lot of people turned off to Christianity by him.

 

Okay, I had to google Brother Jed.

 

 

 

Wow.

[nmoira]

 

Forgive me.

Of course. And, like I'd say to my girls, I admire anyone who can stand up and apologize. :)

[Michelle in MO]

Are you by any chance talking about Brother Jed? He used to go to Ohio State, sometimes with a Sister Somebody. People would gather around the oval and make fun of Christianity because of the circus atmosphere he'd create, ranting and raving about "lipstick lesbians" and the Wh*re of Babylon or whatever. Never once did I see him lead anyone to Christ, but I sure saw a lot of people turned off to Christianity by him.

 

I think it was Brother Jed and Sister Cindy and Brother Somebody Else. That's exactly the kind of language I heard, and both my husband and I, attending different universities, came away with the exact same conclusion you did. It was a circus---pointless and fruitless and very damaging. I couldn't imagine anyone becoming interested in becoming a Christian after listening to them.

 

At any rate, I'm diverting from the thread, so I should probably bow out now and let everyone get back to talking about the main point---the Pearls. I honestly haven't read the Pearls, but I can't say I have any desire to read them. Because this friend gave me their book, I haven't yet thrown it out. It's sitting on a shelf somewhere, and it will probably stay there.

[Murphy101]

I tossed it in the trash without a thought for this thread.

 

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but how can you call yourself a Christian and justify calling them "queers"? I'm sorry, but that just says it all about a person's heart. Yeshua/Jesus died for them, too. Anyone who says that should be ashamed of themselves, but not Michael Pearl. I don't sense that he would feel ashamed at all. :glare: When you classify a people group as "queers", you have minimized their value as people. It's wrong.

 

Ok. I think homosexuality is wrong. I don't go about ****ing them to hell or name calling though. It just seems unneccessary and provoking, which I see no point in. :confused:

 

However, this post made me curious what was so objectionable about the word queer. I always though queer meant strange, odd, weird (a fitting description for many people these day, imo. others probably think the same of Catholics! ;))

 

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer Turns out Wikipedia has an interesting write up about it. Although I hate to use Wikipedia, it was quick to find there. Turns out I was right. And it turns out, according to Wikipedia, some alternative sexuality types actually find the term queer to be self describing and empowering and activist actually use the term themselves. Go figure. The word does not strike me as particuliarly hateful and it appears, according to Wikipedia, that at least some homosexuals doesn't find it negative either. Of course, I remember when gay meant happy too. Any word can be twisted. I'm not big on being politically correct. I think it keeps honest discussion from happening. If that's the opinion they have, they are legally allowed to have it. Calling someone gay or a synonm for strange/odd is not what I would call hate speech. I don't think calling a group of people strange/odd is unchristian or minimizing to humanity either.

 

Frankly, the things Mr. Pearl advocates a parent doing in the name of God to their child is far more hateful.

 

And really today's media is mostly trash, so I can't argue with him there.

 

My point? Micheal Pearl is not a subtle man. He is not a man that is politically correct. He is not one for pretty illustrations or words.

 

But that's not the reason I think he's nuts and mean spirited.

 

I don't care if he used nicer words and beat around the bush about how he thinks parenting should be done or not - what that man advocates is NOT loving, Godly, reasonable parenting or marital advice.

 

I view the garbage he spews as poison. Whatever good info they may have is tainted and not to be taken into the home, imnsho.

 

Oh and the blarney about all his stuff being somehow a southern thing is just that - blarney nonsense. I was raised southern (mom from TN dad in Miss.) and my dh is Texan. Spanking and authoritarian parenting is found in every state and again, what the Pearls advocate is not the same as that either.

 

:lurk5:

[Ashleen]

However, this post made me curious what was so objectionable about the word queer

 

Gay people call themselves queer just like some black people call themselves the "N" word and some women call themselves sl*ts, b*tches, or that other word. It's a way of taking the sting out of it when someone else calls you that: "you can't hurt me, I own the word" sort of thing. But it's most certainly a derogatory term, esp. as used by the Pearls.

[Murphy101]

Gay people call themselves queer just like some black people call themselves the "N" word and some women call themselves sl*ts, b*tches, or that other word. It's a way of taking the sting out of it when someone else calls you that: "you can't hurt me, I own the word" sort of thing. But it's most certainly a derogatory term, esp. as used by the Pearls.

 

Ok I may be slammed seriously for this but here goes anyways...:smash:

 

That's more blarney. Speaking derogatoryly (is that a word?) of ownself just makes one look like an idiot. I've known many black people and many female friends and NONE of them use those terms for themselves or who would tolorate that for even a moment from others. I think that's bullpoo stereotypes the media spreads because I know of no self-respecting woman or black person who would ever tolorate that.:glare: Some foolish kids might imitate the junk they hear on the radio or of some idiot at school, but that is NOT the norm as I've known it. Okay, now I'm going to have to call some people and ask them about this.:confused:

[Ashleen]

Ok I may be slammed seriously for this but here goes anyways...:smash:

 

That's more blarney. Speaking derogatoryly (is that a word?) of ownself just makes one look like an idiot. I've known many black people and many female friends and NONE of them use those terms for themselves or who would tolorate that for even a moment from others. I think that's bullpoo stereotypes the media spreads because I know of no self-respecting woman or black person who would ever tolorate that.:glare: Some foolish kids might imitate the junk they hear on the radio or of some idiot at school, but that is NOT the norm as I've known it. Okay, now I'm going to have to call some people and ask them about this.:confused:

 

Well, I didn't say we should all greet each other that way or something! :lol: But you hear it a lot, especially with young people and they get it from celebrities. I'm saying that gay people use "queer" in the same way, but I'm not recommending anyone use nasty words of any kind. But I've certainly heard it enough, from gays, blacks and women. Not by people over 25 or so, though.

[amy g.]

I haven't read all the responses. The very idea of hitting babies and breaking their spirits sickens me, so I thought I'd better skip most of it.

 

I did have one thing to contribute, though. My sister is a very "out" gay musician. She has awards for being a "Queer music legend" and the being in the "Queer music hall of fame"

 

Mr. Pearl could be a card carrying homophobe, but I don't think that using the word queer proves that he is.

[tibbyl]

In my native culture, the term "queer" was used to mean strange or odd. It was not until we moved to another area that I learned it was a derogatory term for homosexuals.

[yslek]

:lurk5:

 

Ugh. I just spent an hour reading through all 29 pages of this thread!

 

It caught my attention because I, like others here, used to buy into the Pearls' teachings. Some people from church gave us (dh & me) TTUAC before we had children. We thought it was GREAT! We knew all about how to be fabulous parents, and what every parent out there was doing wrong (and before we were even in our 20s!) :lol: We were disgustingly self-righteous.

 

We had it coming to us, though.

 

Our first ds must not have read the Pearls' book, because he sure didn't respond the way he was suposed to. It didn't matter how many times we thumped his little hand, he always went back to touching the no-nos.

 

When he was older and we wanted him to stay in bed after he'd been put there, we consistently spanked him and put him back to bed. Over. and. over. again.

 

After three months of the constant bed-time spankings, dh and I talked about it. We both felt horrible. We'd been consistent, we'd followed the book, and it just wasn't working. It also finally dawned on us that "disciplining" a child until he does what he's told was a little too close to torture for comfort. So we dropped the Pearls' teachings, and slowly began to heal. (We do still spank on occasion, but much more rarely now, and certainly not at all the way the Pearls advocate.)

 

It's been a long, long road. It has taken a while to overcome the negative view of children that the Pearls' books imparted to us. Yes, they talk about enjoying your children, but it seems like a selfish joy. And the prevailing tone was that children are rebels who are always trying to manipulate you. It just didn't set us up for parenting success.

 

Sadly, I ordered and gave away several copies of TTUAC before "seeing the light". I still had some after turning away from their teachings. I didn't want to donate them or sell them, as I really didn't want to be in any way accountable for someone else buying into this the way we did. I think we ended up burning them. :D

 

I'm so glad we read The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding and aThe Contiuum Concept before we found the Pearls. At least I did something right in nursing on demand and co-sleeping. :)

 

Just thought I'd add my Pearl experience to the rest here.

 

Oh, I should add that I don't blame the Pearls for my bad parenting choices. I just wish I hadn't listened to them, KWIM?

 

Kelsy

[*anj*]

Michelle,

Are these the people you mentioned?

When I was at Rutgers in the mid-eighties a man who called himself "Brother Jed" came and did that kind of thing. He had a wife called "Sister Cindy" and their baby was named Evangeline. I was an agnostic at the time and I remember being beyond turned off from Christianity because of his histrionics. I've always wondered whatever happened to them, so when I read your post I googled those names and the page I linked above was the first thing I found.

Very disturbing.

 

I'm sorry for the hijack.

 

Let me just share one story: the line quoted above is very reminiscent of a group of three evangelists who used to come to the University of Minnesota, where I went to college. Apparently this same crew came to the University of Missouri-Columbia, where my husband went to law school. They would make similar statements, and it just left such a bad, bad impression of Christians and Christianity. I'm not sure that anyone was converted under their ministry. I would listen for a few minutes while crowds gathered to boo and make cat-calls. Then I would leave, wanting to crawl under a rock.

 

This is not the Christ that I know.

[*anj*]

Are you by any chance talking about Brother Jed? He used to go to Ohio State, sometimes with a Sister Somebody. People would gather around the oval and make fun of Christianity because of the circus atmosphere he'd create, ranting and raving about "lipstick lesbians" and the Wh*re of Babylon or whatever. Never once did I see him lead anyone to Christ, but I sure saw a lot of people turned off to Christianity by him.

 

Okay, now I'm embarrassed.

I had read the post above yours first, and commented right away.

If I'd read yours I wouldn't have bothered with mine.

 

Yes, I remember that man too.

 

His way of saying "Rolling Stones" is part of our repertoire around here.

What a wack job.

He sure did plenty to keep me even further from Christ than I already was.

[*anj*]

Well, I didn't say we should all greet each other that way or something! :lol: But you hear it a lot, especially with young people and they get it from celebrities. I'm saying that gay people use "queer" in the same way, but I'm not recommending anyone use nasty words of any kind. But I've certainly heard it enough, from gays, blacks and women. Not by people over 25 or so, though.

 

Yabbut Martha's right. You may have heard it, but it's not even remotely acceptable. And it is not "nice" at all. I remember once when I was growing up I had heard some kids saying the n word to each other and I was shocked. I went and told my mother and she told me in no uncertain terms that that was just 100% unacceptable language and that decent, self respecting people do not refer to themselves or others in such an ignorant manner.

It is not the same as the way gay people call themselves queer or the way that women call each other some names. It's hard to explain, but it is not the same thing.

 

I'm not coming down on you, I just wanted to clarify that the foolishness of certain public figures is not an indicator of acceptability in the group at large.

[Greta]

It seems like the moms here who have talked about following the Pearls' advice seem pretty unanimous in feeling that the blame for that lies squarely on their own shoulders. On the one hand, I really admire that. Part of being an adult is learning to take responsibility for our own actions. In fact, that seems to be something our society is missing lately, so I certainly wish to honor it when I see it.

 

But at the same time, I don't think that makes the Pearls free from culpability here. To use an analogy, when you go to a doctor for medical care, you are responsible for your choice in doctors and for your choice of whether or not to take the prescription given or have the surgery recommended or whatever. But the doctor has responsibilities too. If his recommended treatment does you more harm than good, then he bears the responsibility for that (which is why we have malpractice suits). We have measures in place to try to ensure that only responsible people practice medicine (licensing), but when they do a particularly poor job of it, we have other mechanisms in place (the court system) to hold them responsible. I think the Pearls are responsible for the advice they are giving. If their parenting advice is bringing genuine harm to children and families, they shoulder some blame for that.

 

I guess I'm just trying to say don't heap too much of the blame on yourself. You went to a doctor in good faith, and you got a bottle of poison instead of medicine. You realized what that poison was doing to your family and you took steps to correct it. That's something to be proud of. Not everyone has the courage to question the advice of experts.

 

(I probably should note I'm really referring to the moms who have posted here about their own experiences with the Pearls, and not the family in the article that the OP linked to. Obviously there were serious problems there before/beyond the Pearls.)

[Ashleen]

I'm not coming down on you, I just wanted to clarify that the foolishness of certain public figures is not an indicator of acceptability in the group at large.

 

I'm not sure how I'm being misunderstood here. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to call anyone names of any kind. I'm saying that just because some gay people call themselves a name doesn't mean that you can use the word if you're not gay, just like you can't call a girl a nasty name just because she and her friends call themselves that. Does that make more sense? They are doing it to take the sting out of the words *for themselves* and that does not give you permission to call them that if you're a homophobe. My point was that "queer" is offensive, not that the "n" word is empowering.

[Ashleen]

I think the Pearls are responsible for the advice they are giving. If their parenting advice is bringing genuine harm to children and families, they shoulder some blame for that.

 

:iagree:

[*anj*]

I'm not sure how I'm being misunderstood here. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to call anyone names of any kind. I'm saying that just because some gay people call themselves a name doesn't mean that you can use the word if you're not gay, just like you can't call a girl a nasty name just because she and her friends call themselves that. Does that make more sense? They are doing it to take the sting out of the words *for themselves* and that does not give you permission to call them that if you're a homophobe. My point was that "queer" is offensive, not that the "n" word is empowering.

 

Yes, that does make more sense. Thank you for the explanation. I hear what you're saying now. ;)

[Michelle in MO]

Michelle,

Are these the people you mentioned?

When I was at Rutgers in the mid-eighties a man who called himself "Brother Jed" came and did that kind of thing. He had a wife called "Sister Cindy" and their baby was named Evangeline. I was an agnostic at the time and I remember being beyond turned off from Christianity because of his histrionics. I've always wondered whatever happened to them, so when I read your post I googled those names and the page I linked above was the first thing I found.

Very disturbing.

 

I'm sorry for the hijack.

 

That's OK---I'm trying not to digress, either :) , but I do remember back in my college years that the horrible name calling really turned my stomach. I almost wanted to apologize to everyone in the crowd, saying, "These people are NOT what Christians are supposed to be like!"

 

Sorry again for the thread hijack!

[LisaNY]

I think you are right but those of us who have gone down that road can't change the past. What we can do is have discussions like this one so that other women, can be aware of both sides and make thoughtful decisions about their parenting and whose advice to follow. That is the real point of all of this isn't it? I can't change the past but I can affect the future.

 

Yes! I was thinking about this yesterday. I am hoping that this thread will give pause those who are currently following the Pearl's methods.

[Scarlett]

I went and told my mother and she told me in no uncertain terms that that was just 100% unacceptable language and that decent, self respecting people do not refer to themselves or others in such an ignorant manner.

 

 

Further threadjack----This made me think of a quandry I've been in about my son's description of black people. He calls them brown. Is that offensive to black people, Anj? I wouldn't have thought so, but the mother of a little boy in ds's piano class (they were 6 at the time) called me outside to chastise me severely for allowing my son to use that word to describe her son. She had even gone to her pastor over it. I stood staring at her in shock and totally confusion.

 

I do know it isn't vulgar like the N word....but I'm curious if it is considered offensive. I can assure you my son is just a literal kid....and the kid's skin was brown NOT black....but I'd just like to know what others think.

[Colleen]

Yes! I was thinking about this yesterday. I am hoping that this thread will give pause those who are currently following the Pearl's methods.

 

Kim ("bkpan") expressed her belief that there's been harsh, ignorant judgment against the Pearls passed in this thread. I confess, her assessment doesn't sit well with me as I've been very impressed with the tone in this discussion. Those who adamently disagree with the Pearls have been what I consider fairly restrained in their comments. Some, such as Michelle in MO, have qualified their replies, noting that they have little firsthand information.

 

I went to great lengths, in an earlier post, not to simply castigate the Pearls but to address a question posed by Ellie: Why are some focusing so intently on corporal punishment, when the Pearls offer a wide array of advice on other issues? It's a valid question. From the bottom of my heart, I want this conversation to give pause to any current or potential Pearl adherents ~ including those, like Kim, who may not adhere to all the methods, but feel they needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's why I carefully explained the difference between gleaning ideas from those for whom I can maintain the highest respect, such as Susan Wise Bauer, versus those who aren't worthy of that respect.

 

Although this conversation has been emotionally tumultuous for some of us, I think it's been marked by a great deal of respect and thoughtfulness. It's not been filled with mindless tomato-throwing, but with a variety of insight, worthy of consideration.

[Greta]

I think you are right but those of us who have gone down that road can't change the past. What we can do is have discussions like this one so that other women, can be aware of both sides and make thoughtful decisions about their parenting and whose advice to follow. That is the real point of all of this isn't it? I can't change the past but I can affect the future.

 

You are taking a negative from your own life and trying to turn it into a positive for others. That is just wonderful beyond words.

 

I have a friend who says that there is a stark difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is a healthy emotion which gives us limits and can prompt us to change for the better. But shame is overwhelming and paralyzing and brings nothing positive. I guess this situation is a good illustration of that. I posted because I was just hoping that you wonderful moms weren't feeling paralyzed by shame. But clearly you are handling this proactively.

[Mom2GirlsTX]

I am just dropping in on this thread and trying to muddle through pages of postings. You know, I know nothing of these people...I suppose I do live under a rock or something. I was confused by the original title because I thought Pearls as in pearls...pearls that grow in oysters. There is just so much in the world I know so little about!

[*anj*]

Further threadjack----This made me think of a quandry I've been in about my son's description of black people. He calls them brown. Is that offensive to black people, Anj? I wouldn't have thought so, but the mother of a little boy in ds's piano class (they were 6 at the time) called me outside to chastise me severely for allowing my son to use that word to describe her son. She had even gone to her pastor over it. I stood staring at her in shock and totally confusion.

 

I do know it isn't vulgar like the N word....but I'm curious if it is considered offensive. I can assure you my son is just a literal kid....and the kid's skin was brown NOT black....but I'd just like to know what others think.

 

I just want to say that I hate to keep hijacking this thread, but I don't see the point in starting a whole new one just to answer this question.

 

Scarlett, I remember when you shared that story on the old board. I am as confused by it now as I was then. No, I would not be offended by that term. In fact, many people of brownish hue use that term to describe themselves. I really don't understand why that woman reacted that way. It isn't vulgar or offensive. It is in fact, a more accurate description.

 

Here's a funny story.

Once when dh and I were dating we had planned a trip to go and visit some of my relatives. My cousin told her little girl that we were coming and her dd (about 6 at the time) said, "Oh, is she bringing the peach man?" My cousin was confused and asked who the peach man was. Her dd said "You know her friend she brought last time, I forgot his name, but his skin was peach."

 

We still tease her about that! It was hysterical. And so cute. His skin is not, in fact "white." On the other hand, it's not exactly peach either, but in the summer he is sort of goldish red, so I guess that's what she was thinking. :001_smile:

[mom42terrificgirls]

I don't know much about them. We have never spanked here. Dds are 18 and almost 15 and are very respectful to us and others. They always say that dh's lectures are worse than a spanking. I don't know; maybe we just got lucky?

[Scarlett]

I just want to say that I hate to keep hijacking this thread, but I don't see the point in starting a whole new one just to answer this question.

 

I started a new thread

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39602

[Holly IN]

Further threadjack----This made me think of a quandry I've been in about my son's description of black people. He calls them brown. Is that offensive to black people, Anj? I wouldn't have thought so, but the mother of a little boy in ds's piano class (they were 6 at the time) called me outside to chastise me severely for allowing my son to use that word to describe her son. She had even gone to her pastor over it. I stood staring at her in shock and totally confusion.

 

 

 

I have a very good friend who is black. His wife is white. We had a discussion over race. (I am white btw) He said his biggest beef is being called African American. He said "I am not from Africa". He said that he is sick and tired of being called African American. He said he is black and he is an American. So he prefers to be plainly called American. He said you call things for what it is. He said he is black so no problem being called black. I told him I was shocked by this. He said no kidding. He said it is the media hype on this issue and wants things to change.

 

A funny story (funny but not so funny) that happened with my dd who is autistic. She will blurt things out so when we visited my mother who was in the hospital. This was in the big city. We were leaving so we got on the elevator and a bunch of black people came into the elevator. My dd blurted out aaahhh Chocolate people Chocolate people. She thought they were chocolate. At that point I didn't know what to do so I just hushed her and smiled at them. Some smiled back and some didn't like it. I asked my friend about it and he said well that was her perception. He said to be careful next time and just tell them she is autistic and that is her perception of them and then leave it at that. She has several black friends and still calls them chocolate. They think it is funny.

I guess I hijacked this thread....oh well :auto:

Holly

[NewHomeSchoolMarm]

As a mom who has read many of the Pearl books, receives their newsletter and has recommended their books to others--I feel terrible about these allegations as well. Unfortunately, this happens when you put yourself out there as "child specialists" and "marriage specialists". People, will gravitate to your help becuase they need it, however, they (THE PEARLS) have no control over what those same people will do with the information given. Moreover, this article seemed to me more about a young woman with GREAT intentions (homeschooling, proper discipline, helping the needy children...) but, she was sadly unprepared for the task(s). She obviously was not prepared--as I have grown to understand preparedness, to be a mother...let alone the mother of a large family. Seems that she had a lot to learn about marriage, parenting, discipline and unfortunately she placed herself in a situaiton where a mature, well founded woman would have struggled to do the same. So many woman/families are unprepared for life and lack the maturity/knowledge/self-discipline needed to create a happy and healthy family environment. SO SAD!!!!! I personally couldn't do LIFE without Christ, His Church Family and my Family. It takes a village...:sad:

 

NHSM

[gandpsmommy]

 

What struck you as slanderous? I'm not seeing that.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[LizzyBee]

Moreover, this article seemed to me more about a young woman with GREAT intentions (homeschooling, proper discipline, helping the needy children...) but, she was sadly unprepared for the task(s). She obviously was not prepared--as I have grown to understand preparedness, to be a mother...let alone the mother of a large family. Seems that she had a lot to learn about marriage, parenting, discipline and unfortunately she placed herself in a situaiton where a mature, well founded woman would have struggled to do the same.

NHSM

 

Do you mean the article in the op? Lynn Paddock is 47 yo.

[TengoFive]

I know I'm a little late coming into this conversation, but I've been pondering what a Christian Parenting Philosophy would really look like, and I can only conclude that its not this. God doesn't put temptations in our way and then punish us when we fail, thankfully. He helps us through our crises and temptations. Wouldn't a Christlike parent try to do the same for their children? He doesn't ask us to do more than we're able to. I think a parent should know the limitations of their child's development and do the same.

 

When I was reading about him suggesting following your children mocking their efforts to get away from a beating, Nazi Germany came to mind. I can just imagine SS officers following their victims around doing the same thing. Its simply cruelty disguised as parenting.

[Kathy in MD]

That's fair.

 

I've read a couple of their books, met both of them personally and suffered through all four sessions of a seminar starring them.

 

So I can comment, right?

 

When I read the first book I was at a place in my life where I was very open to their message. I was excited to have this wonderful fool proof formula that seemed like the ticket to the magic train that led to the land of perfect family life. We were going to tie heart strings and we were going to apply the switch and get those attitudes straight.

 

Fast forward a couple of years and life is awful. Truly awful. I have lost the heart of one of my children, thanks to a toxic combination of damaging punishment based parenting on my part and a real mental glitch on the part of said child. The craziness of the Pearls "wisdom" and a touch of Ezzo here and there masked the fragility of this child's psyche. It was a heartbreaking scenario, as I look back over my shoulder at those years.

 

The church we were attending at the time hosted the Pearls and we committed to attend the whole dang thing. I was nearly tingling with excitement. They would have the answers we needed, I just knew it. We would come out of that seminar better parents and we would fix the broken places and God would heal our family and someday it would be our letter of gratitude in their newsletter! And the birds would sing in perfect harmony and the skies would be blue all the time.

 

The first session of the seminar Mr. Pearl explained how to set your child up by leaving something tempting on the counter, cookies perhaps, and then when the child succombed to the temptation, sneaking up with your handy switch and administering blows to the back of the the child's legs. He demonstrated the proper hitting technique with a switch (it was not a plumbing line, just a thin wooden switch). He also demonstrated how to sit a child on your lap to read a story to him or her. During this sweet bonding time it is very important to make sure you have your handy dandy switch nearby because as soon as you the child gets the wiggles you need to be ready to immediately swat a couple of good ones across his legs. Because you are the parent and by golly he is going to enjoy story time with you whether he likes it or not. This was demonstrated to us with a chair, the doll, the switch, and of course, Mr. Pearl.

 

The second session dealt with teens. He explained to us how to deal with teens who express disappointment. Using his youngest daughter as an example (and she was there and had spent the afternoon playing ultimate frisbee with the youth of our church, so I am sure she was delighted to be the example in front of these new friends), he shared that sometimes she liked to go skating. Sometimes they said yes. Sometimes they said no. Pretty normal. However, if they said no and her face registered any disappointment then she was grounded from skating for 6 months. He also shared a story about using a tree branch to administer a spanking? beating? to his teenage son as his teenaged friends looked on. I don't know precisely what he meant by tree branch, he did not have a visual during this session, but my imagination leads me to believe it was probably a pretty big thing.

 

The third session dealt with being better wives. Good wives never expect anything from their husbands and want to have s#x all the time. Good wives never question their husbands. He used a story about a young girl who found herself married to a man who it turns out liked thinks a little kinky (in a way that was uncomfortable to her) and suffered from some hygiene issues. He also chewed tobacco and expected big kisses even with his mouth full of chaw. Mr. Pearl was proud to point out that thanks to the mentoring of Mrs. Pearl this young girl came to accept her lot in life and realize that she needed to change her attitude about this man, but she had no right to expect any changes on his part. And they lived happily ever after. Forever. Or maybe it just felt like forever to the poor girl.

 

The fourth session was the most fun. It was about being a good husband. Mr. Pearl went around the church to each wife and gave them a piece of paper and a pencil and asked them to write down three things that they would like to see their husband do differently. He took up the paper and then spent the next hour or so talking about how to be a better husband by sanctifying your wife by having a lot of s#x. Or something like that. There were a lot of smiling men. Then he read the slips of paper one by one and made fun of the heartfelt requests of the wives as the husbands did their best to guess which one was written by their wives. My husband guessed and he teased me and it was a very dark place in our marriage for a little bit. It was humiliating and I was not the only one who left feeling shamed.

 

I think they are dreadful people. I think their books, their website, their newsletter, and their seminars are dreadful. I base this on what I have personally heard and read from them. None of it is based on second hand information.

 

OH MY WORD!, My father grew up in an abusive household and I never heard that his parents did things as vicious as try to tempt them til the child caves! And then to punish a child for LOOKING disappointed?!?!?!?

 

Do you remember the Gary Larson cartoon about golden retrievers where he shows a series of pictures showing the dog expressing emotions ranging from estatically happy to suicidal? The expression is always the same grinning face. I wonder if the Pearls' children have the same sort of faces?

[Kelli in TN]

Do you remember the Gary Larson cartoon about golden retrievers where he shows a series of pictures showing the dog expressing emotions ranging from estatically happy to suicidal? The expression is always the same grinning face. I wonder if the Pearls' children have the same sort of faces?

 

In all fairness, the children seem to be well-adjusted, happy adults now. They seem like a close knit family from all accounts I have heard.

 

I am not sure they could have always practiced all that they preached. I think they probably comment on a lot of things that they have never actually encountered, like incest and spousal abuse and such. But they sure have a lot to say about those subjects, don't they?

[Laurie4b]

Someone else has already mentioned that Lynn Paddock was hardly a new mother. You're right; people gravitate toward "parenting experts" because they need it. However, people with sadistic tendencies, anger problems, etc. could also gravitate toward a method that seems to give godly justification to their sinful tendencies. I'm not saying that all parents who follow the Pearls or methods like that have those tendencies--I have family members who used similar methods who are decent, well-intentioned people-- but that type of parenting method would certainly attract those who did have those tendencies, as compared, say to "attachment parenting." . The fact that the Pearls say that you should not discipline in anger is going to go right over their heads. They will lock onto the method.