Gabriel Pearl divorced?!

[RosyDaisy]

The Pearls are evil people. There isn't anything good about that.

[hoipolloi]

Michael & Debi Pearl are dreadful human beings -- fucking assholes, in fact, though one could possibly argue that Debi is Michael's primary victim.

Off to check out Lady Lydia's "contributions" to FJ.

[polecat]

16 hours ago, willpower said:

If it is true, lets just hold this not only as an example of Gabriel's personal faliure, but as well as that of Michael and Debi Pearl, that is faliure of their ideology and their teachings.
There is a certain objectivity regarding this matter - simple fact that Michael Pearl with his faith and knowledge of Bible, failed to produce a man who was able to chose his wife wisely and maintain a healthy marriage, which makes his advice about marriage and raising children, a questionable advice.

I know that they are good people. 

 

1. Divorce is NOT a sign of his personal failure.

2. The Pearls are NOT, imo, good people. They advocate switching babies, ffs.

bbm

[formergothardite]

They don't just advocate hitting babies, they have ACTUALLY hit four month old babies. They are beating babies. 

[Jellybean]

4 hours ago, willpower said:

[snip]

I find that the feeling of self-righteousness is exeptionaly dangerous feeling, as it leads you into beliving that your values are superior to the values of other people or that even you yourself are superior to them, giving you strenght to violetly push yourself into their life, taking their freedom away.
Take that feeling away and you got yourself a path to productive discusssion.

[snip]

You won't change my conclusions about them nor about world.

I'm sad to see your unwillingness to consider productive discussion, and the possibility that your opinions might shift as a result of that discussion.

There is more diversity among FreeJinger commenters than you seem to think - we are not a single homogeneous group. I have seen several examples of people changing their opinions in response to new evidence, or well-reasoned argument. I have (mostly) found there to be a willingness to listen to different points of view, and a belief that the world is a more interesting place as a result of the variety and diversity of the people that live in it.

There are limits to this respectful tolerance, when people's beliefs and actions cause harm to others, especially those who don't have the power to protect themselves.

Like many others, I would love to understand your criteria for including someone in the 'good person' category, and the reverse. Could you give some examples of beliefs (or anything else) that would cause you to put someone into the 'not a good person' category?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I don't want to try to convince anyone, but I just can't let this pass without adding my voice to the "nope!" chorus.

Ever since Machiavelli used the idea that the aim justifies the ways to spin a peace obtained through tyranny as a good thing, the vast majority of philosophers agree that in judging someone's actions you can't overlook the means with which they plan to obtain the wanted results. 

The Pearls may (and on this I disagree because educating scaring a child into being a self righteous asshole, a wife abuser or a passively-aggressively submissive wife, a child beater, a women's rights denier, a LGBTQ hater is no way a good thing imnsho) have good aims because in their twisted minds they had good intentions. But this intended goodness (that in my opinion doesn't even exist) is completely invalidated by the evil deeds with which they plan to obtain it. You cannot separate the supposed good intentions from the (planned from the very beginning) ways with which the aims are accomplished. 

I don't give a flying fuck if they do it to save children from eternal damnation or whatever. If you are so lacking in the empathy department that you find perfectly acceptable to beat a six months old baby, if you are so incapable of understanding how wrong this is then you are an evil person.  If you are 60 yo and during the last 40 years you devoted your life to convince other parents that what is evil is good and what is monstruous is the only way to save your child from hell despite all the people trying to reason with you and explaining why this is so fucked up then you are twice as evil. And if, after parents killed their children applying your monstrous ideas, you don't do a very thorough self examination and at very least apologise for fucking up this big, then you are irredeemably evil.

The fact that you feel that a couple of beatings didn't do you any damage has nothing to do with Pearls' evil behaviours, lack of empathy and thoroughly evil souls. They are morally responsible of lots of evil deeds towards children everywhere because they gave these children's parents justifications and motivations to carry out what can be defined only as child abuse. The fact that they claim to do it and be justified by a greater good makes things even worse,  because this enables them to convince even more people that their ways are harmless and that after all they are good people so their suggestions must be good too, right? NO!

[Koala]

5 hours ago, willpower said:

I find that the feeling of self-righteousness is exeptionaly dangerous feeling, as it leads you into beliving that your values are superior to the values of other people or that even you yourself are superior to them, giving you strenght to violetly push yourself into their life, taking their freedom away.
 

You better believe that my values are superior to theirs!  My dog's values are superior to theirs.  They believe in beating infants with plumbing line.  What part of that do you not understand?

And you rest assured, I definitely believe they should lose their "freedom" to abuse children.  If I had my say they'd both be in prison (where they belong) for the rest of forever.

[AmazonGrace]

Yeah, call me a  judgmental  bastard but I feel like all good people should have it in their heart to  be repulsed by actions that actively harm an innocent and defenceless baby.  You can say that someone meant well and doesn't see how beating babies up harms them but it doesn't really make it any better because if someone doesn't see anything wrong with violence against babies then their moral compass and ability to emphasize is probably broken in more ways than one, and whatever they think "meaning well" consists of, may be just as evil.  Just because you can justify your value system to yourself according to some old book doesn't mean that your words and actions don't hurt people. 

I'm sure some people believe they're doing the right thing when they're blowing up nightclubs and such but it doesn't mean I'm going to shrug and call them good people just because they call themselves such.

It's just my opinion  but I think all good people would ideally be repulsed by a god who requires parents to abuse their babies in order to save their soul.

 

No one needs a freedom to beat their babies, IMO. It's a crime and rightfully so.

It is not violent to say so.

Free speech and all that jazz lets me say I don't like people who hurt babies.

 

 

 

 

 

[nelliebelle1197]

@willpower perhaps you don't understand where you are. You cannot summarily throw out platitudes about a subject which you yourself seem to have zero knowledge. That does not fly here. Defend yourself and educate yourself on the subject before you throw out little zingers. Language is not an excuse for utter ignorance.

[quiversR4hunting]

I shuttered this weekend when someone commented on a fb friend's "train up a child" when the friend posted a picture of the baby with its hands folded as if in prayer.

And now I read this thread and I want to throw up. I never thought I would read someone defending the Pearls on FJ.

I really hope Lori is doing well and I hope she gets custody, assuming she is not an abuser like her MIL & FIL.

[seattlechic]

I vote troll. Seriously, no one I know (and as a recovering alcoholic I've met my share of fucked up people) would ever consider the Pearls good people. No Sir, no ma'am. The god of no one's understanding can think/instruct/teach that beating up a baby is remotely ok. No fucking way. 

[AmazonGrace]

If we define child abusers as good people it broadens the definition of the word "good" so much it becomes useless and devoid of meaning.  I mean, if both good people and bad people can be good people, why do we need the words good and bad?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[refugee]

17 hours ago, willpower said:

I don't know why, but their teachings appeal to some people. They start implementing their destructive advice. They start beating their children. Their wives lose their voices. 

I never followed the Pearls, but I can tell you why I followed a similar destructive child-raising system for a time. I grew up in chaos and dysfunction, and wanted to make a different kind of home life for myself and my family, but didn't have a clue as to how to do it. In my ignorance, I just happened to choose the wrong mentors.

[Mecca]

I will gladly stand in the judgemental, self-righteous corner when it comes to calling out abuser Michael Pearl. That monster advocates abusing children and women. He takes the bible and uses it to further his abuse and apparently people like yourself, @willpower, fall for it and excuse this type of treatment of others. 

Michael Pearl is not a good person. To suggest such is an insult to the actual good people that call out his abuse. Michael Pearl hates infants and teaches people that infants can manipulate and become "nazis." A parent must beat them for every single transgression. Those transgressions include not falling to sleep in a timely manner, crying when wet or hungry, or just wanting a cuddle from their mother. You honestly think teaching that type of abuse to others makes him a good person? Seriously? This guy advocates beating kids just for the heck of it even when they don't do anything just to teach them who is boss. And you still want to come on here and claim his heart is in the right place and believe he is a good person? Seriously? You are OK with them teaching parents to pull the hair of their child or trying to drown them in a pool by tripping them so they fall in the deep in? Still a good man, you say? This monster makes reference to seeing beauty when children are beaten and abused in front of him. Still?

If you can read about the death of Lydia Schatz and continue to believe and advocate on a public forum that Michael and Debi are good people, well, I will think you are not a good person. Good people call out this abuse. They don't excuse it like you appear to be doing. 

[slickcat79]

2 hours ago, Koala said:

8 hours ago, willpower said:

I find that the feeling of self-righteousness is exeptionaly dangerous feeling, as it leads you into beliving that your values are superior to the values of other people or that even you yourself are superior to them, giving you strenght to violetly push yourself into their life, taking their freedom away.
 

You better believe that my values are superior to theirs!  My dog's values are superior to theirs.  They believe in beating infants with plumbing line.  What part of that do you not understand?

Yeah, if believing child abuse is wrong makes me self-righteous, I'll wear the label happily.

48 minutes ago, seattlechic said:

I vote troll. Seriously, no one I know (and as a recovering alcoholic I've met my share of fucked up people) would ever consider the Pearls good people. No Sir, no ma'am. The god of no one's understanding can think/instruct/teach that beating up a baby is remotely ok. No fucking way. 

Seconded.

[refugee]

2 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

I shuttered this weekend when someone commented on a fb friend's "train up a child" when the friend posted a picture of the baby with its hands folded as if in prayer.

And now I read this thread and I want to throw up. I never thought I would read someone defending the Pearls on FJ.

I really hope Lori is doing well and I hope she gets custody, assuming she is not an abuser like her MIL & FIL.

I had the same reaction to seeing a woman sitting in a waiting room with a Spanish-language version of Created to be his Helpmeet. I didn't have enough language to tell her that it was a bad idea, even if I'd had the nerve to strike up a conversation with someone I'd never met. About the only Spanish word I can think of that would suit would be "malo". I think.

Train Up a Child makes me nauseous, especially because it was popular in our former church (along with the Ezzos, and Richard Fugate). I read it (at least, parts of it -- don't know if I read it all the way through -- though I don't remember setting out to read it, I must have read it or how would I know what's in it? What I can say with confidence in the memory is that we had several books by the Pearls on our bookshelf, that got recycled when we left the lifestyle), but I didn't have the strength of will to implement it. I could be firm but gentle and "happy" with my baby when she wanted to roll over instead of having her diaper changed. I can't let myself get frustrated when little people act like they really *are* little people with their own ideas, and not just dolls. I could not train "their way," even though I heard moms in the church talking about how quick and efficient "a little flick" was in child training, as opposed to "doing things the hard way."

I felt like such a failure, in their terms. Ironically, I think I was more successful than I would have been, following their advice. I mean, my goal was always to raise functional, independent adults who were able to do what they loved. Looking at that goal, it doesn't fit very well with fundiedom at all.

It's also ironic, when talking about whether the Pearls are "good," that the bible talks about "calling good evil, and evil good." Jesus himself said there was no such thing as a good man. The Pearls are certainly doing all they can to prove him wrong.

 

21 minutes ago, Mecca said:

This guy advocates beating kids just for the heck of it even when they don't do anything just to teach them who is boss.

Isn't it the Pearls who advise parents to "set up" their children to be hit? They say to put something enticing where the child can see and reach for it, and then flick the child when they reach for it.

Sounds like torture to me.

[Ex-Creationist]

If being repulsed by the idea of beating a baby makes me judgmental, then I'd like to request that HA changes my username to Judgy McJudgerson.

[Meridae]

Anyone who thinks the Pearls are anything less than vicious monsters has a few screws loose.

[Mecca]

This poster may be a troll, but I find it absolutely disgusting they would troll on this subject. There have been children murdered by their parents when applying the teachings of those two abusers. You have to be a real big jerk to troll on this type of serious subject. Defend the Pearls or troll making light of child abuse -- either way, it makes willpower a gross person. 

[refugee]

18 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Because a good person wouldn't be able to do it.

I'm not a particularly good person and I wouldn't have it in me.  Think about it - what circumstance could cause you (general you - each reader) to hold that in your hand, raise your arm, and bring it down on a defenseless baby.  Just once, let alone time after time after time.  

I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority the answer is nothing - you wouldn't be able to.

Amen to this. I don't consider myself a "good person" -- I've failed too many times for that, been a coward, taken the easy way, etc. -- but I couldn't bring myself to hit/smack/flick a baby. I just could not, though we lived in that culture and people were telling us it was a part of "raising children the godly way (TM)". I would have said, at the time, that they were "good people," but I would have been wrong. People can be doing the best they can, and still be doing evil.

People in our former church called people like the Pearls and Richard Fugate and Tim Bayly and Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips "godly" -- which, IMO, makes their god a monster.

[ITD]

Nothing wrong with showing some good old fashioned judgement when evil presents itself. 

[Howl]

Sorry to derail this back to Gabriel Pearl, but is he living at home?  Anyone know how to find out if his ex (Lori) has a fb page?  Did Lori lose custody of the children or did he just finally get visitation rights or joint custory?

[samira_catlover]

As long as we're looking at the marital status of the Pearl kids----anybody have an update on the Anasts (the other Gabe, and I think Rebecca Pearl---they used to live in some awful shack while he studied the Bible FT, IIRC)?

[slickcat79]

Was Gabe one of the ones who was never legally married in the first place? Because the Pearls didn't want their speshul sneauflaykes to be "unequally yoked" to unbelievers and homos? 

I would say it's more than possible that came back to bite them in the ass.

[EmiGirl]

I'm not even sure the pearl kids have birth certificates and social security numbers.