Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[FundiesInMyFamily]

No, it is code for GO READ HIS CHILDREN'S BLOGS; THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MALADJUSTED. We actually read the Anast's blog around here. The other children have not one legal marriage or job between them. That's right; they are unemployed itinerants who are living in sin with "spouses" to whom there is no actual marriage. The people on this board, however, have children who are engineers and other actual occupations, people who have traditional marriages and are contributing to society.

By "talks to God all day" we do not mean a preacher. Gabe Anast is not a preacher; he has no flock or church, he hears voices in his head and thinks that they are from God. His wife supports him in NOT supporting their children because she has been trained with beatings since she was 4 months old.

Thanks Emmiedahl, thats exactly what I meant, and would have said if my brain hadn't completely emptied of everything except fantasies of throttling Chloric.

[Rosa]

(Seriously. No Greater Joy is still the top two hits when I Google "Michael Pearl" but for "Michael Pearl spanking" the entire first page is critics, which is fabulous. FJ isn't on the first page yet)

[Witsec1]

Never once claimed it was necessary, only it wasn't evil. I have said it before. If you don't spank, fine by me. Calling those who do "hyena's" and those who advocate it "evil" is the issue. You are just plain wrong on that one.

You'll have to take that up with your friend "Mike" then. He's built a media min-empire out of convincing parents that they must strike their children with hoses, tree branches, belts, etc.

Once again, you would do well to slow down and read more carefully. I said anyone who inflicts pain on a baby for no reason, just because he can, has the morals of a hyena. Sometimes we do have to participate in inflicting pain on children, but for a good reason, e.g. medical procedure.

Parents who switch or hit their children think they have a good reason; I think they are mistaken, and I have lots of evidence to back that up.

This is not a spanking/ no-spanking issue. I don't think spanking is ever necessary, but I recognize that some parents spank without rising to the level of abuse. Plenty of parents who spank also oppose the Pearls quite vehemently because he advocates striking infants, refuses to give an upper limit to the number of blows, and some of the other problematic passages that have been discussed here.

I think the least Michael Pearl could do at this point is to review his materials, and also have an an advisory council of parents and others who have worked with a wide variety of children - adoptees, non-neurotypical, etc.- review it and suggest revisions so that the most problematic passages are removed. I don't think that will happen though.

[choleric]

No, it is code for GO READ HIS CHILDREN'S BLOGS; THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MALADJUSTED. We actually read the Anast's blog around here.

I went to the blog and it appears they haven't posted in quite some time. The husband makes a living from home working in some capacity in technology according to the website.

The other children have not one legal marriage or job between them.

*yawn* Not true. The youngest couple has a thriving herb store and we store as well as a well attended forum board (welltellme). The Brand couple the husband is a mechanic with his own shop. I think the other son works in the ministry in various capacities.

They are all married legally, they just don't have a marriage license. You should try not to insert your foot into your big mouth so often.

That's right; they are unemployed itinerants who are living in sin with "spouses" to whom there is no actual marriage. The people on this board, however, have children who are engineers and other actual occupations, people who have traditional marriages and are contributing to society.

Feel better to lie and then attack the lie with vigor? It sure is amusing to watch.

By "talks to God all day" we do not mean a preacher. Gabe Anast is not a preacher; he has no flock or church, he hears voices in his head and thinks that they are from God. His wife supports him in NOT supporting their children because she has been trained with beatings since she was 4 months old.

Now that I know who you are all talking about....they have a blog that no one posts on, they have a forum board that gets minimal traffic (last post was Oct 12th) and the man works from home on his computer according to the site. believe it or not, some people are happy with little and no debt. Strange, maybe, maladjusted, hardly.

[choleric]

Because I have run into casual Pearl defenders before, of the "well he never says beat" and "just ignore the bad parts and use the good parts" and "I was spanked and it was fine" types, but this is just ludicrous.

Dont be so hard on yourself Rosa. You might be a little vile and bitterly angry, but you aren't ludicrous.

[Rosa]

Oh honey, you don't want to see me angry. This is just the joy of totally pummeling someone in debate. I cut my teeth on street preachers, back in my "Had to memorize chunks of the Bible" days, but I gave it up as not good for my character.

There are two steps to legal marriage: getting a license, and having it solemnized by someone who is authorized by the state to do it. Both are necessary. In some states there are other requirements (witnesses, usually; Kentucky has the requirement that the County Clerk must file a signed statement that the marriage certificate was recorded.)

You're either losing your troll edge or you're really dumb.

Here's the link to and official explanation of Kentucky marriage law:

http://ag.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F6D771F7- ... agelaw.pdf

Pursuant to KRS 402.100(2)(d), there must be entered in such record a signed statement

by the county clerk (or deputy clerk) of the county in which the marriage license was issued that

the marriage certificate was recorded. Such statement must indicate the name of the county and

the date the marriage certificate was recorded.

[FJSharkJump]

Quoting myself again. Choleric, are you going to address this or what? I've provided the definitions for you and everything. I'd like to hear how you reconcile this.

I'm going to quote myself. I don't want choleric to overlook my previous post.

[Rosa]

p.s. I love the internet. Not only does it let me go and check basic facts like "how do you get legally married in Kentucky" in about 3 seconds, I can go reread stuff like the comment threads at ThatMom and see how *all* the Pearl supporters are crazy random fact-free drivebys. Or snitty people who request to have all their comments deleted. You're either all the same person or all equally dumb, it's kind of neat to see my biases so confirmed.

[choleric]

Oh honey, you don't want to see me angry. This is just the joy of totally pummeling someone in debate. I cut my teeth on street preachers, back in my "Had to memorize chunks of the Bible" days, but I gave it up as not good for my character.

There are two steps to legal marriage: getting a license, and having it solemnized by someone who is authorized by the state to do it. Both are necessary. In some states there are other requirements (witnesses, usually; Kentucky has the requirement that the County Clerk must file a signed statement that the marriage certificate was recorded.)

You're either losing your troll edge or you're really dumb.

Here's the link to and official explanation of Kentucky marriage law:

http://ag.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F6D771F7- ... agelaw.pdf

Pursuant to KRS 402.100(2)(d), there must be entered in such record a signed statement

by the county clerk (or deputy clerk) of the county in which the marriage license was issued that

the marriage certificate was recorded. Such statement must indicate the name of the county and

the date the marriage certificate was recorded.

You have all the legal standing in a state without a marriage license. The state cannot grant permission for people to marry each other. You can still have a will, pass retirement etc. It can be done without, people do it all the time.

also, from your brochure:

However, in Vaughn v. Hufnagel, 473 S.W.2d 124, 125 (Ky. 1971), the court said in part

that this state does not recognize common-law marriage within the boundary lines of this state

but it may recognize one legalized by another state.

and:

KRS 402.070 provides that no marriage solemnized before any person professing to have

authority to perform marriages shall be invalid for the want of such authority if the marriage is

consummated with the belief of the parties, or either of them, that the person performing the

marriage had the authority and that they have been lawfully married. See Arthurs v. Johnson,

280 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Ky. 1955).

[FJSharkJump]

I think someone is avoiding me.

[Rosa]

That's about the other part, the solemnizing part. The license is still required; the belief of the participants that they are married means that if you find out after the fact that your officiant was a fraud, your marriage is still valid, IF it is licensed and the certificate properly filed with the state.

There's no common-law marriage in New Mexico, and in Tennessee there's no common-law marriage except that cohabitants (also known as people who have been "shacking up") can inherit the same as legally married people.

Now, start quoting "Mike" on how what he advocates isn't violent. I know he's made those statements, you can find them!

Curiouser: is it possible he's a 'bot? Or that he really doesn't read well enough to participate? Though I'm leaning toward troll, now. I don't see Michael Pearl as a sophist - seems like he'd have more follow-through.

[Rosa]

Just to pre-emptively clarify for the mind-bogglingly dense, the word "license" is used in Tennessee law for a number of situations: the case referred to in that pamphlet for authority to perform marriages refers to the licensing of the minister. That law (KRS 402.060) was repealed. Anybody at all can claim to be a minister in Tennessee, with no need of licensing. However, couples wishing to be legally wed must still obtain a marriage license, and have the marriage certificate filed with a clerk of the county in which they were married.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah, read this and then try and tell us that Rebecca Anast née Pearl is a happy, well-adjusted woman.

dreaming-awake.com/category/war-and-apocalyptic/

In addition to believing that she's a prophetess, she also treated her life threatening pre-eclampsia with cherry juice because she had no health insurance. Her husband Gabe spent the last several years begging for donations to keep them fed while he stayed home, studied the Bible, and ran two small forums. That's not a job. He himself said that he quit his real job because God told him to.

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." - 1 Timothy 5:8

That's Gabe Anast all over. Not much of a success story for Michael Pearl.

[FJSharkJump]

"Mike" must be so proud.

[Witsec1]

Never once claimed it was necessary, only it wasn't evil. I have said it before. If you don't spank, fine by me. Calling those who do "hyena's" and those who advocate it "evil" is the issue. You are just plain wrong on that one.

The reasoning goes like this:

Premise 1: It is evil to intentionally inflict pain on a baby, unless absolutely necessary.

Premise 2: It is not necessary to inflict pain by slapping or striking a baby, in order to raise healthy, moral, creative adults.

Conclusion: It is evil inflict pain by slapping or striking a baby.

You have admitted you accept Premise 2, but you reject the conclusion. I'm interested in hearing your arguments for Premise 1. Why do you think it is morally acceptable to inflict pain on a baby, simply because you want to?

[Maul the Koala]

I just caught up on all 17 pages of this. Oh my goodness choleric you are such an idiot. It's like seeing a Fundie Eric Cartman in action.

I read passages out loud from To Train Up A Child in one of my classes. This is a class with people of diverse backgrounds, including people who work with child abuse cases directly and others (like myself) who work in departments where we come into contact with children who have been abused. Everyone was horrified. It doesn't matter if people are applying it right or not or whatever bile it is you're continuing to spew. It's A-B-U-S-E.

I find it hilarious that you keep on commenting on this thread. Keep on commenting and let's let the search engine bots keep on indexing these pages on the Pearls and their abusive ways. That way when people search for Michael and Debi Pearl on Google pages like ours will show up.

[FJSharkJump]

I just caught up on all 17 pages of this. Oh my goodness choleric you are such an idiot. It's like seeing a Fundie Eric Cartman in action.

Spot on! :character-cartman:

[treemom]

Don't they live in Tennessee? I am pretty sure we don't have common law marriage here, so no they aren't married.

[formergothardite]

I think they had their not legal marriage in Tennessee, but then moved somewhere else. Aren't they living on some reservation or near a reservation sometimes with no power or running water while Gabe spends all his time begging people to support him while he won't work?

[emmiedahl]

I had to laugh. One of them has a blog and the other has a failing business selling herbs even though she has no herbal training or education. Snerk. Okay, if that is what you consider successful. lolz. It's funny, because Michael Pearl claims that the next generation of doctors and therapists is coming from kids raised his way, but his own kids have, what?, a few blogs. No degrees, no legal marriages, not even a high school diploma in the bunch.

Sounds like a really successful parenting technique.

[Paisy]

Are you mentally impaired?

Raging lunacy seems to have good company around here.

Pot/Kettle my friend.

Choleric please don't ever leave this forum.

Anyways, my fingernails have always been too soft for me to do anything with. :( I went with acrylic nails for my wedding and a week later I thought the tips of my fingers were going to fall off. I have to make do with pretty toes.

[choleric]

It has been a fun visit to the insane asylum and I will now let you all get back to your stalking of Christians and other fun games of bitterness and anger.

If any of you care to venture out into the cruel world where not everyone enjoys the same pastimes as you, such as hunting evil Christians, I have started a similar thread on a forum board I frequent called theologyonline. You will find me there under the same name. Here is a link to that topic I just started. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77711. Admittedly, it might not get as much attention there as, while we have our resident crazies too, most of those folks are a little, well...normal. But anyhow, come on over, we could use a few more "interesting" types to banter about with.

Hope to see you all there, well...mostly. 8-)

[hoipolloi]

The Anasts are not legally married according to the laws of Tennessee, where their "wedding" was held, or in New Mexico where, at last report, they are residing with their 7 kids in reservation housing of some kind. Tennessee does not permit common law marriages and New Mexico only recognizes common law marriages contracted where it is still legal to do so (not in Tennessee, however). Since Daddy Mike wouldn't allow Rebekah to obtain a state-issued marriage license in TN, and there is no indication that the Anasts have since obtained any other form state recognition, so it appears they are in a shack-up union. This is a good example of what can happen to those who worship in the Church of Daddy Said So, particularly women.

Speaking of the Anasts, looks like at least one of their erstwhile sycophants has stopped drinking the KoolAid:

Final post 7xsunday 2

Some of you may have noticed that i have not been taking part in 7xsunday for a little over a year and a half.

i am writing this post for two purposes

1. is to formally separate myself from the dreams and teachings of Gabe and Rebekah Anast, and thereby from 7xSunday and

2. is to give a relatively brief explanation of why i believe it necessary to separate myself....

Observations

Sometime near the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 two things happened:

1. i began to recognize that some of the Anast’s dreams (that DID contained enough detail to know) did not, and would not come to pass. And …

2. Gabe posted in the prophetic dreams thread on 7xsunday a post that blatantly exposed that Gabe did not possess a Spiritual gift for interpreting dreams, ie God does not and did not expose the interpretation of dreams to Gabe not even through Gabe's prayers. (#2 is addressed in; “boasting of a false gift†below)

These excerpts are part of a rather lengthy commentary on why Gabe & Rebekah Anast are nothing but mountebanks. Read the whole thing at 7 X Sunday > Community Announcements & Updates > 80 days dream [No link because Gabe has disabled linking.]

[Guest Anonymous]

It has been a fun visit to the insane asylum and I will now let you all get back to your stalking of Christians and other fun games of bitterness and anger.

If any of you care to venture out into the cruel world where not everyone enjoys the same pastimes as you, such as hunting evil Christians, I have started a similar thread on a forum board I frequent called theologyonline. You will find me there under the same name. Here is a link to that topic I just started. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77711. Admittedly, it might not get as much attention there as, while we have our resident crazies too, most of those folks are a little, well...normal. But anyhow, come on over, we could use a few more "interesting" types to banter about with.

Hope to see you all there, well...mostly. 8-)

At least she didn't call us a petting zoo.

[treemom]

Choleric still never answered the question about hitting a baby to young to understand it.