Michael Pearl is going to be on Anderson's daytime talk.....

[Lainey]

Too bad the show did not bring up ...*snip*... His tests on future hubbies so as to make sure they are not into bestiality.

WHAT!????!!!!?????!!! :shock:

[browncoatslytherin]

That's okay. I brought it up in the comments. :D

tests to make sure prospective husbands aren't into bestiality? please dish

[marmalade]

tests to make sure prospective husbands aren't into bestiality? please dish

I didn't get into the bestiality stuff, just teh ebil gheys and no legal marriages. Also the story of the daughter walking around in the snow to keep warm because her "husband" hand-picked by Mike, is a complete loser who can't support his family.

I reminded the Pearl fangirls to look at the Pearl children to gauge the success of his methods and how that didn't work out so well. :dance:

[Lainey]

Why would anyone assume that bestiality is so common that you need to test your children's potential spouses for it?

Are the sheep afraid of MP?

[browncoatslytherin]

Why would anyone assume that bestiality is so common that you need to test your children's potential spouses for it?

methinks he doth protest too much...

[Brainsample]

Too bad the show did not bring up his current views on the evilll full of gays government that keeps his children from getting married. His tests on future hubbies so as to make sure they are not into bestiality.

Makes me wonder what his personal thoughts about Cooper, given his sexual preference. "How could he sit there and subject himself to a Sodmite like that?" Swoons. Get the fainting couch. Good thing there were no stones around in the studio. He could have made sure to bring in the Gary North types.

[Brainsample]

I'm ready to give up over there at Anderson Cooper's website, and before I decided to hang it up, I posted a link to Zimbardo's lecture at MIT about the Lucifer Effect. It is two hours long, but it is perhaps the most informative thing you could ever watch regarding Michael Pearl and just plain fundamentalism.

If anyone here has pondered just how people end up getting so entrenched in Pearl's system and how the process of moral disengagement takes place, this video will be invaluable. It describes the social psychology of how certain systems essentially capitalize upon human nature and work to bring out the worst in people.

Zimbardo suggests that most people are generally good apples, but if you put good apples into a bad barrel, or if the system that maintains the barrels is inadequate, it becomes something of a perfect storm. Under such conditions, the best of apples will turn.

I encourage everyone here to make time to watch it. It is definitely life changing and well worth the investment of time, I believe. I think that it's essential to understanding Michael Pearl.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459

[thoughtful]

I'm ready to give up over there at Anderson Cooper's website, and before I decided to hang it up, I posted a link to Zimbardo's lecture at MIT about the Lucifer Effect. It is two hours long, but it is perhaps the most informative thing you could ever watch regarding Michael Pearl and just plain fundamentalism.

If anyone here has pondered just how people end up getting so entrenched in Pearl's system and how the process of moral disengagement takes place, this video will be invaluable. It describes the social psychology of how certain systems essentially capitalize upon human nature and work to bring out the worst in people.

Zimbardo suggests that most people are generally good apples, but if you put good apples into a bad barrel, or if the system that maintains the barrels is inadequate, it becomes something of a perfect storm. Under such conditions, the best of apples will turn.

I encourage everyone here to make time to watch it. It is definitely life changing and well worth the investment of time, I believe. I think that it's essential to understanding Michael Pearl.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459

I liked your posts. I've been over there a bit this morning.

Thanks for the link. I have The Lucifer Effect out from the library, and am having tough time reading it -- physically! The print is very, very small.

[debrand]

I'm ready to give up over there at Anderson Cooper's website, and before I decided to hang it up, I posted a link to Zimbardo's lecture at MIT about the Lucifer Effect. It is two hours long, but it is perhaps the most informative thing you could ever watch regarding Michael Pearl and just plain fundamentalism.

If anyone here has pondered just how people end up getting so entrenched in Pearl's system and how the process of moral disengagement takes place, this video will be invaluable. It describes the social psychology of how certain systems essentially capitalize upon human nature and work to bring out the worst in people.

Zimbardo suggests that most people are generally good apples, but if you put good apples into a bad barrel, or if the system that maintains the barrels is inadequate, it becomes something of a perfect storm. Under such conditions, the best of apples will turn.

I encourage everyone here to make time to watch it. It is definitely life changing and well worth the investment of time, I believe. I think that it's essential to understanding Michael Pearl.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459

I am listening right now.

[AnnoDomini]

STUPID MICHAEL PEARL. I'm SO thankful my eyes were opened to his damaging teachings before I have kids of my own. If I ever have them, that is.

[BoomerLynn]

Why would anyone assume that bestiality is so common that you need to test your children's potential spouses for it?

Are the sheep afraid of MP?

[doggie]

Why would anyone assume that bestiality is so common that you need to test your children's potential spouses for it?

Are the sheep afraid of MP?

Plus dogs, pigs, horses, and cows. anything with 4 legs and that can take a beating.

[thoughtful]

Another page on the Anderson site on which one can comment:

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/12/0 ... /1/#c25132

Lots of Pearl-sheep baaing over there, as well as "I've never heard of the guy, but nobody let the poor man speeeeeak!" posts.

[Brainsample]

Another page on the Anderson site on which one can comment:

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/12/0 ... /1/#c25132

Lots of Pearl-sheep baaing over there, as well as "I've never heard of the guy, but nobody let the poor man speeeeeak!" posts.

I don't get it. A man teaches that you should hit a kid with plumbing line and there are deaths, and on one read the book, but the poor guy. He is to child raising what Kevorkian is to the practice of medicine, but people who don't know anything about him come to defend him.

Yeah, right. Rally the troops to do damage control.

[Terrie]

Another page on the Anderson site on which one can comment:

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/12/0 ... /1/#c25132

Lots of Pearl-sheep baaing over there, as well as "I've never heard of the guy, but nobody let the poor man speeeeeak!" posts.

We did let him speak. That's why we're all horrified.

[thoughtful]

And on a shallow note, "mah boo" looked quite fetching in his baby blue sweater.

He could have outshone them all in purple, though -- he wears it well:

[Linnea]

Can anyone explain *how* he checks that potential suitors aren't into bestiality?

ETA: I'm curious, although I'm not really sure I want to know . . .

[browncoatslytherin]

Can anyone explain *how* he checks that potential suitors aren't into bestiality?

ETA: I'm curious, although I'm not really sure I want to know . . .

this has me curious, too...

[doggie]

Can anyone explain *how* he checks that potential suitors aren't into bestiality?

ETA: I'm curious, although I'm not really sure I want to know . . .

he walks a sheep by and watches for a reaction. if I remember right he asks them. you you stay for that crap? his daughters are not that good of a catch.

[hoipolloi]

Not sure about the bestiality-watch - anyone recall or have the reference? Is this something that Debi talked about in CTBHH?

Some years ago, Mike Pearl did write about who will be able court/marry his granddaughter Laura Rose (nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2003/may/01/a-husband-for-laura-rose/):

It goes without saying that he must be a virgin. Furthermore, he must be absolutely innocent in regard to pornography. If he has ever been a user of porno, he can forget Laura. It will not matter that he has confessed his sins and is forgiven. David confessed and God forgave him, but he and his family continued to reap what he had sown until the day he died. Laura will bring innocence and purity to the marriage. I do not want her to come crying to Big Papa with tales of how her husband confessed that he fantasizes about other women when they are together, or of a sordid story of how he is not satisfied with natural sex.

[Brainsample]

Not sure about the bestiality-watch - anyone recall or have the reference? Is this something that Debi talked about in CTBHH?

Some years ago, Mike Pearl did write about who will be able court/marry his granddaughter Laura Rose (nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2003/may/01/a-husband-for-laura-rose/):

Can you blame poor "Mike"? He spent all that time beating the sin out of his daughter, it would be senseless to not expect the same of a SIL.

[Rachel333]

That's really harsh.

It's saddening to think of a guy looking at porn once and thinking he's ruined forever. That attitude also kind of encourages more porn use; if even confessing isn't good enough, why not just look at more?

[hoipolloi]

It will not matter that he has confessed his sins and is forgiven

I'm confused, as non-Christian. I thought that if a person confessed his sins & accepted Jesus as his savior, that was it. The person is in like Flynn (well, maybe not like Pa Flynn ;) ), no matter how heinous the sin(s) or how extensive a sinful past one has.

The above quote makes it sound like Michael Pearl, not God or Jesus, has the final authority on who is actually saved and therefore a Christian in good standing.

[doggie]

[quote="hoipolloi"

The above quote makes it sound like Michael Pearl, not God or Jesus, has the final authority on who is actually saved and therefore a Christian in good standing.

[Brainsample]

I'm confused, as non-Christian. I thought that if a person confessed his sins & accepted Jesus as his savior, that was it. The person is in like Flynn (well, maybe not like Pa Flynn ;) ), no matter how heinous the sin(s) or how extensive a sinful past one has.

The above quote makes it sound like Michael Pearl, not God or Jesus, has the final authority on who is actually saved and therefore a Christian in good standing.

Patriarchy is nothing but a way to keep control, why it is not real Christianity but is man's religion with the outward appearance of being Christianity. Pearl, Gothard... Both of these men's theologies rely on God to get them cleaned up initially when they first get "born again" through the profession of faith, but they immediately seize control back from God. It is a way of avoiding having to trust God, something that people with major control issues and psychopaths like Pearl don't really like to do.

Martin Luther and his student Melanchthon talked much about "forensic justification" (to be declared holy before God) legally, though while in this flesh, there is always imperfection and sin. The process of becoming holy begins, but we don't ever realize perfection in this life. There is balance there -- it doesn't give you license to just live however you want, but it does not mean that you make yourself holy through obsession with performance, good works and piety.

Pearl and those Pearl attracts (and Gothard who loves the Keswick/Higher Life Movement) believe that you can achieve sinlessness or near sinlessness. This was also big in Word of Faith, because when you get the sin out of your life, this is when you will manifest divine healing.

Look at this from NLQ's reposting of Laurie M's blog about her friends, the Schatz family. I repost it from NLQ because Laurie was essentially abused into deleting this from her own post on her blog. I think this is quite telling about why people end up getting involved in patriarchy. You get all the benefits of believing in Jesus, but you don't actually have to follow Him but get to "DIY" through performance, good works, and piety. The desire to maintian (the illusion of) control blinds people, and they don't see that this is what they are doing.

nolongerquivering.com/2010/02/22/lydias-smile-could-have-lit-a-room/

After about nine months they decided to leave our church. They had just completed our series of membership classes, so their change of heart came as a bit of a shock, and a disappointment. As I understood it, one of the reasons for their leaving was that the husband had a strong disagreement with a doctrinal stance of our church. He insisted that Christians could achieve total sanctification (a state of sinless living) in this lifetime. We heartily disagree. We actually believe that is an un-Biblical and unhealthy teaching which can lead to any number of problems – in particular legalism and perfectionism. When no agreement could be reached, he determined to find a church more in keeping with his position. I was so sad, because I’d grown so fond of my friend, and also her little adopted girls, especially little Lydia, who always looked at me like I was some kind of miracle.

It's like you agree to get in God's cab to get you to heaven, and after you negotiate the deal with Him, you take the keys and either throw him in the back of the cab and drive yourself, or you leave God standing on the street. And the guys like Pearl who do the driving don't take the right route. I guess we'll all find out one day whether he got to the desired final destination.

(On the other thread about Gothard's letter wherein he gives his phone #, this is why his redefinition of Grace is aberrant and not Christian. It un-does the primary message of salvation as it applies to the faith just after one first gets born again. God's only there for the intial clean-up. viewtopic.php?p=129030#p129030)