Michael Pearl vs. Ellen White


Cynthia Reder

Michael Pearl wrote the book To Train Up a Child. It is being widely accepted in conservative Christian circles including Adventists. Is Michael Pearls way the way in child rearing? Is it Biblical? Does it line up with the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy? In this booklet we will be reviewing Michael Pearls book To Train Up a Child and information on their family website and comparing it with Ellen G White's writings to answer these questions. TTUAC refers to their book To Train Up a Child. NGJ refers to their No Greater Joy website. EGW refers to Ellen G White.


Section 1 Training: Who or What? Page 1

What are we training? There are no exceptions? What is training?

Section 2 What Does Training Involve? Page 4

The beginning of all maneuvers Who is the tempter? Force your will?

Section 3 The Rod Page 7

Rewarding every transgression with a switching? Is the rod indispensable? God spanks His children? Does the rod absolve sins?


Give up the rod?

Section 4 Other Theological Errors Page 12

Vegetarianism: A Satanic doctrine?

God hates divorce--always, forever, regardless, without exception?

Is church only for the righteous?

Section 5 Conclusion Page 16

Nearly half a century later

Section 1:

Training: Who or What?

What are we training?

Michael Pearl: "These truths are not new, deep insights from the professional world of research, rather, the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children. They are profoundly simple and extremely obvious. After examining them with us, you will say, "I knew that all along. Where have I been? It's so obvious."" Introduction TTUAC

"Training does not necessarily require that the trainee be capable of reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli. Careful training can make a dog perfectly obedient. If a seeing-eye dog can be trained to reliably lead a blind man through the obstacles of a city street, shouldn't a parent expect more out of an intelligent child? A dog can be trained not to touch a tasty morsel laid in front of him. Can't a child be trained not to touch? A dog can be trained to come, stay, sit, be quiet or fetch upon command. You may not have trained your dog that well, yet every day someone accomplishes it on the dumbest mutts. Even a clumsy teenager can be trained to be an effective trainer in a dog obedience school." Chapter 1Paragraph 6

EGW: "In households and in schools the education of children should not be like the training of dumb animals; for children have an intelligent will, which should be directed to control all their powers. The dumb animals need to be trained; for they have not reason and intellect. The human mind must be taught self-control. It must be educated to rule the human being, while the animal is controlled by the master. The beast is trained to be submissive to his master. The master is mind, judgment, and will for his beast. A child may be so trained as to have, like the beast, no will of his own. His individuality may even be submerged in the one who superintends his training, and the will is, to all intents and purposes, subject to the will of the teacher.

Children who are thus educated will ever be deficient in moral energy and individual responsibility. They have not been taught to move from reason and principle. Their will was controlled by another, and the mind was not called out, that it might expand and strengthen by exercise. They were not directed and disciplined with respect to their peculiar constitution and capabilities of mind, to put forth their strongest powers when required." {CE 6.1 and 2}

My thoughts: Here in the Introduction of his book Michael Pearl tells us that the child training methods he uses are the same as are used on animals and that this is the method that God uses. Yet Ellen White says that children should not be trained using this type of method. If God is against this type of training for our children for the above reasons, would He then use them for His adult children? This is our first sign of inaccuracy in this book.

There are no exceptions?

Michael Pearl: "Any parent with an emotional maturity level higher than the average thirteen-year-old can, with a proper vision and knowledge of the technique, have happy obedient children. This is not a theory; it is a practical reality which has been successfully applied many times over." Introduction TTUAC

"Proper training always works on every child." Chapter 1 TTUAC Paragraph 8

"There are no exceptions, the "strong willed," the hyper active, the highly intelligent and the easily bored all need training, and training is effective on all.

If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do." NGJ

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org Paragraph 21

EGW: "The study of books will be of little benefit, unless the ideas gained can be carried out in practical life. And yet the most valuable suggestions of others should not be adopted without thought and discrimination. They may not be equally adapted to the circumstances of every mother, or to the peculiar disposition or temperament of each child in the family. Let the mother study with care the experience of others, note the difference between their methods and her own, and carefully test those that appear to be of real value." {CG 32.2}

What is training?

Pearl: ""Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6)." Train up, not beat up. Train up, not discipline up. Train up, not educate up. Train up, not "positive affirmation" up. Training is the most obvious missing element in child rearing. Training is not discipline. A child will need more than "obedience training," but without it everything else will be insufficient. Understand, at this point we are not talking about producing godly children, just happy and obedient children. The principles for training children to instantly obey can be equally applied by Christians and non-Christians." Chapter 1 Paragraphs 17, 20

EGW: "Solomon says, "Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This language is positive. The training which Solomon enjoins is to direct, educate, and develop. In order for parents to do this work, they must themselves understand the way the child should go. This embraces more than merely having a knowledge of books. It takes in everything that is good, virtuous, righteous, and holy. It comprehends the practice of temperance, Godliness, brotherly kindness, and love to God and to one another. In order to attain this object, the physical, mental, moral, and religious education of children must have attention." {BEcho, May 1, 1893 par. 3}

My thoughts: Pearl states that train up does not mean educate up. Ellen White says that part of the training that is required is educating. Pearl states that train doesnt mean discipline but if you look at the original word it is chanak- to narrow, initiate, or discipline. (2596 in Strongs) Pearl misinterprets what training is. He also states that this training can be "equally applied by Christians and non-Christians." That is another clue that this is not a training manual we want to be getting our advice from. EGW says in the above quote that in order for this Proverbs training to take place the parent must have an understanding of the way a child should go which means they need a knowledge of what is "good, virtuous, righteous, and holy", "temperance, Godliness, brotherly kindness, and love to God and to one another." This is not something that a non-Christian can accomplish.

Section 2:

What Does Pearls Training Involve?

We have already seen that it is the method the "Amish use to train their stubborn mules" and that it can be "equally applied by Christians and non-Christians" but what else does it actually involve?

The beginning of all maneuvers

Pearl: "When headstrong young men join the military, they are first taught to stand still. The many hours of close-order-drill are simply to teach and reinforce submission of the will. "Attention!" pronounced, "TENNN--HUTT!!" is the beginning of all maneuvers. Just think of the relief it would be if by one command you could gain the absolute, silent, concentrated attention of all your children. A sergeant can call his men to attention and then, without explanation, ignore them, and they will continue to stand frozen in that position until they fall out unconscious. The maneuvers "Right flank, Left flank, Companeeey--Halt" have no value in war except as they condition the men to instant, unquestioning obedience.

As in the military, all maneuvers in the home begin with a call to attention. Three-fourths of all home discipline problems would be instantly solved if you could at any time gain your child's silent, unmoving attention. "TO THE REAR--MARCH" translated into family language would be: "Leave the room," or, "Go to bed." Without question they turn and go. This is normal in the well trained family." Chapter 1 Paragraph 9, 10

"I have taught the children to obey first and ask questions later. When they were small and I put them through paces, they learned to immediately do what I said. If they ever failed to instantly obey a command, I would "drill" them. "Sit down. Don't speak until I tell you to." Understand, I was not taking out frustrations. It was all done in the utmost pleasantness and usually even fun. "Stand up," I would say. "Now come here. Go touch the door." And, before they could get there, "Sit." Plop, down they would go." Now, go to your rooms and clean them up." Just like little, proud soldiers, off they would go to the task." Chapter 10 Paragraph 13

EGW: "It is not God's purpose that any mind should be thus dominated. Those who weaken or destroy individuality assume a responsibility that can result only in evil. While under authority, the children may appear like well-drilled soldiers; but when the control ceases, the character will be found to lack strength and steadfastness. Having never learned to govern himself, the youth recognizes no restraint except the requirement of parents or teacher. This removed, he knows not how to use his liberty and often gives himself up to indulgence that proves his ruin.--Ed 288 (1903)." {2MCP 707.2}

My thoughts: Pearl teaches that the parent is to be in absolute control of the mind. He shows later in his book the wisdom of Ellen Whites words when he talks about how his adult children are still completely dominated by him.

Pearl: "Even today, without looking at the children, I can snap my finger, pointing to the floor, and they all (including the ones over six-feet) immediately sit. I can point to the door, and they all take it." Chapter 10 Paragraph 16

My thoughts: Also in the above quote Pearl would give commands and before the children had time to complete them he would give them another. They were to "Sit." before they could even make it to the door. In order to follow one command they had to disobey another.


Who is the tempter?

Pearl: "A two-year-old girl picked up an item that was off limits. Her older sister, fourteen, told her she couldn't play with it and proceeded to take it away. The child threw a screaming fit. My wife immediately set up a training session. She took the forbidden object and placed it back on the floor in front of the child. You may say, "But that is tempting the child!" Did not God do the same for Adam and Eve?" TTUAC Chapter 8 Paragraph 5

EGW: "It is Satan's work to tempt; it is man's work to resist..." Signs of the Times December 13, 1899

"Trials are permitted to come upon the chosen people of God. The expression is used, "God tempted Abraham"; "God tempted the children of Israel." This means that the Lord permitted Satan to tempt." {13 Manuscripts Release 361.1}

My thoughts: As it is Satan not God who tempts, by tempting your child you are being an example not of God but of Satan. EGW says, "Christ is not here in person, as in the days of his earthly ministry, to teach the youth; but it is the privilege of parents and teachers so to represent Christ in word and character that the light of heaven will shine into the hearts of the youth, and many will be converted to Christ." {RH, February 1, 1912 par. 2}We are to be representatives of Christ to our children. What a confusing picture we give them of Christ when we tempt them to come to things that will bring them pain. God does not try to get us to come near to something that is forbidden just so that He can show us that it is bad for us, as Pearl recommends in the following quotes. Tempting your child is a main part of the training philosophy of the Pearls. There are many quotes in the book that discuss this. A few more are:

Pearl: "Place an appealing object where they can reach it, maybe in a "No-no" corner or on an apple juice table (That's where the coffee table once sat). When they spy it and make a dive for it, in a calm voice say, "No, don't touch it." They will already be familiar with the "No," so they will pause, look at you in wonder and then turn around and grab it. Switch their hand once and simultaneously say, "No." Remember, you are not disciplining, you are training." Chapter 1 Paragraph 22

"We have always had a wood-burning stove for cooking and heating. Toddlers can be seriously burned by a red-hot stove. I have seen some awful scars. But, we had no fear, knowing the effectiveness of training. When the first fires of fall were lit, I would coax the toddler over to see the fascinating flames. Of course, they always wanted to touch, so I held them off until the stove got hot enough to inflict pain without deep burning--testing it with my own hand. When the heat was just right, I would open the door long enough for them to be attracted by the flames. I then move away. The child would inevitably run to the stove and touch it. Just as his hand touched the stove, I would say, "Hot!" It usually took twice, sometimes three times, but they all learned their lesson." Chapter 10 Paragraph 4


Force your will?

Pearl: "However, if you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final." Chapter 6 Paragraph 2

EGW: "The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened."{Reflecting Christ 23.3}

"Minds are constituted differently; while force may secure outward submission, the result with many children is a more determined rebellion of the heart. Even should the parent or teacher succeed in gaining the control he seeks, the outcome may be no less harmful to the child. . . ." {CG 210.3}

"Children can not be brought to the Lord by force. They can be led, but not driven. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me," Christ declares. He did not say, My sheep hear my voice, and are forced into the path of obedience." {RH, January 29, 1901 par. 8}

My thoughts: Again Pearls method is the method of Satan. Force "is contrary to the principles of Gods government". If we want to capture the childs heart there can not be the use of force because the result of force is "a more determined rebellion of the heart." If you form a rebellion in your children by using force they will also be in rebellion to Christ of whom you are supposed to imitate.

Section 3:

The Rod

Does the Pearl teaching line up with Ellen Whites on this issue?

Rewarding every transgression with a switching?

Pearl: "When we speak of consistently rewarding every transgression with a switching (not a karate chop to the lower backbone), this mother can only see herself as further brutalizing children for whom it will do no good. Her discipline is just "laying down a field of fire" to give herself sufficient cover to get through to the next task. She doesn't hope to conquer their wills, just create enough diversion to accomplish her own mission." Chapter 1 TTUAC Paragraph 2

"After two days of consistently rewarding every transgression with a spanking, Johnny turned to his mother and said, "But Mother, you are not giving me any more chances!" The mother said, "That's right, you don't get any more chances. From now on you are to always obey the first time." He had been using his "chances" to purchase disobedience. After two years he now obeys the first time, and Mother no longer gets angry." Chapter 3 Paragraph 6

EGW: "It may be necessary to whip a child at times. But every other resort should first be tried before you cause your child physical pain." ST, April 30, 1894 par. 5

"The mother may ask, "Shall I never punish my child?"

Whipping may be necessary when other resorts fail, yet she should not use the rod if it is possible to avoid doing so. But if milder measures prove insufficient, punishment that will bring the child to its senses should in love be administered. Frequently one such correction will be enough for a lifetime, to show the child that he does not hold the lines of control." {CG 250.1 and 2}

My thoughts: EGW talks about the use of physical punishment as a last resort. She also says that once is frequently enough to last a lifetime. Yet this is Pearls main tool of training. He teaches that you are to reward "every transgression" with a spanking.

Is the rod indispensable?

Pearl: "The very nature of the child makes the rod an indispensable element in child training and discipline." Chapter 5 Paragraph 29

EGW: "Some children are so vicious in their tempers that the infliction of pain is necessary, but very many cases are made much worse by this manner of discipline." {CG 251.3}

"Many times you will find that if you will reason with them kindly, they will not need to be whipped. And such method of dealing will lead them to have confidence in you." {CG 250.4}

My thoughts: Again, very conflicting passages. Pearl says that the rod is indispensable, yet EGW says that only some children will ever even need it and that many situations are made worse by inflicting pain and that reasoning kindly with them will lead them to have confidence in you. I will discuss more of why Pearl believes the rod is indispensable in the section titled Does the rod absolve sins?


God spanks His children?

Pearl: "Those who out of a magnanimous sense of righteousness choose not to use the rod are, by inference, condemning God. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons (Heb. 12:6-8)."

Then it says He chastens us "for our own profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:10)." A most profound statement! God does not have any sons who escape chastisement--"all are partakers." And, did He stop loving those whom he chastened? Quite the contrary, love was His motivation for the "spanking." Only through chastisement, could His sons fully partake of His holiness. He does it "for our own profit."

"No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous... (Heb. 12:11)." God's chastisement is a painful "whipping." Our "fathers of the flesh... chastened us after their own pleasure... (12: 9, 10)." The Scripture not only condones physical "scourging," but promotes it as a means to holiness--when ministered for the son's "profit."

The chastisement is represented as a sure sign of love: "for whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth. " If there is no chastisement, it is not only an indication of not being loved, but of being a "bastard" So we see that out of the very love of God springs chastisement. Thus, our original passage in Prov. 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. "

If God's love is expressed by the "whippings" He gives, then can we not love our children enough to chasten them unto holiness?" Chapter 5 Paragraphs 23-27

EGW: "When tribulation comes upon us, how many of us fail to rejoice. Many are like Peter, and look upon the troublous waves about them, instead of keeping the eye fixed upon Jesus. When we turn our eyes from our difficulties, and fix them upon Jesus our helper, we see what matchless charms He has, and know that "all things work together for good to them that love God." We do not forget the exhortation which is spoken unto us, "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him; for whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? . . . For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure: but He for our profit; that we might be partakers of his holiness."" {BEcho, March 1, 1893 par. 7}

My thoughts: Ellen White says that this chastening and scourging are the trials and tribulations that come upon us. Pearl states that these verses can be used to prove that the Bible "condones physical "scourging,"" yet he himself puts scourging in parentheses showing that it isnt a literal scourging. The fact of the matter is that God does not spank us. He does however remove His hand of protection at times and allows trials and tribulations to come on us. This verse then is not adequate to prove that spanking is the best way or Gods way or that God spanks His adult children.

Does the rod absolve sins?

Pearl: "A spanking (whipping, paddling, switching, belting) is indispensable to the removal of guilt in your child. His very conscience (nature) demands punishment." Chapter 5 Paragraph 45

"The parent holds in his hand (in the form of a little switch) the power to absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, instruct his spirit, strengthen his resolve, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid. "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly (Prov. 20:30)." "Inward parts of the belly" is a description of the physical sensations associated with guilt.
Stripes ("scourgeth" Heb. 12:6) are said to be to the soul what the healing blood flow is to a wound. A child properly and timely spanked is healed in the soul and restored to wholeness of spirit. A child can be turned back from the road to hell through proper spankings. "Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov. 23:13, 14)."

Father, as high priest of the family you can reconcile your child to newness of life. Guilt gives Satan a just calling card and a door of access to your child. In accompaniment with teaching, the properly administered spanking is restorative as nothing else can be. Chapter 5 Paragraphs 55-57

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying (Prov. 19:18)." Proper use of the rod gives new hope to a rebellious child. The exhortation is to not let their crying cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking. A parent's emotions can stand in the way of a thorough cleansing." Chapter 5 Paragraph 60

"Let the guilt come, and then, while they are yet too young to understand, absolve it by means of the rod. When their time comes, the principles of the cross will be easy to grasp." Chapter 5 Paragraph 54

EGW: "An eminent divine was once asked how old a child must be before there was reasonable hope of his being a Christian. "Age has nothing to do with it," was the answer. "Love to Jesus, trust, repose, confidence, are all qualities that agree with the child's nature. As soon as a child can love and trust his mother, then can he love and trust Jesus as the friend of his mother. Jesus will be his friend, loved and honored."" {HR, January 1, 1880 par. 8}

"Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law, and bring him again into harmony with Heaven." {AG 42.2}

"Children who have not experienced the cleansing power of Jesus are the lawful prey of the enemy, and the evil angels have easy access to them. Some parents are careless and suffer their children to grow up with but little restraint. Parents have a great work to do in the matter of correcting and training their children, and in bringing them to God and claiming His blessing upon them. By the faithful and untiring efforts of the parents, and the blessing and grace bestowed upon the children in response to the prayers of the parents, the power of the evil angels may be broken and a sanctifying influence shed upon the children. Thus the powers of darkness will be driven back." {CT 118.2}

"Do not teach your children with reference to some future period, when they shall be old enough to repent and believe the truth. Very young children, if properly instructed, may have correct views of their state as sinners, and of the way of salvation through Christ." {4bSG 142.2}

My thoughts: Ellen White says that it is the parents job to restrain, correct, and train. Only one equal with God can make atonement for sin and cleanse the soul, even the soul of a small child. How deceptive the claim of Pearls that it is the parents job by switching and spanking a child to "absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul," to give the child "the removal of guilt," and "give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid." The childs own stripes dont have the power to pay "all indebtedness". It is only through Christ "by whose stripes ye were healed" that all indebtedness is paid. (1 Peter 2:24) EGW also states that we should not teach our "children with reference to some future period, when they shall be old enough to repent and believe the truth. Very young children, if properly instructed, may have correct views of their state as sinners, and of the way of salvation through Christ." Yet Pearl says that when guilt comes to your children "while they are yet too young to understand, absolve it by means of the rod. When their time comes, the principles of the cross will be easy to grasp." The thought that a man can cleanse a person, even a child, by causing physical pain is a Catholic belief. It is not in line with our beliefs at all. EGW again says, "Your fellow men cannot absolve you from sin or cleanse you from iniquity. Jesus is the only One who can give you peace. He loved you and gave Himself for you. His great heart of love is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. 4:15). {AG 87.4}" and "Those who desire forgiveness must present their prayers to God, trusting in the merits of Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man. Their confessions must not be given through any human channel, as priest or pope; they must be presented to God, who has given Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. {ST, April 1, 1897 par. 7}" By looking to the parent and the switch for the cleansing of his soul and a fresh start he is not looking to Christ and His stripes to do the cleansing.


Pearl: "The child should be able to anticipate the coming rod by your utterly calm and controlled spirit.

At this point, in utter panic, he will rush to demonstrate obedience. Never reward delayed obedience by reversing the sentence." Chapter 6 Paragraph 2

EGW: "Exact obedience in your family; but while you do this, seek the Lord with your children, and ask Him to come in and rule. Your children may have done something that demands punishment; but if you deal with them in the spirit of Christ, their arms will be thrown about your neck; they will humble themselves before the Lord and will acknowledge their wrong. That is enough. They do not then need punishment. Let us thank the Lord that He has opened the way by which we may reach every soul." {CG 244.1}

My thoughts: If your child is rushing to demonstrate obedience in "utter panic" then you are obviously not dealing with them in the spirit of Christ. EGW says that if you deal with them correctly they will humble themselves and acknowledge their wrong. That is my main problem with the teachings of the Pearls. Their "training" methods instill fear and panic in your child. Fear of you, the parent and representative of Christ. As we read in a quote above EGW says "Many times you will find that if you will reason with them kindly, they will not need to be whipped. And such method of dealing will lead them to have confidence in you." {CG 250.4} Panic and confidence are complete opposites. They can not reside together.

Give up the rod?

Pearl: "To give up the use of the rod is to give up our views of human nature, God, eternity, judgment, etc. Most of all, to give up the use of the rod is to abandon our children to a fate that is more cruel than jaila life of self-will and unruliness." NGJ website

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/  Paragraph 12

EGW: "Some children are so vicious in their tempers that the infliction of pain is necessary, but very many cases are made much worse by this manner of discipline." {CG 251.3}

My thoughts: Since the rod is so entwined is his views of "human nature, God, eternity, judgment, etc." and his views of the rod are so different from EGWs it would stand to reason that his views of human nature, God, eternity, judgment, etc. are all also very different from EGWs.

Section 4

Other Theological Errors

"Vegetarianism: A Satanic doctrine?

The following is an article from the NGJ website in its entirety. All emphasis is Michael Pearls.

Eating Meat - The "Doctrine of Devils"

By: Michael Pearl

...Some say that it was not God's original plan for us to eat meat. His original plan was for us to go around naked, but things have changed...

Dear Pearls,

We have heard that eating meat was not Gods original plan for man and that it is unhealthy. Since our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, it stands to reason that we should not eat meat. This would also seem to apply to dairy products. I also wonder about the wisdom in consuming any of the forms of caffeine. My husband thinks I am nitpicking, making a big deal over nothing, but I believe otherwise.

A reader

Michael Answers:

You heard that eating meat is unhealthy? You heard wrong. The latest, most up-to-date scientific evidence is that meat is very good for you. Soybeans and pasta will kill you, after it diminishes your sex drive and shrivels up your backbone, but meat, red, juicy meat, with a little sizzled fat, will keep you alive longer and put some kick in your love life. Have you never noticed all the bent-over, pale and sickly vegetarians?

You said it was not Gods original plan for us to eat meat. His original plan was for us to go around naked, but things have changed. His original plan called for us living in a garden with a health food tree that sustained life, no matter what you ate (Gen 3:22 with Rev 22:2). We live on a cursed earth and eat cursed vegetables and grains (Gen 3:17-18) and cursed meat (Rom 8:21), putting them into a cursed body everyday. So forget about how Adam and Eve lived. The question is: What is the will of God under our present circumstances?

Scripture throws a great deal of light on this Satanic doctrine of abstaining from meats. Read 1 Timothy 4:1-5. It tells us that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." Did you read it? God created creatures to be eaten. When he created the cow, he had Sunday roasts and Saturday night steaks in mind.

He said meat "is good, and nothing to be refused." All meat "is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." I eat only sanctified cows, deer, pigs, rabbits, rattle-snakes, chickens, and iguanas. I once ate a parrot worth about $1,000.00. I was in the jungle, and at the time it seemed like a good idea. Tasted terrible. I wouldn't recommend it. I even ate a long-legged crane for supper one day. We had to have two platters just to hold the drumsticks. Another time in the jungle, I caught a boa constrictor about ten feet long. Those watching said it caught me, but I barbequed it and invited the natives. About twenty showed up for the after-church dinner. It was the longest meal I ever ate. Tasted like chicken, of course. I had turtle on the half shell once. It comes with its own bowl, you know. Once was enough. I wont gross you out with stories of the unclean things I have eaten. I prayed over all these "creatures" given by God "to be received with thanksgiving."

My children have eaten almost everything that crawls, jumps, or slithers. My daughter has eaten live grub worms. The total doctors visits for sickness, of all my children put together, wouldnt pay one nurses salary for a week. At fifty-eight, my immune system is so high, Im even immune to criticism. And none of us eat toe food. Now, dont go away with your feelings hurt. Read some more Scripture on the subject. God commanded, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

God commanded the Israelites to eat meat. In Exodus 12, he commanded every man to kill a lamb, roast it, and eat all of it, with no leftovers. And then he told them that it would be an ordinance that they should eat this Passover lamb every year forever.

In Luke 22:7-15 Jesus ate the Passover lamb, and promised to do so again after his second coming (v. 16). No Jew could be a vegetarian at Passover.

Killing and eating flesh was a blessing from the LORD according to Deut. 12:15-16. When God visited Abraham, he and two angels ate milk, butter, and meat (Gen. 18:1-8). Did you get that? Read it yourself. God ate meat! When Jesus had an opportunity to direct the multitude in what constituted a good meal, he fed them bread and meat, and even saved the leftovers (John 6:11-12). On another occasion, Jesus prepared a meal for his disciples. It was also bread and fish (John 21:12-13). After Jesus resurrection, when he was in his glorified eternal state, he ate meat in their presence (Luke 24:42-43). When we sing the song "Come and dine, the Master calleth," it is to a table spread with meat, not celery and almond butter.

God advertised the Promised Land as a place flowing with milk and honey (Deut. 26:9). The Bible predicted that Messiah would eat butter and honey (Is. 7:15). Would you deny your son butter and honey when the Scripture so clearly says it was good for Jesus to eat both?

A Christian who feels guilty for eating meat is said to be weak in faith (Romans 14:2). Religious vegetarians had their Scriptural support jerked out from under them long ago, so they have shifted strategy, telling us that the Bible does not command us to abstain from meats, but that it is wise to not eat. Was Jesus unwise when he ate dairy and meat and fed it to others?

Dont get your health advice from religious women or cult magazines trying to steal your liberty in Christ and bring you under bondage to the Mosaic Law. Ignore any health publication that is trying to sell you something or that is based on a "new age" worldview."

NGJ Website http://www.nogreaterjoy.org

My thoughts: First Pearl talks about meat putting a kick in your love life. Ellen White says "A diet of flesh meat tends to develop animalism. A development of animalism lessens spirituality, rendering the mind incapable of understanding truth." {CD 382.3} so it stands to reason that it would add something to your love life. Is it appropriate? That is the question. Even in a marriage there can be worldly sex. She also says that meat eating "lessons spirituality, rendering the mind incapable of understanding truth." Pearl says that his "children have eaten almost everything that crawls, jumps, or slithers." Yet EGW says, "Meat should not be placed before our children. Its influence is to excite and strengthen the lower passions, and has a tendency to deaden the moral powers." {CD 63.3} Other comments he makes in this article are that vegetarians are under "Satanic doctrine". Yet Ellen White says that "It has been clearly presented to me that God's people are to take a firm stand against meat eating." {CD 383.1} Michael Pearl also says that we shouldn't get our "health advice from religious women". I guess that means we should disregard this entire section then. Really, where does that leave Seventh Day Adventists? He makes a mockery of our faith and of a true prophet.

God hates divorce, always, forever, regardless, without exception?

Pearl: "But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesnt repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devils face. God hates divorcealways, forever, regardless, without exception."


My thoughts: God also hates it when people hurt his little children. He says in Matthew 18:6-8 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire." Jesus said that divorce for adultery is acceptable. This would be a time to cut off a hand or foot (husband) so that the whole body (family) does not turn from Christ and be cast into everlasting fire. Even if your children are out of the house by the time your husband gets out of prison they would most likely still not feel safe around a man that molested them and was still unrepentant. By accepting your husband back into your home you are driving your children away. You are putting your husband who is in sin above your children's (even if they are adults by now) feelings of safety and respect. You are thus re offending "these little ones".

Is church only for the righteous?

Pearl: "In every seminar I teach, concerned parents have raised this same issue. They say, "To protect our children, we left public schools, got rid of our TV and video games, and stopped going to the malls, but the only bad influence left is our church." And then they proceed to describe how their church is a source of worldliness and corruption. I would like to tell them to move to a community like Cane Creek and escape the world, but about five years ago in our little rural congregation of less than fifty, one of the eleven-year-old boys came to his father after church to tell him that one of the new boys, twelve years old, had described to all the guys how to copulate with animals. This took place after church, within sight of the adults, while the parents were standing around outside fellowshipping. We took steps that led to the family not coming back to church." http://www.nogreaterjoy.org

My thoughts: The situation should have been dealt with but why did they take steps that led to the family not coming back to church? The family obviously needed help not rejection. Jesus himself said that "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." Luke 5:31 EGW says that "In Christ we are all members of one family. God is our Father, and He expects us to take an interest in the members of His household, not a casual interest, but a decided, continual interest. As branches of the parent vine, we derive nourishment from the same source, and by willing obedience, we become one with Christ. If one member of Christ's household falls into temptation, the other members are to look after him with kindly interest, seeking to arrest the feet that are straying into false paths, and win him to a pure, holy life. This service God requires from every member of His church. . . . The members of the Lord's family are to be wise and watchful, doing all in their power to save their weaker brethren from Satan's concealed nets. {Ev 352.3, 353.1} We are not to exclude those that have fallen but to build them up and win them to a "pure, holy life."

Section 5


Nearly half a century later

Pearl: "Fifty years ago, when the rod was standard procedure at school as well as at home, there were no school shootings, suicides, or disruptive classrooms. Under that discipline, children were happier and more secure." NGJ website http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index

Section "It worked in time past."

"The school Principal did the really serious paddling when I was in school. I have lived nearly a half century and still feel apprehensive going into the office at a public school. He and I had a couple of serious encounters. One of these days I am going to make an effigy of a school principal and then tell him to bend over and grab his ankles." Chapter 17 Paragraph 6

My thoughts: Under the discipline that Pearl says will make children "happier and more secure" he felt such apprehension that nearly 50 years later he still holds a grudge. Is this really the path that we want for our children? Do we want children 50 years down the road that are making an effigy of us, the supposed representatives of Christ, and telling it to "bend over and grab (your) ankles"? Is this truly how God raises His people? Yes there is some truth in TTUAC. Pearl says in Chapter 1 "Parents should not wait until the child's behavior becomes unacceptable before they commence training" and "Our problem is not "bad" children, just bad training. But surrounding these quotes is too much error for it to be safe. Ellen White says, "Why should we wade through the mass of error contained in the works of pagans and infidels, for the sake of a few intellectual truths, when all truth is at our command?" {8T 306.1} The teachings of the Pearls are clearly full of error. Let us cast it off and read the books that have all truth. Let us find our parenting and theological advice from the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. My last thought is to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve." whether man or Gods prophet. It can't be both.