Lori Alexander learning less than ever- Part 7

[IrishCarrie]

3 hours ago, Sera's Arrow said:

Forgiveness rarely works for people who are cruel enough to use children to satisfy their sick desires and/or make them feel powerful and in control if one subscribes to the theory that it's more about power than sex. It, in fact, tends to enable them into continuing this destructive behavior without a thought towards the pain they are inflicting on others.  

And that's why I hate Lori.  She's an enabler and I have no good thoughts for enablers - boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew.

I couldn't agree more with the above. I work in a prison that contains a large number of sex offenders and I can tell you, those guys will seize on ANYTHING to justify and rationalise their (often horrific) offences.

From a therapeutic perspective, the wife bringing the children to visit their abuser Dad will generally result in him going even deeper into denial that he did anything wrong.... "See? The kids didn't mind. Neither does my wife. They're all fine with it so what's your problem?"

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

Lori doesn't care what's best for the kids in those cases, she only cares that what her idea of how everyone should live is followed, her lack of empathy is scary.

[Loveday]

12 hours ago, kpmom said:

Well this is a direct quote from Michael 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 doesn’t repent even then?” Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce — always, forever, regardless, without exception.”

That same person who posted the original comment refuting Lori posted this same passage, and Lori's reply is typical:

I deleted the rest of your comment because I can't find even this first quote in her book so your entire comment is based upon a lie. Can you give me the page number or are you just getting it from one of the sites that twist Debi's words and attribute to her words that are not hers nor does she believe? Here is what they recommend to a woman whose husband was taking their son to homosexuals to participate in their acts. 

"Here was a clear example of a father and husband overstepping the bounds of his jurisdiction. Neither the wife nor the son were under obligation to obey him in this matter. We told her to call the law, so that they could set up a time to catch the sodomites at the rest stop including her husband. She did. Her husband is in the slammer for a number of years, and the kids are growing up without a pervert for a daddy. Sometimes, it is a grave sin NOT to stand against your husband." 

All those "incredibly dangerous and disturbing advice" that Debi supposedly has given, I am sure you got from wicked sites as well. Why don't you read the book for yourself and see how good it is instead of reading others who slander her. 

The comment Debi supposedly made about divorce is wrong also since Michael came out with a book and gives 2 biblical reasons for divorce. Why don't you read that too? You will see that what they believe is solidly biblically based and not evil as you accuse.

 

[Koala]

Quote

I deleted the rest of your comment because I can't find even this first quote in her book so your entire comment is based upon a lie

I wonder if Lori has any idea how breathtakingly dumb that sounds.  

"I couldn't immediately find the quote you're referring to, so you're lying and I'm just going to plug my ears. "

Never learning....

[Curious]

15 hours ago, EyeQueue said:

Gotta love passive voice

This is a little off topic (ok a lot), but since several people have mentioned passive voice here, I figured I'd ask.  At some point, I took some online test thingy and it said I write in passive voice.  I looked up what that meant, but for some reason it's not clicking with me.

Can someone that understands paint me a picture with crayons to I can grasp the concept please?

On the topic of Lori, from a few pages ago, her thinking that tiny babies and toddlers can be willfully disobedient for malicious reasons, really baffles me.  Has she never read a single book on child development?  She was a teacher, don't they cover some of that when you are getting your degree?   A teenager can be willfully disobedient.  A 6 month old cannot.

[Loveday]

Early yesterday evening, Lori felt moved to post a quote from Winston Churchill on her public FB page. See if you can spot the contradiction to Lori's submission beliefs; it's clear Lori didn't. 

"This is true in every area of life, and marriage is no exception. Want a happy marriage? Cultivate a happy heart. Dwell on the positive. Be loving, patient, cheerful, kind, and quick to forgive.

Don’t feel obligated to spout off everything that pops into your mind. Some things are better left unsaid. Be slow to speak. Weigh your words carefully. If you can think of nothing worthy to say, say nothing.

Push through your misery — don’t sit down and wallow in it. Just as the joy of holding a newborn follows the intense pain of childbirth, couples who pull together and work through their problems report feeling far happier and more deeply satisfied afterward than those who let difficulties drive them apart." {Winston Churchill}

[Grimalkin]

16 minutes ago, Curious said:

This is a little off topic (ok a lot), but since several people have mentioned passive voice here, I figured I'd ask.  At some point, I took some online test thingy and it said I write in passive voice.  I looked up what that meant, but for some reason it's not clicking with me.

Can someone that understands paint me a picture with crayons to I can grasp the concept please?

On the topic of Lori, from a few pages ago, her thinking that tiny babies and toddlers can be willfully disobedient for malicious reasons, really baffles me.  Has she never read a single book on child development?  She was a teacher, don't they cover some of that when you are getting your degree?   A teenager can be willfully disobedient.  A 6 month old cannot.

     Thank you for asking curious. I have been wanting to but I sometimes struggle with things like commas and spelling. I think I need to get the baby steps right first.

[OnceUponATime]

11 minutes ago, Curious said:

Can someone that understands paint me a picture with crayons to I can grasp the concept please?

It will take to long to find my crayons, but here are some coloring examples:

 

A(active): Curious colored in a picture

P (passive): A picture was colored in by Curious

 

A: Curious can color in pictures

P: Pictures can be colored in by Curious

 

A: Curious will color in pictures to make the minions happy

P: Pictures will be colored in by Curious to make the minions happy.

 

The passive voice is when Curious is no longer the subject but becomes the object, and a form of to be (in bold) has been added.

Does that help?

[Curious]

Just now, OnceUponATime said:

It will take to long to find my crayons, but here are some coloring examples:

 

A(active): Curious colored in a picture

P (passive): A picture was colored in by Curious

 

A: Curious can color in pictures

P: Pictures can be colored in by Curious

 

A: Curious will color in pictures to make the minions happy

P: Pictures will be colored in by Curious to make the minions happy.

 

The passive voice is when Curious is no longer the subject but becomes the object, and a form of to be (in bold) has been added.

Does that help?

YES!  I get it now.  Yay my one thing learned today and it's still early.   Thanks for taking the time to explain

[Grimalkin]

...... So passive voice is like how Yoda speaks.

I am kidding I think I get it. Thank you for taking the time.

[Hane]

50 minutes ago, Curious said:

This is a little off topic (ok a lot), but since several people have mentioned passive voice here, I figured I'd ask.  At some point, I took some online test thingy and it said I write in passive voice.  I looked up what that meant, but for some reason it's not clicking with me.

Can someone that understands paint me a picture with crayons to I can grasp the concept please?

Former English teacher here. A basic sentence has two parts--a subject and a verb. In the active voice, the subject is doing something:

"Sarah prepared the burritos." (The subject here is Sarah.)

In the passive voice, something is being done to the subject:

"The burritos were prepared by Sarah." (The subject here is the burritos.)

In Maxhell, writers use the passive a lot. Doing this takes the focus away from the person who is actually doing something:

"The tree was cut down." "The ceiling fans were dusted." "The Bible was read." The person doing these things becomes invisible--and this is probably Stevehovah's intention.

ETA: crossposted with @OnceUponATime. Oops.

[molecule]

I wonder if Lori has any idea how breathtakingly dumb that sounds.  

"I couldn't immediately find the quote you're referring to, so you're lying and I'm just going to plug my ears. "

Never learning....

Lori's reply is makes her sound dumb, laxy, and mean. She is unnecessarily confrontational. She expects her readers to win their husbands without a word, but she can't bother herself to respond with civility to a woman who disagrees with her. How can she honestly think she is teaching when she makes accusations instead of helping people see where they're wrong? (Not that i think this commenter is wrong, but Lori clearly thinks so.)

It's interesting to me how Lori gets much more vicious when she is defending the Pearls than when she is defending the bible or God.

[Grimalkin]

       If Lori were charismatic she would make a terrific cult leader. I have been reading up on the Ant Hill Kids and FLDS leaders. Not completely snarking when I say the similarities are striking. I think she is a psychopath.

[Hane]

10 minutes ago, Grimalkin said:

       If Lori were charismatic she would make a terrific cult leader. I have been reading up on the Ant Hill Kids and FLDS leaders. Not completely snarking when I say the similarities are striking. I think she is a psychopath.

Fortunately, Lori is too lazy to be a cult leader.

[Florita]

In the OT Mosaic law adultery, rape and incest were capital offenses punishable by death. Divorce was not.

So if a spouse was guilty of the above, you didn't have to get a divorce because they were executed. Instant widow(er)hood. It takes a huge lapse of logic to make offenses that God hated enough to warrant killing people for into not being enough to even justify a divorce.

But huge lapses in logic are what Lori and the Pearls specialize in. 

[older than allosaurs]

1 hour ago, Hane said:

Former English teacher here. A basic sentence has two parts--a subject and a verb. In the active voice, the subject is doing something:

"Sarah prepared the burritos." (The subject here is Sarah.)

In the passive voice, something is being done to the subject:

"The burritos were prepared by Sarah." (The subject here is the burritos.)

In Maxhell, writers use the passive a lot. Doing this takes the focus away from the person who is actually doing something:

"The tree was cut down." "The ceiling fans were dusted." "The Bible was read." The person doing these things becomes invisible--and this is probably Stevehovah's intention.

ETA: crossposted with @OnceUponATime. Oops.

Journalists call the passive type favored by the Maxwells the "divine passive."  "Mistakes were made" is a classic example. No one is responsible.  Must be God's will. 

Quick passive voice check:  If you can add "by zombies" after the verb and the sentence makes grammatical sense,  it's passive voice.  "The ceiling fan was dusted by zombies."

[Koala]

Rob:

Quote

Lori doesn't judge others she teaches the hard truth of what is biblical.

 Please, Lori spends her days judging others.

Lori:

Quote

She is one of the many who believe lies about the Pearls, Rob. I usually won't even publish comments like this one but I felt I needed to this time to show the slander they throw at me and the Pearls by twisting our words and saying things we don't even say. They take a bit of truth but mix it in with a whole lot of lies to lead others astray. We must pray that their eyes will be opened to the Truth of the Gospel and find freedom in Christ!

Oh Lori- anything to lump yourself in with your beloved, child beating Pearls, huh?  

A direct quote isn't twisting your words, and it's not an attack.  Also, slander is spoken, and the person you are referring to was writing, so there's that.

[EyeQueue]

4 hours ago, Curious said:

YES!  I get it now.  Yay my one thing learned today and it's still early.   Thanks for taking the time to explain

@OnceUponATime gave a very good overview. As to what the passive voice does rhetorically, though, is that it clouds the relationship between the agent and the action. So, things are being acted upon with no clear do-er of the action--but sometimes this can be strategic.

Passive voice can also add to needless wordiness in prose.

In my classes I suggest students steer away from the passive voice unless it is rhetorically doing something significant (and isn't just sloppy writing).

For example:

Dear Boss: I erased all the files by mistake today. So sorry.

vs.

Dear Boss: The files were erased by mistake.    [Note that both sentences have the same action--the files are now gone--but in the second one, you can strategically disavow your responsibility for it.]

I also have them look for why authors might strategically use the passive voice. In some cases a person is acted upon to show (in the grammar of the sentence) how they are powerless/being bullied/etc. E.g. "She was cast aside....."

As for needless wordiness, here's an example:

The ball was kicked by the boy.

You can just as easily assign the boy as the agent, and would have:

The boy kicked the ball.

When I was studying Latin for about 3 years during my undergrad and into my grad work, I noticed that a lot of my prose was in passive voice because Latin just loves it. So I had to really proofread my stuff to get back to the active.

[Grimalkin]

4 hours ago, Florita said:

In the OT Mosaic law adultery, rape and incest were capital offenses punishable by death. Divorce was not.

So if a spouse was guilty of the above, you didn't have to get a divorce because they were executed. Instant widow(er)hood. It takes a huge lapse of logic to make offenses that God hated enough to warrant killing people for into not being enough to even justify a divorce.

But huge lapses in logic are what Lori and the Pearls specialize in. 

Stop trying to apply logic and reason to Lori's ramblings! DETRACTOR!!!!!!!!

[Evangeline]

Due to her profound ignorance, Lori misses the point of WHY God hates divorce. God hates that men could absolve themselves of caring for their wives, leaving them homeless, destitute, and unable to marry again. Women weren't allowed to divorce because they made too much of a deal about Valentine's Day or whatever bullshit Lori made up. Men have had the power of life and death over women for most of history, and God expected them not to abuse that power. Ken and Lori are obsessed with husbands being provider and protector, but are too stupid to see that through to its logical conclusion, that the wife is entitled to those things no matter what and must secure them through divorce if that is the option available to her. In this view, if husband is not providing and protecting, he is in grevious sin, ought to be terrified of God. and divorce is the least of his worries.

[Loveday]

From the comments once again:

"Sigh. 

I used to own the books, Lori. I read them many times I applied them to my life. I had Xeroxed and kept certain exerpts in a notebook, but when I realized what they were doing to my life and my son's life I threw the books away. If you honestly can't find them in your copy, then that means they have done what the Ezzos have done --simply deleted the phrases from subsequent printings. But they don't ever come out and say, "I used to say XXXX, but I was wrong."

Lori's response:

"I have the very first edition of her book, Teresa, therefore, you couldn't have a copy that quotes what you have quoted her saying. You are wrong and slandering Debi. I pray you examine your heart and see that what you are doing is wrong. Come to know the Savior of your soul because He makes all things new!"

In other words, don't argue with me. Even if you've got a copy of it in Debi Pearl's own handwriting, autographed personally by her...I'm right. You're wrong. Screw you.

 

[cindyluvs24]

9 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

 

Quick passive voice check:  If you can add "by zombies" after the verb and the sentence makes grammatical sense,  it's passive voice.  "The ceiling fan was dusted by zombies."

This is great!

[PennySycamore]

Passive voice is often used in scientific papers.  The emphasis is thereby shifted to the procedure of an experiment rather than the experimenter.

"5mL of 5M sulfuric acid was added to an Erlenmayer flask"

"A cricket was placed in each Petri dish containing a round of filter paper which had been inoculated with 1 mL of varying concentrations of (some chemical whose name escapes me ATM).  The Petri  dishes then were covered"

Yes, I actually did that cricket experiment.  We were testing the effects of varied concencentrations of a chemical on herbivory of crickets on filter paper.

[molecule]

Lori's response:

"I have the very first edition of her book, Teresa, therefore, you couldn't have a copy that quotes what you have quoted her saying. You are wrong and slandering Debi. I pray you examine your heart and see that what you are doing is wrong. Come to know the Savior of your soul because He makes all things new!"

In other words, don't argue with me. Even if you've got a copy of it in Debi Pearl's own handwriting, autographed personally by her...I'm right. You're wrong. Screw you.

 

Not all copies of a first edition are necessarily the same. There can be minor changes from one printing to the next. I think a book has to have a certain percentage (10%, maybe?) changed before it is labeled a different edition. Lori may have the first edition, but it could be from one of the later printings. She didn't even read what the commenter actually said.

Again, she is choosing to be insulting in her interactions. It is unnecessary. The commenter sounds like a grownup trying to have a conversation, and Lori sounds like a spoiled brat who insists on throwing her raisans on the floor because she doesn't like them.

[Curious]

15 hours ago, Hane said:

Former English teacher here. A basic sentence has two parts--a subject and a verb. In the active voice, the subject is doing something:

"Sarah prepared the burritos." (The subject here is Sarah.)

In the passive voice, something is being done to the subject:

"The burritos were prepared by Sarah." (The subject here is the burritos.)

In Maxhell, writers use the passive a lot. Doing this takes the focus away from the person who is actually doing something:

"The tree was cut down." "The ceiling fans were dusted." "The Bible was read." The person doing these things becomes invisible--and this is probably Stevehovah's intention.

ETA: crossposted with @OnceUponATime. Oops.

Thank you, Hane    It's much easier for me to understand things like this with concrete examples instead of the stuff I was reading which was just trying to explain without examples.  That just confused me (hah, I almost said that just made me confused, which would be passive, right?)

13 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

Quick passive voice check:  If you can add "by zombies" after the verb and the sentence makes grammatical sense,  it's passive voice.  "The ceiling fan was dusted by zombies."

So active would be Zombies dusted the ceiling fan, yes?

11 hours ago, Koala said:

Rob:

Do we think this might be Cabinetman?