Lori Alexander, 12: Transformed, But We Can't Tell

[Koala]

 That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.  Lori's finally one of the popular kids, and you have to take a quiz to sit at her lunch table!  She went viral, you know!

Seriously, though.  That looks like something a 5th grader wrote.

[molecule]

I noticed her application this morning, too. It is perfectly reasonable to have guidelines for joining a support group, but these aren't guidelines. They are rigid rules that apply even to thoughts. If I don't completely agree with what she says about women in authority over men but am willing to follow the rules and not talk about this area where I disagree, what's the big deal?

I love the rules, especially how #4 and #7 work together: don't post memes, but make sure your meme hasn't already been shared.

Quote

1. Act graciously and with maturity.
2. Avoid off-topic posts and replies.
3. Ask questions, then engage with your post and learn from others' answers.
4. Avoid posting memes.
5. Thoughtfully and clearly explain the relevance to Titus 2:3-5 when sharing a link.
6. No spam.
7. Make sure your link or meme has not already been shared.
8. Maintain group privacy.
9. Report spam, inappropriate, rude or mean posts or comments to several admins or moderators right away.
10. Do not create a document or upload a file without admin permission.
11. To refer someone to join ALCR, send them the group’s link and ask them to fill out the application.
12. Link only to other female Christian bloggers, authors or teachers who are in line with the ALCR.

And #12 means that anything by Beth Moore or Sheila Gregoire will be deleted from her group, ASAP.

I noticed something else about the Facebook page. Several weeks ago, Lori had around 15,000 fans. Now she has 19,000. That's a pretty dramatic increase. I follow quite a few marriage bloggers on Facebook, and that kind of growth typically happens only when something goes viral (when her post went viral, she gained a lot of fans then). Lori doesn't currently have a post going viral, so it's an unusual spike. Does anyone have any idea what's going on to get her so many new folks? 

Today's post is just dumb. It's about the Five Love Languages book. I know a lot of couples who've found this incredibly helpful because they use it in order to better love their spouses. Lori makes the assumption that the only reason people use it is to try to get loved in a particular way. And then she says that the book is helpful in showing us how to better love our husbands. 

Once again, she contradicts her own words.

[Chocolatedefrauded]

so you can only join her group to talk about one narrow topic and only if you agree with her? Seems like it's going to be a short conversation there. How exciting is it for a bunch of people to say "I agree"?! Wow, she's so rigid she could be a steel rod.

[VooDooChild]

LOL!  I"m dying!  Is this middle school?  What a pompous ass!  

 

We only think in black and white here and only what is good for the collective.  Geez Louise.    Join the Borg.  You will be assimilated.  

[Koala]

38 minutes ago, Chocolatedefrauded said:

so you can only join her group to talk about one narrow topic and only if you agree with her? Seems like it's going to be a short conversation there. How exciting is it for a bunch of people to say "I agree"?! Wow, she's so rigid she could be a steel rod.

I think she does it partly because she likes to control other people, and partly out of necessity.

In the past she has responded to a reader with the following:

Quote

frankly, you write a bit too intellectually for me. This is why I usually have Ken respond. My posts and thoughts are fairly simple. I am not a highly academic person. I would like to think I am a wise woman and that is all that matters to me. All your interpretations of words confuse me.

I think she knows that Ken doesn't have all day to babysit her chat room (even The Horse of Truth has to take a break sometimes), so she narrows the membership down to people who make 100% on the Lori Alexander Group-think test.  After all, the best way to ensure that you're "Always Learning" is to surround yourself with people who agree with you about everything.

Not surprisingly, the check yes or no styled test looks like it was designed by a none to bright middle schooler.  I am sure she is baffled when detractors sneak past it and get into the group anyway.

 

[jerkit]

OMG. The Bible is 66 books long. There are SO many topics women should be talking about. To narrow it down to two passages is truly the craziest thing I've seen lately.

[slickcat79]

On 10/22/2016 at 9:49 AM, polecat said:

Lori said, 

Quote

“As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life.’ Just deliver the baby by c/section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C/section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.”

 

This is absolutely correct. There is absolutely no situation in which people are aborting babies in the 39th week of pregnancy to save a mother's life (or for her convenience). At this point of pregnancy, it's called "birth." The baby is delivered and cared for as necessary. If the mother doesn't want to raise it, then it can be adopted. (I had three of these "abortions," or, you know, c-sections, to save my life, and the products of those c-section/abortions are sitting here with me right now watching cartoons.)

What DOES happen is abortion for nonviable fetuses. Babies who are discovered to have horrible birth defects that are noncompatible with life. Some women choose to continue these pregnancies; some do not. The state has no business telling any woman how to handle this heartbreaking situation. NONE.

Some decent education would do you a world of good. Add a healthy dose of compassion to that, and there would be no end to the good you could do. 

I've seen that quote going around FB recently. Last time I checked, it was only being reported by Christian "news" sites and was attributed to an OB/GYN in CA. There were no screenshots or other proof of the quote, and the doctor who supposedly said it has not confirmed that he did. I would certainly side-eye any medical professional who used the term "partial birth abortion" because that's not a real thing, medically speaking. 

That said, anti-choicers seem to think that this is some kind of huge blow to abortion rights, but as usual they are misguided. As previously mentioned, a woman who has made it to the third trimester is probably a woman who is not seeking an abortion. If it's past viability, of course they would just deliver the baby and give it every chance of survival (see: Josie Duggar, and a million other cases). Even if it's before viability, if there's nothing to be done they would probably just deliver the baby and allow the family to say goodbye, because that's the compassionate thing to do for people facing that kind of loss (see: Gabriel Santorum and a million other cases). This morbid idea where they rip babies apart in the womb is just the product of anti-choicers' fevered imaginations. Congrats guys, you've struck a huge blow against something that doesn't happen anyway. 

[Imrlgoddess]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

frankly, you write a bit too intellectually for me. This is why I usually have Ken respond. My posts and thoughts are fairly simple. I am not a highly academic person. I would like to think I am a wise woman and that is all that matters to me. All your interpretations of words confuse me.

Did she seriously just basically call herself dumb?  Or less intelligent than her husband?  Why is that so appealing to her??  I cannot, for the life of me, grasp why she is so hung up on being the "weaker" of the two but also not as smart as her male counterpart.  I'm going to assume she pointed this out as a not so subtle jab at the woman whom she believes is coming across too learned therefore, too worldly.  Does a lack of knowledge indicate a level of innocence?  Is that the attraction?  The ever scatterbrained seemingly innocent/virginal/pure/Madonna type woman....Ok. I guess I talked that one out on my own. 

Anywho in response to the application:

 

[polecat]

2 hours ago, Chocolatedefrauded said:

so you can only join her group to talk about one narrow topic and only if you agree with her? Seems like it's going to be a short conversation there. How exciting is it for a bunch of people to say "I agree"?! Wow, she's so rigid she could be a steel rod.

 

Oh, they can say more than "I agree." They can also trash other women, create imaginary scenarios in which they always come out on top and denigrate feminists and anyone else who doesn't think just exactly like they do. It's like a slam book -- with moar JAYZUS!

[smittykins]

And she was(supposedly)a teacher?

[December]

3 hours ago, molecule said:

Today's post is just dumb. It's about the Five Love Languages book. I know a lot of couples who've found this incredibly helpful because they use it in order to better love their spouses. Lori makes the assumption that the only reason people use it is to try to get loved in a particular way. And then she says that the book is helpful in showing us how to better love our husbands. 

She doesn't care for a book that advocates loving your spouse in the ways that make them personally feel most loved? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!  My SO and I read the book and thought it was pretty insightful, even if we didn't agree with everything in it.

Her reading comprehension must be really terrible because understanding your own love language and your spouse's and changing the way you express love to each other so you feel more appreciated is the point of the damn book: 

Quote

This book seems like it has hurt marriages more than helps unless one spouse uses the book to find out what the other spouse’s love language is and proceeds to love them in the way they like. [...] However, this book could easily cause us to be too introspective and figure out what our love language is instead of loving others as the Lord has called us to love them in 1 Corinthians 13.

Apparently, even though the book is written from some sort of Christian perspective (there were a few Biblical references in it), it's not "Christian" enough by her exacting standards. 

[polecat]

Quote

Doctrinal differences not specifically related to women in their rolls

I've had just about enough of your fat-shaming, Lori! (This woman needs a spelling lesson or two.)

 

[jerkit]

Perhaps I should start a blog and an associated FB group where I teach only ONE section of Scripture, ignoring everything else. I think I'll choose Ezekiel 23:20.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

On repeat. And I'll ban people from talking about anything other than donkey dongs.

[EmiGirl]

I would fail her application because the friends that I have on fb that are in her super secret group would totally rat me out.

 

37 minutes ago, jerkit said:

Perhaps I should start a blog and an associated FB group where I teach only ONE section of Scripture, ignoring everything else. I think I'll choose Ezekiel 23:20.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

On repeat. And I'll ban people from talking about anything other than donkey dongs.

OMG!  I literally laughed out loud until I cried after reading this.

[polecat]

1 hour ago, jerkit said:

Perhaps I should start a blog and an associated FB group where I teach only ONE section of Scripture, ignoring everything else. I think I'll choose Ezekiel 23:20.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

On repeat. And I'll ban people from talking about anything other than donkey dongs.

 

 

I'll join your group. 

 

ETA: As long as we don't discuss "horse of truth" emissions. Never that.

[quiversR4hunting]

1 hour ago, jerkit said:

Perhaps I should start a blog and an associated FB group where I teach only ONE section of Scripture, ignoring everything else. I think I'll choose Ezekiel 23:20.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

On repeat. And I'll ban people from talking about anything other than donkey dongs.

Thanks @jerkit! (or should I just say jerk?) I now have to wash my computer screen. I just spit out my coke all over it.

50 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

I would fail her application because the friends that I have on fb that are in her super secret group would totally rat me out.

Can I see who is in her super secret group? I really hope nobody I know is in it....

[kpmom]

1 hour ago, smittykins said:

And she was(supposedly)a teacher?

A little o.t., but has Lori ever discussed the actual time she was employed as a teacher?

I know she talked about her student teaching days and her supervising teacher who worshiped Satan ( ), but did she ever actually have her own classroom?

God, can you imagine having a parent-teacher conference with her?

[molecule]

1 hour ago, jerkit said:

Perhaps I should start a blog and an associated FB group where I teach only ONE section of Scripture, ignoring everything else. I think I'll choose Ezekiel 23:20.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

On repeat. And I'll ban people from talking about anything other than donkey dongs.

Or you could discuss Proverbs 26:11:

"As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

You could allow only comments about Lori's inflexibility and her insistence on repeating the same crap over and over again.

8 minutes ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Can I see who is in her super secret group? I really hope nobody I know is in it....

Because it is just a closed group rather than a secret one according to Facebook, you should be able to see who is in the group. When you go to the page, over on the right you should be able to click to see members. It will then give you a short list. If you click on See All, you can scroll through the whole thing.

[EmiGirl]

Hehe right now there's 666 members...

[jerkit]

I was a member until she sent me a PM asking if I had ever heard of a group called "free ginger". I was on my last leg anyways for disagreeing with a woman who is Lori's yes woman about staying thin for your husband.

[EmiGirl]

1 minute ago, jerkit said:

I was a member until she sent me a PM asking if I had ever heard of a group called "free ginger". I was on my last leg anyways for disagreeing with a woman who is Lori's yes woman about staying thin for your husband.

I would've said yes that I heard about them from Zsu zsu and they're a bunch of vile atheist feminists.

[Granwych]

7 hours ago, crawfishgirl said:

Lori mentioned in her post today that there is an application to join her private facebook group.  The form is entertaining and worthy of many eyerolls - she is such a control freak.  Here's the link to it:  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScBRwhWfSEju2PFy-dEXlBpOPfDMGH7Yhw7Glk-ggKi9pHytg/viewform?c=0&w=1

Christ on a proverbial cracker--who in their right mind would want to be one of Lori's moderators?  Must be just her, Ken, and maybe one of their kids.

[littlemommy]

1 hour ago, jerkit said:

I was a member until she sent me a PM asking if I had ever heard of a group called "free ginger". I was on my last leg anyways for disagreeing with a woman who is Lori's yes woman about staying thin for your husband.

Oh man, I hate confrontation, even via internet and even secondhand, SO MUCH that I swear my face turned red just reading that. The ire of Lori!!!!

[lilwriter85]

4 hours ago, smittykins said:

And she was(supposedly)a teacher?

A former FJer said that she emailed Lori about writing errors. She said that Lori wrote back saying something that she was a math teacher and that writing and English weren't her strong subjects.

[FundieWatcher]

3 hours ago, lilwriter85 said:

A former FJer said that she emailed Lori about writing errors. She said that Lori wrote back saying something that she was a math teacher and that writing and English weren't her strong subjects.

I can kind of understand, my strongest subject was science. That really makes writer and Bible teacher an even odder  profession to choose though. What is the Bible but a work of literature you need to analyze and interpret. Is that maybe what happened with Lori? Could that be why she misunderstands the Bible so much? She just really isn't able to pick up on the author's main idea?