Lori Alexander 15: Leaving A Fire With Her Makeup Bag

[SweetFellowshipper]

4 hours ago, RosyDaisy said:

WTH? That's very rude, noisy, and intrusive. Some people have no manners, no respect for others, or know how to mind their own business.

It's extremely constant for wheelchair users for some reason. Everyone wants a narrative, and in particular they want a narrative that comforts them (as in, he got a spinal cord injury from something they'd never do, like motorcycle tricks). Sorry, it was from something mundane and disability can happen to anybody, he always wants to tell them-- but your life is just as valuable as a disabled person. We have real hangups about that as a society though. 

[Jellybean]

I've had similar experiences- I'm so brave, inspirational, whatever... People know this because I am washed and dressed, smiling and seated. I remember the first time my dad saw this: we were out together, just getting a newspaper from a local shop and had taken the opportunity to wander down there together and chat. We were stopped three or four times on our short journey because people wanted to say, "Well done," "Such a shame - you're too pretty to be in a wheelchair," or "What's wrong with you?" My dad was absolutely taken aback that I didn't know any of these people, but they made instant judgements about my character and my worth as an individual. 

The reaction that bothers me the most is when people tell me that seeing me has made them realise that their problems aren't really so bad, in comparison. I do understand that people can find it helpful to think that things could be worse, or to try to find perspective for their own issues, but why would you tell someone that you assume their life is so dreadful that it makes you feel better about your own life? Just keep that to yourself. 

[Koala]

@onemama- is that comment by Dave in response to Ken?  I can't see it at all.  Lori's comment section is a wreck since she moved to her new blog, so it may just be some kind of glitch or delay.

 

[TeddyBonkers]

@Koala, I think Ken's response on the blog (which I agree with! Let me take my temperature...) is in response to Dave's blathering about how only TEH MENZ are created in the image of God, only TEH MENZ have dominion over the earth, Scripture was given only to TEH MENZ, Jesus gave the Great Commission only to TEH MENZ.

And now there's another well-thought out response to Dave the Douchecanoe, with Biblical backup and Greek translations, nicely telling him he's wrong. Bonus points to this commentor for bringing up Jilly (who has been mysteriously absent from Lori's Facebook and blog).

[Koala]

2 minutes ago, TeddyBonkers said:

@Koala, I think Ken's response on the blog (which I agree with! Let me take my temperature...) is in response to Dave's blathering about how only TEH MENZ are created in the image of God, only TEH MENZ have dominion over the earth, Scripture was given only to TEH MENZ, Jesus gave the Great Commission only to TEH MENZ.

And now there's another well-thought out response to Dave the Douchecanoe, with Biblical backup and Greek translations, nicely telling him he's wrong. Bonus points to this commentor for bringing up Jilly (who has been mysteriously absent from Lori's Facebook and blog).

The crazy thing, is I see the person who mentioned Jilly, but Dave's second comment doesn't show up for me.

[Petronella]

1 hour ago, Jellybean said:

I've had similar experiences- I'm so brave, inspirational, whatever... People know this because I am washed and dressed, smiling and seated. I remember the first time my dad saw this: we were out together, just getting a newspaper from a local shop and had taken the opportunity to wander down there together and chat. We were stopped three or four times on our short journey because people wanted to say, "Well done," "Such a shame - you're too pretty to be in a wheelchair," or "What's wrong with you?" My dad was absolutely taken aback that I didn't know any of these people, but they made instant judgements about my character and my worth as an individual. 

The reaction that bothers me the most is when people tell me that seeing me has made them realise that their problems aren't really so bad, in comparison. I do understand that people can find it helpful to think that things could be worse, or to try to find perspective for their own issues, but why would you tell someone that you assume their life is so dreadful that it makes you feel better about your own life? Just keep that to yourself. 

Wow! I am astonished that people say such things to your face!

[TeddyBonkers]

I'm only seeing one comment by Dave on "Should Women Teach the Bible in Public?" Ken and another commenter have called him out. 

I'm aghast at the mental gymnastics Lori must do on the Facebook comments of that same post-a commenter says that she (or he, shared FB account) has read the original Greek and Hebrew and gives a logical argument as to how verses can be misinterpreted due to poor translations. And Lori comes back with this gem:

Quote

Many believe the "original" Greek/Hebrew that people use today has been corrupted which isn't surprising to me.

So is she saying that the original texts are corrupted, which would make the English translations corrupted? or only those texts which purport to be the original Greek and Hebrew? And I have to ask, who are these "many"? 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Yes, there is just one comment from Dave. He has not come back yet or at least been released through the pearly gates. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

i find it most interesting that Lori commands that women never teach each other but study alone and then ask their husbands questions -- and then says this (bolding mine)  " I have learned the Word from mostly Michael Pearl and love his teachings but I also listen to many other men."

Unless she counting Ken -- who went to divinity school after all -- as one of the "many other men"  she's not learning from her husband.  Which seems a very un-Biblical (in her world) and un-submissive thing to do.  Not that I think Lori is in any way submissive.  Passive aggressive -- Yes.  Submissive -- Oh No, Never.

I think even her much discussed 10 minutes and lube is a very passive aggressive way to let Ken have sex all the time but in an unresponsive, 'let me just lie here while you get off' way.  I will never, ever believe she is an active participant in those 10 minutes.

Adding that I think the world is on tilt when I agree with Ken that Dave has gone waaaaaaay too far in his comments.  Dave is an odious. hate-filled misogynist who I find to be scary and dangerous.

Imagine having Dave in your life -- at work, at home, as a relative. I suspect he rules every one around him with an iron fist and swiftly and aggressively punishes even the smallest deviation from his beliefs /rules.

I cannot imagine (rather I don't want to) the daily horror of being Dave's wife or children.  I am beyond horrified that Dave is teaching his sons (if he has any) to be exactly like him.

 

[onemama]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

The crazy thing, is I see the person who mentioned Jilly, but Dave's second comment doesn't show up for me.

Koala, 

the parts I quoted are from Dave's one post that Ken replied to.  I posted the quote as an explanation to why Ken, finally, stood up to Dave. The stuff Dave is saying is simply nowhere to be found in the Bible. 

And thanks... I posted that reply with the greek in it. I figure, let the Bible speak for itself. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Lori just now says:

Quote

Of course the Word is for women. No one ever said it is not!

But Dave said:

Quote

Only the man was created in the image of God. Only the man was given dominion. Only the man was given the instruction of that tree. Scripture is written only to men, for them to administer and distribute. 

Seems quite clear the Word "scripture" is only for men. 

[louisa05]

What is Lori's obsession with women being evil because of having emotions?

News flash: men have emotions, too.

And I can recall nothing in the Bible that condemns anyone for having emotions. Jesus had human emotions.

I have heard a lot of Lori's garbage in various forms elsewhere in evangelical world, but not the constant concern condemnation of emotion. That takes the whole "women are more emotional " trope to a whole different level.

[Loveday]

7 minutes ago, onemama said:

Koala, 

the parts I quoted are from Dave's one post that Ken replied to.  I posted the quote as an explanation to why Ken, finally, stood up to Dave. The stuff Dave is saying is simply nowhere to be found in the Bible. 

And thanks... I posted that reply with the greek in it. I figure, let the Bible speak for itself. 

Amazingly, your comment is still there, almost eleven hours later. It's brilliant.  I'm DYING to see Dave respond to it. 

[Pammy]

1 hour ago, TeddyBonkers said:

I'm only seeing one comment by Dave on "Should Women Teach the Bible in Public?" Ken and another commenter have called him out. 

I'm aghast at the mental gymnastics Lori must do on the Facebook comments of that same post-a commenter says that she (or he, shared FB account) has read the original Greek and Hebrew and gives a logical argument as to how verses can be misinterpreted due to poor translations. And Lori comes back with this gem:

So is she saying that the original texts are corrupted, which would make the English translations corrupted? or only those texts which purport to be the original Greek and Hebrew? And I have to ask, who are these "many"? 

These people are most likely "King James Only" -ists. There aren't that "many" of them, and they are usually deep dark fundies.

The belief is that some manuscripts are corrupt (leading to corrupt modern translations) while the manuscripts that were available to the KJV team at the time of their work were acceptable. This idea of 'select supernaturally protected manuscripts' is usually combined with a supernatural view of the production of a perfect translation.

This perspective allows Lori and her ilk to ignore good work with texts and languages -- while asserting that their own amateur interpretations (based on the word choices in the KJV) are spirtually superior.

Basically, nobody should be thinking about original texts and languages these days -- because to do so denies that God has already approved the correct (uncorrupted) manuscripts, and provided the best English translation of the ideas therein. So, any of this texts-and-languages talk is an attempt to find excuses and dodge God's will.

[Koala]

44 minutes ago, onemama said:

Koala, 

the parts I quoted are from Dave's one post that Ken replied to.  I posted the quote as an explanation to why Ken, finally, stood up to Dave. The stuff Dave is saying is simply nowhere to be found in the Bible. 

And thanks... I posted that reply with the greek in it. I figure, let the Bible speak for itself. 

Thank you!  I thought you were saying Dave had responded to Ken.  

I guess someone answered Lori's snotty little quip that:

Quote

Of course the Word is for women. No one ever said it is not! 

Reader:

Quote

Dear Lori,

Dave specifically said that Scripture is written only to men. I find this not only erroneous, but offensive.

Blessings!

 

[Koala]

On the Facebook link to today's post, there are 4 comments.  2 from Lori, 2 from "Ben". 

Pretty soon it's going to be Lori and the whiny men she teaches.  It seems the women are taking one giant step back, as Lori ignores their concerns.

[louisa05]

On the Facebook link to today's post, there are 4 comments.  2 from Lori, 2 from "Ben". 
Pretty soon it's going to be Lori and the whiny men she teaches.  It seems the women are taking one giant step back, as Lori ignores their concerns.

She blocks everyone so there is no discussion.

And that conversation about dogs...well, then. Are the female dogs stay at home mothers, too?

Why do I always end up saying "I can't even..." in the Lori threads?

[Koala]

Dave is back with 2 long, rambling replies.  Pretty much a giant FU to Ken.  I would copy it, but it's so damn long I won't bother.  Lots more on why he thinks men were created in the imagine of God and women weren't.

 

[onemama]

45 minutes ago, Koala said:

Dave is back with 2 long, rambling replies.  Pretty much a giant FU to Ken.  I would copy it, but it's so damn long I won't bother.  Lots more on why he thinks men were created in the imagine of God and women weren't.

 

No kidding!  

Here's his interpretation of "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church". 

Quote

 

Further, men have this image of God to love their own wife ‘as Christ loved the church.’

Key aspects of His image in men that I see in scripture are:

Jealous, authoritative, dominating, responsible, anger, wrath, hate, aggression, desiring to be known, competitive, confrontational, judging, warring, hard/harsh [vs soft], disciplined, law enforcing, penetrating, weeps, lion and lamb, demands respect, roots out evil, protects the Word, zealous, furious, fervent, creation oriented, etc.

People presuppose I hate women [and pastors]. I love them intensely.

 

Sorry, I really don't know what parts to bold, so there you go. All bold! ha!  

1st Corinthians 13:  4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

[AlwaysDiscerning]

I really hope life is discovered on these recently discovered planets to really throw fundies for a loop. 

[Koala]

28 minutes ago, onemama said:

No kidding!  

Here's his interpretation of "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church". 

Sorry, I really don't know what parts to bold, so there you go. All bold! ha!  

1st Corinthians 13:  4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Scary, isn't it?  Dave has been a big proponent of wife discipline in past posts of Lori's. Particularly in her post that featured a photo of John Wayne spanking a female co-star.

Lori:

Quote

Ken and I watched an old John Wayne Movie a few months ago. He was married to a very difficult wife. She was always nasty to him. Near the end of the movie, he took her over his knee and spanked her! She behaved herself after this and they were kissing and enjoying each other at the end of the movie. 

 Dave:

Quote

It is interesting to note that all forms of authority relationships have some physical restraint as a necessary functional part of their role…. EXCEPT marriage. Yet marriage is foundational to all other authority relationships as marriage authority is the model for children, church, government, etc. No wonder all these relationships are tattered rags any more. 
Physical restraint is acceptable to all in some form for children whether just ’go to your room’ or spanking or time out or ‘I will not pay for your cell phone any longer.’ Government [including military] physical discipline is in many forms like taking away privileges [voting or driver’s license] but ultimately handcuffs or jail or death. And the church has physical discipline like withholding communion or excommunication. Even employer relationships will require leave of absences or demotions or termination. 
All of these physical actions come after some level of verbal warning, no matter how poor a communicator an authority may be. 
And even God uses physical options: physical pain from His emotional silence, pain and suffering directly from our actions, or letting all hell breaks loose. 
So what ever happened to the physical disciplines in marriage? Yes, that thought sounds very foreign to us [and someone might report me to the ‘authorities’ for verbally threatening my wife by just posing the question]. I won’t mention the possibilities that come to mind other than to say they may well include some that are used by the other authorities above. 

Lori:

Quote

Thank you, Dave! 

You can see why he and Lori are a match made in....somewhere.

[onemama]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

So what ever happened to the physical disciplines in marriage? Yes, that thought sounds very foreign to us [and someone might report me to the ‘authorities’ for verbally threatening my wife by just posing the question]. I won’t mention the possibilities that come to mind other than to say they may well include some that are used by the other authorities above. 

 scary indeed! 

1 hour ago, Koala said:

You can see why he and Lori are a match made in....somewhere.

Oh yes. Somewhere, just not in heaven.

[Showtunesgirl]

2 hours ago, Koala said:

Dave is back with 2 long, rambling replies.  Pretty much a giant FU to Ken.  I would copy it, but it's so damn long I won't bother.  Lots more on why he thinks men were created in the imagine of God and women weren't.

 

I actually read through his replies (and shook my head the whole time) and methinks Dave needs a lesson in basic hermanuetics, specifically as applies to context, genre, and grammar of a passage. His interpretations do not look at the passage as a whole and instead focus so much on the words he can translate from Hebrew. If he were to continue reading chapter 1 of Genesis, he would have come to the part in verse 28 where God gives command to both Adam and Eve. His lack of context also doesn't take into account that the Hebrew often uses "adam" as a word for mankind in general in the rest of the OT. 

[onemama]

10 hours ago, Showtunesgirl said:

@onemama exactly!!! I hope your comment gets published, especially if it's anything close to what you wrote here 

Thank you! It did get published  

Quote

I feel like Lori fails to understand just how much the biblical principles found in Titus 2 require a healthy grasp of theology to execute rightly. To take out the theology behind the principles of "teaching what is good, and so train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands" (vv.3-5, ESV), just turns those things into points of legalism.

I agree with you.  Lori pulls the passage out of context, forgets that a "Titus 2 older woman" should, herself, be a living example of these qualities, and she appears to have a very poor understanding of Scripture.  Just today she posted all about how "women hate to be the weaker vessel". But... we aren't! 

Quote

It is also dangerous to assume that the younger woman to whom you are teaching these things has a good theological foundation and you can just go over the "checklist" of the passage.

Not only that, Lori prefaces most of her posts with an attack on women along the lines of "women are so foolish" or "women today are so rebellious", and ends them with "if you disagree with me, you disagree with God".  I'm not that young and I've studied the Bible and commentaries quite a lot over the years. She can still make me question whether I'm just blind, wrong, and in rebellion. 

Sometimes I wish I could tell Lori to stop her "ministry" and go and do something more productive with her time. 

Quote

 

I am as complementarian and TULIP-y as they come, and while I do not support women preaching in a mixed congregation, it completely baffles me how Lori and her readers go to the extremes of interpretation and say that women cannot even teach other women or verbally participate in Bible classes. 

 

If I had to put a label on my beliefs regarding men and women in the church and home, I'd call myself a non-hierarchical Complementarian. I feel more comfortable in a church with a male preacher and I believe the Bible supports that, but then I disagree a lot with the general understanding of leadership in the Church.  If the pastor should start teaching the things Dave and Trey say on Lori's blog, I sure hope someone would have the guts to stand up and counter him with the Bible. If that someone is a woman, so be it. Jesus is the final authority and we all have the responsibility to direct each other back to Jesus. 

[polecat]

4 minutes ago, onemama said:

Sometimes I wish I could tell Lori to stop her "ministry" and go and do something more productive with her time. 

Let's see ...

She could:

1. Wash the rancid chicken juice out of her Norwex cloths.

2. Vacuum her dirty floors.

3. Make her home spotless rather than merely "tidy."

4. Look for a decent sunscreen to protect her skin from that SoCal sun.

5. Call her daughter and apologize for slut-shaming her publicly over stupid yoga pants. 

6. Play with her grandbabies. I mean REALLY play with them.

7. Kindle an actual fire with Ken. (Aw, who'm I kidding on that one?)

8. Eat something besides a big salad. Maybe some nice salmon.

9. Go dancing. It's good for you! 

10. Do something genuinely kind for someone else without any expectations in return AND without bragging about it on her blog AND without gossiping about the other person later.

11. Take a class and actually learn something.

12. Have a good belly laugh.

13. Spend time with girlfriends.

14. Go out for some good coffee (or tea or wine or whatever floats her boat).

15. Go visit one of her brand new grandbabies and help out the new mamas without any meanness, snarkiness, judginess or expectations. Just be kind!

16. Love. How about that, Lori? Try that -- just offer someone some love.