Lori Alexander 16: Protecting Men's Jobs from the Assaults of Women

[Red Jumper]

40 minutes ago, crawfishgirl said:

This is the first time that he has even come close to alluding that it is possible.

I do not buy it that he truly believes this. In the church of LorKen there is no place for diversity. As @Koala said: customers / RL need to be kept in mind  (paraphrasing Koala's words): No customers=no money=no 10 minutes 

[Koala]

Ken today:

Quote

Lori has had a general policy to allow all commentators, even those who disagree with her (us) so long as they are polite, and have a desire to back their beliefs with the Word.

Lori 9 days ago:

Quote

My blog is a teaching blog. I am not going to publish comments that teach things that are contrary to what I teach.

Quote

I get comments that are longer than my post explaining why what I just wrote about is all wrong. I want you to know that I won’t publish this type of comment.

Quote

If you worked a long time on a long comment that directly contradicts what I have written, please expect that it won’t be published. 

Quote

 I don’t allow others to poop all over my blog and Facebook page since it takes away and distracts from what I am trying to teach. If you don’t like what I teach, you don’t have to read it.

Lies, lies, lies.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

Grabs my pearls and falls on the fainting couch....

 

Lori lies...

[Loveday]

A reader of Lori's blog asks this question:

Quote

So does Dave believe a woman should have an abortion if her husband wants her to do so?

 

Dave's reply:

Quote

Please show me where scripture instructs a wife to disobey her husband. If this is “extreme’ as someone else label my words, then label it what you want, and yes I am then extreme [“zeal for His house has eaten Me up” John2:17]. Abraham was then also ‘extreme’ for believing God’s word to kill his own son in broad daylight. I’m not bashful to believe like that. It is certainly different than what the church teaches. I get that people are freaked by this for they have not heard this. But the status quo is what is killing the church.

Who is adding to or subtracting from scripture? If it is me, please show me how.

 

Abraham was willing to kill his son to obey God. A woman must be willing to have an abortion to obey her husband. Somehow from the example of Abraham, Dave has extrapolated that a husband must be obeyed as God must be obeyed. A husband IS God.

I can't remember--is Dave married? I fear for his wife.

[onemama]

47 minutes ago, Loveday said:

A husband must be obeyed as God must be obeyed. A husband IS God.

I can't remember--is Dave married? I fear for his wife.

Yes, he does believe that.  And yes, the man is married. 

[onemama]

Reading that chain of comments is sickening.  These men are adding their own understanding to Scripture. 

 -Plainly read, there is no chain of command. Being "head of" doesn't mean you have extra authority, and even if it did, why is it that there are no instructions on how to use that headship authority?  

- Plainly read, there are no instructions to lead, demand submission or obedience, train, discipline or otherwise exercise authority over a wife.  They add that to Scripture.

- Plainly read, a husband is called "head of" not "head over" his wife, yet they keep saying that a man is "head over" his wife. 

I'm so sick and tired of the way these people misuse Scripture!  And yes, Koala is right, Lori is a liar. She's had people gently and respectfully disagree with her, with Scripture, and she deleted the comments because "the feminists" liked them too much.  She's not published perfectly respectful comments that present a different perspective.  She says she's against women staying in abusive situations, yet she encourages a wife to stay in an abusive marriage and "practice 1st Peter 3".  

Lori needs to take some time off blogging and get her beliefs straightened out. She keeps posting provocative post after provocative post, basking in the male attention she gets, but her Theological foundation is lacking. She can't take on the difficult conversations.   She needs to shut up. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

She won't publish the comments of a respectful women with an innocent question, but she will of a man who has now admitted that a woman should get an abortion if husbands asks. Dave seems to even relish in being extreme. Why doesn't this go viral? 

 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Ken must be totally unaware of her latest commenting policy post. The disconnect between them is unreal. 

[polecat]

From today's post (and not Lori but one of her commenters):

 

Quote

“Many things started very small like this, like women showing their ankles or their shoulders in the early 1900s. To us it seems like nothing but back then it was a subtle step towards women wearing practically nothing in public."

 

Even the most basic knowledge of history -- and fashion -- demonstrates this as completely false. Sure, there have been periods in history where women have been largely covered. There have also been periods in which women exposed virtually their entire breasts and dampened their dresses so that they'd stick to their bodies, leaving pretty much nothing to the imagination. 

The commenter goes on:

Quote

TV and movies used to not allow more than a kiss, closed mouth, no unmarried sex, no adultery, but little things crept in that were looked over and now there are movies and TV shows glorifying sin. They bask in it.

 

Well, no, really, this is demonstrably false. Movies like Red-Headed Woman (1932) and Maniac (1934) had nude scenes and overt sexuality in them and were wildly popular in their day. The Hays Code was introduced to crack down on this sort of thing, but it had varying degrees of success. Many movies continued to have quite a bit of (less overt) sex and innuendo, including unmarried sex and adultery (Indiscreet had both!).

It's funny how fundamentalists have such rosy eyed views of the past, where everyone was innocent and sweet and no one ever had sex outside of marriage and wives always submitted and husbands were always manly men and children always obedient and households always properly ordered according to godly tenants. In reality, the world looked pretty much exactly like it did today: people had sex before they were married, sometimes they cheated on their spouses, sometmes people were gay, kids were rebellious (or not), and women worked. People are people. They always have been, and they always will be.

[Koala]

I am going to put this here, so that when Ken and Lori go on a cleaning spree later, it's all recorded.

Trey:

Quote

Dave,
It seems to me that you have left NO instance where a wife can refuse to submit to her husband. I understand and believe the Bible just as it is written in individual verses but I also understand it as it is written in chapters and books and as a whole.

Is their not one single instance that you can envision, that would justly allow a wife to not submit to her husband?

Should she submit to her husband physically beating her? Giving her a concussion? Breaking her bones?

Should she allow her husband to physically beat (not talking about spanking here) their children? Is it OK for him to break their bones? What if he breaks his sons arm and then demands that the boy not be taken for medical treatment for fear of punishment by our criminal justice system? Does she just sit by and watch as her sons arm does not heal properly and he is crippled for life?

Should she submit to her husband and be silent while he sexually molests their children?

Should she submit when her husband wants to swap sexual partners with another man?

Dave, would ANY of the above situations really please and glorify the God you serve?

Reply

Dave replies:

Quote

Trey,

I’m only reading the scriptures. That is my God. Scripture is Jesus. What are you reading? Please show me where a WIFE is to disobey her husband. I’ve not seen an example of a wife commanded to disobey her husband or speak up. Just look at the comments of Happy Homemaker and Holly. There husbands ‘changed’ when they did elected compete obedience.

What would you have told Abraham when he was lifting the knife over the throat of Isaac?

We have to stop thinking carnally and let the spirit work as we have faith by acting on His word.

Dave has very clearly responded that a wife should never refuse to submit, no matter the circumstances (and Trey listed several absolutely horrific circumstances).

You might wonder...what does Ken think of Dave?  After all, the entire purpose of this post was to disagree with him.  Surely he realizes how twisted and vile Dave really is.

Ken Alexander:

Quote

Dave is a godly man who really is trying to honor the Lord in his life and views of the scriptures. 

Quote

I would ask you not to make too much of Dave’s comments and allow some to disagree with us. We expect that the women here will not be too confused by Dave’s desire to honor God’s Word fully in all it says. 

Let that sink in for a moment.

[Koala]

And because Ken has a history of trying to put a sparkle on abusive situations, here is another example that took place during his time posting of Free Jinger.

It seems Ken denied that Lori encouraged her readers to hit harder.  He was confronted with the following exchange from Lori's blog:

Reader:

Quote

I had one that would never give in to anything, regardless of punishment, spanking did nothing but make her worse, time outs where a joke, finally I picked her up and threw her under a cold shower. The other one would push a bit but one look and he would do as he was told, he has been spanked maybe 4 or 5 times in his whole life. I empathise with this mother sometimes you just have to sit in a doorway...

Lori:

Quote

A spanking will work if it is hard enough

Reader:

Quote

Not with her, we tried hand, and although I was against it belt, wooden spoon, cane everything she would just keep going, I stopped after I thought I broke her arm... And tried other ways. The shower was the only thing that gave her pause...

After reading the comments, Ken replied:

Quote

you know full well this was not an abusive mother

So Dave is a godly man, and the woman in the above scenario was NOT abusive.  

I guess the real question is, who (besides working moms) do the Alexanders find "ungodly", and exactly what do they believe constitutes abuse?

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Well here is the money quote:

Dave:

Quote

 

March 7, 2017 at 8:15 am

Why do I keep hearing discussion of ways that women should not obey? Has it not occurred to us that the ‘abuse’ of women is the direct result of women not obeying? Are we going to treat the symptom or the disease?

 

Abuse is only because women do not obey! Abuse is woman's fault!  If women were obeying men would have no need to abuse. Lori said something similar to this not too long ago. Something along the lines of what man would want to abuse a wife who is being submissive and respectful. Ken responds and of course glosses over this part. 

[Koala]

Ken has doubled down, and seems to be trying to defend Dave by insisting he doesn't really mean what he's saying.

He tells readers that he's been counseling for 30 years ( <----wha????), and that while he's seen lots of wives ask their husbands to sin, he's never seen a husband ask his wife to sin.  

Yeah, he's not lying about his "counseling" history, and he's definitely not biased.  

Ken

Quote

If I understand Dave’s position it is much like what Michelle just expressed. At least within a Christian marriage a husband would not ask his wife to sin. Some see this verse as consistently doable if God asks the wife to do it, and the husband who asks his wife to sin is a hypothetical that muddies the passage and not a reality.

I must say that in my 30 years of counseling I cannot recall a husband asking a wife to sin, but I have seen a wife telling her husband to sin. 

Hey Ken?  That's not what Dave said...at all.  Get a grip...and some reading comprehension skills while you're at it.  

On the other hand, Dave is shouting even louder, in case someone missed just how horrible he really is.

Dave:

Quote

Has it not occurred to us that the ‘abuse’ of women is the direct result of women not obeying? Are we going to treat the symptom or the disease?

See?  Abuse victims are only abused because they disobey! 

What was it Ken said?  Oh, I remember.

Ken Alexander:

Quote

Dave is a godly man 

Dave continues:

Quote

Maybe a husband is testing his wife’s faith just like God

Abuse= a test of faith!

Quote

A wife denying Jesus at the instruction of her husband is actually acknowledging Jesus and obeying His command to a wife. 

To deny Jesus, is to acknowledge Jesus.  Trust Dave, he's looked into it.

A reader suggested that Dave is sowing contention:

Quote

Dave, I will not go into my opinion on this. But aren’t you being a little bit contentious?

Dave blushes at the compliment:

Quote

Contentious? Does it show. Good, then I am modeling Jesus, for He was the ‘Rock of Offense.’

Another reader asks:

Quote

Dave, just to clarify. You do not believe a wife has the right to disobey ever? 

Dave:

Quote

No, she does not have any right.

Why am I not surprised?  This post served 2 purposes.

1) It highlighted what we already knew.  Dave isn't just crazy, he is scary.  As in, I am terrified about what his wife might be enduring at his hands.  His comments have a very dangerous tone to them, and I don't think there's any limit to what he's capable of.

2) It confirmed that Ken doesn't stand for anything.  Dave has said some BEYOND horrific things in this post, and Ken still thinks he just a Godly man, trying to please Jesus, and follow scripture. 

 

 

[Hisey]

Ken can get himself into some serious legal trouble if he promotes himself publically as a "counselor with 30 years experience" and then something bad happens. There may not be a legal precedent for such things, but it will look really bad for him in court.

I wouldn't put myself out online as a "medical provider", and give out medical advice to strangers, just because I've applied a few bandaids and pulled some splinters. That's what he's doing. He's taking conversations he had with various friends and families, and deciding he "counseled" them.

[Koala]

15 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Abuse is only because women do not obey! Abuse is woman's fault!  If women were obeying men would have no need to abuse. Lori said something similar to this not too long ago. Something along the lines of what man would want to abuse a wife who is being submissive and respectful. Ken responds and of course glosses over this part. 

Lori Alexander:

Quote

Why would a husband want to begin abusing a wife who begins being cheerful with him, learns to please him, loves serving him and meeting his needs?

 

[Hisey]

Lori's blog is condoning and endorsing a man who says women should not stop child abuse and child molestation. I think someone should screen cap Dave's comments (and Ken's endorsement of hm as a "Godly man") and report it to Wordpress.

[Koala]

2 minutes ago, Hisey said:

Lori's blog is condoning and endorsing a man who says women should not stop child abuse and child molestation. I think someone should screen cap Dave's comments (and Ken's endorsement of hm as a "Godly man") and report it to Wordpress.

This all started as Ken trying to clean up a mess (and their imagine in the process), but as we learned while he was here, the more he talks, the worse he sounds.  

No matter how high Dave turns up the crazy, and no matter how brightly his "I'm an abuser" light shines, Ken insists that he is a godly man.

[Imrlgoddess]

WRT to Ken's profession--a medical doctor--and his self titled "counselor" bit....wouldn't either or both of those make him a mandatory reporter?  I understand he's a dental physician but when he was practicing in an office of his own, if he had a customer come in for mouth work and saw evidence of force or abuse, wouldn't he (legally) have to call the authorities?  If, for some odd reason, he is actually an accredited counselor the same rules applies, yes?  As @Hisey mentioned, even if he himself could avoid legal trouble, statements found on his wife's blog could make major trouble for his company and his reputation and could be used in a legal forum should either of them be named.

@Ken Perception is everything and the internet is forever.  While you, perhaps, never raised your hand in anger or excess, doesn't mean you aren't promoting another to do just that.  

Just for emphasis, this is a list of professions who should report in the state of California. http://mandatedreporterca.com/who/who.htm

 It clearly states (bolding mine):  

Quote

Physician, surgeon, psychiatrist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist

Emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic

Quote

Social worker

Marriage, family and child counselor, (marriage and family therapist), clinical social worker

Marriage, family, and child therapist trainee

Psychological assistant

Unlicensed marriage, family, and child therapist intern

 

[jerkit]

Ken is not a dentist. He is a consultant for dentist offices.

[Koala]

Dave:

Quote

Ken,
‘Obey as unto the Lord’ means that a wife obeys her husband as if he was the Lord Himself. It does not mean she bypasses her husband’s authority. The Lord places His authority over the wife in the husband. Explicitly; unconditionally. 

 

[Imrlgoddess]

4 minutes ago, jerkit said:

Ken is not a dentist. He is a consultant for dentist offices.

So he never received his DDS in anything?  For some reason, I thought he started out licensed and then went on to consult.  I could be wrong, I can't remember where I saw that or if I read it correctly.  

[jerkit]

3 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

So he never received his DDS in anything?  For some reason, I thought he started out licensed and then went on to consult.  I could be wrong, I can't remember where I saw that or if I read it correctly.  

No. One of the sons is a dentist and one of the sons in law is in dental school.

[Imrlgoddess]

Gotcha.  Thank you! @jerkit

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I watch too much Criminal MInds/ Law & Order.

Dave and his dogmatic everything is Every. Thing, makes me think of a man who kills his family because God told him to in order to test his faith,  

Or a scenario where a man orders his verbally browbeaten, probably physically abused, completely submissive, obey in Every. Thing. wife to do something horrible to the children and her justification is that she obeys him in Every. Thing as she obeys God -- because her husband is her lord.

If Dave is this awful in print on a public blog forum, I cannot imagine how horrible he is in the privacy of his home.

He is filled with anger that anyone, anywhere, at any time would question him and filled with total belief and confidence in his righteousness and truth. Those who disobey him bring the abuse on themselves and he will punish them until they obey without question.

My concern is that he doesn't know when to stop the punishment.  If I read he beat his wife or child(ren) to death I would absolutely not be surprised,

[Koala]

Ken is still trying to soothe Dave's ego:

Quote

We are of the same mind

Quote

You desire for the complete obedience to God’s word is admirable

Why does he keep trying to bring this guy around?  Does he really not see how bad this looks?

What does Dave have to say to set off alarm bells for Ken?  What is left to say?  Dave's spelled it all out for him.