Lori - V-Day Causes Divorce - Now With Moar Ken! Part 2

[salex]

Which world view is that? Generalized Christian? There are 2.18 B Christians in the world last year according to Pew Research

However, your Christianity seems a subset of overall Christianity and it's the subset that preaches one must be "saved" by that subset's definition to be a "true Christian." I believe your church identifies first as evangelical which would make it part of 13.1% of the Christians. I could sort of go along with your saying that was your world view, but that isn't billions of people. So I'd challenge that claim.

However, even of the evangelical groups not all emphasize patriarchal wifely submission. So far I've not been able to find a good count of those. Judging by Lori's comments and most of your writing here, I'd say this is the group you mainly follow and that's far fewer than billions.

Barna researched how many people/ christians hold what is defined as a Christian world view. following are the results for the USA and a definition of what is considered a "biblical worldview".

For the purposes of the survey, a "biblical worldview" was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.

christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2009/march/barna-how-many-have-biblical-worldview.html

Barna researched how many people/ christians hold what is defined as a Christian world view. following are the results for the USA and a definition of what is considered a "biblical worldview".

The research indicated that only 9% of all American adults have a biblical worldview as defined above. The Barna study also indicated that a minority of people who describe themselves as "born again" actually share this worldview. So while "they were twice as likely as the average adult to possess a biblical worldview... even among born again Christians, less than one out of every five (19%) had such an outlook on life."

Still looking for stats on submissive marriage. But billions don't share the ™.... even most Christians.

[Ken]

Ken,

I missed your reply to me on the other thread. Regarding Isaiah 53. Rabbinical Judaism considers the Suffering Servant to refer to the Nation of Israel, not an individual Messiah and certainly not Jesus. Israel will suffer to teach the nations a better way. It is there tradition and their language, I think at the very least it is pretty arrogant of any Christian to dare an Orthodox Jew to see Jesus as the Suffering Servant in the Isaiah poems because they have already studied them, as well as the Christian claims, and can dismiss the Christian claims as not applying because of X, Y, Z. Yes, the Christian church interprets the Isaiah poems as a prophecy about Jesus. When I read them in Greek or English, I definitely see parallels in terms of Jesus's mission. But here is the rub. Even when I am reading Isaiah in Biblical Greek, I am reading a translation. There is no way I can discount the fact I don't know all the language subtleties of the Hebrew, and therefore cannot tell the tradition that wrote the Scriptures, "Hey, you are definitely WRONG!" It is there language and culture, they win in the interpretation sweepstakes.

Look at history. Every time Christians of any denomination from the Byzantines to today have decided they were going to "save" the world by unleashing "Christian" society, they have unchained the gates of Hell and the blood has flowed. Let it be carried in people's hearts, and let the Christian do the duty of loving and taking care of their neighbor. That will advance God's Kingdom on earth, not wifely submission, or picketing clinics, or trying to convert other religions.

Thank you for your lengthy response. I am familiar with the Jewish tradition of interpreting the passage figuratively. There is not much doubt as to what the passages says, but who it applies to. It is a bit like the evolution. If one can't acknowledge that God exists then we must interpret the facts another way. If one cannot imagine the Messiah has come and already died for all of the nation Israel, ten one must interpret the passage differently no matter how many fulfillments of prophecy there are in Christ.

Interestingly, prophecy passages like this often have double fulfillments so maybe it ens up doing both.

If Lori was crusading to make all women submissive or win the whole world for Jesus, I might expect some of the backlash I see on this Forum towards her. But her ministry is quite targeted to Christian women and she does little to promote her blog. She is sharing what she sees in the Bible work effectively in hundreds of wive's lives and her own personal thinking at times. I am surprised how much consternation my girl can cause with her little blog and her words.

[Ken]

Barna researched how many people/ christians hold what is defined as a Christian world view. following are the results for the USA and a definition of what is considered a "biblical worldview".

For the purposes of the survey, a "biblical worldview" was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.

christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2009/march/barna-how-many-have-biblical-worldview.html

Still looking for stats on submissive marriage. But billions don't share the ™.... even most Christians.

My thinking included all who claim to be Bible Believers which appears to be about 550 - 700,000,000. And I believe that there are other Christians who are not Bible believing evangelical types who are true Believers and love the Lord Jesus... would you not agree? I have met many a Catholic who is definitely saved and in the family if God. Can I not add them in :)?

http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/con ... xLHzpvwkSs

Believers centered on the person of Jesus

Believers obedient to Christ’s Great Commission

Believers committed to the gospel as set forth in the Bible

Day-to-day personal witness to Christ

Involved in organized methods of evangelism

Involved in Christ’s mission in the world

Working towards Christ’s second coming and final Advent

This structural approach leads the WCD to claim that there are 706 Evangelical denominations worldwide with a total of around 300 million adherents in mid-2010. The formula used for the broader term “evangelical†produces a total of approximately 700 million Great Commission Christians worldwide in mid-2010. A parallel assessment of Pentecostals and Charismatics results in about 600 million for the same year. These three categories—Evangelical, Great Commission Christian (or evangelical) and Pentecostal—are not mutually exclusive. For example, one can be a Pentecostal and an Evangelical but not a Great Commission Christian. Likewise, an individual can simultaneously be all of the above.

These two authoritative sources illustrate that counting evangelical Christians results in a range of estimates. It can be difficult to compare the estimates since they are generated from different definitions, methodologies, and categories. Evangelicalism is not a monochromatic phenomenon, despite many similarities in theology and experience. Nonetheless, it can likely be generally agreed that there are approximately 500 million Evangelicals in the world today. Evangelicalism, akin to global Christianity as a whole, is a diverse and transformative group that is making headway for the gospel of Christ throughout the world.

[Ken]

***And again. Ken, if I didn't know better I would assume that you don't have the integrity to either stand by these comments or renounce them. If this is what you truly believe, then you should have the integrity to say so, and if not you should renounce it and clarify your position. To continually ignore it just appears cowardly.

Based on your most recent comments I would be tempted to believe you were more balanced than your wife and actually willing to learn from the point of view of another. Believe it or not I can see why even if you disagree with Lori, you are not willing to throw her to the wolves as it were. What I can't see is how a person who presents himself as having fairly moderate views can make such vile comments. These statements are of great concern to me, and until they are addressed they will continue to color perception of you. ***

You know, the more I think about your assertion that you have been mischaracterized, the more irritated I get. You want fairness. Here's fairness.

You say I put words on paper? Here's your chance to tell me these are not your words.

You say you were mischaracterized, here's your chance to clarify.

Here's your chance set the record straight. If you ignore it then I will assume that these were indeed your quotes and you were not mischaracterized as you claim:

1)

Mom:

Lori Alexander:

Mom:

Ken Alexander:

Alright, there it is Ken. Are the words I attributed to you yours? If so, how did quoting them mischaracterize you?

2)

SSM

Ken Alexander:

Are the words I attributed to you yours? If so, how did quoting them mischaracterize you?

3)

SSM:

(AFTER reading these quotes Ken Alexander said):

Are the words I attributed to you yours? If so, how did quoting them mischaracterize you?

4)

Ken Alexander:

Are the words I attributed to you yours? If so, how did quoting them mischaracterize you?

I am not sure exactly what you are looking for, but I will try to play along. I never said EVRYTHING you said mischaracterized us, (even a blind squirrel), but a lot of things did, because you lacked certain information to fill in the gaps.

1) Concerning the mother, the bruised hand is not abuse, but an accident. There was no intent to harm, and the child put her hand behind her back. The mother felt terrible about it. The shower incident is troubling, but unless you read more into what she said than is actually written, I am agnostic on whether she abused her child in this incident. Let's define an "abusive mother." Is this a mother who once or twice modestly oversteps the margins of human decency in disciplining a child or one who consistently over time abuses a child. If you want to label her as an abusive mom you should find out a lot more facts that would support that position.

I would not condone throwing a child in a shower, but I also would not go want to judge a mom with a really difficult child unresponsive to discipline of any kind. I thank God I did not have one of those ... and judging her as an "abusive mother" based on what she wrote is wrong. Poor decisions, yes. Poor parenting probably. Once or twice using poor judgment on a kid like this dies not make one an abusive mother.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this and support the idea that when one has a hugely difficult child most parents will not handle everything perfectly but that does not make them abusive?

2) I am rethinking SSM, but can't take your word for all of this. I have seen to much said wring against us to think you have this one right, but I will say I now see things that are not in any way our thinking. I don't have time with all this to research anything on her site. The three posts I read were pretty straight forward and not offensive, but certainly hard hitting for her point of view.

3) What are you looking for here? You say she was teaching DD when she clearly says that is not what she has in mind. Is spanking for foreplay used only in DD relationships? Not according to Men's Magazine :). If SSM was into teaching DD why is this the ONLY thing you all can find on it. I will believe you, but show me the proof. It will surprise me if truly she advocates DD. From her comments there it sounds like maybe in the past she was into DD and BSDM but why not tell her she wants her to practice DD if she believes in it? Why instead say, this is not what I intend for you, this is foreplay?

I could care less what couples do in their bedrooms fir sex play ... so long as neither spouse is deprived ... except for good reasons.

[Ken]

Quoting this again as well. Please tell us how your wife is being denied her freedom of speech, and how we are responsible. This is a rather heavy accusation, so to make it and then refuse to substantiate it takes away from your credibility.

L. should be able to express herself and her views without her children and grandchildren Googling here name and finding L. A, is a F...ing Mons... ter. Not responsible, not fair and is the shouting down of free speech. I am also referring to other threats that were shot down pretty quickly by others, which I appreciate. Bullying with profanity can impact one's ability to speak what they believe to be true. What it does is polarizes conservative Christians further away from what you see. I thought there were a bunch of lunatics on this Forum until I jumped on to see for myself.

An honest and caring dialogue between both worldviews is a good thing. I am processing the dialogue I have had here with you and in turn trying to help my black and white wonderful spouse process things too. That will take time and may never get where you would like, but we already have made some changes and changes in thinking. I will not expect her to second guess everything she writes or comments, but I know how the mind works that when truth is planted in a good person it usually works its way into change. I hope that is true for both sides of this issue. Thanks! I hope I was not too much of a cop out for you :). You seem tough, but generally I can see you try to be fair.

[Ken]

Lori says this showdown occurred at 18 months:

Here's what she says happens (from the comments):

Thank you for answering my question. I appreciate it. It seems this was yet another fight about food (your daughter refusing to eat her raisins). Do you think, today, that it is right to hit a child for so long (according to Lori's version) because she wouldn't eat something? Or would you do differently today?

If Lori's version is the correct one, do you agree today that it is OK to hit an 18-month old (off and on) for four hours because of defiance?

There was no hour long spankings or swats. And 18 months is not too young to train, and four hours is not too long to stick with making sure the child does not win, but spankings should be quite limited. I really believe that if the spanking does not work quickly, it is tie for other action. Another spanking may happen, but lots more tries at other types of discipline would be tried first.

I hate to be boxed in to a one answer fits all situations. Give me loving and sensible parent and I want to leave it up to them to raise their own children. The state and public opinion can't dictate everything to loving, responsible families. We can suggest guidelines, but like for us, we understood that if we stuck with picking the raisins until it was done, we would never have to do it again, and this became true for us with all our kids. Is it so terrible to have one "toe to toe" battle with strong will and prove that they need to obey? I will match my spanked kids IQ's and success in life, and well balanced emotional and psychological make up with any set of four kids in the world. I may be a bit biased, but they are all get , well adjusted kids who may think they had strict parents, but much of that they now appreciate very much... and I have letters from them to prove it. Do messed up kids carry on a loving regular relationship with their parents? No, most hate their parents, or have little contact with them.

I don't get all this myopic inquiry... when the proof is before your eyes. I wish I could tell you all about them and how service oriented and loving they all are.

[Ken]

She has been directly quoted advocating marital rape. This has happened multiple times. Her most recent comment was less than a month ago.

SSM

Upon seeing this quote you replied with the following:

Ken Alexander:

I think many people here are having a very difficult time understanding why you are having such a blasé reaction to a woman clearly endorsing rape.

I don't know anything about this... If what you say is true it is far from our thinking. If she is saying that it is too easy for a wife to claim marital rape ... that is a tough issue too.

[Hisey]

Ken, here is a link to a post by SSM that definitely proves she is into DD. It is actually written by one of her regulars, but she published it and endorses this method in the comments.

http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/guest-post-a-husbands-authority-over-his-wife-is-not-limited/

Here's a quote:

When I point out that the husband has the authority to apply corporal punishment to his wife, that doesn’t mean it is commanded. A woman like WBW would probably benefit from being spanked into submission. I seriously doubt a woman like GGW would ever need to be spanked as it would crush her spirit. As has often been pointed out on this blog, wives don’t want a husband who will cheat on them, but they want a husband that’s attractive enough to other women that he could cheat. Likewise, I think wives would be a lot happier if they knew that if they stepped far enough out of line that they’d get a trip across their husband’s knee. A little fear is a good thing. For some women that might be a spanking, for others it might be having their dishwasher disassembled.

Here's some more from that post:

When it’s acknowledged and recognized that he has the moral authority and the moral right to put her over his knee, that kind of thing won’t happen.

And SSM replies (in comments):

When I read Dalrock’s recent post, The Crazy Dictator, I couldn’t help but think that modern women are ever so much crazier because they need their husbands to intervene and get them OFF all the antidepressants and birth control pills and START having non-contracepted sex (other than maybe using NFP) EVERY day with them so they get that oh-so-beneficial semen exposure, and give them a few firm swats on the rear when their emotions start ramping up. But modern women fight the very things they need and now it’s practically illegal for men to do this very loving behavioral intervention when it is needed. No wonder women are all so psycho.

[Curious]

Thank you for the lesson and aside from the Search Engine Tag under my wife's name when you Google it, and a few free spirited folks, I would agree with you.

I do not know what your policy or thinking is on putting profanity out where young and old can read it, but any young woman or girl, looking for her name, or looking for another similar name, will all get a FreeJinger welcome of profanity. I am not sure that represents your Forum very well, or responsible speech.

Perhaps that is more what I am requesting. Just asking that disagreement take place in a responsible way, and it took lots of your members, not a few to get the profanity where it is. Name calling, that's a bit irresponsible too, but profanity like that?

Again, thank you for your lesson, and let me know if I am being too much of a distraction. You would think that some would like to find out more about Fundie thinking, and I certainly would like to find out more about all these dominant patriarchy types and shell's of women as I have not see a one of them in all my years in the church. But I am going to Texas soon and will ask about some of them.. Now you have me curious, and maybe the curiosity leads to the concerns that you all see.

Well we are certainly not a website for children. To be a member, you have to be 18 (19 in Alabama), however we do allow the public to read. That being said, it's not our job to parent the world. Frankly, I suspect young people are going to see/hear a lot of things far worse than they will read here long before they are allowed to surf the internet, in most cases. We do have rules regarding NSFW (not safe for work) images/links and generally don't have those types of things posted here.

Frankly, many people we follow talk about things I would not want my children to be introduced to at an early age (sex, sex, sex and more sex) with way more frequency and I would be more worried about children running into that than a few swear words. I live in the real world where people swear and have no issues with swearing and could probably enter in swearing if it were an olympic event ;) That doesn't mean I don't know how to carry on a conversation without using "bad words," though. Generally, people here swear to make a point. We have a few people that swear in their regular speech and that is ok, too (I swear in my regular spoken word when around people I know much more frequently than I do when writing for a larger audience.). I'd rather read a swear word than know that SSM is being spanked and I'd rather my kids (and the whole world, really) see the former vs the latter, too) ;)

I just googled Lori's full name and did not get a fill in for my search with any words that I consider a profanity. I saw the "is a monster" one. While I understand that no one wants to see their loved one called a monster, that is not a profanity, just because you don't like it.

I also did a little research based on one of your previous comments regarding us breaking SEO rules and can find no indication of this being accurate. If you can point me to some place in google's literature where that is the case, I will revise my thinking/approach on this. However, "googlebombing" has a long and colorful history.

[thoughtful]

I finally read through both sections of this thread -- whew!

Ken said:

How many of you followed the bully's lead and joined in with "Lori is a f...ing monster?"

The Bully: GeoBQn "ETA: Her full name in the title of the thread, so it will appear if someone searches her name in Google."

The Bigger Bully: noni alabaster

I suggest we start a "Lori Alexander is a Fucking Monster" campaign, similar to the "Doug Phillips is a Tool" movement.

I'd love to see that phrase pushed to the top of searches for this hateful, hateful woman."

Her followers: rward, salex, 16thcentmargot, Hane, C Potter-Pirbright. Rowan, thoughtful,the list many more.

Hey, I got a mention!

As I remember, my only contribution was to suggest that, since many people who might benefit from being warned about Lori's advice could have anti-profanity guards of some sort, taking out the "fucking" would go further. I generally tend to be "meh" about the google campaigns.

And, as someone else already pointed out, that was on a thread in which Lori advocated hitting very young children -- that tends to make my usually mild-mannered self get a bit testy. So I did think "monster" was pretty accurate.

Other thoughts about this thread:

Ken's use of random, possibly ( :D ) inflated numbers reminds me of the running gag my mother and I had when I was a pre-teen: "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!"

OKTBTK, I love the phrase "the Ken Commandments." And I have very mixed feelings about that can o' chicken being back!

Docmom, I think your hookworm is actually kind of cute.

As I once said in another thread, I have been a feminist since I was born -- no reading needed. How do I know? Well, who among us is born assuming he or she is less than other people?

No personal relationship should be based on any sort of submission. Adults discuss and debate and come to decisions.

[Curious]

I did not put two and two together... and you are right... I have to stop jumping on here as my work is suffering greatly. Is that the plan. I know I was warned by Koala to just hot the Red X in the upper corner or this might consume me. I am actual starting to like some of you. OK, blast me for that.

I think we need to mark this one on the calendar folks! We haven't been told we are going to hell AND almost an admission that all heathens don't have devil horns and tails ;)

Maybe Ken can be our Fundie Welcome Wagon and provide encouragement for more of the people we follow to give us a chance as he has :wink-penguin:

[Curious]

Thanks, it sounds so easy! Do you have to post a certain number of times to get your quote button to appear. It has now appeared. I am waiting for all the edit buttons to appear. This is universal with all three browsers and computers.

No, you should have all the options available from the very beginning. Are you using the default template? If you go here: http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15488 this thread is specifically for playing around with the various editing tools, embedding photos and the like. You can test stuff out there to learn your way around the forum interface.

You should have a row of buttons at the top of the text box that gives you options for bold, italic, underline, quote, img, url, font weight and color, center, spoilers and youtube (among a few other things). Your quote button should be on the upper right of the post you want to quote (going from memory. I don't use the default template).

[Mama Mia]

No, you should have all the options available from the very beginning. Are you using the default template? If you go here: http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15488 this thread is specifically for playing around with the various editing tools, embedding photos and the like. You can test stuff out there to learn your way around the forum interface.

You should have a row of buttons at the top of the text box that gives you options for bold, italic, underline, quote, img, url, font weight and color, center, spoilers and youtube (among a few other things). Your quote button should be on the upper right of the post you want to quote (going from memory. I don't use the default template).

If you are hitting the button at the bottom of the page that says " quick reply" you do not see the edit buttons.

If you reply by using the button on the bottom left that says "post reply" you will see the edit buttons.

[latraviata]

Temper tantrums are a normal part of toddlerhood. There are a number ways of handling them. What won't work is giving into them. One of our kids had the first tantrum and I laughed and called it a pitiful effort. That child never had another tantrum. Each parent child relationship is different and why should I have spanked a child when laughter did the trick? Seeing spanking as a necessary or early to go to tool is disturbing. Continually defending it and recommending it by experienced parents is even more disturbing. I tend to view it as a tool used by less experienced and less creative parents.

Getting an 18 month old toddler out of her bed by Dad who came home and has been told about this, is the worst parenting ever!

The incident happened with Mummy, it should stay with Mummy, telling Dad who wasn't even there who then takes her out of her bed is cruel and doesn't teach her thing other than Mum and Dad mean pain not love. How much do you think a toddler understands any of this?

A tantrum and refusing picking up her raisins, two adults spanking her???? What an admission of weakness! Shakes head in disbelief.

Honestly......

[latraviata]

There was no hour long spankings or swats. And 18 months is not too young to train, and four hours is not too long to stick with making sure the child does not win, but spankings should be quite limited. I really believe that if the spanking does not work quickly, it is tie for other action. Another spanking may happen, but lots more tries at other types of discipline would be tried first.

I hate to be boxed in to a one answer fits all situations. Give me loving and sensible parent and I want to leave it up to them to raise their own children. The state and public opinion can't dictate everything to loving, responsible families. We can suggest guidelines, but like for us, we understood that if we stuck with picking the raisins until it was done, we would never have to do it again, and this became true for us with all our kids. Is it so terrible to have one "toe to toe" battle with strong will and prove that they need to obey? I will match my spanked kids IQ's and success in life, and well balanced emotional and psychological make up with any set of four kids in the world. I may be a bit biased, but they are all get , well adjusted kids who may think they had strict parents, but much of that they now appreciate very much... and I have letters from them to prove it. Do messed up kids carry on a loving regular relationship with their parents? No, most hate their parents, or have little contact with them.

I don't get all this myopic inquiry... when the proof is before your eyes. I wish I could tell you all about them and how service oriented and loving they all are.

It took two adults to pick up her raisins! The training didn't work very well then, did it Ken?

Have you any idea how long 4 hours is for a toddler? It is not child rearing, it is a power struggle. A toddler is not your enemy in combat. It is a very, very young child who by the way of gradualness has to learn and to be guided and certainly not by 4 hours of battle and spanking. She is not an equal partner, she is a toddler!!

[16strong]

Chiming in really quick to say...abuse is often not 'meant.' Many people hurt others in the heat of the moment, because they don't know how to control themselves or they don't have a concept of boundaries. Just because someone feels sorry for it later doesn't mean it wasn't abuse and that it won't happen again. There are queues of people outside anger management courses that insist they never meant to hurt the people they did and that they deeply regret doing so. Just because they regret it and did it in the heat of the moment doesn't take away what their victims felt or went through. To suggest otherwise is highly insulting to victims of emotional and physical abuse. That's all.

[formergothardite]

I have had no chance to investigate SSM further. I may be eating those words.

Cabinetman seems like a great guy who his wife loves dearly. It is impossible in a few posts and Q & A to see why he did what thought was necessary to save his wife and his marriage. If you knew you were losing your husband to bad friends, alcohol, and he was thinking of harming himself, what steps would you take to save him; or what would you want him to do to try and save you?

He admits he did not handle things perfectly, but I don't understand how his wife's obvious love and adoration for what he did for her does not resonate with you and others. These are impossible situations that most often end up really ugly, yet they not only make it in their marriage, their marriage and family is thriving with his moving her away from the bad influences.

Teens and young adults are often given strong intervention when hooked on alcohol or drugs, and that includes a change of location get them away from bad influences. One wife I know egged her husband on to be physical with her, got right in his face and dared him. When he let her go she calmly walked over to the phone, dialed 911 as he begged and pleaded in tears for her not to call the police. It saved his life. Such things are not easy, or clear, but to fault a man who wins his wife and now she loves him for it, that is unfair. He did it out of love, right or wrong in how he did it.

Life has no instructions manual for these things. I will not rehash blow by blow what you see t=on the written record, just imagine that there is always more to the story. Anyone here not have a few rough patches in their marriage?

Ken, I quoted it for you. She said repeal marital rape laws because the husband should have the option to "take what is his". This is called rape to the sane world. Now, are you still going to tell me that she is a godly Christian writer. If so, please take the time to explain how "taking what is his" or rape is godly.

His wife's adoration doesn't resonate with me because I've seen how abused women act. Have you read any of my posts about my marriage? I'm honestly wondering if you did or if you have ignored them because Lori's advice for submission wouldn't have worked for me so you don't want to think about it. I kicked my husband out when it got to the point where he was going down a dark path that was going to destroy all of us. I also contacted all of his friends and family and let them know what was going on and that he needed their support and he would always have my support and love, but he couldn't come home until things changed and he got helped.

What I did not do is self-diagnose him with depression, discipline him(he is an adult, not a child), force him into a cabin in the woods because I felt like he was in "anarchy over our marriage"(what does that even mean? Did it mean that she wanted to leave him and he physically restrained him and forced her into seclusion till she submitted? This does not sound healthy.). I did not "punish" him by making him clean house.

None of this sounds loving. None of this sounds like anything I would want my husband to do if we were having marriage problems. Cutting her off from people who were concerned he was abusing her is a major red flag. A major one. His post reads classic abuser. Her response of eventually giving in and claiming everything is fine even though he still structures her day for her and does not allow her to go out a lot sounds like an abused woman who was eventually broken and has given up because she seems like there is no way out.

I don't do this because I'm mean. I do this because very quickly she will become overwhelmed, depressed and exhausted and she knows it now. I saw it very quickly, within a few months of being married I had a pretty firm grasp of it but for ten years she fought me. I was considered mean, and controlling and everything evil in her mind

This is classic for mental and emotional abuse. The problem with you and Lori is that you are ignorant of all signs of abuse. Her family, her friends, their church, all thought he was abusing her. Don't you think they have a better grasp of the situation than you? Isn't it more likely that they were correct than that they were all just crazy and made up the abuse?

[formergothardite]

"But I am going to Texas soon and will ask about some of them.."

Ken you really don't get it do you? It isn't going to be obvious because the women and churches try to hide it. Abuse is seen as shameful. Something to be hidden and not talked about. Especially since submission is supposed to be this godly thing that makes your marriage better. So if you go to churches or friends and ask you are probably going to get the answer that you want to get. "No we never see it. Submission works." People who teach submission are invested in covering up any downside to it(and this includes you and Lori). People who are currently in a miserable marriage where submission isn't going to work are also going to cover it up because they are ashamed.

Your best bet is to search online and read stories of women and children who came of out of fundamental, Christian, quiverful, wifely submission homes. Read those stories.

[latraviata]

One thing I am noticing about Lori is that she has a strong need to control what her family eats. She's posted about how she conflicted with Ken about his eating junk food. Or he'd buy junk food (pizza?) and then the kids wouldn't eat their "big salads." Or she'd forced her youngest to sit at the table till she ate the "big salad." Why does she do this, and why does she think it is good?

The result is a family that is surprisingly unhealthy. Ken says that everyone in the family, except one son, had "gut" and "parasite" problems. He and the nanny had (I think it was) gallstones for years. Lori, of course, had her chronic health issues, some of which were identified by the medical profession and some were not.

I wonder if some of those "gut" issues had to do with all the pressure, discipline and talking about eating "healthy" (I think it's more correct to say "healthily")?

Personally, when raising kids, I prefer to make food and eating a low-pressure issue. My husband was raised in a household where food was a hot issue, and he would sometimes try to bribe or correct the children with food ("No dessert unless you. . ." or "Do this and we'll stop for donuts"). I put a stop to that right away (our marriage is not submissive) and now he thanks me for it. He realizes that was unhealthy behavior. Both girls today have no food issues, they eat when they are hungry and are quite slender with good self esteem. We keep mostly healthy food in the house, don't sweat it when they do eat junk, and generally let them control their food intake at meals. If they ever do start to become overweight, the last thing I'll do is talk about their "sin" with them. Instead, I'll cut back on the junk food and crap, and make sure there is only healthy food in the house.

I agree!!

When my boys were teens, they had that period of constant snacking and of course I objected to that and made sure I didn't buy any snacks at all.

My late youngest son (who was the most compulsive snacker) went on hols to Spain with a couple of friends, they were about 16/17 years old. They were supposed to cook themselves and my son was in charge, apparantly they thought he was 'the best cook'. After they came home, his friends complained their submission to his salad, fresh veggies and fruit regime........

[formergothardite]

"He did it out of love, right or wrong in how he did it."

This reminds me of how abusers say "I only hurt you because I love you."

[OkToBeTakei]

"But I am going to Texas soon and will ask about some of them.."

Ken you really don't get it do you? It isn't going to be obvious because the women and churches try to hide it. Abuse is seen as shameful. Something to be hidden and not talked about. Especially since submission is supposed to be this godly thing that makes your marriage better. So if you go to churches or friends and ask you are probably going to get the answer that you want to get. "No we never see it. Submission works." People who teach submission are invested in covering up any downside to it(and this includes you and Lori). People who are currently in a miserable marriage where submission isn't going to work are also going to cover it up because they are ashamed.

Your best bet is to search online and read stories of women and children who came of out of fundamental, Christian, quiverful, wifely submission homes. Read those stories.

I'm failing to understand why Ken googled submission and was using this as some type of reasoning due to the 5 million hits. I actually got over 7 million.

For clarity I just googled 'domestic violence and religion' in google and got 37,400,000 results in 0.37 seconds. I'm not sure what that proves to be honest.

From just a random first page hit..

While religious beliefs can often play an important role in the healing for victims of domestic violence, the misuse of religious teachings can also exacerbate the abuse.

Abusers often use spiritual abuse as a way of controlling their victims. They misuse scriptures to justify physical, sexual and other abusive behavior. Advising a victim to pray, or become a more religious person, will not stop the abuse. Unfortunately, when a victim receives this kind of advice, she/he is often left feeling hopeless—unworthy of love, respect and dignity. Victims begin to question the validity of their faith, or may feel they must choose between their faith and their safety. Victims of domestic abuse need to hear that their faith tradition does not condone the abuse against them, and that their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being is important.

What I am doing there is good old 'confirmation bias' by looking up the link between abuse in marriage/domestic and religion. What Ken does is equally good old 'confirmation bias,' seeking out the positive aspects of submission. I have no doubt that it worked for Ken and Lori, I'm dubious that other methods would not have worked just as well but that is beside the point. He says it worked for them and that now he and his wife have a fantastic marriage, they are both happy and feel really enlivened by this. I would not knock that, it worked for you that's great.

Confirmation bias comes into play because a counsellor faced with the issues Lori presents on her blog should not have it. They need to be somewhere in the middle of that google search. They need to ensure the safety of their client and by consistently just giving one solution is not doing that. I understand that you have said you have never come across abuse as prolifically as mentioned on this forum.

Christian women are often silent and accepting of any domestic violence that they may suffer. In the 1970s when programs were initiated to train church leaders about domestic violence, But no one ever comes to me with this problem was the most common response. Church leaders often believed that if no one was reaching out for assistance within the church that there was no problem in their church; however, women often withheld discussing their problems over concern that it would not be handled appropriately. When women became pastors they found that much of their time became devoted to handling domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women; Their involvement included crisis intervention

When my sister was dying of cancer, due to her career and my parents being fairly well known in our community we were never done with visitors. We had many offers of prayer from all types of religious people. All gratefully accepted and appreciated.

Notably we had a couple of memorable visitors. One lady from sister's bank 'laid hands on her' and declared her cured. Another beseeched her to 'let Jesus into your heart, now is the time for you to be saved.'

They absolutely meant well and it is a good thing we are Scottish with a very irreverent sense of humour as we taught my then two year old nephew to shout 'I am SAVED!' Every time we said 'Preach it brother.' I am sure many will find that absolutely *shock* blasphemous or whatever. You do what you do when you want those you love to be happy.

What if though my sister facing death as she was became fearful, what if this had made her distraught? What if she believed she was cured by the bank healer woman? Was it harmful? No more harmful than dying, not the point though really, it really has the potential to cause distress and that is my issue with Ken and Lori's 'ministry.' However small the number who possibly could be harmed, it's too many. This worked for us, give it a try is absolutely fine but because God tells you to, is quite a different animal. 'Confirmation bias,' bible style is no different to google.

[FJismyheadship]

Ken, are you using your phone, tablet, or some other mobile device? If so, you may need to click Post Reply instead of Quick Reply. On the mobile template, you have fewer buttons unless you use the full editor.

[Koala]

Now we're getting somewhere. Just as Lori likes strong words, I like clear ones. Let's take a look at yours...

1)

Mom:

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

Lori Alexander:

A spanking will work if it is hard enough

Mom:

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...

Ken Alexander:

Listen I get the issue that we need to protect against abuse, but you know full well this was not an abusive mother.

Ken Alexander:

Concerning the mother, the bruised hand is not abuse, but an accident. There was no intent to harm, and the child put her hand behind her back. The mother felt terrible about it.

Actually Ken, in most states leaving a bruise is considered abuse, the logic being that if you are hitting hard enough to cause a bruise, you are hitting too hard. Here's where my confusion comes in- where does the mom say anything about leaving a bruised hand? She very clearly states:

I thought I broke her arm...

Do you realize that you attempted to revise history to make it more palatable?

Now tell me Ken, how hard to you think she would have had to been hitting that child to have even entertained the idea she had broken her arm???

Are you aware that even if you accidentally do serious harm your child when hitting them, it is still legally considered child abuse? Are you aware that many abusers "feel terrible" after they've cooled off?

Let's say she had broken that child's arm. When she took her to the hospital and told them that she "accidentally" broke her arm while hitting her, but not to worry because she didn't intend to do it, what do you think they would have done? Do you think they would have blamed them child for throwing up a hand to defend herself, or do you think they would have called CPS for the child and the police for the mother?

Tell you what, why don't you just Google a few of the parents who have managed to kill their children while "disciplining" them. They didn't intend to kill them, but you know....accident. ***Hint*** They are in prison now.

Ken Alexander:

The shower incident is troubling, but unless you read more into what she said than is actually written, I am agnostic on whether she abused her child in this incident.

She threw her child into a cold shower and you are agnostic as to whether or not that was an incident of abuse? Are you aware that this can be considered a form of torture?

Here is the story of a mom convicted of misdemeanor child abuse **spoiler** She threw the kid in a cold shower

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44248082/ns/u ... xNc-_mv1nw

Let's define an "abusive mother." Is this a mother who once or twice modestly oversteps the margins of human decency in disciplining a child or one who consistently over time abuses a child.

Ken, there is no arbitrary number of times you may abuse your child before it is considered abuse. Once you have stepped into what the state defines as abuse you are no longer disciplining- you are abusing.

Ken Alexander:

I would not condone throwing a child in a shower, but I also would not go want to judge a mom with a really difficult child unresponsive to discipline of any kind. I thank God I did not have one of those ... and judging her as an "abusive mother" based on what she wrote is wrong. Poor decisions, yes. Poor parenting probably. Once or twice using poor judgment on a kid like this dies not make one an abusive mother.

I am sorry, but your writing is very unclear. Are you asserting that if the child is "difficult" you wouldn't judge any kind of discipline?

Again, abuse is not defined by how many times you abuse your child, spouse, ect. One incident of abuse will suffice for charges of abuse. If your poor decision is to abuse your child, then you are indeed an abusive parent.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say one of the thousands of women you mentor came to you and told you that her husband hit her so hard that she thought he had broken her arm, but it only happened once, he didn't intend to almost break her arm (let's say she threw it up to defend herself from the blows), and he felt just terrible. One incident. Is that enough to consider her an abused wife, and him an abusive husband?

***Will be back to address more in just a bit*** I don't think you'll have such an easy time convincing posters here you're as moderate on spanking as you present yourself now though. While I don't think you thrive on it like Lori does, I think you are indifferent at best

[Koala]

I don't know anything about this... If what you say is true it is far from our thinking. If she is saying that it is too easy for a wife to claim marital rape ... that is a tough issue too.

I have linked her site directly to these quotes. I would like for you to explain to me how these statements could possibly be anything other than an endorsement of marital rape:

these laws give women the mistaken impression that they have the right to refuse sex with their husbands

and

if she refuses to give it to him, he should have the option to take what is rightfully his.

She says very clearly that a wife does not have the right to refuse sex, and that if she refuses to give it to him he should have the right to take (read rape) what is rightfully his.

Now you can pull this obtuse bullshit if you want to, but these statements are so clear that any fool could see what she's saying. Unless you agree with her, why are you so hesitant to say so? Will your wife continue to read the blog of a woman who promotes the idea that a husband should rape his wife if she refuses him sex? Will she continue to comment in her comment section? Will she continue to quote her on her blog and facebook? Will she produce a blog post clearly stating that she does not endorse rape in marriage?

I will remind you, that you have been linked directly to the posts where she makes these statements- you have no room to deny the fact that she did indeed make them.

[formergothardite]

There is a comment on the rape post saying that they found SSM's blog through Lori. So people are seeing you and Lori promote her as this godly woman who teaches biblical submission, then going to her blog from Lori's blog and seeing that she promotes rape and it would be very easy to think that you and Lori think that rape is godly and part of biblical submission.