Ken and Lori: Molestation doesn't have to = divorce

[usmcmom]

Yeah, any man who makes basketball such a high priority when he already travels so much, is a lousy excuse for a husband. Add in the fact that his wife was ill and there were four children at home and...nope...that is not a Godly husband that was doing his best to make his marriage work. And when we ask him about it and suggest it was not the best use of his time, he stands firm that he "needed" that. These people never seem to wish they'd done anything differently.

Lots of husbands (and wives) travel for work and they still manage to spend time with their family without that sacred "me time." My husband used to travel a lot for work and, when he was in town, he did nothing that didn't include our kids. Sometimes he'd take the kids for an activity without me so I could have a break but he knew his time away meant he had to try that much harder to be an involved daddy. If he had a flight scheduled for 6 pm and one of the kids had a ballgame that night, he'd change his flight to an overnight one so he could sit on the bleachers. He did all he could to make up for his work obligations. Our kids remember those things too. They know where his heart was. Unfortunately, I'm sure Ken's kids remember his priorities and know where his heart was too.

[Firiel]

Yeah, any man who makes basketball such a high priority when he already travels so much, is a lousy excuse for a husband. Add in the fact that his wife was ill and there were four children at home and...nope...that is not a Godly husband that was doing his best to make his marriage work. And when we ask him about it and suggest it was not the best use of his time, he stands firm that he "needed" that. These people never seem to wish they'd done anything differently.

Lots of husbands (and wives) travel for work and they still manage to spend time with their family without that sacred "me time." My husband used to travel a lot for work and, when he was in town, he did nothing that didn't include our kids. Sometimes he'd take the kids for an activity without me so I could have a break but he knew his time away meant he had to try that much harder to be an involved daddy. If he had a flight scheduled for 6 pm and one of the kids had a ballgame that night, he'd change his flight to an overnight one so he could sit on the bleachers. He did all he could to make up for his work obligations. Our kids remember those things too. They know where his heart was. Unfortunately, I'm sure Ken's kids remember his priorities and know where his heart was too.

Yeah, I've read so much of Lori's shit that I forgot about Ken's. I'm now firmly back in the "they deserve each other" camp.

[usmcmom]

Lori's post today is about....wait for it....submission. A reader asks what appears to be a legitimate question about what she should do if her husband asks her handle their finances in a way that is likely illegal (not claim certain income on their taxes). This is part of Lori's response:

I have no idea if your question is legitimate, Karen, or an excuse to find ways not to obey your husband. I suggest you read Elizabeth's book.

So when another reader very kindly asks Lori to clarify her response, she once again attacks with this:

This path that you have questioned me on is not a path I want to take. I haven't read all the book but I really like it. I suggest you getting it, reading it, and deciding for yourself if it is Truth. All I know is that whenever I teach about submission, there are women like you who want to find all the exceptions.

There are so many things about her responses that make me see red. First, because a situation is beyond her ability to properly offer counsel on, she attacks her reader and says her question is likely not real. Second, WHY is she promoting a book, as a mentor and counselor, when she has not read the whole book? Third, "...not a path I want to take," WHAT? What mentor or counselor says that? If somebody asks a question, you answer the question. Basically Lori wants to "counsel" and "mentor" women who already believe exactly as she believes.

I think Ken has convinced her to delete fewer comments and we now see she cannot handle it; not because she doesn't like the disagreements, but because she just does not have answers. And Lori gets very angry when her stupidity starts to show. Ken is working very hard to rescue her over there on her "fun little hobby." Lori needs to take a day or two to read other Christian blogs and see how those authors respond to their readers. There are plenty of women out there who handle disagreement and discussion with kindness and grace. I hope her headship will encourage her to look into this and be "Always Learning."

She really is so hateful and I don't believe for one minute she has women coming to her for any sort of advice outside of this blog.

[RosyDaisy]

Hmmm, I'm not quite convinced that Lori is submitting for God. It's probably just another way to manipulate Ken (to make him THINK he's the one in charge). It IS possible to manipulate while being "submissive" (I've witnessed this) and Lori seems like a master to me. Just my take on the situation.

I put Michelle Duggar, Kelly Bates, Zsu Anderson, and Kelly Crawford in that category. There's no telling how many more. They come up with ideas, and spin it so that it appears as the headship's ideas along with compliments about how much of a manly man they are.

[jerkit]

Woah. That comment about the lying on the tax forms seems 1. Completely legitimate and 2. Not hypothetical, like that is actually happening right now to that woman. And lori attacked her fiercely. I feel awful for that poor woman.

[Tiger Lily]

Lori's post today is about....wait for it....submission. A reader asks what appears to be a legitimate question about what she should do if her husband asks her handle their finances in a way that is likely illegal (not claim certain income on their taxes). This is part of Lori's response:

I have no idea if your question is legitimate, Karen, or an excuse to find ways not to obey your husband. I suggest you read Elizabeth's book.

So when another reader very kindly asks Lori to clarify her response, she once again attacks with this:

This path that you have questioned me on is not a path I want to take. I haven't read all the book but I really like it. I suggest you getting it, reading it, and deciding for yourself if it is Truth. All I know is that whenever I teach about submission, there are women like you who want to find all the exceptions.

There are so many things about her responses that make me see red. First, because a situation is beyond her ability to properly offer counsel on, she attacks her reader and says her question is likely not real. Second, WHY is she promoting a book, as a mentor and counselor, when she has not read the whole book? Third, "...not a path I want to take," WHAT? What mentor or counselor says that? If somebody asks a question, you answer the question. Basically Lori wants to "counsel" and "mentor" women who already believe exactly as she believes.

I think Ken has convinced her to delete fewer comments and we now see she cannot handle it; not because she doesn't like the disagreements, but because she just does not have answers. And Lori gets very angry when her stupidity starts to show. Ken is working very hard to rescue her over there on her "fun little hobby." Lori needs to take a day or two to read other Christian blogs and see how those authors respond to their readers. There are plenty of women out there who handle disagreement and discussion with kindness and grace. I hope her headship will encourage her to look into this and be "Always Learning."

She really is so hateful and I don't believe for one minute she has women coming to her for any sort of advice outside of this blog.

How difficult can it be to tell the woman that all earthly authority is limited and that God doesn't expect a wife to submit to her husband in sin? Why not leave it at that? Lori is truly inept. And how asinine to recommend a book that you haven't completely read!!!

[Coconut Flan]

Ken jumped in and didn't help the issue. They left it to another reader to give a decent answer to the question.

Lori really, really, really needs to quit the blog. For whatever reason, she's in way over her ability to cope.

[RosyDaisy]

The fact that Lori and Ken do not understand that there is only one biblical and legal answer (which is don't it) to the question tells me just how stupid an un-Christian they really are.

[usmcmom]

Is there an exploding head smiley?

Because his response:

I guess my point is that although all sins miss the mark that God has called us to, we do have to be careful when judging others, and our spouse, to separate out perhaps what the law sees as misdemeanors from felonies.

Karen's husband should be declaring all the money what he makes, but if the law turns a blind eye in most cases of being paid small amounts of cash, then a wife can submissively allow her husband to sin, but must be willing to accept any consequences that may come back on her. If the amount of money turns to a felony, then the consequences are far more grave, and she must decide if she is to obey, or refuse to sign the tax return and suffer those consequences. Either way there may be consequences, but I do not believe God calls wives to turn their husbands into the IRS. There is actually protections in the law that allow a wife not to have to testify against her husband, precisely because the marriage holds a sacred bond even to the secular state.

Seriously, why can't these people just say "No, Karen. You are not expected to file illegal tax claims for your husband. That would be sin. Please do not allow him to draw you into sin." But, they first question if this could ever actually happen, and then, I THINK (because sometimes Ken's writing makes my eye twitch) I think they suggest that Karen try to determine if the amount in question would equal a misdemeanor or a felony and then base her decision on that.

I just can't.....

[Koala]

Yeah, she basically told the woman that if she was being a perfect, submissive wife God would have prevented her husband from asking her to lie about the money in the first place. :evil-eye:

Forgive all my quoting, I'd like copies of this lest Lori start cleaning the rugs:

Reader:

I do the financial stuff in our marriage. This is what my husband wants. He deposits the check and I pay the bills and do the income tax etc. When he was out of work and receiving unemployment he worked cash only side jobs. He did not notify unemployment that he was making this money. He told me not to declare it during income tax time. He is a church going man and believes in God and in most things follows his commandments. If l obey him in this l know it is wrong. Do l do it and say God and him can figure that out, l am not responsible. Even in doiing that the government might not take kindly. Please don't assume l am being adversarial, this has happened to me more than once.

Lori Alexander:

The one question Elizabeth Handford asks when asked these types of questions, since they ALWAYS come up when true biblical submission is taught in order to make exceptions to submission, is this ~

"Have you been living in daily obedience to your husband as part of your wholehearted, loving submission to God" {This is an essential part of the problem. If a woman has not been submissive, God has no responsibility for her situation and cannot be blamed if her husband requires something wrong.} In the hundreds of times I have asked these questions, not once, if my memory is right, has a woman answered, "Yes, I am always obedient, and yet my husband has required me to break one of God's laws." Never! Why? Because, when a women takes God at His Word, submits to her husband without reservation, fears God and loves him, then God takes upon Himself the responsibility to see that a woman does not have to sin!

This is from her book, "Me? Obey Him?" I have no idea if your question is legitimate, Karen, or an excuse to find ways not to obey your husband. I suggest you read Elizabeth's book.

Another reader calls Lori on her bullshit:

I am not sure I understand your response to this question, Lori. Are you (or the author) saying that if a woman is living in proper Biblical submission, that God will make sure that her husband never puts her in the position of asking her to sin? And if so, does that mean that if a husband does ask his wife to do something sinful, it must be the wife's fault, that she isn't submissively enough so God isn't protecting her? That's what I got from it, but I may have misunderstood.

Lori Alexander (who, as someone upthread pointed out, is clearly pissed at this point ):

I was quoting from a book and a woman with many years experience of mentoring women. When I mentor women, the first thing I deal with is with them and their sin. I would say the majority of women are living in rebellion to their husband's leadership. This path that you have questioned me on is not a path I want to take. I haven't read all the book but I really like it. I suggest you getting it, reading it, and deciding for yourself if it is Truth. All I know is that whenever I teach about submission, there are women like you who want to find all the exceptions. If someone came to me whose husband was truly asking her to sin, I would mentor her on her relationship to her husband. I would want to know all the details about her behavior as a wife and the full details of what he is asking her to do. Other than that, I can not give a blanket statement on this subject.

:evil-eye: :evil-eye:

This is the second time today Lori has had her ass handed to her. A lady on Storage Sociopath's blog already called her out today and when Lori tried to back peddle, the lady was having none of it. Not having the ability to delete her comments, Lori packed up her toys and went home (where she made the above craptastic comments). Wise mentor indeed.

[usmcmom]

Something about that term "women like you," just makes me furious.

[ViolaSebastian]

You will need to search the Spirit for this answer, but my gut feel is that before God you are covered by your obedience to your husband, yet before the State you may have personal consequences that you could suffer.

What the actual fuck, Ken? Are you suggesting that this woman face fines and possible prison time because submission to her husband is more important? I am utterly dumbfounded...you are a really sick man, Ken Alexander.

And then this?! Comparing it to driving over the speed limit?!

I guess my wife will not be able to drive much with me because I have a tendency to drive over the speed limit and I have been known to do some other minor infractions of the law with her by my side

I guess my point is that although all sins miss the mark that God has called us to, we do have to be careful when judging others, and our spouse, to separate out perhaps what the law sees as misdemeanors from felonies.

I guess I'm the only one that read the book of James, apparently: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

[Koala]

You are a thorn in Ken's side. :lol: I think he hates your more than anyone else because you are so good at showing the inconsistency, hypocrisy and lying that he and Lori do. And you use their own words so it is harder for them to get around it. Keep up the good work. :clap:

Thanks. I've always known Lori was vile, but once she encouraged a clearly abusive mother to "hit harder" I became convinced she was dangerous. I feel that it's important to make their exact quotes (with links) available to potential followers. Ken runs all over the internet trying to white wash her words, but it's hard to argue with a quote. No child should have to be beaten because that horrid creature says so.

[Koala]

Yeah, you are almost scary-impressive. I couldn't believe you found that quote of his so quickly. I am honestly wondering if you have all his posts organized and categorized for easy referencing!

Ha! FJ has a really good search feature and I have a very long memory (much to Ken's disdain) :P

[Tiger Lily]

What the actual fuck, Ken? Are you suggesting that this woman face fines and possible prison time because submission to her husband is more important? I am utterly dumbfounded...you are a really sick man, Ken Alexander.

And then this?! Comparing it to driving over the speed limit?!

I guess I'm the only one that read the book of James, apparently: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

This infuriates me! There is nowhere in the Bible that tells women to obey their husbands in sinning ("We must obey God rather than any human authority." Acts 5:29). Lori and Ken have been wrong in their interpretation of Scripture before, imho, however, this could be disastrous for a wife to follow these teachings and wind up in jail! They are so irresponsible. Hopefully, Lori's readers will have more sense than she has! I may not totally agree with Martha Peace (a well-known mentor to Christian women) yet she gets this one area right.

Edited to add that Elizabeth Handford is positively nuts! There's nothing biblical about this. What if the hubs wanted the wife to rob a bank or kill somebody? Oh, but then if she's in submission, he never would. Handford must view submission as some magical formula that prevents sin. *eye roll*

[SquirrelySquirrel]

This is the second time today Lori has had her ass handed to her. A lady on Storage Sociopath's blog already called her out today and when Lori tried to back peddle, the lady was having none of it. Not having the ability to delete her comments, Lori packed up her toys and went home (where she made the above craptastic comments). Wise mentor indeed.

Link? Pleeeeease?

[RosyDaisy]

Well, there goes Lori's crush on Woody Woodpecker.

[Koala]

Link? Pleeeeease?

Sure:

amanhiswifethebible.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/i-love-you-dad/

Lori Alexander

JULY 30, 2014 AT 9:51 AM

When I was in elementary school, children who did naughty things got spanked by the principal with a paddle. Children were SO much better behaved back then. No one wanted to get a spanking by the principal. A little pain is a great motivator to not get in trouble.

LuckyWife

JULY 30, 2014 AT 10:50 AM

I don’t know, Lori! My husband feels that since a MAN is to be the head of his household, he should be the one in charge of physical discipline. And I agree! Schools are run by the government– as a libertarian, I do not want the government to be in charge of disciplining my children physically! I think things like that are God-ordained to be the father’s job.

Lori Alexander

JULY 30, 2014 AT 11:05 AM

Unfortunately, most children have no fathers at home and if they do, they are not involved. Children today are out of control. I taught for several years and instead of figuring out creative lesson plans, I had to figure out creative ways to keep the kids under control. I am not advocating spanking in the schools but it sure worked great to keep order and peace when I was young.

LuckyWife

JULY 30, 2014 AT 11:32 AM

When there is no father in the home, the authority DOES NOT transfer to the schools/government! More government control is not the answer!

My husband and I have discussed who will have authority over me and my kids if (God forbid!) he dies. Just like in Jewish custom, we will be under the authority of his brother until (if I am still quite young) I get married again as the Bible commands. If his brother is unavailable or not following the Lord, I will return to my father’s protection and he will discipline my children. If none of these were options, it should be the pastor of the church standing in as a father figure, not some sort of government official!

You said you weren’t advocating spanking in schools, but you also say it works great? That sounds like you are supporting it!

Lori took her ball and went home after that.

[usmcmom]

I really found it odd that CM's post covered a great deal of tips about fatherhood and really said very little about spanking, yet Lori jumped in to advocate for spanking.

Out of all that he wrote, THAT'S what she wanted to focus on. I read her comment and was like "Wait...where'd that come from?" :? :? :?

[Firiel]

Aww... Lori is scared of a paranoid, anti-government Libertarian. Precious. :)

ETA: I was hoping Ken would show up to play damage control, but no such luck.

[Koala]

I really found it odd that CM's post covered a great deal of tips about fatherhood and really said very little about spanking, yet Lori jumped in to advocate for spanking.

Out of all that he wrote, THAT'S what she wanted to focus on. I read her comment and was like "Wait...where'd that come from?" :? :? :?

I thought the exact same thing. She is absolutely fixated.

[Tiger Lily]

I thought the exact same thing. She is absolutely fixated.

I now see what you're all talking about. Not only is Lori nuts, she's dangerous.

[Hane]

Koala? "Storage Sociopath"? Honey, my bladder control isn't what it used to be.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Koala]

Koala? "Storage Sociopath"? Honey, my bladder control isn't what it used to be.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I wish it was mine, but I stole it from Rescinded and Mended. It fit so well that I had to. He will always be Storage Sociopath to me :lol:

[usmcmom]

I think we've discussed why Lori appears to hate women and treat them with such disdain, but her fixation on spanking kids makes me wonder. Does she also feel that kind of disdain for children? Is it a pattern of hers to always jump to the worst conclusion about kids as well? There was the example of her "friend" who spanked a child for not telling somebody hello. There are all the stories she seems to love to tell about her own kids' spankings. And now today she talks about how kids need spankings at school. She really wanted CM's readers to agree with her so the discussion would go in that direction.

We know she didn't enjoy her own children but does she have some bizarre desire to punish ALL children? Her comment over there really has me puzzled. And a little frightened.