Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

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*

Per at least one poster on the Reconstructionist Theonomists, the wife is supposed to do whatever the husband wants, even if it is against God's Law, and God will punish the MAN who had her do it and not her....

charming.... the whole women are not quite people idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That group is getting quite scary to me. They neither truly follow the Bible or any kind of common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That group is getting quite scary to me. They neither truly follow the Bible or any kind of common sense.

Is there any info on this site about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish it was mine, but I stole it from Rescinded and Mended.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:

Oh FFS, I'm a moron! I actually Googled "storage sociopath blog" before asking for a link. :lol: And I've been around for a good portion of the (ever so entertaining) suggested nicknames!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

re the bolded: ha ha! Got me wondering what else God has said specifically about the IRS. Do you think He is OK with taking the standard deduction or must one itemize? How does He feel about e-Filing? What about the Earned Income Tax Credit? Inquiring minds want to know… (apologies to the non-USA-ers reading)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per at least one poster on the Reconstructionist Theonomists, the wife is supposed to do whatever the husband wants, even if it is against God's Law, and God will punish the MAN who had her do it and not her....

charming.... the whole women are not quite people idea.

Okay, I Googled Elizabeth Handford and found a site similar to this one. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote their material, however, they've quoted Elizabeth plenty and she almost makes Lori A. seem rational ... almost. The absolute worst is that she said women have no rights and in fact, lost them when they rebelled against God. In addition to her quote above from Lori's site, Handford also says that a woman must ignore her feelings about God and obey her husband as if he were God himself! When the husband speaks, it's as if God has spoken. Talk about idolatry. She's nuts, I tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I Googled Elizabeth Handford and found a site similar to this one. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote their material, however, they've quoted Elizabeth plenty and she almost makes Lori A. seem rational ... almost. The absolute worst is that she said women have no rights and in fact, lost them when they rebelled against God. In addition to her quote above from Lori's site, Handford also says that a woman must ignore her feelings about God and obey her husband as if he were God himself! When the husband speaks, it's as if God has spoken. Talk about idolatry. She's nuts, I tell you.

:cray-cray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How strange is it that I found myself agreeing with Cupboard Boy? I didn't expect that he would sound like the moderate one when it comes to corporal punishment, but it was a bit surreal to watch him and his leghumpers go head-to-head with Lori over whether it's appropriate to use a "rod" (object) in spanking and whether it is ever appropriate for schools to be able to use it. Guess it's not just "liberals" who disagree with her on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How strange is it that I found myself agreeing with Cupboard Boy? I didn't expect that he would sound like the moderate one when it comes to corporal punishment, but it was a bit surreal to watch him and his leghumpers go head-to-head with Lori over whether it's appropriate to use a "rod" (object) in spanking and whether it is ever appropriate for schools to be able to use it. Guess it's not just "liberals" who disagree with her on this.

One of the commenters asked him why he doesn't take the Bible's description of discipline using a rod literally when he takes so much of the Bible literally. He never answered, unfortunately. I would have been interested to see what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How strange is it that I found myself agreeing with Cupboard Boy? I didn't expect that he would sound like the moderate one when it comes to corporal punishment, but it was a bit surreal to watch him and his leghumpers go head-to-head with Lori over whether it's appropriate to use a "rod" (object) in spanking and whether it is ever appropriate for schools to be able to use it. Guess it's not just "liberals" who disagree with her on this.

CM is downright reasonable compared to Lori.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I Googled Elizabeth Handford and found a site similar to this one. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote their material, however, they've quoted Elizabeth plenty and she almost makes Lori A. seem rational ... almost. The absolute worst is that she said women have no rights and in fact, lost them when they rebelled against God. In addition to her quote above from Lori's site, Handford also says that a woman must ignore her feelings about God and obey her husband as if he were God himself! When the husband speaks, it's as if God has spoken. Talk about idolatry. She's nuts, I tell you.

No Longer Quivering did a post on her that said anything that I would have said, more powerfully.

patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2011/10/me-obey-him/ (unbroken because I don't think she'd mind traffic from us at all)

 !  {TEXT1}:
I am breaking the link to NLQ because they still have the links to the Razing Ruth stories up with no disclaimer of any kind that I can find and that's pretty inappropriate and irresponsible, IMO. They also have a comment policy that is a bit rude where we are concerned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I may have to rant for the 12374th time about perpetuating the idea that cooking decent meals = tons of time and effort. People believe this, and don't bother to even try cooking. If I get motivated, I'll do a site with my favorite 10 min or less dishes.

Love or hate her, this is one thing I like about Ree Drummond (Pioneer Woman). She has some recipes that are 10 or 20 minutes to make. I watch Food Network a lot and recently caught one of her shows where she was "testing" herself to make sure she really could do 3 different recipes in the time it listed.

She did all 3 of them and they looked really good. It wasn't super fancy food, but it was all fresh ingredients and not hard recipes at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I think Lori gets a little thrill "down there" when she blogs about spanking- especially if an implement is involved...

I've been on service (rounding in the hospital) for the past two weeks and haven't made it home before 8. Each evening my children and husband enjoyed a healthy home-cooked meal courtesy of...my husband. Contrary to fundie belief, men can cook and cook well. There is no special equipment women posess that means only they can cook.

You mean you don't hold the spoon with your vagina?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

While I don't wish to defend Ken, I can't help but wonder how different things would have been if he'd had more say in the timeline in which the children arrived.

I'd be pretty miffed about a birth control sabotage, for example and while there is not much you can do about it after it's done, you can essentially force the person that made that bed lie in it, so to speak.

There is so much about their marriage that I wonder how much would be different if Lori wasn't a controlling shrew that only saw $$ and a comfortable life when she looked at Ken vs love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you don't hold the spoon with your vagina?

IF she did, she could probably charge more for her you tube channel than Sara Palin is going to get.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

I'm a bit curious what our resident lawyers think of this answer.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I Googled Elizabeth Handford and found a site similar to this one. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote their material, however, they've quoted Elizabeth plenty and she almost makes Lori A. seem rational ... almost. The absolute worst is that she said women have no rights and in fact, lost them when they rebelled against God. In addition to her quote above from Lori's site, Handford also says that a woman must ignore her feelings about God and obey her husband as if he were God himself! When the husband speaks, it's as if God has spoken. Talk about idolatry. She's nuts, I tell you.

You can quote and link to pretty much any public site you want to here. If the site is not something we would endorse (like Lori's blog, for example) then you need to break any links to it. If it's a like minded site or a news site or a mainstream site then the link does not need to be broken.

Just for a bit of clarification (again), contrary to popular belief we do not break links because we don't want fundies to flounce. Ideally they would take their blogs private and do less damage to people who don't realize what they are getting into under the "pretty" trappings.

We break links because we don't wish to give the appearance of endorsement of those sites. Having links from a popular site does good things for your search engine results. We don't want to help them rank higher in search results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit curious what our resident lawyers think of this answer.....

So a misdemeanor while being submissive is okay but God draws the line at felonies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have a question.

How does the time Lori spends blogging and "mentoring" these thousands of young women (not to mention her steady does of commenting on nasty blogs like ssm and cm's) take up less time than having a part or full time job?

Isn't Lori's claim to culinary fame a "big salad"? How much of her day does that take to make, anyway?

No kids at home, husband on the road alot and no job other than dinking around on the internet. Wow-- that's what I call a life well lived. :evil-eye:

I'll take my job any day, thanks.

I'm pretty sure that's called "ministry".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is horrific and revolting. The families I have known personally who had husbands molest the children have ALWAYS divorced the molester, even a case with a fundie family.

I thought I had heard some of the worst excuses, such as a grandmother blaming a five year-old girl for her step-father molesting her... the child was "too flirty", or the husband molester thinking it wasn't so bad to molest a child they had adopted but was not the biological father of although their wife was the biological mother.

The Alexanders are a public menace spreading around such bullshit. :pull-hair:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit curious what our resident lawyers think of this answer.....

The bolded bit where Ken assures wives they won't be called on to testify against their husbands is very much a lesson learned on Law and Order. I believe, however, that he should read the IRS site regarding innocent spouse. If a wife knows a husband is not reporting and she signs, she may no longer qualify as an innocent spouse and can be held responsible for fines and money even if they are not together later. It won't be an example of her testifying against her, but acknowledging what she herself knew when she signed off on the tax documents. (Do fundies who file, file jointly even if one has no income-- not sure--when now has me down a bunny trail, Does Lori have any idea how much income Ken actually makes, or does she just sign OR does he file and fake her signature or does he not file jointly? I would think it would be much easier to keep her on a budget if he doesn't share money info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Lori's blog today: "When Women Have Higher Sex Drives." Something tells me Ken won't get much done at work today.

I love how lori added in the jab "I know nothing about this" lol.

She seemed shocked this could happen. What do you mean, other marriage dynamics are different than mine?! How can it be so?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how lori added in the jab "I know nothing about this" lol.

She seemed shocked this could happen. What do you mean, other marriage dynamics are different than mine?! How can it be so?!

I think we can safely assume that women with sex drives are unchristian-like harlots who need to get themselves in line and be satisfied with 10-minute quickies like a godly Christian woman.

I was mildly amused (but also saddened) that the author of the piece had to specify that she had a virtuous upbringing and no sexual history that could ever be remotely to blame for her sex drive. Because, of course, in this twisted world, a woman with a high sex drive is an unnatural creature, and they must find wherein the fault lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how lori added in the jab "I know nothing about this" lol.

She seemed shocked this could happen. What do you mean, other marriage dynamics are different than mine?! How can it be so?!

If only that stopped her from spewing word vomit about a subject.

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.