Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori and Ken Alexander's Big Ol' Bucket o' Crazy - Part 2


Recommended Posts

I am 99.9% sure this is Young Godly Woman, who changed her name to Psalm 1 Woman so no one would figure that out.

I think this because both writers gave the exact same example about making roads for her kids' matchbox cars.

I could see this being her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I could see this being her.

It is her, on her old "Young Godly Woman" blog she wrote

FOR NEWER ARTICLES

I no longer post articles to this blog. I have the privilege of guest posting every 2-3 weeks at Always Learning Blog under the pseudo: Psalm1Wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken rode in on his high horse yesterday to lay the Lori smackdown about "not turning things into sins that are not sins." It made me giggle with glee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken rode in on his high horse yesterday to lay the Lori smackdown about "not turning things into sins that are not sins." It made me giggle with glee.

Made me look.

So, what we have learned is that the Alexanders don't tithe....

I loved their going on and on about finances and how important it is that there be "one head not two" so there are fewer money fights.

I will say, we don't fight about money. It is either there to spend or it isn't, and we make joint decisions on many things or re calibrate the budget as needed, together.

But, Ken and Lori have discussed at length their issues with money, on the blog and in here. Remember the high cost of supplements that Ken bitched about> And the battle about the couch that he talked about at length and that Lori crowed about on the website because even though the couch was "very expensive" it was still good enough to recover and keep using. (Take that, Ken you miser) And of course, Ken being amazed that anyone would think that a lower earner or non earner should have equal say in spending for a marriage as the higher earner or main provider. Because after all, he who makes the gold makes the rules, in LorKen, and if the women aren't allowed to work, well no questions. (Other than lori spending what she wanted and him complaining over a decade later, LOL)

OH well, it was fun to listen to Ken.. he'll have to work on his writing style for his book or no one will read it (Maybe he could collaborate with Daddy Ardnt.... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woman described a couple with separate bank accounts and lori called it "ugly." What? Huh?

Lorialms 4:3 though shalt not have separAte bank accounts for it is ugly

I think that's what Ken was talking about when he said not to make things into sin that aren't sin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Ken write today's post?

I don't have a great grasp of Christian theology altogether, but their 'hey we don't need to follow The Law" posts always confused me.

Is it a common Christian belief that giving charity is totally optional? It's not something that I ever heard before.

Why is this being posted on the blog now? It just seems out of place from the usual subject matter. Is this Ken telling Lori he sees no need to spend money on something? Or is it Lorken claiming that they don't need to give to money to charity in order to be right with Jesus?

Also, didn't Lori once claim that giving money to adult offspring so that they could get married and have kids even if they didn't have all their ducks in a row was a "ministry"? Is this some back door way for Ken to tell Lori that no, he's not willing to support Cassie and Ryan while he is in dental school, even though Lori wants more grandkids and is worried that Cassie's eggs will dry up?

I might just be really dense about this, because Ken has tried to explain via Wall of Text, but their theology just sounds like this to me:

1. There is no Law, we are dead to the Law, because Jesus. Hooray. Faith in Jesus is the only law.

2. Sin, though, still exists. Not sure how it does if you deny that there are any laws, but it's still here. Rhinestones on jean pockets. Refusing sex on demand with your husband. Refusing to always obey your husband. All sins, absolutely, no room for doubt. Being overweight may also be a sin. Disobey at your peril.

3. As for sins that could possibly apply to men - gay sex is definitely a sin, possibly the biggest one of our time. Cross-dressing, though, is a rule that no longer exists, even if the commandment is found right next to the stuff about gay sex in Leviticus. Because Jesus. And because Lori cannot wear skirts for more than one day. As for sins that straight men might do - well, porn is kinda like sin, but not really sinful, according to Ken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woman described a couple with separate bank accounts and lori called it "ugly." What? Huh?

Lorialms 4:3 though shalt not have separAte bank accounts for it is ugly

I think that's what Ken was talking about when he said not to make things into sin that aren't sin

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Ken and Lori don't tithe. They call you all sorts of names for not hitting your children or for being a working woman, but tithing is totally optional. :cray-cray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woman described a couple with separate bank accounts and lori called it "ugly." What? Huh?

Lorialms 4:3 though shalt not have separAte bank accounts for it is ugly

I think that's what Ken was talking about when he said not to make things into sin that aren't sin

me and mr. xtian have had separate bank accounts since we got married. Some fundie told me we weren't "really" married since we didn't mingle our funds. Umm...it's worked for us for 17 years...don't mess with success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

me and mr. xtian have had separate bank accounts since we got married. Some fundie told me we weren't "really" married since we didn't mingle our funds. Umm...it's worked for us for 17 years...don't mess with success.

But the term "ugly" is such a bizarre way to describe it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the term "ugly" is such a bizarre way to describe it

It really is weird. We had separate bank accounts when we got married because we were both had direct deposit/direct debits that neither of us cared enough to try to switch over. We maintained our lazy ways for more than 10 years and only combined them when we decided to buy a house, lol. I DO know that money is supposed to be a big bone of contention for couples in general, but my husband and I just don't have enough to waste time fighting over. Either we have enough to buy/do something or we don't. Why fight over it? We have plenty of other things to fight over, like why someone keeps stuffing the trash down instead of actually taking it out or why someone else insists on hogging allll the covers while the first someone shivers on his side of the bed.

Yes indeedy, why bother fighting over something as lame and boring as money when there are waaaay more interesting things to fight over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT:One of commenters talks about churches that ask to see your tax returns before you can become a member? Anyone ever heard of that?

I'm wondering if Ken and Lori's church is doing an annual fund raising drive and asking (not requiring) a certain percentage of income that the Alexanders obviously don't want to give.

I imagine they count that awful "mentoring" as part of their tithe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just went OFF on Lori's unbiblicalness on FB

Wow, I am usually so impressed by the biblical basis of your posts, but this one misses the mark big time.

The question of whether the law has been "done away with" must have come up during Messiah's time as well since He decides to directly address the question. And when He does, what does He say? That not a single "jot or tittle" will pass from the law (which is the Hebrew word "torah," which means "instructions) as long as heaven and earth stand. Jots and tittles are what we might call crossing our T's and dotting our I's. So basically, not even the smallest piece of the smallest letter of the law has "passed away," no matter how many people teach that demonic doctrine. (Matthew 5:17-18)

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

He didn't end the law, He "fulfilled" it. Unfortunately, a lot of people are ignorant as to what "fulfill" means. It is the Greek "plÄ“roÅ," which is to make full, to cause to abound, to liberally supply. Rather than the law being *lesser* He instructed His followers to adhere to it *more,* by following BOTH the letter AND the spirit. Fulfillment doesn't mean doing away with, it means bringing to its fullness, filling it up, revealing the *more*.

Too many self-professing Christians claim that the Messiah taught against following the laws, and that he condemned the Pharisees for following the laws, but this is nothing but lies. He NEVER condemned the Pharisees for following the actual law, not even once! He condemned them for adding to and taking away from the law, and for doing it with the wrong heart. He even specifically says one should follow the instructions given by the Pharisees, as they would sit in Moses' seat and read the law to the people!! Matthew 23:3 "So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

He even tells us that unless our righteousness EXCEEDS that of the Pharisees, who (mostly) kept the law, we will not enter the Kingdom. “But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" Matthew 5:20

He goes on, starting in verse 19 of Matthew 5, to warn against breaking even a single commandment or teaching others to do so. The people who turn away from His laws turn TO sin, as sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). NEVER did the Messiah tell people it was ok to sin. And He certainly did not come to sacrifice His life in order to let sin abound. To the contrary, He repeatedly tells them to repent. And what is repentance? Turning AWAY from sin (aka, lawlessness) and back TO the law/torah/instructions. Those that don't, yet still consider themselves His followers, are called liars (1 John 2:4) who do not really know Him, and are the ones who will cry "Lord, Lord" while He tells them He never knew them (Matthew 7:21-23). The people who are turned away by Him are not atheists and unbelievers, as so many erroneously assume. The verse clearly shows us they are people who thought, in their own minds/understanding, that they were doing right. But they weren't, He condemns their lawlessness, He condemns their dismissal of God's perfect laws, and He turns them away.

21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’ Other translations phrase it as, "you who practice lawlessness". He is LITERALLY telling people that the lawbreakers, those who deny the law, will be turned away because He doesn't know them and they do not know Him.

So many people claim to love God, but they don't even know what it means. Which is sad, since He plainly tells us what loving Him looks like, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3. The previous verse, verse 2, even tells us how to love our neighbor, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments."

You call the laws of God a burden, but scriptures tells us they are not. If you believe the scriptures you know they never were a burden, "...his commands are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3) Are we to think this scripture is a lie?

The person who meditates on and delights in the law of God is blessed. Psalm 1:1-2 "How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the LAW of the LORD, And in His LAW he meditates day and night."

Romans 7:22 "For in my inner being I delight in God's law" The law of God is contrary to the law of sin. When we turn from God's law we turn toward sin, because sin is transgression of the law.

Psalm 119:16 "I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word." Do we do things God's way, or do we neglect His word and choose to do things our own way?

Psalm 119:92 "f your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction." Read the entirety of Psalm 119. It is a love poem, and the object of its affection is the perfect teachings (law) of God.

To love the teachings/law, to seek them, to walk in them, this is joy, this is delight, this is the love of God.

There are SO many scriptures confirming that the law is perfect, that obedience to it is the will of God, that one does not love fellow man nor does one love God if one walks contrary to the law, that the Messiah Himself walked in and upheld the unchanging statutes. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of verses that confirm these things over and over. Yet mainstream Christians choose the wide path, which is the path that leads to destruction. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Creator of heaven and earth and obey His voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just went OFF on Lori's unbiblicalness on FB

I admire the fortitude of any person who was able to read this post in it's entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Lori not see what a hypocrite she is? Today's post is all about how not having lots of children is inherently selfish, yet she used birth control and three out of her four married children don't have kids yet. :angry-banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Lori not see what a hypocrite she is? Today's post is all about how not having lots of children is inherently selfish, yet she used birth control and three out of her four married children don't have kids yet. :angry-banghead:

I think she's a hypocrite when she posts on modesty too. The dress she wore to one of her kids' weddings was extremely low cut. My kids and my husband would be embarrassed for me to wear such a "Christian Risqué" style.

But her hypocrisy on having and raising children makes my brain explode. She clearly did everything she could to make motherhood "easy" for herself. She let her newborns scream through the night because she needed her sleep. She had a nanny. She made her kids spend hours in their room each day so they'd be out of her hair. She proudly states she made sure home schooling would be easy for her. This is not a woman who enjoyed her children and she had household help raising them, so it really irks me for her to sit on her high horse and preach at young women about how they should never prevent the "blessings" that God wants to bestow upon them.

edited for typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Lori not see what a hypocrite she is? Today's post is all about how not having lots of children is inherently selfish, yet she used birth control and three out of her four married children don't have kids yet. :angry-banghead:

Oh, she's quite the hypocrite, but I'd leave the married children out of the discussion. They have acknowledged that the oldest has fertility issues, and it's possible that the youngest two have (grasp!) made some independent decisions without seeking mommy's input.

I actually wonder if certain posts are intended as passive-aggressive digs at family members, like the whole "ducks in a row" thing. Ryan is in dental school full-time, Cassi is working part-time to support them, and there is no way that she can have a baby and quit her job now without taking on some major debt or getting some serious parental help. I haven't seen any evidence that Ken is on board with Lori's baby-mania.

Family politics aside, my main issue with the post is that I hate how words like "selfish" get twisted around to mean "any consideration of my own needs and limitations at all". Yes, having and raising children involves some short term sacrifice for longer term gain. It's not really selfish, though, to consider my needs and abilities in thinking about having more kids, because I'm not taking anything away from someone else by doing so. My kids and my husband need me to be functional. I knew that I could do that, with some effort, with my first 3 kids. I also had a very strong feeling after a rough c-section that having a 4th would not be easy, and that I had basically reached my limit and couldn't handle a 4th c-section birth and baby without compromising my care of my existing family. How is that selfish? I owe something to my existing children, I would owe something to a future child if I had one, but I owe nothing to any egg or sperm cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, she's quite the hypocrite, but I'd leave the married children out of the discussion. They have acknowledged that the oldest has fertility issues, and it's possible that the youngest two have (grasp!) made some independent decisions without seeking mommy's input.

I actually wonder if certain posts are intended as passive-aggressive digs at family members, like the whole "ducks in a row" thing. Ryan is in dental school full-time, Cassi is working part-time to support them, and there is no way that she can have a baby and quit her job now without taking on some major debt or getting some serious parental help. I haven't seen any evidence that Ken is on board with Lori's baby-mania.

Family politics aside, my main issue with the post is that I hate how words like "selfish" get twisted around to mean "any consideration of my own needs and limitations at all". Yes, having and raising children involves some short term sacrifice for longer term gain. It's not really selfish, though, to consider my needs and abilities in thinking about having more kids, because I'm not taking anything away from someone else by doing so. My kids and my husband need me to be functional. I knew that I could do that, with some effort, with my first 3 kids. I also had a very strong feeling after a rough c-section that having a 4th would not be easy, and that I had basically reached my limit and couldn't handle a 4th c-section birth and baby without compromising my care of my existing family. How is that selfish? I owe something to my existing children, I would owe something to a future child if I had one, but I owe nothing to any egg or sperm cells.

I think she definitely takes out her frustrations with her children on the blog. The only couple that is truly following what she believes is godly are Erin and whatever the son's name is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't with this woman, I just canNOT.

The problem with working mothers is they usually can't fully focus on anything; not their job, their family, and not their home.

I know of only one working mother who can't focus on her home. She does great with her family and her job, but her home is a disaster. But it was a disaster when she WASN'T working, so sorry, Lori, you can't use her as an example.

God has hard-wired women to require a mostly home-centered life so we can become the meek and quiet women that the Bible speaks about. The enemy of our soul knows this and has done everything in his power to keep women out of their homes.

The enemy of our soul doesn't need to keep women out of their homes to wreak havoc, Lori. Look at you: there you sit, in your cushy, privileged McMansion, being anything but meek and quiet. God only knows how much havoc you've wrought in women's lives since you began 'mentoring' them. I shudder to think.

The yearning to have the old-fashioned lives our grandmothers lived is just an inward call for hearth and home that is built into a woman's soul to live the way the Lord created us to live. ...

Lori, any money your parents spent on educating you was a complete and utter waste. I know of NO grandmothers who lived the sort of old-fashioned life you're talking about. That life existed only in flowery Victorian fiction. Hell, even in Victorian fiction a lot of women had very difficult lives. Look at Mrs March in Little Women. She did not sit in front of the fire all day, reading her Bible or sewing samplers. She worked. My own grandmother, a mother of five, went to work in a candy factory when her oldest daughter (my mother) was old enough to help out with cooking and housework when she got home from school in the afternoons. And she worked in that factory for 25 years. All five of her kids grew up just fine, thank you very much, and her home was always spotless, the food on the table was home cooked (and a lot of it was homegrown as well, she had a huge garden and spent hours canning and preserving!), and she had plenty of time for us grandchildren when we came along.

It will never happen, but you need to study history, Lori. Life in the 'good old days' of our grandmothers was absolutely not what you think it was. :evil-eye:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now it's not only enough to not work, but now Lori thinks women should never leave. Heaven forbid they have a car to go places!

Next thing you know, she'll be telling women to get their husbands to build high brick walls around their homes. Then she'll advise them to wear burqas and never go outside without a male escort. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next thing you know, she'll be telling women to get their husbands to build high brick walls around their homes. Then she'll advise them to wear burqas and never go outside without a male escort. :?

Of which Lori will do none. Like she would be caught dead in a burqa and she'll go out when she pleases. Do as Lori tells you to do, not as she actually will do.

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.