Lori Alexander - Still Not Learning A Thing, Part 4

[Loveday]

Once again, Lori is on her judgmental, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do modesty soapbox. This time it's directed towards Christian women, not women in general. I picture Lori sitting in church on a Sunday morning, her eyes darting eagerly from one woman to the next, taking gleeful note of their clothing choices and nudging Ken whenever she sees a neckline that is slightly lower than she thinks it should be (I'm sure Ken appreciates the heads'-up!  ).

And where in the Bible does God tell us this, Lori? " Don't spend a lot of money on your clothes since this is forbidden by the Lord."  "Costly array" doesn't mean we can only buy our clothes at the thrift store.

[polecat]

36 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Once again, Lori is on her judgmental, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do modesty soapbox. This time it's directed towards Christian women, not women in general. I picture Lori sitting in church on a Sunday morning, her eyes darting eagerly from one woman to the next, taking gleeful note of their clothing choices and nudging Ken whenever she sees a neckline that is slightly lower than she thinks it should be (I'm sure Ken appreciates the heads'-up!  ).

And where in the Bible does God tell us this, Lori? " Don't spend a lot of money on your clothes since this is forbidden by the Lord."  "Costly array" doesn't mean we can only buy our clothes at the thrift store.

Oh, Lori, remind me again how much you spent on those eShakti dresses? 

[Koala]

Lori:

Quote

I have confronted several who wear skimpy bikinis, one was even a pastor's wife, to no avail. My rebuke fell on deaf ears. They believe they should be able to wear whatever they want and no one should tell them what to do. It's is the men's fault who lust, they say.

  So I am assuming her daughter and daughter in law were among the several, right?  

I can just see her going to the pastor's wife and explaining that she, The Godly Mentor speaks for the God of the Universe.  TRUTH!

[refugee]

On 1/27/2016 at 8:03 AM, Florita said:

Lori's revisionist history lesson of the day:

Ignoring the fact that there were millions of working women in past generations and that many of those women were employed as laundresses and housekeepers because women with enough money were very willing to pass the drudgery of housework on to someone else. They found plenty of other things to do without a car or the internet.

Your quote and bolding is chilling to me, for another reason. It points out the very real agenda of these people: women are better off ignorant of other options. Let's raise our daughters to be keepers at home, without educating them, without fertilizing and encouraging those gifts and talents they might have that don't fit the cookie cutter mold. (Doesn't Jesus say, if your eyes offend you, pluck them out, and if your brain offends you, give yourself a lobotomy...?)

And let's keep them blissfully ignorant, and rise up and call them blessed, and tell them how precious they are, so that they'll feel guilty if they question the system, and they'll feel they're sinning for not feeling contented, wearing their chains.

[refugee]

1 hour ago, polecat said:

Oh, Lori, remind me again how much you spent on those eShakti dresses? 

She probably bought them at the thrift store. /sarcasm

ETA: Come to think of it (though I seldom think of the old church anymore, unless it comes up in conversation with one of the teens or their alienated-from-church friends), there were a few women at the top of the food chain in the old church, who dressed to the teeth. Fancy hair (even permed and colored) and makeup and sculpted nails. I remember them saying they shopped at the thrift store.

Funny, I must not go to the right thrift store. I never see clothes like that, there. Do I just not have enough imagination to see them hanging dispiritedly on hangers, and not be able to see they'll look like dynamite on a real live fashionable person?

[Georgiana]

49 minutes ago, refugee said:

She probably bought them at the thrift store. /sarcasm

ETA: Come to think of it (though I seldom think of the old church anymore, unless it comes up in conversation with one of the teens or their alienated-from-church friends), there were a few women at the top of the food chain in the old church, who dressed to the teeth. Fancy hair (even permed and colored) and makeup and sculpted nails. I remember them saying they shopped at the thrift store.

Funny, I must not go to the right thrift store. I never see clothes like that, there. Do I just not have enough imagination to see them hanging dispiritedly on hangers, and not be able to see they'll look like dynamite on a real live fashionable person?

To be fair....you might not be.  If you hit thrift stores in the right (aka very high income) areas, you can find a lot of incredibly nice stuff...sometimes even with tags on.  Sure, you wont be "in season", but unless someone watches the runways they wont be able to tell because often it is only a year behind.  

Most of my leisure clothes are high end, and I haven't paid for any of them.  My friend just is a nanny to a couple of surgeons, and the wife happens to be my size, so whenever she cleans out her closet (which she has to do twice yearly for space), I get the clothes!

[refugee]

1 minute ago, Georgiana said:

To be fair....you might not be.  If you hit thrift stores in the right (aka very high income) areas, you can find a lot of incredibly nice stuff...sometimes even with tags on.  Sure, you wont be "in season", but unless someone watches the runways they wont be able to tell because often it is only a year behind.  

Most of my leisure clothes are high end, and I haven't paid for any of them.  My friend just is a nanny to a couple of surgeons, and the wife happens to be my size, so whenever she cleans out her closet (which she has to do twice yearly for space), I get the clothes!

That could be it. I hate shopping. Yet another way I didn't fit in with the women at the old church.

[Koala]

Quote

I think the easiest way to have influence over modesty is to raise daughters to know and practice it

 Lori hasn't acknowledged that one yet.  

[molecule]

3 hours ago, Koala said:

Lori:

Quote

I have confronted several who wear skimpy bikinis, one was even a pastor's wife, to no avail. My rebuke fell on deaf ears. They believe they should be able to wear whatever they want and no one should tell them what to do. It's is the men's fault who lust, they say.

  So I am assuming her daughter and daughter in law were among the several, right?  

I can just see her going to the pastor's wife and explaining that she, The Godly Mentor speaks for the God of the Universe.  TRUTH!

I wonder what she would say if she saw a woman dressed like the woman in the middle of this picture.

[Koala]

12 minutes ago, molecule said:

I wonder what she would say if she saw a woman dressed like the woman in the middle of this picture.

Maybe they would say something like:

Quote

all immodesty involves showing flesh; the more flesh shown, the more immodest they are

Or perhaps they would take to their Facebooks and quote the following:

Quote

Speaking about immodest women, Beth Moore said in her study of the book of Daniel, "Immodest women are mean women since they turn on other women's husbands." I agree 100%. Cover yourself up if you claim to be a woman of God.

File Under: Straight from the horses Godly Mentor's mouth.

[molecule]

9 minutes ago, Koala said:

File Under: Straight from the horses Godly Mentor's mouth.

I don't know. "Straight from the Horse of Truth's mouth has a nice ring to it.

[Koala]

23 minutes ago, molecule said:

I don't know. "Straight from the Horse of Truth's mouth has a nice ring to it.

 

I love that TJFW jumped right in:

Quote

I have seen a couple of churches where the ladies on the worship team wear longer tops over their pants or jeans so as not to draw attention to the crotch area. I have heard several different honest men say that, when women wear most pants, their eye is automatically drawn to the front and to the backside when they want. If I'm honest, those are the first things I notice too. I don't know a single person who doesn't automatically notice a woman's rear end in jeans when they are walking in front of them. Everything is outlined, usually very tightly and sometimes almost graphically so (especially for those who seem to purposely wear pants that are at lease 2 sizes too small). I think it was very wise to have a dress code where the women make sure to wear long enough shirts to not draw attention to these areas. I have noticed that Beth Moore does this too and often wears a shirt under her shirt to make sure that nothing is visible if she bends forward. I really respect women who take others into consideration.

 I am almost inclined to believe she's been reading Erika's blog *blush* *rye smile because men in the grocery are TOTALLY embarrassed to be seen with their wives after they get a load of TJFW*

Then there was this piece of wtfuckery (also from TJFW)

Quote

My husband will comment on how silly so many Jr. High and High School girls look when they walk out in 32 degree weather wearing mid drift shirts and shorty shorts. He says they look desperate for attention. I see it all the time. 

 Seriously?  Ask him what the fuck he's doing looking?  What kind of creepy assed son of a bitch spends his time critiquing Jr. high and high school girls' clothing choices?

She continues:

Quote

I feel bad for Christian men in our society who have almost insurmountable temptations at every corner. If a woman is not dressed immodestly, many times their behavior is immodest.

Yes, bless them *scathing sarcasm*

I feel sorry for the women that are being ogled by TJFW and her husband.  What the hell?  
 

[lilwriter85]

On 1/28/2016 at 7:02 PM, salex said:

I keep wondering if Ken has had the balls to tell any of the women who hire him (women dentists) or work with (office managers, hygienists, etc) that they are whores of babylon for taking away jobs from men.  I wonder if the practice his son is in (does Ken own part of that one) hire women?

Ken's woman partner was in france, so that made it different I guess, for him to work with a whore of babylon like that.  ANd he's usually been a one man band (now, with sons) but I'd love to hear his son explain to people why  his whole staff-- receptionist, office manager, hygienists, etc, are all men.  You know, a whore of babylon free zone. 

 

 

I think it was mentioned somewhere that Ken was a business partner in that practice where his son is at. Ken and the orthodontist son probably have never said anything against women working when it comes to orthodontic world. I think the son is less conservative than Kenori.

I have wondered if any of Ken's clients know about Lori's blog.

[docmom]

32 minutes ago, Koala said:

I don't know a single person who doesn't automatically notice a woman's rear end in jeans when they are walking in front of them.

Hmmm, TJFW.  I have to say that I don't and I suspect most normal people don't either.  Because we are not obsessed with arbitrary modesty rules.  In fact, every single woman I work with was wearing pants today ('cos winter in NYS) and I can't say I particularly noticed a single rear end or crotch.  Not one of my male co-workers had to lock themselves in their office to avoid temptation.  If you are noticing this and it bothers you, the problem is with you.

[caszandra]

Between Lori and TJFW speaking on modesty and pulling other women up on their clothing choices I think my answer to either of them if they done that to me would be 'oh do fuck off dear, and when you get there fuck off some more'.

[OnceUponATime]

So I'm contemplating reading Lori's blog properly. I have started reading some of the comments and as per Lori...

Quote

Yes, but all immodesty involves showing flesh; the more flesh shown, the more immodest they are. [...]. I agree with you that leggings are immodest since they show everything.

And I have to ask - is everything illogical and contradictory? Am I going to find my last remaining braincells go into hiding if I go down this rabbithole?

[Loveday]

1 minute ago, OnceUponATime said:

So I'm contemplating reading Lori's blog properly. I have started reading some of the comments and as per Lori...

And I have to ask - is everything illogical and contradictory? Am I going to find my last remaining braincells go into hiding if I go down this rabbithole?

Yes. And yes. 

Seriously, though...we'll send the rescue ferrets if you need them.

[OnceUponATime]

I'm probably more likely to need a construction crew to give me new walls... I'll let you know.

[Koala]

1 hour ago, OnceUponATime said:

So I'm contemplating reading Lori's blog properly. I have started reading some of the comments and as per Lori...

And I have to ask - is everything illogical and contradictory? Am I going to find my last remaining braincells go into hiding if I go down this rabbithole?

Ken finds leggings worrisome.  
 

Lori:

Quote

Leggings were the only thing that Ken asked me not to wear many years ago!

Ken:

Quote

I hate leggings unless a dress is also being worn to at least mid thigh. I am embarrassed for most women who wear them, or yoga pants, not just for their immodesty, but most women look awful in them. 

Flesh is okay- unless Ken and Lori say it's not (the above picture is an obvious example of that).  Leggings are a no go because they make women look so gosh darn ugly, and that gives Ken second hand embarrassment.  

[Hisey]

2 hours ago, docmom said:

Hmmm, TJFW.  I have to say that I don't and I suspect most normal people don't either.  Because we are not obsessed with arbitrary modesty rules.  In fact, every single woman I work with was wearing pants today ('cos winter in NYS) and I can't say I particularly noticed a single rear end or crotch.  Not one of my male co-workers had to lock themselves in their office to avoid temptation.  If you are noticing this and it bothers you, the problem is with you.

What? That is so ridiculous. I never notice such things. I'm usually thinking about dinner, or talking to my kids, or worrying my car is going to get a ticket, or wondering where my phone is. Noticing a woman's rear end? Really?

[polecat]

5 hours ago, molecule said:

I wonder what she would say if she saw a woman dressed like the woman in the middle of this picture.

That dress would be borderline pornographic on me. She'd probably have a LOT to say about it *on me*, lol. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Quote

 

· 6 hours ago

Michelle, 

Lori read me your comments which she will not publish as they are so far off the horse of truth. 

If a husband is beating his wife this is not in keeping with any Biblical precept and against many of God's commands and admonishments. To propose that a wife is to submit to such abuse is exactly why this post was written to prove that in things against God's Word a wife has no obligation to submit. 

We are told by God to obey the law, so any wife being beaten should go first to her pastor and friends and if the abuse is anything significant call the authorities and get help for herself and her husband. Spending a few days or longer in jail may be exactly the cure for something so unbiblical. 

Your concerns that somehow this post will lead submission to abuse is fallacious and ridiculous. Please get back on the horse of truth and ride well so as not to fall off on such unwarranted thinking.

 

Wow, they sure are diggin this falling off the horse phrase. FJ and places like this would not exist if these people would just allow disagreements. i get not publishing cussing or severe hate comments, but Michelle was probably just politely disagreeing. If you want to convince someone to follow your line of thinking, to persuade them, you need to let them see all angles of an argument and we can deduce if Michelle has fallen off the horse.  She has said at times about how Christians should not take the "easy way out". Well not publishing comments you disagree with is exactly taking the easy way out. They don't have to defend their words.  Or preaching and teaching from the safety of your nice comfy couch is also taking the easy way out. Try going to a hostile country.

On a funny note, this horse talk reminds me of the country song, "save a horse, ride a cowboy". Hey, by falling off the horse these women are saving a horse and rather opting to ride and service their cowboy! Ooooops, was that not discreet?!

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Oh and another thing about taking the easy way out---that means that career women with children are the real champions. Nothing easy about juggling work, housework, a husband, and kids. You can argue that being a sahw/sahm, leaving all decisions with husband, not having to worry about family finances, etc, is taking the easy way out. 

[kpmom]

Ken needs to put his horse of truth out to pasture.

Real nice of him to "allow" an abused woman to go to the authorities, but only if the abuse is, ya know, anything significant.

And I'm sure a few days in jail will fix an abuser right up, and not piss him off enough that he comes home and kills her or anything significant like that.

[Koala]

Dave has called Ken out:

Quote

Words have power; great power. God spoke and created the world. Christ spoke and inflamed the world and got Himself killed. James said the tiny tongue had power as a rudder to turn a great ship. And words ‘spoken’ in this blog can lead to life or death, not only in the mind but in attitude of the heart. Without even getting a sense of what others have said that precipitated this post [no quotes included], the simple language in this post speaks volumes, a most certain demeanor and worldview of thought. 

So Jesus is not simple to understand, not clear, as Paul says? “Far right” is political correct language and worldview; rather let’s use biblical language. “Truth stay in balance”? In balance with what, some other worldview? Does Jesus -- the Truth -- need to be balanced with an opposing force, with someone or something else? Are you thinking balance Him out with Satan, because if you are not for Him you are against Him? No, truth is truth and does not need to be balanced with anything; again, a classic PC [or ‘carnal’ in biblical language] perspective. 

“One truth becomes disproportional to another truth” – should I laugh at this, cry, or get angry? Where is ‘not follow the letter of the law’, as you imply? Loving God is keeping His commandments – the law. Christ came to fulfill the law. His salvation is meaningless without the law. Law is how we know we have sinned, how we know the boundaries between life and death. “…a spiritual common sense”? Where is that in the Bible? It is our faith to take God at His word when it does not make sense or we do not like it. That is our salvation - believe in Jesus, the Word become flesh. ‘Walk in the spirit’ does not mean do what we want or a convenient way to say that those that disagree with our words are not ‘in’ it. Rather, it means our life aligns with scripture, having seen the simplicity of Jesus Paul speaks of. Otherwise, we become our own God with our own religion. And how can a husband be won without a word, as you quote, after having been told by his wife how he is wrong WITH a word – or now 2 words and on to 3 as you have increased it to since your last post on this topic? That is a contradictory statement and creates confusion, unless of course you are saying God was wrong or not speaking through Paul regarding ‘without a word.’ And this begs the thought: will you say next time ‘four times the wife may speak with a word’? Do I hear 5, now 6…? Is this per day? Or will he be spared just once those limits over his lifetime. Who will keep account of these times she has used words? The can of worms is open. 

It is good to point out the analogy of Christ’s pleading with His Father to spare Him the suffering for something He did not do. This is in scripture to show that Christ was human flesh and had our feelings [‘dwelt among us’], as well as to demonstrate the weight [sweating blood] of all sin against God. The Psalmist pleaded also. And scripture makes it clear we make our requests known to the Father, in humility with thanksgiving – answered requests limited to those that are aligned with His will. But we don’t correct God. We don’t challenge His authority. That is the whole point of “without a word” – a wife correcting her husband in his ways. That is the “black and white”, the “Pharisaical attitude” line drawn in the sand in scripture that you refer to. 

“Jesus’ request was even wrong.” Wow! What Book of the Bible is that in? Or is that new scripture? So where else is Jesus wrong in scripture. Should I throw my Bible away because He is wrong? 

Actually, biblical submission does fit in that box you show for it fits into the Bible, for submission to authority is the very foundational principle of the Bible and if we don’t get it right we are hell bound and taking others with us. I’m sad to read that this post is substantially a common stance in the church today – that we cannot know the truth – so let’s all be confused with our own truth, just like Babel and not of same tongue or on same page…. reduced to confusion.

It'll be interesting to see Ken try to haul him back up on the Horse of Truth. 

Complete ass, but I did like that he pointed out how Ken offhandedly said that Jesus was wrong.  Of course he was wrong!  Anyone that disagrees with Lori and Ken's version of TRUTH is. 

*side note* I would bet dollars to donuts that "Dave" is the Dave of "Privileged to be Dave's doormat".

In case Ken decides to clean house, here is the part Dave is referring to:

Quote

Note that Jesus’ request was even wrong