Lori Alexander - Still Not Learning A Thing, Part 4

[OnceUponATime]

I get pissy when people say "just pray and all your hurt is washed away" because it implies that if you are still feeling pain from abuse that you are desiring to feel it. Yeah how about NO!

I think that they are both suffering from SIASC  with a case of excess IHTBR (it's one of Ken's posts). <Syndrome of an Inappropriate Critical Spirit and I have to be right>.

I think I may need a vomit bucket for reading further into this blog. And may need to invest in a boxing bag.
 

 

[refugee]

53 minutes ago, molecule said:

Lori's response to the commenter asking about the distinction between responding to physical abuse and responding to verbal/emotional abuse:

So the reason we can get help for physical abuse is that no one wants a wife and kids to be physically harmed. Apparently, no one minds if women and children are bullied and demeaned on a daily basis. And, uh, Lori? Isn't this sort of like making decisions based on what people want rather than on what God wants? And if God's ways always trump God's ways, then why does abuse ever happen in the first place?

It's nice for a wife to be able to have a godly older woman to encourage her (assuming that she is allowed to have friendships and that she feels safe enough in that friendship to talk about what's going on), but this pretty much leaves the kids with absolutely nothing. And quite frankly, if a woman said that her husband is verbally abusive and has forbidden her to talk about their relationship with anyone, then talking to a godly older woman who be unsubmissive and then where would she be?

Lori really makes me angry. Somehow, though, I just can't quit her.

Yup. Been there.

Her language is very telling, isn't it. "No one wants to see a woman or child physically harmed."

But verbal abuse, that's okay.

Broken bones may heal, but words stay with you forever. (Not saying that physical abuse is okay. Please don't take that meaning from this.) And I guess even that comparison falls down, because I have a healed bone that aches when the weather changes.

But the voices of abuse from the past still ring in my head. I can hear them clearly. I can't get rid of them. All I can do is try to concentrate on something else, but they can be triggered, or come up when I'm not on guard.

[salex]

I will always call bullshit on the idea that Ken and Lori take any abuse, including physical abuse seriously.  (Push your out of control wife up against the wall, aid Ken.  

I was lured back to their blog a few days ago and read this charming advice from Ken:

Quote

 

Ken· 3 days 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.

 

Because if it is just an insignificant beating, then the pastor and friends will talk her into just going back and submitting to him without a word, I guess? (A friend of mine eloped rather than be married by the pastor of her church after said pastor told the groom to be's sister that wife beating was not a reason for divorce and she should just try harder.)

So, is the horse of truth one of the 4 horses of the apocalypse?

 

[Koala]

She is getting push back on the assertion that you may leave a man that's physically abusive, but must stay with a man who's verbally abusive.

Reader:

Quote

I just don't see anywhere in the verse about winning him w/o a word means to stay and continue to take the abuse. Couldn't a wife be justified in separating with the goal of reconciliation and still win him? Does w/o a word mean she must continually be in his presence and be silent? For example-I love you, but the way you're talking to me is wrong. The kids and I will be at (wherever-safe place) and when you are ready/calm/spoken with our pastor, we'll be back. And where is the threshold as well? Verbal abuse can escalate so quickly, leading to physical abuse, and it scares me to think a woman believes that verse gives her no freedom to act until her husband touches her.

Lori (who's getting rather annoyed all of the questioning) replies:

Quote

I'm not sure what post you're reading but a godly wife may absolutely speak to her husband about his sin; confronting it but in a respectful way. However, it is the Lord who will fight her battle since the battle is being waged in the heavenlies. If she feels physically threatened in any way, of course she can separate to be safe and for a time.

Notice anything?  Again, not a shred of scripture.  Where in the Bible does it say a wife may speak to her husband about his sin?  It doesn't.  Lori said it.

Where does it say she can leave if she feels threatened?  It doesn't.  Lori said it.

These are all arbitrary rules that Lori Alexander made up.  She just doesn't think verbal abuse is a big deal, so she doesn't allow for her followers to leave in such situations.

Notice she said "if you feel physically threatened" you can leave, but when a reader said her husband regularly threatens to break her sons' arms and punch them in the face, Lori said the Bible didn't allow her to leave.  So which is it?  

The truth is that Lori is wayyyyyyy past the point of trying to give Biblical advice.  She is making up her own religion and trying to convince her readers to live by the legalistic rules she's made up.  She screams "freedom" "you can't put baby under the law!" when it comes to her, but when it comes to her readers she tries to enforce HER law.

[usmcmom]

16 minutes ago, salex said:

I will always call bullshit on the idea that Ken and Lori take any abuse, including physical abuse seriously.  (Push your out of control wife up against the wall, aid Ken.  

I was lured back to their blog a few days ago and read this charming advice from Ken:

Because if it is just an insignificant beating, then the pastor and friends will talk her into just going back and submitting to him without a word, I guess? (A friend of mine eloped rather than be married by the pastor of her church after said pastor told the groom to be's sister that wife beating was not a reason for divorce and she should just try harder.)

So, is the horse of truth one of the 4 horses of the apocalypse?

 

I was just popping in to voice the same thoughts.

I believe people defend what they approve of and I have no doubt that Ken approves of spousal abuse as a way to "discipline" a wife.  It is only fairly recently that Ken and Lori have even tried to make a show of speaking out against spousal abuse with their "disclaimer" and a few benign words here and there. With their belief in the hierarchy of power in the home, I do not think it is a stretch for them to believe DAD BEATS MOM; MOM BEATS KIDS.  And we all know they beat their kids.  Perhaps Ken doesn't hit Lori; but he certainly finds nothing wrong with other husbands choosing to beat their wives.   Further, I believe Ken and Lori minimize that in which they participate - Ken's stance on pornography is a good example of that.  I believe that's one reason Lori minimizes verbal abuse. I'd like to know her daughters' feelings on the abuse they suffered as Ken and Lori shamed them about their weight.  Verbal abuse is likely no big deal to Lori because she is the queen of it.  Her kids are gone so she uses her blog to abuse those whom she believes are her inferiors. 

 

[VodouDoll]

2 hours ago, salex said:

Because if it is just an insignificant beating, then the pastor and friends will talk her into just going back and submitting to him without a word, I guess? (A friend of mine eloped rather than be married by the pastor of her church after said pastor told the groom to be's sister that wife beating was not a reason for divorce and she should just try harder.)

That's what my friend's pastor told her when her husband finally got physical after years of verbal and psychological abuse. She went to the pastor and church elders, as she'd always been taught to do, and they told her, "First of all, what's the big deal? He punched you in the stomach, it's not like it was your face or something. Maybe this would never have happened if you were sexier and more submissive. Try anticipating his every whim and maybe get a tummy tuck, because you've had four kids."

When she kicked him out and filed for divorce they told her she was jeopardizing her salvation, and if she went through with ending her marriage she'd burn in hell for eternity and never see her children again in the afterlife. She's standing strong so far, but I can definitely see how women are manipulated into putting up with it. If you believe an afterlife is real, the bosses of your religion telling you that you're signing up for never seeing your children again with a side of eternal torture might well make it seem worth taking a punch or two.

Lori is a monster.

[Sera's Arrow]

I think Lori is unable to understand how other people feel because Lori doesn't have feelings.

[Mrsaztx]

54 minutes ago, VodouDoll said:

That's what my friend's pastor told her when her husband finally got physical after years of verbal and psychological abuse. She went to the pastor and church elders, as she'd always been taught to do, and they told her, "First of all, what's the big deal? He punched you in the stomach, it's not like it was your face or something. Maybe this would never have happened if you were sexier and more submissive. Try anticipating his every whim and maybe get a tummy tuck, because you've had four kids."

When she kicked him out and filed for divorce they told her she was jeopardizing her salvation, and if she went through with ending her marriage she'd burn in hell for eternity and never see her children again in the afterlife. She's standing strong so far, but I can definitely see how women are manipulated into putting up with it. If you believe an afterlife is real, the bosses of your religion telling you that you're signing up for never seeing your children again with a side of eternal torture might well make it seem worth taking a punch or two.

Lori is a monster.

I have a friend who (due to purity culture) married at 19, the guy turned out to be extremely abusive. She did manage to get away but it was so deeply ingrained in her that she was probably at fault that when, several (maybe 6 or 7, not 35 with some serious spiritual and emotional growth) years later, a friend of hers started dating him, she had a huge crisis of conscience over whether or not she should tell this friend/new girlfriend of the abuser what he had done (locked her in a closet over night, choked her, etc). She didn't want to "hurt his reputation". I was horrified that in her mind it would be worse for this girl to break up with the guy over his prior terrible actions than for her friend to end up another victim of his abuse. But to the fundies I'm sure she had it coming for not being a good wife and maybe the new girl could be a good enough wife without getting beat up?

[molecule]

The Joy Filled Wife has weighed in to explain that the only verbal abuse that we should pay attention to is when a man uses his words to threaten injury. *sigh*

[EmiGirl]

1 hour ago, molecule said:

The Joy Filled Wife has weighed in to explain that the only verbal abuse that we should pay attention to is when a man uses his words to threaten injury. *sigh*

So a man calling his wife a stupid fat ugly cow is ok?

[salex]

Hmm, and yet Ken thought we were abusive when we were only using words like Lori Alexander is a Monster

And Ken Alexander, of Dental Consulting semi Fame.... is a misogynist and abuse denier/defender...

 

[older than allosaurs]

5 hours ago, salex said:

I will always call bullshit on the idea that Ken and Lori take any abuse, including physical abuse seriously.  (Push your out of control wife up against the wall, said Ken.) 

Cynical me--I figure that the difference between physical and emotional abuse for them is that physical may be visible and it would look bad if someone said her Godly Mentors (TM) said this was ok. If it's verbal/emotional, they can continue to guilt trip the poor woman about not submitting right.

[bean]

So I just can't get over this "horse of truth" business, it's just so ridiculous. So I "goggled" it and there wasn't much - some South Park images, some Brony stuff, and a whole bunch of pictures of Queen Elizabeth (something about a race horse). But the closest thing I could find is a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. Maybe this is what he's mangled into this horse of truth wackiness?

[OnceUponATime]

10 hours ago, Koala said:

These are all arbitrary rules that Lori Alexander made up.  She just doesn't think verbal abuse is a big deal, so she doesn't allow for her followers to leave in such situations.

Notice she said "if you feel physically threatened" you can leave, but when a reader said her husband regularly threatens to break her sons' arms and punch them in the face, Lori said the Bible didn't allow her to leave.  So which is it?  

My thoughts on Lori's view of verbal abuse is that she thinks it doesn't really exist.  That the victim is causing herself abuse by focusing on things that she *knows* are untrue or is exaggerating facts, lying about it altogether, or is just too emotional and easily hurt. If what the women who are abused claim is true they should just pray it all away and they'll be instantly healed from all that emotional pain. Still feeling it? - well you are probably just not praying the right way or hard enough. It's just a big case of victim blaming for her.

Isn't being threatened someone (aka "i'll break your arms" - which i can't find anymore) against the law in the US? From a person on her blog:

Quote

Another difference is that it is illegal for someone to physically assault someone else. We are to obey the laws of the land so long as they don't go against God's laws and turning someone in for breaking the law is good. Verbal abuse, while awful in every way, is not against the law.

I just can't get why someone thinks that because a man is breaking God's commandments (love one another for one) and not man's that they should get away with it and the victim should suffer in silence(near silence depending which 'Lori' you listen to.

[IrishCarrie]

If there is a God in heaven, after Lori dies as a penance God will arrange for her to spend a week here and a week there in the marriages of the women she's given all this good advice to.

 

[OnceUponATime]

6 hours ago, bean said:

So I just can't get over this "horse of truth" business, it's just so ridiculous. So I "goggled" it and there wasn't much - some South Park images, some Brony stuff, and a whole bunch of pictures of Queen Elizabeth (something about a race horse). But the closest thing I could find is a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. Maybe this is what he's mangled into this horse of truth wackiness?

I have come to the conclusion that the horse of truth is in fact a unicorn pooping rainbows.

If I'm being a bit more serious he may be referring to Revelations 19v11 (in KJV just for Lori). As far as I can tell the rider referred to is Jesus, so that is a bit weird.

Quote

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

[polecat]

11 hours ago, EmiGirl said:

So a man calling his wife a stupid fat ugly cow is ok?

That goes without saying. If the wife doesn't want to be called a stupid, fat, ugly cow, then she needs to read more (in between having 13 kids, doing 2 loads of laundry a day, cooking three nourishing meals daily, cleaning up after said meals and kids, and providing her husband 10 minutes and lube nightly), lose weight and start using more Younique/Avon (or whatever the cosmetic of choice for discerning fundies is right now). 

Lori and Ken remind me of all the gaslighters I've known over the years. You know, the ones who convince you that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. He's cutting you down and humiliating you publicly? Maybe he is really just teasing! We all know boys show their interest by being mean! (ugh). He's screaming and name-calling because you forgot to put the laundry in the dryer? Maybe he just had a tough day at work and you just made it tougher. He threw all the food in the trash because you were five minutes late with dinner? I suspect you're exaggerating. Your feelings are hurt because he told you that you were getting a bit broad in the caboose? Stop being so sensitive. 

The gaslighting from *other people* can make abuse just that much worse because you feel so incredibly alone -- like there is not one person who understands or even believes you. And you start questioning your own experiences and thoughts. It's easier to pretend that everything is okay because admitting that it's not okay opens YOU up to criticism. Even though you've done nothing wrong ... 

 

[molecule]

In today's post, Our Lady of the Horse of Truth informs a dad at the park that if he wants to spank his children, he should do so because he's the man of the family. I'm so glad to know she's jumping in to teach men just like Titus 2 says she should....wait, scratch that...

[crawfishgirl]

The comments to her post are eye-opening.  The fact that a few of her readers are trying so hard to blame the women for everything is just so sad.  They must have been reared to really hate themselves because they were born female and therefore are worthless.  I'm just floored by their lack of compassion.  Their examples, such as women try to provoke male strangers, are unbelievable - how can they write such false trash with a straight face?  Stuff like this makes me worry about the future - sometimes I think we are going backwards instead of progressing.

[polecat]

You know what's wimpy and cowardly? Hitting people smaller than you to make them do what you want.

I made the conscious decision to parent without hitting. It's not always been easy. But, it HAS been worth it. In the earlier years, I struggled mightily with, "Am I doing the right thing?" Now that I can see more of the fruits of our labor, I can say wholeheartedly that yes, we did do the right thing. Our kids are indeed respectful, kind, considerate and behaved. They are that way because I spent their early years fostering a bond and teaching them WHY we behave certain ways. Teaching them the "whys" as well as the "whats" has given them tools to make good choices on their own. 

Lori didn't hit her kids to raise them right. She hit them because she liked hitting them. She let her newborns cry themselves to sleep because it gave her a sense of power and control. She constantly reminds us how much she likes controlling other people, and I guess her kids were the easiest targets. Now she's trying to pull the strings on other vulnerable people. 

[Florita]

3 hours ago, OnceUponATime said:

I have come to the conclusion that the horse of truth is in fact a unicorn pooping rainbows.

If I'm being a bit more serious he may be referring to Revelations 19v11 (in KJV just for Lori). As far as I can tell the rider referred to is Jesus, so that is a bit weird.

 

Yes, I think Rev. 19:11 is where the Horse of Truth idiom originates. The image is also found in Psalm 45:4 (a Messianic psalm):

Quote

In your majesty ride out victoriously
    for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness;
    let your right hand teach you awesome deeds!

In the Bible the only person riding the Horse of Truth is Jesus.

John Piper used it in a sermon, Undoing the Destruction of Pleasure -

Quote

The Bible is one of the most dangerous books in the world. You can't take a sentence out of the Bible without it being dangerous. You can fall off the horse on the right and on the left and on the front and on the back. Staying on the horse of truth is no small thing. Danger is everywhere in the Bible. So when it commands, this is my response to their question, is it really taught in the Bible? 

The Piper sermon might be where Ken got the idea and then completely messes it up.

[IrishCarrie]

When Lori talks with such glee about how important and necessary it is to hit children, I want to stab her. 

Just saying. Apologies for the violent hate speech, but if I can't vent here, then where?...

[Koala]

Quote

The rod in the hands of a discerning parent who will supply the child’s soul with that moment of judgment that he feels he so deserves. Properly applied, with instruction, it will absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid.

This is truly sick.  It sounds like something you would read on a Christian DD blog.  My god in heaven...

Quote

I was at the park the other day with my grandchildren. There was a young dad there with his two year old daughter. We got to talking about discipline and I asked him if he spanked his daughter and he responded, "No, but there are sure times when I wish I could. My wife's best friend has her masters in child psychology and told us of all the harm spanking does to children. We have friends that have five and seven year old daughters that are the sweetest children I've ever been around. I asked them what they did to teach their daughters to be so sweet and they told me they spanked them." 

Then he showed me these bloody scratches on his hands from his daughter scratching him. He has no idea how to make her stop. I asked him if he was spanked as a child and he said he was. I went over to him and told him, "You know you are the man of the family. You should be able to spank your daughter if you feel this is what she needs." I could tell he was very agitated by my words because he knew I was right and his wife's friend was wrong. He told me spanking was so fast and effective and all of his friends where spanked when they were young. I can tell you right now our children would have never gotten away with giving us bloody scratches on our hands. Modern psychology teaches wimpy, cowardly parenting and children are suffering as a result.

Alright, I am just going to go ahead and call it and let the chips fall where they may.

Lori has "joked" with SSM about Ken spanking her.  Lori has referred to needing a spanking from Debbi Pearl or having Debbi Pearl "spank her with her words" as often as she can fit it into the conversation.  Lori has done countless posts on spanking.  Lori once wrote a letter to her mom and one of the first things she said was "thank you for spanking me".  Now she is in the park with her grandchildren and her main focus is on finding out if a stranger spanks his child, and upon finding out he doesn't, she encourages him to start??

Something is SOOOOOOOO fucking off here.  HUGE, glaring red flags.  Lori Alexander is a sick woman, and she shouldn't be around children.

[kpmom]

1 minute ago, Koala said:

Lori has "joked" with SSM about Ken spanking her.  Lori has referred to needing a spanking from Debbi Pearl or having Debbi Pearl "spanking her with her words" as often as she can fit it into the conversation.  Lori has done countless posts on spanking.  Lori once wrote a letter to her mom and one of the first things she said was "thank you for spanking me".  Now she is in the park with her grandchildren and her main focus is on finding out if a stranger spanks his child, and upon finding out he doesn't, she encourages him to start??

Something is SOOOOOOOO fucking off here.  There just is.  Lori Alexander is a sick woman, and she shouldn't be around children.

ITA.  It sounds like she and the man in the park were just shooting the breeze.  Nothing at all about the little girl misbehaving at that point in time in any way.

Spanking is Lori's kink, it's pretty clear.  O.k., fine.  Go for it.  But encouraging total strangers to do it to their kids 'cause you get off on it?  That is sick.

[usmcmom]

Quote

All children will chose to sin. They know they have sinned and should be punished.

Here we go again - equating childish misbehavior with SIN.  No, children do not choose to sin. Children behave poorly because they have not yet mastered impulse control. Sure, at a certain age, they should have that control and sometimes we can blame poor parenting.  But age-appropriate behavior is not sin.  Sin occurs when one is old enough to understand the concept of sin, its repercussions and the appropriate steps to take, based on ones faith, to repent of that sin. 

A toddler cannot sin.  A four-year-old cannot sin. A child who drops her raisins and refuses to pick them up is not sinning; she is misbehaving and forming impulse control and testing boundaries - all age appropriate tendencies that deserve discipline and guidance....not beatings.  The parents who take turns beating her for this action are sinning because they SHOULD have impulse control and they are simply giving into their own cruel desires to inflict pain on one who is smaller and weaker. 

It's interesting to me that Lori labels the actions of a child as "sin" yet totally minimizes the viewing of pornography, verbal abuse, spousal abuse and adultery.  And I couldn't agree more with the previous poster who pointed out how Ken threw such a tantrum over the names FJ called Lori.  If words are harmless, what was he doing here??