Lori Alexander- the Mindless Mentor: Part 8

[Hane]

It just dawned on me that Lori might be agoraphobic. She stresses staying home so much that it might just be uncomfortable for her to leave.  Being a black-and-white thinker, she's convinced that what's good for her is ideal for every woman.

Anyone else remember the time when Ken wondered aloud to his subordinates at work why they never flirted with him? Two clues, buddy: 1) It's inappropriate because they know you're married and they're at freaking work 2) You ain't all that, dudebro.

[docmom]

Lori has conveniently left out of her TTUAC "study" that the "hitting" of babies involves using a stick.  She also conveniently left out of her reply that the "single swat" her oldest received "each time" they disobeyed for hours on end was given with a leather strap.

The truth, the real truth not Lori's horse of truth, is that you don't need to hurt a child physically to bring them up to be a good kid.  My oldest DS is 13 and he's an honest delight.  He's helpful, works hard, is polite and motivated from within.  He's never ever been hand never will be hit by his parents.  We haven't figured out the magic formula for bringing up children so I would never presume to tell any parent what to do, but I can categorically state that you don't need to hit them.

P.S. Lori a "study" generally involves reading the text critically, comparing it to other literature on the subject and coming up with your own conclusions.  It doesn't mean quoting walls of other people's text.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

30 minutes ago, docmom said:

P.S. Lori a "study" generally involves reading the text critically, comparing it to other literature on the subject and coming up with your own conclusions.  It doesn't mean quoting walls of other people's text.

Well, she critically criticises other women's lives daily. She even makes comparisons, with the unattainable, always changing Godly Mentor's Golden Standard TM. She also draws her own conclusion: everyone else is failing and not nearly as godly as her and the Pearls. Does it count?

Anyway even you godless heathens should know that the Pearls are incomparably superior to everyone and everything! They are always right because Lori says so. Don't you dare to contradict her, you don't mess with the word of the Lord (of the Inferi, given her obsession with hitting babies, toddlers and children, and generally with making other people's life a living hell, she must be his representative).

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Koala, 

And I guess that "source of pleasure" is spanking. I think this all has much kinkier roots than we ever imagined. 

[usmcmom]

The following is from J's blog and the bolded really made me think of Lori.

Quote

Don’t assume the worst. If a wife reports that his husband looked at another woman, I don’t assume he’s a cheating jerk. If a husband reports his wife rejected his sexual advances, I don’t assume she’s a frigid, uncaring wife. Or flip-flop those genders, if that’s your situation. Regardless, I try to look at the actual evidence, consider all the possibilities of what’s going on, and give grace where possible.

Most people who read my blog are Christians who love their spouses, but they are imperfect — wounded, clueless, stubborn. They need a wake-up call more than a guilty verdict. The sort of wake-up call God constantly gives His people in the Bible. I assume that we’re all flawed and a bit selfish, but reachable and wanting to hold on to our marriage. (http://hotholyhumorous.com/2016/05/4-principles-that-improved-my-marriage/)

It made me realize that is exactly what Lori does - she hands down a guilty verdict to every woman who even slightly disagrees with her - and she loves to do it.  If Lori is really "writing a book" she needs to set aside her resentment and envy of these better writers and learn what makes them successful.  However, I don't believe Lori has the personality to be a successful writer.  She is too arrogant and lacking in compassion.  Also, she exhibits absolutely zero critical thinking skills so I'm not holding my breath over that book. 

[polecat]

4 hours ago, TeddyBonkers said:

Very first post, and I'm making it about Lori, the Godly Mentor. 

After reading her blog, it FINALLY (might I say, SEVERELY) occurred to me: Lori is saying the exact same shit that my mother in law says. Preach the modesty. Menz are teh best! If you don't have a super clean house- you suck. Beat your kids with a paint stirrer from Home Depot. 

So now when I wonder, "What would my MIL want me to do" (because it happens so often :sarcasm:), I can just read me some Lori. And then do whatever I think is best.

 

omg, Emily, is that you?!?!

 

But seriously, welcome to FJ! 

[EyeQueue]

3 hours ago, docmom said:

The truth, the real truth not Lori's horse of truth, is that you don't need to hurt a child physically to bring them up to be a good kid. 

Word.

I was actually brought up in a typical 70s family that spanked on occasion. Fortunately, I was a good kid and can count on one hand the number of times I was spanked.

I spanked my daughter once. She was about 4-5 and was having the mother of all tantrums and in a moment of frustration and weakness, I slapped her little leg. When she came to me about an hour later and there was a welt, that was where me and spanking or using any kind of physical punishment on my kid parted ways forever. I felt so bad.

Aside from that one time, I've used re-direction, time outs, taking away privileges, etc., and she's now 17 and a perfectly responsible, upstanding, takes-accountability-for-her-actions young woman. No spanking needed.

So Lori can suck it. The smack and welt were enough to make me feel guilty and ashamed and to realize any kind of physical punishment is cruel. For her to almost gleefully recount how she spanked/slapped/etc. her kids and how she did it with a leather strap, and how she follows the Pearls (child brutalizers) makes her kind of a piece of shit in my eyes.

[molecule]

Apparently Lori has taken Dalrock's comments to heart and done some research (hey, look, she's finally learning!), and she has a post today about whether or not women should teach biblical doctrine.

She begins with this . . . 

Quote

From the Word, it is clear that women should not teach men or have authority over them in the Church and that all preaching and teaching of the Word is to be done by men since God created them first and it was the woman who was deceived. Even between Ken and me, I tend to be much more gullible than Ken, whereas he is more of a skeptic. This is our God-given nature. I am feminine and trusting and Ken is masculine and protecting.  Women are much more emotional and affected by hormones. We are easier to sway than men {think car salesmen and how they prefer to try to make a sale to a woman and think Eve}. Women tend to be led more by their emotions and feelings than men. 

 . . . and ends with this.

Quote

From now on, when I teach things outside of Titus 2:3-5, I am going to have Ken look it over and make any changes he wants to it and then publish it as written by both of us or simply publish a male preacher of the Word's comments and give him credit as I am doing with my Roman's series. I have noticed that women much prefer my posts having to do with Titus 2:3-5 anyways! Young women today hunger to learn their roles in marriage, raising children, and in the home.

She says that preaching and teaching should be done by men, but that has nothing to do with the reasons she gives. She says that it is because women are easily deceived, but that should have more to do with our learning than our teaching. She gives reasons that aren't clearly related to her argument

If she really believes she is supposed to be teaching Titus 2 stuff and nothing else, then she should keep the rest out of her blog. Rather than give us someone else's words, she should just give links to sites that provide what she considers good bible teaching. I really don't understand why she tries to do the other stuff anyway, unless it's because she needs some extra topics. She could just do three or four posts a week and leave out the stuff she's decided she isn't supposed to be teaching. How does she not see how inconsistent she is?

[Loveday]

In other words, she's going to just keep repeating the same teaching from Titus 2 over and over and over and...oh, wait. 

 

[Pammy]

Psst, Lori... If you are gullible, and you find most women you associate with gullible too, maybe it's because all the women who are naturally critical thinkers found the flaws in the things you believe about women. It's a much more reasonable explaination for why you tend to meet and/or teach only gullible women -- as opposed to your idea that critical thinking is a tendency found exclusively among men. Hmmm, I forgot, you don't like logic. Because you're a woman. Not because you are undereducated and not very bright. Of course not!

But if Lori is admittedly a gullible person, and Ken is untrained as a bible teacher -- why would her solution of Ken-checking work? And who trusts a gullible woman to know good teaching when she sees it?

[Florita]

Translation of today's post: I'm totally gullible and easily deceived, but I'm still going to teach Bible doctrine.

My favorite contradiction:

From 5 days ago.

Quote

 

Right now, I am teaching through Romans 6-8 but I am using Michael Pearl's teachings to do it. I would never feel comfortable teaching this without a man's backing. In fact, all that I teach about the Word has been taught to me by men and is filtered through Ken

 

And today.

Quote

From now on, when I teach things outside of Titus 2:3-5, I am going to have Ken look it over and make any changes he wants to it and then publish it as written by both of us

 

[Loveday]

52 minutes ago, Pammy said:

Psst, Lori... If you are gullible, and you find most women you associate with gullible too, maybe it's because all the women who are naturally critical thinkers found the flaws in the things you believe about women. It's a much more reasonable explaination for why you tend to meet and/or teach only gullible women -- as opposed to your idea that critical thinking is a tendency found exclusively among men. Hmmm, I forgot, you don't like logic. Because you're a woman. Not because you are undereducated and not very bright. Of course not!

But if Lori is admittedly a gullible person, and Ken is untrained as a bible teacher -- why would her solution of Ken-checking work? And who trusts a gullible woman to know good teaching when she sees it?

Ken doesn't need training as a Bible teacher. He has a penis. 

[Pammy]

Just now, Loveday said:

Ken doesn't need training as a Bible teacher. He has a penis. 

So he just needs to get out his penis, use it to read over Lori's posts, then use it to make any nescessary changes. Sounds messy.

[Loveday]

3 minutes ago, Pammy said:

So he just needs to get out his penis, use it to read over Lori's posts, then use it to make any nescessary changes. Sounds messy.

Sometimes he even uses it to make changes in meaning in the Bible itself. That penis of his is quite a contortionist.

Ugh. Now I need to go look at some pictures of cute kittens to get THAT image out of my head. 

[polecat]

21 minutes ago, Pammy said:

So he just needs to get out his penis, use it to read over Lori's posts, then use it to make any nescessary changes. Sounds messy.

 

There isn't enough brain bleach in the world to get that imagery out of my head. 

 

 

[2xx1xy1JD]

I was sort of disappointed to see Lori give in so easily to Dalrock (well-known MRA).  It's one step further into the MRA hole.

[Hera]

1 hour ago, 2xx1xy1JD said:

I was sort of disappointed to see Lori give in so easily to Dalrock (well-known MRA).  It's one step further into the MRA hole.

I don't know.  I consider Lori and her ilk the low hanging fruit for the MRA "men," so it's not that surprising to me that a woman who had brainwashed herself to believe that men are better than she is and she should never take it upon herself to instruct them would bow to the MRA line.  What other choice does she have? (In her reality, anyway.)  Arguing that he is wrong might lead to wondering "Why is this misogynistic piece of garbage wrong, but the misogynistic piece of garbage I married right?"  I think Lori would implode from the cognitive dissonance.  

[FundieFarmer]

Well, let's just see how long this one lasts. 

[CrazyCatLady]

Can she teach transgender folks?

[TeddyBonkers]

3 minutes ago, CrazyCatLady said:

Can she teach transgender folks?

I don't know, but I bet she is "praying" for them. 

[Hisey]

3 hours ago, CrazyCatLady said:

Can she teach transgender folks?

She can only teach to the body parts that they were born with. Good question, though.

[lilwriter85]

Sadly, I picture Lori telling parents of trans kids to beat them. She would likely do the same with parents of gay children. 

I hope at least one of Lori's fangirls sees through the awfulness of the Pearls. The deceased fundie Catholic blogger Barbara Curtis, IIRC condemned the Pearls and/or spanking. I also vaguely remember a fundie lite or Evangeiical blogger who disliked spanking. Sometimes in fundie or Evangelical type circles you'll sometimes find people who disagree with on major beliefs.

[desertvixen]

Reading back over a few pages of Lori to get my Mindless Mentor fix, and hit the TTUAC Chapter 1 post.

Quote

One of our children, when they were about eight months old, began squirming like crazy when trying to change their diaper. I would say "No" and give a little smack on the behind. It didn't take long before they would lay there without moving while I changed their diaper. No, this isn't child abuse or punishment. This is training and if done in the correct way, produces beautiful fruit: well-behaved children. 

This is so sad to me.  Yes, it can be frustrating when your BABY is squirming and you just want to get the diaper changed, but what can we expect from someone who also "flicked" her nursing baby on the cheek instead of just removing the baby from her breast when they got teethy?

And in the "What Kind of Man Did You Want to Marry?" post:

Quote

Many of you are married to husbands who didn't turn out like you wanted them to be.

Hmm, sounds like an argument for not marrying young to me. 

Quote

Now that I am older and wiser about such things, if I can tell my thoughts are going in the direction of wanting to give it to him or be critical in anyway, I quickly remember that I am not his mother nor his boss; I am his help meet and I can control my thoughts. I chose to dwell on the good in him and what I love about him. He is a grown man who gets to decide how he lives his life, not me. He didn't marry me to tell him how to live his life and neither did your husband marry you for this reason. 

But apparently Ken sees it as his job to run Lori's life and act as the "daddy"...

[molecule]

Today's post is all about men who want their wives to work. Important points include such gems as these:

Quote

 

These men were most undoubtedly not raised by their mothers full-time and they have a difficult time bonding to their wives. 

 

Quote

Little boys were created to have a mother supporting and nurturing them full-time and a wife to be a help meet to them when they became men. When they don't have this, they will suffer.

Quote

Ken wanted me to work until I had my second baby but this was because we had very little money and he was still in seminary when I had my first baby. 

Quote

He needs to be deeply loved and reverenced by you, especially since he probably didn't get the love and nurture he needed from his mother. 

In other words, the only reason a man wants his wife to work is because he is intimacy-challenged (and it's his mom's fault).

So when she says that Ken wanted her to work--but only because they had very little money--it is a justification of how her rules don't apply to them. Ken's mom stayed home full-time, so clearly Ken was not a victim of intimacy deprivation due to a working mother.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Lori.

[kpmom]

9 minutes ago, molecule said:

So when she says that Ken wanted her to work--but only because they had very little money--it is a justification of how her rules don't apply to them. Ken's mom stayed home full-time, so clearly Ken was not a victim of intimacy deprivation due to a working mother.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Lori.

But let one person comment to her that many families have financial circumstances as such that the mother must work, and she's all over them.

What a couple of asses.  Excuse me, @$$e$.