Lori Alexander, 12: Transformed, But We Can't Tell

[SilverBeach]

On 12/8/2016 at 3:48 PM, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

From what I've read, the sharing part of Medi-Share is entirely voluntary on the part of the members -- as in no one may agree to help pay your medical bills, plus there are lots of exemptions.

“We do not collect premiums, make promise of payment, or guarantee that your medical bills will be paid,” the Medi-Share website explains. “Sharing of medical bills is completely voluntary.”

First off you have to be a Christian to join, and your pastor may have to vouch you're a church member in good standing. Any medical expense come from something non-Christian isn't covered, and prescription drugs , might be covered but only for a 6 month lifetime maximum.

The program doesn't cover routine planned expenses -- like an annual exam, You cannot be obese or have high blood pressure. It doesn't cover pre-existing conditions

The monthly "premium"' is like a gift that goes into an escrow account, but there is no guarantee the account will pay your bill.

Fundies seems to love it because it's not the evil ACA (Obamacare).

Edited to add " Medi-Share’s declaration of faith requires that you and any adult children on your plan sign a statement indicating you believe that

“the Bible is God’s written revelation to man and that it is verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error” and

“that man… because of sin was alienated from God [and can be saved from that alienation] by accepting God’s gift of salvation by grace through faith”

Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims and of course Atheists cannot be members. 

Sounds like worthless bullshit, not that there is valuable bullshit, lol. Fundies always exclude more people than they include.

[teachergirl]

Yes she is although at least she will post your comments and there have been RARE occasions i agreed with her. I think the Crawfords are a perfect example of the what if's in these families? Kelly has an infant and is 43. She is never going to work outside the home but yet her husband will lose his vision Then what??? The evil Medicaid and SSI???

 

[polecat]

24 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

“We do not collect premiums, make promise of payment, or guarantee that your medical bills will be paid,” the Medi-Share website explains. “Sharing of medical bills is completely voluntary.”

First off you have to be a Christian to join, and your pastor may have to vouch you're a church member in good standing. Any medical expense come from something non-Christian isn't covered, and prescription drugs , might be covered but only for a 6 month lifetime maximum.

The program doesn't cover routine planned expenses -- like an annual exam, You cannot be obese or have high blood pressure. It doesn't cover pre-existing conditions

The monthly "premium"' is like a gift that goes into an escrow account, but there is no guarantee the account will pay your bill.

 

 

Sorry, can't find the original on this so the crediting is messed up, but ... 

So you pay hundreds of dollars a month for what??? If they don't cover preventive care, prescription drugs OR other medical costs, what the heck are you paying that money for? I can think of lots of other things I'd rather spend my money on than that. And all this so that you can say you don't have "evil insurance"? No one is forced to buy through the exchanges. Buy your own policy privately or opt into your employer-sponsored plan, if you have access to one. It would probably be cheaper AND cover all of the aforementioned things. 

I'm seriously perplexed by this stupidity. And yet this dingbat wrote a chapter on finances -- I hope she knows her kids are one serious sickness or accident away from bankruptcy/losing everything all because they're either too proud or too ignorant to buy normal insurance. (And does LORI have regular insurance to cover all those pricey cyberknife treatments?????)

[Hisey]

3 hours ago, teachergirl said:

She has replied to Kelly Crawford's report of her husband needing a neck fusion as they should use ice next time. It didn't work for her so OF COURSE it won't work for anyone else. Off topic, having 11 children with a husband who is not only losing his vision but needs neck surgery is why you don't have a million kids all the while selling crap on Etsy your children made.

I saw Lori's comment on Kelly's blog. Kelly's situation fascinates me. It is such an unnecessary tragedy.

Aaron Crawford was diagnosed with his eye disorder at age 32. Kelly was blogging then, and she wrote about it. For the Crawfords to go to an eye doctor, his vision must have really been pretty bad. I know a bit about his condition, retinitis pigmentosa. Most likely, he was losing his night vision and starting to lose his peripheral vision. It sounds like at this point, he has lost a considerable amount of peripheral vision, but still has good central vision (since he is still driving). However, it is alarming to hear that he is having other health problems, particularly since he works construction. That poor man must have a huge amount of stress, with all those little kids to support.

A reader once wrote in, stating she had two vision-impaired children and wondering where Aaron went for treatment, thinking they may be going to the same Alabama eye institute. She also asked if Aaron had signed up for any clinical trials. Kelly didn't answer the question about the eye insitute (leading me to think they don't have the time or money to take him to a place like that) but she did say she'd been "meaning to" find a clinicial trial for him. That surprised me. Although there's no real treatment for retitnitis pigmentosa, there are several promising clinical treatments. She has time to have babies but no time to find a clinical trial for her husband? I'd be searching on the internet every night.

Even worse, there is a fair chance that Aaron's condition can be passed down to some of his kids. I don't really understand the genetics of it, but, put simply, it can run in families, and can particularly be passed down from father to son.

There's a good chance Aaron will eventually be left with no useable vision. Interesting they knew this, and continued to have so many babies.  I am not saying a vision-impaired person should not have babies, but 11 children is a lot for anyone, particularly if some of them are also vision-impaired. They sure practice what they preach. I think it is crazy.

Kelly is hawking those cutting boards she is making, and many of her readers are helping her out by buying them. Last I looked, she'd sold about 70. But even if she makes $5/board, that's $350. How can she possibly pay the bills with a payback like that? And I notice that she is trying to create businesses for her kids, but how can she reasonably expect that they can earn a living as a trivet maker/furniture refinisher/box maker--without any skills or training?

[lilwriter85]

3 hours ago, teachergirl said:

Yes she is although at least she will post your comments and there have been RARE occasions i agreed with her. I think the Crawfords are a perfect example of the what if's in these families? Kelly has an infant and is 43. She is never going to work outside the home but yet her husband will lose his vision Then what??? The evil Medicaid and SSI???

 

I think Kelly admitted years ago that she used some form of government assistance when she had her oldest child. 

 

 

[teachergirl]

She was an evil single mother though...Bria is from a different father.  It all fits into their narrative of getting saved, redeemed, whatever. I think it is very interesting that Bria has been married two years with no announcement.  Could it be those two are using the brains the Lord gave them and realize that money doesn't just fall from  the sky, especially when one is in school???

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Looks like Lori's site isn't working. She posted today's post on her old blog. 

[dairyfreelife]

Quote

When will her husband get time with her? He will, most likely, be the one that is the most neglected since this is typically the case. The children will need the little time they get with her and the home needs a keeper, so she will allow her marriage to slowly become less and less important to her.

Well if we simply think it is the reverse, then he will be home with the children. He will get the same amount of time he would get if he was the Governor. If he the one home, wouldn't he be the one keeping the house? My dad came home from work and spent time with us. He wasn't one of those dads that came home and sat on the couch. He didn't leave everything to my mother. Lori makes huge assumptions here that she cannot spend time with both her husband and children when she gets home. There is no reason to assume she will neglect her husband at all. Plenty of women work and have worked for centuries and their marriages didn't fall apart and are not falling apart. 

Quote

Sure, maybe she can get a bill passed to save more eagle's eggs, stop a shopping center being built, get more money for the schools, or something like this

I cannot tell, is she trying to say those are good or mock what this woman may achieve while she is in office? The eagle egg argument is often used by anti-abortion advocates to whine we protect bird eggs over unborn fetuses. Because humans are clearly endangered species. Isn't getting more money for schools a good thing? Putting money into education seems positive to me. 

Quote

I knew a woman who was very involved in the political process years ago. She had young children while she was doing this and they suffered. Children need and want their mothers.

Of course she did and she just knows they suffered because mom was working. I imagine Lori's children suffered more honestly. 

She quotes a verse, but I will put it into context for her. 

Isaiah 49: 14-15 "But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.""Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget,yet I will not forget you."

It isn't saying that women forget their children, it is saying the Lord won't forget you like a mother doesn't forget her children. 

 

[Koala]

Regarding the repost from Saturday:

Lori says in the post:

Quote

When my sons were young, one of them asked Ken if he had sex with me only four times. Ken looked at them and asked, "Four times this week?"

This story is a favorite for Ken and Lori.  We've definitely heard it more than once, and I think it may have even made the book (correct me if I'm wrong).

Why it stands out to them so much, is a mystery.  Personally, I think Ken's reply was crass.  He could have answered in a lot of different ways, but turning it into a locker room joke just seems gross to me.

That said, the whole thing could be overlooked as a somewhat weird story if it weren't for other strange comments by Ken (which immediately brought to mind Ken's comments on Lori's post: Are Most Men Pigs When It Comes To Sex?  Here's the link:
http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/08/are-most-men-pigs-when-it-comes-to-sex.html

If you'll click on it, you'll notice that the post has now been deleted.  I can say for certain, that it was fairly recent, because we discussed it here in late October, and the post was linked.

That tells me three things:

1) Ken and Lori SOOOOO read here.

2) One of them (probably Ken) realizes that Ken has a long history of creepy comments, and is trying to scrub the evidence.

3) They probably tried to clean house in preparation for Lori's new book, and they likely used FJ as a guide for what to scrub.

That said, the internet has a long memory, and FJ has an even longer one. 

Ken Alexander:

Quote

Lastly, for some who are so opposed to sex when kids are sleeping in the room, much of this depends on the kids ages, and no one is saying they are making noises or not under the covers. Under the covers quiet sex with kids up to 8 years old in the room is probably a non issue, but teenagers in the room it is probably not wise.

Remember, throughout most of history the whole family was in a tent or one or two bedroom homes with thin walls. Sex is not a bad thing, so teach your kids early that it is to be enjoyed in a marriage. No child is being defiled by hearing Mom and Dad having sex, but it can feel like being defiled if the child is not educated to know the difference between marriage sex and sex outside of marriage. For goodness sakes,.. this is how the child was made when Mom and Dad make love... a beautiful thing,

For those wondering, Ken made that post in the comment section of the now deleted post.

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori"s latest post is up on her Transformed blog, and while the post is the usual screed that women can't have careers because ... Lori's God's reasons,  the nutter comments are even nuttier than usual.

"And in this last election I voted for no women, even when they were ‘right’ on the issues. Scripture is clear that God does not want women leading men. Prov 31:3 states it in a nutshell ......... "Further, women should not vote [it is no different than a woman in office]. Voting is the power to place laws and requirements over men; to tell them what to do. That is clearly a-biblical." (bolding mine)

This commenter seems to be a woman.  I will never gets used to women tearing down other women and being part of the societal structure that tries to oppress women's rights at every turn  Looking at you Lori, and your fangirls

I won't quote Lori's replies (2 to this one post), but suffice it to say, she still seems A-OK with women not voting and manages to use the word godly 3 times in one sentence

[Hisey]

Good points, Koala. And don't forget what Ken had to say about incest and molestation:

 

Quote

 

[slickcat79]

15 hours ago, polecat said:

Sorry, can't find the original on this so the crediting is messed up, but ... 

So you pay hundreds of dollars a month for what??? If they don't cover preventive care, prescription drugs OR other medical costs, what the heck are you paying that money for? I can think of lots of other things I'd rather spend my money on than that. And all this so that you can say you don't have "evil insurance"? No one is forced to buy through the exchanges. Buy your own policy privately or opt into your employer-sponsored plan, if you have access to one. It would probably be cheaper AND cover all of the aforementioned things. 

I'm seriously perplexed by this stupidity. And yet this dingbat wrote a chapter on finances -- I hope she knows her kids are one serious sickness or accident away from bankruptcy/losing everything all because they're either too proud or too ignorant to buy normal insurance. (And does LORI have regular insurance to cover all those pricey cyberknife treatments?????)

This is problematic for fundie types on a couple levels. Private policies are prohibitively expensive for a family of 8+. Regardless of their morality protestations, I think this is the main reason fundies turn to christian med-sharing. Most cost-sharing programs have a single monthly cost for a family, whether that's with 1 kid or 12. That doesn't really apply to Lori's kids, but I hope this is one more area where they're not being entirely honest with Lori, and they actually have access to better coverage. Of course, many programs will cover alternative treatments that traditional insurance won't, so maybe they just like being able to justify black salve and corn from TJ as medical expenses 

Additionally, fundies don't like having their premiums go into a pool that anyone can draw from. Their money might have to cover abortion or birth control or STD treatment or something else they don't approve of. Med-share lets them add the extra dose of judgment that they salivate over. Nathan Maxwell is, I think, credited with a statement where he is happy to not have to help pay expenses for people who aren't managing their diabetes well because it doesn't demonstrate personal responsibility. Of course, they have no problem asking others to pay hundreds of thousands to cover continual problem pregnancies, but that's not irresponsible, it's GODLY!

Most supporters have reportedly had great experiences with the programs, and received the money they were entitled to. Of course, members receive discounts on their monthly "share" for referring other people, so they have a vested interest in making the programs sound awesome, whether they actually are or not. Samaritan Ministries requires members to publish their medical needs in a widely-disbursed monthly newsletter, so that people reading can decide whether or not they want to pay. If you feel uncomfortable sharing personal medical information with random strangers, you'd better get over it.

SM also encourages the most dangerous and irresponsible medical decisions possible. They don't cover any medical expenses under $400(?), I'm sure with the presumption that members will handle those expenses personally. But if they don't have the money to cover those minor issues, they will just ignore them until they become major issues. You can also bypass the $400 "deductible" in the case of pregnancy by choosing homebirth over hospital birth. They are really really really so dumb. For real. 

 

[Koala]

Lori:

Quote

Someone has to raise the children and that someone should be their mother. No one can take the place of her. This is why people worry about a woman running for an elected position because it will take her out of her home and away from her children. When will her husband get time with her? He will, most likely, be the one that is the most neglected since this is typically the case. The children will need the little time they get with her and the home needs a keeper, so she will allow her marriage to slowly become less and less important to her.

I think I have a suggestion that could solve the problems Lori mentions.  If the mother hired a housekeeper and a "nanny sent from heaven" to hold her babies for " hours every day", then maybe she could take the time Lori used to rest and pamper herself to hold an elected position.  Think that would work?

[quiversR4hunting]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

Lori:

Quote

Someone has to raise the children and that someone should be their mother. No one can take the place of her. This is why people worry about a woman running for an elected position because it will take her out of her home and away from her children. When will her husband get time with her? He will, most likely, be the one that is the most neglected since this is typically the case. The children will need the little time they get with her and the home needs a keeper, so she will allow her marriage to slowly become less and less important to her.

I think I have a suggestion that could solve the problems Lori mentions.  If the mother hired a housekeeper and a "nanny sent from heaven" to hold her babies for " hours every day", then maybe she could take the time Lori used to rest and pamper herself to hold an elected position.  Think that would work?

So then Lori shouldn’t have an issue with women passed childbearing age going into politics. Right?* The age of some well-known US politicians when they were first elected: Elizabeth Warren (64), Dianne Feinstein (59), Barbara Boxer (53), Hillary Clinton (54), Ann Richards (50), Michele Bachman (45), Geraldine Ferraro (44), Lisa Murkowski (42).

Note- I know women in their 40s are sometimes still fertile but I was having a hard time finding GOP women that were elected after age 50.

*yeah right! who am I kidding! Lori just wants to keep all women down.

[RosyDaisy]

Who the hell tells their kid how many times their parents fuck. There are just some things nobody (especially kids) needs/wants to know. This is one of them.

[polecat]

55 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

Who the hell tells their kid how many times their parents fuck. There are just some things nobody (especially kids) needs/wants to know. This is one of them.

 

Mr. Polecat thinks it's hilarious to gross our kids out by kissing me in front of them. I can only imagine how horrified they'd be if he gave them gory details about our actual sex life.

On what planet is that even any of their business in the first place? And this woman calls herself modest.

[Hisey]

1 hour ago, polecat said:

Mr. Polecat thinks it's hilarious to gross our kids out by kissing me in front of them. I can only imagine how horrified they'd be if he gave them gory details about our actual sex life.

On what planet is that even any of their business in the first place? And this woman calls herself modest.

Lori thinks that this information will make a child feel secure, since then they'll know their parents love each other. It's insane. Children don't know about the intimacy, love and closeness associated with sex. So telling--or hinting-- that you have sex a lot means nothing to a child.

In contrast, kids do understand hugs, kisses and hand-holding. So it's good for kids to see that. They understand that shows love.

Here's what I think happened. Her son, in innocence, assumed (as many kids do) that his parents only had sex to have kids (again, this demonstrates children have no idea about sex). Ken took it as a blow to his ego, and quickly asserted that he has sex several times a week. But, he's talking to an 8 or 10 year old. It is totally inappropriate. A shock to his son. And when his son grows older, he'll be pretty grossed out to have that piece of information. I sure wouldnt' wan tot know that about my parents.

Couldn't he just say, "No, moms and dads have sex for lots of reasons besides making kids. I know it seems gross to you, but grownups find it special and fun. You'll understand when you are grownup." and leave it at that?

[feministxtian]

I happily went through life without having any idea how often my parents had sex. My kids have grown up happily ignorant of how many times we had sex. Unfortunately, my children feel they can tell me anything and have, at various times, told me about THEIR sex lives. Now, THAT is knowledge I could have gone through life not knowing. 

[freealljs]

My husband and I have separated (and will divorce) for the sake of our daughter. She doesn't need to see our bickering and being unhappy together. If LorKen think that it is better for our daughter for us to stay together and make everyone miserable, then she must come to my home and talk to our daughter. Our daughter is a happy, loving, and healthy child because we have made a conscious decision to end things. I so want to smack Lori and give her a piece of my mind.

As for women not voting or getting educated, does that nutty lady ever pick up a history book?  She also must realize that she benefits with modern medicine, technology, and other things because women AND men made strides. She should try to live without those things that women have made contributions in. Let's see how long she will last. 

Having watched her Youtube videos, it is obvious that Lori can't keep a thought in her head. I feel badly for her at times. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori, for all her blathering on and on and on about women being modest and discreet, is neither.

I know more about her sex life -- 10 minutes and some lube, what she uses for lube, vacation sex while the kids are in the room, sex on demand, sex is only for his pleasure, how to sabotage your bc, etc., etc -- than I know about my BFF's. A woman I've known for 39 years.

Of course, Lori has *never* said she has a loving, mutually fulfilling sex life, just that she has lot of sex. Kind of makes one go Hmmmmm.

[usmcmom]

10 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Of course, Lori has *never* said she has a loving, mutually fulfilling sex life, just that she has lot of sex. Kind of makes one go Hmmmmm.

Even worse, she usually refers to it as "giving Ken lots of sex," removing herself even more from any idea of intimacy or mutual fulfillment. It's all about him and what it takes to make him happy. Sex and good food - he's a simple man. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

You will all find this amusing....

Quote

 

Sarah says:

December 13, 2016 at 7:02 am

Dear Lori,
I think giving Dave a platform to voice his support of spousal punishment – which can very quickly lead to abuse – is undermining your views as a submissive wife. We, as Christian women, are obligated to be submissive to our husband as the Bible says. However, it is the husbands responsibility to “… live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. ” (1 Peter 3:7) and “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. ” (Colossians 3:19) I recognize that admonishing men (since you don’t directly teach them) isn’t in your wheelhouse. However, as it seems as you have no problem censoring others comments whose opinions you don’t like or questions you don’t care to answer, you might want to really think upon the impact Dave’s comments have in your ministry. ie. what he’s promoting and what impact his views might have upon your readers and if they’re Biblical views to begin with.

Lori Alexander says:

December 13, 2016 at 7:20 am

He is not looking for a way for husbands to physically abuse their wives in any way, Sarah. My husband mentors men whose wives are downright cruel to them. There is a young man that had to flee his home because of the physically abuse he suffered from his wife. They are simply looking for some way that they can stop being undermined by their wives continually.

A few years ago, Sunshine Mary wrote a post about her husband refusing to buy her a dishwasher because she kept putting her knives into the dishwasher after he asked her not to and many women thought this was awful for her husband to do. I do not.

If a wife is spending all of a husband’s money and causing him to go bankrupt, you don’t believe it’s okay if he cuts up her credit cards? There’s one woman who just had a $1,200 bill for her cell phone and her husband has no way to pay this. You don’t think he should be able to take her phone away? Do you think husbands, who God has appointed the head over their wives, have nothing they can do if they are married to a wife that causes them grief by her actions?

 

 

[onemama]

AlwaysDiscerning,

It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Lori's "Titus 2 ministry" is the equivalent of a middle-aged woman setting out to Titus 2 all the younger women in her church, but ending up hosting a meeting for super-conservative wives and a bunch of disgruntled red-pill men where the men get to lecture the super-conservative wives on the inadequacy of their submission.  After that, Ken and his chums discuss wife discipline and the ins and outs of husband authority. Then they all bemoan the sad, sad state of the church and the world, and it's all them wimminz' fault because they won't submit and obey, and they dare use inflammatory terms like "equal", and how unfair that husbands have been stripped of their swords.

Sounds just like Titus 2!

[usmcmom]

@AlwaysDiscerningcould you point me to that Dave exchange, please?  I wonder if Lori deleted it. Thanks. 

[molecule]

6 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

@AlwaysDiscerningcould you point me to that Dave exchange, please?  I wonder if Lori deleted it. Thanks. 

It is still there, on the post about mothers running for office. It is in response to Dave's comment:

Quote

 

Dave says:

December 12, 2016 at 10:02 pm

“it has taken my stepping back to allow him to step up to take over godly leadership of our home”

This is an incredibly important principle that Diane mentions [and Lori echoes]. Men have gone underground — given up– for 2 primary reasons:

1) women jump in their way, and after fighting dragons all day men don’t have the energy to fight them at home every day [think back generations of this compounding, not just in your man]. Men would take care of business in their own way and in their own time [think how God does not respond in YOUR time], but after fighting resistance to their authority lovingly for extended periods [and that way of life being passed down for generations] men give up because the only remaining alternative is to fight their woman like they would fight a man. And we all know that is not good, which leads to the 2nd point.

2) This is materially exacerbated because marriage has no remedy to enforce authority, like every other authority has. ‘Trey’ brought this question up a few days ago in a post here: “What I have not figured out yet is what a husband is supposed to do if his (self proclaimed) Godly wife refuses to repent.” Without a remedy, there are no teeth in a husband’s authority. Women know this, even if subconsciously, and abuse their husband’s authority to varying degrees. And it is no wonder that as this abuse has grown exponentially over the last several decades, that it has modeled abuse of all other authorities: rebellious children, rebellious students, obviously sinful people in churches, slacker employees, cop killings, general lawlessness in society, etc.

Certainly this will be a controversial topic to delve into but I leave you with something to ponder [as did Trey]: why has this happened to the husband’s authority and what, if anything, should be done about it. If this can be answered, I suggest that the ship could be righted in God’s people in a generation or two. Can we look at the other authorities for clues? If we are willing to transform our minds from the world’s way of thinking we can get there.

 

I will grab screen shots.