Lori Alexander 16: Protecting Men's Jobs from the Assaults of Women

[smittykins]

Thank you for the links, @polecat.  That is something I've always wondered about myself.

[ViolaSebastian]

From the review she posted of 'The Shack:'

Quote

Young doesn’t like an Almighty Holy God who is a Righteous Judge – that’s “too strong” for people. He wants us to like God and make Him out to be an “Aunt Jemima” God; the happy faced, sweet syrup we pour on our buttered pancakes.

And is anybody shocked that it took? Who in their right mind wouldn’t want a carefree female God who is found dancing with a female Holy Spirit while listening to some old R & B song? Even Jesus thought it was cute and got a laugh out of it. Of course, Jesus makes it very clear that He’s not a Christian.

That is some obvious racism, right there. Yet she chose to share it. Her judgment has slipped.

[older than allosaurs]

2 hours ago, smittykins said:

Thank you for the links, @polecat.  That is something I've always wondered about myself.

My own experience is anecdotal, from a lot of years teaching high school and from listening to my daughters' friends growing up.

What I saw was that girls who had rough childhoods often were having sex early and, sometimes, seemingly indiscriminately. Sometimes my guess was that this was a matter of having the freedom (through lack of supervision) to follow your urges. More often, it seemed that they had no idea they could say no. Childhood abuse can pretty well destroy your sense of boundaries, and it's not as though teenage girls generally need to go out looking for sex. They'll be hit on whether they are interested or not.

For so many young woman, sex isn't about pleasure, it's about the boyfriend, about wanting to be loved. Our school was big on abstinence education, and I would hear girls say that since they didn't go to church, or they didn't think abstinence was realistic, they might as well just do the deed. When I said that just not feeling like it was a perfectly good reason to say no, and if a person isn't enjoying it, something's not right, they looked at me as though I were speaking Uzbek. (Of course hearing a teacher older than your mother talking about how sex should be fun was probably too embarrassing to be borne.)

For a while I taught credit retrieval classes for kids who were credit deficient. We used an adult basic ed curriculum, which meant that the health unit contained actual information about birth control and STIs.  One time I was helping a guy with reading difficulties go through the material, reading parts aloud, explaining some of the vocabulary. Suddenly I realized that all the other boys in the class had sidled over to listen. It was the most engaged I ever saw that crew.

 

 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

HA! Ken puts his foot down today and writes a post about the "everything" argument. Obviously this all stems from the other post where the men were seeming to say that women should submit in everything even if he is asking her to sin. 

Quote

"For the few Christians who are bent on taking a wooden literal approach to this passage. it is important to understand that language and literature are intended to be understood as the common reader would understand it. Imagine all the qualifiers the apostles under the influence of the Spirit would have to give in order to communicate if they were not free to assume that the readers would be reasonable and informed in their understanding of what they are writing."

Wooden approach? Looking at you Dave and Trey!

Quote

Even recognizing the proclivity of women to twist and turn a clear passage like this one into meaninglessness, Lori and I are not going to insist that the “in everything” means EVERYTHING when it clearly does not endorse following a husband into sin or abuse. Our job as teachers is not to wrestle wives into a box of submission because it is best for them, especially when married to godly guys, but instead to try and lead Christian women to choose to willingly submit to the one they chose to marry, to love and to lead them. This fear of “give a wife an inch and she will take a yard” is not what should dictate our understanding of God’s Word.

Quote

 

If she is unsure as to whether she should submit or not, she should not rely on her own individual interpretation of the Word, nor on her feelings of what God is telling her, but test if it is sin or not by speaking to an older godly woman or an elder’s wife.

The question to ask any counselor on this subject is a simple one. Is what my husband is asking of me clearly taught against in God’s Word? If the answer is “no,” then there should be no other qualifier. If you need help understanding where God is clearly against abuse, contact us, or your elders to understand that no wife should be subjected to physical harm or behavior that puts her or her children in danger.

 

 

[Loveday]

"Contact us." Well, Ken, you know Lori is going to double down and take Dave and Trey's side on this one, so don't you mean "Contact ME?" 

Better lay in a stock of M&M's, Kenny boy. 

[Koala]

And now we wait for Dave to respond.  

I'd bet Queen Lori is not happy with Ken today.  

[Loveday]

9 minutes ago, Koala said:

And now we wait for Dave to respond.  

I'd bet Queen Lori is not happy with Ken today.  

That big salad will be especially  cold tonight.

[mango_fandango]

Unfortunately every time I see the name Trey I just think of the South Park co-creator. Poles apart, of course. I get it's a fairly common (ish) nickname in the States. I guess I just notice it more because it's not really used here. 

Like how the Maxwell patriarch and my father have the same name (although Stevehovah is Steven and dad is Stephen). Plus the asshat that is PP of course. Although he's V instead of PH.

[usmcmom]

Wait just one minute. Didn't Ken once answer a question about tax fraud by basically saying "Yes, a wife should cheat on her taxes if her husband tells her to do so."?!? Of course, he prattled on about how it depends on the amount of money involved, whether it would be a felony or a misdemeanor, etc. At that time Ken certainly was not telling women that they SHOULD NOT commit a crime for their husbands. 

Also, Ken conveniently left out the part about calling your husband "Lord" as Sarah did. I think Submissive had an excellent point with that comment for those who insist on being Bible literalists. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

You will all find this amusing.  I just heard from an acquaintance who first showed me Lori's blog and takes her seriously posted a comment over the weekend that did not get posted.  She said I can share it here as she is now starting to see how Lori truly operates. It seems to me like this comment could have helped sparked Ken's post today:

Quote

 

Lori laid out examples upthread about how we don't have to submit when our husbands ask us to sin. She says: "If a husband asks a wife to do something evil or illegal such as rob a bank, participate in a threesome, or watch porn with him, she must disobey him but in everything else, she should obey him, for a godly wife can win a husband who is disobedient to the Word by being in subjection to him (1 Peter 3:1-6)."

I agree that this seems contradictory to what Dave is saying.  He seems to insist that everything means everything, even sinful situations a wife should comply. 

From the commentaries Lori quoted in her post it says "so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything: political, domestic, and ecclesiastic; that is consistent with the laws of God, and the Gospel of Christ.”

So, I read it that there are exceptions to "everything" based on she is to submit to everything as long as it is consistent with the laws of God. 

But then again, Dave is male, he has authority and we are to learn from men on these things. So, I am confused then when men comment here and say things contradictory to Lori, who are we suppose to listen to? 

 

I can imagine that last part really scared them. They don't know how to answer that so of course it didn't get published. What a pickle for Lori, she likes the men around because they tell her nice things, but its true should'nt we listen to the men then and not Lori? We are suppose to learn about the bible from men not women teachers. Ken either really doesn't like Trey and Dave and his post today was to squash them or he is more concerned that his prophetess wife may not be listened to anymore. 

[Koala]

I wonder if she got her daughter's permission to use her picture in that post...

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

On Lori's blog there is the beginning of a verbal smack and throw down between Ken and Dave.  

Ken's post rightly said that wifely submission in everything did not encompass abuse, sin, or illegal activity,  FYI - Fundie submission rules makes me ill. Plus, the idea that I just lukewarm praised Ken makes me shudder... but I digress.

Dave, as we predicted, jumps right in with his "wooden literal approach" (thanks Ken) and quotes much Scripture to prove that everything means Every. Thing. Every. Single. Thing-- no questions, no exceptions for abuse, sin, or illegal activity,

Is it wrong of me to want to watch this verbal joust and hope that Dave loses? I wonder where Lori's sympathies lie in all this? Somehow I believe not with Ken.

[onemama]

Ken says:

Quote

 she is under no obligation to submit to any sin demanded by her husband. This includes submission to abuse as any abuse of another is unlawful both civilly and in Christ.

But Lori just posted that a wife should submit to bad treatment (unless it's physical abuse) and shouldn't make excuses. After all, she's practicing 1st Peter 3, and she's responsible for the eternal destiny of her husband's soul. 

I would NEVER send a woman in a difficut situation to your wife or to you, Ken.  Never. You have shown that you don't care about individual people. 

As for the rest of the post, Ken, I don't agree.  Go read what the Bible tells men about how they should relate to their wives and write a post about what it means for a man to love his wife, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.  Write about what it means to honor your wife, to live with her in understanding.  Study the women in the Bible, women like Sarah, who told Abraham to send away her servant and the son she had with Abraham. God told Abraham to listen to Sarah. Women like Esther, who violated the law and appeared before her husband, the king, to plea for her people.  Women like Ruth, who took initiative and put herself out there, who provided for herself and her mother-in-law.  Women like Mary, whom God chose to bear Jesus without consulting her father or her betrothed. Like Sapphira, who agreed with her husband and lied to the apostles and was interrogated on her own. Had she told the truth, thus breaking their agreement, she would have lived.  Abigail, who disobeyed her husband and called him a fool and ended up marrying king David. There's no warning against her disobedience.

You're right. We can't read one verse in isolation.  Start practicing that, Ken, and teach your wife to do that too. With all that talk about submitting to her husband, she does precious little of it.  

One more thing, Ken, while you're at it, do a study on all the passages where God/Jesus/ the apostles command men to lead their wives, rule over them, have the final say in everything, demand submission or exercise authority over their wives.  Find me the passages where Paul tells husbands and wives that they model the Church to the onlooking world.  Find me the verse where husbands and wives are told that they model the proper authority-submission relationship of Christ and the Church to their children. 

[jerkit]

1 minute ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

On Lori's blog there is the beginning of a verbal smack and throw down between Ken and Dave.  

Ken's post rightly said that wifely submission in everything did not encompass abuse, sin, or illegal activity,  FYI - Fundie submission rules makes me ill. Plus, the idea that I just lukewarm praised Ken makes me shudder... but I digress.

Dave, as we predicted, jumps right in with his "wooden literal approach" (thanks Ken) and quotes much Scripture to prove that everything means Every. Thing. Every. Single. Thing-- no questions, no exceptions for abuse, sin, or illegal activity,

Is it wrong of me to want to watch this verbal joust and hope that Dave loses? I wonder where Lori's sympathies lie in all this? Somehow I believe not with Ken.

Can you or someone quote Dave from today? I'm in a much better mental place than I was a few months ago, but I still can't cross my own "don't go to Lori's blog" rule

[onemama]

9 minutes ago, jerkit said:

Can you or someone quote Dave from today? I'm in a much better mental place than I was a few months ago, but I still can't cross my own "don't go to Lori's blog" rule

Oh, it's awful, Jerkit, and Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.  But here you go. I won't try to make sense of this, highlight or summarize. You're going to have to plow through this verbal manure of a double post. 
 

Quote

 

Dave says:

March 6, 2017 at 10:19 am

So, God hath not said? That sounds familiar …..like what preceded a great fall.

We need to apply “necessary qualifiers” to the word? You mean we have to apply self –our perspective — to the word before it becomes compete? Jesus is not enough?

So a wife qualifies obedience to her husband as unto the lord? If A=B then B=A. Isn’t that how the fables of the church came to be? We qualify all that scripture says to our mind’s comfort?

So now “Elder’s wives” and “older godly women” have the ultimate control over another man’s house? Come again?

Carnal thinking starts with self and works toward making ‘sense’ of the word. We never make it to the word [Jesus] that way. Spiritual thinking starts with the word and follows it to our self; only then will the twain meet.

God did not have an “intent” for marriage; He had a command for marriage. We don’t discuss commands; we don’t collaborate on commands. We simply shut up and do. This mindset is the very death of the church …TODAY.

A marriage can only be ‘one’ when both are going the same direction, even if it is ‘so-called’ wrong. See Peter’s clear words in 1 Peter 2&3 comments [separate comment].

 

Dave says:

March 6, 2017 at 10:21 am

This posts is in conflict with context of scripture such as 1 Peter 3:1 “…without the word…”:

In looking at the subject 1 Pet 3:1 verse it is important to consider the verses immediately before. Why? Because Peter uses the word “likewise” to start 3:1, meaning ‘in like manor or principle to the verses just before.’ So, we can use the prior verses as a tee up, a model, as the same principle for 3:1 addressing wives.

Key portions highlighted of 1 Pet 2:13-25
*”Submit yourselves to EVERY ORDINANCE of man FOR THE LORD’S SAKE”
*For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may [His purpose] PUT TO SILENCE THE IGNORANCE OF FOOLISH MEN:
*Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; NOT ONLY TO THE GOOD AND GENTLE, but also to the FROWARD.
*For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God ENDURE GRIEF, SUFFERING WRONG.
*but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye TAKE IT PATIENTLY, this is ACCEPTABLE WITH GOD.
*because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that YE SHOULD FOLLOW HIS STEPS:
*Then immediately into: Likewise, ye wives [3:1]

It is very clear from the ‘likewise’ that Peter is saying wives should endure ‘patiently’ any ‘wrongful’ ‘suffering’ from their authority — in non-resistance, externally and internally — Why???….. “for the Lord’s sake” to “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” and “leaving us an example.” [Yes, this is scary to say in this ‘fear of man’ charged world. But IT IS JESUS. Are we going to deny Him? Or will we have Him deny us?] This, before 3:1, is very clear …..as an example of the authority structure of God. This is exactly what Eve rejected. Eve effectively (at the minimum) said to herself: “Oh, let me just do a little correcting, a little fixing of God’s shortcoming.” Yes, this is totally counter to our culture….but are we going to preach against God? There are many scriptures about the foolishness of that.

Now, as we go to 3:1, it is clear that the ‘subjection’ to her husband is in a similar manor as the citizen and the slave; Peter does, however, throw out an addition to the suffering, if any, of a wife: her husband may be ‘won’ (she may influence him to her noble way) by her “conversation (KJV)” which according to the 1969 Webster’s means 1. Conduct or behavior, 2. Sexual intercourse, 3. Oral exchange of opinions. Strong’s says “behavior” for ‘anastrophe’ in the Greek which Peter uses. I will emphasis that it is not limited to if he is a ‘believer’ or not; the KJV says if he ‘obey not the word’ (all or part, which BTW includes every husband then) so it is to a ‘Christian’ husband also that Paul preaches no verbal correction of. And, we could go on to verse 3:5+6 where Peter reminds us that faithful women of old, including Sarah, trusted in the Lord during their hardship and referred to their husbands as “lord” [certainly in spirit and action and maybe in specific word to them], despite their husband’s shortcomings. These ladies, again, respected the authority structure.

So what is the purpose in all these verses including ‘wives obey in everything’? The same as any other verse in the Bible: to champion respect for God’s line and structure of authority through practical applications — doers. As 2 Chron 7:14 clearly states: HE will change the authority sometime after WE – His people – respect and fear and do His authority structure. 

 

 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

I wonder who if Lori is letting Dave's comments through without Ken knowing. This seems like a topic that should not be up for discussion. Ken has authority of the blog and his wife and this should be the final word. 

I bet just like the guys at Dalrock Dave will feel sorry for Lori for having a husband that doesn't understand scripture. 

[Red Jumper]

It would be foolish of Lori to let them through. She has to agree with her husband (submitting, no own opinion allowed). Ken's opinion is not pleasing to the men seeking for reasons why beating the wife is good. Which could drive away her leghumpers. 

Actually, this is a loose-loose-situation for her

[onemama]

7 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

I wonder who if Lori is letting Dave's comments through without Ken knowing. This seems like a topic that should not be up for discussion. Ken has authority of the blog and his wife and this should be the final word. 

I bet just like the guys at Dalrock Dave will feel sorry for Lori for having a husband that doesn't understand scripture. 

If Lori truly believes and lives by what she teaches, then yes, she should be submitting to Ken's authority over her blogging activities.  If he says Dave is wrong, she should agree with him. 

Lori said: 

Quote

Finally, Ken has never told me how to vote but if he wanted me to vote one way, I would since I understand Scripture and God’s will for me clearly. I vote however he votes since he is my leader and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what type of a man he is. God cares way more about my submission to him than any vote I may cast.

Well, Ken has told you Dave is wrong and appears to want you to censor his comments a bit more. Time to practice what you preach, Lori. Show us how it's done! 

[Hisey]

Dave is hopping mad today. He definitely wants to be married to a robot and not a living creature capable of determining right from wrong.

The ultimate question is this. Dave, if your husband asks you to have an abortion, do you do so? (Abortion seems to be the supreme evil for fundies)

Dave seems to want more control over his wife than I do over my dog. 

[jerkit]

Thanks onemama! Appreciate the C/P

[Koala]

Dave may be one of Lori's pets, but Ken has never liked him.  

While he often slips up, Ken wants to appear "reasonable" (because let's face it, he actually has to venture out of his house).  Lori can afford to be all batshit crazy, but Ken has a job and clients he'd like to not have snickering behind his back.  Dave is messing with the image Ken hopes to portray, and he has Lori eating out of his hand.

Whoever said this was a lose/lose for Lori, had it 100% right.  

Choice A: Undermine everything she has ever taught and back Dave up.

Choice B: Embrace her own teaching, and allow Ken to run off Dave (the man who tells her how beautiful she is).

If she takes option A, she loses credibility in the eyes of her remaining readers.  If she takes option B she loses Dave and possibly Trey.  The comments will tell the tale.  

If Ken posts  several GIANT WALLS OF TEXT telling Dave he's full of shit, we'll know she went with B.  If Ken allows Dave's comments to stand unchallenged, we'll know she went with A.

Lori has always been embarrassed by Ken's people pleasing ways, so I am thinking all is not sunny in paradise today....

[Red Jumper]

24 minutes ago, Hisey said:

Dave is hopping mad today. He definitely wants to be married to a robot and not a living creature capable of determining right from wrong.

But wouldn't a robot deprive him of his pleasure of abuse? He calls it Cdd but as the wive cannot give consent this is not s/m, this is abuse.

I think he is plain sadisdic. I can only hope this just fictionous writing of him (like a sexual fantasy but spelled outside of forum for sexual fantasies)

Perhaps a slave is what he craves?

 

[Koala]

Trey just firmly smacked Dave down.  Guess he's on Ken's side.  Dave's response should be interesting.

 

[Loveday]

Ken:

Quote

 

Dave there no one is disputing that a wife is to respect the authority structure that God has placed over her in her life, by way of her husband.

No one is disputing that a wife indeed fulfills the glory and work of God when she willfully and joyfully submits to her husband. Just this alone is foolishness to the world that wants wives to be equal in authority with their husbands.

None of these things are in dispute. The only thing is dispute is should a wife follow a husband who is asking her to blatantly sin? I know you know the correct answer and yet you want to argue over it?

 

Awfully short response here from Wall o'Text Ken.

Oh, never mind--he posted a much longer response up the thread a ways, I didn't see it. Whew, my faith in Ken's wordiness has been restored.

[Red Jumper]

6 minutes ago, Koala said:

Whoever said this was a lose/lose for Lori, had it 100% right.  

thanks for spelling out my thoughts. i'm on an ancient mobile so typing is a taking ages.

 

Ligher note: thanks for correcting my spelling mistakes. english is not my native language. i didn't realize loose/lose are 2 words so i didn't bother to to look it up. 

Sorry in advance for all these mistakes yet to come. I guess i should install an english keyboard with spell checker.