Lori Alexander 27: Deleting Bible Passages since 2017

[Pink Muffin]

Here are the deleted comments from the Holy Cow thread 

11 hours ago, Koala said:

She deletes because she knows she has absolutely NO CLUE what she's talking about, but she still REALLLLY wants people to believe her.

I really agree with you @Koala

I post only one screen shot to see if I can do this right

Spoiler

 

OK, here we go for the rest of the deleted comments

Spoiler

 

[TeddyBonkers]

Lori: I am not prideful....

....but she will delete EVERY dissenting opinion, even on something as trivial as organic vs. nonorganic. 

*insert Jennifer Lawrence "yeah sure" gift here*

[onemama]

Jilly's comments are getting stronger and more pointed. Has anyone noticed that? Lori is big on living by faith and trusting God, so Jilly appeals to that with her post.  Whether she's being astute or she's just posting her honest-to-goodness opinion, I don't know. Whatever it is, her comments and the recent comments by KAK and Jo on her blog are disarming. They bring down Lori's teaching like nothing else can because they point at what is wrong with her very contradictive teaching.  KAK and Jo point at the need to do what is in our own power to change our circumstances, Jilly points at the need to trust God to protect us from things we can't control: what may or may not be in our food. 

Lori has deleted KAK's last  post explaining how Lori just doesn't understand that some women have to work, her own callous reply, and this reply that I wrote to KAK

Quote

Hi KAK,
you are right about God providing in different ways.  I'm working a funny-hours job that allows me to be there for my family a lot, and yes, the income is necessary and my willingness to get up at 4 am is also necessary.  
No two marriages are the same and no two situations are the same.  Like you, I've been the one fretting and worrying, praying and hoping. I still do.  Circumstances are far from ideal and our family is only on the mend after a few pretty hard blows. 
You remind me of Ruth in the Bible.  Realistic, resourceful and faithful.  
Do you have a blog? Would you mind if I emailed you?
God bless you and your family!

She hasn't replied to my message asking her to get me in touch with KAK, either.  I really want to get in touch with her and let her know that I think she's one very faithful and brave woman!  Of course, Lori can't have anyone saying anything that goes against her narrow-minded teaching.  

[EowynW]

if a husband gets to decide everything based on their convictions (they are just infallible humans too) without input from their wives and prayerful consideration together in front of the lord, he is failing to love & cherish his wife like he should. God cares a whole lot more about loving your wife and laying your life down for her than he does about making her follow your every whim. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Did she just delete a ton more comments from the cow post? Looks a lot emptier this morning. I am so happy the screenshots were captured as I have been away.

[usmcmom]

I am actually a little sickened by the "convictions in modesty" notebook nonsense.  Any man who would make his wife dress less modestly than she prefers is just disgusting. That is a man who wants to humiliate his wife.  I don't care what a woman CHOOSES to wear but when a man tries to make her uncover herself beyond her comfort zone - well, the word that comes to mind is PIMP.  That is not a sacrificial love. That is a man who is getting his jollies out of sexualizimg his wife for the sake of degrading her. 

[Loveday]

1 hour ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Did she just delete a ton more comments from the cow post? Looks a lot emptier this morning. I am so happy the screenshots were captured as I have been away.

Yes, she  completely removed all of Dan Venteicher's comments. The thread is now basically the all singing, all dancing Lori show. 

[Red Jumper]

26 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

 when a man tries to make her uncover herself beyond her comfort zone 

I agree that what you describe is true for pimps (as far as i know). But I think Lori's choice of hotpants and cleavage showing shirts is not beyond her comfort zone. I don't think Ken has ordered her to wear that. I think she likes wearing these items just as she like wearing pants. But when your crazy unchristian non-bible asks for long skirts and  cover of upper body skin she felt to tell people it's because of the husband (once again).

I bet if Ken told Lori to wear the infamous track pants or bikini thongs she would submissively tell him to ....f.o. 

side note : on Lori threads I always get ads for hijabs. I like that the algorhythm assumes this is about conservative Muslims ....On Jrod-thread it offers me a  totally legitimate PhD :-)

[usmcmom]

2 minutes ago, Red Jumper said:

I agree that what you describe is true for pimps (as far as i know). But I think Lori's choice of hotpants and cleavage showing shirts is not beyond her comfort zone. I don't think Ken has ordered her to wear that. I think she likes wearing these items just as she like wearing pants. But when your crazy unchristian non-bible asks for long skirts and  cover of upper body skin she felt to tell people it's because of the husband (once again).

I bet if Ken told Lori to wear the infamous track pants or bikini thongs she would submissively tell him to ....f.o. 

side note : on Lori threads I always get ads for hijabs. I like that the algorhythm assumes this is about conservative Muslims ....On Jrod-thread it offers me a  totally legitimate PhD :-)

I agree with you that Lori enjoys her necklines cut to her waist and her short shorts. I think she enjoys wearing dresses above the knees even though she says she does it  "because that is what Ken likes."  I think Lori enjoys showing off her body because she is thin and that makes her feel superior to other women. 

For her to direct other women to obey their husbands in this; for her to say it is good for men to demean their wives this way is what I have a problem with. 

I wonder how this takes place. 

Wife: Honey I bought this new dress for that reception next week. 

Husband: No!  You need to make that neckline lower. I want to see some cleavage. Shorten the length by six inches. You need to show more leg. 

Wife: Well, I am really uncomfortable showing any cleavage. I guess I can shorten it a little but I'd like to keep the high neckline or at wear a camisole to cover my cleavage. 

Husband: LOOK! I am your husband and I want you showing some skin. WOMAN! That shit's not gonna fly around here. Either alter the dress or let me pick out a different one. 

Gross. 

[onemama]

1 hour ago, EowynW said:

if a husband gets to decide everything based on their convictions (they are just infallible humans too) without input from their wives and prayerful consideration together in front of the lord, he is failing to love & cherish his wife like he should. God cares a whole lot more about loving your wife and laying your life down for her than he does about making her follow your every whim. 

This situation is odd.  If he married her knowing her thing about modesty, then he signed up for a wife that likes to cover herself up in public. It's like me being married to a man who won't drink alcohol. I knew he'd made up his mind not to drink before I married him, but had he decided to stop drinking at some point in our marriage, and he didn't have a problem with alcohol, I'd want to know the reasons why, maybe even discuss them, but unless he decided that I should follow his lead and stop having the occasional glass of wine or Baileys, I don't see why I should try to sway him against his new found conviction - for himself-.   

This notebook scribble just goes to show, once more, how little actual communication happens, ,or is allowed, in this marriage they try to tell us is "one-flesh".   Instead of having a normal conversation, instead of the husband just letting his wife be herself - so long as she's not trying to force her "convictions" on someone else-, no, it's one more test of a wife's "submission".  It's sickening. 

57 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

I am actually a little sickened by the "convictions in modesty" notebook nonsense.  Any man who would make his wife dress less modestly than she prefers is just disgusting. That is a man who wants to humiliate his wife.  I don't care what a woman CHOOSES to wear but when a man tries to make her uncover herself beyond her comfort zone - well, the word that comes to mind is PIMP.  That is not a sacrificial love. That is a man who is getting his jollies out of sexualizimg his wife for the sake of degrading her. 

I agree, although I don't see it as the man trying to "pimp" his wife, it's more an issue of control, of wanting to have the last word.  What if the wife believes they shouldn't watch TV on Sundays?  Should she have to submit to her husband request that she watch TV with him, going against her conscience?  What if she believes she shouldn't speak in church, should she submit to her husband if he asks her to go up to the front and teach?  What if..... 

If she paid any attention to the passages she tries to teach her followers, she'd know the answer to that conundrum: the husband gets to show his love to his wife by respecting her conscience (Romans 15, which Lori quoted the other day, by the way.)

[older than allosaurs]

11 hours ago, Hisey said:

This is why submission was the only possible answer for her marriage. She is not capable of compromise, agreeing to disagree, admitting she's wrong or any of the other ways that couples handle disagreements.

Nailed it. Hence her needing to delete opposing comments even after saying it's fine to have different opinions...about cows.

 

[usmcmom]

12 hours ago, Hisey said:

This is why submission was the only possible answer for her marriage. She is not capable of compromise, agreeing to disagree, admitting she's wrong or any of the other ways that couples handle disagreements.

I agree. I always wondered why, when Lori decided to stop being "rebellious," she couldn't just...you know...be nice to Ken. Just stop arguing. Stop nagging him about food. Stop being a diva. She had to go to the opposite extreme and be totally submissive.  Ken says when she came to him about her new attitude his first request of her was to iron his shirts. Why not just say "Well, could you just start by being nice to me? Stop picking fights?"  They must have known that was beyond her abilities so it was all or nothing for her. 

Clearly, she is still an argumentative shrew who has to have the last word. She just saves it for her followers so that she can keep Ken's money. 

ETA: Ken's first request, in my opinion, also shows that he was never really interested in a true relationship with his wife. He is only capable of thinking about what Lori can do for him - what he can get from her, which is housework and sex. He claims he loved her and wanted a deeper relationship with her but I don't think that is true. Maybe he is just as incapable of love as she is. 

[onemama]

From her facebook scribble based on 1 corinthians 13

One woman shares:

Quote

I have a friend in my small group Bible study who has chosen to stay with her husband despite MANY infidelities with a host of different women. She had left, but quickly returned because she wanted to model forgiveness and unwavering faith in God for the sake of her children. She will openly admit that her marriage doesn't feel happy most days, and that it is only her desire to be obedient to and reliant on Christ that is carrying her through day by day. Hearing her speak of her marriage is both a heartache and an encouragement.

Lori says:

Quote

She is modeling to all those around her Christ's unconditional love for the Church.

Ephesians 5: 25 

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 

I thought that a husband's role is to model Christ's love for the Church. If so, wouldn't this woman be usurping her husband's headship?  

Lori is quick to point out that a woman is "in rebellion" and "usurping her husband's headship" if she doesn't obey and wear shorter dresses at his request, but the passage that tells husbands what to do as heads tells them to love, as Christ loved the Church... when a wife does that, she commends her for doing it. Interesting.

In contrast, Ken says that a husband's sacrificial love should be seeking a wife's joyful submission. As he said in this comment to his own post "one long temper tantrum" back in June:

Quote

 

 I am all for sacrificial love and have lived a lifetime of it, but her is the question each marriage and the church must answer:

Given that the life of Christ was all about about sacrificial love and service, and that leadership begins with such love and service, where does the “upside down in the church get turned upside right?”

If you understand the question you will understand that Christ was made lower than the angels and humbled himself to the point of death, but he is now reigning and exalted seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

Ken thinks that a husband should get a reward for a season of "upside-down leadership, as he calls it", and that the reward should happen at some time in his marriage. 

Quote

If a husband’s sacrificial love and service does not some day find a Christian wife is in turn loving, respectful, submissive and joyful before him, then something is terribly wrong. What may have been necessary for upside down leadership at one time, is perhaps now just service to a closed heart.

He points at the possible pointlessness and, even, sinfulness of a husband forever bending over backwards to please a wife who will never be pleased, and he even says that husbands have an obligation to start asking their wives when they will ever get to "take their rightful place" in the marriage:

Quote

A godly husband has an obligation to ask of his wife, “when will upside down be made upside right?” When will she allow him to take his rightful, God given place in the relationship instead of continually submitting to her will, moods and upsets.

Conclusion of this big, long, rambling puzzle of quotes:

- a wife can be expected (and should) put up with anything her husband wants to subject her to in the name of submission.  No limits may ever be set.

- a husband should be ready to put in some sacrificial loving to win his wife, but he should. eventually, lay down some limits and demand his righful position as benevolent lord and master.

- a wife should never lose hope that she might one day win her husband, but if she doesn't, well, she modeled true love to her wayward husband. 

If I've understood these two correctly, a wife is in charge of both submitting and sacrificially and unconditionally loving her husband, indefinitely.  It sounds like she gets to model both sides of the Christ-Church relationship and should never expect to reap her rewards this side of heaven. She should joyfully serve, forever grateful that she even has a husband.  

As @jerkit pointed out somewhere upthread, this smells like HERESY. 

[Emilycharlotte]

"I am all for sacrificial love and have lived a lifetime of it..."

Seriously? Could this smug, sanctimonious, egotistical windbag possibly be more pleased with himself? 

 

[usmcmom]

I like how, in the first quote, Ken tells us he has lived a lifetime of sacrificial love. 

Well, I guess. I mean if you overlook his childish "need" for basketball, his travel half the year while his wife was ill, labeling his own children "uninteresting" until they were older, his refusal to fix his recovering wife a bowl of soup, his apparent  absence at the hospital during his wife's many admissions. 

Okay, we'll go with sacrificial. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Regarding Lori and her making assumptions about houses and who lives there--here is an example. We are currently renting and the lawn company the landlord pays to take care of their lawn all of sudden just stopped coming. The grass had not been mowed for a month and the grass was at least a foot tall. We finally called the landlord to see what was up and they had no idea the company they were paying decided to slack off. 

Now if Lori had driven by our property she would assume lazy people live here, but NOPE it was totally out of our control. We are renters and lawncare is the landlord's responsibility.

How cute! Here is one of the "like minded" chat room women.  So fun to be around those who are exactly like you and think exactly like you so we can all just be one big echo chamber and never have to learn anything. 

[usmcmom]

I wonder if young Mr. Chat Room knows that Ken Alexander has an eye for pretty dark haired YOUNG women. I hate to think how he behaved with this couple. 

I do hope, though, that Ken and Lori somehow showed their true colors during this little meeting of the like minds. Maybe the chat room will soon have fewer members. 

[Koala]

Are they in a church?  Because, Lori has said that she only wears skirts and dresses to church, yet, there she stands in a flannel shirt and black pants.  Also, shouldn't she play it safe and wear more feminine colors?  If a 5 year old can't have a pink balloon, why does Lori get black and green flannel?

Lori:

Quote

I always wear dresses and skirts to church.

 

[usmcmom]

13 minutes ago, Koala said:

Are they in a church?  Because, Lori has said that she only wears skirts and dresses to church, yet, there she stands in a flannel shirt and black pants.  Also, shouldn't she play it safe and wear more feminine colors?  If a 5 year old can't have a pink balloon, why does Lori get black and green flannel?

Lori:

 

I'd guess they are in that "precious little church" in Door County. That bulletin board looks like it is highlighting their missionaries. The church looks small and like it might be an older building; not what I least imagined they attend in California, which I think Lori has described as rather large. 

I'm guessing the Door County church is rather casual, based on all the sneaky videos Lori has taken. However, that does not excuse Lori's "masculine" attire. If she believes skirts and dresses are best for church, it should hold true for ALL church services. It's like she dressing down for this "precious little" church.  I mean, we know she has a jean skirt and a nice t-shirt dress she could have worn. 

[Koala]

So according to The Modest Mentor's Instadoodle, she can wear whatever Ken wants, and still be godly & modest because submission.  I can only assume that she is also fine with bikinis and yoga pants if that's what a woman's husband wants her to wear.  

Of course, she's not fine with it, and that's why she wants to "paddle" women who wear bikinis, and why she writes endlessly about yoga pants.  

If she really believed what she wrote, she would never give any specifics, and always tell women just to wear what their husband wants them to wear.

Here's the real problem:

Lori has brought in some pretty extreme (dresses only) readers, and she doesn't want them calling her out for her clothing choices.  If she blames it on Ken, she gets a pass AND another chance to demonstrate how submissive she is.

Ken, hasn't told her she can't go dresses only.  He actually told her she could (just setting the beyond bizarre rule that she must show a certain amount of leg  )

Lori:

Quote

The other Saturday, I decided to only wear dresses and skirts from now on. 

Quote

I mentioned it to Ken and he said it was fine with him but he didn't want me wearing skirts to the floor, just to my knees.

She prattles on for a bit about her real reason for wanting to go skirts only:

Quote

During the walk, I told Ken the real reason I decided to wear skirts was because my skin looked so bad. 

She concludes:

Quote

The next day, I woke up and put on shorts...I like my shorts. They aren't short shorts. I am very comfortable in them. I have a lot of them.  

In any case, an Instagram reader turned it around on her:

Quote

@thetransformedwife, I agree with your above teaching and agree with much of what you share. I have struggled with the pervasive idea that women are not to work outside the home. While I wholeheartedly believe women are to be busy at home, as scripture clearly states, I do not see where we are commanded not to hold a job outside of our homes. In using your above statement of logic, it serves my husband and family if I add to the family income by working outside of my home. Therefore just as modesty is a heart issue of submission, I see working outside the home in the same manner.

When will these people realize that Lori is making up the rules as she goes?  She wants nothing more than to create her own religion, and then sit back and see how many people she can control.

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

3 hours ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

 

 

Lori looks like she could be Ken's mom.

[Curious]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

Of course, she's not fine with it, and that's why she wants to "paddle" women who wear bikinis, and why she writes endlessly about yoga pants.  

The "paddling" women on the beach thing has always bothered me and I can't quite put my finger on why.

Who thinks about "paddling" adult strangers?  I've never once looked at another adult (or child for that matter) that I do not know and think "wow they are really annoying me, I'd like to paddle/spank/etc them.

I might be inclined to say something like I want to punch him in the throat (usually when watching CNN and some commentator is trying to justify some crazy thing 45 did recently).  Which I'd never actually do, even if I somehow had the opportunity.

Does she really think assaulting a stranger on a beach is going to somehow make them see the error of their ways and go forth never to sin again by wearing a swim suit on the beach?

I just don't understand how her thought process works at all.

[EowynW]

Sigh...

[Imrlgoddess]

Sooooo, this whole conviction business.... A few pages ago someone referenced Ken saying he doesn't eat sugar because his wife felt a conviction against it therefore there's no sugar in the house.  What if HIS will was to have sugar?  Would he have had to push the issue & do his "command man" performance to make her submit?  And wouldn't she be obligated to do so joyfully?  Even if she was told to buy Little Debbie cakes every Friday against her better judgment?  

I'm very confused about the convictions.  "Wear a shorter skirts because I like them, but I'll totally cave on sugar". 

I'm not buying it. 

[delphinium65]

3 hours ago, Koala said:

If she really believed what she wrote, she would never give any specifics, and always tell women just to wear what their husband wants them to wear.

Exactly!  But then she couldn't bitch about yoga pants and thong bikinis. 

18 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

A few pages someone referenced Ken saying he doesn't eat sugar because his wife felt a conviction against it therefore there's no sugar in the house.  What if HIS will was to have sugar?  Would he have had to push the issue & do his "command man" performance to make her submit?  And wouldn't she be obligated to do so joyfully?  Even if she was told to buy Little Debbie cakes every Friday against her better judgment?  

That has bothered me for some time. If Lori was all about the submission to her husband's will, then why does HER conviction about sugar rule HIS diet? If one partner has specific food items s/he avoids, for whatever (non-potentially fatal) reason, that shouldn't mean the other can never have it. Shared meals may require some negotiation, but if one wants sugary snack items then why should the other's restrictions stop him/her? My husband dislikes tomatoes, but he doesn't care if I eat them. He drinks coffee, I hate coffee, but I would never dream of telling him he can't have it. That's the way it should be IMO. 

Of course if there is a serious health issue, like a severe nut allergy, then a particular food may have to be banished from the home, and the non-consuming partner may have to be careful not to eat nuts just before going home so s/he doesn't provoke an anaphylactic reaction and possibly death with a kiss, but that's not 'conviction.'