Lori Alexander 33: Counting Everyone's Calories

[EowynW]

1 minute ago, Sarah92 said:

@dairyfreelife I think they do believe that non Christians are so awful that they would be okay with this, especially if they're feminists. Feminists are right up there with nazis for these people I think. 

Nooooooo

its the liberals, then  feminists and then the sodomites. 

Nazis are wayyyy down on the hate list. 

[Sarah92]

5 minutes ago, EowynW said:

Nooooooo

its the liberals, then  feminists and then the sodomites. 

Nazis are wayyyy down on the hate list. 

I stand corrected haha. You know I actually hope that I'm just being mean and that it isn't true that they would think that way. Probably say unsubmissive wives is the reason we had Hitler 

[dairyfreelife]

2 minutes ago, Sarah92 said:

I stand corrected haha. You know I actually hope that I'm just being mean and that it isn't true that they would think that way. Probably say unsubmissive wives is the reason we had Hitler 

Yeah, except Hitler only married right before killing himself. Eva Braun was his companion for years though. Perhaps if he had married her instead then Nazis would not have existed? Bear with me here, it's fundie logic, which means logic is not involved. 

[Frog99]

I swear she sets a bar every day to be more offensive and hateful than the previous day. Seriously. 

She and her followers have such a narrow view with no desire to grow or learn. From the looks of her posts and the comments, they want to attend churches that only preach submission, keepers at home, and the woman’s (nonexistent) role in the church. Quite honestly, that’s not enough for me. And guess what? The Holy Spirit does speak to us- never out of line with scripture, but He speaks. 

One of the commenters on the blog post expressed dismay at a woman who preached with male cameramen in the room. Seriously? If that isn’t legalism, I don’t know what is. 

And Lori, since it’s quite clear you read here, I would like to see you teach. Your constant regurgitations are not teaching. You claim that being a keeper at home is hard (I disagree)- so what does it look like? What would you say to a mom of 3 under age 5?  You claim submission doesn’t lead to abuse (it absolutely can). So what does it look like? You tell women to disregard their feelings and have sex with their husbands no matter what (I believe that is rape, and I’ll add that even after 18 years of marriage, 2 kids, and busy schedules, sex in our marriage has never been reduced to 10 minutes and lube). The fact is, you are incapable of abstract thinking and so all you can do is harp on the most basic concepts. 

[SuperNova]

@Frog99 Lori claimed that you can't blame abuse on submission because abuse happens in secular homes as well. While I do think that submission can lead to abuse, I feel it's far more likely that the submission model attracts abusers. It's not hard to imagine that the abusive behavior from a husband is likely more prevalent and would escalate quicker in a submissive home than a secular one. Not to mention that the wives have guilt and fear tactics heaped onto them from men and women alike. It's the perfect environment for abuse.

[delphinium65]

11 minutes ago, SuperNova said:

@Frog99 Lori claimed that you can't blame abuse on submission because abuse happens in secular homes as well. While I do think that submission can lead to abuse, I feel it's far more likely that the submission model attracts abusers. It's not hard to imagine that the abusive behavior from a husband is likely more prevalent and would escalate quicker in a submissive home than a secular one. Not to mention that the wives have guilt and fear tactics heaped onto them from men and women alike. It's the perfect environment for abuse.

Especially when you trap women, with no way out. The men know they can do whatever they like, and no one will stop them, so why should they change their behavior?  The abuser has nothing to lose. 

[Carol]

Did I hear Lori say in the middle of that, $100.00-worth-of-cooking-utensils-that-I-can-afford- but-I-don't-care-if you-can't-because-I-am-far-wealthier-and-more-important-than-you bread video, that her son-in-law, "is gluten intolerant and wheat isn't so good for him either"?

All wheat contains gluten, Lori.  I would encourage you to quit making a fool of yourself but I just don't think that's possible.

[Frog99]

@SuperNova and @delphinium65 good points. That is what I was trying to articulate but didn’t frame it properly. I guess I also don’t understand what it means to be under church or pastoral authority- is that a thing? 

Heres the gem from Flicka: This reminds me of countries that have Queens that rule rather than Kings. It gives women an example to follow in her own home. If women realized how detrimental it is to their own personality to teach and preach to men then she would be delighted to remain in her own God given sphere. Women in this age mainly suffer from wrong attitudes and fantasies about their lives. The lives of women should be where she can thrive and grow in a loving place. I read about a famous personality and how her mother allowed her to be a nude model at age 8. She had many bouts of suicidal depression in her life. When she had daughters she didn't allow them to do the things her mother did to and for her. She then followed a more traditional lifestyle with and for them. When a woman has a popular worldly life her intimate life suffers with her husband. She craves the audience, the microphone, the emotional highs she gets from her career and intimacy with her husband becomes null and void. She then divorces him and tries to find another man that can thrill her. No man can as much as her love of career. Men can handle both. God created them that way.  A woman is like a beautiful garden of flowers and scents. They have a tremendous gift in the world. She needs to laugh at tomorrow. She needs to feel protected. She needs to feel provided for. She is what men work and slave for. Let all be well with her soul.

 

umm- I have a career and intimacy with my husband is far from null and void. And it’s not true for the vast majority of the accomplished women I know. 

[smittykins]

36 straight minutes of Lori?  That's about 35:30 more than I can handle.

Kudos to anyone who can make it all the way through.

[SilverBeach]

What is that Flicka woman smoking? LMAO!!!

[lilith]

Lori would love nothing more than to be Joyce Meyer, “teaching” auditoriums full of people, publishing books and DVDs full of her wisdom, being recognised and acclaimed as a good Christian woman. If someone offered to sponsor a speaking tour in support of her book Lori would be there in an instant, and if people were willing to pay to see her speak she wouldn’t be refusing to admit men.

[fundamentallyfearless]

All I have to say about Lori’s post today:

FUCK YOU LORI. FUCK YOUR HATEFUL ATTITUDE TO HELL.

Also, GO KELLY. WHEREVER YOU ARE, YOU ROCK!

The end.

[kpmom]

1 hour ago, Frog99 said:

umm- I have a career and intimacy with my husband is far from null and void. And it’s not true for the vast majority of the accomplished women I know. 

O.k., sure, but can you laugh at tomorrow??

[fundamentallyfearless]

Since she hasn’t banned me on Instagram yet, I figured she deserved a little taunting today...

[quiversR4hunting]

4 hours ago, Curious said:

Oh you have read it   The majority of the book is just Lori's old blog posts and things she has said in comments.  I'd say there is maybe 5% that she hasn't said before.  The book itself is very repetitive (just like her blog(s)).

So....when will your review hit the presses?!?!

@Koala you could write Lori's book better than her. You have her subject matter down pat. 

[dairyfreelife]

Lori responded to Cara: 

OMG, she's an idiot. She has zero reading comprehension and really ought to just let Ken and her Pastor tell her about the Bible because she understands none of it. Here's what that passage says: 

KJV: Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

NIV: Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 

This is telling a slave/servant to be free IF they are able. It doesn't say you shouldn't have slaves. If it doesn't endorse slavery then why have passages telling you how to treat your slaves instead of saying do not own people? 

Lori loves to quote Titus 2: 3-5, so let's finish what she doesn't, shall we?

Titus 2: 9-10 in KJV: Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

NIV: Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. 

Other passages she won't talk about concerning slavery and that are in the New Testament because if it's in the Old she'll just bark that we are not under the law now. So, here it goes: 

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ 

1 Timothy 6:1-2 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.

Luke 12:47-48 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. 

If this was 200 years ago you know she'd be using that verse to tell people how slaves ought to act and they had to be slaves. They can't be free because through their "good" behavior as slaves, they can bring others to salvation and slaves are responsible for their masters souls. She'd use said verse over and over again to "prove it". 

I'd give her the verses in return, but she seems to have banned me ages ago when I responded to someone else on her page once. 

[delphinium65]

4 hours ago, Frog99 said:

@SuperNova and @delphinium65 good points. That is what I was trying to articulate but didn’t frame it properly. I guess I also don’t understand what it means to be under church or pastoral authority- is that a thing? 

 

I can't say what the 'under church' thing means for everyone else, but I can tell you what it meant back to me in my Kool-Aid days. It meant an extreme degree of respect for the pastor, and whatever other church 'authority' figures were in place.  If the pastor said you should do something, or not, it was pretty much taken as being spoken by God himself.  Among my immediate circle we were pretty lucky (for fundies) in that the pastor we had for many years didn't deliberately abuse his power, and he actually cared about us poor folks, but I did know others who were less fortunate, and had their church authorities breathing down their neck in just about every detail of their lives, and they could get away with it because Bible.   

In later years another pastor took over the church I used to attend, and told a woman whose husband was extremely emotionally, mentally, and spiritually abusive, and was in the early stages of physical abuse (shoved her a few times, actually hit her once and swore 'never to do it again') that she could live separately from him, but God would be 'grieved' if she so much as got a restraining order against her husband. Whatever respect I might have had for him went straight out the window, hit the ground, and shattered into a million tiny pieces.  

[EowynW]

Lori always conveniently ignores the verses where Paul gives instructions to the women who DO pray and prophesy in church. 

[fundamentallyfearless]

3 minutes ago, EowynW said:

Lori always conveniently ignores the verses where Paul gives instructions to the women who DO pray and prophesy in church. 

Lori conveniences herself as a form of masturbation.

Hear me out 

She receives deep pleasure from being in control and being right. Any time she can find any sort of Bible verse to twist into support for her “convinctions”, she gets a thrill. The more times she can quote an old dead guy to show how “right” she is, the closer she comes to euphoria. Something Ken has never given her 

And by saying “old dead guy”, I mean her precious commentaries she likes to use.

[Koala]

So far, she's turned on Beth Moore, Nancy Woglemuth, and Joyce Meyer (all women she used to support).  Then, of course, there's her unbridled disgust for Sarah Young.  She also parted ways with the blogger known as Peaceful Wife (too peaceful, I guess...definitely not Lori's style).

Who's next you might ask?

Elizabeth Elliot.

Lori:

Quote

A long time ago when I was attending a Christian college, she came and spoke at chapel where men and women were present which is something I would never do.

I guess that leaves Debbi Pearl as the only other woman Lori truly relates to. 

You guys know Debbi, right?  Her husband's book has been found in homes where some of the most horrific cases of abuse you've ever heard of take place.   And Lori?  Lori said they raised their kids in a similar manner as the Pearls, and seems completely devoted to both the couple and their "ministry".  
(For Lori's countless posts on the Pearls, type their names into the search bar of her Always Learning blog, and prepare to be disgusted).

Today?  Well, today Lori's turning on the Bible.  The NIV Bible to be specific. It seems it goes against her message.  That sounds about right, though.  We already know Lori deletes scripture.  Why not go after an entire Bible?

[SongRed7]

Sorry to say, I'm late to the Lori Alexander world of wackiness (I'm being kind)...i guess I was too wrapped up in JRod and gang.   Despite my best interests, I've gotten sucked down that rabbit hole. As a Christian myself, that  woman makes me furious.  Just reading her dreck makes me want to violently throw things and scream! 

What have I done????!!!!!

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Lori today is turning to the "greek meaning" to prove her erroneous point! I recall too on fb she has often been nasty with anyone who tries to explain things to her based on the greek meaning and here she is today relying on a greek meaning to prove her point. Does anyone have other shots? Those awful women who go to the greek to make it it say something else. 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

Lori has an ongoing problem with being clear who she is quoting. In today's entry, she gives clear credit to William Einwechter, but later she gets a bit fuzzy. (Her thinking, not her pitbull personality.)

Quote

God definitely intended for women to be keepers at home and it means exactly what He said. He doesn’t need to use a lot of words to help us to understand better. He’s perfectly clear. “Thus the roles assigned to the married woman by God confirms that ‘keepers at home’ refers to those who remain at home so that they might properly attend to their duties of caring for their family and managing its everyday affairs. When her duties are understood in all their scope and significance, it becomes clear that only by being ‘keepers at home’ can a wife and mother fulfill her high calling from God to be a helper to her husband, a mother to her children, and a manager of her household.”

First she's speaking about God and His will, but then she transitions back to quoting Mr. Einwechter, without making it clear that the "He" is God, not Mr. Einwechter. It's a minor annoyance, compared to all the times she has "vague-quoted", but it's still annoying. All she needed was a new paragraph. 

[Koala]

In one of the let's trash Nancy Leigh DeMoss comments, a reader says:

Quote

I noticed that her speaking on the radio was to a mixed crowd.

Ummm, you mean like Lori's blog is to a mixed crowd?  Have you read the comments from the various men who read her blog?  Have you seen her argue with/teach men in the comments when she disagreed with them?  Anyone remember Don?  Yeah...  

Just last week, she had an entire post dedicated to relaying the (very private) details of two of her male readers' sex lives.  The post discussed porn, sex, and masturbation.  

https://thetransformedwife.com/help-your-husband-be-chaste/

My lord, how do they not see it?

 

 

 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

A comment from the odious Jason Cooley on Lori's FB today regarding the NIV:  "

Quote

Yep it’s a trashy translation for a lot of reasons. The goddess worshipper Virginia was on the translation committee she wrote a book on the sacred feminine

Huh... wha ...? Virginia who?  Goddess worshipper?  WTH is he talking about?