Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori Alexander 78: Still Doodling to Go Viral


Recommended Posts

Botkinetti

I think she “teaches “ for persecution points. There is nothing she enjoys more than feeling like a martyr so I think she will open up her comments again so she can rage against the people who disagree with her. She also enjoys deleting comments and banning people. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • HoneyBunny

    42

  • Sarah92

    35

  • SongRed7

    29

  • louisa05

    29

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have been pretty sick for the last four months. I’ve had four surgeries for kidney stones and came home with a kidney stent three times. My second surgery landed me in the ICU with sepsis and ARDS. 

FROM TWITTER TODAY:  The Transformed Wife @godlywomanhood For women to say there were career women in biblical times is absurd! There were no factories, office buildings, schools, or ho

Too much introspection? What the fuck is that? If anything we don’t have enough of it in this country. It’s a skill I actively have to teach people 

Posted Images

Loveday
2 hours ago, Liza said:

@Loveday, I presume you mean her blog which I no longer follow ... too sickening.   Twitter is also closed down for comments, but some people quote tweet her and she DOES READ them and respond in a rage!  If she keeps shutting things down, then I imagine (not sure) that fewer people will follow?  That would be a good thing because I believe she is not only wrong,but dangerous to people who buy into what she is saying.    The problem with saying she is teaching, but there can be no debate (no disagreement), then she really does not know what teaching is.  I wonder why she even bothers since she is "preaching" to the converted, anyway.

 

Yes, I meant her blog, sorry for not making that clear. First Twitter, now her blog, next Instagram, probably. I think Facebook will be her last holdout. That's her widest audience, if I'm not mistaken; she'll close down comments there only when hell is on the verge of freezing over.

I've always felt that teaching involved some give and take--students ask questions, debate issues, learn from each other as well as the teacher, especially in more philosophical areas of study. A good teacher can often sit back and simply moderate her class, steer it in the direction she wants it to go but let her students discover the truths she wants them to know on their own more so than by her lecturing them. But Lori isn't a good teacher, as we all know. :my_dodgy:

  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy

In today's proof-text, Lori reminds Christian women that they are encouraged towards meekness and quietness of spirit.

She somehow forgets to mention that the Bible encourages all Christian towards meekness and quietness of spirit. She probably doesn't know. She would have to actually read the Bible in order to find evidence of this astonishingly egalitarian approach to spirituality.

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." -- Jesus (Matthew 5:5) quoting David (Psalm 37:11)

"Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent!" -- Paul, describing both himself (a male church leader) and Jesus (God and saviour) as meek (2 Corinthians 10:1)

"Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering" -- Paul, encouraging all believers (Colossians 3:12) A sentiment echoed by James (1:21 and 3:13) and Peter (1 Peter 3:15)

"Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul, Like a weaned child with his mother; Like a weaned child is my soul within me." -- David (a poet, king, and warlord) expressing the quietness of his spirit as he rests in God's arms (Psalm 131:2) which is Peter's direct reference for the source of Lori's proof-text.

Shockingly, Lori herself has very little to say on her prooftext, but instead quotes from some outdated commentaries on the subject. I was surprised that these 'men of old' are not too far off base. Aside from being openly sexist in their general approach, technically none of the characteristics they identify as 'meek' or 'quiet of spirit' are out of line for Christians (both men and women) to aspire towards. The second commentator even begins talking about 'believers' and using male pronouns about half way through his exploration of these virtues that Lori believes to be the definition of femininity.

Lori's own two-cents, in contrast to her quotations, are wrong. She thinks that having a meek and quiet spirit means "we aren’t led by our emotions" -- which is a very modern concept that has no connection whatsoever with this ancient text.

  • Upvote 8
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah92

Talking about Lori’s proof texting nature, it’s obvious she hasn’t done much studying or reflection. She uses the NKJV which theobros and gals don’t find to be an accurate translation. I’d be curious to know who taught her how to study the Bible. 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy
14 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

Talking about Lori’s proof texting nature, it’s obvious she hasn’t done much studying or reflection. She uses the NKJV which theobros and gals don’t find to be an accurate translation. I’d be curious to know who taught her how to study the Bible. 

Clearly no one has taught her to study the Bible... because she doesn't study the Bible! The KJV business doesn't help at all.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy

Today Lazy Lori attempts to justify her life of leisure and privilege as a Biblical mandate.

Now, I don't begrudge anyone a life of leisure if they can afford it, and if it's the kind of thing they like. For myself, I don't have big plans to re-launch a genuine career in my 50s once my kids have left the nest -- so it's not really the restful life that I find fault with. It's that Lori wants to forbid any woman who has other dreams from pursuing anything at all that matters to her. (And, who knows, I might not like the life I imagine liking. I might end up working full time and/or changing the world after all. I won't stand for Lori taking it off the table.)

What's interesting here is the insight into how she spends her days and in what ways she considers herself useful. Lori's life consists largely of managing her internet presence, bullying younger women who accept her teaching, shopping, cooking (mostly bread and salads), cleaning (but I bet she still has a house cleaner come in), laundry, and going on daily walks with Ken. Occasionally she babysits grandkids, gives family members a ride to the airport, or provides simple meals (bread, salad, turkey, apples).

Lori's not wrong that the unpaid labour of retired women, especially caregiving, can be the glue that keeps a family close. It can also be a significant factor in an extended family surviving a crisis -- but Lori doesn't even make a pretense at a Biblical argument that such niceties are a Biblical command. She just assumes that if something works for her rich and privileged backside, it must be what God demands for all families. She has no awareness that this life of ease and flexibility evaporates when actual income for making ends meet is what is truly needed: far more than the occasional ride to the airport and the luxury of having homemade bread instead of store-bought.

Also, Lori is a terrible example of a selfless woman in this role. She'd have made a better point if she held up a real example: for example, someone who cared full time for aging or dying parents when other care was unaffordable, or someone taking on a significant portion of grand-childcare so both adults in the family can work, or someone with several strong charity volunteer gigs. Lori thinks that her supposed 'availability' for theoretical work is the same thing as actually serving others.

  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
SongRed7

FROM TWITTER TODAY: 

The Transformed Wife

@godlywomanhood

For women to say there were career women in biblical times is absurd! There were no factories, office buildings, schools, or hospitals back then. If they made some money, it was all done from their homes.

 

Wait what about men?  there were no factories, office buildings, schools or hospitals back then -- as places for men to work either.  So I guess Ken's "orthodontic consulting" business is not Biblical either. or blogging, or being on social media all day.  She really doesn't think these things through. SMH

  • Upvote 20
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy
33 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

FROM TWITTER TODAY: 

The Transformed Wife

@godlywomanhood

For women to say there were career women in biblical times is absurd! There were no factories, office buildings, schools, or hospitals back then. If they made some money, it was all done from their homes.

 

Wait what about men?  there were no factories, office buildings, schools or hospitals back then -- as places for men to work either.  So I guess Ken's "orthodontic consulting" business is not Biblical either. or blogging, or being on social media all day.  She really doesn't think these things through. SMH

Which is why, by advising first century women of the wisdom of being "home-oriented" Paul was not indicating that they should not have careers or participate in breadwinning. On the contrary, contributing to the prosperity of the household would have been quite "home-oriented".

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer
35 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

FROM TWITTER TODAY: 

The Transformed Wife

@godlywomanhood

For women to say there were career women in biblical times is absurd! There were no factories, office buildings, schools, or hospitals back then. If they made some money, it was all done from their homes.

 

Wait what about men?  there were no factories, office buildings, schools or hospitals back then -- as places for men to work either.  So I guess Ken's "orthodontic consulting" business is not Biblical either. or blogging, or being on social media all day.  She really doesn't think these things through. SMH

She's such a moron. In biblical times women worked. Everyone worked, except the richest of the rich. There were probably a few women who led lives of leisure, with rich husbands, but those were few and far between. 

The economy was just so different then that it's incomprehensible to her. Everyone worked. Just like they still do, in various ways, in the majority of the world.

She seems to think that Joseph went into his carpentry job in town, while Mary sat at home and twiddled her thumbs before tossing some leaves in a bowl as a dinner salad like Lori does, while caring for baby Jesus. I'd be willing to bet that though Joseph was the carpenter, Mary was the one selling his wares. I'd bet she tied Jesus on her back and worked in the home, in the marketplace, whatever was needed to keep food on their table. 

Not to mention the fact that Lori doesn't take into account the amount of sheer work just living took at that time. Did her grandparents never tell her about when laundry was a multi-day job? Does she really think that farmers wives back in the day just sat around? 

Women have always worked. Sometimes for money, sometimes just for survival - but they have always, always, always worked. 

Lori doesn't get it because she's lazy and entitled. I'd pay to see her transported back to Biblical times and see how long she lasts. They didn't have orthodontists there. Ken and Lori would both have to find ways to survive.

  • Upvote 18
  • I Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lgirlrocks

Back during biblical times the wife worked whatever trade her husband did. She worked along side of him. Working twice as hard, she also managed the home. 

  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
SueEllenMishke

Before Ken sees it and I'm sure makes her delete, here is Lori openly agreeing with her followers that feminism is the fault of the "Jews" 

Spoiler

Screenshots:

 

 

 

Screenshot_20210416-132707_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132732_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132748_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132800_Facebook.jpg

  • Disgust 3
  • Sad 1
  • WTF 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
HoneyBunny
3 hours ago, SueEllenMishke said:

Before Ken sees it and I'm sure makes her delete, here is Lori openly agreeing with her followers that feminism is the fault of the "Jews" 

  Hide contents

Screenshots:

 

 

 

Screenshot_20210416-132707_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132732_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132748_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20210416-132800_Facebook.jpg

HO-LEE SHIT!  I’m so glad you got screen grabs. 
 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy

Here's news! Lori thinks 'you' have been lied to. Here's what she would like you to believe instead. (Not that she wrote it herself. It's a social media repost.)

- The future is not female. (How would that be possible?) Men don't oppress people. (What, never?) Patriarchy is a good thing. (For who?) Marriage is full of freedom. (That at least could be true, on a case by case basis.)

- Abuse does not involve submission. (Other than submission being both the goal and the method of most abusive relationships?) Parents don't usually 'lay down their lives' for their kids. (At least metaphorically, good parenting usually involves some of that.) Abortion is defined as a non-healthcare service. (What is it then?) Freedom is defined as something other than having free will and free choices. (Ha!) There is no such thing as casual sex. (Then what problem do Christians have with it, if it doesn't exist?) Gender is rigid. (Rigid is a strange characteristic for any sociological phenomenon.)

- Traditional values are modern and current. (Then who is it that disagrees with them?) "Progressivism is not progress" (What does that even mean?) Firm gender roles uphold strong mental health. (Not based on what I've observed.) It's appropriately ambitious to have no life goals beyond the spheres of spouse-hood and parenting. (That's going to get boring pretty fast over the decades.)

- Hollywood is hurting viewers. (Then don't watch it?) "Modesty is not cringe." (Well, some is, and some isn't) "Being self-absorbed is not cute" (Hey! It's our first actual truth! Who is it that supposedly teaches this lie?) Truth is monolithic. (What, it has no perspectives, no different ways of looking at things? Ever?)

Lori's remedy? King James Version proof texts of course! Let's pretend that when John the Apostle speaks about knowing 'truth' as knowing Christ himself, that what he *really* meant was to provide was a few 'truths' to correct minor misunderstandings of modern life on Instagram. That's respectful to the Word of God, right? "Ye" know it!

  • Upvote 4
  • Rufus Bless 1
  • Thank You 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
brittbratkittykat
On 4/16/2021 at 4:47 PM, HoneyBunny said:

HO-LEE SHIT!  I’m so glad you got screen grabs. 
 

 

Lori antisemitic? I’m shocked. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
louisa05

And today, she’s back on sex being an exchange. Women are only supposed give it for rings, commitment, security... Otherwise, men are getting it “cheap”.  

For once she doesn’t mention financial support in return for sex.  How does Mrs Moral High Horse not understand that her notion of women exchanging sex for something in return is not a healthy, happy relationship; it’s just a version of prostitution.  

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Botkinetti

This is why Lori harps on and on about women staying at home.
If a wife makes more money than her husband or has financial options available to her because she works it shatters her premise that women only have sex in exchange for financial security.

Because it has not been her experience that women can joyfully consent to sex because of love or lust she literally cannot understand that other women have lives that are happy even though they don’t live like her. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
FluffySnowball
16 hours ago, louisa05 said:

And today, she’s back on sex being an exchange. Women are only supposed give it for rings, commitment, security... Otherwise, men are getting it “cheap”.  

For once she doesn’t mention financial support in return for sex.  How does Mrs Moral High Horse not understand that her notion of women exchanging sex for something in return is not a healthy, happy relationship; it’s just a version of prostitution.  

Her idea that sex isn’t (and shouldn’t be?) for a woman’s enjoyment is deeply disturbing. 

1 hour ago, Botkinetti said:

Because it has not been her experience that women can joyfully consent to sex because of love or lust she literally cannot understand that other women have lives that are happy even though they don’t live like her. 

And even aside from not understanding it, I reckon Lori doesn’t want other women to be happy (neither women who life like her nor all others). She’s miserable so all others ought to be the same in her mind. 

  • Upvote 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
SongRed7

OK...this sounds really, really petty...but how many vacations does Alyssa take a year?  Now I don't begrudge anyone anything they can afford (or not afford). People's choices are their own.  And I know Alyssa is not her mother. But isn't Lori always railing about how women who want to travel and be away from home is anti-biblical?  Doesn't "keeper at home" mean keeper at home AT ALL TIMES,,,, Many times in her blogs and posts Lori has shamed women who "like to run around outside the home, going out for coffee, having "girls days", vacations, etc."  But she seems fully in support of Alyssa and in fact is babysitting the baby while they are off skiing. (There was a small snippet of Lori and the baby in Alyssa's IG stories)

Again, good for them if they want to get away as a couple...but the whole thing is just hypocritical.   The rest of us are just supposed to be tied to our homes but the Alexander's once again are special.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
FluffySnowball
2 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

Again, good for them if they want to get away as a couple...but the whole thing is just hypocritical.   The rest of us are just supposed to be tied to our homes but the Alexander's once again are special.

I believe that’s what Lori is all about. She’s special because she - unlike anyone else - knows what God wants, she’s special cause she teaches women (crap), she’s special because she’s white, she’s special because she went VIRAAAAL... she’s just so so special. 🤢 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pammy

Today on "Lori Likes Long Quotes" Mr. John MacArthur preaches a 25 year old sermon containing absolutely no scripture and precisely zero biblical information. Lori likes it because he insults women, and Lori hates women: especially ambitious women.

Mr. MacArthur doesn't like "90's women". He doesn't have a reason not to. They just aren't to his personal taste. All that career work, self-efficacy, and equality -- so demanding!

Mr. MacArthur's mommy is the only type of woman he has any respect for. She makes other people comfortable with all of her free and cheerful labour, and that's what matters folks. And it's good for her too! After all, "A woman’s only opportunity to fulfill God’s plan for her role as wife and mother is in the home."

Lori's finale is her standard proof text about what Paul hopes will be a good way to provide for young widows in the Christian communities of the first century Roman Empire. Lori knows it's about young widowhood in the ancient world. She just has no conception that those circumstances might be the exact target of Paul's advice. Lori thinks Paul wants the same thing for all young women, even the young women of the 90's. (I think that ship has sailed.)

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
SongRed7

I can't even today with her Twitter commenting on verdict Chauvin trial.  Um, Lori...how about this:  Evidence??

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
louisa05
1 hour ago, SongRed7 said:

I can't even today with her Twitter commenting on verdict Chauvin trial.  Um, Lori...how about this:  Evidence??

 

I’m blocked. What did she post?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Xan
30 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I’m blocked. What did she post?

She posted this rubbish:

Spoiler

855708669_Screenshot(4299).png.b634f2041de06a4da3026c2538bbfe08.png

She's already moved on and is still posting about how awful feminists are and how women need to stay home.  I noticed that she doesn't have comments and it says that "People that @godlywomanhood mentioned can reply".  I don't belong to Twitter so I wasn't aware that you could block comments.  WTH?

  • Upvote 3
  • WTF 1
  • Thank You 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer

Ugh she's such a moron, and seems determined to prove it more each day.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah92

The decision wasn’t based on mob mentality. The jurors were told to strictly stay away from news and social media. Work has been something else so I haven’t followed along as closely towards the end but I was reading live updates of the trial for a while and I felt like the evidence even early one showed that he was murdered. I don’t know why people have such a hard time thinking cops can murder people? Why this intense defense of police officers? 
 

Also to the point Lori mentioned about gender roles being good for mental health..... it’s fucking not. Being in the mental health field, I’ve seen the harmful effects of society forcing gender norms on people. It’s rarely ever been helpful. 
 

As to MacArthur’s “sermon” funny how he only values women who make him comfortable. Who would have thought that a male so invested in the patriarchy wouldn’t like women who challenged his role. If that doesn’t show people it’s about power rather than actually caring for women idk what will. 

  • Upvote 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.