Best Books of the Month Shop Costumes Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Joe Bonamassa All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Amazon Gift Card Offer gdwf gdwf gdwf  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now Halloween

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

112 of 133 people found the following review helpful
on December 5, 2006
We don't need to agree with this book entirely to find it worth reading. Do NOT hesitate to buy it just because other reviewers found the book disagreeable. That may be precisely the reason why we should read it -- use it as a springboard for intelligent discussion! I found that many parts of the book were eye-opening and revelational, even if I personally remain undecided about some of DeMoss's opinions.

Many intelligent women may find themselves offended by DeMoss's conservative viewpoints, especially with regard to her stance against the use of birth control. As a single, professional woman, I, too, was at first taken aback by her statement that the highest calling for women was to be a wife and mother. ***However, DeMoss herself is a single woman and has no children of her own.*** If you read carefully, she later clarifies that it is the highest calling IF it is God's calling for your particular life, obviously. The apostle Paul said that his own personal view was that it was better to be single in order to be fully devoted to God.

Lies Women Believe helps uncover how everyone, including men, are subtly deceived by today's modern society. She inspects today's popular beliefs held by most American women and clearly shows how it deviates from the simple, undeniable truth as written in God's Word. A must-read! Great for small groups.
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
162 of 200 people found the following review helpful
on April 29, 2011
Let me begin by saying that there are some good points in this book, but it is so filled with misunderstanding of scripture, legalism, and false teaching that I cannot recommend it. First of all, the author has little or no qualifications to write this book with any authority: she is not a Bible scholar and even more ironic, she is not married and has zero experience on the subject.

Some lies that she promotes in the book:

--Women are inferior and more likely to sin than men. If you are a woman, don't work because you might hear some bad language or get tempted to cheat. Never mind that you husband probably faces this everyday.

--Women should submit to their husbands to the point of being a doormat, even if they are being abused. Outrageous! She needs to study the Greek and Hebrew words and she would find out that we are called to "mutually submit to one another" which she conveniently leaves out, as well as wives submit to your husbands. The meaning of submit used there is NOT the same as used for submitting to God. It is about mutual respect and accountability. A husband and wife are equal and in a partnership. If one person is allowing the other to act disrespectfully or wrongly--you are not being the helpmate you are supposed to be. I have seen numerous examples of women who believed this lie of being a doormat with tragic results for both husband and wife. It is not godly in any way, but women have been brainwashed for centuries and sadly, it still continues.

--That women should not use birth control and have as many babies as their body will pump out, regardless of the woman's health, ability to care for the children, or God's calling on her life. This teaching is so egregious I find myself in disbelief. She claims that being responsible about having children is evil and from the devil. I am not kidding. No where does she give scripture to back up any of her ridiculous claims because there aren't any. God never tells women to have so many children that they are neglected and unhealthy. She uses Mary Pride as an example, someone I am familiar with as a homeschooling parent. The truth about Mary Pride and her brood that she chose to have is this: in her own newsletter (years ago), she wrote how she and her family had to go to the doctor because they were all feeling poorly. Guess why? Malnourishment because she and her husband were too busy to do more than throw hotdogs at their kids for every meal. I'm sorry, but that is not being responsible nor is it an example I wish to emulate. I know families that are large and they do just fine--they love it and can handle it, but it's their choice. They are not doing it out of misguided legalism or guilt.

There is lots more, but you get the idea. Obviously the author, DeMoss, needs to start getting set free from the lies she believes, instead of pushing them on others. If she had been around in the early 1900's, no doubt she would have declared that women should NOT get the right to vote since their place is pregnant and in the kitchen. Her ideal family is based on something like the Cleavers on Leave it to Beaver and femininity on Victorian notions of women. But God's truth is applicable in every society and culture. Can you imagine taking this book to Sudan or Guinea, Africa and telling the women there that they need to make themselves more beautiful for their husbands or they will cheat on them or that they need to stop working in the fields and go home, put on their dress with a petticoat and be ready with her husband's slippers when he gets home. See how ridiculous it sounds! No, here is the truth. Everyone needs to find out what it is God wants them to do or calls them to do. We are all different. My husband and I have spent years studying the word and praying for God's will in our life, yet oddly enough, he has never directed us to do any of the agendas that she is pushing. However, when she talks about trusting God and some struggles that are based on scripture, she makes good points.

I am doing this in a study with other women or I would never have picked this book up. But there is honest discussion about the issues presented in the book and no one just accepts what she writes as gospel-that is essential! If you are easily made to feel guilty or have low self-esteem, RUN from this book.

Overall, I just cannot recommend it.

UPDATE: I have recently heard that the author, DeMoss, is connected to Bill Gothard and the Quiverfull movement. This would explain a lot of the false and legalistic teaching. I understand that Bill Gothard has been dismissed because of "improper behavior" towards young women. As Paul strongly urges in his writings--Test everything! Don't just believe what you read or hear about biblical teachings and God's will for you.
2323 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful
"The great illusion of leadership is to think people can be led out of the desert by someone who has never been there" - Henri Nouwen

In a nutshell that is what's wrong with this book; Nancy Leigh DeMoss, bless her heart, has never been married but writes about the husband/wife relationship with such absolute authority as though she knows. She does not. It is one thing to carefully read about, write about, explain in detail how to ride a horse; it's another thing altogether to get up on that horse and ride.

When DeMoss writes of wifely submission, she knows not of what she speaks. It is a simple thing to write about submission, to explain in detail what submission should look like; it is another thing entirely to actually in real life submit yourself to another sinful person. DeMoss is in Camelot, in La-La land writing about something for which she has no experience. Because at the end of the day DeMoss returns to her alone time never to deal with the actual fleshing out submission to a spouse.

The "Truths" she lists are not Biblical truths; they are DeMoss's preference. For example,

"In the will of God, there is no higher, holier calling than to be a wife and mother." False. God's highest calling for our life is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." DeMoss mixes up her desires, tastes and preferences for Biblical truth. And then in the very next chapter, DeMoss contradicts that "highest calling;"

"This woman was deceived. She believed she had to have a husband to be happy..."

The "Dear Diary" section at the beginning of every chapter is cringe-worthy; speaking for Eve, DeMoss speaks silliness putting foolish words into Eve's mouth.

Basically, by the end of the book, the dear reader is left to feel like a lout if there remain in her any sin because, well, because no matter the temptations that came DeMoss's way; she always overcame. Always. So, okay, here and there DeMoss has some good things to say, but very unfortunately they get lost in the forest of her perfect self in her perfect world. There are some good nuggets in this book, some really good truths to take away but it's all delivered from a pedestal, speaking down to the masses.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
259 of 338 people found the following review helpful
on May 23, 2005
This book outlined the lies that many women get caught up in. I felt that there were some good things about this book. We do need to take responsibility for our actions, not remain a victim, and to realize that sin is sin and that God can forgive it all. Surprisingly, the submission chapter was done well, explaining the myths of submission and how a woman in an abusive situation should get out.

But there were many things I didn't like in this book. First, the author took a patronizing, critical, judging tone towards women. She seemed to like to blame women for a lot of problems, without recognizing the role that men often play in those problems.

I was deeply offended about what she had to say about how "a career is more fulfilling than being a wife and mother". I do agree with that statement. But she uses that statement to imply that the only place for the woman is in the home. She blames working women ("in part") for affairs, women being on welfare (I thought working took women OFF welfare), elderly parent being in nursing homes, divorce, single motherhood, teen violence, etc. She doesn't acknowledge other factors going into those things. I mean, men and women have had affairs since the beginning of time. Elderly parents are in nursing homes because they require 24/7 care, not because of the women working (don't sons or SAHM's put their parents in nursing homes?) I work outside the homes, yet, I do have meals with my family and they aren't all fast food or frozen. As far as women gaining financial independence to free them to leave their husbands...I don't know of many women who work for that purpose. But isn't it OK for each woman to have her own money in cases of abuse, addiction, or when the man leaves them for someone else? What if the husband loses his job, becomes disabled, dies, etc? And the Proverbs 31 woman did a little of everything, including working out of the home.

And yes, children are a blessing, but Demoss seems to think it is wrong to limit the number of children a woman has. She comes from a family of 7 kids, and that's great that her mom enjoyed raising 7 kids, but that is not for everyone. The reasons that Demoss gives--not having patience, not being able to physically handle more kids--are perfectly legitimate reasons, that she appeared to mock. Other than the issue of abortion, the Bible doesn't say that limiting the number of children is a sin, just like it is not a sin for women to work outside the home.

And on emotions, she seems to act like it is a sin to call for pizza when you don't feel like cooking (guess I sinned tonight, after my stressful day at work) or not cleaning house when you don't feel like it. And about passive husbands...what if the husband is an alcoholic and can't hold or look for a job? What is the wife to do? Let her and her children starve?

Although there were some good points to the book, I had a problem with many of the issues presented. If anyone were to go through the book, please go through it with a group to work out the trouble spots.
5050 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
69 of 89 people found the following review helpful
on January 21, 2012
Let me say first that I'm a wife (married 15 months) and a Christian woman. I was given this book by a relative as a wedding gift, and because I respect her views, I went ahead and read through the book. I don't like to be negative, but this book is so dangerous to women that I felt compelled to show potential readers what you're getting into.

Perhaps her most horrific claim had to do with the situation of spousal abuse (a term which she limits to physical abuse; emotional abuse is apparently irrelevant):

"There are extreme situations where an obedient wife may need to remove herself and/or her children from proximity to her husband, if to remain in that setting would be to place themselves in physical danger. However, even in such a case, a woman can -- and must -- maintain an attitude of reverence for her husband's position; her goal is not to belittle or resist him as her husband but, ultimately, to see God restore him to obedience. If she provokes or worsens the situation through her attitudes, words, or behavior, she will interfere with what God wants to do in her husband's life and will not be free to claim God's protection and intervention on her behalf." (p.149)

DeMoss is saying that abused women should stay with their husbands in all but the most extreme cases, avoiding "belittling" the man who is actively harming her. Moreover, if she has any kind of negative attitude about the fact that she's being abused, then she "will not be free to claim God's protection." This dangerous doctrine means that not only should women continue to live in harmful situations, but they are encouraged to blame themselves for "provoking" that abuse.

DeMoss's un-Biblical views extend to her false vision for women's lives, which conflicts with that of Bible heroes like Deborah, Priscilla, and Miriam:

* "The modern-day feminist movement was birthed and has been sustained by persuading women to march and clamor for "rights" [...] However, I am convinced that the claiming of rights has produced much, if not most, of the unhappiness women experience today." (p.74)

* "The Scripture is clear that a married woman's life and ministry are to be centered in her home. This is not to suggest that it is necessarily wrong for a wife and mother to have a job outside her home -- unless that job in any way competes with or diminishes her effectiveness in fulfilling her primary calling at home. [...] The Truth is that God gave to the man the primary responsibility to be the "breadwinner" for his wife and children." (p.127)

* "In the apostle Paul's first epistle to Timothy, we are reminded that childbearing is a basic, God-given role for women. [...] A woman's willingness to embrace, rather than shun, her God-given role and calling ("childbearing") is a necessary fruit that will accompany genuine salvation -- it is proof that she belongs to Him and follows His ways." (p.171)

In other words, women don't need and shouldn't pursue legal protections. They should stay at home, having as many babies as possible, and anything otherwise means that they're not "genuinely saved." (Note that I fully support women who choose that path for their own lives -- what I contest is the idea that the Bible mandates this as the only appropriate destiny for women.)

Ultimately, though, the foundation for DeMoss's toxic views is a vast over-generalization of the source of women's unhappiness. DeMoss begins the book by describing the Christian women she knows: "burned-out, overwhelmed, defeated, depressed, ashamed, emotionally unstable, angry, frustrated, discouraged, lonely, fearful, ... and, yes, even suicidal." (p.16) I agree with this assessment, and I long for the good news of God's love to bring hope to their lives. But the solution is not telling a depressed, lonely, and suicidal woman that "we do not hate ourselves, nor do we need to learn to love ourselves. We need to learn how to deny ourselves, so we can do that which does not come naturally -- to truly love God and others." (p.70)

Some women certainly could use to hear the message of self-denial, but many of us have been pressured all our lives to deny ourselves and love God, to the point where we begin to forget the reciprocal message: God loves us in return. If DeMoss could view her readers through Jesus' eyes, I suspect that she would realize that lecturing them to be better child-bearing automatons will not ease the emptiness and loneliness in their hearts. I only pray that this book will not irreparably harm too many women who read it in search for a "truth" it does not contain.
1010 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
78 of 101 people found the following review helpful
on May 25, 2009
If you're thinking of giving this book to a sister in Christ, or if you're looking to hand it out to the members in your women's bible study group, then don't. Nancy Leigh DeMoss, as popular as she may be, is no less deceived than her target audience. I should note that when I studied Lies Women Believe, I focused almost exclusively on studying DeMoss's responses to lies WOMEN believe, not the lies everyone believes. It's important to point out that the majority of this book's content focuses not on women, but on Christians in general. Maybe DeMoss got everything else in this book right, but I just want people to know that when I say DeMoss is deceived, I mean specifically in how she addresses women.

First, let me show you some of the lies that Nancy says women in particular believe on pages 7-8:

"13. I can sin and get away with it.
14. My sin isn't really that bad.
15. God can't forgive what I have done.
16. I am not fully responsible for my actions and reactions.
17. I cannot walk in consistent victory over sin."

As a growing Christian theologian and apologst, I can easily say that DeMoss is living in a dream world if she thinks men don't buy into these lies just as much as women do. If she doesn't think so, she shouldn't have addressed these lies in a book addressed to women in particular. I suspect that this is a marketing tactic to reach the audience of those who wouldn't ordinarily buy a theological book written by a woman. Now let me list the women-specific lies in this book.

"Physical beauty matters more than inner beauty."
"A career outside the home is more valuable and fulfilling than being a wife and mother."
"I have to have a husband to be happy."
"My Husband is supposed to serve me."
"If I submit to my husband, I'll be miserable."
"If my husband is passive, I've got to take the initiative, or nothing will get done."
"I can't control my emotions."
"I can't help how I respond when my hormones are out of whack. (It's understandable to act like a shrew at certain times.)"

To be fair, there's a few times that DeMoss does a good job in refuting certain misconceptions. She wrote a particularly good response to the idea that physical beauty trumps inner beauty. Nevertheless, most of DeMoss's arguments left me absolutely dumbfounded. I would never recommend this book to anyone, and here's more of my reasons why.

First, I'll address her words regarding, "A career outside the home is more valuable and fulfilling than being a wife and mother." This particular section contains many gross errors which I think deserve to be addressed in detail, but for this review I will only address the four biggest errors.

DeMoss makes a rather vague reference to some feminist uprising in the fifties or the sixties. She states that as a result of their work, "Concepts such as virtue, chastity, discretion, domesticity, submission, and modesty were largely eliminated from our vocabulary, and replaced with choice, divorce, infidelity, and unisex lifestyles."--page 124. Frankly, I was appalled at this ridiculous dichotomy not only from a mental perspective, but from the caricature that it paints of feminists and egalitarians. It's like saying you couldn't be virtuous, chaste or discreet if you make your own choices! This is clearly one of those cases where someone just likes to blame feminists for every problem known to womankind.

There's also a list of things DeMoss has listed as "...unintended consequences of this newfound freedom" This list is painted as though it's some tragic outcome of feminism, and I'm sorry, but that's a LIE. Let me list some of them.

Pages 125-126

"families that seldom sit down and have a meal together;
children subsisting on frozen dinners and fast food eaten on the run;
emotional and physical affairs being fanned by married women spending more quality time with men at work than they do with their own husbands;
women being exposed day after day to coarse language and behavior and sexual innuendos in the workplace;
women who don't have the time or energy to cultivate a close relationship with their children and who end up permanently estranged from their grown children;
children spending countless hours being entertained by videos, TV, electronic games, and computers;
inadequately supervised children becoming exposed to and lured into pornography, alcohol, drugs, sex, and violence;
elderly parents having to be placed in institutions because their daughters and daughters-in-law are working full-time and can't manage their care."

This is such an obvious one-sided blame game that it's almost funny. Not only were these problems just as prevalent in times past when women's freedoms were denied, but anyone could use these arguments to build a case against MEN's freedoms. Insert masculine pronouns into these 'consequences', and you'll quickly realize how invalid these arguments are.

DeMoss goes on to say that women have a primary role and calling which, if not embraced, will lead to a lack of "...true liberation.4"--page 126. She cites Genesis 2:18 and argues that since Eve was created primarily to help Adam, that defines the main role of all womankind. The problem with that is that Adam was also created to rule the earth. If Eve defines women's primary role, then are we to believe that we as men should rule the earth? Obviously not. Adam and Eve's original purpose cannot be used to define our primary roles today. Even if we were to accept DeMoss's interpretation for the sake of argument, Eve was created primarily to HELP, not to make Adam the sun around which the planet Eve revolved. She later tried to argue that God gave man the primary role of the breadwinner for his family. Unsurprisingly, DeMoss offers no support from Genesis for this.

On page 127 it says, "There is no greater measure of her worth or success as a woman than the extent to which she serves as the heart of her home." I'd like to remind DeMoss that Paul said being single is actually better than being married since you'll be more concerned for matters pertaining to God. If the Bible ever taught what DeMoss teaches, then 1 Corinthians 7 makes no sense.

That covers the first lie in the list. The next lie I'd like to respond to in deeper detail is "I have to have a Husband to be happy."

You would think that such a topic would be easy to address. Obviously, if you're a Christian you know that the only person you "need" to be happy is God, but DeMoss couldn't stop there. She had to go on and build her case on errant statements like, "...the ultimate purpose of marriage is not to make us happy, but to glorify God... The Truth is that happiness is not found in (or out of) marriage; it is not found in any human relationship."--page 137. Um... No, DeMoss, that's just plain wrong. Everything is meant to glorify God, including eating, sleeping, and even going to the bathroom. It's a mistake therefore to say that eating, sleeping, etc. isn't also ultimately to nourish our bodies, and it's likewise a mistake to say that the ultimate purpose to marrying isn't also to be happy. DeMoss also cites an example of someone who married an unbeliever who didn't become happy as some proof of her position, as if a marriage between a true believer and an unbeliever is some valid proof of the faultiness of her opposition. It's not as if her position on this lie is wrong or unbiblical, but she does such an awful job defending her position that it drives me crazy.

In the section, "My Husband is supposed to serve me," DeMoss basically writes a rebuke against wives would seek to make servants of their husbands. At first blush I didn't know why she would think there's any danger of wives reversing the patriarchal chain of authority. Then as I read the entry in its entirety it became clear that DeMoss is rebuking women who, due to the modern resurgence of equality between the spouses, think they have rights or deserve help from their husbands. I can't help but conclude at this point that DeMoss really believes the push for equality between the genders was a bad thing.

"If I submit to my husband, I'll be miserable."

This particular lie is obviously one that needs to be addressed in individual marriage contexts. Obviously the idea that your submission will bring misery 'can' be a lie, but it doesn't need to be, and even DeMoss would agree that there are cases where submitting to a husband would be wrong. Still, that doesn't stop her from saying that sin is generally what prompts people to make this kind of statement.

DeMoss divides her various responses to this lie into subsections addressing the reasons why people may think misery would follow submission, the cases in point being 1. The wife is inferior to her husband, 2. As head of his wife, the husband is permitted to be harsh or dictatorial with his wife, 3. The wife is not to provide input or express her opinions to her husband, and 4. The husband is always right -- Page 147. Obviously I would have no disagreement that these last three statements are lies, however, I would actually agree with the first statement. It's clear, assuming the patriarchal/complimentarian position, that the wife is inferior to her husband in at least one significant manner: that being the ability to make ultimate decisions in the home. DeMoss makes no attempt in this section to refute this lie other than to point out that husbands and wives are equal in Christ, and as I told a very good complementation friend of mine, if you're going to say that the husband is the ultimate decision maker in the family, then he is in fact superior, despite their common dependence on God's grace.

"If my husband is passive, I've got to take the initiative, or nothing will get done."

This has to be the most error-ridden section in this entire book. Like the section I just previously addressed, this "lie" isn't necessarily a lie. Any single Mom who has been abandoned by her husband knows that if she doesn't take initiative to get things done, she can lose her common comforts like food and electricity, her kids, her car, her house, her dignity, etc. And yet, DeMoss doesn't even seem to know these basic facts of reality and rebukes women who believe this "lie" and as a result correct their husbands or do their jobs EVEN IF IT MEANS MAKING SURE THE CHILDREN GET FED. It makes even less sense since later on in the book she praises the Proverbs 31 woman who, get this, makes sure her children have enough to eat. This is why I and so many others think DeMoss lacks empathy, and suffers from ignorance stemming from her singleness, because a married woman just wouldn't say such a thing without being totally disconnected from reality.

There's no great difference between the last two lies Nancy discusses, namely, "I can't control my emotions," and, "I can't help how I respond when my hormones are out of whack. (It's understandable to act like a shrew at certain times.)" Her simplistic responses to both of these lies may be correct at their base (I.E. being a woman and having hormones doesn't justify sinful behavior), but they are empty of any real empathy. Certainly she tries to show empathy by citing her own failures in a situation involving an intense speaking schedule, but DeMoss still functionally denies that hormone-driven behavior is ameliorated due to the inability of control on the part of the women enduring such problems. Not only that, but to pretend as if an intense speaking schedule is somehow on the level of having children, losing your husband, etc. is insulting to say the least, and yet just another mark of her ignorance in these areas.

I can only think that this book is so popular because for whatever reasons there may be, people are simply not willing to criticize what DeMoss has to say, and for that reason I've written this review. I care about women too, especially given that my sex is responsible for hurting women on a daily basis (especially through deception), and DeMoss is a much greater hindrance than a help. To those who are staunch defenders of DeMoss's materials, go ahead and check out my quotes to see if they're accurate. Please, don't recommend this book to others. DeMoss may be a popular author, but it's not because she's an authority on the truth. If she ever was free from the bondage of lies, I can assure you, she is not free now. Please seek answers elsewhere.
1313 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
68 of 88 people found the following review helpful
on January 19, 2005
There were several powerful and liberating points in this book that all sisters in Christ need to hear. For example, that there is always enough time in a day to do the things God wants you to do. That makes sense, and it challenges us to seek God a little harder for our daily to-do's, especially when feeling frazzled. For the four or so new powerful truths I gleaned from this book, I also encountered the same number of dangerously enslaving thoughts. For example, the concept that family planning is the mother of abortion. This idea was backed up by quoting the psalmist, King David (you know - "the blessed man has a quiver full of kids" king). Think it through: King David not only had servants to help with his children, but he also had multiple wives. I doubt seriously that any one of his wives bore him a quiver full all by herself. There's serious imbalance to DeMoss's argument. Preventative birth control and advance family planning is not a sin the same as abortion is sin (murder). In final analysis I would remind prospective readers that "there is safety in a multitude of counselors" (Pr 24:6). DeMoss's book is very valuable FOR GLEANING. Just don't go at it willing to swallow every idea hook, line and sinker.
1212 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
32 of 40 people found the following review helpful
on August 13, 2011
It's sad that we live in a culture where some author's book holds as much or more authority than the Bible. Many would argue that my first statement isn't true or valid. They would suggest that books like these are only a supplement. I'm not suggesting that there are not wonderful and scripturally grounded books out there, although I definitely don't believe this one is. What I am suggesting is that far too many Christian women know far too much about the opinion's of novices like Demoss and far too little about the examples illustrated by women in the Bible. If you asked the average Christian woman to name at least 10 women of the Bible and explain how their contributions have impacted the lives of Christian women today, many couldn't. Yet, many could gladly ramble on about the teachings of novices like Demoss or similar authors.

My prayer is that Christian women would put aside books like this. Pick up the Bible and learn of and from the women in it: Pilot's wife, Zipporah, Esther, Priscilla, Huldah, Deborah, etc. For example, Demoss' ideas about a wife's duty to submit are in contradiction to the lessons that can be learned from Abigail and Sapphira. Abigail was no doormat. She refused to submit to her husband's foolish. Although she was not able to help her husband, her brave and wise actions saved the lives of others in her house. Sapphira submitted to a lying husband and followed him to the grave.

Christian wives should take their cues from wives in the Bible, instead of taking them from a novice like Demoss who has never been married, birthed kids, or had her name highlighted in the Bible. Sisters, God has already given us all we need to live Godly and victorious lives. If only we would really begin to study the Bible, we would realize how scripturally deficient and misguided books like these really are.
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
66 of 86 people found the following review helpful
on September 20, 2008
This book, as the previous reviewer stated, is very critical of women and very patronizing. She blames women for the fall of sin, which according to bible is correct, but continues to blame women for the world's sinful behavior and influencing men to sin. I don't think men need any help there IMO. There is a section in which Eve keeps a journal and is so guilty of her sin she develops an eating disorder. She repeats this eating disorder theme throughout her book as if this is all women think about.

She states that women must not be unkempt and stay attractive for their husbands or their eyes will surely wander. I'm sorry, but after a day of housecleaning, dealing with four kids and picking up dog poop, the last thing I'm thinking about is how "unkempt" I look. I'm really not worried about my husband's eye wandering after 12 years of's sad that the author has no trust in her husband. She also says that it is a myth that you will be unhappy if you "submit" to your husband. Hey, helping out is fine, but I think marriage is a partnership. The woman who stated she is happy picking up her husband's socks and "keeping the children away" from him is delusional and sounds like a stepford wife. They say the husband should treat his wife like the church. I've never seen dirty socks laying around MY church.

And yes, the idea that women should have no say on how many children they have is insanity. I have four and do not want anymore. I love to pieces, but not everyone has the skills to successfully raise 10 or more children without ending up in a skilled nursing facility. God gives everyone their own talents and child rearing is not everyone's.

It seems the author also suggests that children should be raised outside of the "world" and in a greenhouse. She herself never had a barbie doll because it was too shapely and sexual and didn't hear a swear word until out of high school. I'm sorry, but I don't want to keep my children in a bubble. If you are going to spread the good news, you have to be involved with the rest of the world. Otherwise, you might as well go live on a compound somewhere in Waco, TX. In addition, ignorant children end up as victims IMO. My kids are fully aware of what goes on in the world and how not to end up on a milk carton.

She also is against women working outside the home if it interferes with her duties at home. If you have to order a pizza you are a failure as a wife and mother. I'm not sure about the rest of the mom's out there, but when I order a pizza I am THE BEST MOM EVER according to MY kids. I'm an awful cook and not ashamed to admit it. But maybe that is a just a lie I believe.....(sarcasm). It is also a lie that is healthy to get angry (big no no according to author). She also states co-dependency is a myth! I guess all those people at Alanon meetings SHOULD feel responsible for their addicts. Completely lunacy.

I have the sad misfortune of having to read this book for a women's bible study. I have NO idea of what I'm going to say. This book is dangerous toward women and families and not even that well written. It is full of contradicting statements and inflammatory remarks towards women's rights. Which by the way, are also a myth. She states it is a lie of satan that we have the right to be loved and be happy. That standing up for your rights only causes turmoil and unecessary arguments. Thank God I still have the right to choose what books I read, don't I?
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
35 of 45 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2007
Nancy Leigh Demoss does make many good points in this book, so I could not bring myself to give it only 1 star. However, she is so lacking in empathy for women, so condescending, that I advise anyone considering reading _Lies Women Believe_ to save their time and money.

She cherry-picks scripture to back up her claims, such as divorce is *always* a sin, ignoring the direct words of our Lord and Savior in Matthew 19. I say that if Jesus allows divorce for "immorality", then Nancy Leigh Demoss should not contradict him. She gives trivial examples of reasons women divorce, like a husband forgetting a birthday....what about incest,abuse, adultery, alcoholism?? For the record, I am not divorced, but it makes me furious to hear Christian woman encouraged to stay in abusive situations because divorce is a "sin".

She has never been married and has no children and it shows! She has no idea what is it like to raise children, to cope with closely spaced births, to cope with life with a husband, children, a job. Most Christian woman I know have paying jobs, at least part-time, and it is a necessitity, not an indulgence. I work so my family can continue to live indoors, not because I am a "raging feminist".

I could go on and your money.
55 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.