Anyone else catch that Josh Weed is getting divorced?


Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see no obvious answer.

I don't either my friend. Marriage is hard enough in the first place, forget having issues of sexuality thrown in there. I don't have an answer either. 

 

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

True enough. But as President Monson quoted, men aren't leopards. They change every day.

Hope so. Many time in my life I've seen who say they've changed-but then go back to their previous behavior. So it's hard, but yes, I agree-people can sometimes change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I was wondering that myself . . . never heard of him.

After reading the posts, is it OK for a person with homosexual desires to enter a heterosexual marriage?  Maybe, maybe not, it would be important to pray and carefully consider the decision in that person's situation.  If you decide to do it, though, you should stick with it.

I put the same to you as I did to Gator.

Is it okay for a man who has sexual preference for large-chested skinny-waisted blondes to marry a chunky small-chested brunnette? To put aside his sexual desires in favor of more important things? What if he loves her but she is disabled? What if she gets burned in a fire and loses her beauty? Should he leave her then to be with someone he finds more attractive?

Would ANYONE find that justifiable or would they consider the person who left their poor wife after she got burnt or disfigured a real creep?

Of course we all know that sexual fulfillment is the only thing that actually matters. <_<

It strikes me that the man who has any deviant sexual impulses (by which I mean, all men) would be better suited keeping such things to himself, and suppressing such things in favor of things that actually matter.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Didn’t realize that clarification needed to be made by a prophet of God, how many people live in fear every day because of this confusion??? 

All joking aside, it was a great sermon.

Quote

 

During the 1940s and 1950s, an American prison warden, Clinton Duffy, was well known for his efforts to rehabilitate the men in his prison. Said one critic, “You should know that leopards don’t change their spots!”

Replied Warden Duffy, “You should know I don’t work with leopards. I work with men, and men change every day.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I put the same to you as I did to Gator.

Is it okay for a man who has sexual preference for large-chested skinny-waisted blondes to marry a chunky small-chested brunnette? To put aside his sexual desires in favor of more important things? What if he loves her but she is disabled? What if she gets burned in a fire and loses her beauty? Should he leave her then to be with someone he finds more attractive?

Would ANYONE find that justifiable or would they consider the person who left their poor wife after she got burnt or disfigured a real creep?

Of course we all know that sexual fulfillment is the only thing that actually matters. <_<

It strikes me that the man who has any deviant sexual impulses (by which I mean, all men) would be better suited keeping such things to himself, and suppressing such things in favor of things that actually matter.

I am talking about initiating marriage, not leaving it.  Hence, my statement that you should stick with a marriage if you enter into one.

As far as entering into it in the first place, one should always pray about it and carefully consider.  This goes for couples that are madly in love with one another in every way and see no apparent flaws, and certainly goes for marriages where there is a preexisting handicap of one person is not attracted to the other.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Folks struggling on the fringe never had a proper example though, because blogging out-and-proud, "owning" that identity, etc., is, was, and will be against church council on the matter. The result of going against that council is now perhaps evident.

I agree.  And Weed never held himself up as any sort of ideal that gay Mormons should strive to emulate; he was always adamant that “this is MY path and you need to find and follow your own”.  And IIRC he’s been hobnobbing with the Affirmation gang for years.

8 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:


@Fether, Josh is an LDS guy who is also gay.  He wanted to keep the commandments so he married his best friend, Lolly. 

I feel bad for the Weeds, and I tremendously respect your gift of empathy.  But as to your characterization above:

NO!

No, no, no, no, no.

Just—NO.

This sort of narrative is what makes the situation so insidious.  Weed spent the better part of a decade insisting that he wasn’t a mindless automaton following his church’s dogma.  

His marriage was right—he said.

He had prayed—he said.

He had a spiritual witness from God that he was supposed to be married to a woman—THAT woman—he said.

I am truly sorry for the guy and his wife—and most especially for those beautiful children.  And although I think he’s acting selfishly and inflicting tremendous harm on those kids for the basest of reasons—for sex—yet I’d have been happy to commiserate with him and hold my tongue in this space, out of respect for a situation whose difficulty I will never fully comprehend.  

Except, that Weed seems to be trying to re-write history and pin the blame for the past trials and present horrors of his family, onto the Church and its teachings; while reducing his own accountability to a variant of “I was just following orders”.  There’s a line between “tragic” and “despicable”, and Josh is flirting with it. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn’t destroy the Weed children’s home.  Josh Weed did that.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I am talking about initiating marriage, not leaving it.  Hence, my statement that you should stick with a marriage if you enter into one.

As far as entering into it in the first place, one should always pray about it and carefully consider.  This goes for couples that are madly in love with one another in every way and see no apparent flaws, and certainly goes for marriages where there is a preexisting handicap of one couple is not attracted to the other.

My response is the same. If someone is not one's primary sexual fantasy fulfilled should it bear into the decision whether to marry them or not?

I expect we agree that those who are immature enough so as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should NOT get married to someone who doesn't appeal to them. 

But is there honestly a difference between losing attraction (particularly early in a marriage) and never having it super strongly? Is having that early giddy sexual excitement really important in the eternal scheme of things? Moreover, can a man learn to be attracted to something he wasn't before? The world says nay. I say the world is full of crap and have bought fully into Satan's lies.

When I was 16 I only liked specific women with specific physical characteristics -- thin, curvy but not too curvy, long hair,  not too tall, not too short, etc. I was a child and my interests and tastes were, accordingly, childish. I grew up. I learned to appreciate things I once might have found disgusting, both naturally and intentionally. And as much as, (being a red-blooded male), I still have a natural interest in the theoretical "perfect" woman, I do not allow that to guide or sway me in action or thought. Nor should I, nor should any man or woman. That's the choice before us. Do we choose God and spirituality or do we choose the carnal self?

Why is it that being gay somehow seems to justify for so many never growing up and putting romance, excitement, lust, thrill, passion, and all those carnal delights ahead of doing those things that have been promised to bring us a fullness of eternal joy despite the mortal sacrifices we may have to make?

In short, if a gay person cannot grow up then they shouldn't marry heterosexually. If anyone cannot grow up they're probably doomed to failed marriage. If they can grow up, they SHOULD marry heterosexually, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My response is the same. If someone is not one's primary sexual fantasy fulfilled should it bear into the decision whether to marry them or not?

I expect we agree that those who are immature enough so as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should NOT get married to someone who doesn't appeal to them. 

But is there honestly a difference between losing attraction (particularly early in a marriage) and never having it super strongly? Is having that early giddy sexual excitement really important in the eternal scheme of things? Moreover, can a man learn to be attracted to something he wasn't before? The world says nay. I say the world is full of crap and have bought fully into Satan's lies.

When I was 16 I only liked specific women with specific physical characteristics -- thin, curvy but not too curvy, long hair,  not too tall, not too short, etc. I was a child and my interests and tastes were, accordingly, childish. I grew up. I learned to appreciate things I once might have found disgusting, both naturally and intentionally. And as much as, (being a red-blooded male), I still have a natural interest in the theoretical "perfect" woman, I do not allow that to guide or sway me in action or thought. Nor should I, nor should any man or woman. That's the choice before us. Do we choose God and spirituality or do we choose the carnal self?

Why is it that being gay somehow seems to justify for so many never growing up and putting romance, excitement, lust, thrill, passion, and all those carnal delights ahead of doing those things that have been promised to bring us a fullness of eternal joy despite the mortal sacrifices we may have to make?

In short, if a gay person cannot grow up then they shouldn't marry heterosexually. If anyone cannot grow up they're probably doomed to failed marriage. If they can grow up, they SHOULD marry heterosexually, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

You are out Doctor Lemon-ing Doctor Lemon here - I am usually the one who says any two righteous people can make it work if they are willing to pay the price!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say, @mordorbund, whereas your comic presentation is typically spot on in my book, in this case I think you let yourself down just a bit by adding the text to the picture instead of just letting the image stand on it's own.

 

:D

 

Edit: Barely let yourself down.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From the article: 

"I am in constant awe when I think of LGBT members of the Church who are seeking to follow Christ. Some choose celibacy, others a mixed-orientation marriage. Either way they are heroes."

When i said something similar about Josh trying to keep the commandments by marrying Lolly, you said, No, no, no, no, no....  (there may have been a few mor no's, LOL.)  

But you like this article, what am I missing here? 

I like what the article said about loving and supporting LGBT people, whatever path they choose. 

For the record, I'm not advocating for the church to change, that isn't my place. But what is my place is, is to love my LGBT neighbors as myself. However they choose to deal with this aspect of their lives, they have my love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two parts of my reaction to this from a couple of months ago:

The church has said (https://www.lds.org/liahona/2015/09/the-lord-needs-you-now?lang=eng&_r=1)

Quote

Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that “the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people." (quoting something from the old mormonsandgays website that no longer comes up and I can't find the original source of the quoted quote)

IMO, fallen mortals dealing with a complex reality in a fallen world are bound to make mistakes. Complicate it further when you additionally recognize that Josh and Lolly's experience occurs in the midst of the broad societal shift from "homosexuality is a mental illness" to a broadly accepted "homosexuality is a natural variation in human makeup", and I am not at all surprised that mistakes were made. We (and the rest of the internet) can armchair quarterback this all we want. One thing I see is confirmation that this is a complex issue, and the Church doesn't even claim to fully understand all of the issues. Until we get a better understanding of all of the issues, I hope we learn to be tolerant of others' mistakes.

The other reaction: I am glad Josh and Lolly are sharing their experience so publicly -- for better or for worse, because I think it helps describe some of those complex realities and may help us better understand them.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

From the article: 

"I am in constant awe when I think of LGBT members of the Church who are seeking to follow Christ. Some choose celibacy, others a mixed-orientation marriage. Either way they are heroes."

When i said something similar about Josh trying to keep the commandments by marrying Lolly, you said, No, no, no, no, no....  (there may have been a few mor no's, LOL.)  

But you like this article, what am I missing here? 

The difference between mere obedience for obedience’s sake (which seems to be how Weed seems to be retroactively trying to re-frame his marriage), versus following an enlightened path inspired by personal revelation.

It’s a subtle distinction, but a crucial one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s a subtle distinction, but a crucial one.

Not really all that subtle, I'd say. Weed is not the first to say, "I'm pursuing MY path because this is what I want", only to say later, "You know, I guess that wasn't really my path after all. I was just brainwashed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not really all that subtle, I'd say. Weed is not the first to say, "I'm pursuing MY path because this is what I want", only to say later, "You know, I guess that wasn't really my path after all. I was just brainwashed."

In fairness to @LiterateParakeet, Josh Weed’s bus-throwing probably made me a little more nit-picky as to LP’s post than, in hindsight, I ought to have been.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Over 40%? Well, religionnews.com is a totally reliable un-biased source. <_<

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

From the article: 

"I am in constant awe when I think of LGBT members of the Church who are seeking to follow Christ. Some choose celibacy, others a mixed-orientation marriage. Either way they are heroes."

When i said something similar about Josh trying to keep the commandments by marrying Lolly, you said, No, no, no, no, no....  (there may have been a few mor no's, LOL.)  

But you like this article, what am I missing here? 

I like what the article said about loving and supporting LGBT people, whatever path they choose. 

For the record, I'm not advocating for the church to change, that isn't my place. But what is my place is, is to love my LGBT neighbors as myself. However they choose to deal with this aspect of their lives, they have my love. 

Maybe a bit of reading between the lines will help:

I am in constant awe when I think of LGBT members of the Church who are seeking to follow Christ. Some choose celibacy, others a mixed-orientation marriage. Either way they are heroes. [Just like anyone who repents, puts aside their carnal self, and turns to God instead of giving into wickedness. All who are seeking to follow Christ deserve our awe]

We must also recognize that it isn’t our place to judge those who decide that the Gospel path is not for them. [Except in that it is requisite that we judge between choosing good and evil for ourselves and for others in that we always encourage others to choose the good and turn from evil]. Our responsibility is to love and respect our LGBT brothers and sisters, regardless of the course they choose. [And to advocate for the repentance of our fellow men, as God commanded us to]

And so, I conclude by saying to every LGBT member within the reach of my voice: We love you, we support you, [but we don't support sin] we are rooting for you [to stay true or return to God and the gospel and to find true happiness], and we are with you [except in support of sin]. This is your decision. And we will love and respect you [but we don't respect sin or evil agendas] no matter what you decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

We (and the rest of the internet) can armchair quarterback this all we want.

I think the armchair quarterback analogy fails. It implies a situation where you aren't in the game but are calling the shots as if you had influence when you do not. But we are ALL in the game.

The discussion and consideration is, imo, hopefully to learn...not in a useless way we will never use, but in a practical way that will affect the way we interact with others, the way we raise our children, the choices we make for ourselves, and how we serve God. No -- we're not armchair quarterbacks. We are soldiers in God's army on the ground with the bullets flying. Strategy matters.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Until we get a better understanding of all of the issues, I hope we learn to be tolerant of others' mistakes.

To what end are we talking here? If I ever meet Josh Weed in person I don't plan on scorning, scoffing, lambasting, or otherwise attacking him in any way. But when I consider these things on a public forum and as to how I will raise my children, etc., I believe finding and understanding, the best we can, the issues that are involved that led to problems, is paramount.

Yes, we tolerate and love people with weaknesses. I hope so. I hope my weaknesses are tolerated. But when someone's weakness leads to misery and suffering it would be foolish not to take note of that weakness and explicitly choose to not tolerate the same in our own lives as far as possible.

Simpleton theoretical examples:

1. Billy had an affair and lost his marriage and family. Turns out Billy had been a porn addict for years prior to that. Billy got into porn by watching Game of Thrones, innocently, but that led him to lose the Spirit and get into harder stuff. Billy didn't consider watching R-rated movies that big a deal, afterall, he heard cussing and stuff all day at work anyhow. Conclusion of intolerance: I will not tolerate shows with sexuality and nudity in them on any level. I will not watch R-rated movies. I will not engage in entertainment venues that cause me to lose the spirit. I will teach my children the same.

2. Janey left her husband for another man. She didn't find romance in her marriage.Turns out Janey was reading romance novels. Conclusion of intolerance: I will not read romance novels and teach my children the same.

Yes, both of these things "judge" that certain things done by Billy or Janey were "wrong", mistaken, problematic, etc. None of that means we don't love Billy and Janey. None of it means we won't continue to be their friends. None of it means we aren't deeply saddened by their situations and hope and pray they will get back on track. But we DO and SHOULD judge these things and look for the things that lead to other things that destroy lives. As I said, to do otherwise would be foolish.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

The other reaction: I am glad Josh and Lolly are sharing their experience so publicly -- for better or for worse, because I think it helps describe some of those complex realities and may help us better understand them.

Interesting take. On the flip side, their sharing of their experience may well lead others to embrace poor choices that they might not have otherwise. I'm torn now. I was on the "keep it secret" side of the fence before. Not entirely sure now.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

"I am in constant awe when I think of LGBT members of the Church who are seeking to follow Christ. Some choose celibacy, others a mixed-orientation marriage. Either way they are heroes."

When i said something similar about Josh trying to keep the commandments by marrying Lolly, you said, No, no, no, no, no....  (there may have been a few mor no's, LOL.)  

There seems to be a conflict here. Josh, apparently, is casting off celibacy AND a mixed orientation marriage -- AND blaming the church for things, etc.

Hardly heroic.

I will grant that the determination to continue as a member is heroic from a certain perspective. From another it's insidious and disingenuous. On the one hand we would hope by doing so he finds peace and happiness and the path back to God. On the other hand it seems a bit trojan-horsey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2018 at 12:52 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

My response is the same. If someone is not one's primary sexual fantasy fulfilled should it bear into the decision whether to marry them or not?

I expect we agree that those who are immature enough so as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should NOT get married to someone who doesn't appeal to them. 

People marry for whatever reason.  Some make a success of it regardless of reasons, some make a mess of it regardless of reasons.

Those who are immature enough as as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should not get married period - until such time they grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Those who are immature enough as as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should not get married period - until such time they grow up.

3

This times one million.

If I could never have sex with my wife again (sorry, TMI) my marriage would still be one of the most fulfilling and uplifting parts of my life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divorce is always heartbreaking. I am seeing that his wife is very supportive of this decision (it seems like it was taken by BOTH).

I am just one of those who thought they should have never gotten married in the first place. The idea of marrying someone who is gay is completely bizarre and whomever believes it is a solution to "cure" homosexuality is a fool.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

For the record, I'm not advocating for the church to change, that isn't my place. But what is my place is, is to love my LGBT neighbors as myself. However they choose to deal with this aspect of their lives, they have my love. 

Perfectly said, and I agree totally-the church has every right to their teachings on human sexuality

I feel the same way you do-my job is to love the LGBT community like I do any other neighbor. That said, I think most don't care if I love them, hate them, or ignore them as long as I leave them alone. I've yet to meet a homosexual in my life who has asked me what my view of homosexuality is.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Grunt said:

If I could never have sex with my wife again (sorry, TMI) my marriage would still be one of the most fulfilling and uplifting parts of my life.

I know I used to think this. After years in a sexless marriage, I am not sure I believe this. I love my wife and am committed to our shared life, but it has definitely lost some of its luster without a sexual component. The man who wrote the Involuntary Celibacy letter on Laura Brotherson's blog captures much of this. https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Those who are immature enough as as to consider sexual fulfillment as more important than other things should not get married period - until such time they grow up.

I would counter that anyone who is immature enough to believe that sex is a discardable, inconsequential, or the least important aspect of marriage should not get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share