An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Here is the text from one message I received:

You are a gay but antigay person, mock married to a women.

Your relationship fetishizes and objectifies females. It uses them as an object to make you whole, not to recognize them as a person that makes you whole.

Imitation marriages are not marriages. A family is not built out of shame or a desire to be something you are not. They are built out of a genuine and real love for the other person. Not despair at what your God made you to be.

Shame, shame, shame on you ***** ******. Shame on you for giving in, and shame on you for perpetuating this harmful, evil, self-hate.

You got this message after or because of Josh's post?  That's judgmental and ugly.  I'm sorry as that must hurt.

I couldn't help though but think when I read what I put in bold, that this is how gays must feel when told this about their marriages.

This is such an emotional, personal topic.  I think care needs to be taken from both sides of this issue to not state ugly, damaging things such as this.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Quote

The idea of our marriage as successful and healthy, we have finally realized, is just that: mythical. Impossible. Not real. And we had everything going for us: same religion, same socio-economic status, same ideals, great communication, similar life objectives. Heck, we even both became marriage therapists. If any marriage like this were going to be functional, it would have been ours.

 

But it’s not. Not because the marriage was bad. But because the foundation we were building it on was a mirage. The most integrated, sound home will fall to a shambles if it’s built on a sinkhole. Our marriage was built on a sinkhole. Gay people and straight people cannot attach to one another.

It appears to me he is standing up to say that no mixed orientation marriage will work.  I think he has a lot to consider and reconsider on that point.  As Sky points out, there is a scale.  It's not as if mixed orientation marriages are all or nothing.  Also, he can't simply say another person's marriage is not working.  That's simply not fair in any way.  I don't think he'd really know even if he is an expert.  Some work, it seems.  I'd wager over the years many marriages have lasted a life time.  How are we to say that it didn't work?  What is working in that sense?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The last bolded statement seems like he's saying "if our marriage couldn't make it, none can." That's how I interpret If any marriage like this were going to be functional, it would have been ours.

I think it could be read either way (that's why he could have or should have been more clear...maybe he will follow up with a clarification).  But combined with this statement:

Quote

The idea of our marriage as successful and healthy, we have finally realized, is just that: mythical. Impossible. Not real. And we had everything going for us: same religion, same socio-economic status, same ideals, great communication, similar life objectives.

I read his comments as referring to his own marriage.  I have to believe that he knows some mixed orientation marriages are good, healthy and successful.  

We all write things or state things that can be interpreted different ways and I see his comments on this aspect as not being as clear as he could have made them.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he doesn't seem to be a hateful person.  I've only read this one post of his though....so hopefully he will clarify.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

I thought his mention of a planned "partner's compound" (my phrase --- he mentions buying a "homestead" where both he and Lolly can live with future "partners" together) to be kind of weird. Okay, very weird. 

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

I need to reread it because I don’t remember him saying that (not doubting you, it was long and I should read again).

I really would like to know if you could relate to some of what he expressed though.  I thought of you as I was reading it and love your posts here.

I thought of you, kllindley and with thoughtful admiration that it had worked for you and yet surprised at some lack of empathy.

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I am now wondering what Josh and Lolla think their eternal family will look like. To them, will there be three husbands, one wife, and with four beautiful daughters sealed to Josh and Lolla him even though Josh and Lolla are not sealed together? And if a priesthood blessing is some sort of spiritual confirmation to Josh and Lolla that hey are to live as Josh wants to live and still be together as a family, then what role does the priesthood play in eternal families according to them? An eternal family is what they want afterall....isn’t it? 

I am thinking that the greater power is the love that they have for one another...not the priesthood.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it could be read either way (that's why he could have or should have been more clear...maybe he will follow up with a clarification).  But combined with this statement:

I read his comments as referring to his own marriage.  I have to believe that he knows some mixed orientation marriages are good, healthy and successful.  

We all write things or state things that can be interpreted different ways and I see his comments on this aspect as not being as clear as he could have made them.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he doesn't seem to be a hateful person.  I've only read this one post of his though....so hopefully he will clarify.

From my perspective, it's when he says "if any marriage..." that he brings marriages other than his own into the equation.  But I do get what you are saying and I wouldn't be surprised if he clarifies at some point.  I say confusing things all the time so i certainly don't fault anyone else for being unclear.

If he is speaking about all mixed orientation marriages, it would make some sense.  All of us like to justify our actions, especially actions that we know other people are going to think badly of.  It's a lot easier to say 'this is not possible' than to say 'other people can pull this off, but we can't.'  

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I anticipated this. My reply: Not in the eternities since a) no woman was sealed to him and her husband an b) Joseph Smith never lived a gay lifestyle so he won’t be sealed to another man himself. (Could he have been even if he wanted to?). Yet this is presicely the type of eternal family Josh and Lolla expect to have. 

Do you absolutely know that Joseph Smith did not live a gay lifestyle?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I thought his mention of a planned "partner's compound" (my phrase --- he mentions buying a "homestead" where both he and Lolly can live with future "partners" together) to be kind of weird. Okay, very weird. 

I don't think it's weird.... not at all.

I have a sister-in-law who is gay (my wife's sister).  She's an incredible woman, very successful and one of the most giving, loving persons I've ever known.  She's in her 40's now and has finally found a partner who is really her equal in every way.  We love her too.

This woman she's dating (and plans to now marry) is divorced and has a son and a daughter.  She was in a mixed orientation marriage with a straight man (the father of the 2 kids).  I cannot tell you how very impressed I am with how they've handled the divorce and what incredible parents they both still are.  What's made it work so well is that he moved out of their house and bought one across the street.  They did that for the kids.  These two adults are still loving and still best friends.  The kids have such a healthy, great relationship with both of them.  They split their time between the two homes and feel loved and welcomed at both.  There is still much give and take and a feeling of being a family (as much as there possibly can be after a divorce).  Living near each other has been a huge part of why I believe this has happened.  

So no, it's not weird of them to still want to live near each other (for the kids mainly, from what I read....but they still have a love for each other too).  In a divorce, if the adults are still loving and unselfish, they will put the kids first and that's how I see this part of their story.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I thought his mention of a planned "partner's compound" (my phrase --- he mentions buying a "homestead" where both he and Lolly can live with future "partners" together) to be kind of weird. Okay, very weird. 

I think that would actually be pretty cool if they could pull it off.   They obviously (right now anyway) still see each other as 'family' and want to maintain a close relationship, probably especially for the kids.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I thought his mention of a planned "partner's compound" (my phrase --- he mentions buying a "homestead" where both he and Lolly can live with future "partners" together) to be kind of weird. Okay, very weird. 

That really worried me. I get the idea. I know of someone who had a duplex after they were divorced so the children could be with both parents and it seemed to work for them. My worry with Josh and Lolly is that because she felt feelings for him which he didn't feel for her that he will move on much quicker than her and if he brings someone into his house before she does it could be very painful living so close.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Do you absolutely know that Joseph Smith did not live a gay lifestyle?

If there was any evidence that he did, don't you think that people would have accused him of that already?  I mean, considering everything that they accuse him of, that would be really low hanging fruit for critics to just ignore don't you think?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

That really worried me. I get the idea. I know of someone who had a duplex after they were divorced so the children could be with both parents and it seemed to work for them. My worry with Josh and Lolly is that because she felt feelings for him which he didn't feel for her that he will move on much quicker than her and if he brings someone into his house before she does it could be very painful living so close.

I think there's potential for this, I agree.  

In my personal situation above (with my sister-in-law), the wife is the one who moved on and is in a relationship (with my sister-in-law), but her husband is not in a relationship or even dating.  It's been a few years since their divorce too.  What's happened in their case, is that he's thrilled for his ex-wife that she's found someone that makes her fulfilled and happy.  He and my sister-in-law get along great and she really loves him too.  It's a pretty incredible situation....but it works for all of them.

[ttribe]

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Here is the text from one message I received:

 

There are hateful people on both sides of the debate.  I'm sorry you are in the cross hairs of some of them.  That kind of behavior is never acceptable.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ttribe

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If there was any evidence that he did, don't you think that people would have accused him of that already?  I mean, considering everything that they accuse him of, that would be really low hanging fruit for critics to just ignore don't you think?

I agree..it would be some low hanging fruit...but bluebell..that is something we don't know.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I agree..it would be some low hanging fruit...but bluebell..that is something we don't know.

But why the speculation?  I'm just not seeing any indicators on this one.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

But why the speculation?  I'm just not seeing any indicators on this one.

There really isn't any..it is just a truth.  We don't know.  We know JS had great love for all and was particularly close to a lot of men ..in friendship.  He was also inclined to sealings of one man with another..we just don't know.  I am not being insinuating...I am just being honest. JS was all over place.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There really isn't any..it is just a truth.  We don't know.  We know JS had great love for all and was particularly close to a lot of men ..in friendship.  He was also inclined to sealings of one man with another..we just don't know.  I am not being insinuating...I am just being honest. JS was all over place.

Given everything we do know about the man, both good and bad, I just see the probability of him engaging in any kind of homosexual relationships, in combination with all his other relationships, to be so rapidly approaching zero as to make any such speculation pointless.  But, that's just my opinion; I get that.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree..it would be some low hanging fruit...but bluebell..that is something we don't know.

I suppose that's true, if you find making accusations that are not back up by any evidence whatsoever a valid and reasonable thing to do.  From my perspective, given the evidence, we do know with enough certainty that JS wasn't gay.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Given everything we do know about the man, both good and bad, I just see the probability of him engaging in any kind of homosexual relationships, in combination with all his other relationships, to be so rapidly approaching zero as to make any such speculation pointless.  But, that's just my opinion; I get that.

I do too...but we. don't. know.  I agree with you.  It seems improbable...but so many things do.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose that's true, if you find making accusations that are not back up by any evidence whatsoever a valid and reasonable thing to do.  From my perspective, given the evidence, we do know with enough certainty that JS wasn't gay.

I have been honest in saying we don't know...it is not an accusation or and assumption.  It is a truth.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have been honest in saying we don't know...it is not an accusation or and assumption.  It is a truth.

It's not really the honest way to interpret history though.  We use the evidence to learn about JS and the evidence tells us he wasn't gay.  It's unreasonable, given the evidence, to even suggest there is a possibility that he was gay.  

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that we don't know that there isn't a unicorn living in the Appalachia Mtns so saying there might be is just honest.  It's not honest, it's illogical given the evidence.

Edited January 26, 2018 by bluebell

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I know. I gotta stop killing gay people from my standards. 

 

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Really? After they attack the LDS Church for killing people? 

That's a stretch to the extreme from what was said in that blog.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do too...but we. don't. know.  I agree with you.  It seems improbable...but so many things do.

For example you might be involved in human trafficking. Seems unlikely and there is no evidence but we. Don’t. Know.

I think we should ponder this possibility regularly just in case.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Here is the text from one message I received:

 

Ah, the power of rhetoric. Yesterday’s stalwart and enduring hero is today’s monster after one eloquent blog post and they were always a monster.

Breaking News: We have also always been at war with Eastasia.