An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Yeah, his post is very problematic.  What alternative does his propose?  Ignore sin? 

I wonder if fornicating heteros are driving to suicide because of church teachings.   

There is a big difference between not allowing marriage, dating, kissing, having the opportunity to have a family to someone you want to spend your life with, and someone fornicating.  Sorry you don't see the difference.  Unfortunately many members share your opinion. Like I said earlier, this kind of attitude is the kind of message that I believe is further driving a wedge between those that are gay and the church position.  I also know it will never stop.  Members like this kind of comparison.  

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

It’s very clear Josh proclaims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guilty of killing gay people. 

People have the right to make such claims but the claims are not valid.  If a person commits suicide over troubles with the IRS and his taxes, anyone can claim that the IRS is killing tax cheats but the reality is the IRS is not responsible for the actions of what people do including suicide.  Josh in entitled to his belief but his belief simply is not accurate. 

For anyone to think that the Church should fundamentally change its doctrines including commit spiritual suicide in the name of preventing a few people from committing suicide are simply not looking at things in a realistic way.  If some members start committing suicide over problems with drugs, porn, or something else, should the church relax or reverse its standards on other things to prevent those suicides? Where would it end?  The day the LDS Church reverses is fundamental views on gay marriage and homosexual behavior is the beginning of the end of the Church. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

1) Don’t know. Who are they?

2) Except for desth there are no sealings to more than one man that I know of. Do you? And in these cases the woman will end up with one man. Josh seems to advocate an eternal family between himself and at least one other man, his ex wife, and a new man for her. When did God teach that to man? Or maybe Josh is a new prophet. 

Sorry but women having to choose disappeared from the CHI. You know darn well women are being sealed to a second living husband by special permission if you have been conscious while on this board. What is of greater interest is why it is your business to dictate what others can do.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

1.  Their children would be sealed to Joseph Smith, correct?

2.  We don’t know that.  I think some women have been given permission to be sealed to more than one man.

Others can correct me on either of these if I’m wrong.  

The bottom line is that there will be all kinds of families and combinations.  As Clark posted about, much will be sorted out.  People will have choices or a voice about it too.

1) I guess. 

2) Beyond circumstances of death, I do not know of any woman who was sealed to more than one man and it is understood that a woman will be sealed to only one man in the eternities. 

I fully agree that the sealing power connects humanity in the eternities in ways far more complex than a man and woman and their children but in Josh’s vision, which he doesn’t even acknowledge and use of being “sealed”, is based on him being with his husband, Lola with her new man, and he and Lola are the parents of their daughters, correct? 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes.

They removed the commentary that the woman needs to choose from the manuals and handbook. Whether this was trying to be diplomatic or because it was one of the many speculations not backed up by scriptures that have been deleted in recent years, I don't know.

I lean on the latter. I think the eradication from the manuals and handbooks of the woman needing to choose is a result of a better understanding of the eternal nature of family sealings. Namely, we really do not know exactly how things will turn out but I think it has always been understood that eventually a wo,an will be sealed to only one man in the eternities whereas a man can be sealed to more than one woman. 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have had to kiss two guys to win before. If you want to come over here with that kind of talk just be prepared.

Well, God has not yet revealed to me that I am made gay so not until then cutie. 

Actually, there is a young lady in our former ward who recently divorced. She's a great mom and socially quirky like yourself. My wife and I have liked her company for years. I sincerely wondered if things would work out between you two. We’ll see. I’ll message you if anything goes towards your direction. 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

There is a big difference between not allowing marriage, dating, kissing, having the opportunity to have a family to someone you want to spend your life with, and someone fornicating.  Sorry you don't see the difference.  Unfortunately many members share your opinion. Like I said earlier, this kind of attitude is the kind of message that I believe is further driving a wedge between those that are gay and the church position.  I also know it will never stop.  Members like this kind of comparison.  

There’s a also a big difference between setting a strict moral standard for everyone to live by and killing gays. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Sorry but women having to choose disappeared from the CHI. You know darn well women are being sealed to a second living husband by special permission if you have been conscious while on this board. What is of greater interest is why it is your business to dictate what others can do.

Nope, I don’t know darn well any such thing. What special permission did they get? And even if they are sealed to more than one man, isn’t it understood that they will end up with only one man in the eternities. Josh, on the other hand, seems to proclaim  that God will give him and his soon to be ex wife each a husband for eternity and he and his soon to be ex wife will be the parents of their four girls with their (Josh and Lolla) respective husbands at their side. 

“What is of greater interest is why it is your business to dictate what others can do.”

Well, when my church is accused of killing gays because it believes in all people living a specific moral standard, I will speak out. This is especially true when I completely agree with my church’s moral standards. What Josh does he does. I honestly do not care that he is gay or that he wants to get intimate with another man. I very much care that he is doing so by vulgarly attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and speaking as if he has authority from God to denounce the LDS Church’s moral standards. I take direct issue with that. I also take issue because I found great inpspiration from his coming out post. His denouncing it and apologizing for it is morally weak and a huge letdown for me. But it is what it is. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Darren10

[Thinking]

15 hours ago, kllindley said:

And what about my experiences and the many people who have told me their stories? Why does he get a pass soon calling into question the validity of our marriages and faith?

I was simply pointing out that he was referencing more than just his own experiences.

15 hours ago, kllindley said:

I can't imagine going public with a statement that: "Because my wife and I have made it work and are happy, every LGBT member can and should do the same. And if they can't make it work, it's because they just didn't try hard enough, or have enough faith."

And yet that's what the Weeds are doing consistently throughout their post. I love them and support their decision. And I'm hurt that people I considered friends just publicly the my experiences under the bus. 

Is that a direct quote or your interpretation of what they wrote?

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I found great inspiration from his coming out post. His denouncing it and apologizing for it is morally weak and a huge letdown for me.

Why can't he apologize for what he believes was a mistake? How is that morally weak?

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I was simply pointing out that he was referencing more than just his own experiences.

Is that a direct quote or your interpretation of what they wrote?

No. You were giving those experiences more weight because they reflect your ideological viewpoint. And giving a free pass to the exact kind of judgment that you would condemn if it was coming from me.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.  I'm not sure there is any point in trying to further explain myself if you aren't willing to read what I've already written. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

There’s a also a big difference between setting a strict moral standard for everyone to live by and killing gays. 

Of course.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, I don’t know darn well any such thing. What special permission did they get? And even if they are sealed to more than one man, isn’t it understood that they will end up with only one man in the eternities. Josh, on the other hand, seems to proclaim  that God will give him and his soon to be ex wife each a husband for eternity and he and his soon to be ex wife will be the parents of their four girls with their (Josh and Lolla) respective husbands at their side. 

“What is of greater interest is why it is your business to dictate what others can do.”

Well, when my church is accused of killing gays because it believes in all people living a specific moral standard, I will speak out. This is especially true when I completely agree with my church’s moral standards. What Josh does he does. I honestly do not care that he is gay or that he wants to get intimate with another man. I very much care that he is doing so by vulgarly attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and speaking as if he has authority from God to denounce the LDS Church’s moral standards. I take direct issue with that. I also take issue because I found great inpspiration from his coming out post. His denouncing it and apologizing for it is morally weak and a huge letdown for me. But it is what it is. 

So that is what this is all about?  Choosing some poster boy of the month might not be the best way to decide how others should live their lives.  Sometimes it doesn't go as planned.  There was never any real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives.  And now that they are divorcing, there is still no real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives or how they view the church.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I lean on the latter. I think the eradication from the manuals and handbooks of the woman needing to choose is a result of a better understanding of the eternal nature of family sealings. Namely, we really do not know exactly how things will turn out but I think it has always been understood that eventually a wo,an will be sealed to only one man in the eternities whereas a man can be sealed to more than one woman. 

That is the speculation that has been removed, imo, and which you appear to agree is speculation unless you meant "former", not "latter".

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

So that is what this is all about?  Choosing some poster boy of the month might not be the best way to decide how others should live their lives.  Sometimes it doesn't go as planned.  There was never any real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives.  And now that they are divorcing, there is still no real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives or how they view the church.  

Cal, I agree with you to a point. The rub is that these individuals have chosen to make their lives public; they became advocates of a cause for other individuals.  The fact that they chose a public forum to live their lives is their own choice and they will necessarily affect people by their public choices.  

Granted, I think his announcement to the world of their pending divorce has some good points....it also has some really poor logical positions.  I suppose if I knew these two personally I would want to discuss these fallacies with them, but I don't know them from Adam, so such a discussion with them is without value.  They are living their lives and they are making choices for their themselves just like everyone else.  Maybe it is time for both of them to stop talking publically?  

Behavior has never been one's identity - ever.  Behavior is only a choice to act.  Personal identity is the recognition of one's potential and qualities as an individual, particularly in a social context.  I can remember as a boy being tempted to steal candy bars from the local store.  I actually did steal a candy bar on one occasion and felt very badly about it afterward....of course, I ate the stupid thing.  My dad talked to me about it and we worked out a way for me to reimburse the store owner for the candy bar.  What was clear to me as a boy was that I did not want to be a thief.  Even with that experience I still had times where I was tempted to steal again.  My mother always said, "Mike, you cannot go down a chimney without getting any soot on you."  By this she meant that if I chose to experience something, anything, then that experience would rub off on me for the rest of my life for good or ill.  

I reject the idea or the concept of anybody identifying themselves as a behavior.  That is a false supposition and once embraced how could the individual become anything else but that thing?  If I tell myself, "Mike, you are a thief" guess how I will act when the occasion presents itself to steal?  That is right, I will steal repeatedly until it is as natural as getting up in the morning.  More importantly, I will lose any sense of guilt for any thefts I commit.  

And, no, variety is not the end all of life.  I reject that entire concept.  Logically, if variety is what is desired what is it that stops us from doing anything and everything because variety is the highest quality?  It just such New Age gobble-d-gook concepts presented as valid.  To me it is like finger nails on a chalk board - it grates badly and loudly.  

I have run off at the mouth again on a topic that is unending.  Twixt, me and thee, there is but one judge.  Let us choose wisely that the merciful, just God's judgement will bring us into his presence. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, I don’t know darn well any such thing. What special permission did they get? And even if they are sealed to more than one man, isn’t it understood that they will end up with only one man in the eternities. 

Not to those paying attention that sealing ordinances for men and women are identical once they are dead...which everyone will be eventually and for the living they are becoming more and more similar over the last 30 years or so (women don't have to wait for marriage to receive endowments, women are with special permission allowed as living to be sealed to more than one man just as a man needs a sealing clearance...no need to choose stated in any current doctrinal source or handbook or manual and intact for eternity by the same rules unless you are willing to throw out identical sealing ordinances just because it is done two for one...if not for women, why not man since there is nothing scripturally that requires a man to have more than one wife that couldn't be applied to women).

If a perfectly valid second sealing ordinance has no meaning in one case, why would you have faith the identical ordinance has meaning in other cases?

Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Behavior has never been one's identity - ever."

Not watching Batman these days, huh?

"it's what you do that defines you."

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I agree with you to a point. The rub is that these individuals have chosen to make their lives public; they became advocates of a cause for other individuals.  The fact that they chose a public forum to live their lives is their own choice and they will necessarily affect people by their public choices.  

Granted, I think his announcement to the world of their pending divorce has some good points....it also has some really poor logical positions.  I suppose if I knew these two personally I would want to discuss these fallacies with them, but I don't know them from Adam, so such a discussion with them is without value.  They are living their lives and they are making choices for their themselves just like everyone else.  Maybe it is time for both of them to stop talking publically?  

Behavior has never been one's identity - ever.  Behavior is only a choice to act.  Personal identity is the recognition of one's potential and qualities as an individual, particularly in a social context.  I can remember as a boy being tempted to steal candy bars from the local store.  I actually did steal a candy bar on one occasion and felt very badly about it afterward....of course, I ate the stupid thing.  My dad talked to me about it and we worked out a way for me to reimburse the store owner for the candy bar.  What was clear to me as a boy was that I did not want to be a thief.  Even with that experience I still had times where I was tempted to steal again.  My mother always said, "Mike, you cannot go down a chimney without getting any soot on you."  By this she meant that if I chose to experience something, anything, then that experience would rub off on me for the rest of my life for good or ill.  

I reject the idea or the concept of anybody identifying themselves as a behavior.  That is a false supposition and once embraced how could the individual become anything else but that thing?  If I tell myself, "Mike, you are a thief" guess how I will act when the occasion presents itself to steal?  That is right, I will steal repeatedly until it is as natural as getting up in the morning.  More importantly, I will lose any sense of guilt for any thefts I commit.  

And, no, variety is not the end all of life.  I reject that entire concept.  Logically, if variety is what is desired what is it that stops us from doing anything and everything because variety is the highest quality?  It just such New Age gobble-d-gook concepts presented as valid.  To me it is like finger nails on a chalk board - it grates badly and loudly.  

I have run off at the mouth again on a topic that is unending.  Twixt, me and thee, there is but one judge.  Let us choose wisely that the merciful, just God's judgement will bring us into his presence. 

I have thought a bit about what you wrote.  Not sure if it is that clear cut.  Stealing is strictly a behavior.  But how about being a man.  Does being a man define you at all?  Does the mear fact that you are a man mean certain behaviors?  Are you a man because of how you are born?  Or is there more to it.  Is holding the priesthood something that defines you as a man.  If you don't hold the priesthood are you still a man?  Are you more of a man because you hold the priesthood?  

Putting something closer in context to this situation may make things a little harder to make clear cut judgements.   Perhaps the answers to those questions might vary from person to person.  Maybe not everyone will come to the same conclusion that you do.  Try asking those questions in a priesthood quorum sometime.  I am not sure you would get total agreement on the answer to those questions if you didn't bring up homosexuality as part of the question.  What defines a man is more difficult to define than what defines a thief.

Just something to think about.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If a perfectly valid second sealing ordinance has no meaning in one case, why would you have faith the identical ordinance has meaning in other cases?

Define "perfectly valid".

Just because a sealing ordinance is performed is no guarantee that the sealing is valid.  The sealing keys are subject to laws and conditions like all areas of the gospel.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Why can't he apologize for what he believes was a mistake? How is that morally weak?

His coming out post was a great miral good. His living comited to his wife was a great moral good. He not only apologized for a great moral good but utterly denounced it as a horrible evil. That was his mistake. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

So that is what this is all about?  Choosing some poster boy of the month might not be the best way to decide how others should live their lives.  Sometimes it doesn't go as planned.  There was never any real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives.  And now that they are divorcing, there is still no real importance to anyone how Josh and Lola choose to live their lives or how they view the church.  

I agree that anyone can be inspired by someone only to be let down later by that perdon. That’s what hsppened to me on this thread with Josh and Lola.  If tou read my original post, I’ve no disagreement in their marriage ending. That’s not an issue I took up against them. My issue is Josh’s anti-LDS Church position he has currently embraced. 

I truly do wish thrm well. 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Not to those paying attention that sealing ordinances for men and women are identical once they are dead...which everyone will be eventually and for the living they are becoming more and more similar over the last 30 years or so (women don't have to wait for marriage to receive endowments, women are with special permission allowed as living to be sealed to more than one man just as a man needs a sealing clearance...no need to choose stated in any current doctrinal source or handbook or manual and intact for eternity by the same rules unless you are willing to throw out identical sealing ordinances just because it is done two for one...if not for women, why not man since there is nothing scripturally that requires a man to have more than one wife that couldn't be applied to women).

If a perfectly valid second sealing ordinance has no meaning in one case, why would you have faith the identical ordinance has meaning in other cases?

“Not to those paying attention that sealing ordinances for men and women are identical once they are dead...”

I pretty much alluded to that, did I not? Death dies change the dynamics of marriage, absolutely. 

Josh sees his eternal family as including him having a husband, does he not? Where is thst scripturally based? 

[Bob Crockett]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

There is a big difference between not allowing marriage, dating, kissing, having the opportunity to have a family to someone you want to spend your life with, and someone fornicating.  Sorry you don't see the difference.  Unfortunately many members share your opinion. Like I said earlier, this kind of attitude is the kind of message that I believe is further driving a wedge between those that are gay and the church position.  I also know it will never stop.  Members like this kind of comparison.  

At this point perhaps you should tell me what the Church should do.  

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I have thought a bit about what you wrote.  Not sure if it is that clear cut.  Stealing is strictly a behavior.  But how about being a man.  Does being a man define you at all?  Does the mear fact that you are a man mean certain behaviors?  Are you a man because of how you are born?  Or is there more to it.  Is holding the priesthood something that defines you as a man.  If you don't hold the priesthood are you still a man?  Are you more of a man because you hold the priesthood?  

Putting something closer in context to this situation may make things a little harder to make clear cut judgements.   Perhaps the answers to those questions might vary from person to person.  Maybe not everyone will come to the same conclusion that you do.  Try asking those questions in a priesthood quorum sometime.  I am not sure you would get total agreement on the answer to those questions if you didn't bring up homosexuality as part of the question.  What defines a man is more difficult to define than what defines a thief.

Just something to think about.

I think that would be a wonderful priesthood lesson.  Just some initial thoughts - priesthood does not make you a bigger man - priesthood is a demonstration of one's willingness to serve God and humanity. If I go back to the definition of self-identity is one's potential and one's characteristics. I think we are all given weakness; said another way, we are all attracted to certain things recognized as human passions and certain moral traits.  Some never sense any desire to drink alcohol and yet others will sense a strong drive to drink.  I really don't know why or how those things develop or why they exist.  Regardless, for one doing something may be infinitely difficult, but for another it is like falling down - it just happens.  

For example, our daughter had to fight for everything she learned in school.  It has hard for her, but she succeeded through tons of hours of hard work and effort.  Our son barely opened a book and breezed through school with straight "A"s.  Interestingly, our daughter was never been troubled by confronting things that are difficult.  On the other hand, our son has had real problems when confronting difficult things - he will stop sooner or find another way rather than exert the effort to overcome.  

Our weaknesses can become strengths if we recognize our weakness, confront it, and not allot it to stop us from achieving the goal we choose.  

When I was in Jr. high school our P.E. coach had a sign in the locker room - "The easy path leads down".  There is a lot of wisdom in that simple statement.  Our society today is committed to eliminating all that is challenging, difficult or that stands in the way of our basest human passions and desires.  Things that have been wrong since the beginning of humanity are now sacred cows.  The amount of energy that goes into helping some boy or girl enter into a bathroom of the opposite sex is astounding and, for me, stupid beyond measure.  My parents and all of humanity prior to this generation would have no comprehension of this generation's desire to entertain the confusion of a very small group of people.  I can hear my dad saying, "Buck the heck up!  Of course you are not supposed to enter the girls bathroom and furthermore, what makes you think all of society needs to change simply because you are confused? I will tell you what, Johnny, how about you start understanding what is acceptable and what is not?"  There I go again, off on a soap box about topics that have lost all meaning in this world of today that makes less, and less sense and that twists logic so far out of shape as to lose all meaning.  

Anyhoo, it would be a great lesson in High Priest group.  In so many ways I think men have lost all sense of what manhood is.  More importantly, I don't think society knows what men are anymore either.  The most despised subgroup in society today is the straight, white male.  

[juliann]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Not to those paying attention that sealing ordinances for men and women are identical once they are dead...which everyone will be eventually and for the living they are becoming more and more similar over the last 30 years or so (women don't have to wait for marriage to receive endowments, women are with special permission allowed as living to be sealed to more than one man just as a man needs a sealing clearance...no need to choose stated in any current doctrinal source or handbook or manual and intact for eternity by the same rules unless you are willing to throw out identical sealing ordinances just because it is done two for one...if not for women, why not man since there is nothing scripturally that requires a man to have more than one wife that couldn't be applied to women).

If a perfectly valid second sealing ordinance has no meaning in one case, why would you have faith the identical ordinance has meaning in other cases?

And the sad truth, as we have learned through years on this message board is, it is all to do with what sex you are. You can seal a woman to ten men but if it is done in her behalf, it is meaningless. But if reversed and done in a male's behalf, all are efficacious. What those who denigrate women do not seem to understand is that a sealing is not just for one person. They, even as men, cannot rely on a sealing if women can't because, hello, a woman is involved in their sealing. If hers don't count, yours doesn't either. 

So good luck with that, guys who don't value women enough to allow them your self-claimed privileges. Make sure you don't die first because your wife may choose another man and there is nothing you can do about it. Not only she is gone, your sealing is. That leads us to the next fantasy, the CK will be crawling with spare women. Good luck with that one!