Mixed Orientation Couple Divorcing, Apologises to LGBTQ Community

[Fjrocks]

     Josh and Lolly Weed were a Mormon couple, who were in a "traditional" marriage with children and publicly acknowledged his homosexuality. He had come out at 13.  They ran a blog called The Weed,  though I think the most controversial posts have long been taken down.. They have been featured on Nightline and in other news stories about choosing to live in a mixed orientation marriage.  Josh also worked as a marriage and family counselor.  

    Today they announced their divorce and put out a public apology to the LGBT community,  for misleading them to have "false hope" and for demonizing same sex attraction.

    I had mixed feelings as I read over the latest blog.  It's honorable they are apologizing on several points,  it also great they are working to continue to co-parent as a family (although not in an entirely healthy way.)  The blog post went into intimate details explaining how confusing and difficult of a journey it has been for them, how it unraveled. They talk about how getting to know the LGBT community after publicly coming out really opened their minds.    They tried to offer a very sincere apology for those harmed by their blog.   

    But the damage is done.  People were harmed by his propaganda, judged and condemned, they were encouraged to enter marriages without love. 

      I can't share the details, they are far too tender to put out there, but a dear friend I know suffered due to conservative and religious pressures on homosexuals.   I wish I could move heaven and earth to fix this issue.   

   To ,  I haven't forgotten you,  I miss you every day.   I love you,  I hope you have found peace. 

    

  Here are some details if anyone wants to read up on them. 

http://kutv.com/news/local/josh-weed-famous-gay-married-mormon-announces-divorce-apology-to-lgbtq-community

[Black Aliss]

Wow. I remember them from when they first went public about their marriage. IIRC, the sltrib did a story about them and a couple other mixed-orientation LDS couples. I'm glad they are finally able to be honest with themselves and the rest of the world. I'm sad for all the people like your friend whose lives were irreparably harmed by homophobia.

[FundieCentral]

That was the most beautiful and honest writing I’ve ever seen on this topic. I am deeply, deeply moved. 

[Coy Koi]

1 hour ago, Fjrocks said:

      I can't share the details, they are far too tender to put out there, but a dear friend I know suffered due to conservative and religious pressures on homosexuals.   I wish I could move heaven and earth to fix this issue.   

   To ,  I haven't forgotten you,  I miss you every day.   I love you,  I hope you have found peace. 

I am so sorry to hear about your friend. This kind of thing just breaks my heart, because while there is so much suffering in the world, and much of it is not easily avoidable, this IS! It's so insanely senseless. Why do we do this to ourselves? The alternative is so much better in every possible way.

[Jellybean]

It’s so painful for so many people and, like racism, there’s no reason for it in the first place, and definitely no reason for it to continue as it has done. It breaks my heart and was one of the things that started me on a path away from that kind of Christianity.

It was the perfect storm, I suppose, but was a combination of the (awful, blaming) response from my church and Christian friends when I had to start using a wheelchair full-time in my early 20s contrasted with the amazingly supportive and loving response from gay friends even though they knew I was Christian and that my church was awful to them. It was enough to make me reconsider what I thought about right and wrong, and why. It turned out that I needed to change my mind about lots of things, which took a long time.

I don’t know how we get away from beliefs that celebrate relationships like Josh and Lolly’s, which also allow people in positions of power (eg. housing, employment, services) to discriminate with no consequences. 

This is a broad issue and I don’t want to contribute to bi-erasure. People can be sexually/romantically attracted to people of any gender and I don’t think it’s helpful to try to define them as either straight or gay, depending on their current or most recent relationship. They need protection and rights too, and to be free to be who they are.

I am sad for everyone involved in this, but I’m grateful that they’ve written about it, rather than adding their names to the ever-lengthening list of fundies who changed dramatically but think you won’t notice if they keep quiet about it. I hope that they can be honest about the hurts as well as their hope for the future. They have a wide reach and the ability to prompt discussion/conversation, which I hope will be a good thing. One more example of nuanced grey where people might prefer black or white. 

 

[Marly]

I really appreciate that Lolly mentions that she is struck by how her friends and community empathize with her, and tell her that she deserves romantic love, but that they don't extend that empathy towards her husband only because of his sexual orientation. She writes, and I quote this from the article that the first post here linked to:
"The thing that’s so interesting to me is how few people think of Josh in this way. How few people in his life have ever thought these things about him—things that are so obvious, so clear, so emphatic when talking to another straight person. I mean, isn’t the same true for LGBT people? Shouldn’t we feel the exact same intuitive injustice at the thought of them deserving to be “loved like that”? When the tables are turned and we are talking about LGBTQ individuals, somehow people don’t see the parallels. Why am I, as a straight person, entitled to reciprocal, requited romantic love while an LGBTQ individual is not?"
I find this a powerful and honest statement, and I think that, especially considering their religious environment, it is important that she points this out, that she makes this discrepancy visible, as it were.

[molecule]

I thought their post was so beautifully written, with truth and heart and authenticity. I found it quite moving.

[Antipatriarch]

Thanks for posting this @Fjrocks ... glad to see their story getting a wider audience. I've been following Josh and Lolly since the "Club Unicorn" post 5 years ago. They have been very honest and tender and vulnerable in their writing; theirs is an amazing story.

2 hours ago, Jellybean said:

This is a broad issue and I don’t want to contribute to bi-erasure. People can be sexually/romantically attracted to people of any gender and I don’t think it’s helpful to try to define them as either straight or gay, depending on their current or most recent relationship. They need protection and rights too, and to be free to be who they are.

Yes! One of the broadest misunderstandings that needs to be corrected is that there are only two or three orientations. Attraction can be way more complicated than this, and Josh's story highlighted this.

The sad thing he relates in his post this week is that his story was used as a cudgel against other religious mixed-orientation couples. "See, if Josh (who is gay) can be married to Lolly and have sex and have a family, so can you!" What works for one person, and one couple, is not at all guaranteed to work for others. And, in fact, what Josh and Lolly came to realize is that it wasn't even working for them.

36 minutes ago, Marly said:

I really appreciate that Lolly mentions that she is struck by how her friends and community empathize with her, and tell her that she deserves romantic love, but that they don't extend that empathy towards her husband only because of his sexual orientation.

Yeah, that was a really powerful point. Also, I was amazed at the maturity and wisdom of one of their daughters as they talked to her about it. Her responses were amazing; they are raising her right. I wish them all the best.

[Coy Koi]

I'm still shook from hearing about these people. I'd never heard of them before now. The sheer torment that they must have endured trying to deny who they really were is unfathomable.

My daughter is bisexual and she also suffers from depression. I'm not confident that she'd still be alive right now if she had ever received anything other than unconditional support and love. It just really breaks my heart that some people don't get that.

[Briefly]

5 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

I'm still shook from hearing about these people. I'd never heard of them before now. The sheer torment that they must have endured trying to deny who they really were is unfathomable.

My daughter is bisexual and she also suffers from depression. I'm not confident that she'd still be alive right now if she had ever received anything other than unconditional support and love. It just really breaks my heart that some people don't get that.

It is heartbreaking, when people need support and don't get it in situations like that. I've seen a few younger people have to deal with non-supportive parents and it's really sad.  Parents especially need to support their children, we don't have the right to turn our backs on them.  (I'm not trying to accuse you of that, please don't misunderstand my words. I applaud you for supporting your daughter.) One of my daughter's friends is trans and they have the most bigoted parents I've ever met and it's really a bad situation. Actually, they are a former friend of my daughter but that has nothing to do with their situation.

[luv2laugh]

They went viral in 2012 when Josh Weed came out as gay but being a Mormon, chose to marry his wife Lolly.

They've apologized to the LGBTQ community and say they will both be “best friends forever”.

http://joshweed.com/2018/01/turning-unicorn-bat-post-announce-end-marriage/

[Hane]

On 1/27/2018 at 12:48 AM, Fjrocks said:

 

    I had mixed feelings as I read over the latest blog.  It's honorable they are apologizing on several points,  it also great they are working to continue to co-parent as a family (although not in an entirely healthy way.) 

Can you explain why you think their co-parenting isn’t entirely healthy? Just curious.

[closetcagebaby]

52 minutes ago, Hane said:

Can you explain why you think their co-parenting isn’t entirely healthy? Just curious.

They’re still very enmeshed in a way that seems like it will make it difficult for them to find other partners, which seems to be a goal of theirs. I also worry about their children because the LDS Church because they will have to choose between their father and their faith when age 18 comes, and it doesn’t seem like Josh and Lolly are very concerned with that. They want to live on a compound together with their children, which is a great idea in theory, but I feel like they’re setting themselves up for another failure. 

[samurai_sarah]

39 minutes ago, closetcagebaby said:

They’re still very enmeshed in a way that seems like it will make it difficult for them to find other partners, which seems to be a goal of theirs. I also worry about their children because the LDS Church because they will have to choose between their father and their faith when age 18 comes, and it doesn’t seem like Josh and Lolly are very concerned with that. They want to live on a compound together with their children, which is a great idea in theory, but I feel like they’re setting themselves up for another failure. 

Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree in part with you, but don't think co-parenting is unhealthy as such. The issue I see, which you also point out, is outside influence. Having said that, parents deal with that every day, so it remains to be seen how they navigate their LDS faith with raising children.

[closetcagebaby]

41 minutes ago, samurai_sarah said:

Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree in part with you, but don't think co-parenting is unhealthy as such. The issue I see, which you also point out, is outside influence. Having said that, parents deal with that every day, so it remains to be seen how they navigate their LDS faith with raising children.

I mostly worry that they are again forcing an expectation on themselves that isn’t realistic or tenable. I don’t think it was fair to either of them to remain in the marriage, but I don’t think it’s fair either to hold themselves to another set of extremely lofty expectations, if that makes sense. I’m very hopeful that they can make it work in a way that works for their family and don’t feel the need to pretend to be something they aren’t in order to present a happy picture. 

[Fjrocks]

2 hours ago, Hane said:

Can you explain why you think their co-parenting isn’t entirely healthy? Just curious.

   Yes.  I wrote that, this is a real sticking point for me.  In LDS Mormon doctrine, there is a policy called the November 2015 policy.  It's extremely controversial for several reasons (and its been attributed to a lot of suicides) but here is the main one that applies to the Weeds:

  If a minor has an actively homosexual parent you CANNOT be baptized into the faith (even if the gay parent consents) until you are 18 and have free agency from your parents.  The church justifies this as it's too confusing and upsetting for children to have all kinds of mixed messages and can cause unnecessary strain in custody arrangements.

      This means that the Weeds intend to continue to take their children to a church that can not accept them fully! Two of their children have not yet reached LDS baptismal age.  So this means those minors, on top of everything else, every week will have to face not feeling entirely accepted by their GOD,  will not be able to fully participate,  can not participate in temple work, advance in classes or receive the awards their peers are. Even worse one sibling has already been baptized, while the others aren't and won't be!

  Exposing your children to a God who doesn't fully, 100% embrace them?

  Yeah, I call that unhealthy parenting.   Dear God, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too!!

[Fjrocks]

  Folks,  I wanted to come back and apologize for being a bit hotheaded and oversimplifying the topic.  I try very hard to thoughtfully contribute without mocking or name calling.  I also try very hard to convey transitioning out of a faith is insanely complex and requires years of very painful self-reflection while attempting to maintain relationships to family and friends,  extending great tenderness to them, despite a difference of opinion.  

   My tone there was a bit more cheeky then I was going for and I could have made my point without it.  I apologize. 

[Hane]

Thanks, @Fjrocks. I had forgotten about the November 2015 policy, and didn’t realize that two of the children were still below baptismal age. That policy is beyond cruel. 

I can’t understand people’s dedication to a religion that officially brands them—and, worse, their children!—second-class citizens.

[Fjrocks]

@hane,  I hear you.

      I know a gay couple who had a baby BEFORE the policy changed and entered their baby's name into the Mormon church records.   A lot of people found this downright odd (read insane) and yeah they only intended for their child to be involved causally, certainly not weekly worship.   They stated they hoped to raise their child where things are not just black and white,  to teach their child to discern for themselves the good and beauty in the world.  They felt the LDS church still espoused many virtues they felt were very positive.  They also wanted their child to feel fully able to participate in the community aspects with their friends like LDS church run sports, summer camps, scouting, etc if they wanted.   Their third reason was about extended family and the mormon belief of wholly knitting families together, to their grandparents, great grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins in culture,  heritage and tradition.  Partially out of respect to their relatives to allow them the opportunity to encircle the baby and give the initial religious blessings and rites.   I still don't entirely agree ...but I certainly see their perspective.  I am not sure if they would have ever had the child fully baptized or not.  Certainly they can not now. 

    Again,  I am greatly oversimplifying,  but leaving any religion is so, so complicated for many people because it's so interwoven into our identity. 

[lilith]

Doesn’t any Mormon man who holds the priesthood have the power to baptise? I understand that temple records and participation in church activities are another matter, but couldn’t they be baptised by their father (or another male relative or friend if he’s lost priesthood) and at least have the spiritual affirmation?

[closetcagebaby]

14 hours ago, lilith said:

Doesn’t any Mormon man who holds the priesthood have the power to baptise? I understand that temple records and participation in church activities are another matter, but couldn’t they be baptised by their father (or another male relative or friend if he’s lost priesthood) and at least have the spiritual affirmation?

Technically, yes, any man over the age of 16 who has been given the priesthood can baptize, but I think now to be “official” in the mainstream LDS church, it has to be presided over by a bishop. Also, after baptism, there is generally a laying of hands by a member of the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood, which doesn’t include all of-age men. I don’t think that’s actually a part of the baptism itself though.