The Weeds are divorcing, but not breaking up the family

[Reuben]

Josh Weed has realized what internalized homophobia is, and that he has it, and that trying to stay in his mixed-orientation marriage is killing him little by little:

http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turning ... d-marriage

Reading this, I switched between heartbreak and rage over and over. I would love to give this to my daughter to read, but she'd take it as an attack.

The church is so very, very wrong about this.

Any bets on whether this goes as viral as his "coming out" post in Mormon circles?

[wtfluff]

I was about 1/3 of the way through when I popped over here to see if anyone had posted. I shall return and report my labors of reading the entire thing...

Edit: This is my report: That was long. It was also gut-wrenching, honest, awesome and a lot of other excellent words that my tiny brain can't think of. I hope it goes as viral if not more viral than their original story. I hope every "member" of the LDS "church" reads it. In fact I hope anyone of "faith" reads it. I hope Josh and Lolly find what they are looking for.

Towards the end of the post, Josh talks about a lot of things he's going to choose. Here's one more thing I hope both he and Lolly choose, and I'll address it to them as if they're reading this: If you must choose some form of religious community, please find one that accepts you as you are, not one like the LDS version which cannot accept you, and which will in fact persecute you if you follow the path you hope for in your post.


One other thought that hit me while reading: I don't want to minimize the damage that mormonism can cause to LGBTQIA folks, but I honestly believe that mormonism causes similar self-loathing to what Josh mentions in literally every member, no matter their sexual orientation. It's literally the "keystone" to what they do: Teach everyone that they are sick/broken, then sell them a cure (which doesn't actually work.)

[Jeffret]

It's a really complicated situation with all sorts of painful, messy difficulties for many people in many aspects. Certainly for the Weeds. But, also for the many, many other people who they've impacted.

I think I'm mostly kind of happy for the Weeds. It's a big difficult change for them, with lots of turmoil to their lives and things to work out and deal with. I suspect this change will work for the better for them. (Mostly because they say so, but I think it makes sense.)

When Josh first came out as a gay Mormon committed to maintaining the Mormon ideal of a straight relationship, my first thought was along the lines of, "Well, good luck with that one." When I saw Josh and Lolly's comments on their plans and their relationship I certainly considered best wishes for them in that endeavor. I had some doubts, though, that it would last for the long term. Indeed they've been able to nurture and maintain their intimate relationship for longer than I expected, but I'm not much surprised at this change.

Though I'm not directly or even hardly indirectly affected by this situation, I do find it quite poignant. Even for those with the best of intentions and desires, as the Weeds seem to be, these MOMs can be extremely draining and challenging. This evening I'm attending a performance of "Fun Home", a theater version of Alison Bechdel's memoir of growing up with a dawning awareness of her lesbianism and her parents' closted MOM. I would certainly hate to see the Weeds experience the kind of tragedy the Bechdels did.

[Jeffret]

On the other hand, Josh's very public attempt at living how the Church demands has hurt a lot of people. He held this up as something that was possible and righteous, something that a righteous member would do. Lots of LGBTQ people in the Church have been attacked and shamed by Church members by doing things their way. Many times the Weeds have been held up as shining examples of how these other people should have been. Willingly or not, they caused an awful lot of pain and suffering through their pubic ministry. There is an awful lot anger associated with this for many LGBTQ people associated with the Church. It's easier for me to express and feel a conciliatory tone towards Josh, because, as I mentioned above, I'm not directly impacted.

[Jeffret]

This latest development should be no surprise for anyone who knows some of the history of situations and people in the gay and and ex-gay communities. Attempts at Mixed Orientation Marriages and conversion therapy have a long and dismal history.

When Josh first announced his plan to stay heavily involved in his MOM and live life as a straight man, I had a lot of doubts about how well that would work. I wished him well, from a distance, in his difficult endeavor. But I had lots of doubts that they could make an enduring, fulfilling run of it. I don't think anyone can accuse of them of not giving it their all, but sexual orientation is not changeable and trying to live otherwise can be very damaging.

I'm reminded of the story of John and Anne Paulk (Ex-ex-gay pride. At one time they were the darlings of the ex-gay community, leading the charge against accepting their orientation and loudly proclaiming how they formerly considered themselves gay but had converted and demonstrated how people such as themselves could choose to be straight and have a fulfilling relationship as a straight couple. In the late 90's they were featured in many major publications and conferences. And then in 2000, John was photographed in a gay bar. These days John is living as an openly gay man and much happier. Many in the gay community still have a lot of hurt and anger over John's ex-gay activities.

Or like Alison Bechdel's father, as she describes in "Fun Home", who couldn't handle the complications and implications of his closeted gay life once his daughter started coming out publicly in college, choosing to step in front of a semi-truck hurtling down the highway.

Luckily, we have no indication that things ever got as extreme as these situations for Josh. Hopefully by dealing with who he is, he can avoid some of the worst outcomes.

[Jeffret]

Even in Josh's more enlightened epistle today, there are still some very harmful, judgmental things. I don't think he begins to understand how the narrative he has promoted has hurt others. He still sees things narrowly, out of his own perspective and doesn't understand the perspectives of others who are different from him. He hasn't really begun to sort through how this will all work out and where he will end up.

The Mormon Church can be extremely damaging for people who don't fit into its prejudiced expectations, as it attempts to demand that reality adhere to its desires.

[LaMachina]

This needs to be shared everywhere. Their original coming out did an immense amount of damage to the LDS LGBTQ community IMHO. I do appreciate that they seem to be quite apologetic about it.

On a personal note this latest revelation, while not necessarily surprising, resolves some dissonance I experienced while reading the original post back years ago. I found Josh's comments so atypical I emailed a famous psychologist to ask his opinion on the matter. He said there wasn't much specific research at the time but suggested that perhaps internalized self-disgust was likely in a situation where the community strongly frowned on homosexuality. Looks like he got it right on the nose.

[Jeffret]

This needs to be shared everywhere. Their original coming out did an immense amount of damage to the LDS LGBTQ community IMHO. I do appreciate that they seem to be quite apologetic about it.

I've got conflicting opinions on that. I'd feel a certain amount of pleasure in saying, "I told you so", but I'm not sure that would really be helpful. I'd like to erase the narrative that the Weeds contributed it to that a MOM and gays living a straight life is an acceptable, workable solution. But I'm not convinced that sharing this latest installment will really produce much benefit or change much minds. Those who are still wedded to the Church's demands will continue to be so. They'll just consider the Weeds as fallen and sinful -- they didn't try hard enough. Believers won't read Josh's lengthy article enough to really understand the pain and effort that they've put into it.

I'd feel somewhat uncomfortable using Josh and Lolly's situation and pain to make a point. I realize that's what they did originally. That's what the Church and its members have done by holding them up as examples. And that's still kind of what the Weeds are doing now. They're publishing their narrative to be in the limelight and make some point. But still, I feel a little uncomfortable promulgating their story to make a point. It doesn't quite seem like the right thing to do.

And I still have concerns with what Josh is saying now. Even in his more enlightened state, he's not really acknowledging what he's done. Some of the things he states in his current epistle still present some attacks on people in different situations. Even what he says now about his plans for his own situation are unlikely to be very stable.

I'm still not entirely sure just what Josh is a good example of. Like the rest of us I think he's still got a lot of learning to do and a lot to figure out.

[LaMachina]

I believe I share most of your concerns Jeffret. I don't think I would want to hold Josh as a good example of anything really and I hope people could avoid the "I told you so" temptation (although a natural reaction!). I'm also bothered by the limelight nature of all this, going all the way back to the original viral post.

Yet, the original coming out made huge waves within my sphere and, while there were people who held reservations, far too many celebrated their story as a success achieved through hardwork and faithfulness and validation of the mormon/Christian position. I would hate to think people would continue to go forward citing this couple as an example of that success without realizing "the rest of the story".

As you say, I imagine there will be many believers who rationalize away the failure of this marriage. But, kinda like church history I guess, I far prefer that people have that full story rather than continue to believe that Josh & Lolly have gone on in blissful mixed-orientation matrimony.

[Corsair]

That was a fascinating posting. This is going to send shock waves around the LDS church for both the faithful and unfaithful. I suppose I will just wait for the Mormon Stories interview. Maybe Carol Lynn Pearson will do a podcast with Lolly Weed.

[wtfluff]

I don't think I would want to hold Josh as a good example of anything really and I hope people could avoid the "I told you so" temptation (although a natural reaction!).

Though it's probably not productive to throw the "I told you so" reactions at Josh and Lolly themselves, don't you think it's fair game to throw the "I told you so" at all the kooks who were using Josh and Lolly as a "successful" mixed-orientation example?

[Reuben]

Josh said that somebody (a daughter?) suggested going on the Ellen show. I can't think of a better platform for telling their story.

I'm still not entirely sure just what Josh is a good example of. Like the rest of us I think he's still got a lot of learning to do and a lot to figure out.

Apology is one thing he appears to exemplify well. But you make a good point. Should anyone look to Josh as an example of how to think and act? I have a few reservations myself, mostly around the idea that he regards many of his feelings about things as indicating absolute truth from God - perhaps even moreso than most believing Mormons - and teaches his children to do the same. I think this approach fails too easily, and makes realizing when you've been wrong too difficult.

One thing I've just realized well enough to put into words is that I no longer have examples to follow. (One exception might be Jesus, but not regarding him as literally divine makes following him complicated.) Following has never been my modus operandi, but I did try as a believer. Now I don't even try. Instead, when I come across a story, I breathe it like it's oxygen, drink it like it's pure water, eat it like I'm a starving man... and instead of extracting a church-approved lesson or action, I let it become part of me. Other people's true stories have become life itself.

When I say the church is very, very wrong about sexuality, what I really mean is that I hear the echoes of a hundred stories of pain and misery that were caused by it. Josh's has joined the chorus.

So with Josh's story (as he's told it so far) I didn't try to determine what I should think or how I should act. Your talking about doing so seemed like a non-sequitur. But you're right: most believing Mormons will look for a lesson, an action, a way to liken Josh's tale. Especially those who feel out of place or rejected and don't have a well-lit path like heterosexual cisgender members do, and are scrambling for anything at all to hold on to. What will they learn from it?

I have a hunch that most will stop early, when they realize that they can't extract a church-approved lesson or action from it.

[Jeffret]

Josh said that somebody (a daughter?) suggested going on the Ellen show. I can't think of a better platform for telling their story.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it's the type of story Ellen would pick up and I don't think it's a good fit for her show. His story is way too complex. I don't know how Ellen or her viewers would really relate to it. His story may even be too complex for Maddow. Especially right now when he still has no idea where he's going.

It's kind of similar to John Paulk again. It's pretty easy to tell John's story now that he's established an open life as a gay man and a career as a chef. It was much more difficult to tell back when he was photographed at the gay bar or in the initial phases of figuring out who he was.

Josh's story would fit in a lot better with Dehlin's lengthy, involved format, where he can keep probing into particular areas that interest him, though I'm not entirely sure Dehlin really has the interviewing skills to handle it well.

[moksha]

This is going to send shock waves around the LDS church for both the faithful and unfaithful.

I'm not sure most people will care other than wishing them the best going forward. Anomalous situations tend to resolve themselves and the Church will continue to slip behind the curve on the issue of accepting others as they are.

Eventually, either external forces or the attrition of younger members will help bring the Church closer to normality and kindness to these others. Of course, there would be an even faster wake up call if Canada threatened to yank their missionary priveledges over this issue.

[Jeffret]

The story starts to make the news.

First the mainstream Utah news: KUTV news

And then the LGBT news:
Joe.My.God

Towleroad

LGBTQ Nation

We'll see if it spreads to other mainstream news sites, particularly national ones.

[Jeffret]

This is going to send shock waves around the LDS church for both the faithful and unfaithful.

I'm not sure most people will care other than wishing them the best going forward.

It's already made huge shock waves through the LGBT portions of the extended Mormon community. And huge shock waves individually to a number of people. A number of LGBT people have really felt a lot of anger and frustration at the news. I don't think I would dismiss their feelings and experiences quite so readily.

[wtfluff]

This is going to send shock waves around the LDS church for both the faithful and unfaithful.

I'm not sure most people will care other than wishing them the best going forward.

It's already made huge shock waves through the LGBT portions of the extended Mormon community. And huge shock waves individually to a number of people. A number of LGBT people have really felt a lot of anger and frustration at the news. I don't think I would dismiss their feelings and experiences quite so readily.

For selfish reasons, I hope the Weeds keep documenting their story openly...

[achilles]

Just as I have the desire to reply to this topic on many dimensions, my feelings of sympathy and empathy for the Weeds is similarly complex. This topic itself is complex, and I think most "regular" members of the Church are attracted to the simplicity of the LDS "Gospel" (you know, "this goes here, that goes there..."), and just can't grasp the subtleties of situations like this. I think Jeffret is right about his hesitation to share this story. I myself thought to share it with my dad, so he could better understand my own situation, but I realized that it would be best shared when it comes up naturally in my discourse with him and with others.

I want to respond to this development on the following levels:
1-my personal level
2-a theological level
3-a Church policy and practice level

So, here goes.

PERSONAL

I feel terrible for Josh and Lolly. I see them mostly as victims of the LDS system--of the LDS approach to homosexuality. They bought in to the system, and trusted that it would sustain, nourish, and protect them until they reach the "finish line". Of course, that system didn't and couldn't sustain them. It could support them in living out the "outward" parts of the Mormon experience, but when it came to the inner stuff, the stuff that matters most, the system had nothing to offer. And this is where Josh's realization that romantic love (desiring and being desired by another) was really important. And that the lack of this was a canker on both of their hearts that couldn't ever heal. My ultimate realization of this--that I was gay, and it was good; that I could and should desire to find a male soul-mate and experience the joys of romantic love--was life-changing. And like Josh's realization of this, mine came as a result of suicidality. I'm not happy that his family is going through this. But reading his post adds yet another piece of evidence that the Church is terribly wrong about all of this, and that I have made the right decision to accept my sexuality and seek male companionship.

I'm pleased that they are going to try to raise their kids together. But if Josh ends up dating, and finding his male soul-mate, that family is going to collide with the Nov '15 POX. And it's going to become more complicated for that family to maintain its ties with the LDS Church. Recently, my father asked me about the POX, and when I explained it to him he was angry. Angry about what it meant for me, and for others. So, I wish them luck, but they may find themselves pushed further outside the LDS experience--tragically; in spite of their best intentions, they might end up in the DAMU, as ex, or post Mormons.

2-Theological

I think the gist of the gay experience (and I purposely limit LBTQ because I can't really speak to those experiences) is one of contradictions. In LDS teachings, we were all male or female before our mortality, are male or female here, and continue to be male or female after this life. The entire Plan of Salvation relies on the complementary nature of the male-female union, its continuation of the race, its continuity after death, and its mystical "continuation of the seeds forever", whatever that means. If your experience doesn't fit within this paradigm, you're screwed. For those who are allowed to expound on LDS theology (essentially the apostles and FP) this creates a problem: it's uncomfortable to think about, it raises serious questions about the Plan and about God, and it's creating problems on the local level. It's just easier not to really ponder and consider--just blame the "victims", set up half-thought-out requirements and solutions, and ultimately pass judgement on them when it doesn't work out (inevitably...). Of course, people are beginning to see how messed up, unfair, and inadequate this is when it hurts people they care about.

I'm glad that Josh and Lolly addressed the core paradox of the gay Mormon experience: In a church that commands its members to date, marry, have sex, and have kids, gay Mormons are perplexingly commanded not to date, not to fall in love, not to marry other men, not to have sex, not to have kids (think Nov 15 POX), and basically to live a cloistered and lonely life. And in return for all of this, gay Mormons are merely tolerated, but policed and harshly judged if they make the tiniest mistake. Along with this harsh treatment, gay Mormons are essentially given no emotional, social, or spiritual support. I wish I had a more polite word for what this does to a person--there just isn't a "nicer" word for "mind-f*@$". It's a complete mind-f*@$ that really messes a person up. Josh said it well when he talked about the despair of seeing himself as fundamentally broken. And, I think wtfluff is right that the LDS experience does this to everyone on some level.

This perplexing situation causes a person to begin to question the Church's "reality", to question the Brethren's claims of prophecy/visions/revelations about the gay experience, to question whether this really is Christ's church, and to question the goodness of God. And in many cases, to reject all of these things together and become an agnostic or atheist. Once you get past the crippling self-doubt, you begin to realize that your experience is authentic, and that the Church has it all wrong. It's a tragic road for anyone who really felt hope and faith in their lives from the LDS or any other Christian experience.

So where does this leave us theologically? I think we're left with a couple of options: God does exist, is good, created gay people, loves them, and wants them to be happy; God is out there but is hand-off, allowing affairs on earth to run their natural course (gay people being one of many human mutations/adaptations) and the Church is a human creation; or there is no God and the Church is persecuting and destroying a lot of people unfairly.

3. Policy

The Church is forced to make policy on this, both formally and informally. The history of the Church and homosexuality is both disturbing and fascinating, and I highly recommend reading this article for those who are interested: "Private Pain, Public Purges: A History of Homosexuality at Brigham Young University" http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoituks ... nell.shtml It only deals with the history at BYU up to the 80s, but it is helpful in pinning down some of the Church's policies and practices on this subject.

A basic history: homosexuals seem to be ignored or tolerated until the 1950s. Around this time, influential Mormons began to focus more on homosexuality, call it a vile and depraved sin, up there with murder. They privately counselled the "repentant", demanding them to force their behavior and thoughts in line with LDS teachings. The idea was this: repent and God will make you a heterosexual. Later on (70s to present), the idea was: get married, have heterosexual sex, and God will make you a heterosexual. I know many gentlemen who did this, raised families, had unhappy marriages and divorces, and ended up having to leave everything they knew to find happiness. Sad stories. Josh and Lolly fall into this category. Beginning in the 80s, there seemed to be more of a focus on changing behaviors (sins) and trying to bring thoughts and feelings into asexual or heterosexual territory. Of course, LDS Family Services was involved in the process, counselling hundreds of men, trying to make them into heterosexuals. The 90s was the hey-day of Joseph Nicolosi's "Reparative Therapy", with all of its Freudian weirdness and questionable cognitive/behavioral therapy. I spent my 20s being "treated" for my homosexuality this way. During this time period, a support group called Evergreen was founded to help hundreds of gay men in their impossible quest. Again, the focus was on eliminating questionable behaviors and changing your thoughts and feelings. The Church doubled its efforts on the political front in the US, greatly fearing the Armageddon that would be triggered by gay marriage. We get the Fam Proc and Prop 8. P. Oaks and P. Packer were intimately involved in these efforts. Around 2007, the Church released its most compassionate (relatively) approach to date in the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children". Homosexuality is a "complex reality" and often "not chosen". This pamphlet advocated for more tender treatment of gay men, but nevertheless ended with the conclusion that gay men who want to remain "faithful" in the Church must eschew male companionship and live singly.

The Church's policies have been, in brief:

Up to 1950s Ignore it, leave it alone
50s-70s Repent in sackcloth and ashes, you vile miscreant!
70s Maybe, if you marry a woman it will all go away...
80-90s Let put you through lots of cognitive-behavioral therapy so God will heal you (God would never make you gay and not give you a way out? Why would God do that?
2000s This might actually be something out of control that you can't change... But we're still gonna hold you to strict standards
2015 Get in the closet or get out.

Through all of this, one gets the sense that LDS gays have been "jerked around" for decades, making major life decisions based on what they and their priesthood leaders wanted to be true. Enter Josh and Lolly. They are merely playing out something that has been going on for many, many years. The fact that they have been so public about their lives adds a somewhat cruel dimension to their experience (which was largely out of their control)--being held up as "proof" that a gay man can tow the line and live a genuine Mormon life. Christofferson has been held up as another recent example: you can find happiness and salvation by leaving your soul-mates, and coming back to the Church to live single, lonely lives. Who can blame these family members and local leaders for grasping at any solution out there? I tried for fifteen years to become a heterosexual. That quest ended in Oct 2013 as I sought for painless ways to end my life. I had my moment of "satori", realizing that I am gay and beautiful, and immediately stopped going to Church.

There are many members of the Church who aren't directly involved, but are nevertheless affected by the collision of the Church and the Reality of LGBTQ's lives. These people want to do the right thing for LGBTQs, but also want to be obedient to the Church. It doesn't leave many options in the end: 1) remain "faithful" and hold gays strictly accountable, relying on the "Lord's Law" (as P. Oaks recently said in correction of P Nelson in a recent press conference; 2) try to straddle the difference, or 3) to get out of Dodge. The Brethren might make this easier in the future, or much harsher, as seen in the Nov 15 POX. It could drive many away from the Church in the realization that none of this treatment is very Christlike.

Long story short: I feel bad for Josh, Lolly, and their family. They have rough roads ahead. Staying in the Church will be difficult for them. I am personally helped by hearing his story--it is another data point confirming my decision to leave the Church's impractical and potentially dangerous demands behind...

[wtfluff]

Just as I have the desire to reply to this topic on many dimensions... <GIANT snip>

Thank you Achilles! [BigThumbsUp!]

[Fifi de la Vergne]

. . .my feelings of sympathy and empathy for the Weeds is similarly complex. This topic itself is complex, and I think most "regular" members of the Church are attracted to the simplicity of the LDS "Gospel" (you know, "this goes here, that goes there..."), and just can't grasp the subtleties of situations like this.

Achilles, I'm so glad you weighed in on this. Your insights are really valuable as someone who has lived this. I'm really glad you're in a better place now.

One of the things that really struck me in Josh's comments and that I've been turning over and over in my mind was his realization that his being gay was beautiful and good. That he was valuable because, not in spite of, being gay. I have known many gay men and been close to a couple, and I have to agree: a significant part of what makes them special and dear is their homosexuality. (There's a Ted talk somewhere that goes deeper into the unique and important things that a gay child brings to his family; it was really good).

I haven't figured out where I will land on the issue of personal faith, but loving people -- accepting and valuing them because of who they are rather than in spite of who they are -- feels so much more in line with the idea of a god who is a loving parent than the god that Mormonism imagines.

I hope the very best for you, Achilles, and for Josh and for anyone trying to extricate themselves from the mind you-know-what the church has created.