And… breathe. Also I’m on the radio in Canada in 15 minutes.

Thursday was a really interesting day.

In the morning, we got up and knew that our life would be on national television, and that we had no control over how it would go.

So, we spent the day getting ready and kind of zoned out. There was this weird mixture of terror and anticipation (as there has been all along in this process.) Waves of near-panic, leveling out to this strange kind of inevitablility.

By the time the show came on, I was keeping myself distracted by reading stuff on the internet. And then, I got the first text from someone on the East coast who had seen the piece saying it wasn’t bad at all, and the pit in my stomach lessened. And then (since I’m on the West coast) I waited as the show swept across the continent hour by hour, and got a small deluge of texts and phone calls saying “It was good! Really, it was very good!” each time it hit another time zone.

By the time Lolly got home from a girl’s night with friends, and the show was going to air, I had heard enough people tell me I wouldn’t be horrified that I was finally actually looking forward to watching.

So, Lolly and I sat, and we watched our local news channel report about our story (which was surprising and totally surreal). And then we saw our little family on TV, and watched our words be spoken, and saw very fair counterpoint, and saw a Nightline piece that was very kind to us and that told our story in a really fair way. Granted, there were things that weren’t exactly right (as there always are in this kind of thing, or so I’ve heard). But the overall feel was really sweet and fair, and I feel like they did us justice.

And now we can breathe for the first time in over a month. The terror has subsided, and instead we have a really neat memory of our story being fairly told.

It’s a really nice feeling.

Anyway, I wanted to post our reaction quickly, but I’m also posting to let you know that in 15 minutes (sorry for the short notice!) I’ll be on the radio in Canada.

It’s called the Drew Marshall show and I’m being featured as their “God Blogger.”

Here’s the link:

I hope you can tune in!


  1. Can I just say your post about the run in February had tears rolling down my face! Just read it. Thanks for the laugh today, I needed it! Haven't watched the Nightline story yet but I plan to catch it online. Sounds like it went well. I think your family is awesome!

  2. I watched the Nighline piece last night online, and you both were thoughtful, concise, and honest. As a reader of your blog since "the post", I felt for no discernible reason whatsoever except that I read your blog, very proud of your whole family.

    Congratulations on making it through the terror though 🙂

  3. Wow….
    So I took two hours are I read some of your blogs, and I think you might consider this thought. If a person attempted to define themselves as a Jewish-Muslim, there would be a group of people who were genuinely interested in knowing how that person overcame the internal conflicts that would drive the person to define themselves in that way.
    No different than if a person was to go on NBC Nightly News and call themselves a pro- Al Qaeda/American. We have certain stereotypes in our world that sends mnemonic triggers to our brain and lets us suppose we understand the things we see by the guide of our social norms. A pro- Al Qaeda/American would confuse many of the standards that we have set for ourselves.

    I find your “gay Mormon” status to be interesting as that beyond our mnemonic triggers humans belong to social structures. These social structures define many of the standards or rules that are not in any part a form of group consciousness.

    These standards or rules may have been at one period a definition of desired group consciousness, but they are in no part representative of the actual individual beliefs of each and every member of the group. Because we have no group consciousness and we are all allowed to believe what we want. This "personal belief" is a condition that is inside each of us, it defines us.

    So when we hear of a gay Mormon we wonder? First we think, sure… the LDS people are generally kind and they might accept this gay Mormon as a part of their group. But how gay can a person be, who is married to a woman and belongs to a religion that has been on the forefront of many issues that, to a non-LDS gay person degrade and eliminate gay civil rights?

    Maybe we didn't grow up in the LDS church, and maybe we didn't get pioneer stories and 24th of July parades. Maybe we didn’t feel the super warm fuzzy desire, to get married, like all the other STRAIT people do. So there is no soft mental cushion to fall back on when challenged with the LDS church's involvement in things like recently with Prop 8 or California Prop 22 back in 2000.

    Many of our families of friends have horror stories of how it was to be gay and under the treatment of weekly bishop interviews or disciplinary councils. The groups standards that many gay people were judged by have nothing to do with group consciousness, because remember -there is no group consciousness.
    Every person in a group is allowed to have their own belief, but the rules and the standards are still the same as they were five, ten, fifteen or even sixty years ago in the LDS church.

    A carpenter who builds nothing is really just a person who wants to build something and calls himself a carpenter.
    An artist who never creates any art is really just a person who wishes they were creating art.
    A gay person who follows and belies in a social structure that inhibits his ability to act out his sexuality is gay in name only.

    The rest of us know many gay people who are perfectly acceptable humans and do act out on their naturally god given sexuality. There are no judgments. We all get along just fine and we have no standard that tells us, on one hand to inhibit our sexuality and on the other hand tells us that our sexuality is "ok with them" -who cares what they think? After all there is no group consciousness and we all get to have our own personal beliefs.
    If you were gay, you would have the hallmarks of a gay life. You are not, you are simply out of the closet and you have a social structure that is telling you that many individuals in the group accept your declaration, but don’t kid yourself. Gay means same sex, and last time I checked a guy with a wife hiding in the LDS church is just a guy looking to play it safe and have a bit of notoriety.

    1. I just want to disagree on one point, an artist who doesn't create art is still an artist. He still posesses within himself the ability, talent, and potential for artwork, without giving it any form or avenue. He has inherent skill. Perhaps through no fault of his own he has been deprived of any opportunity, or perhaps he has chosen to withhold his gift. Nevertheless, I would argue, he is still an artist. Each of us has innate traits, tendencies, tastes. Said traits, tastes and tendencies may ebb, flow, and evolve as we practice them or not, but they exist nonetheless.

    2. I often hear that gays are "born that way" and it can't be changed. But now Josh is the exception because he does not fit their model….

      In the movie Yentle, a woman lives the lifestyle of a man. Does this choice make her any less female?

    3. I think your final assessment that (to paraphrase) "To be gay, you must act gay," essentially stating that orientation and action are inseparable. I don't know how you can defend this view. Would you also say that a heterosexual person who waits until marriage to have sex is not really heterosexual until his/her wedding night? I think you're confusing orientation with the expression of that orientation.

      I have several friends who are studying to be Roman Catholic priests, who have decided to give their sexuality to God rather than to a woman (in before some bigoted statement about all priests being pedophiles). I have no doubts that these young men find women attractive and most have done some dating before entreating religious life. By giving up the pursuit of women, it doesn't make them any less heterosexual. It means they have channeled their sexual energy in the service of God and others, bearing spiritual children through their efforts rather than biological ones.

      Homosexual and homosexual describe what you find most attractive/ arousing on a very basic, physical level. If you read Josh's story, you'll find that he claims that he finds men attractive, yet (I'm assuming) he realizes that sexual love is so much more than simply who you're attracted to, but is also whom you love enough to be a spouse and parent to your biological children. His desires to be a faithful Mormon, a husband, and father appear to supersede his biological desire to have sex with men.

      Perhaps this is hard to believe in our super-sexualized culture, but we are also rational creatures, capable of consciously redirecting our desires to more fruitful endeavors. We don't need to "inhibit" our sexuality, but rather know what are fruitful and fulfilling expressions of it. I'd argue that some of the advocated uses of our sexuality are actually abuses of it.

      Catholic in NY

    4. Catholic in NY I really like this comment. I think you make a great point about your friends studying to be priests and choosing to give up their sexuality to God. My favorite part of the Nightline piece was when Josh said I chose one path over the other (paraphrasing}. This was profound to me. Agree or disagree with Josh, he should be respected for making a choice and being at peace with his choice.

    5. "Gay means same sex, and last time I checked a guy with a wife hiding in the LDS church is just a guy looking to play it safe and have a bit of notoriety"

      I totally agree!

    6. Anon 1:50…so you're saying one must consummate their orientation in order to know if one is gay or straight? And to think that some of the gay community think that Josh is confused. By this logic, I think that the human race is confused. And who could trust or know what one was feeling if they didn't act on those feelings, you know…to know for sure.

    7. Obviously your minds are in the toilet and you assume that acting on gay urges must be limited to sex, how childish, but predictable with this crowd. Why can't acting on gay sexuality refer to dating, holding hands with another man or kissing? There are many ways a person can act out gay, but a man marrying a woman is not a notable trait that our world sees as "acting gay." I am aware John was already married and I am speaking in generalized terms.
      In your defense for the LDS gay guy, you have omitted common sense and only look to the outer margins of labels to establish your biases.
      So be it, but the next time I see a person come out of the closet, I will look to see if they run out and get married to a person of the opposite sex to affirm their newly claimed sexuality or if they align themselves with people of the same sex to reach their identity. I would wager on that latter point.
      In my opinion, and because we don't have the same opinion, I am aware you do not respect my opinion, but acting on gay urges (not just sex you perverts) is what motivates a gay person to identify themselves as gay. Josh here, well he is ultimately controlled by LDS theocracy and in that world, social definitions are an integral part of social stratification. They define you and the slightest slant of personality one way or another is identified, labeled and then expounded upon.
      The world outside of Utah is not always as black and white. It’s kind of like what Robert Downy Jr.’s character; Lincoln Osiris said in Tropic Thunder, "Huh, this is Hollywood, we all gay once in a while [sic]." Maybe Josh has come to terms with noticing a cute guy, or thinking of Liberace while watching American Roadshow. I do not know the extent of what Josh believes defines him as gay, but the rest of the world will look at Josh as a man trying to hold on to one world, as he reinvents himself.
      In reality, I am sure that his wife is a lovely LDS woman and doesn't want her marriage to fall apart, but if her husband is calling himself gay, the writing is on the wall. That's a scary road to look down and wonder what life will bring. If I was dealing with that I too might pretend that nothing in life will change and maybe it won't. However Josh will then always be the gay guy , who never holds hands with other gay man, never experiences that life which he asserts that he is part of and nor will he give off the persona of a confident gay man.

    8. "I often hear that gays are "born that way" and it can't be changed. But now Josh is the exception because he does not fit their model…."

      How does Josh not fit the model? He was born gay and he is still gay. He's very, very clear about that.

    9. Until straight Mormons are willing to give up intimacy (in all forms) with their straight partners as an ultimate act of being willing to really understand what it is like to be gay and to not ever be able to be in an intimate (in all forms, not just sex obviously) with partners of the same sex, I won't believe that they can understand what they are demanding gay people give up. Pontificate, rationalize and intellectualize all you want but until you are willing to do that, then you haven't walked a mile in a gay person's shoes.
      Sigh. I picture someone responding, 'should I walk a mile in a murderer's shoes too just so I can understand?" To save you the time typing that, that is not the same thing.
      So, I ask, where are the Mormons who will give up what they have with their husbands/wives to really understand what a gay person in the LDS church has to go throught?

    10. I would be willing to do that if the church asked it of me. In fact the church has. Don't you think as a teenager and a young adult I wanted to have sex so bad before marriage. It was hard I do admit, but the benefits of living the gospel outweighed my desire to dive in carnal pleasure.

      There are many people in the church who live a celibate life because they have not found their mate yet. It is hard but very doable. It all depends on how people view sex. Is sex your only identity or are you much more then just sex alone.

      You know what though, a gay person can and always has been able to find a partner of a opposite sex to live their life with and be intimate with. They can find happiness you know even with a opposite sexual partner. So your statement that they can never have the intimacy is wrong, because they technically can. They just make the CHOICE not to because of their desire for the same sex intimacy. The idea that a SSA person has to follow their SSA is absolutely absurd because they don't have too, they CHOOSE to. Just like I choose not to cheat on my spouse, or abstain from sex before marriage etc. It was my choice to live the way I do, no one elses. It was my choice to put my passions aside.

      Everyone forgets the point I am making. We act like people walk around with no choice in anything we do. We do have choices (good/bad). A gay person saying they have no choice but follow their SSA is essentially telling of us that they have no free agency because they are born that way. I don't like that, it sounds not of GOD. God doesn't take away our free agency to make good choices, that was satans plan in the beginning- give us no free agency to make a choice.
      anyways i won't say more. I am sure people will have a comeback for my post lol…

  4. I just saw your Nightline interview, and then found this blog, and I think that your "coming out" was an amazing act of powerful authenticity that is probably the best thing I've heard in the world in the last few years of my life, if not longer. People are individuals, and need to figure out what works best for them and their loved ones. Our society keeps trying to put people in boxes, and then criticizes them when they don't fit nicely in those boxes. I'm glad that you (and your beloved) made your very own, unique box that works for you and is filled with love and compassion and honesty and integrity and commitment and other goodies, too. Thanks for sharing your truth with the world, and helping to change us into more loving and kind human beings.

  5. Thank you Josh and Lolly. It must be difficult having so many people dissect your lives.
    Catholic in NY, that was a beautiful, powerful comment.

  6. Josh, I see the situation now as much more complex than the way I was viewing it. I may or may not want to spend more time trying to sort it out. Some random thoughts:

    – If I thought it through some more, I might end up agreeing with you calling yourself gay in your publicity. Or not. For example, you could be doing it to put yourself in the line of fire, just like I do.

    – People do not need to reduce themselves to a label to be honest and open with themselves and others about who they are. In fact, reducing themselves to a label obscures who they are. The best way for people to be honest and open about their sexuality is to face squarely every part of it, and stop despising it or hiding it. For example, part of it might be, "I only fall in love with men," or "I only fall in love with women," or both, or "gender has nothing to do with who I fall in love with." Another part of it might be "The only naked bodies that turn me on are men's," or "The only naked bodies that turn me on are women's," or both, or "gender has nothing to do with naked bodies turning me on." Those are only examples, reductionist in themselves. I think we're all much more complex than that. For example I think that for most or all of us, a person's personality, and the circumstances, have much more to do with who we fall in love with, than gender. It's just that most of us don't think of it as being in love, when it happens with people we think we're not supposed to fall in love with, or who don't arouse our sexual passions or temptations.

    – People calling themselves gay, homosexual, straight, or any other label, is part of what helps perpetuate prejudice, cruelty and violence against them.

    – People stereotyping themselves as gay, homosexual, straight, or any other label, is part of what helps perpetuate emotional and other life problems associated with their sexuality.

    – As some others have said, campaigns against gays will find or invent all the stories they need, of gay men married to women, with or without your story. Only, I don't think your story has to be one of them if, you don't want it to be. I think if you allow it to be, you will be adding needlessly to the antagonism and hostilities against you and your family.

    – I'm still disappointed with the way I see you using your story, but I don't think now that the consequences will be as far reaching as I might have thought earlier. In the beginning I was thrilled at the possibilities I saw in it for reducing prejudice against gays, and prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages. Then those possibilities seemed to be nullified by you tailoring it for use against gays. Now I just don't know. I'll keep it in mind, and use it as the spirit moves me.

    1. Josh, I understand that you did not intend or expect to get all the attention you're getting. Now that you have it though, I appeal to your faith in God, to remind you to look for all the ways it might serve Him, and not limit your vision to your own family, professional and church interests.

    2. Jim-what if what he is doing and how he is presenting things being directed by God. And what you are doing and saying is being directed by God. One thing I've learned in trying to listen to how God directs me is that sometimes he tells someone one thing and another something else because the two talents of each are best directed in different paths.

      This may sound strange and contradictory, but I've had experiences in my life where seemingly contradictory messages eventually align themselves. My general advice to both you and Josh and anyone in general who believes God can and will guide us, is follow what you feel he is trying to tell you to do. We may make mistakes, but we can learn and grow from each other and in the end we may find that we all finally end up at the spot that God really wants us all to be, and we will all agree that his purpose has been fulfilled, even if it's not what we thought it would be.

      This whole issue with gay marriage and homosexuality may make a turn that no one can predict but God himself. And to get there we may appear to be guided in different directions, only to find we will finally converge at the same point in the road. I've seen it happen before.

    3. Rachel, what a surprise, and what a joy, to see this comment from you!

      I agree wholeheartedly with all of that.

      I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, I wasn't sure if Josh needed that reminder or not, but I welcome reminders like that myself (like this one from you!), so I thought maybe he would welcome it too.

      I forget things I've learned, again and again, like starting everything I do with prayer, for example. I love to be reminded about things like that, even if I don't always need the reminder, because sometimes I do.

    4. I'm curious and excited to see where all the good people that are working to find truth in this matter will lead us. While I have strong convictions regarding these issues, but I also know how surprising God can be in how he tutors and teaches mankind.

      It would be nice if we could acknowledge that in each other.

    5. LOL! I meant, I love what I've seen you doing for mothers, fathers, and children; for all of us; and for God!

      Surprising, yes indeed! The best fruits God produces with our efforts for him are often outside of our visions and plans, fortunately for us!

      Thank you again. I can never be reminded too much of what you're saying here.

    6. I to think it is fortunate for us:) We are very short sided:)

      This conversation just reminded me of a old Mormon story, something of folk lore maybe…it could be true could not:) But it still proves a point. When the SLC Temple was being built it is told that Brigham Young felt impressed to build a big shaft down the middle of the temple for no apparent reason. At that time stairs where the only way to get up and down.

      Years later we have electricity and the ability to make elevators. When we had the ability to do that, one was put in place right where the shaft was built earlier for no apparent reason.

      Maybe right now, we are in the middle of building a shaft. Each from our own perspective, but all trying to do what is right and somewhere down the road we'll be surprised by why that shaft is even being built.

    7. I like that thought. It reminds me of a thought I've had about the individualism of our time. It might be like the cacophony of musicians tuning their instruments before a concert.

  7. I find it extremely interesting that the Nightline reporter never asked why Josh has chosen to not live a gay lifestyle. As far as I have read, Josh has never clearly stated on this blog either why he rejects the gay lifestyle. It seemed a rather glaring omission in the Nightline piece – just to say he is Mormon doesn't give the answer to people who don't know Mormonism. I would have liked him to say that he finds living a gay lifestyle to be a sin and that God hates it. Not clear why that was left out.

    1. I don't know if he really believes that either, but it would be interesting to know. As a Mormon, though, I think God will be a lot more charitable towards those who are living a gay lifestyle even if it is wrong because it is such a core part of who people are. So I dislike the use of the word "hate" here. I think God will take into account the desires of men's hearts….if they are honestly striving to be good and draw closer to God.

      Josh may have a similar view(who knows) so that he made his choice because he wanted to have a biological family and be a father in a stable family structure. Not because he thought that God would hate what he was doing otherwise.

      I don't know many Mormons have all sorts of different views on this.

    2. If you read the original unicorn post all the way and effectively, you will find out that Josh chose the life he chose because he wanted to. It seems pretty simple actually. He said that, basically, he felt like he had to choose between being with a man and having a non-biological family, and being with a woman and having a biological family and he really really really wanted to have kids that were biologically his and so he chose the life he chose. That's it. He also says, in his video, the he doesn't condemn or hate or try to change people that choose to engage in gay relationships.

      I'm not sure where the confusion is.

    3. True. But im still very curious as to why such a core question of why was left out of the interview. I mean journalism is all about who, what, where, when, why and sometimes how. i think it could be a great testimony to others if Josh said that he feels it is against God's plan for him to be in a relationship with a man. It's quite black and white really

    4. Josh was VERY clear in his blog about why he wanted a herosexual marriage. Remember the bit about any path involving sacrifices and him choosing the sacrifices more acceptable to him?

      I'm fairly confident I can see through your agenda, Anon, and I don't think it is to boost testimonies. If I have interpreted you correctly my suggestion would be to stop stirring and go and find something positive to do. If I have mistaken your intent and you do think it would be a positive thing for Mormons if Josh were to call down God's wrath on gay people then I still say move along. It's not going to happen. In Lolly's new post she expresses very compassionate and non-judgemental opinions which I expect she shares with her husband.

  8. for some reason, your posts often don't show up in my google reader thing, so i missed your unicorn post, but read this one from yesterday. then i had to go back and read what's going on with you.
    i like you, josh! i liked you before you came out because you make me laugh and i like you even more now because you're funny and you're a man of convictions that you live out.
    i shared your post on fb and in email with some people who i think need to see a different way of looking at this subject.
    i think it's interesting how many people think that sex is one of the most important parts of picking a partner. there are an awful lot of people, married and single, who do not have satisfying sex lives, or sometimes any sex life at all, and they still manage to live a life that feels complete. there's more to life than fulfilling any sexual urge that comes over us.
    you guys rock. and your family is beautiful.

    1. I don't, I don't know that Josh can talk for God. The spirit can tell us more than anything else what the truth is. We don't need men to tell us.

      Poor Josh, he's got people all over wanting him to follow their agenda that they feel he should follow. The only agenda he should follow is God's and maybe he's doing just that by sharing is story and allowing people to talk about it as the spirit may see fit.

    2. I really believe that God's wrath is on people who are living the gay lifestyle. Gay men can and do have biological children so that can't really be Josh's reason. I think God's love and God's wrath should be shared in equal measure.

    3. So, Anon, where does God's wrath come on people who are living a promiscuously heterosexual lifestyle? What about those who are living a polygamous lifestyle (in nations where it's permitted by law)? What about married couples where one spouse is abusing another? How about old men who marry really young women?

      God may have declared that homosexuality is a sin, but I think of Him as a god of love. I think he saves his wrath for those who really deserve it. Most of the serial killers, child abusers, tyrants, and the other monsters in the history of the world were not gay.

    4. Great response, Zymog.

      I'm not sure why I keep feeding this troll. Perhaps it's just refreshing having one coming from the 'other direction' as it were.

      Josh wanted to be a Dad in a traditional family. Perhaps he would have had qualms about separating a child from its mother if her were to introduce biological children in a gay relationship. Perhaps he foresaw the intense bond which occurs for a man who watches the woman he loves bear his child. I know my husband's love for me (and mine for him) increased as we went through my pregnancies and deliveries together. In addition, Josh was taught in his youth and believes that the highest degree of glory available to him requires him to be sealed to a woman in the temple.

      Wrath and love in equal measure!? What? God is our parent. I too am a parent although an imperfect one. I love my children all the time. I am cross with them a little of the time. I have no compulsion to be cross with them as much as I'm loving and affectionate with them. Or to have to be wrathful towards one child for each child that I can be loving towards. What a bizarre and depressing concept. Where did you get the concept of love and wrath in equal measure?

    5. actually in some cases a gay man and a gay woman can raise a child together – odd, you might think, but it does happen.
      It could be about the highest degree of glory or not. If Josh doesn't say, we don't know. And as a non-Mormon, I would honestly like to know.

    6. I have grown up in the church for 33 years now and have lived in three different states and have never heard it talked about like that. I have heard that sex before marriage is wrong, and that two men or two women should not get married but that's it. I honestly don't remember any discussions of homosexuality except for in passing. Maybe I just tuned it out:)

    7. Are either of you Anonymouses the one to whom I replied because I really am intrigued by this love and wrath in equal measure thing. Is it a doctrine of mainstream Christianity? If so, that and infant baptism are in my mind two good reasons to be a Mormon. It certainly isn't LDS doctrine.

    8. No, it is definitely not a Christian doctrine. Also, in some Christian denominations – I believe all evangelical denominations, people are baptized as adults and not infants. I think you are thinking of the Catholic and Anglican denominations where infants are baptized.
      As far as i know, no Christian denomination baptizes the dead.
      Some Christian denominations don't see homosexuality as a sin and actually marry same sex couples. Some other differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism: 1. the Book of Mormon o 2. Christians believe that Jesus always was God, not that he became God. Mormonism teaches that Jesus was man and the first spirit baby. 3.The trinity is one God, not three separate gods 4. In Christianity, Jesus is not considered the literal spirit brother of Lucifer 5. In Christianity, God the father does not have a literal body 6.In Mormonism, men can become gods. 7. Mormonism teaches that Jesus had wives, Christianity does not. 8.Mormonism teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot be in more than one place at one time. 9. Mormonism teaches that God planned for man to fall. 10.Mormonism teaches that redemption for personal sin must be achieved through through obedience to the requirements of the Gospel, and a life of good works
      11. Mormonism teaches that marriage is eternal, Christianity does not. 12. Mormonism teaches that women will have spirit babies in eternity and for eternity, Christianity does not.
      Here is the website I got a lot of this information from: I refer to it not for the Christian bent of it but for the references to Mormon texts that back up the teachings.There are several other differences but these are some of the core ones.

    9. #3 should say that Christianity teaches that the trinity is one God and that Mormonism teaches that it is three separate gods.

    10. Rachel – you may have tuned it out or it may not have been focussed on. But the Mormon Church institution has certainly spoken out against gay marriage and worked to prevent it.
      In 1976, Apostle Boyd K. Packer said: 'There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just 'that way' and can only yield to those desires. It is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life… Boys are to become men – masculine, manly men – ultimately to become husbands and fathers."
      Mormonism teaches heterosexual marriage is considered essential to reach the highest level of glory (heaven)

      Prophet Spencer W. Kimball:
      'Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved in it."

  9. Josh and Lolly,

    My recurring objections to what you're doing, and suspicions about it, might have created a false impression of my feelings toward you. I like you, both of you! A lot! You won my heart from the very start with the "Thank you Club Unicorn" post. So cute, so sweet. Lolly: "Okay … gonna start." Josh: "Yup … Yup." … Josh: "… with our fingers on the button, like 'are we gonna dyew it …?" and that face!

    I love the way you talk, the way you act, the way you think, the way you smile, the way you laugh, your story, your love for each other, the way you work together, everything about you. In fact, one of the reasons for my recurring suspicions has been that you're just too good to be true!

  10. speaking of dogs with bones (per a comment above about someone's commenting) Jim! Let it all go! you must be driving yourself nearly insane with explaining and opinions that contradict each other over and over and over.
    And over.
    And FG Mormon too – for a guy with three kids (has the third one been born now?) including a new born, he seems to spend all of his time on this blog.

  11. I was lucky enough to see the facebook post about the radio show in time to tune in to the radio show as well as some of the interesting stuff they were discussing before the Josh/Lolly segment.

    I have been thinking about one thing I heard in the radio show. If I'm remembering right, the interviewer asked if his understanding was correct that the LDS Church is opposed to sexual relationships outside of marriage, and they don't accept gay marriage, therefore homosexual relations are unacceptable. Josh said that that was a fair description, or something to that effect.

    It sounded to me that Josh and Lolly were saying that their understanding of the Church's stance on homosexual relations is the same as for heterosexual relations – not allowed outside of marriage, but with the additional wrinkle that same sex marriage is not allowed.

    This has not been my experience. I am a member of the LDS Church and have a teenage son who is gay. He got in trouble with the bishop because he is in a relationship with another boy, though they are not having sexual relations. Just the fact of his being in a romantic, though celibate, relationship was a problem. Actually, what really seemed to bug him was that the relationship showed up on Facebook. It was the fact that it was public that really bothered him.

    I guess I'm saying that I think the church does not apply the same standard to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If my son had listed a relationship with a girl on Facebook and went around with her as his girlfriend, there would have been no issue.

    The rest of the story: we had a talk with the Stake President and he told the bishop to lighten up. The Stake President still wasn't happy about it being on Facebook, though.

    1. We had the exact same situation happen happen in our ward. Only our bishop talked with the young women and no action was taken. There was no need because they had not been intimate with each other. Just girl friends…not lovers. So I think that it depends on the individual bishop. The only reason I know about how it was handled is that my daughter was good friends with this girl and the girl told her what had happened.

      By the way I think the world of this girl and even though my daughter didn't agree with her choices (it was harder for her to accept at 17 than for me at 39)she has remained good friends with her to this day. And we have loved and accepted her regardless of her current choices.

    2. Because my son is 17 and is a Priest, the bishop suspended him from administering the sacrament or going home teaching and revoked his ecclesiastical endorsement to BYU (my son just graduated from high school). Those things have all been restored since the meeting with the Stake President. But my son is not going to BYU now because he missed various deadlines.

    3. I agree with anon… I think it's all depends on the bishop. Bishops are leaders but still human.. So each brings in their own ideas .

  12. wow, Carolyn, the bishops really have a lot of control over your lives, it sounds like. Do they go through FB pages of their members?
    It's amazing and enlightening to hear that you are allowing your son to be in a romantic relationship with another boy. I can only imagine the pressure you are getting about that from your church. Stay strong. Parents not in this situation will judge you because it is easy to do that since it is not happening to them.

    1. what a great website! But, I suspect Mormons on here won't read it or they will and quickly find reasons not to like it. But just know that I think it's great (so at least one person then) and I plan on putting on my Facebook newsfeed. thanks

    2. Anon-I read and found it interesting. Some things I agreed with some I didn't. Like has been said before, people need to quit putting people in boxes.

    3. True, Rachel. What I'm doing is extrapolating based on the majority of comments on here. I would LOVE it if I were wrong on this issue and I hope that I am proven wrong.

  13. Okay let me dissect these quotes a little bit from my point of view.

    "There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just 'that way' and can only yield to those desires. It is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life… Boys are to become men – masculine, manly men – ultimately to become husbands and fathers."

    The lie here that Pres. Packer is talking about is the lie that the only thing homosexuals can do is yield to those desires. I think that is a lie. Some don't. But, this is the same language that they discuss sexual sins in general and is not unique to homosexuality. I think the wording he uses in regards to men is funny and definitely shows his generation, but the idea is that men are to become fathers. Again, doesn't seem strange to me other than he used words I wouldn't have.

    "Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved in it"

    Again I wouldn't have used these specific words but it shows a generation. Again, I would point out that this is similar to how they discuss all sexual sins and is not unique to homosexuality.

    I have heard quotes similar to these, but I guess I gave them a little bit more leeway in how they spoke because that is how people of their generation spoke, but the ideas are similar to what I expressed….

    sexuality before marriage is a sin(homosexual relations being one of the variations of this). But there is no words of hate or wrath of God that the previous author speaks of. These apostles do not suggest that homosexuals should desire the wrath of God. The speak of homosexual relations in the same way they speak of sexual relations outside of marriage…no damnation or hellfire mentioned.

  14. I don't think that calling homosexuality an 'ugly sin and repugnant . .'' and ''malicious and destructive lie'' can be dismissed as a generational thing. That seems a bit of a copout or a way of rationailizing what they said.
    If anything, I would take them at their word that they said what they meant. Whatever generation, it is still extremely strong language against gay people.
    I completely understand the need to rationalize but it doesn't water down what they said and what they meant. I don't think gay people 'desire the wrath of God.'' I think you meant that the prophets didn't think that the wrath of God would be on these people.
    Gay men in gay relationships can become fathers, it just is harder work which to me indicates that they reallly want to be fathers.
    I'm not sure I understand the Mormon obsession with its members bearing biological children. But it seems it is almost being used now as a way to excuse discrimination against gay people – 'oh, well, they can't have biological children.'' Oh, well, actually they can and do.

    1. I guess God will work it all out in the end right? So why fight about it. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean Hate. It doesn't mean that someone will not love someone else even if they don't agree with them. I don't agree with half the stuff coming out of my families mouth but it does not mean I don't love them.

      Lets all just chill out and take a breather and realize that we are all son's and daughters of our God. He loves us regardless of what we do, bad or good. He cries for us when we make mistakes, he smiles when we following his teachings, he listens and answers our prayers. He's given us guidelines to try to follow to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, he did not send down a "scriptures for dumbies" manual so we knew exactly what he was thinking. The scriptures are so cryptic its hard to decode them sometimes on what exactly was meant by certain passages.

      Lets just love each other on here!!

  15. Repost so everyone can see…
    I guess God will work it all out in the end right? So why fight about it. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean Hate. It doesn't mean that someone will not love someone else even if they don't agree with them. I don't agree with half the stuff coming out of my families mouth but it does not mean I don't love them.

    Lets all just chill out and take a breather and realize that we are all son's and daughters of our God. He loves us regardless of what we do, bad or good. He cries for us when we make mistakes, he smiles when we following his teachings, he listens and answers our prayers. He's given us guidelines to try to follow to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, he did not send down a "scriptures for dumbies" manual so we knew exactly what he was thinking. The scriptures are so cryptic its hard to decode them sometimes on what exactly was meant by certain passages.

    Lets just love each other on here!!

  16. I hear you. I am also simply quoting statements from the prophets in the Mormon Church, as per above. If anything was filled with hatred, those were.
    It also is a fact that the prophets are indeed 'decoding' scripture. And if the passages are so cryptic as to be unclear, I'm not sure why the Mormon Church would build bedrock foundation around some of them. Love is awesome. Calling something malicious, a lie, etc. is not love is it?

  17. And the comment of 'let's just love each other' brings up a memory of when I was growing up. My father was terribly emotionally and verbally abusive but would always say, 'let's just love each other.' It was all rather empty a sentiment considering what he was really about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.