Could you tell our readers a little about yourself?
I’m Jill Rowe. I’m known on Facebook as Jill Hazard Rowe. I am one of the originals who helped get the ball rolling with the Mama Dragons. I never thought it would grow so huge.
I was born and raised in the SF Bay area to a Mormon mother and an Episcopalian father. I grew up Mormon, and grounded myself by seeking my own answers and my own spiritual connection with God that led me to the faith. I served a mission to the Boise, Idaho mission. I was married in the Oakland Temple. We have lived all over the United States (my husband was a consultant and then was moved by employers) and have had six amazing children.
I’ve been a relief society president, seminary teacher and about everything else.
I understand you are with a group called the Mama Dragons, tell us what that is?
Mama Dragons started as a mutual support group. We have an official statement on our public FaceBook page. It is a group to support women who have LBGT+ children. It is for mothers to support each other and children – ours and others who need us.
How did you become a Mama Dragon?
There were four of us and then eight of us. One night we were talking about a Gay Straight Alliance in American Fork and the mother moving behind it reached out to us. We started talking with each other about 11:00 p.m. every night.
My husband travels a lot and there was just a lot on my mind.
Next thing you know, we had a Facebook page that was confidential. We have tried to keep the group pure to our purpose to support each other and our children, to make a difference in a positive way and the group has just kept growing.
How has that affected your faith and your relationships?
I feel God’s hand with us. There is nothing special about us, but I feel that God heard our tears and our faith and has moved with us.
To me this is the core of what the faith and love that the Relief Society teaches us is all about.
Mama Dragons has strengthened my faith and my relationships, with others, with my children and with my husband.
Mama Dragons is group to support women who have LBGT+ children. It is for mothers to support each other and children – ours and others who need us — to prevent suicide and to prevent children who have been cast out from starving or otherwise coming to real harm.
What is the one thing you feel people need to know the most about your child?
The day after my child came out to me, I felt two things very strongly by the Spirit. First, that my child was created by God as he was. Second, that my child had fought for free agency with all of us. My child is perfect as he is, with a good heart and soul and has begun to find joy and peace with his own spirituality.
There are things he has had to do for his own safety and health and we support him in that.
Where could our readers go to learn more about the Mama Dragons?
You can go to http://mamadragons.org/
What question do you wish people would ask you that you never get asked?
I would like to be asked how has having an LGBT+ son changed everything in my life? How I’ve survived being seen as an apostate? How I’ve had a faith journey that God has led me on that began with my seeking God as a teen and living by faith and in reliance on the Spirit of God since? How I have increased in love and faith and in the Spirit at every stage?
I thought the old me was so loving and non-judgmental. The new me has improved and continues to improve – and understands that I need to keep improving to be truly loving and non-judgmental.
God is with me and with all of us if we will only let him, and there is so much work to do.
Wheat & Tares 
It may not be clear from the interview but the primary purpose and activity of Mama Dragons is:
1. Suicide prevention for children.
2. Support for mothers.
3. When children have been thrown out of their homes by their families, to prevent them from freezing or starving to death (I know, the law makes it a crime to throw a child out, the scriptures state that someone who does that is “an infidel who denies the faith” and there is a temple recommend interview question that applies — but it doesn’t stop people from basically being complicit in murdering their own children).
My thanks to every person who has been willing to be interviewed — including Sister Rowe.
Reading this interview made me feel simply happy. And joyful. Thank you.
Why do the 15 not get it? It seems so obvious.
Everything seems obvious to everyone Geoff. That is the problem. All sides seem so very obvious, from Paul’s “be not deceived” to “It seems to obvious” …
It is much too easy to just think that whatever seems obvious to us must be the will of God and not question that.
Thanks Stephen for this interview and post. And..
Thank God for Mama Dragons! THEY GET IT! They are doing such an important and sacred work in just being there, let alone all of the support and advocacy they do.
Thanks to all of them.
Now, if the 15 could only do so.
My guess is the 15 do get it, but they are motivated by legalities. My theory is that if the church doesn’t have a written policy (i.e. in the handbook) and precedent of public enforcement of that policy, they might be forced by the government at some future date into another “revelation” regarding gay marriage similar to the 1978 “revelation”.
I realize some conservative Mormons have bandied this about as a homophobic argument against the Supreme Court ruling. Let me be clear that I’m *not* making that silly “slippery slope sex-with-animals” argument here.
My guess is the church, while declaring itself to be loving and inclusive, believes it necessary to oust any members joined in a gay or lesbian marriage which is now perfectly legal. That way, if there is some future challenge, the church can say “We don’t have married gay/lesbian members. We automatically excommunicate them. Therefore, equal rights arguments don’t apply.”
Incidentally, if you read Nelson’s online account, there was no revelation regarding the handbook changes. This idea was merely floated by church leadership to bring the membership in line. Members were saying “Well, it’s only a policy.” But if the handbook changes weren’t strictly enforced, they would be useless against future challenges. Read Nelson’s transcript. He uses vague language about “the Spirit moved” but *nowhere* does he say Monson received a revelation and nowhere is the substance of a revelation spelled out.
Bottom line, I think the 15 are deathly afraid of a repeat of the 1978 scenario in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling. They meant to quietly put the policy in writing. It blew up. Now they are in a very awkward position.
Cathy, you must be reading a different transcript than me. The one I read seemed quite clear that Nelson was claiming the policy to be the Lord’s will and revelation: “This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”
That’s the transcript. You have to read it very carefully. You will see I am correct. I will start with the beginning and the end:
1. He sets up by saying the change in minimum age was a (capital R) Revelation. Really? The Lord handed down a Revelation for a trivial administrative change? What was the text of the Revelation?
2. At the very end, he says Monson had something (lower case R) revealed to him. He was apparently inspired, and others in the room were inspired. Nelson then cleverly changes gears with the final “(Capital R) Revelation from the Lord” sentence. These two sentences are juxtaposed to *imply* a (capital R) revelation.
Nowhere are the Lord’s Revealed words recorded. The Lord’s Revelation has not been read at GC and has not been voted in by the membership.
If there was indeed a Revelation on this matter, then what exactly was it? Did the Lord say “Verily, you Boys changed the Handbook (a couple of times and clarified it, too). You also reversed My previous 1831 command to baptize all children at age 8, but I’ll let that slide. So read this at the next GC and let Us get ‘er done. You have correctly understood My Mind and My Will. Somehow. I’m not quite clear on that. Over and out.”
Cathy, you said, “Incidentally, if you read Nelson’s online account, there was no revelation regarding the handbook changes.” But you admit Nelson claimed “little r” revelation. I don’t care about “big R” Revelation, because based on your definition the last time it happened was when, 1978? Even then, Kimball never actually quoted God. He claimed revelation, presented it to the 12, and they approved the change.
I’m not attempting to defend the policy. I just think your argument that Nelson never claimed revelation for it is incredibly wishful thinking.
Sister Rowe, “The day after my child came out to me, I felt two things very strongly by the Spirit. First, that my child was created by God as he was. Second, that my child had fought for free agency with all of us. My child is perfect as he is, with a good heart and soul and has begun to find joy and peace with his own spirituality.” This is beautiful. Thank-you for all the work you are doing both for your own child and so many others!
Mary Ann,
I totally agree with you. You can certainly read Nelson’s text as confirmation that the policy is a revelation from the Lord. I respect your opinion, and I could be wrong.
That being said, I read the talk differently, and I don’t believe there was ever a revelation on the matter for reasons stated. I also take into account the larger context of my original post in coming to this conclusion.
Mary Ann,
It’s the vague language that gives me pause. Read very carefully starting with “And then the Lord inspired … ” ending with “… sustain what had been revealed to President Monson”.
Nelson says they were considering permutations and looking for the Lord’s will on the matter. But the text never *specifies* what was revealed to Monson. Did the Lord reveal He approves of the changes or He didn’t approve. Did the Lord specify what changes were to be made? Why did the Lord change His earlier command to baptize all 8 year olds?
That’s why I distinguish “small R” and “capital R”. Just saying something was “revealed” to Monson doesn’t make it a Revelation. Do you see what I mean? The Revelation *is* what was revealed to Monson, but nobody wrote it down.
Cathy
Alcohol is legal but a practicing alcoholic may not have full fellowship in the church. Gay marriage is legal but a practicing homosexual may not have full fellowship in the church.
Aren’t we promised that if we refrain from major transgression in this life that full blessings will follow in the next? Why would we encourage someone to follow a path that will lead to nowhere?
OK. What’s your point?
I’ve been very impressed by what I’ve seen of the Mama Dragons. I love the imagery of mothers protecting children–theirs and others’–with dragon-like fury. And why shouldn’t they? That’s what mothers do. Keep up the great work on behalf of our children.
I don’t know why I have to spell it out for you you seem to be insinuating in your post because gay marriage is iegal that the church should accept it wholeheartedly.
So your point is you disagree that the church should accept gay marriage wholeheartedly because it’s legal. Thanks for the clarification.
i think people at the individual level have a better chance of really getting it. Moms, parents, family, good friends.
People who are looking at trying to stenthen the institution just have a different focus,and can miss the impact to individuals or choose to overlook it for the sake or the many.
I’m not sure that is always wrong, the insitution and the 99 in the fold do need to be strengthened too.
But…it just shows me there needs to be more than just church. More than just leaders doing all things and telling us all what to do.
Some groups, like this group, are needed to fill the gaps, and to tend to the individuals.
I felt good reading about this effort. THanks for posting about it. I like it.
I’ve started suggesting that rather than expanding the alphabet designations that people start referring to the children as “plus” kids.
Nothing pejorative and very expansive.