My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Discuss liberty related books, videos, audio, as well as downloadable resources.
Onsdag
captain of 100
Posts: 798

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Onsdag »

Bananikka wrote:Maybe she shared what she could as she could? I am not on AVOW and so I am really not sure of what has been said there. I'm also not interested in reading a ton of exhaustive material somebody has written against after she has been such a positive inspiration in my life (after reading her books, hearing her interviews, going to see her and praying about her message). But those are just my thoughts. :)
I'm glad that you have found positive inspiration through her works.

I find it rather humorous that you're not willing to read "a ton of exhaustive material" which I wrote, but did find the time and energy to read her books (either of which are far longer than my document - long as it is), listen to her interviews, go see her in person, and then pray about her message. I just hope people are willing to do their due diligence to come to know and follow after truth instead of just taking somebody's word for it - even mine. Otherwise we may discover that it is us who has been deceived.

Onsdag
captain of 100
Posts: 798

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Onsdag »

mirkwood wrote:For some reason, we expect to hear, particularly in welfare sessions, some ominous great predictions of calamities to come. Instead, we hear quiet counsel on ordinary things which, if followed, will protect us in times of great calamity.

Boyd K. Packer
The Gospel—The Foundation for Our Career
Thank you. Very wise counsel which I believe is true.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

Onsdag wrote:
What parts do you disagree with? I don't ask to be contentious, but rather to have an open and sincere discussion about truths as I understand them. I myself am "on the fence" about some of the issues I raised and nearly didn't include them because I can see how my understanding could be wrong or flawed. I'm open and willing to hear and discuss alternate views or ideas, and will do so respectfully.
These are some of your points that I disagree with:
She reveals many new doctrines and/or teachings which have not been revealed before in scripture or by latter-day Prophets and Apostles.
When I read her book I felt she revealed nothing new so I don't think this can be proven. To me her book read like a Sunday School manual, for the most part.
1. Spirits as children and elderly in spirit world.
This is very common in near death and even heavenly manifestations. I believe spirits can appear in many different ages. We read of them appearing as they did in life but sometimes they will appear older or younger than in life. This is not a problem for me because it is quite common and makes sense. The other side is without time so it is natural to assume that spirits are not limited in time either.
2. Hair color. Julie describes spirits/personages with various hair colors,
I do not think there is any doctrine that says everyone in heaven has white hair. If we see a personage in their 'glory' then they will be brilliant and maybe their hair color looks white, but I believe it still has color. They also do not always appear in a glorified state but can look like a normal person. I think once again, you will find many instances of people seeing loved ones and they look as they did in life.
4. “Time in the Spirit World is different than time here on the earth”
I believe she is correct; 'time' is determined by our Sun, moon and earth and even if the spirit world is here, it is not bound by our mortal sphere--it is a different dimension. So without these constraints time will be different. I would expect this.
5. “There were many of the Lord’s creations found in the Spirit World that were not on the earth, including trees, shrubbery, flowers, animals and other of God’s beautiful creations” (p. 13).
I believe she could be correct, besides, there are still 1,000 years to come and maybe some things have not come to earth yet. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on this. Also, maybe she is describing her own perception that what she saw was not familiar.
6. On page 22 Julie describes some of the work that “everyone there” (in the spirit world) was assigned and engaged in doing, among which was “family history work, temple work,” and “childcare.”

This is a big doctrinal red flag.

Firstly, we have prophetic revelation that all spirits, pre-mortal and post-mortal, are adults and that there are no spirits in child form (see point #1) – so what “childcare” would there be?
I don't agree that there is a doctrine that says there are no spirits in child form. Our spirits encompass ALL our forms, from embryo to old age, if you ask me. Also, it was Jos. F. Smith that said we'd raise our children who died in infancy and she's not the only one to see children in heaven--I've read number of accounts that refer to seeing children.
Also, I think the family history and temple work she is referring to is work on the other side in order to HELP us in the mortal side get the work done.
7. Food preparation and eating, part 1
Jesus ate while a resurrected being, I don't think we have much knowledge of what we will and won't be doing in our post earth life. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt--and common sense tells me we won't be eating the meat of dead creatures in heaven, that is not possible. I also think there is nothing wrong with assuming we don't eat meat, it if preposterous to think we do!
The fact is, we really have very little understanding of what we'll be doing on the other side, but I will say, I spend a lot of my time preparing food for my loved ones and we get A LOT of joy from eating delicious food--I would not be surprised if this was part of our post earth life, though certainly altered--but one thing, I don't see how it can involve the death of plants or animals.

Julie is right about Christopher Columbus, she's got a pretty good understanding of him and what he believed his mission was and yes, he intended to spread the 'gospel' as he believed it to be--yes, he was Catholic, but he believed this was the true gospel. I have no complaints about what she says.

I also felt that you were too nit picky in your criticisms regarding a number of the Old Testament stories she related. When I read her book, I found nothing wrong and even wondered if she'd been looking at some institute manuals and scriptural commentaries; very little of what she shared was new to me.

We don't know a lot about the Ark and Noah and plenty of other people have offered their speculations. She's welcome to offer her's also.

The Tower of Babel, She's welcome to add her explanations, I think plenty have offered their own. I think the wiki explanations are pretty far fetched too. I did know that about the City of Enoch being visible and they wanted to reach it--I noticed that she did not mention it. I think she said that lightning hit it, but I believe it is the Book of Jasher that says mighty winds knocked it over.

Julie is right about Isaac being about 30 years old, If she'd said he was a young boy or teen I'd have known for certain her book was false. I don't take everything that church leaders say as inspired. John Taylor was wrong, IMO and I disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith who believed there was no death at all before Adam and Eve in the whole world. The Archeological record disagrees, IMO.

I think some of your other points are quibbling and I won't go into them. I do agree with you about Jacob Haun though. I think she's wrong about what she said and when I read her book it was a big red flag. I know she claims that the church historians are wrong and what she wrote is right--but it is pretty hard to figure out without additional information being unearthed to verify.
Yes, I agree that she lied about not reading other people's accounts. She has stated numerous times, in her book, online, on radio, and probably in person at firesides that she did not read other peoples books and accounts before writing her book so as not to be influenced by them. She is also on record elsewhere saying that she was given Roger's and Sarah Menet's books for Christmas some years prior to her ever writing her book. While this doesn't prove she read them there is strong circumstantial evidence that she had in fact read them during this time several years prior to writing her, book contrary to her claims otherwise. Good observation about her admittance of seeing similar things. While again circumstantial it does add to the body of evidence that she has lied.
This I think is THE smoking gun; that and the fact that she was on AVOW sharing her dreams and the dreams end up in her book--no mention of an NDE before the book. She claimed she never read anyone elses books, yet we have her stating on AVOW that she'd received these books back in 2006 and her own account is very similar to their books.
The only allusion in her book of her being a dreamer or visionary is at the beginning of the book she mentions having a dream/vision of her being hospitalized and seeing nurses and others attending to her - this prior to her hospital stay and the NDE actually happening. I don't have her book with me to verify, but I'm pretty certain she never once mentions in it that she has had dreams or other revelatory experiences afterwards which would validated her NDE or help bring the things she learned therein to her memory. Everything in her book reads as though what she experiences and witnesses therein came solely and directly from her NDE, and not from dreams or visions. She makes it explicitly clear throughout her book that everything she sees and witnesses therein is in fact very much her experience of going to the other side of the veil through a NDE. She doesn't once say anything about having dreams, visions, visitations from angels or other spirits, spiritual manifestations or witnesses from the Holy Ghost, or anything of the like, after her NDE to verify and validate that what she experienced really did happen, or to bring things back to her memory, or to teach her further light and knowledge.
I went back and started rereading her book and did find instances where she mentions having dreams. She did say that after her NDE in the hospital she had dreams of what she'd been shown(pg 159).
This is a big problem because there is a record, many years prior to Julie ever having written her book, that much of what is now found in her book actually came from dreams she has had throughout her life, including some happening well before her supposed NDE. In this record she never once mentions ever having had a NDE - everything is only claimed as dreams. Is it possible that she had both dreams and a NDE which validate each other? In my estimation it's possible, though highly unlikely. Why did she never once mention having had a NDE during this time? Apparently she now claims that she was to keep her NDE to herself and not publicize it until some (9) years after the event. But then this begs the question if such was the case then why was she actively publishing a great many "dreams" in 2009 on AVOW that would later find their way into her book as part of her NDE? This would be a serious breach of trust on her part to not publicize her experiences until after 9 years. It also doesn't explain why dreams she has had prior to her NDE are now part of her NDE.
I think what questions her credibility are these points:
1. She never mentioned her NDE on AVOW--it was always her dreams (dreams that started back in 1990) and it was these dreams that make up the bulk of what she shared in her book.
2. She claimed she was told not to share this information, yet she was sharing these dreams years before on AVOW.
3. My concern is that her message of preparedness varies from the church's message--she claims there is to be a 'call out' and having to have certain things to be eligible to go. The church does not say this and also emphasizes food storage, debt reduction, self reliance and emergency preparedness, but nothing about having transportation and camping equipment for a long stay in a tent city.
Your observation on Julie using techniques that psychic entertainers use is very enlightening and troubling too. Thank you for sharing it. I sense there is some truth to that. I don't know what techniques they use or how they perform their craft - I have never been interested in watching them or learning about it - but whenever I have listened to her something has felt off in the way she talks which I have never been able to place. Your thought provides some clarity as to why this may be.
You can find my comments here regarding Julie's interview:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36845&start=30

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

I know some here are uncomfortable with this thread. They had good feelings when they read her book and they believed what she wrote.

The question that arises to me is; where did the information she shared with us come from? Dreams or a Near Death Experience? If you don't care where they came from and you don't care if she was less than honest in sharing where the information came from, then I guess this is not a problem for you, but for me, it is a problem.

It is also a problem that she had read Sarah Menet's book back in 2006 (she said on AVOW "I was first introduced to your website and books and Sarah Menet's book by a dear friend who gave them to me for a Christmas gift in Dec. 2006" (http://www.docdroid.net/negu/red-flags.odt.html.

If anyone wishes to suggest that she did not read the book when it was given to her, think again: She goes on to say "..she knew of my experiences and was the first to let me know about what you had gathered and it was then that I first read your books and learned in amazement about so many others who had very similar, if not identical dreams and visions I had been having. I had been told through personal revelation that I was not alone and there were many others who experienced these things as well, however it was not until that Christmas when I joined AVOW that I began to understand my own experiences better and to learn of the so-called 'call out'".

I have a problem with this because what she describes is VERY similar to other NDE's and if her information actually came from dreams, it could very well be that her readings of other people's dreams, visions and NDE's influenced and formed the dreams she had and what she shared in her book.

xandr
captain of 10
Posts: 11

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by xandr »

Has Julie responded yet to these inconsistencies in her story?

User avatar
shestalou
captain of 100
Posts: 379

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by shestalou »

Julie is not perfect as a matter of fact last I checked she was still mortal so yes she will probably have some inconsistancies, we all do in this life but I believe these experiences were for her and she chose to share what she was able to and I dont think people should read her book as a bible but as a friend sharing an awesome experience from God to her. :)

xandr
captain of 10
Posts: 11

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by xandr »

Easy. I'm not throwing stones. I'm sincerely wanting to know if she herself has responded to these questions here or elsewhere.

As an aside I've read both of her books and listened to the radio interviews.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

xandr wrote:Has Julie responded yet to these inconsistencies in her story?
Not that I know of.
Shestalou: Julie is not perfect as a matter of fact last I checked she was still mortal so yes she will probably have some inconsistancies, we all do in this life but I believe these experiences were for her and she chose to share what she was able to and I dont think people should read her book as a bible but as a friend sharing an awesome experience from God to her. :)
That is a nice sentiment, but I still feel uncomfortable with the fact that so many things that she shared as dreams on AVOW a few years before ended up as part of a Near Death experience and why there are inconsistencies in the claims of when she had these dreams and why she was still trying to understand her dreams years after her near death experience. I think these are reasonable questions.

FosterClan
captain of 10
Posts: 10

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by FosterClan »

I tried to read all of the info presented, but I couldn't get through it all. I have small children, and it would take a very long time. I also prefer documents in my hands, just like an actual book.

I have had the privilege to get to know Julie on a personal level. There were other things going on in my life, studying things, etc. When I read her book it was honestly like Heavenly Father gave me the info I needed. I was extremely grateful that she took the time to get to know me. Helped me with a lot of stuff I was dealing with. I was too on AVOW and talked with her before her book was published there.

I'm sad to see so many negative things said about her. Her message is of listening to the prophet, read your scriptures and learn how the spirit talks to you.
There is no way we have all of the details of the spirit world. Or even what other's experienced before.
She stated many times she wasn't given permission tell of he NDE. She has stated that she has had dreams through most of her life. I don't see why it is difficult to believe that the same dreams she had prior to her NDE she also saw in her NDE.

She gets hundreds of emails, for her to answer everyone's doubts she would have no time for her real priorities. You either believe she experienced or you don't. I don't see why the need to prove one way or another. Her message is of hope.

User avatar
durangout
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2835
Location: Bugged out man, WAY out

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by durangout »

OK; let's try a little logic here...

Nephi, Lehi, Enoch, Moses, Ether, Moroni, Jacob, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel and John all saw in great detail the end-time events. An angel (1 Ne 145:20-28) commanded Nephi et al NOT to communicate these things to the world. The only person authorized with the mission to do so was John. John only did so in a veiled, symbolic way so that only those with the spirit of prophesy themselves would understand it.

What the JR followers are saying is JR is a greater prophet than all those listed above.

Anybody buy THAT? I don't.


btw is "FosterClan" another of the many avatars that JR has on this site?

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

FosterClan wrote: She stated many times she wasn't given permission tell of he NDE. She has stated that she has had dreams through most of her life. I don't see why it is difficult to believe that the same dreams she had prior to her NDE she also saw in her NDE.
To justify Julie's actions we must assume that it was okay with Heavenly Father if she shared the content of her NDE, as long as she didn't tell anyone she'd experienced an NDE. And what would be the purpose in that? Why would it be alright for her to share the content but not the fact that it came from an NDE? Does that makes sense to you, because it sure doesn't to me.

Julie said this on AVOW:
Tent Cities – gathering to places of safety. Several and recurring starting in Spring of 2004 and consistently for a few years, until I finally journaled them. About three years after having my first tent dream I confided in my Stake President and Relief society president that I was having a lot of dreams about the last days. I did not tell my stake president specifics about tent cities, but I told him about the plaques, famines, droughts, collapse of the U.S. economy, earthquakes and wars I was seeing in my dreams. He said he felt they were of spiritual significance and counseled me to continue praying for understanding. My Relief Society President at the time bought me Roger’s book “Dreams and Visions of the Last Days” in December of 2006. This was a huge answer to my prayers because I was feel very weighed down and overwhelmed at the intensity of some of my dreams, and not understanding why I was having them at increasing rates. She also offered to type them for me while I dictated to her what I had seen in my dreams and this was a major blessing for me. After typing several of my dreams and finding that they were very similar, and in some cases the details were identical, my friend referred me to the AVOW site (around the Spring of 2007). I finally got the courage to check out the AVOW site during the Fall of 2007. I joined shortly thereafter and have been a “silent member” just reading the dreams or others and comments people make. This week, September 2009, I have now decided I have the courage and feel comfortable sharing some of my experiences with AVOW members.
She shares her dreams and even dictates them to her friend. But this is the problem--the dreams ARE the same as her NDE. So exactly what is it that God did not want her to share until 2014?

Here is a dream she related in 2009:
Then I saw the same scene as before, only off to the side of the camp there was a huge white tent. It looked similar to the pictures of the tabernacle the Jews had while wandering in the wilderness with Moses. Above it I could see a very bright light and it looked as though fire was coming out of the top of the tent - but it was hovering. The thought came to me that this was indeed a temporary temple. I saw people dressed in white clothing standing near the entrance of the tent, as if they were guarding it. There was a fence surrounding the perimeter, and two armed men guarding several feet away on both sides of the area, outside of the fence. I saw a a man and a woman enter the tent after talking to a man dressed in white who was standing at the entrance.
I heard the word templework and that scene ended. The view panned out again and I was looking at the United States from the sky again. Through thought I knew that the fire represented the presence of the Spirit of the Lord at these places. I am not sure how many there were, because this scene did not last long, and by the time I realized what I was looking at, I did not count them. It seemed like there were several, but there were more areas without fire then those with fire. There were probably only five or six fires, and about twenty tent cities in the Rocky Mountain area, and a few scattered throughout other parts of the U.S. I did not see any fires in Washington state, the Midwest, or in the East.
Here is an excerpt from her Near death experience:
Off to the side of the camp there was a huge white tent. It looked similar to the pictures of the tabernacle the Jews had while wandering in the wilderness with Moses, although there was no altar in the courtyard area. I could see a very bright light above it and it looked as though fire was coming out of the top of the tent – but it was hovering in place. The thought came to me that this was indeed a temporary temple. I saw people dressed in white clothing standing near the entrance of the tent, as if they were guarding it. There was a fence surrounding the perimeter, and two armed men were outside of the fence, guarding the area. I saw a man and a woman enter the tent after talking to a man dressed in white who was standing near the entrance. I heard the words ‘temple work’ and the scene ended. The view panned out again and I was looking at the United States from the sky again. I knew that the fire represented the presence of the Spirit of the Lord at these places. I am not sure how many there were, because the scene did not last long, and by the time I realized what I was looking at, I did not count them. It seemed like there were several, but there were more areas without fire than those with fire.”
Some of it is word for word.

She said that she was approached to publish a book in 2014 and she wrote 'A Greater Tomorrow' in just a few weeks. The logical conclusion is that she was able to do this by going back and using recorded dreams which she had dictated to her friend and that is why so much of the same content showed up in her book. Now, if you want to believe that everything she dreamed about from 1990 to the present was all shown to her in her NDE, you have the right and she did say that after her NDE she had dreams and saw some of the same things--that is a reasonable explanation for the dreams after 2004 being in her book--but it still does not explain what exactly she was forbidden to share until 2014? If she did have an NDE, then she was sharing the content before she was supposed to--the only thing she did not share was that she learned these things through a near death experience--instead, she told her readers on AVOW that she learned these things through dreams. So I ask again, what was it she was not supposed to share?

Also, If she'd been having these dreams for many years before her NDE, then would we not expect that her NDE would have provided the answers? Why is she still confused about their meaning and their content if she'd been to the other side of the veil? Personally, I would expect the NDE to have made the dreams clear, but from her postings at AVOW, she's clearly confused by the dreams. This just doesn't jibe with what she put forward in her book.
She gets hundreds of emails, for her to answer everyone's doubts she would have no time for her real priorities. You either believe she experienced or you don't. I don't see why the need to prove one way or another. Her message is of hope.
If this doesn't bother you fine, ignore it. But some of us want answers and so far I'm getting none. The more I look into this, the more questions I have.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Robin Hood »

I'm joining this discussion late, but I would commend Onsdag.
As many of you know, I realised very quickly that Julie Rowe was a fraud and I have stated so frequently on this forum. Her inconsistencies, and her astoundingly obvious plagiarism just jumped out of the pages at me from the outset. I remember she made some quite hysterical comments in reply to my observations!
Sadly, some of the Saints will swallow her hoax hook, line and sinker and will be disappointed in the end.
Meanwhile, she's laughing all the way to the bank.

User avatar
triple777
captain of 100
Posts: 179

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by triple777 »

I trust Julie as far as I can throw her... not very far.

Onsdag
captain of 100
Posts: 798

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Onsdag »

AI2.0 wrote: These are some of your points that I disagree with:
She reveals many new doctrines and/or teachings which have not been revealed before in scripture or by latter-day Prophets and Apostles.
When I read her book I felt she revealed nothing new so I don't think this can be proven. To me her book read like a Sunday School manual, for the most part.
I agree with you that for the most part there is nothing new in her book that can't be learned from reading the scriptures and words of the prophets. Even many of her predictions for the future are very similar to what other people have discussed from their dreams and visions, though perhaps not as common knowledge, and could have easily been lifted or learned from sites such as AVOW. Still, she does teach some things as truth which have no support (at least which I have been able to find) from scriptures or prophetic words.
1. Spirits as children and elderly in spirit world.
This is very common in near death and even heavenly manifestations. I believe spirits can appear in many different ages. We read of them appearing as they did in life but sometimes they will appear older or younger than in life. This is not a problem for me because it is quite common and makes sense. The other side is without time so it is natural to assume that spirits are not limited in time either.
Yes, there are a number of reliable near death experiences and heavenly visitations wherein the person witnessed someone from the other side who was a child or elderly. Yet in every such instance I have been able to find it appears that the person who they see is someone they knew in mortality who had passed away earlier. As far as I understand and discern they are appearing to them in the form in which they would be recognized by the person having the experience. I don't ever recall reading of any reliable NDE's where someone saw random people in the spirit world as children or elderly, only people they knew and would recognize as such. This appears to be perfectly in line with revelations from what the prophets and apostles have taught us which I have pointed out previously. They have made it abundantly clear that there are no children in the spirit world because all spirits there are in adult form.

Yet Julie's experience does not seem to fit this pattern. She mentions nothing about these people appearing old or young so that she would recognize them as people she knew while in mortality. Rather, for the most part, they appear to just be random people in the spirit world. There may be a few exceptions where she does indicate some of the elderly people as being relatives, but in the context of her book it is only ever implied that they are probably distant ancestors or family who she did not even recognize or never knew while in mortality and had to be introduced to them. As for all of the children and some of the other elderly she sees, they only ever appear to be random strangers.

If Julie truly did see spirits as children in the spirit world then as far as I can discern one of the following must be going on:
  • These righteous spirits are close friends/family of Julie and appeared as children to her so that she would recognize them from their mortal life before they passed away. This is a possibility. However, there is no indication from Julie that such is the case - instead they appear to be random and total strangers.
  • These righteous spirits are appearing as children to other people who happen to be having a NDE at the same exact time as Julie is so that these other people having their NDE would recognize them as such, and Julie just happens to see them in their child form during this time. Highly unlikely. There are a number of different appearances of children during her visit, including Julie seeing a "childcare." Even if this is what Julie was witnessing it might explain seeing a few of the children, but since there are no spirits as children in the spirit world then a "childcare" would be completely out of place.
  • Julie did see spirit children, but it was an elaborate deception by Satan and other deceiving spirits. Since "it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive" (D&C 129:7) then these spirits appearing as children are not righteous spirits but deceiving spirits trying to trick Julie by appearing as little children. I suppose while possible it just doesn't seem very reasonable.
  • This experience wasn't from a NDE, but rather from dreams Julie has had. Most likely explanation. If these experiences came from dreams that Julie had then anything is possible - even seeing things that normally are not possible. There is pretty strong evidence that most everything in her book about her NDE actually came from dreams she has had throughout her life. We even have Julie's own words that she has had several "spirit world" dreams, which strengthens my opinion that this is what happened.
  • Julie fabricated the whole thing. This experience never really did happen and is all just a big lie on the part of Julie. This is quite possible.
  • Something else I just don't understand or know about is going on. This may be entirely possible, though without further details is likely a non-issue.
You bring up an interesting point about time. And it could explain much about how spirits are able to appear at varying stages of growth and development, even as they are all adults. In Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, chapter 38, Brigham Young taught:
But yonder, how different! They move with ease and like lightning. If we want to visit Jerusalem, or this, that, or the other place—and I presume we will be permitted if we desire—there we are, looking at its streets. If we want to behold Jerusalem as it was in the days of the Savior; or if we want to see the Garden of Eden as it was when created, there we are, and we see it as it existed spiritually, for it was created first spiritually and then temporally, and spiritually it still remains. And when there we may behold the earth as at the dawn of creation, or we may visit any city we please that exists upon its surface. If we wish to understand how they are living here on these western islands, or in China, we are there; in fact, we are like the light of the morning.
This indicates that as spirits we are not constrained in time or space, at least it seems we would be allowed to visit anywhere on earth and any time on earth - at least past or present... interestingly he doesn't mention anything about being able to visit the future. Still, we have many prophets who have seen the future in vision so it very well may be possible to in the spirit world. However, I still believe that time flows in the spirit world for them just as it does for us, else why would many of them have to wait for hundreds and even thousands of years for people on earth to do their temple work for them? Also, why would Christ say that no man, including the angels in heaven, know when his second coming is if they would freely be able to travel through time and witness his coming? There must at least be some constraints on time in the spirit world. And it seems reasonable to me that time flows for them just as it does for us. I admit though that this is something that I don't fully understand and it very well may be that Julie is right to some extent that time flows differently there in the spirit world. We just don't have enough revealed information to say conclusively how this all works.
2. Hair color. Julie describes spirits/personages with various hair colors,
I do not think there is any doctrine that says everyone in heaven has white hair. If we see a personage in their 'glory' then they will be brilliant and maybe their hair color looks white, but I believe it still has color. They also do not always appear in a glorified state but can look like a normal person. I think once again, you will find many instances of people seeing loved ones and they look as they did in life.
You may be right. We may even perceive things differently while in the spirit so that we can discern hair colors. I just don't know enough. However, much of the knowledge we have about these things comes from second hand sources. I have tried to back up my position with what we know from the scriptures and prophets - and this evidence leans heavily in favor of white being the predominant (if not exclusive) hair color of heavenly beings, at least from the celestial realms of glory. While your view may support things being different in the spirit world, I'm pretty sure that at least in heaven celestial beings in their glory have white hair. This poses a problem at least for Julie's description for Heavenly Mother because Julie indicates that she left the spirit world and went to heaven and saw God the Father and Jesus Christ there, and also Heavenly Mother surrounded by children - and then indicated she had dark hair.
4. “Time in the Spirit World is different than time here on the earth”
I believe she is correct; 'time' is determined by our Sun, moon and earth and even if the spirit world is here, it is not bound by our mortal sphere--it is a different dimension. So without these constraints time will be different. I would expect this.
Again, you (and Julie) may be right. We simply don't know enough to make a clear judgment call on this. Even so, I am more inclined to stand by my position that time flows there the same as it does for us - though perhaps we are not constrained by it to the same extent as we are in mortality. Else why are there indications from the prophets and scriptures that the spirits are in a state of waiting (often many years) for their work to be done for them?
5. “There were many of the Lord’s creations found in the Spirit World that were not on the earth, including trees, shrubbery, flowers, animals and other of God’s beautiful creations” (p. 13).
I believe she could be correct, besides, there are still 1,000 years to come and maybe some things have not come to earth yet. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on this. Also, maybe she is describing her own perception that what she saw was not familiar.
I'm not sure she would see anything in the spirit world that does not pertain to the temporal world as well. I'm certain she could see those things if they were in heaven or some other of God's creations as his creations are infinite. But as for things that pertain to this world they are the same whether spiritually or physically. Therefore I don't think she could have seen them if it was in fact the spirit world she saw. And I agree with you - it is possible that she saw things from a different time, things which are now extinct, or things yet to come, or things she simply hasn't seen before because she has never seen them while in mortality (such as rare flowers from deep within the amazon forest). However, this isn't what she suggests in her book, but rather that what she is seeing is otherworldly and not from our earth. Still, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because there is simply not enough information and context. I would say this point is therefore inconclusive.
6. On page 22 Julie describes some of the work that “everyone there” (in the spirit world) was assigned and engaged in doing, among which was “family history work, temple work,” and “childcare.”

This is a big doctrinal red flag.

Firstly, we have prophetic revelation that all spirits, pre-mortal and post-mortal, are adults and that there are no spirits in child form (see point #1) – so what “childcare” would there be?
I don't agree that there is a doctrine that says there are no spirits in child form. Our spirits encompass ALL our forms, from embryo to old age, if you ask me. Also, it was Jos. F. Smith that said we'd raise our children who died in infancy and she's not the only one to see children in heaven--I've read number of accounts that refer to seeing children.
Also, I think the family history and temple work she is referring to is work on the other side in order to HELP us in the mortal side get the work done.
All of the information that we have (at least that I have been able to find) is that all spirits (at least that pertain to our world - whether still in a pre-mortal or post-mortal state) are adult in form. If they do appear differently it is solely for purposes of recognition to the person they are appearing to. I have found absolutely nothing that would indicate otherwise.

Joseph F. Smith's statement is that those who die in infancy will again, after the resurrection, be restored to an infant state as far as their physical body goes and will therefore be raised by their righteous parents until their bodies have reached full maturity. This does not negate the fact that our spirits are already fully mature. Our spirits were fully mature and in adult form before we took upon ourselves a mortal body. The only time that our spirits were babies, infants, or children is - I suspect - when our Heavenly Mother gave birth to our spirit bodies and we were raised in the mansions of heaven many untold eons ago prior to our second estate.

As for other people seeing spirits as children - I don't disagree. But again, almost always the reason given is for purposes of recognition and familiarity - and not that the spirits are actual children. For example, I have heard of people seeing in dream or vision spirit children who would later be born to them - and then later when they are born and raised they realize that is the person they saw because that is how their spiritual bodies appeared to them. Same goes for children who passed away in childhood and a parent sees in vision or dream their child coming to them and comforting them. Again though it's because that is how the person would recognize them and not because that spirit is a child.

Unless and until you or anyone else is able to find a prophetic or scriptural account detailing otherwise then I strongly maintain my position that all spirits - pre-mortal or post-mortal - are adults and that the only time they appear otherwise is for purposes of identification to those they are appearing to. I have never read a reliable account where spirits appear as children unless there is a reason for it. Julie's is the first that I can recall that says otherwise and I would hardly call her account reliable...
7. Food preparation and eating, part 1
Jesus ate while a resurrected being, I don't think we have much knowledge of what we will and won't be doing in our post earth life. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt--and common sense tells me we won't be eating the meat of dead creatures in heaven, that is not possible. I also think there is nothing wrong with assuming we don't eat meat, it if preposterous to think we do!
The fact is, we really have very little understanding of what we'll be doing on the other side, but I will say, I spend a lot of my time preparing food for my loved ones and we get A LOT of joy from eating delicious food--I would not be surprised if this was part of our post earth life, though certainly altered--but one thing, I don't see how it can involve the death of plants or animals.
We should differentiate between heaven and the spirit world as they are two separate places with (I suspect) separate laws governing each. As for heaven I don't know what or even if we will be eating. I tend to believe that food will be a part of our enjoyment there as resurrected and glorified beings. As for the spirit world though - even though there isn't much revealed information, based on what little we do have I am more inclined to believe that as spirits we won't be eating or drinking.
Julie is right about Christopher Columbus, she's got a pretty good understanding of him and what he believed his mission was and yes, he intended to spread the 'gospel' as he believed it to be--yes, he was Catholic, but he believed this was the true gospel. I have no complaints about what she says.
You both may be right. I don't know enough about him and the whole issue to adequately comment. However, there is a pretty big difference between what Christopher Columbus believed was his mission, what he understood of the gospel and scriptures, and what Julie claims that he actually did and accomplished. For example, while Columbus may have truly and sincerely believed he discovered a new heaven and earth and thus fulfilled that Bible prophecy that there would be a new heaven and earth - the truth is that this prophecy isn't specifically about "discovering" a new land but about the change the earth and heavens is to go through and has yet to be fulfilled. Julie should know this but yet she claims that he did fulfill these Bible prophecies - when in truth Columbus only believe he had fulfilled them. To me this indicates that Julie is a student of history and did do her research on Columbus - and then proceeded to try validating his claims by saying the same thing.
I also felt that you were too nit picky in your criticisms regarding a number of the Old Testament stories she related. When I read her book, I found nothing wrong and even wondered if she'd been looking at some institute manuals and scriptural commentaries; very little of what she shared was new to me.

We don't know a lot about the Ark and Noah and plenty of other people have offered their speculations. She's welcome to offer her's also.
Yes, perhaps I was being too critical at times. And yet because I did examine some of her stories with a critical eye I was able to find greater evidence that her story is false. For example, I never would have discovered her usage of the Bible Dictionary (some of it word for word) to fabricate some of her stories if I did not look in there myself trying to do research to see if the things she was saying was true. I was stunned to see how much some of her stories were taken directly from the Bible Dictionary. To me it was immediate and clear evidence of plagiarism - and not only that but that she had purposefully tried to make enough changes so that it wouldn't be discovered. By so doing Julie has shown that she is knowingly and willfully trying to deceive others - all the while claiming that her account is completely true and of her own experience with the divine.
The Tower of Babel, She's welcome to add her explanations, I think plenty have offered their own. I think the wiki explanations are pretty far fetched too. I did know that about the City of Enoch being visible and they wanted to reach it--I noticed that she did not mention it. I think she said that lightning hit it, but I believe it is the Book of Jasher that says mighty winds knocked it over.
Yes, she is welcome to offer her opinions and explanations - just so long as she makes it very clear that that is what it is. Instead, she makes it abundantly clear and claims that everything in her book is true and was learned from her visit to the spirit world. I don't put much stock in the wiki explanations either. I merely referenced the wiki to show there is much varying opinion and research on the tower's height - none of which even remotely approaches Julie's descriptions or claims. I actually prefer and have tried to back up my research with what the scriptures and prophets teach - which again casts doubts on the veracity of Julie's claims. As for the Book of Jasher, well, since it isn't part of our standard works then I don't care to use it for support.
Julie is right about Isaac being about 30 years old, If she'd said he was a young boy or teen I'd have known for certain her book was false. I don't take everything that church leaders say as inspired. John Taylor was wrong, IMO and I disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith who believed there was no death at all before Adam and Eve in the whole world. The Archeological record disagrees, IMO.
So why is Julie right about Isaac being around 30? I haven't found anything to support this, but rather all my research (enumerated in the document) points to him being much younger. I think one person sent me a message saying that the Apocrypha teaches that he was around that age, somewhere in his 30's, but I hesitate to use the Apocrypha as support. I can understand the point of view and that it perhaps makes for a better story if he was a fully grown and mature man who knowingly and willingly went completely of his own free choice. Yet I believe he did that anyways - even if he was just a young boy. I entered the waters of baptism willingly at the tender age of 8, even if I did not know fully at the time what it all meant. I don't think any different of Isaac - he was being obedient and did so of his own choice, even if he didn't fully understand what it was that he was getting himself into. Unless there is some pretty strong support and evidence for him being in his 30's, then so far the evidences weigh heavily in favor of him being much younger.
Yes, I agree that she lied about not reading other people's accounts. She has stated numerous times, in her book, online, on radio, and probably in person at firesides that she did not read other peoples books and accounts before writing her book so as not to be influenced by them. She is also on record elsewhere saying that she was given Roger's and Sarah Menet's books for Christmas some years prior to her ever writing her book. While this doesn't prove she read them there is strong circumstantial evidence that she had in fact read them during this time several years prior to writing her, book contrary to her claims otherwise. Good observation about her admittance of seeing similar things. While again circumstantial it does add to the body of evidence that she has lied.
This I think is THE smoking gun; that and the fact that she was on AVOW sharing her dreams and the dreams end up in her book--no mention of an NDE before the book. She claimed she never read anyone elses books, yet we have her stating on AVOW that she'd received these books back in 2006 and her own account is very similar to their books.
Really? I do think it provides very strong and irrefutable evidence of where she got much of her materials for her book. But at the same time I can see how people could easily dismiss it as evidence since they could argue that her dreams are something of a second witness to what she learned in her NDE. There are of course problems with that argument, primarily that if such is the case then why has she clearly expressed doubts and lack of knowledge about what the dreams mean or if they will truly happen literally - particularly if she already had the NDE years before as a reference point wherein she is constantly saying things such as "it was made very clear to me." Still, I agree that it is very strong evidence that her book is not true "just as it is written." I just believe some of the strongest evidences are the points where she clearly contradicts scriptures and prophets, as well as the plagiarism issues.
I went back and started rereading her book and did find instances where she mentions having dreams. She did say that after her NDE in the hospital she had dreams of what she'd been shown(pg 159).
Thanks. I know that outside of her book she has often said that her dreams act as a second witness to her NDE. I just don't buy it. As you well know there are many issues with that claim.

I think what questions her credibility are these points:
1. She never mentioned her NDE on AVOW--it was always her dreams (dreams that started back in 1990) and it was these dreams that make up the bulk of what she shared in her book.
2. She claimed she was told not to share this information, yet she was sharing these dreams years before on AVOW.
3. My concern is that her message of preparedness varies from the church's message--she claims there is to be a 'call out' and having to have certain things to be eligible to go. The church does not say this and also emphasizes food storage, debt reduction, self reliance and emergency preparedness, but nothing about having transportation and camping equipment for a long stay in a tent city.
I agree. Though I would add to that list a number of other things.
Your observation on Julie using techniques that psychic entertainers use is very enlightening and troubling too. Thank you for sharing it. I sense there is some truth to that. I don't know what techniques they use or how they perform their craft - I have never been interested in watching them or learning about it - but whenever I have listened to her something has felt off in the way she talks which I have never been able to place. Your thought provides some clarity as to why this may be.
You can find my comments here regarding Julie's interview:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36845&start=30
Thanks. Going back and reading others of her statements, as well as listening to her interviews, it becomes more apparent how she employs these techniques to try adding credibility to her account without tipping her hand too much.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

Onsdag, what happened with the threatening letter you received? Were you able to find out who sent it?

Is Julie still on AVOW? Did any of the posters there besides you and Sarah voice concerns over Julie's claims?

Onsdag
captain of 100
Posts: 798

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Onsdag »

AI2.0 wrote:Onsdag, what happened with the threatening letter you received? Were you able to find out who sent it?

Is Julie still on AVOW? Did any of the posters there besides you and Sarah voice concerns over Julie's claims?
I sent a copy to Church headquarters, along with a copy of "ramsrn" and my documents. I don't know where Julie lives and therefore could not get the information directly to her priesthood leaders, which I would have preferred. I have tried to handle the matter in the best way I knew and felt how - privately first and also through the proper priesthood channels. The original letter I took to the police and gave to them. There isn't too much they could do, but I at least wanted a record of it in case whoever sent the letter tried to follow through with the threat or take it further. I don't know who sent the letter.

I have gotten in touch with one of Julie's former Stake Presidents and our discussion was rather insightful. It seems there are other people who are concerned about Julie, her books, firesides, etc. As I was led to understand she has been told directly that she does not represent and is not to speak for the Church. This is rather interesting because one of her posts on AVOW she claims, or at least strongly implies, that she has the full backing and support of the Brethren for her message and books. I include this as an addendum to my original post/document:
102. In one rather shocking post on ldsavow.com, dated June 24, 2014, Julie stated: “I am confident that the Prophets and Apostles are not only okay with my message, my testimony and my witness, including what I have written in my book, “A Greater Tomorrow,” I have been given a witness that they have been made aware of it and know the purposes it will serve in helping to warn and hopefully prepare many who need to hear the message at this time in this way.”

This is rather a bold statement by Julie. She is saying that she has the (if not explicitly then at least tacitly) full approval, support, and endorsement of the brethren in sharing her message and book. This is rather alarming for a few reasons. Firstly, in the Church Handbook 2: Administering the Church, we receive the following instructions and guidelines which I feel are applicable:
  • “As members express their own thoughts and feelings, they should not give the impression that they represent or are sponsored by the Church.” (21.1.22, Personal Internet Use)
  • “The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote. … Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders. Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate.” (21.1.29, Political and Civic Activity)
  • Members should not ask General Authorities or Area Seventies to coauthor or endorse Church books or other Church writings.” (21.1.32, Privately Published Writings)
  • “Local leaders should not accept the claims of sales agents that the Church or a Church leader has authorized them to call on local leaders or members to sell their products.” (21.1.36, Sales Agents)
  • “From time to time, statements are circulated that are inaccurately attributed to leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means. Church members should not teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from approved Church sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only.” (21.1.39, Statements attributed to Church Leaders)
  • “Some of these groups falsely claim or imply that the Church or individual General Authorities have endorsed their programs. However, the Church has not endorsed any such enterprise, and members are warned against believing such claims. The fact that the Church has not formally challenged such an enterprise should not be perceived as tacit endorsement or approval.” (21.3.9, Self-Awareness Groups)
In each instance in these various topics and scenarios we are counseled and warned not to make statements or give the impression that one has approval or endorsement from the Church or its leadership. Julie’s statement is in direct violation of this counsel.

Secondly, Julie’s statement is in all likelihood not true. Not very often has a General Authority publicly endorsed a book or author. I for sure have not heard or found any of them publicly endorsing Julie’s book or message. On the contrary, I have personally talked with one of her former Stake Presidents over the phone and he informed me that she has been told that she is not to speak for or on behalf of the Church or its leaders.

And finally, if they are “okay with [her] message, [her] testimony and [her] witness, including what [she has] written in [her] book, ‘A Greater Tomorrow,’” then they would be tacitly approving all of the falsehoods, doctrinal errors, and plagiarisms as found in her book and enumerated in my documentation. This I cannot see happening.
Yes, Julie is still on AVOW and she visits and posts regularly (usually about upcoming events, firesides, and interviews). There have been and are other people there who have expressed concern publicly and privately to me about Julie. But Christopher and the moderators will not allow any public discussion of her unless it is favorable towards her and have quickly silenced anyone who speaks up. They claim they do so because they don't want contention and they also want people to feel like they can safely post their dreams, visions, etc. there without being questioned or criticized. ramsrn and I have been publicly banned from talking about her or her books there. As I think I mentioned previously (I may have forgotten or neglected it) this has even caused one of the moderators to leave AVOW over their handling (or lack thereof) of all things Julie related. It is unfortunate but it seems Julie Rowe and her claimed experience has become something of a sacred cow for many people.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6708

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Sarah »

AI2.0 wrote:Onsdag, what happened with the threatening letter you received? Were you able to find out who sent it?

Is Julie still on AVOW? Did any of the posters there besides you and Sarah voice concerns over Julie's claims?

A12.0, thank you for contributing so much to this thread. Hearing your take on all the evidence we've found is a breath of fresh air! When we came out with all of this around Christmas, there were about 5 individuals who sent me a PM and were happy to see that I and Onstag had confirmed their opinion of her. Another half dozen were curious and wanted the info we had. I know there are many on AVOW who don't believe her, but anyone who dares to say anything negative about her gets a hefty dose of "how could you" from all her fans. And admittedly, I suspect some of them are actually her or someone else who has a stake in this charade.


Sorry Onstag - you are a good man. I don't have the patience or restraint to not say what I think sometimes. It's so obvious to me now what is going on over there.


Daryl, it sounds like you read the evidence Onstag presented, but did you read my document too? http://www.docdroid.net/negu/red-flags.odt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't know how you can explain some of what I found, especially the first few points.


It is obvious to me that Julie has spent every moment she could over the last 6 years or so, studying what others have been saying, whether in dreams, NDE's, opinions, or what is going on in the world. Something I didn't include - at one point in 2009, someone asked her about the chip I think, if she had seen any of that in her dreams. She responds mentioning that she had just read the day previous about a news story in the UK about schools tracking the children through some technology. Anyway, I noticed her doing this repeatedly, making up her dreams based on what was going on in the news. It appeared to me, that if someone asked her about something, she would read all about it in the news and try to give an answer based of of what she had read.

Anyway, FWIW, that is my opinion
Sarah/ramsrn

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by mirkwood »

Of course AVOW will not allow criticisms. She supports their paradigm.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

Sarah wrote: A12.0, thank you for contributing so much to this thread. Hearing your take on all the evidence we've found is a breath of fresh air! When we came out with all of this around Christmas, there were about 5 individuals who sent me a PM and were happy to see that I and Onstag had confirmed their opinion of her. Another half dozen were curious and wanted the info we had. I know there are many on AVOW who don't believe her, but anyone who dares to say anything negative about her gets a hefty dose of "how could you" from all her fans. And admittedly, I suspect some of them are actually her or someone else who has a stake in this charade.
I'm just glad that I saw this post, I was busy at Christmas time when this was first posted so I did not see it. I read Julie's book in August and wondered about it's claims. I'm not a member of AVOW so would never have known about her dream postings, I'm glad that you shared your concerns here.
Sorry Onstag - you are a good man. I don't have the patience or restraint to not say what I think sometimes. It's so obvious to me now what is going on over there.


Daryl, it sounds like you read the evidence Onstag presented, but did you read my document too? http://www.docdroid.net/negu/red-flags.odt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't know how you can explain some of what I found, especially the first few points.


It is obvious to me that Julie has spent every moment she could over the last 6 years or so, studying what others have been saying, whether in dreams, NDE's, opinions, or what is going on in the world. Something I didn't include - at one point in 2009, someone asked her about the chip I think, if she had seen any of that in her dreams. She responds mentioning that she had just read the day previous about a news story in the UK about schools tracking the children through some technology. Anyway, I noticed her doing this repeatedly, making up her dreams based on what was going on in the news. It appeared to me, that if someone asked her about something, she would read all about it in the news and try to give an answer based of of what she had read.

Anyway, FWIW, that is my opinion
Sarah/ramsrn
I believe you are right. I feel there is enough evidence to believe that she used her dreams to put together the book 'A greater tomorrow'. She told in one post about how quickly she put the book together, I was surprised that she was able to do this so quickly until I saw that much of the book is taken from the posts of her dreams. If she did experience an NDE, is it possible that she also saw all the same things in her dreams? It is possible, but her dream postings, with not mention of NDE at AVOW make it less likely. I'm not surprised if she dreams of the things in the news, I think most of us do that, but we don't consider our dreams proof of future events. Julie could have had a near death experience, but I think it is problematic that she never mentioned it until 2014, yet was sharing all the supposed information from it years before.

From the information I have at this time; my conclusion is, whether or not she experienced an NDE, most of what she shared in her book came from dreams, probably influenced by reading others' accounts at AVOW.

User avatar
Earthling
captain of 10
Posts: 41

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Earthling »

Thank you for posting your research. I heard her speak and then read her book and saw many of the same problems that were posted. I did not get a good feeling at that talk and told people so although it fell on deaf ears.

The book also felt "off" - exactly as described as basically reading the scriptures and Sarah's book "reworded". There were red flags in her talk also such as her husband not supporting her - I got the impression from her remarks this whole thing had caused problems in their marriage. He was not at her talk. That was curious.

Before she spoke Chad Daybell her publisher commented - he said that he was the publisher for the AVOW books on dreams & visions. As Mirkwood said - AVOW supports her because she supports their paradigm. It disturbed me that the way she describes some of the last day things and the vernacular is exactly as AVOW does. I would have expected her to use at least different words than they do instead of also saying there was a "call out" and "tent cities". Anyway, maybe now it is obvious why AVOW won't allow any negative things to be said about Julie or the book. The book is basically published by AVOW/Christopher's publisher & supported by AVOW to support their philosophies.

will
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1134

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by will »

Years prior to reading one thing on the subject I had dreams about the events of the last days and yes they were specific. Later my curiosity led me to search out others dreams on the Last days. To me this was just another confirmation.

I know these things will happen. I even talked to my bishop about it, and yes I shared it with others. Prior to reading or being told by anyone about it. Some believed what I shared,

If anyone has seen what I have seen you would quickly realize The whole picture on what will happen and why.

I know what's coming. That's enough for me. I believe Julie Rowes Story, I was given a testimony of what she saw for I saw Some of the events myself. What she wrote is true. Time will tell, and yes time is short.


K.I.S.S.
(Keep it simple stupid)

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6708

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Sarah »

Earthling wrote:Thank you for posting your research. I heard her speak and then read her book and saw many of the same problems that were posted. I did not get a good feeling at that talk and told people so although it fell on deaf ears.

The book also felt "off" - exactly as described as basically reading the scriptures and Sarah's book "reworded". There were red flags in her talk also such as her husband not supporting her - I got the impression from her remarks this whole thing had caused problems in their marriage. He was not at her talk. That was curious.

Before she spoke Chad Daybell her publisher commented - he said that he was the publisher for the AVOW books on dreams & visions. As Mirkwood said - AVOW supports her because she supports their paradigm. It disturbed me that the way she describes some of the last day things and the vernacular is exactly as AVOW does. I would have expected her to use at least different words than they do instead of also saying there was a "call out" and "tent cities". Anyway, maybe now it is obvious why AVOW won't allow any negative things to be said about Julie or the book. The book is basically published by AVOW/Christopher's publisher & supported by AVOW to support their philosophies.
Thank you for your comment. Can you expand on what you heard her say about her husband's lack of support? He has recently joined the AVOW forum, and apparently fully supports her.

User avatar
Earthling
captain of 10
Posts: 41

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by Earthling »

When she was telling her story she mentioned that her experiences had caused problems in her marriage and he didn't believe her for a number of years. She inferred that they had some rocky times over her dreams but that he had come to believe her. The way she told it she had dreams and a NDE.

LDS Dude
captain of 50
Posts: 68

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by LDS Dude »

Disagree with many of the interpretations and comparisons as pointing out supposed inconsistencies with scripture and deceased authorities. Often you assign words a certain limited meaning and then use Julie's words against her assigning them a distinctly different meaning, when frankly the meaning is generally the same. Lots of nitpicking here, and I mean lots. You seem to take for granted that she could have been shown portions of events and not the entire event, that is not an inconsistency. I don't see how her making a new account on the internet is the least bit nefarious. Also, some items in her visions could have been symbolic and more dreamlike in nature, catering to her own understanding. I would not take every last item down to someone's hair color as literal, I just would not do that, of course you are free to do so. Frankly, as you cite your supposed disagreeing sources I find more agreement, but that you choose to interpret them in such a way as to find disagreement, which is only an interpretation, an interpretation which seems to be very intent on finding fault and disagreement where there is very little to none.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: My Review of Julie Rowe's "A Greater Tomorrow"

Post by AI2.0 »

LDS Dude wrote:Disagree with many of the interpretations and comparisons as pointing out supposed inconsistencies with scripture and deceased authorities. Often you assign words a certain limited meaning and then use Julie's words against her assigning them a distinctly different meaning, when frankly the meaning is generally the same. Lots of nitpicking here, and I mean lots. You seem to take for granted that she could have been shown portions of events and not the entire event, that is not an inconsistency. I don't see how her making a new account on the internet is the least bit nefarious. Also, some items in her visions could have been symbolic and more dreamlike in nature, catering to her own understanding. I would not take every last item down to someone's hair color as literal, I just would not do that, of course you are free to do so. Frankly, as you cite your supposed disagreeing sources I find more agreement, but that you choose to interpret them in such a way as to find disagreement, which is only an interpretation, an interpretation which seems to be very intent on finding fault and disagreement where there is very little to none.
I can give her the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, however, these are some of the things which I cannot overlook:

Julie was on AVOW for a few years as "Fellowdreamer" and during that time she never spoke of an NDE, only dreams. She recorded her dreams and there is no question that the content of some of her posted dreams then ended up in her book. She also admitted that some of her dreams were from as early as 1990, which was 14 years before her NDE. She also claimed to not understand her dreams several years after her NDE, which does not make sense to me.

She claimed she was not to share her NDE until 2014 but was on AVOW sharing the supposed content of her NDE with AVOW members for years before 2014.

Julie's dreams/NDE are very similar to Sarah Menet's book on her NDE--which Julie admitted to have received from a friend, before she posted her dreams and a number of years before her own book was published.

The evidence is compelling that Julie used the bible dictionary to write the content of some of her experiences involving Biblical characters and events which she claimed to have witnessed in her NDE.

If anyone would like to explain why these concerns don't actually bring into question her claims, I'm interested to read your arguments.




Also, last year she made some predictions for 2014 which did not happen.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37304

She's also made predictions for the supposed 'call out' to happen in the next year and a half. We don't have long to wait to determine if her claims have any validity.

Post Reply