Do you believe Julie?

[GrandMasterB]

Why do Julie Rowe and these others charge us money to hear their message if it is so important? Didn't they all claim that the Lord told them to tell others? Did the Lord also tell them to sell their books for profit?

I went to one of her talks and wasn't charged any money. I have heard from people who went to listen to her at other appearances around the US and they weren't charged any money either.

Julie did express a belief that, if she posted her book in a downloadable format online, people opposed to her testimony would edit the book and distribute the modified version in an effort to discredit her. With thousands of printed copies of her book in circulation, any effort to distort the statements in her books could be debunked by opening the book.

I understand that a lot of people are upset at Julie Rowe and others for making money off their books. Do you feel the same way about President Monson making money off his books?

Okay that is the stupidest thing I have heard on this forum so far. If she posts it online people will change the words? I can get her book and scan it and post it online and do the same thing. Julie could sell her books at cost. And what proof do you have that President Monson profits from his books? Furthermore the prophet doesn't post sensationalized fiction about the end times. Wake up man!!!

[Still Learning]

I think she may have had the experiences.

But I will say I think everything else beyond that is a load of crap.

ever hear her interviews? "So, Julie, can you tell me more about xxxxxx?" Julie: "I was told not to reveal that. But I can say blah blah blah... (she will then tell you how she knows all these things and can't tell you.)

Reminds me of Lindsey Williams. How he Has A Single person listen to him with the slightest but of belief is beyond me. He blows all thus crap out his mouth about his "elite friends" and tells you nothing. He foolishly makes time stamped predictions that never happen.

sorry to change focus from Julie but they are all the same. People clamoring for attention or money or ego boosts or whatever. Why do we so foolishly look to them when we are told to look to God for answers?

And people do look to Julie as a prophetess. They deny it, but in the same sentence they analyze her every word looking for a glimpse of something new to feed their curiosity about future events.

How oft have I heard people on forums ask, "anyone here Julie speak at xxxxxx event? Can you summarize? Any new important warnings or clues?" Is that not looming to her as a prophet.

Fools we are for listening to the flesh when our spirits are so close and silently crying for us to listen to the Holy Ghost.

Why do we do this? I believe it is iniquity to God.

We are starved for some action. We have itchy ears. Humble yourselves before God and trust not in the arm of the flesh of your brethren and sisters. Look to God's ordained prophet for guidance.

Julie likely had an experience. But I believe she has veered off course. She has tried to look beyond the mark for what she was given. I condemn her not as I too am guilty of it. I too am guilty of looking beyond the mark and trusting in the flesh rather than the Almighty God. I co demo you not buy I plead for you to put down Julie book and put down the Internet and read the voices that call from the dust and preach the everlasting gospel.

[Ted]

So can we safely assume that she is donating all the profits that she has made off her books and conference calls are being donated to a good cause? If the Lord smacked me up side the head with the dreams that she had and made it clear that the high road is selflessness then I would NOT be charging to get the word of the Lord out or at least not making money off it.

I will make no assumption, and will not ask because I don't think it is any of my business.

But what about this: what if she is using the money to buy clothing and food? Essentially she is spending all of the money on herself and her family, but she has expressed that she will be sharing in the future.

[Red herring story deleted]

You said it was made very clear to Julie Rowe that the Lord would provide for those that exercise selflessness. Her current actions, however, say otherwise (except, of course, that promise that she will be sharing in the future). Did the Lord put restrictions on when He would provide blessings to those who are selfless in doing His work?

It is not right for Julie Rowe to profit off the words of the Lord that were given to her especially after making it clear that the Lord would provide for those that are selfless. The fact that she does profit makes her look like a false prophet (like the ones we were warned about), IMHO. The time is now (no pun intended) for Julie Rowe to make her books free for all to hear the words of the Lord!

[commonwealth]

What if she used all the money for travel so she could speak? Would that be selfish?

[Lizzy60]

When she came to Dallas, a local couple paid her expenses and housed her in their home. In exchange she gave an invitation-only "fireside" in this couple's home for their family and close friends, and then spoke in a Stake Center the following day. This was in early in 2015.

[commonwealth]

You know, when I was growing up, my dad was the ward mission leader for a time. During that time, the missionaries were teaching someone, who claimed to have visitations from angel(s). Somewhere along the way, someone brought up to this person that they could "test" the spirit by asking to shake it's hand, which the person did. The answer from the spirit was, if you get baptized, then I'll shake your hand. This left a bitter taste in the mouths of my dad, the bishop, missionaries, etc. Something about it just seemed not right, even though the spirit seemed to be motivating this person to join the church.

Are we in the midst of the same thing? Being told to do the right thing for the wrong reason? Is there some underlying deception there? For the past 2 years I've also felt the need to prepare for the future, so JR's writings were very interesting. But I can't get past the feeling that there's something else going on there. And I didn't get that feeling with VoG.

[zionminded]

A better test of a visiting angel is to have them bear their testimony of the savior.

[Ted]

What if she used all the money for travel so she could speak? Would that be selfish?

Yes in a way... In this day and age she could simply record herself speaking and post it on youtube or some other video hosting website for ALL to hear. She could even answer questions submitted to her in a follow up video or even in a live streaming event. She should use the technology that the Lord has given us in the time that we live in, IMHO.

[iWriteStuff]

I have it on good authority that she used all the profits to buy cookies for orphans.

Seriously, though, if it were me and I believed in what I wrote in my book, my basement would be wall to wall food storage consecrated for the future. Seems a better use than taking classes on how many rounds to the chest it takes to bring down a raiding gentile.

Definitely don't think she'd be using it to beef up her 401k.

[Tbaker]

If a person has an NDE or vision and then reports that fact in a book; that is fine with me. I died; I saw X Y and Z.. this is how I interpret what I saw; and bad things are coming.

However, if a person then claims to have continual visions other than the initial vision; and then talks about what is coming; then that person is acting as a prophet.

To me, Julie appears to be acting as a prophet because she is doing more than reporting on her past experience. She is taking what she has seen, what she is still seeing and then teaching and urging action based upon those items. I believe the reason that Julie brings adversity rather than Spencer, is because Julie went on the lecture circuit and couldn't help becoming a "prophet" to the audience; all the while saying that she wasn't a prophet.

Thus she is indirectly setting herself up in competition with President Monson.

The natural question arises where one would say "why isn't President Monson telling us this stuff?" If President Monson is a Prophet; and he is NOT telling us something (but someone else is); does that mean that President Monson doesn't know what's going on? Or is President Monson hiding something from us? Or is God telling President Monson that another prophet is supposed to revel that information (not he); similar to Joseph Smith being told that John was charged with writing about certain things and he wasn't.

This is where, in my view, Julie will be having some problems in the future now that the whole world knows her as the Mormon Prophetess of Doom with 10,000 followers. My guess is that she will be told in the future to chill on new "revelations" because the Church will not want competing messages broadcast to the membership. It doesn't make sense to have two Prophets figuratively sitting beside the other, with one nodding her head and saying.."listen to Pres. Monson." Because the audience would naturally look back and forth to make sure the "other prophet" is agreeing with the first.

So, I believe the mistake Julie made; and possibly will continue to make is to teach based upon her NDE. In doing so, she moves from a reporter to a prophet.

[rbowman838]

NO

[sweetbritches]

If a person has an NDE or vision and then reports that fact in a book; that is fine with me. I died; I saw X Y and Z.. this is how I interpret what I saw; and bad things are coming.

However, if a person then claims to have continual visions other than the initial vision; and then talks about what is coming; then that person is acting as a prophet.

To me, Julie appears to be acting as a prophet because she is doing more than reporting on her past experience. She is taking what she has seen, what she is still seeing and then teaching and urging action based upon those items. I believe the reason that Julie brings adversity rather than Spencer, is because Julie went on the lecture circuit and couldn't help becoming a "prophet" to the audience; all the while saying that she wasn't a prophet.

Thus she is indirectly setting herself up in competition with President Monson.

The natural question arises where one would say "why isn't President Monson telling us this stuff?" If President Monson is a Prophet; and he is NOT telling us something (but someone else is); does that mean that President Monson doesn't know what's going on? Or is President Monson hiding something from us? Or is God telling President Monson that another prophet is supposed to revel that information (not he); similar to Joseph Smith being told that John was charged with writing about certain things and he wasn't.

This is where, in my view, Julie will be having some problems in the future now that the whole world knows her as the Mormon Prophetess of Doom with 10,000 followers. My guess is that she will be told in the future to chill on new "revelations" because the Church will not want competing messages broadcast to the membership. It doesn't make sense to have two Prophets figuratively sitting beside the other, with one nodding her head and saying.."listen to Pres. Monson." Because the audience would naturally look back and forth to make sure the "other prophet" is agreeing with the first.

So, I believe the mistake Julie made; and possibly will continue to make is to teach based upon her NDE. In doing so, she moves from a reporter to a prophet.

I think many fundamentally misunderstand her and the process of having a NDE in general. When you go through this, doorways are opened that are not easily understood by others. Hence, the extreme flack and resulting cautiousness these people must continually use.

If the church comes out and condemns her and her messages directly (and the recent press release to not use her books to teach lessons is not what I'm talking about), then I feel she may have have overstepped or have been misled. But if she has been led by God to give the messages as she says, I don't think there will be a conflict with the GA's, other than in the minds of those who lack understanding or sufficient light to accept her experience as "genuine."

Remember, the LDS church is huge! It has many DIVERSE people and backgrounds coming together to embrace the same gospel message. This diversity includes those who voted of our current President and may even devoutly support him and his ideas. I personally know these people and some have leadership positions in the church. There are also many (more) who think that Mitt Romney would have saved the country and would give him a free pass because he's "LDS" --- In my opinion BOTH viewpoints are misled (just my opinion) But more importantly, these same individuals MAY be condemning the likes of Julie Rowe with their INCORRECT discernment.

[campfollower]

I believe the reason that Julie brings adversity rather than Spencer, is because Julie went on the lecture circuit and couldn't help becoming a "prophet" to the audience; all the while saying that she wasn't a prophet.

Also, Spencer is an anonymous person that may or may not actually exist, so it's kinda hard to discredit a non-entity especially when people go around claiming that he's a Bishop, Stake President and you know, maybe even could be the new GA!!

[durangout]

Remember, the LDS church is huge! It has many DIVERSE people and backgrounds coming together to embrace the same gospel message. This diversity includes those who voted (FYI we don't "vote" for out President / prophet) our current President and may even devoutly support him and his ideas. I personally know these people and some have leadership positions in the church. There are also many (more) who think that Mitt Romney would have saved the country and would give him a free pass because he's "LDS" --- In my opinion BOTH viewpoints are misled (just my opinion) But more importantly, these same individuals MAY be condemning the likes of Julie Rowe with their INCORRECT discernment. Actually it is their CORRECT discernment that spots the false doctrine hidden by the emotional "sell".

OK SB. You can tell me. You're yet one more of JR's sock puppets aren't you? You sure sound a lot like her.

[durangout]

If the church comes out and condemns he ... directly (and the recent press release to not use her books to teach lessons is not what I'm talking about), then I feel she may have have overstepped or have been misled. But if she has been led by God to give the messages as she says, I don't think there will be a conflict with the GA's, other than in the minds of those who lack understanding or sufficient light to accept her experience as "genuine."

uhhhhhhhhhh...They did. They called her work spurious. JIC you don't know, spurious means:

not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

[sweetbritches]

Remember, the LDS church is huge! It has many DIVERSE people and backgrounds coming together to embrace the same gospel message. This diversity includes those who voted (FYI we don't "vote" for out President / prophet) our current President and may even devoutly support him and his ideas. I personally know these people and some have leadership positions in the church. There are also many (more) who think that Mitt Romney would have saved the country and would give him a free pass because he's "LDS" --- In my opinion BOTH viewpoints are misled (just my opinion) But more importantly, these same individuals MAY be condemning the likes of Julie Rowe with their INCORRECT discernment. Actually it is their CORRECT discernment that spots the false doctrine hidden by the emotional "sell".

OK SB. You can tell me. You're yet one more of JR's sock puppets aren't you? You sure sound a lot like her.

When I said President....I meant PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES not the Prophet. You can't discern though, as you have made clear.

Sounding like her "sock puppet" is better than sounding like the hypocrites who rail against her when at the same time they can't discern voting for politicians who are nailing the last nails in the coffin of our once great nation, don't you think?

[durangout]

Remember, the LDS church is huge! It has many DIVERSE people and backgrounds coming together to embrace the same gospel message. This diversity includes those who voted (FYI we don't "vote" for out President / prophet) our current President and may even devoutly support him and his ideas. I personally know these people and some have leadership positions in the church. There are also many (more) who think that Mitt Romney would have saved the country and would give him a free pass because he's "LDS" --- In my opinion BOTH viewpoints are misled (just my opinion) But more importantly, these same individuals MAY be condemning the likes of Julie Rowe with their INCORRECT discernment. Actually it is their CORRECT discernment that spots the false doctrine hidden by the emotional "sell".

OK SB. You can tell me. You're yet one more of JR's sock puppets aren't you? You sure sound a lot like her.

When I said President....I meant PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES not the Prophet. You can't discern though, as you have made clear.

Sounding like her "sock puppet" is better than sounding like the hypocrites who rail against her when at the same time they can't discern voting for politicians who are nailing the last nails in the coffin of our once great nation, don't you think?

So you are JR.

[sweetbritches]

If the church comes out and condemns he ... directly (and the recent press release to not use her books to teach lessons is not what I'm talking about), then I feel she may have have overstepped or have been misled. But if she has been led by God to give the messages as she says, I don't think there will be a conflict with the GA's, other than in the minds of those who lack understanding or sufficient light to accept her experience as "genuine."

uhhhhhhhhhh...They did. They called her work spurious. JIC you don't know, spurious means:

not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

The church's official explanation of Julie Rowe's book is as follows:
They simply said it's her own personal experience and not to use it during official church resource such as teaching a class. Also it says it may distort church doctrine which translates to me as meaning.

I don't think her experience is for everybody to hear or accept at this time. Which is probably why she's giving it and not the church leadership itself...for obvious reasons Julie has covered. Just remember that a great number will not accept the call out to leave by the GA's, if in fact that is true and it happens.


Publication Caution

In 2014, Spring Creek Book Company published
A Greater
Tomorrow: My Journey Beyond the Veil
by Julie Rowe (see shaded box for Amazon’s des
cription of the
book). Although Sister Rowe is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
-
day Saints, her
book is not endorsed by the Church and should not be recommended to students or used as a resource in
teaching them. The experiences she
shares are her own personal experiences and do not necessarily reflect
Church doctrine or they may distort Church doctrine.

[sweetbritches]

Remember, the LDS church is huge! It has many DIVERSE people and backgrounds coming together to embrace the same gospel message. This diversity includes those who voted (FYI we don't "vote" for out President / prophet) our current President and may even devoutly support him and his ideas. I personally know these people and some have leadership positions in the church. There are also many (more) who think that Mitt Romney would have saved the country and would give him a free pass because he's "LDS" --- In my opinion BOTH viewpoints are misled (just my opinion) But more importantly, these same individuals MAY be condemning the likes of Julie Rowe with their INCORRECT discernment. Actually it is their CORRECT discernment that spots the false doctrine hidden by the emotional "sell".

OK SB. You can tell me. You're yet one more of JR's sock puppets aren't you? You sure sound a lot like her.

When I said President....I meant PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES not the Prophet. You can't discern though, as you have made clear.

Sounding like her "sock puppet" is better than sounding like the hypocrites who rail against her when at the same time they can't discern voting for politicians who are nailing the last nails in the coffin of our once great nation, don't you think?

So you are JR.

I am not Julie Rowe but I'm flattered you think I am. I have not been worthy enough to be given as beautiful of an insight that I know she probably has.

Sweetbritches

[chas8149]

Ok, folks: step right up and put it on the line. I see the top five threads in this section are all Julie related. Fight all you want about her, but where do you stand?

Please vote above.

Yes

[iWriteStuff]

Ok, folks: step right up and put it on the line. I see the top five threads in this section are all Julie related. Fight all you want about her, but where do you stand?

Please vote above.

Yes

Finally, someone with the strength of their convictions and who puts their name to their vote!

I commend you, sir. :ymapplause:

[Onsdag]

Ok, folks: step right up and put it on the line. I see the top five threads in this section are all Julie related. Fight all you want about her, but where do you stand?

Please vote above.

Yes

Finally, someone with the strength of their convictions and who puts their name to their vote!

I commend you, sir. :ymapplause:

Actually, he isn't the first to attach their good name and honor to the vote. You'll find a number of us who "with the strength of their convictions" voiced how we voted. Or do only those who voted "yes" somehow qualify?

[iWriteStuff]

Ok, folks: step right up and put it on the line. I see the top five threads in this section are all Julie related. Fight all you want about her, but where do you stand?

Please vote above.

Yes

Finally, someone with the strength of their convictions and who puts their name to their vote!

I commend you, sir. :ymapplause:

Actually, he isn't the first to attach their good name and honor to the vote. You'll find a number of us who "with the strength of their convictions" voiced how we voted. Or do only those who voted "yes" somehow qualify?

How many "yes" voters have said so in public? Since they're the minority, it's rare to hear from them.

But -> :ymapplause: <- here's to you, too

[mirkwood]

Nope.

Quoting myself from the first post after the OP. ;)

[brianj]

Brianj,
I made an earlier post, which you completely ignored, choosing instead to engage in a red herring debate over how she spends her money. The title of this thread is “Do you believe Julie”.

Did I ignore your post, or did I overlook it? I generally don't ignore anything I read, though I do tend to miss some posts.

The point of my first post was simply to address a principle which you inquired after, that being that if the counsel of an individual is supportive of the general authorities, scripture and prayer then how could they be a bad influence. I considered your question a reference to the true heart of the matter of the burden that we as members face when we are presented with an increasing number of seemingly sincere voices that would counsel and direct the saints. Joseph Smith commented on the nature of the phenomenon in these words:

One great evil is, that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits; their power laws, government, intelligence, etc., and imagine that when there is anything like power, revelation, or vision manifested, that it must be of God. (Contributor, vol. 3 (October 1881-September 1882), Vol. Iii. June, 1882. No. 9. 257 - 258.)

For this cause, I made the effort to comment when I only seldom even bother to look in on LDSFF anymore for the continuous absence of genuine effort to really come to increased understanding. Sadly, it seems most just love the patter of the exchange. If you asked that question with sincere intent, which may be doubtful at this point, then I hoped to open a dialogue on the subject to the mutual benefit of us all.

It sounds like a comment worth reading and considering. I will have to go look for it.

Your question hits at the very heart of what Joseph classed as a “great evil” – not being able to discern between those under the influence of the Spirit of Christ or the Holy Ghost and those under the influence of some other less desirable spirit. This is increasingly become a more and more significant issue with each new voice that shows to replace the previous fallen voice who was revealed. So to generalize your initial inquiry, how can we know? Are there definitive indicators, signs and guidelines to inform us of the source that guides those who claim divine instruction?

In the big scheme of things this is not about an individual but about a class of people that invite evaluation because they come in from the periphery of doctrinal possibilities. A class that can only come into focus when one understands the rules of evaluation that so few take the time to understand. If you are interested take a look at my first post, craft a legitimate response and let’s go after the very, very important question that you have presented – how do we know the servants of the Lord from the witting or unwitting servants of Satan?

How do we know the servants of the Lord from others? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Please allow me to share just one of the fruits of Julie Rowe:
About a year ago, I was an active church member but I was just going through the motions. I would go to church every Sunday, fulfill my calling, pay tithing, go to the temple once every couple months, take my son to Young Mens activities, read scriptures, and say prayers. During Sacrament meeting I would daydream more than listen, and in the subsequent two hours nothing was being taught that I hadn't already heard so I mostly ignored the lessons. At home I would say prayers but didn't really pray. I was convinced that my life was as good as it will get at this time, convinced that anything to do with death or personal judgement was a long way away, and that I was doing enough for then.

After reading to Julie Rowe's books and attending one of her talks, I came to see that I really wasn't doing what I should do. I started paying attention in church, praying instead of just saying prayers, and reading scriptures with an intent to learn and grow closer to Christ. Temple attendance has become an almost monthly activity, and I am learning how to worship at the temple instead of just attending a session. I am striving to be consistently worthy of the Holy Ghost, and I have experienced some wonderful blessings in response to my changes. I have received a calling of significant responsibility since then, and that calling has only advanced my journey along this path. My testimony is far stronger now than it was before I read Julie's books, as is my wife's testimony.

Naturally, Julie's books didn't give me a stronger testimony or change me, but they were a valuable tool used by Heavenly Father to wake me up and bring me closer to Christ so I could more effectively serve in His church. Because of the impact that her books have had on me, I am convinced that she did not mislead me. If others follow her most important advice of preparing temporally and spiritually, then even if she grossly misinterpreted the visions she claims to have had the people who follow her advice will be close enough to the Spirit to be guided through whatever might come.