"The Julie Rowe Show" Podcasts

[Silver Pie]

After some thought, DesertWonderer, it occurs to me that I am making an argument without knowing all the facts. Would you please tell me some of the things you see on AVOW that are Snuffer doctrines? I should not be disagreeing so fervently with you without knowing what it is you are seeing. Since I don't go to many of the forums the few times I do go there, I could be missing something. All I know is that he is not to be talked about in any positive way that I have seen (and Christopher has even plainly said that supporting him will result in loss of membership), but teachings can be taught without mentioning the teacher.

[e-eye2.0]

After some thought, DesertWonderer, it occurs to me that I am making an argument without knowing all the facts. Would you please tell me some of the things you see on AVOW that are Snuffer doctrines? I should not be disagreeing so fervently with you without knowing what it is you are seeing. Since I don't go to many of the forums the few times I do go there, I could be missing something. All I know is that he is not to be talked about in any positive way that I have seen (and Christopher has even plainly said that supporting him will result in loss of membership), but teachings can be taught without mentioning the teacher.

I frequent AVOW and there are no DS supporters and if so, like mentioned, it doesn't last as yes he is apostate and recognized as so on AVOW. Comparing this forum and AVOW is really not comparing apples to apples. There are many who are not active here or even members who like to walk around kicking tires to see if they can pick a fight on past doctrine or current leadership which you never see there.

[EmmaLee]

The prepper / Avow / JR crowd has now begun to include the false doctrines of DS in their mantra.

I doubt the prepper crowd is doing that, though there may be a view interested in prepping who are also interested in him, but I can guarantee you that AVOW is as anti-Denver as they come. Anyone who says anything construed as supporting him or believing in him is ousted from the forum.

Not anymore! I am currently a member on AVOW, and several pro-Snuffer posts have been made lately with nary a word of protest or rebuke from Mr. Parrett (or any other mods). And the pro-Snuffer posters are still there, posting away. Even a few months ago, I would have said the same thing you did, SP; but times they are a'changin'.

[ebenezerarise]

I remember it the way I said it, and I remember a great insistence on your part, but I'm ready to drop it now.

You're proof positive that people are going to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe -- ironically, just as the whole Snufferite things has proven.

[Silver Pie]

You're proof positive that people are going to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe --

I have no doubt that you are right.

[Silver Pie]

Not anymore! I am currently a member on AVOW, and several pro-Snuffer posts have been made lately with nary a word of protest or rebuke from Mr. Parrett (or any other mods). And the pro-Snuffer posters are still there, posting away. Even a few months ago, I would have said the same thing you did, SP; but times they are a'changin'.

I'm wondering if his name is mentioned, though. I mean, for example, if someone started a thread on having their calling and election made sure, or on an experience with seeing Jesus, I would not call that a Snuffer teaching. Both things have been taught in the LDS Church for well over a century. It is only within the last 20 or so years that those teachings have fallen out of favor. There are many, many people who have had experiences with heaven, including seeing the Lord and/or having their calling and election made sure who don't even have a clue who DS is. I think that just because someone discusses a gospel principle that used to be taught by Joseph Smith, it does not follow that they are pro-Denver.

Now, if they are teaching that Denver said this or that, and they are giving links to his blog, I can see how that would be pro-Snuffer. If they are quoting from his books or talks, I can see how that would be pro-Snuffer. But if they happen to be talking about a doctrine that existed in this Church before Denver was a member, even before Denver was born, and was a doctrine even after he joined, I fail to see how that makes them pro-DS.

[Silver Pie]

I made two comments on a thread on AVOW (like, this morning iirc) one was in answer to someone who thought listening to DS was a free ride. Since I'm the one who wrote the comments, I see nothing wrong with posting them here (and my purpose for posting them is to show that DS is not tolerated over there).

Free ride? How so? The teaching is to follow Christ alone, and that to be exalted one must be willing to sacrifice everything to God. To be willing to sacrifice one's good name, family, friends, even one's Church and employment have to be counted as some heavy costs.

I think the big thing is that he taught things offensive to Church leaders (and continues to do so).

I was threatened (on the thread) with being banned for those two posts ("Do not even slightly support that monster here"), even though they are statements of fact, and neither comment said it was right to follow Denver, or that it was wrong of the leaders to take offense at what he taught and teaches.

Now, over here, I expect AI2.0 would have said, in regards to the first, "That may be true, but he also teaches other things that go against the teachings of the prophets," and she would expound on what he teaches that are in conflict with the teachings of the Church today.

Ah, I did not intend to stir up ants over there or over here. I guess I'm done with the subject.

[e-eye2.0]

I made two comments on a thread on AVOW (like, this morning iirc) one was in answer to someone who thought listening to DS was a free ride. Since I'm the one who wrote the comments, I see nothing wrong with posting them here (and my purpose for posting them is to show that DS is not tolerated over there).

Free ride? How so? The teaching is to follow Christ alone, and that to be exalted one must be willing to sacrifice everything to God. To be willing to sacrifice one's good name, family, friends, even one's Church and employment have to be counted as some heavy costs.

I think the big thing is that he taught things offensive to Church leaders (and continues to do so).

I was threatened (on the thread) with being banned for those two posts ("Do not even slightly support that monster here"), even though they are statements of fact, and neither comment said it was right to follow Denver, or that it was wrong of the leaders to take offense at what he taught and teaches.

Now, over here, I expect AI2.0 would have said, in regards to the first, "That may be true, but he also teaches other things that go against the teachings of the prophets," and she would expound on what he teaches that are in conflict with the teachings of the Church today.

Ah, I did not intend to stir up ants over there or over here. I guess I'm done with the subject.

Denver Snuffer teaching false doctrine - yes that is correct. Probably the biggest thing is keys, but has continued down his path building his church that is not a church with ordinances of baptism and I imagined he temple ordinances once they finish the temple.

[AI2.0]

I made two comments on a thread on AVOW (like, this morning iirc) one was in answer to someone who thought listening to DS was a free ride. Since I'm the one who wrote the comments, I see nothing wrong with posting them here (and my purpose for posting them is to show that DS is not tolerated over there).

Free ride? How so? The teaching is to follow Christ alone, and that to be exalted one must be willing to sacrifice everything to God. To be willing to sacrifice one's good name, family, friends, even one's Church and employment have to be counted as some heavy costs.

I think the big thing is that he taught things offensive to Church leaders (and continues to do so).

I was threatened (on the thread) with being banned for those two posts ("Do not even slightly support that monster here"), even though they are statements of fact, and neither comment said it was right to follow Denver, or that it was wrong of the leaders to take offense at what he taught and teaches.

Now, over here, I expect AI2.0 would have said, in regards to the first, "That may be true, but he also teaches other things that go against the teachings of the prophets," and she would expound on what he teaches that are in conflict with the teachings of the Church today.

Ah, I did not intend to stir up ants over there or over here. I guess I'm done with the subject.

Wow, I appreciate your testing it out, but I'm sorry you were threatened with banning. I just hope they would at least refund you the subscription fee they charged if there were to actually follow through.



I believe they may be attempting to keep themselves free of any hint of an association with Denver Snuffer (I suspect they want to stay off the church's radar), but frankly, I think some of them are sympathetic with his views that the church doesn't have the same kind of 'inspiration' which they enjoy--because they are not a 'corporation' that has sold out for political correctness---which is a complaint we see thrown at the church by those who think they know better than LDS church leadership, at times. IMO, the tent cities adherents DO think they know more than the church leaders and are doing a better job at warning the saints about needing these things than the church is.

AVOW has lionized Roger K. Young for years and now they seem to be adding Julie Rowe and Chad Daybell to their cadre of self proclaimed prophets.

And you're right, about that one quote:

I think the big thing is that he taught things offensive to Church leaders (and continues to do so)

Whoever wrote that is incorrect. Snuffer was not exed because he was 'offensive'--he was exed for heretical teachings and false doctrine. Whoever wrote that comment is making excuses for Snuffer, and tacitly suggesting church leaders would excommunicate someone because they were 'offended'--how petty would that be! IMO, shows some sympathy toward him and so, I think you, Silver Pie, have at least one person on that forum who may privately sympathize with you.

[AI2.0]

Okay, 'fess up, you people who are writing anti-Rowe posts (those not believing her). Ebenezerarise said you guys follow Denver Snuffer, or at least the majority of you do, but I don't see one person posting here, in skepticism, who listens to DS or, if they do happen to hear or read him, believes anything he says. (Thought I'd nip it in the bud. And, please, any skeptics who write after this is posted, please confess if you are in the DS crowd. I'll confess that I'm in that crowd, but I don't ever recall posting about JR in support or in contempt, though I probably read this type of thread far too often.)

I never said that! I said some of the DS crowd beat up on JR, too. It's a hobby around these parts.

Well, for one, you never used the word 'some', you actually said 'a lot'--there is a difference in the meaning of these words. And you're apparently STILL not backing away from suggesting that Julie Rowe critics are also Snufferites, which is what I took issue with.

For the record, this is what you said:

Re: Are there still "Snufferites" here?

Postby ebenezerarise » Wed May 10, 2017 6:35 pm

They're all still here. Every last one of them. Maybe a few names have changed, maybe some lurk and a few misrepresent themselves as something else. But they are still here. Waiting....for something... to happen... that might validate them.

When they get bored a lot of them like to beat up Julie Rowe.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45471



Back when you wrote it, I questioned you on your statement, giving examples of those who've spoken critically of JR, and pointing out that not one of them was a known 'Snufferite' or even showed signs of being a closet 'Snufferite'. You provided nothing to back up what you'd said--not even an example of a single known 'snufferite' (let alone 'a lot' of them) who 'likes to beat up on Julie Rowe when they are bored'. And now, on another thread, you're still trying to defend this? Wouldn't it have just been easier to admit that you may have been wrong to equate Julie Rowe critics with Snufferites?

Am I belaboring this? Yes, I certainly am. But I do so because I don't appreciate the implication you've created that since I'm critical of Julie Rowe I must be a Snufferite. I suspect others don't want that label either.

[capctr]

Okay, 'fess up, you people who are writing anti-Rowe posts (those not believing her). Ebenezerarise said you guys follow Denver Snuffer, or at least the majority of you do, but I don't see one person posting here, in skepticism, who listens to DS or, if they do happen to hear or read him, believes anything he says. (Thought I'd nip it in the bud. And, please, any skeptics who write after this is posted, please confess if you are in the DS crowd. I'll confess that I'm in that crowd, but I don't ever recall posting about JR in support or in contempt, though I probably read this type of thread far too often.)

I never said that! I said some of the DS crowd beat up on JR, too. It's a hobby around these parts.

Well, for one, you never used the word 'some', you actually said 'a lot'--there is a difference in the meaning of these words. And you're apparently STILL not backing away from suggesting that Julie Rowe critics are also Snufferites, which is what I took issue with.

For the record, this is what you said:

Re: Are there still "Snufferites" here?

Postby ebenezerarise » Wed May 10, 2017 6:35 pm

They're all still here. Every last one of them. Maybe a few names have changed, maybe some lurk and a few misrepresent themselves as something else. But they are still here. Waiting....for something... to happen... that might validate them.

When they get bored a lot of them like to beat up Julie Rowe.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45471




Back when you wrote it, I questioned you on your statement, giving examples of those who've spoken critically of JR, and pointing out that not one of them was a known 'Snufferite' or even showed signs of being a closet 'Snufferite'. You provided nothing to back up what you'd said--not even an example of a single known 'snufferite' (let alone 'a lot' of them) who 'likes to beat up on Julie Rowe when they are bored'. And now, on another thread, you're still trying to defend this? Wouldn't it have just been easier to admit that you may have been wrong to equate Julie Rowe critics with Snufferites?

Am I belaboring this? Yes, I certainly am. But I do so because I don't appreciate the implication you've created that since I'm critical of Julie Rowe I must be a Snufferite. I suspect others don't want that label either.

JR is either evil, deceived, or psychotic(maybe all three).
DS...is all three. I find it difficult to fathom either of them still have followers.

[ebenezerarise]

Am I belaboring this? Yes, I certainly am. But I do so because I don't appreciate the implication you've created that since I'm critical of Julie Rowe I must be a Snufferite. I suspect others don't want that label either.

Wee bit insecure, ain't ya?

[EmmaLee]

Not anymore! I am currently a member on AVOW, and several pro-Snuffer posts have been made lately with nary a word of protest or rebuke from Mr. Parrett (or any other mods). And the pro-Snuffer posters are still there, posting away. Even a few months ago, I would have said the same thing you did, SP; but times they are a'changin'.

I'm wondering if his name is mentioned, though. I mean, for example, if someone started a thread on having their calling and election made sure, or on an experience with seeing Jesus, I would not call that a Snuffer teaching. Both things have been taught in the LDS Church for well over a century. It is only within the last 20 or so years that those teachings have fallen out of favor. There are many, many people who have had experiences with heaven, including seeing the Lord and/or having their calling and election made sure who don't even have a clue who DS is. I think that just because someone discusses a gospel principle that used to be taught by Joseph Smith, it does not follow that they are pro-Denver.

Now, if they are teaching that Denver said this or that, and they are giving links to his blog, I can see how that would be pro-Snuffer. If they are quoting from his books or talks, I can see how that would be pro-Snuffer. But if they happen to be talking about a doctrine that existed in this Church before Denver was a member, even before Denver was born, and was a doctrine even after he joined, I fail to see how that makes them pro-DS.

The posts I'm referring to on AVOW mention Denver Snuffer by name, and a few of his books, by name - they were made in the last month - they spoke very positively of him and of 'some' of his teachings - none of the posts were removed - none of the people who made them were banned. The 3-4 posts I'm talking about were very positive toward Snuffer - and again, they were very clear who they were talking about because they used his name - DENVER SNUFFER. Don't know how to say it any more simply and straightforward than that.

[EmmaLee]

Next time I have a spare moment, I'll try and find those posts on AVOW - the ones that mention Denver Snuffer by name in a positive way. AVOW has WAY more - many thousands more - members, and active members, than LDSFF does, so there are countless posts every day - it's doubtful I will come across them - have no idea what threads they were in or who made them. Should have known better than to mention it here without physical proof, and even then someone would still say it wasn't so.

[Spider]

Is anyone here listening to JR's podcasts?

[shadow]

Is anyone here listening to JR's podcasts?

I'm not.

[DesertWonderer]

Is anyone here listening to JR's podcasts?

I've listened to most of them. They are horrifying.

So much false doctrine I can't begin to list it, tin-foil hat conspiracies, she back-tracks a ton, more encounters with evil spirits, Isaiah is a new spirit guide, she talks w animals, she talked to Jesus at 3 yrs old, she's now had DOZENS of NDEs, emotion code, she was "triggered" by the Wonder Woman movie (i.e. she has special powers from the Divine that she is now realizing), the level of detail of future events is astounding--too bad John the Revelator or JS or Nephi, etc didn't see that much detail but I digress, She again copies material from VoG, SM, Edgar Casey and others, The City of Enoch is coming back to the Gulf of Mexico from where it was taken...BUT I must admit it was entertaining :ymdevil:

[AI2.0]

Is anyone here listening to JR's podcasts?

I think I've listened to about five of them now.
I agree with Desertwonderer, she's really 'out there'--I'd say that's why they are entertaining, but for sure, alarming. As I've listened, things have struck me as strange, false etc, but I wasn't in a position to write them down to share here.

One was about her seeing God and Jesus Christ too (like Joseph Smith jr) but she said she didn't share this in her book, because it was 'too sacred'. Yet, I'm listening to her share this information on an internet podcast???? So, how is it no longer 'too sacred' to share with the world but it was 'too sacred' to share with a few thousands readers? She's inconsistent. I think she shares this now because she believes it gives her credibility with her listeners.

Another was her criticizism of LDS members for only listening to their LDS prophets. I'll have to try to find the reference for where that one was--I don't remember which podcast it was, but to me it was a big red flag. Maybe someone else heard it and can tell which podcast it was on.

As Desert wonderer said, she borrows heavily from others. As I listened the thought came that she's not sharing anything I haven't already heard from other sources.

And, I'm going to get this on the record before Julie Rowe can make a prediction and try to claim that John or Joan or Isaiah told her about this. I just read (June 22, 2017) on Redstate.com that there have been hundreds of small earthquakes in June near Yellowstone and there is fear it will disrupt the caldera there and bring about an eruption of a super volcano. Just in case she tries to pass this off as something she was warned about-- the super volcano causing problems for the states around it--it was reported on in the news, no need for a heavenly messenger to warn about it.

[Onsdag]

Another was her criticizism of LDS members for only listening to their LDS prophets. I'll have to try to find the reference for where that one was--I don't remember which podcast it was, but to me it was a big red flag. Maybe someone else heard it and can tell which podcast it was on.

https://youtu.be/-eNifvk0u2w?t=2605

Not sure if this is it, but in episode #6 (starting at 43:25) she does address the LDS audience about the callout belief, Prophets, and chastises members for not reading their Bibles. She goes on to claim that Jeremiah was the Prophet at the time Lehi took his family and fled into the wilderness. She is, essentially, comparing herself (specifically) and other callout believers with Lehi's family whereas our living Prophet would be comparable with Jeremiah in the story. A few points on these claims:

• Funny thing is, this is the same exact argument many apostates (such as the remnant crowd) have used to justify their apostasy - they'll liken themselves to Prophets such as Samuel the Lamanite, Lehi, Alma Sr., etc., and claim (despite evidence to the contrary) that these people weren't actually Prophets and had no authority to lead/teach their people and therefore these apostates have the right to follow their own path instead of following the living Prophets. I find it rather telling that she's using the same arguments as these people to justify and validate her own beliefs, and can't help but wonder if she's picking these teachings up from their influence.

• I thought according to the callout crowd (and especially Julie herself) that it's the Prophet who issues the call to gather/flee. So why is it that now she's distancing herself from this view and providing justification that they can quietly disappear and leave without authorization from the Prophet - as her story of Lehi and Jeremiah illustrates?

• She insinuates (through her story of Jeremiah) that our living Prophet's role is only to testify of the wickedness of the people and to also perish with said wicked people, whereas her role (through the story of Lehi) is to help lead the righteous to safety and to a promised land. Personally, I find this all rather offensive.

[Yahtzee]

Is anyone here listening to JR's podcasts?

I think I've listened to about five of them now.
I agree with Desertwonderer, she's really 'out there'--I'd say that's why they are entertaining, but for sure, alarming. As I've listened, things have struck me as strange, false etc, but I wasn't in a position to write them down to share here.

One was about her seeing God and Jesus Christ too (like Joseph Smith jr) but she said she didn't share this in her book, because it was 'too sacred'. Yet, I'm listening to her share this information on an internet podcast???? So, how is it no longer 'too sacred' to share with the world but it was 'too sacred' to share with a few thousands readers? She's inconsistent. I think she shares this now because she believes it gives her credibility with her listeners.

Another was her criticizism of LDS members for only listening to their LDS prophets. I'll have to try to find the reference for where that one was--I don't remember which podcast it was, but to me it was a big red flag. Maybe someone else heard it and can tell which podcast it was on.

As Desert wonderer said, she borrows heavily from others. As I listened the thought came that she's not sharing anything I haven't already heard from other sources.

And, I'm going to get this on the record before Julie Rowe can make a prediction and try to claim that John or Joan or Isaiah told her about this. I just read (June 22, 2017) on Redstate.com that there have been hundreds of small earthquakes in June near Yellowstone and there is fear it will disrupt the caldera there and bring about an eruption of a super volcano. Just in case she tries to pass this off as something she was warned about-- the super volcano causing problems for the states around it--it was reported on in the news, no need for a heavenly messenger to warn about it.

I hope she says it's imminent.

[AI2.0]

Another was her criticizism of LDS members for only listening to their LDS prophets. I'll have to try to find the reference for where that one was--I don't remember which podcast it was, but to me it was a big red flag. Maybe someone else heard it and can tell which podcast it was on.

https://youtu.be/-eNifvk0u2w?t=2605

Not sure if this is it, but in episode #6 (starting at 43:25) she does address the LDS audience about the callout belief, Prophets, and chastises members for not reading their Bibles. She goes on to claim that Jeremiah was the Prophet at the time Lehi took his family and fled into the wilderness. She is, essentially, comparing herself (specifically) and other callout believers with Lehi's family whereas our living Prophet would be comparable with Jeremiah in the story. A few points on these claims:

• Funny thing is, this is the same exact argument many apostates (such as the remnant crowd) have used to justify their apostasy - they'll liken themselves to Prophets such as Samuel the Lamanite, Lehi, Alma Sr., etc., and claim (despite evidence to the contrary) that these people weren't actually Prophets and had no authority to lead/teach their people and therefore these apostates have the right to follow their own path instead of following the living Prophets. I find it rather telling that she's using the same arguments as these people to justify and validate her own beliefs, and can't help but wonder if she's picking these teachings up from their influence.

• I thought according to the callout crowd (and especially Julie herself) that it's the Prophet who issues the call to gather/flee. So why is it that now she's distancing herself from this view and providing justification that they can quietly disappear and leave without authorization from the Prophet - as her story of Lehi and Jeremiah illustrates?

• She insinuates (through her story of Jeremiah) that our living Prophet's role is only to testify of the wickedness of the people and to also perish with said wicked people, whereas her role (through the story of Lehi) is to help lead the righteous to safety and to a promised land. Personally, I find this all rather offensive.

Yes, that's it, thank you for finding that and posting it. And I recognized the same thing you did, that she was making a justification for people like herself to be 'prophets' at the same time as President Monson and our Quorum of 12 and encouraging people to listen to those who have no authority to speak out to the collective members of the church.

The 'call out' and Energy healing have always been what makes Julie Rowe's claims more of a concern to me than some of the other LDS last days/NDE books I've read. I think if you listen to her podcasts you can see what's wrong with her claims and the way she's setting herself up to be a leader and 'prophet'. Her belief and promotion of Energy healing (and you hear it in some of her comments on the podcasts) is a clear indicator that she's following after false teachings. The call out, as she's promoted it in her first book, is morphing so that she can attempt to use scripture to bolster it.

I'm listening to #10 "The Gathering: Safety in the 'Call out'.

It's clear to anyone who read her first book that she's changing what she initially claimed, because now she's attempting to claim that her initial 'call out' claim is also 'The Gathering' which most LDS are very familiar with. For LDS members who have not studied the Gospel much (other than in Sunday School or seminary) they can be misguided by her claims and her appeal to LDS teachings. She's mixing up teachings and scriptures to make claims that if you don't have a sound understanding, you can be deceived.

one example, she's talking about water 'cleansing the area' in her area where she lives--and used the term 'living water', then appeals to scriptures and Joseph Smith. I can only assume she's talking about water flowing out from the temple in Jerusalem, but that's in Israel.



One thing that keeps impressing on my mind as I listen is that Julie speaks with authority, when she has NONE. She has this way of giving out a lot of information and saying it in such a way that she sounds so sure of it--I can see why some are taken in by her, but to me, it's false. Her ideas are not new, they are lifted from many sources, but I'd say she doesn't have a sound foundation of gospel knowledge--only what she's read of other peoples' works. That's the danger of her message and why she is successful at deceiving others into believing that she is a prophet and here to warn others. She 'sounds good' but what she says is 'off'.

[Gage]

Julie is able to deceive some Mormons because they know nothing about the Gospel or the scriptures because they have never read them. members that marry into the church can be more easily deceived because they were taught that Mormons are good people and would never deceive or fraud anyone. Those that grew up in the Church know this to be anything but the truth. Since most Mormons study and practice the Gospel of Gain and do not know much of the Gospel of Christ, a fraud like Julie can twist a couple scriptures to fit her agenda and those members then become smitten with her. When people make comments about "how in the world can Julie deceive good and faithful Mormons", well she is deceiving people that are just members of the Mormon church- for social reasons or to get gain, etc. not the ones that know the Gospel.

[AI2.0]

Julie is able to deceive some Mormons because they know nothing about the Gospel or the scriptures because they have never read them. members that marry into the church can be more easily deceived because they were taught that Mormons are good people and would never deceive or fraud anyone. Those that grew up in the Church know this to be anything but the truth. Since most Mormons study and practice the Gospel of Gain and do not know much of the Gospel of Christ, a fraud like Julie can twist a couple scriptures to fit her agenda and those members then become smitten with her. When people make comments about "how in the world can Julie deceive good and faithful Mormons", well she is deceiving people that are just members of the Mormon church- for social reasons or to get gain, etc. not the ones that know the Gospel.

I wish I could agree, but since you paint with such a broad brush it is hard to do so.

I don't believe 'most Mormons study and practice the Gospel of Gain'. That's pretty cynical and not true in my experience. Most of the LDS I know are good people striving to live right. They are often weak and troubled, but they are not purposely selfish or lying. Maybe you run in different circles, but the LDS I associate with are not like the one's you describe. Those kind exist, but they are not the majority--as in 'most'.

Unfortunately, Gage, you seem have a jaded view of the Saints and it comes through in some of your comments. Julie Rowe is an anomaly, she's atypical of LDS. Those who listen to her and believe her, do so for various reasons. But, I agree, it's more likely that she can deceive people if they have a limited knowledge of the Gospel. However, I disagree that 'members who marry into the church can be more easily deceived'...I don't think converts are more likely to be deceived. Some converts know the gospel and are more able to judge character than life long saints, so I think that's an unfair assumption.

Also your statement 'she is deceiving people that are just members of the Mormon church-for social reasons or to get gain, etc. not the ones that know the Gospel' is also WAY TOO broad for me to agree with. When the scriptures say that even the very 'elect' are in danger of being deceived, they are not referring to those who are members for social reasons or to get gain. I believe the warning is to those who are striving to be 'saints'-- sincere, believing people who are trying very hard to be righteous and live the gospel. Being deceived isn't just a concern for lack luster, lazy members. I think Denver Snuffer appealed to many who were very stalwart and wanting MORE from the church of the meat and got impatient that they weren't being spiritually fed among their fellow Saints who weren't at the same level spiritually that they felt they were. I think they felt their fellow brothers and sisters in the Gospel were holding them back.

[Gage]

I should not of said "most" I am not trying to bash Mormons, I have been one since birth, I was taught the Gospel and testify to the truth of it. I am just trying to understand how someone can be a member of the Church one day and the next you dont believe or you now follow Julie Rowe. I cannot see how someone can just stop believing. How can someone quit the Church because the church "hates gays". The only explanation I can come up with is these members never believed to begin with. They were members for reasons other than a testimony of the Gospel.

[AI2.0]

I should not of said "most" I am not trying to bash Mormons, I have been one since birth, I was taught the Gospel and testify to the truth of it. I am just trying to understand how someone can be a member of the Church one day and the next you dont believe or you now follow Julie Rowe. I cannot see how someone can just stop believing. How can someone quit the Church because the church "hates gays". The only explanation I can come up with is these members never believed to begin with. They were members for reasons other than a testimony of the Gospel.

If you've been a member since birth, I'm sure you've seen lots of people leave the church over the years. Unfortunately people can and do change from having a strong testimony of the Gospel and later losing it. A testimony has to be nurtured and strengthened and when this isn't done, it can fade away or become weak and easily destroyed. I know people who bore strong testimony but years later, left the church, saying at that point, they didn't even know if God existed. If you read Alma 12:9-11 and I think you can why this phenomenon happens.

As for why some members will quit the church because it 'hates gays'. It's an excuse to make a statement, IMO--they know we don't 'hate gays'--if a person spends any time in our church, they know we are not taught to 'hate' anyone.

There are many reasons people go inactive, but not all lose their testimonies. Some are inactive but still believe (because they do have a testimony but t he 'flesh' is weak), I often see this among those who struggle with addictions and other word of wisdom problems and lifestyle choices (like living with someone) . However, we do see many who become inactive because they were never truly converted in the first place. I believe that people join the church for different reasons. Not all actually receive a true testimony of the Gospel or the Book of Mormon, but they may feel that it is true and want to join, but then the 'seed' that was planted in their heart isn't deeply planted and it withers and dies before having a chance to deepen and grow. My husband and I work with a lot of less actives in our calling and we've both come to the conclusion that for a lot of people, the problem is that they really don't have a true, profound witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or the Gospel, or that Joseph Smith jr. was a prophet and actually restored the church. They liked the idea of these things and thought they sounded right, at the time, but that's not enough to carry someone through the storms and trials of life.

I've found that those who believe Julie Rowe are active, believing LDS. So far, she hasn't made them make a choice between the church and her, so active LDS can also believe her claims with no difficulty. The problem would arise if she were to come in conflict with the church leadership and her supporters were forced to make a choice-as Denver Snuffer's supporters were forced to do. We know what happened, many left the church, taking Snuffer's side. It's not to that yet, for her followers though. Many of them refuse to see the problems with Julie Rowe's claims--they insist she's just sharing her dreams and visions and she doesn't consider herself a prophet and one who has authority. But the podcasts show the truth. Personally, I think that her podcasts could get her in trouble, because they clearly show how she views herslef--her revelatory 'gifts' and her mission to warn the world (and LDS members) and that she speaks as one having authority.

Bishop Koyle's experience is a good example of what could happen to Julie Rowe. If you ask me, it's just a matter of time before she's questioned by her church leaders and probably will be told she needs to stop her evangelizing and predicting future events or face church discipline.