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

[Onsdag]

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.

[Sarah]

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

[mirkwood]

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

[AI2.0]

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.

[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]

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)

[Sarah]

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.

[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]

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.

[AI2.0]

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.

[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.

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.

Perhaps she did not speak of the NDE on an Internet setting because, as she has stated, she did not feel like she was given full range to do so. I also don't think someone is obligated to understand the full import or meaning of the content of every spiritually related dream you've experienced just because you had a near death experience before or after said dreams. I doubt she would take the time to quiz those she met during her nde concerning explanations for the meaning of all her dreams. In fact, as far as I know, she does not claim to say that she received any in depth direction concerning possible symbolic meaning tied to dreams. Why not include some dreams that she does have an understanding of in the book, so long as they are applicable to the general theme of the book. It is entirely possible that some content in her NDE experience did enrich and repeat material perhaps from previous dreams, but I would think the more abstract elements of dreams would not be understood unless they were specifically repeated in her near death experience.

She also mentions she has been chastened for sharing too much in the past. Apparently, according to what I read, she also was for the most part, a lurker on the forum for most of her time spent there. I would not rule it impossible that in such a specific forum, among people who could uniquely appreciate such a message, she felt prompted from time to time to share some of her understanding. In contrast, as she has stated, I think she did feel that it was not meet to share those things to a more general audience (to anyone) at any time with no prompting whatsoever.

Perhaps Sara Menet's book influenced Julie Rowe to inquire more earnestly whether she might be permitted to share more of her story on a broader level and perhaps use the same medium of publishing that she had read in the Menet book. I will also add that the Pontius book coming out about the same time could be interpreted as more evidence that indeed the time is short and the Lord actually is authorizing multiple people/witnesses to come forth and finally share their experiences. One could take the opposite tact of course as well, as this thread starter has done, and find that such evidence actually points to her ripping off his material, which I find to be only an interpretation, not a foregone fact.

Why would Julie not turn to the Bible Dictionary for formulating her thoughts and descriptions? She also turned to quotes from general authorities, I find no undue conspiracy in her using printed Church materials to make sure her wording and the way she puts visual examples into words is commensurate with what has been revealed. As she states, it was her goal to testify of what has already been revealed, as for what she does not understand, most likely she did not put that into print at this time. She did put these things together fairly quickly and also admits that she is normally not much of a writer.

About the link you provided, I will go ahead and quote what I posted on that very thread, "I don't doubt her near death experience, but I think anything beyond that will be hit and miss at best, we can receive impressions from various sources and time lines can change.

Also, a thought about the car, it could so be that maybe things get bad enough that her family has to hold on to that car for longer than 5 years, who knows."

Personally, I don't think we would be called out before the summer of 2017, and also think it is likely that those outside of Utah would be called out, while those inside Utah would more or less be left to fend for themselves as far as location is concerned. Just look at the Church education system, it's a lot tougher for people living inside Utah to get into Brigham Young University. Maybe that is not a perfect analogy but it does provide some idea on what I am trying to convey. I still would not be surprised if there was a limited, selective call out from Salt Lake City. I do remember hearing Mrs. Rowe during an interview, and she gave no such timeline for a call out, in fact she refused to do so, but said she felt the time was short and the time for preparation was now.

As I have said, it seems to me all of this is entirely about one's interpretation. One person can find fault where another finds none. If you are bound and determined to find discrepancy, most likely you will do so, even if it is just one interpretation which leads to a conclusion entirely different from someone else.

[AlbertaBronco]

This is why we look to the brethren in the first presidency and quorum of the 12 for leadership. If there is direction that we require to prepare us for the last days, they will direct us. Furthermore, if we are in tune with the spirit personal revelation will help us to direct our families.

The only thing Julie's book did was refocus the saints on getting their one years food supply and getting our house in order. (Which we should have been doing in the first place)

If we look to anyone else to lead us besides the brethren, we will be sadly mistaken.

[Talon]

Oh no, she might convince people to store food and supplies (a commandment).

Oh no, she might convince people to study their scriptures and pray more (commandments).

Oh no, she might get people to think about the awful things that are happening in the world and realize that everything is not as good as it seems. She might convince people to learn about the secret combinations of our day (a commandment).

It would be awful for people to keep the commandments. I think we should instead lull them back to sleep.

By their fruits ye shall know them. The spirit has borne witness to me of the truthfulness of A Greater Tomorrow, Visions of Glory, and many other books and visions and dreams and prophecies that all support each other. These are tender mercies of the Lord to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. You say that your study of the scriptures to prove Julie wrong has been of great benefit to you. Might I ask, how? What have you really learned? All Julie has done is ask us to keep the commandments and follow the prophet.

[SmallFarm]

Oh no, she might convince people to store food and supplies (a commandment).

Oh no, she might convince people to study their scriptures and pray more (commandments).

Oh no, she might get people to think about the awful things that are happening in the world and realize that everything is not as good as it seems. She might convince people to learn about the secret combinations of our day (a commandment).

It would be awful for people to keep the commandments. I think we should instead lull them back to sleep.

By their fruits ye shall know them. The spirit has borne witness to me of the truthfulness of A Greater Tomorrow, Visions of Glory, and many other books and visions and dreams and prophecies that all support each other. These are tender mercies of the Lord to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. You say that your study of the scriptures to prove Julie wrong has been of great benefit to you. Might I ask, how? What have you really learned? All Julie has done is ask us to keep the commandments and follow the prophet.

The talons are coming out? :ymcowboy: Welcome to the forum. :ymhug:

[desertrat1979]

Im surprised how many people that I know have read this book. Its got quite a following. Many of the people I've talked to are worried they wont have time to prepare for the gathering that they think is coming. Personally I think she is full of it. I felt a little uneasy about her book when I read both of them. thanks for your review. I thought it very helpful.

[mirkwood]

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Claimed she had dreams and posted this on avow, then a few years later under a new username claimed she had a NDE and wrote a book.

Which fruit would that be?

[rewcox]

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Claimed she had dreams and posted this on avow, then a few years later under a new username claimed she had a NDE and wrote a book.

Which fruit would that be?

Fruit of the Loom

[Bee Prepared]

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Claimed she had dreams and posted this on avow, then a few years later under a new username claimed she had a NDE and wrote a book.

Which fruit would that be?

Fruit of the Loom

That's funny rewcox!

[mirkwood]

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Claimed she had dreams and posted this on avow, then a few years later under a new username claimed she had a NDE and wrote a book.

Which fruit would that be?

Fruit of the Loom

*snort* =))

[Onsdag]

Still waiting for anyone to step up to the challenge and prove my points wrong. Surely if Julie Rowe is telling the truth then it should be an easy matter to do...

[iWriteStuff]

About this time is when I received the anonymous letter in the mail threatening me to not publish my “attack” against Julie Rowe or they would retaliate by publishing information all over the internet about my past. The only people (that I’m aware of) who knew of my intent to publish my findings was Julie Rowe, Mills Crenshaw, Christopher Parrett, Christopher’s moderators, and a few close friends who have been supportive of me. I do not know who it was that sent the threatening letter, though I believe it was someone who has a vested interest in Julie’s “success.” Nor do I do care if they do so – my past has been resolved and taken care of both legally and with the Church. It is the truth that I am after and I hope to help protect my brothers and sisters from being led astray.

Would I be out of line to ask what it was in your past that required legal and church help to resolve? I'd like to understand your perspective better and perhaps some degree of background would be helpful in establishing context.

If you choose not to share, that's fine too.

[Onsdag]

Would I be out of line to ask what it was in your past that required legal and church help to resolve? I'd like to understand your perspective better and perhaps some degree of background would be helpful in establishing context.

If you choose not to share, that's fine too.

I'm not sure that this is the proper place or medium to discuss one's past transgressions. I will say that it involved immorality and leave it at that. If you feel you need to know more then I would prefer to answer your questions privately.

Frankly, and respectfully, I'm not sure my past transgressions have anything to do with the current situation and discussion whatever, other than that someone tried to use it against me so that I wouldn't come forth publicly with my concerns about Julie Rowe's story and claims. As I said before, it happened a long time ago, when I was a teenager, some 17 years ago, and has been resolved. Therefore, I'm not sure how effectively it will help you establish context, provide background, or give you an understanding of my perspective in the current situation as they are (in my mind) two completely different and unrelated matters. However, if it has been of help to you, well, then I'm glad I could be of help.

[iWriteStuff]

Thanks!

Nah I only asked because I've had close personal friends who were a bit mistrustful of others and I could never figure it out until later on it came out that they were untrustworthy themselves. One such friend even spent several years in jail for fraud. The old expression "If you can't trust, you can't be trusted" came to mind. Just wondering how/if any of that factored into your story. As for my own part, living in Utah was quite an experience and I learned to suspect the motives of even well meaning members. Usually it was an effort to introduce me to a great new "business" that would "revolutionize my life" or whatever. I don't automatically discount such as frauds, but it raises alarms now. I dig deeper before I decide on my level of commitment.

As this pertains to Julie et al, I believe her as far as her message follows the counsel of the Church, the Spirit, the scriptures and no further. As per what she said or did on AVOW a decade ago, I'm less interested. The fact of the matter is even with details, we don't know the whole story and it's hard to cast judgment without a full and complete understanding. Which is why I usually refrain from doing so, while simultaneously using the Church and scriptures as my yardstick for truth, validated by prayer and the Spirit.

Again, thanks for sharing.

[AI2.0]

Thanks!

Nah I only asked because I've had close personal friends who were a bit mistrustful of others and I could never figure it out until later on it came out that they were untrustworthy themselves. One such friend even spent several years in jail for fraud. The old expression "If you can't trust, you can't be trusted" came to mind. Just wondering how/if any of that factored into your story. As for my own part, living in Utah was quite an experience and I learned to suspect the motives of even well meaning members. Usually it was an effort to introduce me to a great new "business" that would "revolutionize my life" or whatever. I don't automatically discount such as frauds, but it raises alarms now. I dig deeper before I decide on my level of commitment.

As this pertains to Julie et al, I believe her as far as her message follows the counsel of the Church, the Spirit, the scriptures and no further. As per what she said or did on AVOW a decade ago, I'm less interested. The fact of the matter is even with details, we don't know the whole story and it's hard to cast judgment without a full and complete understanding. Which is why I usually refrain from doing so, while simultaneously using the Church and scriptures as my yardstick for truth, validated by prayer and the Spirit.

Again, thanks for sharing.

Is this what you've stooped to? Attempting to smear and discredit the Onsdag, suggesting he is 'untrustworthy' because he doesn't trust Julie??????? Not only was it a low move, it was illogical.

Onsdag shared his concerns very clearly and methodically. You don't have to agree (I didn't agree with some of his concerns) and he's asked for discussion. Why do you not use honest, straight forward methods to defend her?

Surely you have some ability to defend Julie by citing her work? She's put it out there and claimed it is true. It ought to be able to stand on it's own.

Can you show us where she explained why she was on AVOW for several years sharing her dreams but never mentioned an NDE?

Can you explain why doing firesides and radio interviews makes her story more believable? Should we only accept her book as true or do we also need to accept things she's said outside the book (like about Big Foot etc) or her claims about Energy healing?

Can you show why we shouldn't be concerned about Julie's involvement with Emotion Code and how it is completely in line with LDS teachings?

And now, if her story is absolutely true and she was told to share it with the world, why is she now stopping? If she has such an important mission and message, why is that mission over? Seems awfully odd considering the things she's claimed will be happening are supposed to happen very soon.

Don't you think these are valuable questions to ask if one is to trust her claims?

[Onsdag]

Thanks!

Nah I only asked because I've had close personal friends who were a bit mistrustful of others and I could never figure it out until later on it came out that they were untrustworthy themselves. One such friend even spent several years in jail for fraud. The old expression "If you can't trust, you can't be trusted" came to mind. Just wondering how/if any of that factored into your story. As for my own part, living in Utah was quite an experience and I learned to suspect the motives of even well meaning members. Usually it was an effort to introduce me to a great new "business" that would "revolutionize my life" or whatever. I don't automatically discount such as frauds, but it raises alarms now. I dig deeper before I decide on my level of commitment.

As this pertains to Julie et al, I believe her as far as her message follows the counsel of the Church, the Spirit, the scriptures and no further. As per what she said or did on AVOW a decade ago, I'm less interested. The fact of the matter is even with details, we don't know the whole story and it's hard to cast judgment without a full and complete understanding. Which is why I usually refrain from doing so, while simultaneously using the Church and scriptures as my yardstick for truth, validated by prayer and the Spirit.

Again, thanks for sharing.

Is this what you've stooped to? Attempting to smear and discredit the Onsdag, suggesting he is 'untrustworthy' because he doesn't trust Julie??????? Not only was it a low move, it was illogical.

Onsdag shared his concerns very clearly and methodically. You don't have to agree (I didn't agree with some of his concerns) and he's asked for discussion. Why do you not use honest, straight forward methods to defend her?

Surely you have some ability to defend Julie by citing her work? She's put it out there and claimed it is true. It ought to be able to stand on it's own.

Can you show us where she explained why she was on AVOW for several years sharing her dreams but never mentioned an NDE?

Can you explain why doing firesides and radio interviews makes her story more believable? Should we only accept her book as true or do we also need to accept things she's said outside the book (like about Big Foot etc) or her claims about Energy healing?

Can you show why we shouldn't be concerned about Julie's involvement with Emotion Code and how it is completely in line with LDS teachings?

And now, if her story is absolutely true and she was told to share it with the world, why is she now stopping? If she has such an important mission and message, why is that mission over? Seems awfully odd considering the things she's claimed will be happening are supposed to happen very soon.

Don't you think these are valuable questions to ask if one is to trust her claims?

AI2.0, I appreciate you trying to come to my defense, I really do. But, with all due respect, I feel you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion here. Granted, I can see how it can be perceived that way, but I don't think that was entirely his intention.

I am actually a fairly trusting person, preferring to believe the best in a person, unless and until they prove otherwise. I have also always tried to be as open and honest in all my dealings. I have been so from the beginning and one needs but look at my first posts to find out why I have done the things I have and the reasoning behind it. In short, and to reiterate, it is because I have felt guided by the Holy Ghost to search out truth and to take a stand for truth as I have come to know it.

If one wants to know more about my back-story and why I do the things I do I could share that, though I'm sure it would be a rather long and tedious overview of my life's story. I could share how, when I was in my youth, my mother moved her family to Sanpete county where there were quite a few apostate peoples and groups, and how I began to learn at a young age that there are people who lie and deceive; some even who mix so much truth into their stories as to draw many away after them. I could share all the many stories of how I have gained a testimony, learned the gospel, and learned how to hear and follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. My life has literally been spared on two seperate occasions because I gave heed to the promptings of the Holy Ghost - one such time the prompting was completely counter-intuitive in my mind, but I knew it was the right thing to do. I could share how my dear mother homeschooled me, and even though she wasn't considered "smart" by worldly standards she was wise and taught me those things which were beyond price - a love for God, Jesus Christ, the gospel, the Prophets and Apostles, our country and Constitution, and more. She taught me to be honest, something I have always striven to do, even when it is inconvenient, has cost me jobs or promotions, worldly honors, etc. I could go on and on - each life's experience, both good and bad, adding to who I have become and why I do the things I do.

If people don't trust me that is their right and I will support their right to believe whatever they want. The same is true with this whole Julie Rowe situation. If people want to believe her that is their right and I will defend their right to do so. At the same time though I will continue to try and teach the things I have come to know to be true, and to do so as clearly as I can, striving always to do so as guided by the Holy Ghost - who teaches and testifies of all truth.

I don't hold anything against Iwritestuff. In fact I agree with much of what he has said and appreciate his contribution to this discussion. With love,

Erin Branch