Talon wrote:
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?
Talon wrote:
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Fruit of the Loommirkwood wrote: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.Talon wrote: By their fruits ye shall know them.
Which fruit would that be?
Post by Bee Prepared »
That's funny rewcox!rewcox wrote:Fruit of the Loommirkwood wrote: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.Talon wrote: By their fruits ye shall know them.
Which fruit would that be?
rewcox wrote:Fruit of the Loommirkwood wrote: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.Talon wrote: By their fruits ye shall know them.
Which fruit would that be?
Post by iWriteStuff »
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.Onsdag wrote: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.
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.iWriteStuff wrote:
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.
Post by iWriteStuff »
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.iWriteStuff wrote: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, 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.AI2.0 wrote: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.iWriteStuff wrote: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.
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?
Post by iWriteStuff »
I have to say, I find the irony amusing. I was attempting to understand Onsdag's background and perspective so as to avoid misjudging intent and motive. Meanwhile, my intent and motive was misjudged.AI2.0 wrote:Onsdag, you are clearly a more patient and charitable person than I am. I tend to perceive the worst in people, not their best. I felt he was trying an ad hominem approach; but you're right, it doesn't really matter. If people choose to read it, and agree or dismiss, that's up to them.
Once again, your illuminating information was an answer to my own questions and prayers on this matter, so I appreciate your willingness to bring it to this forum.
Julie is apparently retiring from public appearances, so I assume the controversy surrounding her claims will most likely die away.
Well, I think we've found the answer...You got your psych degree at BYU, I got mine at the U of U. And there you have it!! :piWriteStuff wrote:I have to say, I find the irony amusing. I was attempting to understand Onsdag's background and perspective so as to avoid misjudging intent and motive. Meanwhile, my intent and motive was misjudged.AI2.0 wrote:Onsdag, you are clearly a more patient and charitable person than I am. I tend to perceive the worst in people, not their best. I felt he was trying an ad hominem approach; but you're right, it doesn't really matter. If people choose to read it, and agree or dismiss, that's up to them.
Once again, your illuminating information was an answer to my own questions and prayers on this matter, so I appreciate your willingness to bring it to this forum.
Julie is apparently retiring from public appearances, so I assume the controversy surrounding her claims will most likely die away.
As per background on myself, I could start by saying I got my Psychology degree from BYU. I didn't pursue a career in it, ultimately, but one of the key takeaways from my studies is that you should never presume to understand someone's subjective experience in its entirety. There may be factors that contribute to someone's choices or behavior, but even they might not know the root source of their actions. The best you can say as a psychologist is "Sometimes it's this, and sometimes it's that." Hence I wanted to know from whence came Onsdag's motive to research and expose Julie. I don't presume to judge the motive, but I did hope to understand it better.
I'm not inclined to even judge the veracity of Julie's NDEs/visions/whatever. Who am I to judge a personal experience someone else had, even if they deem it prudent to share it? When I shared my feelings and impressions about her event, it was because I discerned that she was sincere and honest. That's as much as I can judge, and even then I leave the door open to the idea that maybe I'm not even right about that.
Is it a contradiction to say follow the prophet, heed the Spirit, and keep yourself open to new possibilities being revealed through the same channels? Because that's all I'm trying to do.
Post by truthseeker7 »
Pay special attention to the words of Julie Rowe in the above quoted section:Onsdag wrote:
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:
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.
- “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)
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.
Would this be a bad time to say "I told you so?"From: Administrators Council CES
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 3:11 PM
Subject: Publication Caution—A Greater Tomorrow: My Journey Beyond the Veil
Date: August 31, 2015
Additional Information: This document has been posted on the website.
Memo Text (also attached as a PDF file):
Please be aware of the caution regarding the publication below and alert teachers and staff as needed.
In 2014, Spring Creek Book Company published A Greater Tomorrow: My Journey Beyond the Veil by Julie Rowe (see shaded box for Amazon’s description 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.
We remind personnel to review the following resources regularly:
· Avoid Teaching Spurious Materials
· Obtaining and Maintaining Scriptural and Doctrinal Integrity (Edward J. Brandt)
· Spurious Materials in Circulation
Post by Matchmaker »
Listening to Jeff Olsen's story and the humble way in which he told it, changed my life. Thank you for mentioning him.nzmagpie wrote:Nobody has written more about the spirit world than the brilliant Swedish scientist/engineer Emanuel Swedenborg. He spent much of his last 28 years of mortality stepping in and iut of the spirit world. I have been reading his books for 2-years and watching videos based on them.
I refer you all to the following video, which includes some of his writings:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6uyxRINGmDQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
After viewing this and reading some of his free publications, you will find that some of JR's experience is plausible. I have also been studying NDE's for 20-years and the range of experiences is broad, tthough there are common elements. Some of you may have also read, or listened to LDS author Jeff Olsen talk about his NDE. He often says that the dream state can have similar elements to an NDE. He's experienced profound dreams where he felt he left his body. I've read both his books and they were life changers.
Post by DesertWonderer »
No not at all. I read Sara Menet's supposed NDE after I read JR's first book. There was a paragraph that was an almost word for word exact copy--silliness to the extreme.nzmagpie wrote:Forgot to mention that I suspected a link between LDS author Kim Rives' book, "A Walk Through Heaven" and JR's "A Greater Tomorrow". It came out a few years before AGT and also uses the theme of a guided tour through various buildings and rooms, where all is revealed. They are both aimed at an LDS market with overtly LDS beliefs incorporated into the story. Coincidence?
That's not a fruit.mirkwood wrote:Talon wrote:
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?
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.