Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by EmmaLee »

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it, evejaa? Hard to understand how any active, faithful LDS person could misunderstand what Elder Ballard is saying here. But alas, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
evejaa wrote: February 13th, 2018, 1:50 pmMaybe we all need to re-read M. Russell Ballard message again. As I read it, I hear him talking about Julie Rowe

We must be careful where our footsteps in life take us. We must be watchful and heed the counsel of Jesus to His disciples as He answered these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man [and I add woman] deceive you.”9

Today I repeat earlier counsel from Church leaders.

Brothers and sisters, keep the doctrine of Christ pure and never be deceived by those who tamper with the doctrine. The gospel of the Father and the Son was restored through Joseph Smith, the prophet for this last dispensation.

Do not listen to those who have not been ordained and/or set apart to their Church calling and are not acknowledged by common consent of the members of the Church.10

Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand.

Do not listen to those who entice you with get-rich schemes. Our members have lost far too much money, so be careful.

In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge in expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support.

An official Church statement, issued one year ago, states: “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises—in exchange for money—miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”11

The Church Handbook counsels: “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.”12

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful.

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

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by AI2.0 »

Thanks for sharing that again, Emmalee and Evejaa. From Elder Ballard's last General Conference talk;
Elder Ballard; "In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge in expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support.

An official Church statement, issued one year ago, states: “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises—in exchange for money—miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”11

The Church Handbook counsels: “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.”12

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful".
I don't know how anyone can not understand exactly what he's saying. He was very clear. This describes perfectly the Energy Healing/Emotion Code that Julie Rowe and some members of this forum practice.

thisisspartaaa
captain of 100
Posts: 770

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by thisisspartaaa »

AI2.0 wrote: February 15th, 2018, 9:46 am Thanks for sharing that again, Emmalee and Evejaa. From Elder Ballard's last General Conference talk;
Elder Ballard; "In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge in expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support.

An official Church statement, issued one year ago, states: “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises—in exchange for money—miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”11

The Church Handbook counsels: “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.”12

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful".
I don't know how anyone can not understand exactly what he's saying. He was very clear. This describes perfectly the Energy Healing/Emotion Code that Julie Rowe and some members of this forum practice.
People try to rationalize their behavior.

User avatar
evejaa
captain of 50
Posts: 50

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by evejaa »

And I tried to post Elder Ballard's talk on AVOW, with Julie Rowe's page of prices she charges for energy healing...get this, they removed my post, said it would cause "contention". I say, it is because they don't want anyone to talk negative about her.

User avatar
evejaa
captain of 50
Posts: 50

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by evejaa »

AI2.0 wrote: January 18th, 2018, 10:29 am I started listening to her podcast on Mary Magdelen #54.

http://julierowe.podomatic.com/


She's influenced by some legends that sprang up over time regarding Jesus and Mary Magdelene (Dan Brown's DaVinci Code was written using these claims). Also, as was pointed out, she thinks Joseph was a widower with children before he married Mary, the mother of Jesus. This was a tradition put forward centuries later in the Catholic church to explain Jesus' brothers and sisters and to keep their own belief which had become part of their doctrine that Mary remained a virgin her entire life and had no children with Joseph, her husband. This is not an LDS belief. The church has no problem with the scriptural accounts of Jesus' brothers and sisters and has no problem believing the Jesus had younger siblings, so we have no reason to believe or teach this later legend which sprang up in the Catholic church.

She's also added a new one, that as far as I know, Biblical scholars have never claimed(because it's not true)--Mary Magdalene is the same Mary who was sister to Martha and Lazarus.

I do know that some LDS believed that Jesus was married to Mary the sister of Martha (Joseph F. Smith believed he was married to both of them), but they did not ever suggest or even consider that Mary Magdalene was the Mary who was sister of Lazarus. This is new, and I suspect it also would easily be discounted by who've studied the individuals in the Bible.

She's claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and claims that she experienced the birth of their children, through the body of Mary. She also claims that Mary and Jesus had four children, two boys and two girls. Two children died while Jesus was not around.

She claims that Mary Magdalene was in the garden of gethsemane with Jesus, about a 100 yards away, 'she suffered right along with him' and could hear everything. She felt the 'buffetings of the adversary' as he entered the garden, though she was shielded by angels surrounding her in a prayer circle. She claims 'father helped Christ' and 'mother helped mary'. Mary uses 'essential oils' to bathe his feet and she brought essential oils, and a change of clothes. She 'washed his body' with them after the atonement and together they walked arm in arm out of the garden to the meet the apostles. She claims that Mary was 'arm in arm' with the Savior, when Judas came with the guards. Mary stood and watched it three feet away. She was left to the care of Phillip--hugged her and locked arms with her as they took Christ away. She claims that she sat through some of the meetings as the Pharisees and Saducees accused him.

She says Mary Magdalene and Martha served the Last supper and she was there.

Julie tells the story as if it were a movie she was watching, but, you can see that it is through the eyes of a modern woman who wants to make Jesus's 'wife' a huge part of it. She had a 'final night' with Christ which was very 'tender and loving'. (Julie was very emotional through this whole rendition) I think we can guess what she means by that. As I said, it's like Julie is viewing this through the lens of a Hallmark movie maker.

She mentions 'essential oils'. If any of you are not familiar, those who use Energy healing often use essential oils too. So, they aren't the oils used to prepare a dead body in the Jewish fashion...they are 'essential oils' now.

It does feel inappropriate--I've never seen 'the Last Temptation of Christ', but I suspect that Julie's version is probably more on par with this view of Christ in a male, sexual way.

She claims to have memories of the Marys preparing the body, cleaning the wounds, washing his body, etc. 'wiping his feet with her hair', 'memories of her kissing his face'. She heard him say 'I love him so much father, do I have to lose him'.

This makes for a nice tender scene in a made for TV movie, but Julie has forgotten that Jesus' Body was hastily taken and put in a tomb which belonged to Joseph of Arimethea(Matthew's account says 'he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth'), because of the Sabbath. They couldn't prepare his body to the extent that Julie is claiming to have seen, that's why the women went to the tomb on the third day.

She claims Mary went to the tomb every day. On the third saw the stone rolled away. She reached out to hug him. He told her 'you can't hug me yet.' He said he hadn't ascended to father yet. He told her I'll come see you, I'll be back. She was wearing a light blue dress with white, and a piece over her head of light blue fabric. She says there was tan too, but she wasn't clear.

The mistake here is that Julie doesn't know that the original hebrew is not translated; 'touch me not', it is 'cease clinging to me'. She fell into another trap because of tradition. I also wonder if they had 'light blue' dye to dye clothing of someone of mary's social standing. I'm curious--I'd have to research what color dyes were available to the people of Jesus' area and social status.

Julie's account contradicts the scriptures, adds a tons of extra scriptural things and heavily emotion driven to heighten it to the level of a romantic love story.
This is amazing info you have brought us AI2, I am only sorry that there are only a handful of us who care to know and want to expose her mistakes and lies. Thanks

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

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by AI2.0 »

Thanks Evejaa, I had some time so I looked up clothing and dyes in Ancient Israel.

Julie's claim that Mary wore an article of clothing which was 'light blue' is sketchy. I found an article on what was worn and what was available during this time. They pointed out that the poor wore clothing which was 'sheep' or 'goat' color because they did not have the money for 'fripperies' like dye. The wealthy did have money and enjoyed many different colors.

From the article:
The most costly dye was purple manufactured from the murex snail. But imitation purple for clothing could come from the hyacinth flower, for example. Textiles discovered at Masada included cream, pink and purple, and other colors mentioned in Roman sources include gold, walnut and yellow, all of which came from plants. Scarlet dye came from an insect, the kermes vermilio.
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.pr ... 1.5304235

I think the Holy family were middle class and would not have spent money on 'fripperies', I expect that Mary would have worn the clothing that other women in her day wore and did not ever, in real life, wear anything of a light blue color.

I suspect that Julie 'saw' Mary in a light blue because that is the traditional way she is portrayed in Medieval paintings.

Here is one explanation for her being depicted in blue;
Stephen Frantz, Love the Bible! Any translation will do.
Answered Jan 10 2017 · Author has 3.4k answers and 1.6m answer views
Originally Answered: How did the colour blue become associated with the Virgin Mary?

In paintings, Mary is traditionally portrayed in blue. This tradition can trace its origin to the Byzantine Empire, from c.500 AD, where blue was "the colour of an empress". A more practical explanation for the use of this colour is that in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the blue pigment was derived from the rock lapis lazuli, a stone imported from Afghanistan of greater value than gold. Beyond a painter's retainer, patrons were expected to purchase any gold or lapis lazuli to be used in the painting. Hence, it was an expression of devotion and glorification to swathe the Virgin in gowns of blue. Transformations in visual depictions of the Virgin from the 13th to 15th centuries mirror her "social" standing within the Church as well as in society.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Virgin ... -blue-robe

Another answer pointed out that blue is the color of Virginity, so that symbolism would be obvious.

So, If Julie was claiming she was seeing these visions as symbols, or whatever, then seeing Mary wearing a color not available at the time is not so much of a problem, but she very clearly has explained to her listeners that what she shares are 'memories'. She says they really happened and she was watching them through the window in heaven. Just like the scene between Jerusha and Hyrum Smith, which could not have taken place, this is also something which does not seem possible.

User avatar
The Airbender
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1376

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by The Airbender »

AI2.0 wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:52 am Julie Rowe, the self-proclaimed NDE experiencer, now turned LDS type medium, is making podcasts and I've been listening to her most recent, number 52; 'Memories From Joseph to Moses'.

She claims that what she's sharing about these ancient prophets is what she was 'shown', in 'heavenly view', through other people's eyes. So she's claiming that she is recounting these events as they actually happened. But, the mistakes she makes in telling the events prove she's a fake. A rookie mistake is that she claimed the brothers sold Joseph into Egypt. That is not how it happened. Genesis 37 is the account. The Brothers at first wanted to kill Joseph, but Reuben stopped them, he suggested instead to throw him in a pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites. Reuben's intention was to draw Joseph out of the pit and return him to his father (verse22), but Julie claims Reuben is rebellious and didn't repent--that's because she's not really seeing these events, he probably watched some movies or read something and since Reuben had relations with his father's concubine, she thought he was just a bad guy. She didn't see these events or she would have known that the Brothers did not get to sell Joseph because when they returned to the pit, he was gone, the Midianites had found him and sold him to the Ishmaelites (verse 28).
Now, if she REALLY saw these events, how could she have missed these things? Because she didn't see them, she's giving the story that is often given because of a misleading heading in the Bible for that chapter. This comes by not reading carefully the text. Of course, if she actually saw the events, then she would not have been misled by the chapter heading and the surface reading by most others who recount this story.

Another mistake, her telling of Potipher; If you listen to it, you know she's not sharing what actually happened, but what she thinks may have happened. She tries to add her little 'twist' by claiming that Potipher's wife admitted she lied, 'months later', but that Potipher had believed Joseph did try to rape his wife. So, tell me, what slave who attempts to rape the wife of his master is allowed to go to prison and not killed on the spot? If she'd wanted to actually sound like she was 'seeing' these events, she would have said that Potipher knew his wife was lying because he trusted Joseph (he'd put all of his household and affairs in Joseph's charge) and that is why he put him in the prison, rather than killing him for the crime he was accused of.

I also wonder who are 'they' she tells about who show her these things. 'They' is plural, so it's more than John the Revelator (who she identified as the John in her first book).

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/juli ... 2_20-08_00

I'm certain there are other examples in her podcasts like one I shared.
So I guess you have seen these events so you know where truth and error lie, right? I mean, the bible is obviously flawless and contains no errors, so of course you are right.
Last edited by The Airbender on March 22nd, 2018, 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gigarath24
captain of 100
Posts: 495
Location: Babylon

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by gigarath24 »

President Nelson is a true prophet. If a vision, revelation, scripture, or doctrine does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles it is a false prophecy. Therefore, since Julie Rowe is passing off her personal dreams and visions as prophecy, and she doesn't so much as even hold the priesthood, she is a false prophet. Why is this so hard for so many members of the Lord's church to understand?

DesertWonderer2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1164

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by DesertWonderer2 »

AI2.0 wrote: February 16th, 2018, 12:41 pm Thanks Evejaa, I had some time so I looked up clothing and dyes in Ancient Israel.

Julie's claim that Mary wore an article of clothing which was 'light blue' is sketchy. I found an article on what was worn and what was available during this time. They pointed out that the poor wore clothing which was 'sheep' or 'goat' color because they did not have the money for 'fripperies' like dye. The wealthy did have money and enjoyed many different colors.

From the article:
The most costly dye was purple manufactured from the murex snail. But imitation purple for clothing could come from the hyacinth flower, for example. Textiles discovered at Masada included cream, pink and purple, and other colors mentioned in Roman sources include gold, walnut and yellow, all of which came from plants. Scarlet dye came from an insect, the kermes vermilio.
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.pr ... 1.5304235

I think the Holy family were middle class and would not have spent money on 'fripperies', I expect that Mary would have worn the clothing that other women in her day wore and did not ever, in real life, wear anything of a light blue color.

I suspect that Julie 'saw' Mary in a light blue because that is the traditional way she is portrayed in Medieval paintings.

Here is one explanation for her being depicted in blue;
Stephen Frantz, Love the Bible! Any translation will do.
Answered Jan 10 2017 · Author has 3.4k answers and 1.6m answer views
Originally Answered: How did the colour blue become associated with the Virgin Mary?

In paintings, Mary is traditionally portrayed in blue. This tradition can trace its origin to the Byzantine Empire, from c.500 AD, where blue was "the colour of an empress". A more practical explanation for the use of this colour is that in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the blue pigment was derived from the rock lapis lazuli, a stone imported from Afghanistan of greater value than gold. Beyond a painter's retainer, patrons were expected to purchase any gold or lapis lazuli to be used in the painting. Hence, it was an expression of devotion and glorification to swathe the Virgin in gowns of blue. Transformations in visual depictions of the Virgin from the 13th to 15th centuries mirror her "social" standing within the Church as well as in society.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Virgin ... -blue-robe

Another answer pointed out that blue is the color of Virginity, so that symbolism would be obvious.

So, If Julie was claiming she was seeing these visions as symbols, or whatever, then seeing Mary wearing a color not available at the time is not so much of a problem, but she very clearly has explained to her listeners that what she shares are 'memories'. She says they really happened and she was watching them through the window in heaven. Just like the scene between Jerusha and Hyrum Smith, which could not have taken place, this is also something which does not seem possible.
What a great catch!

User avatar
The Airbender
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1376

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by The Airbender »

gigarath24 wrote: March 21st, 2018, 3:08 pm President Nelson is a true prophet. If a vision, revelation, scripture, or doctrine does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles it is a false prophecy. Therefore, since Julie Rowe is passing off her personal dreams and visions as prophecy, and she doesn't so much as even hold the priesthood, she is a false prophet. Why is this so hard for so many members of the Lord's church to understand?
Oops. I guess I should disregard all the personal revelations I have had and turn myself in as a false prophet for sometimes sharing them with family and friends. I should have written President Monson about all the decisions I've needed help with and waited for him to write me back with the answer from God before making the decisions. Gotta disregard the ones I wrote in my journal as false scripture and all the things I've learned from the spirit during personal study as from Satan himself who was deceiving me because I wasn't listening to conference talks.

User avatar
The Airbender
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1376

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by The Airbender »

evejaa wrote: February 15th, 2018, 3:39 pm
AI2.0 wrote: January 18th, 2018, 10:29 am I started listening to her podcast on Mary Magdelen #54.

http://julierowe.podomatic.com/


She's influenced by some legends that sprang up over time regarding Jesus and Mary Magdelene (Dan Brown's DaVinci Code was written using these claims). Also, as was pointed out, she thinks Joseph was a widower with children before he married Mary, the mother of Jesus. This was a tradition put forward centuries later in the Catholic church to explain Jesus' brothers and sisters and to keep their own belief which had become part of their doctrine that Mary remained a virgin her entire life and had no children with Joseph, her husband. This is not an LDS belief. The church has no problem with the scriptural accounts of Jesus' brothers and sisters and has no problem believing the Jesus had younger siblings, so we have no reason to believe or teach this later legend which sprang up in the Catholic church.

She's also added a new one, that as far as I know, Biblical scholars have never claimed(because it's not true)--Mary Magdalene is the same Mary who was sister to Martha and Lazarus.

I do know that some LDS believed that Jesus was married to Mary the sister of Martha (Joseph F. Smith believed he was married to both of them), but they did not ever suggest or even consider that Mary Magdalene was the Mary who was sister of Lazarus. This is new, and I suspect it also would easily be discounted by who've studied the individuals in the Bible.

She's claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and claims that she experienced the birth of their children, through the body of Mary. She also claims that Mary and Jesus had four children, two boys and two girls. Two children died while Jesus was not around.

She claims that Mary Magdalene was in the garden of gethsemane with Jesus, about a 100 yards away, 'she suffered right along with him' and could hear everything. She felt the 'buffetings of the adversary' as he entered the garden, though she was shielded by angels surrounding her in a prayer circle. She claims 'father helped Christ' and 'mother helped mary'. Mary uses 'essential oils' to bathe his feet and she brought essential oils, and a change of clothes. She 'washed his body' with them after the atonement and together they walked arm in arm out of the garden to the meet the apostles. She claims that Mary was 'arm in arm' with the Savior, when Judas came with the guards. Mary stood and watched it three feet away. She was left to the care of Phillip--hugged her and locked arms with her as they took Christ away. She claims that she sat through some of the meetings as the Pharisees and Saducees accused him.

She says Mary Magdalene and Martha served the Last supper and she was there.

Julie tells the story as if it were a movie she was watching, but, you can see that it is through the eyes of a modern woman who wants to make Jesus's 'wife' a huge part of it. She had a 'final night' with Christ which was very 'tender and loving'. (Julie was very emotional through this whole rendition) I think we can guess what she means by that. As I said, it's like Julie is viewing this through the lens of a Hallmark movie maker.

She mentions 'essential oils'. If any of you are not familiar, those who use Energy healing often use essential oils too. So, they aren't the oils used to prepare a dead body in the Jewish fashion...they are 'essential oils' now.

It does feel inappropriate--I've never seen 'the Last Temptation of Christ', but I suspect that Julie's version is probably more on par with this view of Christ in a male, sexual way.

She claims to have memories of the Marys preparing the body, cleaning the wounds, washing his body, etc. 'wiping his feet with her hair', 'memories of her kissing his face'. She heard him say 'I love him so much father, do I have to lose him'.

This makes for a nice tender scene in a made for TV movie, but Julie has forgotten that Jesus' Body was hastily taken and put in a tomb which belonged to Joseph of Arimethea(Matthew's account says 'he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth'), because of the Sabbath. They couldn't prepare his body to the extent that Julie is claiming to have seen, that's why the women went to the tomb on the third day.

She claims Mary went to the tomb every day. On the third saw the stone rolled away. She reached out to hug him. He told her 'you can't hug me yet.' He said he hadn't ascended to father yet. He told her I'll come see you, I'll be back. She was wearing a light blue dress with white, and a piece over her head of light blue fabric. She says there was tan too, but she wasn't clear.

The mistake here is that Julie doesn't know that the original hebrew is not translated; 'touch me not', it is 'cease clinging to me'. She fell into another trap because of tradition. I also wonder if they had 'light blue' dye to dye clothing of someone of mary's social standing. I'm curious--I'd have to research what color dyes were available to the people of Jesus' area and social status.

Julie's account contradicts the scriptures, adds a tons of extra scriptural things and heavily emotion driven to heighten it to the level of a romantic love story.
This is amazing info you have brought us AI2, I am only sorry that there are only a handful of us who care to know and want to expose her mistakes and lies. Thanks
You know who else thought they were doing the right thing? The Jews, in condemning Peter, John and the other apostles and disciples.

But their leader gave wise council. I think it is applicable in this situation.

"34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by brianj »

gigarath24 wrote: March 21st, 2018, 3:08 pm President Nelson is a true prophet. If a vision, revelation, scripture, or doctrine does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles it is a false prophecy. Therefore, since Julie Rowe is passing off her personal dreams and visions as prophecy, and she doesn't so much as even hold the priesthood, she is a false prophet. Why is this so hard for so many members of the Lord's church to understand?
Why? Because it is false statement. There is nothing in scripture to support your assertion that any vision or revelation that does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles is a false prophecy.

I've had things in my Patriarchal Blessing come to pass. But that blessing didn't come from the First Presidency or the Twelve, so I guess it's just coincidence.
When my wife left, my Bishop told me that if I carry through on my thought to move to Utah things will work out for me financially. That is exactly what happened and i thought it was a prophetic statement but I guess it's just coincidence.
I once had an appointment with a stake president. Right after making that appointment, an image came into my mind of him calling me to be an Elders Quorum president. I received that calling at that appointment, but I guess that wasn't a true vision because it wasn't related to me by an Apostle.

I testify to you that God is not a respecter of persons. He does not only give divine revelation to Apostles; he will give revelation to every single one of us. I once discussed questions about Nephi's vision with a Bishop who asked me if I had asked to see that vision. My Bishop knew the truth that I am every bit as entitled to ask for and receive taht vision as Nephi was. And if I do (or did) ask to see that vision, in faith, and Father believed it was right for me, then I would see that vision as well.

No new revelation, scripture, or doctrine can be officially provided to all members of this church through any conduit other than the First Presidency. That does not mean that any worthy individual within this church is unqualified to receive divine revelation. That does not mean that members of the Lost Tribes will not be divinely called and authorized, find their lost scripture, translate it, share it, organize themselves, and head to Zion. That deos not mean that someone in Judah will not be divinely called and authorized, guided on when and how to build a temple, guided to locate the Ark of the Covenant and related items, and so forth.

capctr
captain of 100
Posts: 424

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by capctr »

gigarath24 wrote: March 21st, 2018, 3:08 pm President Nelson is a true prophet. If a vision, revelation, scripture, or doctrine does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles it is a false prophecy. Therefore, since Julie Rowe is passing off her personal dreams and visions as prophecy, and she doesn't so much as even hold the priesthood, she is a false prophet. Why is this so hard for so many members of the Lord's church to understand?

I have read the responses to this post, and find it difficult to hold my tongue on the arrogant undertones of some of them. I was under the understanding that this post was referring to rowe setting herself up as an authority apart(and in some of her comments in her podcasts-above) the prophet and apostles.
No comment was made regarding personal revelation, or everyone’s right to receive it. Some of the responses appear to be a sorry mixture of condescension, contention, and the desire to show your past experiences of receiving personal revelation.

Here is the poster’s response on another thread demonstrating some of you were wayyy off base on your irritating assumptions:

Top
gigarath24
Hi, I'm new.
Re: Is this one of the reasons the Prophets have ...
Thanks
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:18 pm

“It is in my own personal opinion that the reason that we are asked to read the Book of Mormon daily is the same reason that we have been asked to read the scriptures daily. That is that it invites the spirit. Until a prophet states otherwise, it is mere speculation. Having said this, I believe that personal revelation is unto itself scripture for our own lives akin to the same level as our Patriarchal Blessing should be treated as scripture. It is important to note that items such as our Patriarchal Blessing is to only be shared with those that the spirit impresses at the time that we should share them, not spoken verbatim from a pulpit. We as members, esp. those of us who hold the priesthood have the rights and blessings of personal revelation, but that it should never be preached as a revelation unto the people as a whole. I am not saying that you are mistaken, all I am saying is that don't allow yourself to be in such a hurry for more scripture than what the Lord wishes to reveal to us at this time.“

thisisspartaaa
captain of 100
Posts: 770

Re: Julie Rowe podcast; an example that proves she's a fake

Post by thisisspartaaa »

capctr wrote: March 23rd, 2018, 10:34 am
gigarath24 wrote: March 21st, 2018, 3:08 pm President Nelson is a true prophet. If a vision, revelation, scripture, or doctrine does not come from President Nelson or one of the other Apostles it is a false prophecy. Therefore, since Julie Rowe is passing off her personal dreams and visions as prophecy, and she doesn't so much as even hold the priesthood, she is a false prophet. Why is this so hard for so many members of the Lord's church to understand?

I have read the responses to this post, and find it difficult to hold my tongue on the arrogant undertones of some of them. I was under the understanding that this post was referring to rowe setting herself up as an authority apart(and in some of her comments in her podcasts-above) the prophet and apostles.
No comment was made regarding personal revelation, or everyone’s right to receive it. Some of the responses appear to be a sorry mixture of condescension, contention, and the desire to show your past experiences of receiving personal revelation.

Here is the poster’s response on another thread demonstrating some of you were wayyy off base on your irritating assumptions:

Top
gigarath24
Hi, I'm new.
Re: Is this one of the reasons the Prophets have ...
Thanks
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:18 pm

“It is in my own personal opinion that the reason that we are asked to read the Book of Mormon daily is the same reason that we have been asked to read the scriptures daily. That is that it invites the spirit. Until a prophet states otherwise, it is mere speculation. Having said this, I believe that personal revelation is unto itself scripture for our own lives akin to the same level as our Patriarchal Blessing should be treated as scripture. It is important to note that items such as our Patriarchal Blessing is to only be shared with those that the spirit impresses at the time that we should share them, not spoken verbatim from a pulpit. We as members, esp. those of us who hold the priesthood have the rights and blessings of personal revelation, but that it should never be preached as a revelation unto the people as a whole. I am not saying that you are mistaken, all I am saying is that don't allow yourself to be in such a hurry for more scripture than what the Lord wishes to reveal to us at this time.“
It is clear to me that the context of the posters comments is in the area of stewardship.

JR bypasses the Lords process. Her visions have moved from the personal level to action being taken on the worldly level.

That’s the Prophets job. Not an individual members.

She is not the watchman on the tower. That’s the Prophet. The watchmen are the Prophet and Apostles.

In just a little over a week we will be given clear and distinct information and revelation from the Lord to the world that will be facilitated by a Prophet if God. He has been ordained and sustained as an Apostle. He will be sustained for the first time as our Prophet in the Saturday afternoon session. He will be made known to the whole Church (and world) that it is he who holds the keys. It is he who will either disseminate or direct ANY massive, collective revelation to the Church and world.

Personal revelation is personal and applies to the individual and associated stewardship he or she holds.

JR has ZERO authority to be doing what she is doing. You can rest assure that ANYTHING she has to say on the matter has ZERO implications to you.

Post Reply