Julie Rowe

[Kenngo1969]

... I did learn some things about how the law in the US works, however, so it wasn't a complete loss.  I can now read legislation and court decisions and follow what the holy heck they're talking about.  Usually.

Congratulations!  I graduated from law school, yet I'm still not sure I can do that!

 

[Calm]

Ken, unlikely to get a response since the poster hasn't showed up since last April.

[Stargazer]

Congratulations!  I graduated from law school, yet I'm still not sure I can do that!

 

 

I'm still trying to decide between Law School and Astrophysics.  I've been pondering the decision for many years.

[iWriteStuff]

Why does the below seem to happen so frequently?

 

SnLS



bonus bez wplaty

[bluebell]

It's just spam.

[Tacenda]

http://julieroweprepare.com/notes-from-rexburg-event-july-2015/

I know someone that is still on her email list and this is one of the items she posted.

[bluebell]

http://julieroweprepare.com/notes-from-rexburg-event-july-2015/

I know someone that is still on her email list and this is one of the items she posted.

 

I wonder if she stands behind the 7-10 year time frame the note taker has presented before we are living in tent cities?  I saw an earlier interview from this summer (or was it 2014?  I can't remember off of the top of my head) where she gave a tentative 5 year schedule based on how long they keep their used cars.

[iWriteStuff]

I wonder if she stands behind the 7-10 year time frame the note taker has presented before we are living in tent cities?  I saw an earlier interview from this summer (or was it 2014?  I can't remember off of the top of my head) where she gave a tentative 5 year schedule based on how long they keep their used cars.

That was from the July 2014 Mills Crenshaw interview, I believe. And a timeline is just a useful way of generating interest and attention.

[Calm]

She states now that people are saying stuff she never said and that she never gave out any dates.

See her recent interview.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

She states now that people are saying stuff she never said and that she never gave out any dates.

See her recent interview.

 

Even if that's true (which I doubt), she allowed those dates to spread around with her name on them and did nothing to quash them, until now when it's obvious the dates were wrong. 

[bluebell]

That was from the July 2014 Mills Crenshaw interview, I believe. And a timeline is just a useful way of generating interest and attention.

 

So, we've got a little more than three years left.  Good to know....  

[iWriteStuff]

Even if that's true (which I doubt), she allowed those dates to spread around with her name on them and did nothing to quash them, until now when it's obvious the dates were wrong. 

Ok so I was at her event in July 2015 in Denver. She was asked about stuff coming up in September 2015. She approached it this way:

 

"How many of you think something will happen in September 2015?" (most hands go up) Then goes on to talk about financial collapse and stuff, blood moons, etc, as though she believes it too... In short, she let the crowd pick the date then kinda went along with it, neither confirming or denying anything. Thus she can claim that she never set any dates or made any specific predictions but half the crowd is convinced she did.

 

I thought it was clever, but not very clear and maybe even slightly deceptive.

[jkwilliams]

Ok so I was at her event in July 2015 in Denver. She was asked about stuff coming up in September 2015. She approached it this way:

 

"How many of you think something will happen in September 2015?" (most hands go up) Then goes on to talk about financial collapse and stuff, blood moons, etc, as though she believes it too... In short, she let the crowd pick the date then kinda went along with it, neither confirming or denying anything. Thus she can claim that she never set any dates or made any specific predictions but half the crowd is convinced she did.

 

I thought it was clever, but not very clear and maybe even slightly deceptive.

 

I honestly don't understand why people are attracted to that kind of stuff, but then there are a lot of things I don't understand.

[Calm]

Even if that's true (which I doubt), she allowed those dates to spread around with her name on them and did nothing to quash them, until now when it's obvious the dates were wrong.

The interview is not reassuring...she is chuckling at times about how people have taken extreme steps and acts like she was always this voice of reason, which she was most definitely not. There is no real sorrow expressed that people were confused and sacrificed their livelihoods, selling their homes, uprooting themselves to move to an allegedly safer place. No sense of feeling the least responsible for contributing to a panic, just a continued promotion of herself having massive spiritual knowledge she isn't even allowed to share woth her husband.

She ignores what she calls the "interoffice memo" was a major trigger of the news articles that referred to her (she also had listed the names of the media on her site, but without links or titles next to her own scheduled events, giving the appearance that these also were positive public mentions rather than trashing her; they were removed in her backlash). She talks in depth about the mention in the seminary memo and how they were so right to do that, but neglects to mention the memo was titled "spurious materials" or that her books are the only ones that have ever been given the dubious honour, the rests are mormon email myths of a very different caliber.

[iWriteStuff]

I honestly don't understand why people are attracted to that kind of stuff, but then there are a lot of things I don't understand.

Fear is contagious. And it sells pretty well, if you have the right audience.

 

For my own part, I was asked by some friends of mine who helped set up the event to help with security. I'd read the books and for a while wondered whether there was any truth in it. Part of the reason for agreeing to come was to gain some sort of impression on it. What I came away with was the impression that she believes it, but that's not a confirmation for me that any of it is going to happen or that it's true.

[Calm]

Ok so I was at her event in July 2015 in Denver. She was asked about stuff coming up in September 2015. She approached it this way:

 

"How many of you think something will happen in September 2015?" (most hands go up) Then goes on to talk about financial collapse and stuff, blood moons, etc, as though she believes it too... In short, she let the crowd pick the date then kinda went along with it, neither confirming or denying anything. Thus she can claim that she never set any dates or made any specific predictions but half the crowd is convinced she did.

 

I thought it was clever, but not very clear and maybe even slightly deceptive.

Iirc, she states she never even mentioned dates so it would be an outright lie if so imo.

[jkwilliams]

Fear is contagious. And it sells pretty well, if you have the right audience.

 

For my own part, I was asked by some friends of mine who helped set up the event to help with security. I'd read the books and for a while wondered whether there was any truth in it. Part of the reason for agreeing to come was to gain some sort of impression on it. What I came away with was the impression that she believes it, but that's not a confirmation for me that any of it is going to happen or that it's true.

 

I guess I've never been that big on fear. Maybe it was a good thing that I was in that ward with all the crazy people way back when, as they sort of inoculated me against that.

[bluebell]

I noticed that she put up more 'notes' from other appearances.  She says in the disclaimer to each note that they are the notetaker's words and not Julie's.  However, in the notes for the St. George meeting (which she conveniently doesn't mention that it had to be moved from a church property to the university because the church didn't want to be connected to her presentation) one of the notes says-
 
~Why are you here? (as in at the Rexburg event)

Clearly those are not the words of the notetaker.  The only explanation is a mistake from the person typing up the notes and that they meant to type "as in at the St. George event" instead.  Makes me wonder where else she is adding commentary or interpretation to the notes and passing it off as if it's what the note taker wrote.

 

I also find it hard to believe that the notetaker is not someone who is a part of her camp (like her husband maybe?) because it's clear (if the notes are the words of the note taker as Julie claims) that the notes were all taken by the same person.  The style of each set of notes is exactly the same.  But who would go to the same presentation three times in three different states other than a family member or someone involved with the presentation itself?

[iWriteStuff]

I noticed that she put up more 'notes' from other appearances.  She says in the disclaimer to each note that they are the notetaker's words and not Julie's.  However, in the notes for the St. George meeting (which she conveniently doesn't mention that it had to be moved from a church property to the university because the church didn't want to be connected to her presentation) one of the notes says-

 

~Why are you here? (as in at the Rexburg event)

Clearly those are not the words of the notetaker.  The only explanation is a mistake from the person typing up the notes and that they meant to type "as in at the St. George event" instead.  Makes me wonder where else she is adding commentary or interpretation to the notes and passing it off as if it's what the note taker wrote.

 

I also find it hard to believe that the notetaker is not someone who is a part of her camp (like her husband maybe?) because it's clear (if the notes are the words of the note taker as Julie claims) that the notes were all taken by the same person.  The style of each set of notes is exactly the same.  But who would go to the same presentation three times in three different states other than a family member or someone involved with the presentation itself?

Oh no, let me tell you first hand that trafficking in Julie Rowe notes is a major activity for this particular crowd. And she has asked that she have approval rights before someone distributes notes to others. As a result, she has a massive collection from event attendees.

 

Could she be changing them? Perhaps. But a lot of them are very amateurish and therefore switch between verbatim quotes and summaries without so much as a comma.

[bluebell]

Oh no, let me tell you first hand that trafficking in Julie Rowe notes is a major activity for this particular crowd. And she has asked that she have approval rights before someone distributes notes to others. As a result, she has a massive collection from event attendees.

 

Could she be changing them? Perhaps. But a lot of them are very amateurish and therefore switch between verbatim quotes and summaries without so much as a comma.

 

If people are following her around so they can listen to the same presentation multiple times and take multiple notes from them then they have some serious issues.  And you have to wonder why Julie would encourage anyone to do that.

 

And I don't mean to accuse her of altering notes, so much as to doubt that everything presented as 'notes from someone else' is actually that.  

[ERayR]

The bad thing about timelines is that someday one of them is going to be correct.  Then

[Calm]

"Please note that they are not necessarily Julie’s actual words, but are the notes taken from the listener’s interpretation."

Given she is posting them on her site and could therefore correct them easily, that she chooses not to implies she is trying hard to avoid responsbility for her behaviour while still trying to promote herself as much as possible. She may not have gotten directly paid, but her actions appear as her trying to maximize attention given her...even to previously posting the names of newsmedia talking about her, but not linking to them so readers couldn't see the negative and now posting notes she didn't post before when she was doing conference (why go to a conference if you can get the info online?) but now posting the notes will draw people to her site.

[iWriteStuff]

"Please note that they are not necessarily Julie’s actual words, but are the notes taken from the listener’s interpretation."

Given she is posting them on her site and could therefore correct them easily, that she chooses not to implies she is trying hard to avoid responsbility for her behaviour while still trying to promote herself as much as possible. She may not have gotten directly paid, but her actions appear as her trying to maximize attention given her...even to previously posting the names of newsmedia talking about her, but not linking to them so readers couldn't see the negative and now posting notes she didn't post before when she was doing conference (why go to a conference if you can get the info online?) but now posting the notes will draw people to her site.

and, by golly, it's working....