Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Julie Rowe


Recommended Posts

Posted
16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I could see that.  "I'll go take care of this toots right now." 

But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist/misogynistic/pick-your-pejorative, not you, right?  If a man were doing the same things Julie Rowe has done, the response of the Church of Jesus Christ would be .... :lazy:, right? :huh::unknw: 

Posted
58 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist/misogynistic/pick-your-pejorative, not you, right?  If a man were doing the same things Julie Rowe has done, the response of the Church of Jesus Christ would be .... :lazy:, right? :huh::unknw: 

huh?  What you talking about now, Kenngo? 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  What you talking about now, Kenngo? 

Never mind.  My bad.  Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders are, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, sexist and misogynistic, they're wont to say such things as, "Let's go take care of this toots," and no one should/would bat an eyelash.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.  (Weren't you a member of the PC Brigade who was complaining about those who were bemoaning the unwieldiness of the L***********************... acronym?  So, on the one hand, it's horribly un-PC to complain about that, but on the other, no one should bat an eyelash that you put sexist language in the mouths of the Brethren????) :huh::unsure::unknw: 

[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]DOUBLE-STANDARD[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]HUGE-BLIND-SPOT[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]MOTES-AND-BEAMS[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]...

Sorry. :huh:

Can't imagine where that frog that suddenly jumped into my throat came from.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Posted
On 8/22/2017 at 10:51 AM, rongo said:

She's liable to "get the itch" to get attention again....

It's not constructive to assume that because one publishes something they personally wish for attention.

...It makes me sad, because there is obviously mental illness at play, and the worst thing for her is to get attention and have that reinforced.

I'd venture that neither you nor anyone else here is qualified to accurately diagnose someone's mental state/health from reading a few things someone has opted to share.

And I'm certain it's not constructive to dismiss someone or their views simply because one chooses to believe they have mental illness.

Methinks some have not yet latched onto relevant messages from Elder Holland and others.

FWIW

Posted
8 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

It's not constructive to assume that because one publishes something they personally wish for attention.

I'd venture that neither you nor anyone else here is qualified to accurately diagnose someone's mental state/health from reading a few things someone has opted to share.

And I'm certain it's not constructive to dismiss someone or their views simply because one chooses to believe they have mental illness.

Methinks some have not yet latched onto relevant messages from Elder Holland and others.

FWIW

I agree with you.

I think though that Julie has herself confirmed that she was diagnosed with a mental illness (though i'm not sure she disclosed what the diagnosis was).  I could be remembering wrong though.  Does anyone else remember that?

Posted
24 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

It's not constructive to assume that because one publishes something they personally wish for attention.

I'd venture that neither you nor anyone else here is qualified to accurately diagnose someone's mental state/health from reading a few things someone has opted to share.

And I'm certain it's not constructive to dismiss someone or their views simply because one chooses to believe they have mental illness.

Methinks some have not yet latched onto relevant messages from Elder Holland and others.

FWIW

Someone claims to know that the End of Days is upon us but does not want attention? She may want to consider a new line of publishing then.

It is made clear in the Book of Mormon that God reveals himself to the world as a whole through people of "firm mind" and not the minds of deranged wackos. This does not mean that those with mental illness are unable to get revelation. They can. They are just not getting called to deliver messages to the world. You can safely dismiss her claims.

Posted
58 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

It's not constructive to assume that because one publishes something they personally wish for attention.

Of course. That's not what I'm basing that off of. I'm basing off of her pattern for saying that she is going radio silent and dropping off the map, only to return and continue. This is what looks to me like she "personally wishes for attention." She's not alone in this. I know a lot of people who, say, publicly state that they are quitting Facebook/MDDB/etc. forever, never to return, only to return. 

I'd venture that neither you nor anyone else here is qualified to accurately diagnose someone's mental state/health from reading a few things someone has opted to share.

And I would venture that I wasn't attempting to make a clinical diagnosis. As bluebell stated, she herself has stated that she struggles with mental illness, so she made it even more fair game to see that in her behavior, but even without that, the layman (me, you, others) can certainly see traits inherent in her behavior. None of which purports to be a clinical diagnosis.

And I'm certain it's not constructive to dismiss someone or their views simply because one chooses to believe they have mental illness.

I don't dismiss her view because I think she's mentally ill. She's in good company with others (Jesus, Joseph Smith, pretty much any great religious leader) who are summarily dismissed by their contemporaries as being mentally ill.

I dismiss her because her claims do not square with what the prophets have taught or my own experience with the Spirit. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Never mind.  My bad.  Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders are, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, sexist and misogynistic, they're wont to say such things as, "Let's go take care of this toots," and no one should/would bat an eyelash.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.  (Weren't you a member of the PC Brigade who was complaining about those who were bemoaning the unwieldiness of the L***********************... acronym?  So, on the one hand, it's horribly un-PC to complain about that, but on the other, no one should bat an eyelash that you put sexist language in the mouths of the Brethren????) :huh::unsure::unknw: 

[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]DOUBLE-STANDARD[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]HUGE-BLIND-SPOT[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]MOTES-AND-BEAMS[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]...

Sorry. :huh:

Can't imagine where that frog that suddenly jumped into my throat came from.

I don't care if you bat eyelashes.  I find your questions so loaded I don't even know what you want from me.  I can't answer them because they are so far afield.  If the joke hurt your feelings, just say so.  I meant no offense. 

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't care if you bat eyelashes. 

Of course you don't.

Quote

I find your questions so loaded ...

Of course you do.

Quote

I don't even know what you want from me.

Of course you don't.  

Quote

I can't answer them because they are so far afield.

Of course you can't.

Quote

  If the joke hurt your feelings, just say so. 

Awwww ... does Stemewbow fink he hut my widdo feewings? :huh:  That's precious! ;)  "Come on, Ken!  It was just a joke!  'Lighten up, Francis!' :rolleyes: I have my Uber-Illuminati card which allows me to look down my nose at you for your light-hearted banter regarding the L******** initialism, on the one hand, while putting blatantly sexist language in the mouth of one of the Brethren, on the other hand."  (This, when the fact that Julie Rowe is a "toots" (your word) has precisely nothing to do with how anyone in leadership would respond, how s/he should respond, or how s/he has responded to her end-times hyperventillating which has drawn her such a following: They would respond exactly the same way if "Brother James Rowe" were doing the same thing!!!) 

Like I said, "Pots-and-kettles, and motes-and-beams, and double-standards, and huge blind spots, and my crap smells like roses while yours simply smells like ..." et cetera. Don't bother complaining about how un-PC I allegedly am in the future, about gay marriage, about PC initialisms, or about anything else.  Any complaints from you to me on that score will certainly fall on deaf ears!  Lightening-quick to spot it in others, completely oblivious to it in oneself! :rolleyes: 

:D:rofl::D 

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Posted
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Of course you don't.

Of course you do.

Of course you don't.  

Of course you can't.

Awwww ... does Stemewbow fink he hut my widdo feewings? :huh:  That's precious! ;)  "Come on, Ken!  It was just a joke!  'Lighten up, Francis!' :rolleyes: I have my Uber-Illuminati card which allows me to look down my nose at you for your light-hearted banter regarding the L******** initialism, on the one hand, while putting blatantly sexist language in the mouth of one of the Brethren, on the other hand."  (This, when the fact that Julie Rowe is a "toots" (your word) has precisely nothing to do with how anyone in leadership would respond to her end-times hyperventillating which has drawn her such a following: They would respond exactly the same way if "Brother James Rowe" were doing the same thing!!!) 

 

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Like I said, "Pots-and-kettles, and motes-and-beams, and double-standards, and huge blind spots, and my crap smells like roses while yours simply smells like ..." et cetera. Don't bother complaining about how un-PC I allegedly am in the future, about gay marriage, about PC abbreviations, or about anything else.  Any complaints from you to me on that score will certainly fall on deaf ears!  Lightening-quick to spot it in others, completely oblivious to it in oneself! :rolleyes: 

:D:rofl::D 

 

Well, you do have quite the a flare for the dramatics...whatever the case. 

Posted
40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

Well, you do have quite the a flare for the dramatics...whatever the case. 

I'll take "dramatic" over "blatantly sexist" any day. ;) 

Posted
3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

It's not constructive to assume that because one publishes something they personally wish for attention.

Looking at her posts and other comments over the many years, including ones prior to her assuming her role as seer, and how she changed her stories as well as how she responded to criticism (including some meltdowns that were then removed from public view)...I think evaluating that a significant part of her motivation was to receive attention and emotional support and now financial support through her Foundation is an appropriate evaluation.

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Looking at her posts and other comments over the many years, including ones prior to her assuming her role as seer, and how she changed her stories as well as how she responded to criticism (including some meltdowns that were then removed from public view)...I think evaluating that a significant part of her motivation was to receive attention and emotional support and now financial support through her Foundation is an appropriate evaluation.

You've clearly had about 300 times more exposure to her writings than I have, so I'm willing to concede the point.

Edited by hagoth7
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...