The evening of April 29, 2024 fourteen women made a public statement by sending a letter to hundreds of men, women, and children. In their letter, they said they voted unanimously to revoke Louie’s priesthood certificate. There are questions and much confusion among the covenant people regarding this letter.
These women did not meet the qualifications set forth by the Lord for the council to be viewed as legitimate. It has become necessary for me to publicly address events in both the first and second women’s councils that were convened to consider revoking Louie’s public priesthood certificate.
There were two separate women’s councils held against Louis. As I lay the matter out, I will call them Women’s Council #1 (January 14 & 21, 2024) and Women’s Council #2 (April 28, 2024).
There was a core group of at least nine women who were directly or indirectly involved with both councils. Some of these women are published authors and others are organizers of many of our general conferences. Because these women are well known, it may give the appearance of legitimacy to their statement. Witnesses have also been improperly involved in these councils.
I have Louie’s permission to lay out the details to bring the truth to light for those who desire to know.
The fourteen women close their letter with these words:
“Those who wish to accuse or criticize the women on the council are invited to reconsider their intentions, their motives, and their own ignorance of the facts.”
My motives and intentions are to preserve the integrity of women’s councils. If women are allowed to manipulate the guidance we have received regarding our essential role in these things, as I believe has occurred in this case with Louis, no man would ever want to obtain a priesthood certificate. If men are intimidated to have priesthood certificates, essential ordinances would be limited, and become a stumbling block as we labor with the Lord in his vineyard. Although the last six months of Louie’s life is the backdrop for the forthcoming commentary, this is not about him. This is about protecting the kingdom of God in its infant state.
I am not ignorant of the facts. I have an abundance of evidence and documentation from Louie’s daily journal shared and kept by me since October 12, 2023 through the present. I have also meticulously preserved electronic correspondences throughout. I will present real evidence to demonstrate how both of these councils were ill-conceived from the outset with an inherent bias, and most likely a predetermined outcome.
Outline of Evidence to be Submitted
Links to applicable evidence will be added as forthcoming blog posts are completed.
Attendance
Louis requested to come to Women’s Council #1 but was not allowed.
One woman claimed there is a discrepancy between what she calls Denver’s advice in 2015 [Preserving the Restoration] and the Lord’s additional instructions given in 2017 [Answer to Prayer for Covenant]. Therefore, she claimed 2015 requirements do not need to be met. I will show there is no discrepancy, and that this line of reasoning was a misapplication and/or manipulation as it did not include ALL the instructions we have received to date.
Louie was only allowed to respond in writing or audio/video recording and thus was not allowed to respond to questions posed by members of the council.
He was not allowed to call witnesses to speak on his behalf.
The rules set by the council were fickle and unpredictable.
The women knew Louis was out of the country and gave him less than 48 hours notice to meet their requirements.
Louie’s apologies were minimized and ignored.
Because Louis was not allowed to be present, he could not see whom he was addressing with his responses. When asked who was on the council, His request was denied.
Witnesses against Louis not only were allowed to participate in the majority of the proceedings, they were also allowed time to provide persuasive arguments about what the outcome should be. They were further allowed to remain after witness testimony was given to respond to Louie’s written explanations, whereas Louie himself could not respond likewise.
To this day, he does not know what was witnessed against him.
Louis chose not to attend Council #2
Given the illegitimacy of the first council, there was little reason for Louis to believe a second one would be held in fairness when the same organizers were calling another council within weeks of the first.
There was no opportunity given for Louis to resolve things privately.
In constituting the 2nd council, the organizers removed the only two women who voted to retain Louie’s priesthood certificate in the January 2024 council.
It was also not his home fellowship (demonstrated below)
Witnesses
Council #1 - The witnesses were anonymous. WITNESS TESTIMONY WAS NEVER GIVEN TO LOUIS. Before the council, he did not know what was witnessed against him, he was only able to discern generalities based on the questions he was asked to respond to.
Council #2 - Louis was notified of three categories of offenses (priestcraft, deceit, abuse) with no details of events belonging to those categories. He was only allowed 3 character witnesses. He could not possibly know who to call as witnesses without knowing details of those events. Conversely, they reported that witnesses against him were given 7 hours to discuss the actual events. To this day, he does not know what was witnessed against him.
Not in Home Fellowship
Council #1 was not in Louie’s home fellowship or at a general conference.
Twice, Louis offered to voluntarily allow his priesthood certificate to be suspended until a women’s council could be convened at a general conference. This request was denied .
Council #2 was not in Louie’s home fellowship or at a general conference.
Council organizers claimed that the conference would be held in Louie’s home fellowship. However, WE ARE factually Louie’s home fellowship and provided ample proof of that. We further challenged any other group to provide evidence they may have proving home fellowship, but our request was ignored. Instead, a response by email minimized the need for the coming council to meet the home fellowship requirement. Surprisingly, the email sent to the entire movement notifying them of the outcome stated that the council was held in his home fellowship. This was a lie.
Our statement to the council before the council convened was: As his home fellowship, we hold ourselves accountable to investigate concerns about Louie’s behavior or actions as it pertains to public priestly service. Any concerns need to be brought to us. We will conduct a thorough investigation into each and every claim and report promptly. If further questions arise, we will investigate those as well. We ask you to quickly respond with details of each charge: priestcraft, deceit, abuse. Please provide as much detail as possible [Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How] and contact information of the witnesses.
A WOMAN CANNOT BE KICKED OFF A COUNCIL ONCE CONVENED: This is the wisdom of the Lord in the requirement of a unanimous vote to revoke a man’s priesthood certificate. A woman on council #1, was removed from the women’s council for forwarding a communication Jennifer Willis wanted to be shared with the group before it convened on January 21, 2024. She was shortly thereafter allowed back on the council after profusely apologizing, however removing a woman from a council should never happen because the process is about persuasion not compulsion.
Most people prefer to live and let live. Many of us have cut our teeth in the LDS Church, which is quite jealous of their authority in ecclesiastical matters. Hence, the LDS Church unfortunately has developed a reputation for going after people it considers "dangerous" when in fact those people often are merely expressing a difference of opinion regarding historical interpretations or Gospel teachings. Kinda like smashing a gnat with a sledgehammer.
ReplyDeleteI see these women's councils--or more appropriately, tribunals--as tending in the same direction. Obviously, if a John C. Bennett is among us, somehow people need to know about the predator so that damage can be limited. Frankly, the only thing worse than patriarchy is matriarchy. And the ability of random women from Northern Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and all parts in between to convene such a tribunal is frankly frightening. It sez a whole lot more about the signatories of the letter than it does about Louie. IMHO
Frankly, you don't know what it says about Louie or about the signatories of the letter because you don't know the evidence presented at the council. To make such a judgment in ignorance is unwise. Those who signed the letter did not make their judgment in ignorance.
DeleteThen perhaps the organizers of the tribunal should take care to not insult the intelligence of others by demonstrating that this was not a star chamber exercise as the article above indicates. That this wasn't motivated by an estranged wife who was seeking maximum damage in the company of sympathetic women. That the women truly are acquainted with Louie's walk in life...instead of letting a divorced woman from Tennessee of all places to be a member. There are these and multiple other acts that the women could have done to project integrity and credibility. It is not therefore surprising that the credibility of the tribunal is now being called into question.
DeleteBefore you continue down this path, I thought it a kindness to let you know Denver said this week, in the presence of multiple witnesses, repeatedly and emphatically, that the Women's Council was 100% valid and that Louis has lost his certificate. He is aware of your arguments against the validity of the council, but rejects them. Your continued false claims that the council was illegitimate only serve to damage and disrupt the peace of the entire movement, while demonstrating to heaven your opposition to the head of the Holy Order.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous, Anonymity was one of the big problems in these councils. Anonymous people presenting anonymous evidence is not credible.
DeleteHere’s what Denver has to say about private conversations:
I have explained my views on . . . I have explained what I think. If you want to know what I have said, read those sources. DO NOT trust a private conversation attributed to me. When I have met with people for lunch, or listened to them in a private moment, I do not always feel inclined to argue with them, or to correct them. Particularly when there is limited time to do so. It is completely inappropriate and wrong for such private discussions to be interpreted to mean that I have done more than just listen to the speaker. Silence is not agreement! It is apparent that some people are unwilling to allow me to confine my work to what I’ve been specifically limited to do. Therefore, as much as I would like to have associations with all of you, I cannot. https://denversnuffer.com/2010/10/ecclesiastes-31/
No problem. If you don't want to believe what was submitted here, it seems easy enough to verify with a single phone call. Worth knowing for sure, don't you think?
DeleteWow... So if Denver said it then we must just blindly believe? I personally don't really care what Denver says unless he's giving words straight from the Savior. Otherwise, why believe him? That's damning behavior.
DeleteIf Denver said that, let him say it for everyone to hear...let him speak for himself rather than presuming you can speak for him. He won't, though...because that would make him a "strongman" trying to correct things as they go. A mistake Joseph made...but fortunately, Denver is wise enough to not go there. Say what you will...but don't bring Denver's private remarks into the fray, because it is a cheap attempt to "pull rank".
ReplyDeleteIf women from Tennessee, Northern Idaho, Colorado, etc. can come together in what appears to be an effort at "venue shopping" (attorneys will know what that is...just ask Trump), the smell of impropriety can hardly be extinguished by simply stating everyone else are "ignorant". And it hardly makes sense that this has no effect on Louie's mission to other parts of the world when he is left without the ability to baptize or administer the sacrament.
The list of women who were involved is the council seem to be those who should know and understand what the Lord laid out in His answer for covenant but seemed to have decided to ignore the two basic things He stipulated that is the council "MUST be convened, either in the man’s home fellowship among those who are acquainted with his daily walk, or in private at a general conference, also including among the twelve women from the conference those who are acquainted with his daily walk...". I'm afraid that if this is allowed to stand it will create precedence that any council can be convened at any time and anywhere if the outcome is not achieved by the accuser and they then can continue to convene multiple councils until they arrive at their desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the 1st council held for Louie I would like to respond to this post. I can only speak to the 1st council and in no way am privy to the 2nd council as I was not involved.
ReplyDeleteI am one of the women who struggled with many portions of the process of this council.
First, I did not agree nor did I add a vote to keep the names of this council from Louie.
Second, I voted against having him respond only by written/audio communication and not be present because I feel that it is right and fair to have a man attend and speak for himself at his council and call witnesses on his behalf just as the instructions suggest in “Preserving the Restoration”.
I wanted Louie to be in attendance and knew from his correspondence to the council he wanted to be there also but was denied that opportunity.
In speaking out, I was asked to recuse myself, as was any other member of the council who did not agree with the process that the organizers set forth. Recusal was asked multiple times by the organizers and in several instances to all members of the council if we were not in agreement to their decisions.
Some of the procedures changed during the duration of the council without involving consensus of the members. For example, I was the one removed from the council by the organizers for relaying a message to the group without their consent.
Also, the majority of the procedural decisions during and after the council were made by the organizers and not by unanimous or consensus decisions of the whole group.
Furthermore, there was very little discovery process and much of the witness written testimonies contained many personal opinions and persuasive language. The witnesses were then asked to be in attendance, staying the majority of the time and offering their own persuasive arguments toward what the outcome should be.
Lastly, the final correspondence to let Louie know the decision of the council (retain certificate) was relayed to him with a condition that his wife’s name would need to be removed from the certificate if he wanted to retain it. This condition was not discussed or a part of the decision whatsoever. In fact, I believe this is in direct opposition to the instruction of the Lord for a man’s certificate to be signed where He states “If the man is married, his wife must be among the seven women.” I did not know until several weeks after that “condition” was given to Louie and I would have opposed that to be included to retain his certificate.
Laying all questions about Louie’s worthiness to hold a priesthood certificate aside, because of the above reasons, I would like to offer my agreement with the statement that the council was not held in accordance with the instructions the Lord provided.
It didn’t need to go this way and could likely have been prevented if we would have learned more from the mistakes of the past and applied them here. This breaks my heart to see such division among so many of my friends whom I have worked with and love.
That said, we are all human and make mistakes but forgiving and treating one another with respect and kindness should prevail.
Angela O’Rullian