Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 3.a.i.)

In this post I am presenting evidence supporting paragraph (3.a.i) from the outline to demonstrate Louis requested that IF the women’s council needed to happen, it be conducted through his home fellowship or wait until a general conference.

3. Not in Home Fellowship

1. Council #1 was not in Louie’s home fellowship or at a general conference.

1. 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.

Offered Voluntary Suspension

Jan 12, 2024, at 1:11 AM, from Louis to Organizer #1 & Organizer #2

Are you saying you’re going to hold a women’s council via email?! . . . You’re welcome to share the apology I‘ve already sent to both you and [husband of Organizer #1] via text on November 24, 2023. . . I’m in Turkiyë right now. I do not have a laptop (nor anything but my cellphone with which to communicate) and although I bought Airalo a few days ago, my internet coverage is literally a nightmare and getting worse (actually dangerous at times, not to mention my eyes now sting from looking at screen). 

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I just don’t have the financial ability to make it back to where we could have a real “council” right now. Please know; such a council will be my top priority if/when I am again stateside (maybe in New York in April??). 

Since I feel “time is of the essence,” in the effort I’ve currently undertaken; not to mention that others have gone through the trouble of doing so much work (and made sacrifices themselves); I’m going to continue to get section 165 out as fast, and far as possible, as expediently as I can. (See www.BloodOfAbraham.net)

In the meantime; respecting your current effort: 

If you two (three? more?) have decided I shouldn’t perform priesthood ordinances while I’m over here; (though I regret to opine, the odds of me needing to immerse anyone here seem small to none, a guy must hope); I will respect your power and authority, and not do so; without being compelled by a woman’s council of any sort.

If I can make it back in April, I’ll text you and let you know so you can hold a more fair sort of “council” then. 

(Or maybe we few just talk privately first and see if it’s something you really want to pursue more publicly once you have all the facts and context??) 

Best of luck to you guys.

January 12, 2024, at 10:50 PM, to Louis from Organizer #1: Lou, Please feel free to make a video response and send it on WhatsApp - or even just an audio file that you could text. Or send on WhatsApp. Also, the easiest thing might be to simply send a series of texts, one per each question. There are multiple ways to solve the problem of not having a laptop. . .

And lastly, please review T&C 157:57. It states that the only thing required for a man’s priesthood certificate to get revoked is that a council of 12 women are unanimous in their decision to revoke it. Nothing in the guidelines (also found in T & C 175) stipulates that the accused has to be physically present in a women’s council. As I mentioned in the letter, we are abiding by the guidelines as cited in T&C  and are therefore proceeding without your attendance, as is our right.  However, we are willing to consider your direct responses to the questions we sent last night so long as they comply with the guidelines laid out in the letter. Best, [Organizer #1] 

January 13, 2024, at 10:32 AM, from Louis to Organizer #1 & Organizer #2

Well. This is all so friendly, that after a night to think about it, I think I will respond in writing.  (This email is not it by the way.)

That said, I’ve already told you I would not perform any priesthood functions. Why then would you convene a women’s council?  

It seems that using a women’s council merely as a way to justify gossip would be an obvious abuse, wouldn’t you agree? “After fasting and prayer” this is what you come up with?! How do you rank yourselves so far with the use of your power?

To be honest with you, I think I’d rather be LDS again. At least they tried to call such things: “courts of love.” Yeh, we all know that’s laughable, but let’s not try to outdo them, shall we?

Before we begin Are the guidelines (and timelines) you’re imposing upon me “stipulated in 157?”

January 13, 2024 at 4:37:24 PM GMT+3, from Louis to Organizer #1 & Organizer #2

I didn’t mean to send that last email. I meant to save as a draft and create a kinder, gentler and much more expansive version. I’ve literally spent five hours trying make it more palatable. 

I’ve got to quit for now and find a place to sleep. I’ll try again later. 

[Louie’s responses are pretty raw, and he did not rewrite a more palatable second response. He did not meet the organizer's deadline to answer their questions by midnight January 13, 2024.]

The matter of proving which community Louis defined as his home fellowship among the many who surfaced to make that claim for him, was not developed further during Council #1. However this did become a major issue before Council #2 was convened, which I will address fully in a forthcoming post. The above will suffice to demonstrate that Louis expressly asked that this requirement be met in order to preserve the integrity of the women’s council process but his requests were flatly denied. 

To Be Continued . . . 

*If you have an objection to what I have written. Please submit your evidence along with your first and last name.*

[Emphasis added throughout post]