This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (3.b.i,ii) from the outline to demonstrate WE ARE factually Louie’s home fellowship and provided ample proof of that before Council #2 convened. No other fellowship came forward claiming Louie as a member of their home fellowship; and we do not recognize any of the women from Council #2 as members of our home fellowship.
3. Not in Home Fellowship
b. 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.
Because she believed Council #2 would likely include many of the same women who served on Council #1, Jennifer Willis, mother and grandmother of the Willis Family Fellowship, sent Council #1 the following message:
April 25, 2024, 6:10 p.m. Jennifer:
We hereby challenge the claim that some other fellowship or group defines themself as Louie’s home fellowship.
If any such group claims to be Louie’s home fellowship, we further challenge you to support your claim.
We claim to be Louie’s home fellowship. Here is our evidence:
Length of time: We been fellowshipping with Louis since 2013
Financial Support: We have received significant financial assistance from Louis when we needed it [over $10,000]. We have likewise supported him when he has been in need.
Tithing Councils: We have counseled together as to how to support and distribute tithing funds among us.
Time and Labor: Thousands of hours have been exchanged.
Mutual Claimant: We publicly and privately claim Louis as a member of our current home fellowship. He also claims to be a member of our current home fellowship.
Meeting Frequency: We fellowship together for weekly Sunday lessons and have continual associations throughout each week.
Daily Walk: Not only have we been in fellowship association for over ten years, in a very literal sense, we have recorded where Louis has been and what he has been doing every day since October 12, 2023.
Fellowship Events: Road trips, marriage of children at our home, marriage counseling sessions with Louis and [wife], large scale construction projects, planned and hosted retreats and conferences, etc.
Priesthood Certificate: Jennifer Willis is one of the women who has signed Louis’s priesthood certificate.
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.
April 26, 2024, 10:46 a.m., Response from Women’s Council Member:
We have “Volunteer” Fellowships at the present, not home fellowships. . . . Today, it is rare to have a “home fellowship” everyone has been hurt, are transient, don’t fellowship due to jarring contention etc . . . Our fellowship hasn’t met for a long time and . . . is in my fellowship! We are so broken and untrusting. The best we can claim is that these fellowships are voluntary gatherings, and we are volunteering our all to get to know each-other and serve those around us . . .
The argument of “Home” Fellowship” yadda yadda doesn’t hold that much weight with me. We are a mess as a movement but there is potential if our hearts are right. We choose women to be on councils who preferably know of the man, or have spent some time with him, but in these groups it has been so hard to truly know each other because of aspiring men and harsh cruel behaviors. To me, it is more important to have women in a council who understand Christ's gospel and who are receptive to the Spirit of Truth and those who can discern wisely.
Friday, April 26, 2024, 11:01 a.m. Jennifer responds to women:
The requirement of Home Fellowship might not hold much weight with you, but it does with the Lord. It is the term He uses, and we are not at liberty to change it. If you claim . . . as your home fellowship, that is your choice. I hope this means you're attending . . . fellowship on a regular basis. You do not get to choose Louie's home fellowship.
[woman], I likewise challenge you to give evidence of your daily walk with Louis.
Jennifer
Although Louie has visited other fellowships from time to time, NO OTHER FELLOWSHIP is claiming Louie as a member of their home fellowship. Yet, 14 women emailed this statement to hundreds of men, women, and children.
TO THE MOVEMENT: April 29, 2024, 10:55 p.m. from 14 women:
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, a council of 14 women met to consider the question of Louie’s worthiness to hold a priesthood certificate. These 14 women included his wife and women from his home fellowship, as well as those who know his daily walk. All are very familiar with Louis and most have known him personally for many years . . .
None of these women are in our fellowship. The requirement we've been given to conduct these councils in a man’s home fellowship among those who are acquainted with his daily walk is wisdom in the Lord so that no injustice results.
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 and minor grammatical errors corrected]
Hi Jennifer, there seems to be a lot made about this home fellowship issue, but I’m a little confused. It’s my understanding that Louis was living in the UK for several months (I don’t know how many, but 4 or 5 is probably a good guess) at the home of the Smedley family. And when I learned of the council from the letter that was distributed, one of the women who signed it was Darnell Smedley. If Louis was living in her home until just a few months ago, I can’t conceive of more of a “home fellowship” than that. But, it sounds like you don’t view it that way. How is it that this doesn’t count as Lou’s home fellowship?
ReplyDelete(Forgive me for not knowing obvious things if this is something that should be known. Neither my wife nor I were involved in any of these councils, so we are trying to make heads and tails from what little info we have.)
April 30, 5:21 p.m., Jennifer sent an email to Council #2: “. . . You claim to know him? When’s the last time you even saw his face, let alone talked in depth with him in even the last two years?! Really?! Do you not see how this kind of conduct would destroy the efficacy of women’s councils? Do you want your sons, husbands, and fathers treated the way you treat Louis? Having a daily walk does not mean, ‘Yah, we know Louie. Haven’t talked to him for years, but we know the guy.’ Daily walk is daily, weekly, monthly, something ongoing and continual. You aren’t walking with the man daily if you left him in a ditch several miles back, don’t talk to him, have no idea what he is doing, where he is, or what he is up to, but you seem to think you can convene a meeting with other women and abuse the notion of women councils as an excuse to call a gossip session. As you listen to fabricated facts and conclusions, you invent the illusion of having a ‘daily walk’ with Louis.
Delete"If any of you claim to be a member of Loui’s home fellowship, support your claim with evidence. Additionally, [with the exception of {UK woman} Nov 2023 - Jan 2024, and the fiasco in the UK], have any of you so much as talked to Louis to ask him his part in this? Who among you claims to have a daily walk with Louis? Give us dates, circumstances, the essence of a conversation . . . ”
It is true Louis spent time with this UK family, and this woman is the only woman on Council #2 who meets the requirement of having a daily walk with Louis. But spending time with a family does not make the UK family Louie’s home fellowship. For example, Louis spends time with his brother’s family. They’ve had a daily walk their entire life, but Louis and his brother have different home fellowships. Is this UK family claiming Louis as a member of their home fellowship?
If the man can determine who is his home fellowship, does that not give them a loophole to never be held accountable? When a different man’s home fellowship found out he was committing adultery and they wanted to hold a council, he sent a letter saying he was officially ending his fellowship with them so they were no longer his home fellowship.
DeleteIt seems a tricky thing to navigate. If the man alone gets to determine that, that loophole will be exploited.
I agree with the anonymous comment above that I don’t understand how you can claim him as your home fellowship when he’s been living abroad for a while and was doing zoom fellowships and in home fellowship with people he lived with.
These posts of yours feel more like a tantrum over control vs that actual goal of women’s councils: protecting the community.
So you are arguing that because one adulterous man wanted to change his home fellowship when confronted by the women in his home fellowship, that no man should be able to choose his own home fellowship? This is an example of what is commonly known as Red Herring Fallacy [diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first].
DeleteYou closed your comments with an ad hominem insult about me having a temper tantrum [instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.]
Anonymous, other than myself, there is only one person on this blog series willing to put their name behind their comments. Why? Why are so many ashamed to own their words?
We have clearly presented evidence that Louis is a member of our home fellowship. 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.
Why has no one has come to our fellowship with complaints against Louis?
Why isn’t any fellowship claiming Louis as a member of their home fellowship?
Why hasn’t any group come forth with evidence showing Louis is a member of their home fellowship?
Random women do not get to choose Louie’s home fellowship.
“A council of twelve women 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, so that no injustice results.”
There is a provision for your purported loophole. A women’s council can be held in private at a general conference, also including among the twelve women from the conference those who are acquainted with his daily walk.
I find it interesting that the only two women from Council #1 who have a daily walk with Louis were not invited to participate in Council #2. Why?
It appears the illegitimate women’s councils members are more interested in taking Louie down than reconciling their differences with a brother.