A witness from God can be relied upon. As you read our thoughts, beliefs, and experiences, we invite you to obtain a witness for yourself. If something we say or imply does not ring true, then you should feel no obligation to accept it. Life is an individual and unique journey with God. Although we can help and encourage each other, we need to be careful not to come between God and another person.


Friday, May 17, 2024

Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 1.b.i.ii.iii.iv)

 This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (1.b.i.ii.iii.iv.) from the outline.

  1. Attendance

      b.  Louis chose not to attend Council #2

  1. 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. 

  2. There was no opportunity given for Louis to resolve things privately.

  3. 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. 

  4. It was also not his home fellowship

Invitation to Upcoming Women's Council #2

Without calling, texting, or spending time with Louis, Women’s Council #2 brought up additional ambiguous charges. They did not tell Louis what he did wrong, and there was no opportunity given for him to resolve things privately. They did not reinvite women from Council #1 who voted to retain his priesthood certificate. 

On April 25, 2024, our home fellowship challenged the claim that some other fellowship or group defines themself as Louie’s home fellowship. No group came forth claiming to be Louie’s home fellowship.

April 21, 2024 at 9:05 PM from Organizer #1 wrote: 

Louis, This email is to inform you that a Women’s Council will convene at 11 am on Sunday, April 28, 2024, to determine your ability to retain your priesthood certificate. 

You are invited to come speak on your behalf in person. The council will be held in Davis County, Utah. This is not a continuation of the previous Women’s Council which ended in January of 2024. 

This Council is being convened to consider new charges which are as follows: 




You may invite up to 3 witnesses to speak to your character. Anyone you bring to speak on your behalf will  be asked to address the Council first. After addressing the Council, they will be dismissed and expected to leave the premises. 

Strict Deadline: Please respect our time and the amount of preparation this entails by responding to this email no later than Thursday, April 25, 2024, midnight to confirm whether you will be in attendance and the number and names of your character witnesses who plan to attend.   

If you choose to appear, the address will be provided. If you do not RSVP by the deadline as stated above, the address will not be provided. 

You are responsible for providing your character witnesses the details, such as date, time, and address. Furthermore, your witnesses can only attend if you are present; they cannot come in your place.  

Be aware that only those people on your witness list or those who have been invited to participate in the council will be allowed entry.

Also, please note that the council will proceed as planned whether you attend or not. Lastly, the meeting will be recorded, and a complete transcript will be made of the proceedings. 

On Apr 22, 2024, at 4:11 PM, Louis responded to Organizer #1:

You are not a member of my home fellowship, neither are you someone who is acquainted with my daily walk, therefore I cannot recognize this “council” as legitimate.  

“...I have told you that to remove authority to use priesthood outside a man’s family requires a unanimous decision by twelve women. 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.” T&C 157:57

Per directions given by the Lord, I cannot participate. If you have any further concerns about my worthiness or behavior, please contact the women in my home fellowship. 

April 24, 2024 at 9:46 PM, to Louis from Organizer #1: 

Louis, Numerous people from your online home fellowship have called for this council, and will be participating as members or witnesses. That requirement of the Lord has been satisfied

Therefore, this council will take place whether you choose to attend or not. Additionally, as stated in the invitation, the proceedings will be recorded and a complete transcript will be made.

Thus, it behooves you to show up and register on the record your responses to the charges. Should you reconsider your decision, you have until midnight Thursday to inform us. If we receive no response by then, your opportunity to speak on your behalf will be permanently forfeited.

April 26, 2024, 8:02 a.m. from Online Fellowship Organizer to Jennifer & Women’s Council #1:

. . . Louis has come on and off since he first became aware of the Fellowship.  He has come once since October of last year(2023) [Jennifer and Louis briefly attended this online fellowship the same day as visitors] . . . Louis doesn't attend the tithing group in relation to our Fellowship . . .The online fellowship is an open forum . . . We have a list of contact people, but it doesn't mean it's their home . . .

Tuesday, April 30, 2024 5:21 PM from Jennifer Willis to Women’s 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 . . . If any of you claim to be a member of Loui’s home fellowship, support your claim with evidence. Additionally, [with the exception of the UK women for approximately 6 weeks during the months 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 . . .

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]


  1. I'm saddened to see this continuing like this. Jennifer, Ashley was a part of the council- I would think she knows him best. There might be a better way of going about this. Can you and all of us please put this in the Lord's hands and we can fast and pray for understanding, to have the right heart for Everyone. Please give it some time and space.

  2. Jennifer...I appreciate all the effort and desire to share your position with us on this issue. It appears that there have been problems and issues with how the council was created and managed but after pondering about this and reading a blog post by a good friend (https://www.adayindavid.com/post/what-ought-you-to-have-learned) it occurred to me that I must assume that the women involved in the council had good intentions and it is up to Louis to strive to reconcile with them to regain their confidence and for us to respect and apply what the Lord revealed to us about Wisdom. "Wisdom [Heavenly Mother] counsels mankind to align their words with their hearts, but mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom [Heavenly Mother]". I know that he may have been dealt a tough hand with this but maybe this will help him to consider the "Wisdom" in it and do all he can to repair what has been damaged and on the other hand that the women involve will will show forth increased love and forgiveness now that they have "reproved with sharpness". As the Lord has said "If men intend no offense, I take no offense, but if they are taught and should have obeyed, then I reprove and correct, and forgive and forget..." We need to follow the Lord ion this and forgive and forget because I'm afraid that something like this could disrupt what the Lord is attempting to do with our little movement..."Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess." I hope you take my comment it the spirit of love and reconciliation rather than contentious. I believe that this is a tesy for us all to apply what the Lord was trying to teach us about not being "satan". "Satan is a title and means accuser, opponent, and adversary; hence, once he fell, Lucifer became, or in other words was called, Satan, because he accuses others and opposes the Father...but you cannot be Satan and be mine." Let's be His!

    1. Reconciliation should always be the goal, and Louis has claimed from the outset that he would be willing to meet with witnesses against him directly to resolve. But he first needs to come to an understanding of what he did wrong, how he practiced priestcraft, what he did that was deceptive and abusive.

      Whenever the Lord reproves me with sharpness, I know exactly what I did wrong and how to repent.. At this point in time, Louis does not know what he did wrong.

  3. Denver stated in a post this week that as a movement, we shouldn't have to have so many rules governing things such as this. On the other hand, Jennifer is correctly pointing out the violations of several due process considerations that ought to be afforded a brother who is "accused". And in our tradition of law, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The burden of proof rightfully lies on the accusers to not only bring a righteous indictment, but to also adjudicate that indictment in a manner that is above reproach. Failing that, the result is division and contention. I would say to the organizers of these two women's councils...treat the accused as you would like for your own son/husband to be treated...or stay home.

  4. Jennifer, in one of your posts it mentions from a woman that Louis was informed of the charges ( I think it was dealing with the first council as it appears the second council are new charges) he responded to the charges in writing. Therefore he knew what was going on. From other blog posts around it appears some of the women were afraid of Louis because of bullying or threats.... uummm, if that's the case the women should not have to deal with that at all. You mention a fiasco in the UK, but no details. I'm not in the know nor do I care that I'm not in the know, but if the things that occurred there are part of the issue, then I guess the fiasco belongs in the council. He was invited to the council the second time, even asked to bring witnesses, I think it would've been good if he went -

    1. The first council precluded Louis from knowing what was witnessed against him beforehand, he was only able to discern generalities based on the questions he was asked to respond to. Because it was not held in his home fellowship, nor at a general conference he did not feel the women's council guidelines were being followed and thus, he could not be represented fairly.

      The second council, Louis was notified of three categories of offenses (priestcraft, deceit, abuse) with no details of events belonging to those categories, so if he were to attend, it would be impossible to bring witnesses who could add pertinent information. Same as with the first council, Louis felt the guidelines were ignored again regarding home fellowship and thus facing a deck stacked against him where the outcome was likely predetermined.

      These blog posts address the procedure of women’s council, not the details of the dispute between Louis and his wife.

      Anyone can say, “Louie is a threatening bully,” but others would say “I've never been threatened by him nor have I felt unsafe.” If women feel insecure about approaching a man, why didn’t they involve those of us who have a daily walk with him that are not similarly disposed? This is the wisdom of including those who have walked with him the longest as well as those who have brought the concerns. Imagine the power of the unanimous vote to revoke when a council includes those who are the most familiar with him. If Council #2 would have included those women who voted against from Council #1 with a vote to rescind, and that too inside of the home fellowship, that would have been a powerful statement indeed. Of course we will never know that.


Thank you for posting