Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 1.a.ii.iii.vii)

 This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (1.a.ii.iii.vii.) from the outline.

1. Attendance

1. Louis requested to come to Women’s Council #1 but was not allowed. 

       ii.  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.

     iii.   He was not allowed to call witnesses to speak on his behalf.

     vii.  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.

January 12, 2024, 9:37 a.m. to Louis from Organizer #1: 

. . . we are using the Lord’s counsel recorded in T&C 157:57 as our guide. As you may or may not know, it does not have a provision for the accused to speak at or during a Women’s Council. The Lord left that up to the Women to decide whether to allow that or not. Because we decided against inviting you to speak during the upcoming meeting/proceedings, this letter is our attempt to hear your side/version of the events . . .

Council #1 disregarded the Lord’s revelation recorded in PTR. 

Ten Talks [Preserving the Restoration]

“Sustaining is by women, and removing authority to act within a community or fellowship is likewise to be done by the vote of women. If a man’s worthiness to function is called into question, then a conference can be convened to deal with the question. In removing authority, at least two witnesses should speak against the accused, and he should be allowed to speak on his behalf and call upon such witnesses as he chooses. Men can be witnesses, but only women are allowed to vote. Removal should be by unanimous vote* of the women present, with at least 12 votes against a man to end his authority to act in the fellowship community. As for his family, he is free to do as he chooses, but he cannot act in the community until restored by the vote of a conference of that community. [*If a woman is present and cannot judge the matter she may abstain, and the vote of the remaining women, if unanimous and there are 12 votes, will be sufficient.” Footnote 1391] Preserving the Restoration, pg. 510-511

Louis replies:

Are you saying you’re going to hold a women’s council via email? . . . 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??). . . I’ll text you and let you know so you can hold a more fair sort of “council” then . . .

January 12, 2024, at 10:50 PM, to Louis from Organizer #1: 

Lou, Please feel free to make a video response and send 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 with out 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. 

T&C 157:57 Actually Declares:

• And, again, the husband is to hold priesthood to baptize and bless the sacrament of bread and wine in the home, and the husband and wife are to bless their children together. For the husband to use authority to administer outward ordinances outside his own family, his wife must sustain him. 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. Reinstatement of the man’s authority must be considered by the same council of twelve women when the man petitions for the decision to be rescinded, and requires seven of the twelve to agree upon his reinstatement, which can occur at any time. During the period of suspension, nothing affects the man’s duties and responsibility in his own family. T&C 157:57 https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/157.57#57

January 17, 2024 at 9:16:39 AM GMT+3 to Louis from Organizer #2:

We met on Sunday as a Women's Council. We did not come to a decision. We called a recess and will meet again next Sunday . . . 

Regarding your question about timing: The original question of calling a women's council for you arose a year ago due to the altercation that was witnessed by two of us in Israel. The matter was brought up again after more than a dozen people witnessed the events in the UK that took place two months ago. Hence we feel the timing is delayed rather than in haste. We have prayed about the timing and feel it is important to address these grievous concerns before the conference in New York. Also, some women in this council have participated in previous councils and have requested that we hold this council as quickly and discretely as is prudent. Previous councils have turned into circuses in the “court of public opinion” when they were drawn out. It is to your benefit, and all the women involved that this not be drawn out. 

You have asked why we are asking you for a written statement (or audio) and not inviting you to participate in person. As we have stated multiple times, according to the relevant scriptures that govern Women’s Councils, as found in T&C 157:57 and 175:32, your attendance is not required. Please review those scriptures. In addition to the absence of that requirement in our scriptures, receiving your written report is optimal for the following three reasons:

1. Your physical location (in Turkey) makes things difficult because of the time difference and access to reliable technology.
   

2. You have a reputation as an aggressive bully. There are consequences to having this reputation, as you are well aware. Some people who love you dearly have set some personal boundaries with you, as is their right.
   

3. You also have a reputation for retribution and misrepresentation. Some of the women on the council have asked for anonymity so they may feel at liberty to vote their conscience.
   
   

I apologize for my bluntness in addressing this issue. I know this must be very difficult to hear. These same women also give you full credit for the good, noble, and friendly aspects of your personality. People are complicated. You are complicated. It is not easy to evaluate another person in this way. It is not easy to be called to account in this way for you. I am blunt because I feel that you would see right through any attempt on my part to obscure these things.

To answer your final question about why we are still holding a Women's Council if you are not currently baptizing, blessing the sacrament, or ordaining others. As a man who holds the priesthood, you are aware that it is a real and important responsibility. Specifically in your case, you are teaching, preaching, exhorting, and expounding the gospel to people abroad every day, and should you be successful in converting some few who will listen, they may desire baptism immediately. Without a valid priesthood certificate, you would be unable to service them in this vital next step, and the subsequent steps of partaking of the sacrament and accepting of the covenant now offered to mankind. You should most definitely “afford to care” about such an important role and responsibility.  Simply abstaining from performing public ordinances may serve to avoid accountability . . . 

TO THE MOVEMENT: April 29, 2024 at 10:55 p.m. 

. . . Second, some are aware that Louis has been called to do a future specific work in carrying a message to certain areas of the world. The loss of his priesthood certificate in no way affects his ability to complete this assignment . . .

January 18, 2024 10:05 PM Louis responds to 3 known council members:

I am willing to respond to a council of twelve women, not a council of three . . . I cannot meet over the internet and request we meet in person at the upcoming general conference.

I also need to know all of the charges, so I can call relevant witnesses.

Thank you

January 19, 2024 at 6:37:56 PM GMT+3 to Louis from Organizer #1:

. . . Regarding your request to meet us in person at the upcoming general conference. As you know, that is being held in the state of New York. Only a handful of the women on this council are planning to attend, and therefore, that is not a reasonable request . . . 

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]