Nehorism Rebuttal — A Call for Transparency

 Guest Post by: Savannah Willis 

“Read this in an old western accent for your evening entertainment”

Many have been watching the To the Remnant Desolation of Nehor series and its comment section. Adrian has set rules for the comment section and controls the narrative over there. With that said, I have more to say and I am posting this here and on other platforms so others have something to contrast what is presented in that series.

Adrian, when listening to your videos on the Desolation of Nehor, it is obvious to me that you are laying it out to align with the current happenings among the Covenant Christians. I don’t have to try hard to understand how you are laying it out for your listeners. I see that you are relating Nehor to Louis,  Amlici to Jennifer, and the minority of those that voted no at the women’s conference as Nehorites or Amlicites that are just “bullying” those who “won’t retaliate.” (BTW’s a few of the majority voters switched over to the minority side after finding out the facts.)

Now, you being a scriptorian, I can truly see how you take these scriptures and start relating them to current circumstances, thinking to yourself, “Oh man, it doesn’t end well; I’ve got to warn others.” And maybe that really is what you believe you’re doing by putting out your video series on Nehorism right now. I considered that possibility.

But when I look at your descriptions, especially of those in the minority who “won’t adhere to polite society”, and then take into account what’s going on with the Covenant Christians, it becomes hard to see that Nehorism is playing out in the way you portray it. You haven’t been transparent in directly answering my questions in the comments, and I truly believe it would be helpful for you to make known your true intentions. You’ve referenced your family being “badly harmed” by people who “should have known better,” yet you won’t explain what that even means. It makes me think we must have very different ideas of what “badly harmed” looks like.

And that’s part of the issue here: without transparency from you, it’s difficult to understand the lens through which you’re interpreting all of this. How has your family been badly harmed? Why not answer that question?

It seems to me that you and your family view life through a very different lens than a lot of us in the “minority.” What we think is standing up for something we believe in, speaking up, holding others accountable, having difficult conversations, and figuring out our differences and issues seems to be what you and your family imagine as some of the most egregious, harmful things we could do. You think someone holding y’all accountable is just terrible, or someone addressing the elephant in the room before we can move on to “unity” and “knitting hearts” is blasphemous! And so then you shut down conversation… You’re staying in the conversation just enough to save face but never to be transparent enough to find true peace…

This “polite society” you talk about in your Desolation of Nehor videos has me concerned for anyone that is making the obvious connections to our current-day circumstances. I want to advise you to be very careful going down that path thinking that’s exactly what is happening. Adrian is setting the stage for it to be aligning in our day with context clues by talking about Nehor’s physical appearance, really bringing to your attention Nehor’s attributes both physical and personality-wise. Then he proceeds to lay out more context clues by describing Nehor's followers as “those who can’t adhere to polite society” and they “bully” those that “won’t retaliate.” And if any of you listening or reading have any idea of the context of what’s going on in our day and how Adrian and Tasha have acted… it’s exactly that. To them, I am just being mean here, whereas to me, I am not standing for this hiding-behind-scripture nonsense.

Let’s get into more context clues: then Amlici comes in, and Amlici and the followers of Nehor don’t accept the “voice of the people” or the “vote of the people,” and since Nehor was killed he became a “martyr” to his followers… I mean come on, Adrian, you and I both know plain as day you are referring to Louis and him losing his certificate, and then the women’s conference comes along and then the “voice of the people” or the conference voted to sustain the council. You lay it out so plainly. Then you proceed to describe how Amlici acts. You also describe how the followers of Nehor and Amlici act. What you lay out aligns with the view of those who support WCL2. And I know you know this because your wife, sister, daughter-in-law, and her mother were on that very council. And then so on and so forth, you lay it all out… It doesn’t end pretty.

You’re right…that would be very concerning IF that was what was going on here…

Now let me ask some questions and lay out some context for all those watching, in hopes that along with what Adrian is doing there, another voice will be weighing in on the matter here for y’all watching to decide what’s really going on. Can we set aside scripture and address the real issues here? Can you, Adrian, own up to what you’re doing there? And if that’s not what you’re doing there, make it clearly known? Just don’t tell me you’re teaching scripture like you’ve always been inclined to do. I also noticed you don’t seem as excited talking about Alma and Amulek as you do talking about Nehor and Amlici. It seems like you have some beef with Nehor and Amlici.

Do y’all think we are going to get anywhere with the mindset of anyone who doesn’t adhere to “polite society” is a "bully” and doesn’t deserve the time of day to figure out issues with them? You may think you are God’s people because you adhere to “polite society” and “don’t retaliate,” but that is soooo concerning given the fact we were just given a talk that tells us to REASON TOGETHER, and that may not always look pretty while we are learning to do so. Don’t be so quick to assume that Nehorism as Adrian portrays it is playing out here. I absolutely disagree.

Think on this:  “…When two opposing sides have scriptural support for their conflicting positions…Yet scripture was used to support both the devil’s request and the Lord’s response. If nothing else teaches us to be cautious about how we employ scripture, this ought to, and jar us into taking greater care. The devil may well be a better scriptorian than you, and, if so, may win the argument.…”

Let’s not be led into thinking Nehorism is going on here and dismiss the Lord telling us to reason together. Don’t dismiss me because YOU think I am not polite and I’m a bully if I don’t adhere to what YOU think I should.  Let’s reason together. I don’t need to be a scriptorian to see what you’re doing there, Adrian, and you’ve got hundreds of watchers. Own up to it and let it be known directly what your agenda is. You think you're answering my questions, but I’m not buying it because it don’t make sense. It might be wise to let others have the chance in your blog comments to challenge your assumptions and weigh your real agenda with contrasting views. I’m the only one still putting my assumptions and connections of what you’re doing there—even if I may be wrong—because I believe those watching DESERVE to hear another perspective that weighs in on this hidden agenda.

The best thing anyone in this group has done for me is speak up! Because that has given me something else to consider when trying to find the truth. I am so passionate and persistent about being transparent here because if it’s already going around in gossip circles, it’s about damn time we bring it all to light and work through it.

I care about the tender hearts among these people… I generally like to think I come across gently while not “folding like a cheap umbrella”. But we have an obligation to figure out our problems together. There is no one coming to figure them out for us. We either rise up to the challenge or we will fail/fall.

I relate to this man when I ask Adrian plain questions to get to the truth. On February 11th 2026, I posted a comment on the To the remnant blog with this link attached, it never got put up. So I am adding it here.

The Authority That Consumed Its Own Foundation

And it came to pass that among the people a certain authority was entrusted to women. The power was given as a check and a balance, and for discernment. It was meant to hear the vulnerable, to weigh matters with wisdom, and to protect the integrity of the community. And the people rejoiced, for this power and authority was not figurative, but literal.

For a time it functioned within its purpose.

But soon afterward, the power was reshapened to conform to a pattern that had not been justified in revelation. For certain women, bound by allegiance and blood, convened councils of their own initiative, having a form of a body but denying the organization thereof. Within those councils, accusations were assembled, charges were brought without evidence nor first-hand witness, and judgment was determined before formality. The misshapen council proceeded while an accused man was absent and unable to answer.

The man was laboring in a faraway land, on an errand seeking to do God’s will among strangers, while the councils proceeded.

The women were told that this new kind of body assembled in haste was necessary. They were told it was for protection—to preserve the work—that righteous procedure must yield to necessity, though the one judged was half a world away and could not reach them.

And so the council acted.

Yet for the man, the charges were not defined and the witnesses were not named. The accused was not present.

Still, judgment was rendered.

Some among the people felt relief, believing danger had been averted. Others felt unease, sensing that something quite consequential had been set aside. For a body disfigured cannot be declared to be beautiful without destroying the standard of beauty itself.

The damage was borne not only by the accused. For soon, the people began to fear this power rather than to trust it. They wondered which disputes would be next, and whose voices would be absent when judgment was pronounced.

Women seeking to serve found their authority questioned—not because they lacked beauty, but because the standard itself  had been deformed. For when a council becomes a place where accusations are carved rather than discerned, they cease to uphold the sword of truth, displaced by a dagger. And a tool, once repurposed, does not easily return to its original design.

Thus the power given to protect was repurposed to punish. The authority given to heal was doctored to harm.  And the beauty that was given to women was made suspect—not by rebellion against it, but by defacing her visage.

And the people began to see that institutions are not destroyed only by those who oppose them, but also by those who use them to serve their own design. For power that abandons its purpose consumes its own foundation. And though the immediate harm was borne by one, the visible wound belonged to many—especially to the women whose stewardship had been undermined, and whose service would now be viewed as misshapen.

They did not understand that justice lost on a single matter sacrificed confidence in the power meant to balance the people.

Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 4.5.)

This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (4.5.) from the outline and conclude this blog series.

4. 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.

5. Epilogue

May 14, 2024 at 2:16 PM From the Comment Section -  Angela O’Rullian

. . . 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 . . .

Epilogue

First, this blog series is to advocate for a path forward where we learn from the mistakes of the past, and our path is as noble as the cause we are seeking. The person at the center of this discussion on women’s councils is Louis, however his behavior is incidental to the issues I’ve been addressing about women’s councils in general, and could have just as well been about any other man with a different scenario. Further, none of these posts were an attempt to discredit or minimize the concerns themselves, nor the motives of those who have brought them forward. We can and must be watchful and cautious in the role we have been assigned by the Lord pertaining to public priesthood.

Second, much has been said about the role of Wisdom and our failing to take counsel from Her. It is right and fitting that we view our Heavenly Mother as the very definition of Wisdom itself and by contrast we continually display our unwillingness to internalize Her instruction by the way we treat one another. Concerning Her sons specifically, she knows them all by name and works with them through their weaknesses. For the time being, She has given very specific guidelines to her daughters to ensure that any action they take to reprove her sons for their actions pertaining to public priesthood be carried out with a great deal of delicacy and care in fairness and equity, regardless of how grievous the issues are or what the outcome is likely to produce. If we put ourselves in Her position, to what lengths would we want to see our children go to work out differences privately before even considering a council? Would She want every effort taken to reclaim Her son? Would one email, text, or voicemail do the job to satisfy the requirement to work it out? How much time would we want them to spend together in person? If it were your own son and a council was an unfortunate necessity, to what lengths would you want to see your daughters go to ensure ALL the guidelines available to us had been observed so that your son could leave the experience feeling like he had been dealt with justly? 

Third, it’s always a hard thing to know how far one should go to defend what they feel is true and right before subjecting themselves to the will of the system or group for the sake of peace among our neighbors. I have not wanted nor tried to disrupt peace among anyone throughout this process, but I could not stand idly by without declaring what I know to be true in my heart. 

Fourth, at the beginning of October 2023, the Lord impressed upon me the importance of Louis keeping a daily journal. I was tasked with the assignment of making sure the job gets done. I thought it was a strange request because I have never kept a daily journal for anyone other than myself. So with the cooperation of Louis and the support and permission of my husband and Louie’s wife, I started recording Louie’s daily journal. 

Little did I know, I would be documenting these two women’s councils against Louis. I have been required to write this witness and am following the Lord’s instructions to the best of my ability. If there have been any errors in the record, they have not been intentional. 

God Bless,

Jennifer

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

Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 1.a.viii.ix.2.a.b.)

This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (1.a.viii.ix.2.a.b.) from the outline.

1. Attendance

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

     viii. 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. 

      ix. To this day, he does not know what was witnessed against him.

2. Witnesses

1. 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. 

2. 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.

Council #1

May 14, 2024 at 2:16 PM Angela O’Rullian Member of Council #1 in comment section:

. . . 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 . . .

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

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

Thank you

Ten Talks [Preserving the Restoration pg. 510-511]

. . . 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. 

January 25, 2024, 9:05 p.m. from Jennifer Willis to five known council members plus two men:

. . . As I said before, I do not have an issue with you calling a council for Louis. This is not about defending Louis or forcing an outcome. But we do not have secret councils and hide our identities from the man we are questioning. You have an obligation to tell him who is on the council. He also has the right to hear the accusations being made against him.

We do not make secret agreements or rules to keep this information from the man. I’m saddened to hear that women have been intimidated, threatened, and cast out; so they feel as though they have no other option than to keep this secret. 

Let’s not be like the LDS church and hide what we are doing. The Lord has a wonderful way of bringing everything into the light. 

. . . And woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? And who knoweth us? And they also say, Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will shew unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works . . . 2 Nephi 11:21

Have a good evening,

Jennifer

9:48 p.m. Organizer #2 Responds: 

Louis does know the charges against him. He was sent them so he could respond to them.

9:57 p.m. Jennifer Replies: 

Where are the testimonies of the witnesses? Is there a recording of the conference? Who attended the conference?

To this day, Louis does not know what was witnessed against him.

Council #2

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

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

-Priestcraft  -Deception  -Abuse 

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 . . . 

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. 

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

. . . He was charged with priestcraft, deceit, and abuse, and numerous first-hand witnesses provided overwhelming evidence to support the three charges. Louis was invited to attend, to speak on his behalf, and bring his own witnesses. He declined to do so.

After hearing nearly seven hours of compelling testimony regarding Louie’s behavior, the 14 women voted unanimously to revoke his certificate . . .

Transcript of Council #2 Not Shared With Louis

First phone call to Jennifer

April 30, 2024, 7:08 p.m., Organizer #1 called me, and we talked for 16 minutes. 

Organizer #1 said, they are preparing a transcript of their 7 hour meeting. Because of the pressure the women feel from me to be transparent, they are considering sending the transcript out to the entire “Movement”. I said that is not a good idea. The recording of the Women’s Councils should be given to Louis, not the public. He has the right to know what was witnessed against him. To this day the recording and/or transcript has not been shared with Louis. 

It is not wise to send the transcript out to the public, considering the fact that Organizer #1 has already taken steps to involve this women’s council in a defamation lawsuit. That 7 hour recording and transcript may be viewed in a court of law as libel and slander against Louis.

May 3, 2024, 10:13 pm., Jennifer received an attorney letter from the husband of Organizer #1 notifying Louis, John and Jennifer Willis: “. . . Should you fail to cease and desist your unethical and indefensible behavior, I will seek every available remedy at law or equity . . .”

Second phone call to Jennifer

May 15, 2024, 5:36 p.m., Husband of a council member called me, and we talked for 27 minutes. 

During our conversation, this man said the Women’s Council #2 is considering releasing the 7 hour recording and/or transcript of the council to the general public. I again asked that the recording be given to Louis but not to the public. 

To this day the recording and/or transcript has not been shared with Louis.

To Be Concluded. . . 

*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]

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]