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]