Aimee K
Introduction
My last post demonstrated how using a list of handy-dandy check-boxes can grossly violate the spirit of the law while technically keeping the letter of the law
Boxes? Check!
In Joseph Smith’s time, his approach to leading was simple: “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”
What happens when a check box people encounter a situation that requires immediate action?
Let’s take a look at what happened in Israel circa 33 AD.
Six Trials
Jesus was subjected to six trials, all of which were problematic.
ONE —After His nighttime arrest Jesus was taken first to Annas, former High Priest who didn’t even have technical jurisdiction. Annas was deposed by the Romans in 14AD for being hard to push around, but was likely considered the real high priest by the people, since in Judaism being the High Priest was an appointment for life. I suspect that the Jewish authorities were trying to cover their bases that God might recognize the Annas as the legitimate High Priest even though Rome didn’t formally recognize him.
TWO —Next, Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, the current and recognized High Priest, where he spent the night in a dungeon. Interesting to note that Annas was Caiaphas’ father-in-law. (John 18:13)
THREE —6:00 a.m. – Jesus is taken in front of the Sanhedrin where Nicodemus— a believing man who once approached him at night— sat in council. That was the shortest trial of the six. To his credit, Nicodemus reminded the Sanhedrin that the law requires a person be heard before passing judgement.
The first three Jewish trials, none of which were conducted in the proper manner nor held in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, were to establish blasphemy. Blasphemy was punishable by death under Jewish law. However because of the Roman occupation, ecclesiastic leaders could not execute Jesus as they wanted to. In order to see it through, they transformed the charge into one of treason, which was punishable by death and turned him over to Roman authorities.
When daylight came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council.
Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate. (Luke 22:66; 23:1)
FOUR —7:00 a.m. – Jesus stood trial in front of Pilate, who at this point did not know what charges he was being accused of. When asked, they sarcastically answered, in effect: “If he wasn’t guilty, he wouldn’t be here.” Pilate asked whether the accused was a Galilean. So when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. (Luke 23:6-7)
FIVE —8:00 a.m. – Jesus stood before Herod Antipas. This Herod is the same man who had beheaded his cousin John. Herod had heard many things about Jesus and wanted to see some magic tricks, but when Christ didn’t perform, Herod mocked him and sent him back to Pilate dressed in a “gorgeous robe”. (Luke 23:11)
SIX —8:30 a.m. – The Savior was brought to trial before Pontius Pilate a second time. Pilate came outside to hear their charges. The charge was now changed to that of high treason, the most serious offense in the Roman law.
Members of the Sanhedrin lied and said that Jesus had forbidden the people to give tribute to Caesar. What He really said was, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”—(Matt. 22:21). They also accused him of making himself a king. (Luke 23:2.) When Pilate asked the Savior directly, “Art thou the king of the Jews?” (Luke 23:3), the Savior answered, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
Pilate found no fault in Jesus and wanted to let our Lord go free. “You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him.” (Luke 23:14)
There’s an excellent essay that goes into greater detail on the violated legalities, if you’re interested.
Procedural Violations
- Arrest without prior formal charges or lawful summons
- Proceedings conducted at night
- Improper venue —not held in the Chamber of Hewn Stone
- Trials held during a feast period / approaching Sabbath
- Judges acted as accusers
- False or inconsistent witnesses accepted
- Failure to require two corroborating witnesses
- Accused compelled to testify against himself
- No opportunity to present a defense or call defense witnesses
- Verdict effectively determined before evidence was established
- Conviction reached without proper, individual voting procedure
-
Capital sentence concluded the same day without required delay
I’m sure they excused themselves —unfortunate technicalities that couldn’t be observed because time was of the essence. They were trying to protect God’s people, after all. And this man was a clear and present danger.
When people become so accustomed to strictly following the letter of law, which allows for loopholes, they can accomplish what they want to do without offending their check-box god. But, inevitably that people will go off the rails and violate the law itself —especially when they feel that whatever situation is so dire they must act quickly.
Such was the case when it came to our Lord.
He has no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men — a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.
A reminder
Before I go on I want to remind everyone that I had no reason to join the WCL/WCF fight. I was not involved. I was not a witness. Much later I came to realize that I did, in fact, know some of the women who had been on the council. Despite not knowing I had a “dog in the fight”, I came out swinging hard and heavy defending against what I saw as gross injustice. I was the MOST outspoken defender of the women’s councils.
- I published 13 separate blog posts.
- I organized the Zoom that allowed people to listen in to the April 12th women’s conference through an open phone line.
- I simultaneously provided a separate Zoom through which remote council members could watch and testify.
- I helped coordinate and provided tech services to Common Consent Town Hall meetings. I took the meeting transcript and created meeting minutes, provided links to recordings and shared copies of the meeting chat.
- I helped with tech services and moderated the Preparing the Peacemakers presentations immediately before the Conference Organizers Sunday meetings. This also included setting up a YouTube channel and transcribing everything.
- I built the Peace-in-Christ website for the men’s Open House. The organizer had full rights to change or modify pictures, schedule, and wording. I was the tech intermediary to bring her vision to life.
- The organizer of WCL2 mentioned me by name in the April Women’s Conference crediting me for helping to build their defense.
My allegiance is first to God and His principles of righteousness and not to any personality.
I have a moral obligation to re-open this conversation and explain myself to the women and the whole of the Covenant Christian community.
For those who think that opinions must be worn as skin instead of like hats that one can try on, I know that by saying what will follow it may seem like I am publicly filleting myself. Let me assure you, that is not the case.
God be my judge.
Confession of Guilt
The sheer number of documents women were inundated with was overwhelming. We all heard about the binders and the thousands of pages of documentation.
I will publicly confess that, at the time, I did not read any of them. I copy/pasted, downloaded files and plugged it all into ChatGPT. Included were all of the Lord’s instructions, transcripts of Zoom meetings. And everything that WCL2 uploaded on their website up to that date. Materials from WCL1 came later. And the pdf called, “The rest of the story” hadn’t been released yet. Once everything was uploaded I asked for summaries and A.I. opinion.
Although I have already shared this previously, I will remind you of this fact: ChatGPT originally responded No to the conference questions. And then I kept arguing and uploading any new documents that were released until it told me what I thought it should tell me. This was disclosed in a screenshot. 
It should have a gigantic red flag for everyone. MYSELF INCLUDED.
If you think I’m now misrepresenting the facts about the initial ChatGPT analysis, I have receipts. I don’t re-post a screenshot of the original answer because EVERYONE NEEDS TO DO THEIR OWN WORK.
When I finally got the answer I thought was right, I published it as an “unbiased take.”
Stephanie must have gotten copied a few times because she posted on the blog:
I hear that a lot of you in this moment do not want to be involved in this dispute. You do not want to be “here.” You want to be “there.” I have heard from some of you directly, and some peripherally.
I get emails, text messages, personal proposals, ChatGPT analysis, and chastisements from you about this conference. These communications include quotes from Denver, scripture passages, glossary terms along with explanations and personal analysis about how we “shouldn’t be here” and “it’s wrong.” Many of you have spent a great deal of time in these efforts. I understand that you believe these things deeply. You are kind, gentle, and write and speak with as much of the Spirit as you can muster.
04 April 2025 Guest post by Stephanie Snuffer
Initially I wondered why organizing summaries was bad. Wasn’t it good to help people sort through the stack of documents? Looking back I am mortified at myself.
Artificial intelligence is coming as a tool that can be used subordinated to your own critical thinking, your own study, your own development of your internal library. Because otherwise, what the future holds for all of those who think that they’ve got an answer because they’ve accessed AI is ignorance coupled with arrogance and a complete absence of critical thinking.
In an effort to repent I have taken down the blogposts of the ChatGPT summaries. I should have not have neglected my duty to do the due diligence. Anyone who likewise relied on my A.I. analysis should not have neglected their duty. Everyone MUST be able to think and reason for themselves! This is a basic principle of intelligence.
Joseph said to the Relief Society, “they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves.” (TPJS, p. 238.)
You could substitute the words “someone else” for “the prophet”. The principle is still the same: Use your own intelligence.
The one silver lining in all of this is that because I uploaded all the council documents into Chat GPT, I still have everything; all of the conference documents, statements and materials even though the WCL1 and WCL2 websites were taken down after the 12Apr Conference.
Access to these documents is limited to those who have a direct interest and involvement. The password is the last name of Jennifer’s co-organizer, which I have never published publicly on this website. If you know, you know. Be sure to capitalize.
Protected: Regarding the Women’s Conference
There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
Protected: Regarding the Women’s Conference
There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
As a reminder here is the table that I created which was used to build the case against the legitimacy of the April 12th conference dispute.
Were Procedural Requirements Met?
| Requirement | Source | Met? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. A Council of 12 Women | T&C 157:57 |  |
14 women were assembled; vote was unanimous, and all women were recorded as voting. |
| 2. Unanimous Vote Required to Revoke Certificate | T&C 157:57 | |
All 14 members voted unanimously to revoke the certificate. |
| 3. Held in Man’s Home Fellowship or in Private at a General Conference | T&C 157:57 | |
Council was held in private and included women from the home where Louis lived; organizers identified this as fulfilling the home fellowship. |
| 4. Council Includes Women Acquainted with the Man’s Daily Walk | T&C 157:57 | |
Multiple council members submitted testimony or statements confirming familiarity with his daily walk; living arrangements confirmed this. |
| 5. So That No Injustice Results | T&C 157:57 | |
Unanimous decision by 12 women was reached after evidence and witness testimonies; no recorded dissent. |
| 6. The Accused May Speak on His Behalf and Call Witnesses | PTR pp. 511–512 | |
Louis was invited to attend, speak, and bring witnesses. He declined. |
| 7. At Least Two Witnesses Speak Against the Accused | PTR pp. 511–512 | |
Statements provided indicate at least 6 witnesses testified against Louis. |
| 8. Men Can Be Witnesses; Only Women Vote | PTR pp. 511–512 | |
No contrary evidence; no men were reported as voters. |
| 9. Held in Private | T&C 157:57 / PTR p. 511 | |
Meeting was private. Transcripts were not distributed publicly. |
| 10. Bookkeeping/Transcripts |
Not in scripture at time of council |  |
This is not expected or required. |
| 11. Participation is the Man’s Responsibility | PTR and invitation letter | |
Louis declined to attend. He was informed and invited to participate with instructions. |
| 12. Charges Were Stated in the Invitation | Council Evidence | |
Charges: Priestcraft, Deception, Abuse were clearly listed in the April 21, 2024 email to Louis. |
| 13. Man Brought Witnesses | Evidence Record | |
Louis was invited to bring up to 3 character witnesses; council testimony states he did not. |
| 14. Acquainted ≠ Intimate | Community clarification | |
Familiarity does not require intimate or recent constant contact; historical and fellowship knowledge suffices. |
| 15. Council is Bound to the Revelation & Scripture Given at That Time | T&C 157, PTR | |
June 20, 2024 revelation came later; not applicable to WCL2 compliance. |
The vast majority of covenant women—again, myself included —agreed that the above boxes checked were sufficient to declare Women’s Council 2 legitimate and further upheld their authority to remove Louis’ priesthood certificate.
However, as I’ve already demonstrated, it is possible to keep the letter of the law while violating principles and the spirit of the law.
Before going on, I must reassure you: I am not attacking anyone. I’d like to sit next you on the same side of the table and look at this together.
It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.
—Arcus Aurelius
Let’s dig into relevant principles and you can decide for yourself if the spirit of the law was, in fact, honored.
Principle of Knowledge
Was there a scriptural requirement for transparent disclosure of council composition and member identities? No.
***
The first women’s council (WCL1) included 12 women, two of whom had known Louis for decades. They did actually know his daily walk quite well.
But Louis didn’t know these two were included until they reached out to him personally.
All communication from the second women’s council (WCL2) went through the council organizer, who at the time, was not part of the online fellowship from WCL1, nor was she a part of the Willis home fellowship, nor part of the England fellowship, nor part of his wife’s fellowship.
Louis did know that no one from Willis home fellowship was included on WCL2. Feeling that it was his right to choose his own home fellowship and without reasonable disclosure and transparency from WCL2 he could not make a proper judgement on the second summons.
Women’s Council 2 members were disclosed to Louis when they announced their decision publicly on 29 April 2024.
Even though the composition of both councils met the requirements in revelation, because these facts were not disclosed to him he could not exercise proper judgement.
Yes, both councils met requirements for composition, but these facts were not fully disclosed to Louis until after the councils had concluded.
Lack of disclosure and transparency violates the principle of knowledge (Lectures on Faith) sabotaging Louis’ ability to utilize the principle of decision-making (Glossary: Common Consent)
Was the spirit of the law kept?
Principle of Honoring Agency
Does the Lord define how a man’s home fellowship should be determined? No.
***
After Louis was notified of WCL2 he responded to the organizer that she was not a member of his home fellowship, neither was she someone who was acquainted with his daily walk.
This was factually accurate. The organizer of WCL2 was not a member of the online fellowship from WCL1, which Louis had listened in to a couple times while he was overseas. Neither was she a member of the Willis fellowship, where Louis attended consistently, both in-person and remotely, since 2014.
Note: I also have a online home fellowship where I pay tithing, but I regularly attended this same online fellowship for Sacrament between 2021-2024. I considered myself a visitor even though I regularly attended each Sunday. As such, I was excluded from this fellowship’s councils where they discussed removing a predator from their midst.
WCL2 cobbled together a home fellowship on Louis’ behalf. Three of the women he had known well early on, but hadn’t had a personal conversation with them in years. One woman he hadn’t met at all. She doesn’t even know what he looks like. Eight of the women he had been in the same room with at a community gatherings, but he never had a personal conversation with them. And his own wife he hadn’t talked to in six months.
Did this patchwork fellowship imposed upon him meet the standard of knowing his daily walk? Yes, but only if you include the woman from his recent stay with her family in England.
Was the home fellowship box checked? Yes
Was it fully representative of how Louis worshiped with others? No
Did WCL2 honor his agency when he declared his home fellowship? No
In October 2023, with Louis’ wife’s consent, John and Jennifer arranged to keep a daily journal for him to record his labor in the Middle East. So in a very literal sense, Jennifer did know his DAILY walk, but she was excluded from WCL2.
WCL2 did not observe the principle of honoring agency in allowing him to identify his home fellowship.
Additionally, the organizers of Women’s Council 1 added to their decision that Louis would retain his priesthood certificate on the condition that his wife’s name would be removed. A wife ought to be able to remove her sustaining vote at any time, rendering her husband’s certificate invalid immediately.
Was the condition added by Louis’ wife? Fine, no problem.
Or was it added by council organizers? Council women testified that this condition was NOT discussed nor voted upon by the council.
Did WCL1 organizers stipulate the condition on his wife’s behalf and without her knowledge? If yes, they violated HER agency to make that decision.
Was the spirit of the law kept?
Principle of Love
This quote from Joseph appears in the T&C 175 Guide & Standard in the section regarding priesthood.
Joseph Smith wrote: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul; without hypocrisy and without guile.
Accoutrements of valid authority include:
- persuasion
- long-suffering
- meekness
- love unfeigned
- kindness
- pure knowledge
I would postulate that ANY of heaven’s authority we wield is subject to these same righteous attributes; including women’s councils and women’s conferences.
But we all just kind-of glossed over this when making the list of check-boxes regarding the legitimacy of the women’s council.
One woman who sat on WCL1 testified to the following:
I felt like there were several women on the council that were biased against Louis. In fact, three women stated why they hated Louis at the beginning as they introduced themselves. Why are women that hate a man sitting in judgement of him? If those women were not even willing to discuss the circumstances and have an open mind to possibly vote no, then why were they there? Shouldn’t women on a council be willing to vote either way?
I felt this council was very much about punishment. This was actually stated and agreed upon by many of the more silent members of the council. “This is bad behavior and needs to be punished.”
We can’t be sure which 3 women confessed they hated Louis in WCL1. However we do know that 7 women who heard testimony in WCL1 —including 2 alternates and the wife of one of the witnesses — were called to serve on WCL2.
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 10:23
Opening statements including how you hate the man you are asked to judge seems to be a pretty egregious violation of the commandment to love one another. This is closely tied to the principles of righteousness where we find charity, the pure love of Christ.
Principle of Equality
Is the Lord explicit about how a women’s council ought to be equal between all members? No.
***
Once a women’s council is formed the organizer should roll into the group as an equal with the other women. Or at least that’s how I assume it’s supposed to go.
Jennifer raised objections to WCL1 on Louis’ behalf as a woman from his home fellowship. Angela, one of the women on the council, passed along Jennifer’s objection letter to all of the council members, who were still anonymous at that point. Because of THIS the council organizer kicked Angela off of the council in a unilateral decision. [source] That’s not equality.
Once the council is formed ALL WOMEN OUGHT TO BE EQUAL. Removing a woman for acting in good faith and participating in the process is madness.
This council did not have equality among the women on the council. There were, in my opinion, 4 women who trumped all other members. This was shown in communications through zoom calls and emails. Ideas and questions were presented which were shut down and dismissed without discussion or voting. It felt like rules were being made-up along the way that were not discussed or voted on but enforced throughout as issues arose.
Testimony of #21 on WCL1, p. 31
I wasn’t there. I can’t corroborate. But I can accept Angela’s testimony as her lived experience without prejudice.
The same co-organizer from WCL1 organized WCL2. Do you think that the pattern of inequality between council members continued? It sure seems likely to me, given the history.
Was the principle of equality observed in WCL1? No, there is a first hand witness who says it was not.
Was the spirit of the law kept in WCL2?
None of us outsiders could possibly know that. Only women who sat on WCL2 would be able to make that determination. So this question is directly for the women who served, and no one else.
Principle of Justice
Is it explicitly in the revelations on women’s councils that the man know the details of the charges against him? No.
***
Charges
In WCL1 Louis was given a document asking questions about previous events that would be the subject of women’s council consideration. However, in WCL2 he had one word charges: priestcraft, deception and abuse.
A charge includes, at minimum, the following details: WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHO.
For example, priestcraft & deception (hypothetically):
What: $5,500/mo in community support
Where: Pakistan
When: Between June 2024 to Oct 2025
Who: BillyBob Jones has receipts and feels defrauded. Donations were for South American labor.
Louis still doesn’t know the specifics of the WCL2 accusations.
Not a real conversation, but I imagine it went something like this:
WCL2: Fix it.
LN: How?
WCL2: Figure it out. You know what you did.
Put yourself in his shoes for just a minute. The government serves you with notice that you are being accused of fraud. They expect you to make an apology to your victim and provide full restitution but won’t give you any more details other than “fraud”. Failure to cooperate is acknowledgement of guilt and all of your assets will be seized.
How does that feel?
The June 20th 2024 revelation from the Lord stated that just and holy principles found in the US Constitution should be considered when conducing women’s councils.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right:
- to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
- to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
- to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
- and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (…so maybe Jennifer’s involvement was righteous after all. Just sayin’.)
Instruction in T&C 175 does not include mandatory witnesses on behalf of the man being brought into a women’s council.
***
Witnesses
WCL1 did not allow Louis to bring any witnesses. Nor was he allowed to face his accusers.
WCL2 allowed witnesses but qualified them, limiting to character witnesses only. He was invited to attend but this invitation was overlaid with unreasonable timelines and arbitrary rules. So he declined to acknowledge legitimacy.
Having witnesses for the accused is not required in the existing canon but is required in other revelation received through Denver.
Preserving the Restoration, pg. 511-512
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, 1. at least two witnesses should speak against the accused, and 2. he should be allowed to speak on his behalf and 3. call upon such witnesses as he chooses. Men can be witnesses, but 4. only women are allowed to vote. Removal should be by 5. unanimous vote* of the women present, with at least 6. 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.
7. *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
[bold and numbers mine]
If we accept the principles of the oracles of God, then all instruction whether published, spoken, printed or otherwise publicly distributed ought to be binding upon us. Not just what has been canonized.
This is not a matter of ex post facto. The instruction was open and notorious since September 2015 —8 years and six months before WCL2.
In fact, until 2017 this was the ONLY instruction given on how to conduct women’s councils.
Impartial Jury
Also included in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is the right to an impartial jury.
WCL2 seems to have been cherry-picked from a pool of women who—strangely enough, keep showing up on all of these controversial women’s councils. 👀 Anywho…
As mentioned previously, 7 women on WCL2 were already familiar with the details of WCL1, now plus his wife. That’s 8 out of 14. The two women who knew Louis’ daily walk were excluded along with anyone else who spoke out on behalf of justice during WCL1 deliberations.
Was WCL2 composed of impartial judges? I certainly hope so, but the optics are pretty bad.
Ex Post Facto
As a reminder, I wrote about ex post facto on the first blogpost defending the women’s councils.
The document unanimously approved in the Women of Peace Conference does not nullify the outcome of any previous women’s councils. That is called ex post facto, where a new rule is applied retroactively to an action taken prior to the rule existing. As a nation, gross injustice would result from accepting ex post facto laws. To prevent such injustice, ex post facto laws are prohibited, codified in Article I Sections 9 and 10 of the US Constitution. Likewise, a women’s council cannot be nullified for something that was done in good faith following all the Lord’s guidance received up to that point in time.
Ex post facto rules exist to stop authorities from punishing people for rules that didn’t exist yet. Was this protection, which follows principles of freedom — explicit in the existing canon?
No, it wasn’t. But all the women in the Covenant Christian community agreed to apply this Constitutional protection, rallied around the women’s council —defending a principle of freedom and were not just concerned about a checked box from the scriptures.
We as a people are capable of doing better. We ought to be able to apply just and holy principles universally and not just to favor of certain preferences.
Letter vs Spirit of the Law
Considering the Lord’s explicit instructions regarding women’s councils alongside their underlying principles —which were violated —I think we need to keep in mind the following:
I have given to you my doctrine, and have also revealed teachings, commandments, precepts, and principles to guide you, and it is not meet that I command you in all things — reason together and apply what I have given you, and it will be enough.
Results of the Women's Conference
Do you sustain the process used by Louis Naegle’s April 2024 women’s council as fair, just and in accordance with the Lord’s instructions?
Yes -98, no-22, abstain – 3
Do you sustain this WCL’s authority to remove Louis Naegle’s priesthood certificate?
Yes – 101, no – 19, abstain – 3
I’m confident that the voice of the people will almost always choose the right outcome. I approach our disagreements with the confidence that in the end we will achieve the right outcome. Be encouraged to lay aside your fears trust the body of believers and do not lose faith because we have a matter to resolve.
Denver Snuffer, 13 April 2025
The April 12th dispute has been settled. And I respect the results of the vote.
Repentance
For my part, I also voted, but in an unofficial capacity, noting:
I acknowledge that this ballot will only be counted in Heaven’s record.
Now, having done my due diligence —considering all that has happened and in the light of just and holy principles instead of the boxes that were checked, I am this day publicly renouncing my vote.
I declare before God, angels, and all of you witnesses that I repent of my vote and denounce it entirely.
I recoil at the injustice that I failed to recognize.
Plea to the Good Women of WCL2
There is no compulsion, threat, insults, or condemnation coming from me. What I would ask of the women of WCL2, please take inventory of the letter vs the spirit of the law. Please consider these principles and how they were observed or inadvertently violated in your best effort and good faith to serve and sacrifice on Louis’ women’s council.
Next:
Puzzling Pieces
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water, by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
This Post Has 8 Comments
Hi Aimee,
As the organizer of both Women’s Councils held for Louis, I’m happy to discuss with you many of your points, questions and in some cases, distortions of the truth which you have presented here as undisputed facts. In fact, after reading this post I was planning on answering and addressing each of these in the comment section, but realized it would be way too lengthy and tedious to do it there.
So, I would love it if you’d call me when you have some time and I will be happy to address/take all of your concerns and questions head on. I regret that we haven’t had such a conversation sooner.
What is not helpful though, for any of us in this community, in my view, is to continue recycling one-sided narratives based on incomplete facts. And then with that incomplete information, publicly condemn those who you definitively claim did not uphold “the spirit of the law” based on your very subjective determination of what precisely that “spirit” is and how it should look. It reminds me of something I heard from a scholar friend of mine when it comes to Jews agreeing on the ever elusive spirit of the law: “Two Rabbis, three opinions.”
I don’t intend to come across as harsh, flippant or defensive. So, forgive me if I do. Rather, I’m inviting you to have a conversation with me, as one of only a few who experienced both councils from the inside, in the hope that given the opportunity to hear both sides of the story, or at the very least, a lot more of it, your understanding of these matters will be enhanced.
My phone number is 208-340-3512. Let’s schedule a conversation soon.
Best,
Amberli
Thank you for your comment Amberli! Please let me know what needs correction and I will update the post. Bullet points are fine. I’ll be available to call after the 20th.
edit to update: You might want to edit your comment to remove your phone number. Spam bots are known to crawl my website and you might get some unwanted attention.
Okay, good thought on removing my phone number. I will do that.
I only wish you were as concerned about protecting the trust and goodwill of the larger group of your Covenant Christian Sisters as you were about my phone number, but nevertheless I appreciate the heads up.
As for the corrections you mentioned, with all due respect there were simply too many to list, even by bullet point. And sadly all are based on incorrect assumptions. I say that because you simply don’t know what you don’t know. Especially when it comes to WCL2. Neither you nor Jennifer nor anyone else outside the group of 14 women have any first hand evidence of what was discussed in that proceeding. The very best you can do – and have done – is cobble together disparate pieces of hear-say and conjecture to form a flimsy narrative and peddled it as your version of what you believed happened on April 28, 2024 and what led up to it.
But for the sake of making my point, I’ll highlight just one of your assumptions you posted in this blog as “truth”. You claimed that I as the organizer of WCL2 “cherry-picked” all the new women on WCL2. Hmmm. Thats one giant assumption considering 1) you don’t know me. 2) you have never spoken to me 3) you never made a single attempt to contact me and ask about the process used to invite the members on the council. But hey, facts be damned, right? Just publish what you “feel” MAYBE happened on a public forum and believe somehow that you’ve cleared your conscience while doing this group and the “truth” a service. When really all you did here was spread cheap gossip built on unfounded rumors and assumptions – like the one I just highlighted.
How does this help anyone? Why not call me BEFORE agreeing to facilitate this data dump for Jennifer – without doing your due diligence of objective question asking, source seeking critical thinking or fact checking?
Just because Jennifer Willis says it’s true, you believe its true? Because neither of you can bear the thought that MAYBE you just don’t know what you don’t know?
So your default thinking is that 14 of your Covenant Sisters came together with the intent of conspiring to manufacture evidence, lie, cheat, and every other dispicable thing you publicly allege we did just to bring down one innocent man?!? That’s easier for you to believe than that 14 women got it right? Not perfect, but right?
That’s what this all boils down to, Aimee. That you believe all 14 of us to be conspiring lliars because we refuse to be baited into revealiing private information just to prove you and all our critics otherwise. Our integrity will not allow us to appease your unscrupulous demands for a cheap sense of vindication. Therefore we find ourselves in a no-win situation, if we reveal the information we have, we’d be accused of disobeying the Lords council to keep things private but if we keep things private then we are accused of being corrupt frauds. Which is it, Aimee?
At the end of the day, all you have done here is use your public blog to be a loud and vociferous accuser of 14 of your sisters who have taken the same covenant as you have. The least you could have done is make a few phone calls to us first. Or even just to me, as the organizer of both councils. Which you and Jennifer go to great lengths to point out throughout your blogs and data dump.
But here’s the thing you need to know, Aimee, I’m not ashamed of any action I took in either council process and your publicly castigating of me is not going to change that. I stand by what we did and though nothing is/was ever perfect in any endeavor we undertake as broken mortals, I know the Lord and his requirements of us as a women’s council were satisfied. So there’s nothing you or Jennifer can do to rob me of that peace.
And yes, I’ll be looking for expecting your phone call after the 20th. Until then, God bless.
Amberlj
P.S. I tried to edit my phone number out of my first comment, per your suggestion, but don’t see where the edit button is. Also need to remove the errant j from my name too, ha. Not sure how that happened. So how do I access the editing feature?
Thanks!
Amberli, again thank you so much for your comment! I really do appreciate it. The way to edit your comment to remove your number is to first log into your wordpress account and then click on the “edit” button above and to the right of the comment you would like to edit.
To all of my readers still in the comment section, I’d like to refresh your memory on the first blogpost I wrote to defend the women’s councils. If the shoe fits…
https://zion.education/2025/03/22/goliath/
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
We are all so prone to do this. Even in everyday conversation. We are so quick to judge what someone says without even taking the time to slow down and consider before deciding. Our biases jump in ready to reach the conclusion before we’ve even had a chance to think it through.
“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
I’ve stayed uninvolved in most everything related to this. Why? Because I felt this was strictly a matter for the women to resolve amongst themselves and I’ve been happy to respect that idea.
However, it is starting to appear that indeed “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
At some point, the LDS church lost its way when it came to high councils. Instead of following the instructions in D&C 102, they switched to following a set of instructions which someone came up with and put in the Church Handbook. While the D&C 102 instructions were fair, the Church Handbook instructions seemed to put all the power into the hands of the Stake President with the Council only there to act as a group of subservient “yes men”. It would have been nice if at the point those changes started happening, someone (man or woman) would have stood up to say that things were going off the rails and the correct procedures preserved.
I feel like this above post is trying to fairly point out that there may have been problems. If the post is in error, then I would hope clarifications could be shared in a non-emotional and helpful way. Aimee pointed out that her understanding is that the accusations made were vague and general without specificity. I don’t know if that is true or not, but if so, that would indeed be a problem. I find it interesting that there have been comments to this post with vague accusations. Kind of confirms what was written.
In the spirit of working toward resolution, specifics are needed. Corrections can’t be made on vague demands. Ironically, this seems to be the same situation I’ve been told by more than one source that Louis is dealing with.
It isn’t a good look. The procedures that were involved are something that can openly be discussed even while the accusations should be kept private. It would be wrong to try to hide both using the excuse of protecting privacy. Again, not a good look.
I hope you have the conversation and that Aimee is able to take good notes so she can make any corrections that may be needed. I believe if given the chance, she would gladly do so.
Yes, I am 100% willing to correct anything that is inaccurate.