Aimee K
Ignorance is bliss
The following is a comment from my last blogpost. I could not be more pleased that I received the response. So, thank-you for giving me the perfect segue into this post.
…based on incomplete facts. And then with that incomplete information…
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.
You’re right, I don’t have complete information of everything that went on during Women’s Council 2. Proceedings could reasonably be discussed as you are a firsthand witness. I am open to hear it.
There is an unfortunate assumption however. I have, in fact, talked to both parties and got their first hand accounts.
I have receipts
I reached out to Jennifer asking if Louis would be interested in talking to me. And if yes, would she share his contact information. I also reached out to his ex-wife with the same invitation and curiosity.
The list of questions included every rumor that I had ever heard second hand. I’m sure anyone in this community could make a similar list for all the wicked things they’ve heard about the infamous Louis. Jennifer wanted to veto one of my questions because she felt a protective surge of big sister. Louis didn’t shy away and addressed it anyway, despite Jennifer’s objections.
My first call with Louis was the day after Christmas. He wanted to know about me, and how I came into the movement. He told me some of his background and his time as a missionary. I think that was a good start, just so he could get his bearings on who I was, and I could feel more comfortable with the man behind the rumored monster. We continued on and he answered my list of questions. I listened while going about the house doing chores like cleaning the refrigerator and reorganizing my pantry.
I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. It wasn’t passive on my part. I peppered him with questions. Clarified things he had said to make sure I understood him correctly. I mentioned people I knew had been involved and asked what he could tell me about his interactions with them. Specifically people who I knew worked with him on one of his state-side projects. Many people he mentioned before I could bring them up.
To clarify for everyone the timeline: I reached out to Louis’s ex-wife BEFORE I had ever talked to him. But by the time his ex-wife and I finally talked, I had already spent 8 1/2 hours on the phone with him.
Slides Shared by Louis' ex-wife on Slack, 25 Dec 2025 9:03 am
Even though Louis and I had talked for a significant amount of time by the time his ex-wife and I connected, he and I still had not touched on one of the more shocking public rumors regarding physical contact made during an argument.
Hearsay vs. Horse's mouth
This will be referred to as the Toothbrush Incident.
I was under the misconception that this incident happened in England. They both confirmed it happened in 2021. He gave context for the major life event that happened that day, which was important to set the stage.
Word choice has subtlety that paints a picture.
Toss is the most gentle of all the throw synonyms. Heave implies that what you’re throwing has great weight. Pitch implies that the throw is with great forward force for distance. Launch implies that you had mechanical assistance in the throw. Chuck implies carelessness and greater distance than toss.
She used gently toss. He used chucked.
They both agree that throwing his belongings was involved.
I heard her side of this story first. I listened and asked questions for nearly two hours. It was horrific. She cried and had to take the rest of the night to emotionally recover. We haven’t talked again since then.
I talked to Louis afterwards —the same day, in fact —and I asked question after question. I did not give him a pass. I grilled him.
Having heard both sides firsthand I believe him.
In her version there are fatal flaws in the logistical details, narrative coherence and consistency. Her version of events cannot be true. It’s not even a matter of exaggeration. There is a key detail so egregious it is nothing other than a bald faced lie. But unless you heard both of their accounts firsthand you wouldn’t be able to identify it.
She Said
He’s very attached to his possessions. So he became absolutely enraged when I started gently tossing his personal possessions onto the floor.
He Said
My toiletries were on the bathroom windowsill, high up to be out of the kids’ reach. She got mad at me for something and starting throwing all my stuff from the bathroom windowsill into the 2nd floor hallway where they could fall through the railing down to the main floor.
WCL1, did you ask this follow up question?
Why were you tossing his possessions on the floor in the first place?
I asked: Why was she mad at you?
He doesn’t remember why she was mad. Why not? To illustrate why not let me cite the color of the door.
I know you’ve heard the story of lavender vs. periwinkle. Do you know why that was even brought up in the first place? Or on what significant day this conversation originally happened? If not, maybe you don’t have enough context for the compassion that is warrented.
Forgive and ...Weaponize?
There was a question asked in the April 2025 Women’s conference.
From what I understand, Jennifer Willis in 2020 you removed Louie’s certificate without a women’s council. Why did you go against the Lord and his instructions and make it your prerogative to remove that certificate?
I can answer that now.
Louis and his ex-wife were married in November 2020 by Denver with witnesses present. Afterwards Jennifer reminded him that he did not have a valid priesthood certificate until his new wife was willing to sign it. He conceded that her endorsement was an essential element of his priesthood certificate and did not perform any public ordinances from that point until nearly two years later.
A year after the Toothbrush Incident, Louis’ wife approached Jennifer asking for help in creating a priesthood certificate for him. It was at the Sept 2022 Preparedness Conference. Remember? Where people had all the different display booths set up.
So, at that time his wife felt he was worthy and initiated the process on her own.
However, that 2022 forgiveness was withdrawn and the toothbrush incident weaponized and distorted when it was brought up in WCL1 as evidence against him.
Since the Principle of Justice to allow any man to speak on his behalf was not observed (PTR p 511-512) because it was… [checks notes] …not canonized, you didn’t hear Louis’ side of the story. As a reminder, PTR p. 511-512 was the only instruction on how to conduct women’s councils until 2017.
To any one of the happily married wives in the Covenant Christian community: If we were to lay out every argument or worst moment of our own husbands back to back we could make them sound like absolute monsters. Especially recalling moments when the unions were young and our grooms were figuring out how to husband us for the first time.
Marital Culture
Marriage is complicated and messy. We are imperfect beings learning to become one. After decades together a unique marital culture has developed. One that can either look hilarious and endearing or abrasive and rude to any outsider.
While there are cultural differences that can be generalized (e.g. Italian vs. Japanese) the dynamics between each husband and wife are uniquely their own.
One man talks loudly and frankly to his wife but she dishes right back to him in kind. They are rough and tumble, passionate, and maybe even use colorful language at times. Contrast that to another man who speaks softly in his marriage. She has a tender heart and when they have a disagreement it’s emotional, tearful and sometimes withdrawn.
The two men cannot judge the other’s marital culture. Passion seems abusive to the tender husband. Withdrawal seems like catatonic abandonment to the passionate husband.
Would you want to be judged by someone else’s marital culture?
Order, Agency, and Stewardship
If there is no universal standard by which husbands can be held accountable —then what? Well, there are three principles that govern marriage: Order, agency, and stewardship.
Honoring Agency is a core principle under the Principles of Freedom.
Agency is that sweethearts may choose one another. Any other variation where it is a forced union against either party, agency is violated.
The marriage covenant establishes a new order, grants rights and bestows responsibilities.
God’s house is a house of order.
What does that mean?
If you think about how the church was organized in the early days of the restoration, it was after the order of a family.
Jesus Christ began a new dispensation which he patterned in a manner to reflect Abraham’s family, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob mirrored in Peter, James [Jacob], and John; the twelve tribes led by twelve sons of Jacob reflected by the twelve disciples; the seventy children of Jacob who entered Egypt at the time of father Joseph reflected by the seventy.
Teachings & Commandments 154:5
A husband has stewardship to protect and provide for his wife and children. He is accountable to God, to his wife —who has claim on him—and to the law which prevents the abuse of inequality. Men are stronger by nature. They can use that strength to either protect and defend or to hurt and destroy.
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. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it even as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Ephesians 1:21
A husband is the first line of defense for his family. It is his life on the line when an intruder breaks into the house. Modeling our Lord, he is expected to lay down his life in defense of his family. He is self sacrificing; going without if it means his family is taken care of. Getting up before the sun to provide a living. Facing the shafts and arrows of the world head on to protect them from instability, danger, and predators.
Crossing Boundaries
A wedding ceremony is solemnized in public with witnesses, because at its core, marriage and family are the basic units of society. However, that does not mean that the marriage covenantal relationship is public property.
Inserting yourself into someone else’s marital problems violates principles of stewardship, order, and agency.
Your authority is limited to what has been entrusted to you. When a third party intervenes they assume authorization that was never given. Marriage has its own internal order—husband and wife before God, with outside counsel only by mutual consent when needed. Uninvited involvement introduces confusion and shifts accountability away from the covenant partners.
A simple test for discernment helps to keep this clean: Were both spouses inviting me? Would this still be appropriate if the marriage healed tomorrow? When the answers trend toward no, restraint is the only righteous response.
People who insert themselves into another’s marital conflict without stewardship are often driven by anxiety, projection, or moral grandiosity—and mistake emotional urgency for moral authority.
Principle Hierarchy
Third-party intervention in a marriage without mutual consent is justified only when non-intervention would permit harm, destroy agency, or violate a higher moral law.
For example, protecting life is a higher law than preserving marital autonomy.
Before intervening without consent, ask:
Would harm occur if I did nothing?
Am I acting to protect life or restore agency ?
Does my authority come from stewardship, law, or necessity — not just concern?
Would I accept this same intervention if our roles were reversed?
Case Studies
Marital Culture
In my own marriage if we say to one another, “Chicken butt!” in our own quirky vernacular we are actually saying, “I love you.” But anyone unfamiliar with our dynamic might think my husband is calling me names.
20 people could have witnessed and given their firsthand testimony that my husband called me a bad name. But none of them would understand the intention and meaning without asking him what he meant.
Maybe Louis does know what certain looks from his wife mean and you do not.
Stewardship
My nieces are both on the GAPS protocol. My brother and his wife mutually agree that the girls need to follow the regimen strictly for their own well-being after a medical injury. But Sister Primary from church thinks that one little Hershey’s kiss won’t hurt anything. She knows better! Those parents are too strict. Next thing you know, the sugar hits their system like CRACK and they are jumping from tables, climbing out windows and ripping up books. …whoops. Poor Sister Primary violated the principle of stewardship.
Maybe Louis does know how much is too much.
Principle of Honoring Agency:
When I was a young bride I had a girlfriend in whom I confided. I thought that was normal. But she insisted that my husbands flaws were unacceptable, I was unhappy and ought to leave him. I’m a chemical engineer by education, but she was willing to generously buy me a starter set to roll in under her MLM so I could sell party games to friends and family. I even filled out separation paperwork and set it aside. My husband came home one day —he was a self employed contractor at the time —and was feeling sentimental. We went to write me a love note, but the piece of paper he pulled out was that unfiled separation document. I can’t even imagine his heartbreak in that moment. Totally blindsided. I’ve been terrible to him, and he loves me today with a fierceness I do not deserve.
Butting into someone else’s marriage when uninvited violates the principle of honoring agency. If you have legitimate concerns to protect against abuses of inequality, that overrules marriage autonomy . Either call the police and let them sort it out or ask your friend directly his side of the story before intervening in a situation where you don’t actually have all the facts.
Tone:
How something is said is meaningful. Bill Burr gives another excellent example of this. If colorful language offends you skip the video and read the sanitized transcript below.
warning vulgar language
Cleaned up transcript:
No, that’s another one. “No means no.”
It’s like, no, it doesn’t. Alright?
Look, no means no.
No.
That means no, all right?
But ….
“No, stop it, what are you doing? 
You’re being so bad! 
Oh! Yeah, that’s not a flipping no!
That means: I wanna do it, but I’m afraid you’re gonna judge me, so I’m just gonna make it look like it was your idea, so you don’t figure out that I’ve already played patty-cake with 40 other fetching people.
Then you go to court, and you get a bad read, and there’s some guy reading it:
Your Honor, she said, 
“No. Stop it! What are you doing? You’re being so bad.” 
Yeah? And you’re just sitting there like, 
“She didn’t flipping say it like that! She didn’t say it like that!”
Questions for WCL2
What follows is not going to make sense to a lot of you. If it does, then you’ve been given unauthorized access to the evidence that has been publicly declared as being held in sacred trust.
Just sit back and let it roll over you. For those who do know things, this will feel like a hyper focused laser pointer.
After I had talked to Louis for over 23 hours over the course of multiple days I read the unredacted letter from WCL1. Nothing was new. He had disclosed and explained everything from the letter and more.
So I ask the impartial jury and judges:
Do you know the cultural and political implications of ANY male-female touching in conservative parts of Israel? Taking photos of security checkpoints? And consequences for otherwise innocent yet oblivious behavior in areas of Israel? Louis wasn’t being rude, he was protecting his wife and Mr. & Mrs. Platter— trying to preserve life and limb in one of the most dangerous corners of the world. Despite his best efforts, Mrs. Platter was accosted twice by random Muslim men. Once for having sunglasses in hair hair which counts as jewelry and once for holding her husband’s hand.
Supporting Evidence:
Assault on female reporter for not wearing hijab sparks backlash in Gaza.
Violent clashes break out on Temple Mount after Muslim prayers | The Times of Israel
Palestinians attack Christian tourists at Temple Mount – St. Louis Jewish Light
Do you know that Louis’ wife declared more than once that she wasn’t married to him anymore? Do you know the circumstances surrounding each time?
Do you know what Louis’ wife said to him after reading about the “woman at the well” during scripture study?
Do you know about the Baptist ?
Do you know WHY they disagree on the first time?
You already know about the curtains in Israel. Mr. & Mrs. Platter, did you see extra charges on the hotel bill for the alleged damage?
About this part of the story: I had to take a FAT minute to process. It’s so much worse —and so much bigger —than anyone realizes. He tried going on with his account before I could get my bearings and I stopped him again and said, “No, please! I’m still processing what you just said.”
Do you know about the hour and a half long text message exchange? It was Louis on the other end but she didn’t realize it. Louis has the full confession.
Do you know about WHY everything came to a head in England? Louis was asking a very simple, “Did you have anything to do with this?” from across the room when you were all gathered at the house watching the unhinged YouTube video coming out of Utah mid November 2023. She wouldn’t answer. Either she was involved and didn’t want to admit it, or she was rage-bating him.
What did she say in their room? What was his response? The scream was public theater inviting everyone to the show. Louis knew he was screwed because it was her word against his at that point. And she knew people would be at the door listening. Everything Mr. Deacon heard at the door was curated and theatrical. And if Mr. Deacon’s account was really as bad as he made it sound then he had a moral obligation to enter the room and intervene or at the very least call the police. Neither happened. Why?
The bags were packed by her, not him.
Eleven days after the incident in England, this was their final text exchange:
She Said
He Said
26 Nov 2023
I love you.
I am praying for me and for you.
I am praying for us.
27 Nov 2023
Me too.
12 Dec 2023
Do you know what you want?
Do you want to plan it together?
27 Mar 2024 (after WCL1)
Am I still blocked?
Do you want to meet at my mom’s house?
Louis knows that his ex-wife is a good mom. He considers his reputation beyond salvageable at this point and he doesn’t want her ex-husband to get wind of all the shenanigans and have cause to take the children away.
Also, getting legally married just to get immediately divorced feels like a trap to me. He will never concede to that as a condition of reinstatement.
Fake Currency
Trading secrets, rumors and even WCL2 “private” information like social currency has been destructive to our community. I have been entrusted with more confidences than I can count. I don’t share. I don’t even hint that I know about certain things. But from what I do know, let me assure you the irony is RICH.
I keep my lip zipped and I listen.
Why do people barter and trade in the rumor market? Because there’s a feeling of importance when you know something secret and people know that you know. Passing it along feels powerful. However, this game of telephone that we’ve all been playing is damning. We will never get the truth of a matter unless we are hearing both sides, first hand, from the horse’s mouth.
Speaking of which, fourth hand hearsay is not evidence, Mr. Ring. Did you perchance disclose why Louis was disparaging that lady? Did you tell them how she humiliated you right before that? I’m mortified for you. That’s hard stuff, dude.
Also, the conversation about Heavenly Mother was taken completely out of context, misrepresented and used against him. What was he actually saying during that group conversation? I agree with his take, BTW. I found it very insightful.
Alone in the jury box
I am the only one among you—and not even sitting on the women’s council— who has heard Louis’ full testimony first hand. Why is that?
I would have rendered a different judgement, if it were me.
Everything that I’ve written here has been reviewed and authorized by Louis. Anything that he thought revealed too much he was at liberty to veto.
He will not speak on his own behalf. He has not written any blogs, sent any emails, made any accusations nor disparaged anyone’s reputation in this community. He considers himself cast out and has determined to leave this community to our own devices. In our current state, I don’t blame him one bit.
Plea to the Good Women of WCL2
I have worked with some of you on the Covenant of Christ recording project. And I’m grateful for lending your time and talent in providing your voice which is blessing people literally the world over.
I have bought your books, loaned them to friends, and recommend them on my website. I’m in awe of the light that you opened to all our view. People have come into this movement because of the persuasive voice that you have had in defending Joseph. People’s hearts in my ward have been softened because of the insight that you’ve provided on secret murder and the saints.
I admire your tenacity and powerhouse energy to organize and host conferences. You are beautiful, poised, well spoken and graceful and I’ve heard wonderful things about your spunk on the dance-floor.
I have worked with your daughters and admire your success as mothers and strive to achieve to be half as successful in raising my own children.
I met some of you at the 2024 Saint George conference and was surprised you even knew who I was.
None of you are slouches. All of you I love and admire; as wives, as mothers, as daughters and as covenant sisters. Some of you I know personally. Some of you I can only admire from a distance. I consider you my betters in so many ways.
In writing this blogpost I say again, I am not attacking you —any of you— personally. And I truly pray that you discern my sincerity.
If there are details I’ve cited here to which you don’t know the answers, please consider that there is another side to the story that you should consider yourselves obligated to hear. And so I plead with you —while honoring your stewardship over Louis’ certificate and your agency in choosing how to proceed.
Comment section
Before anyone goes off the rails in the comment section, re-read what I actually said versus what you think I said. I was secretly wishing someone would comment that I didn’t have all the facts after the Man of Sorrows post. So, I was genuinely giddy that you actually gave me what I needed to begin this blog-post. I could tell you were typing fast and furious because you misspelled your own name. Probably not the best idea to respond in haste when you’re upset.
But, to say thank you for generously giving me what I wanted, I’ll disclose the little Easter egg I left for you. The Man of Sorrows blogpost was published on the two year anniversary—exact to the hour and minute— when Louis was notified of WCL1.
What's next?
I have two more blogposts planned before I lay down my pen on this subject. One will publish on the 17th and the last one on the 19th. If anyone from WCL2 would like to talk to me after that, I am willing to have the conversation. Or feel free to text.
I will let you know now that when talking with WCL2 organizers I will be recording the conversation —for quality and training purposes 
. Full disclosure, up front. Nothing shady from me. If you disagree to have the conversation recorded but stay on the line anyway, your participation is consent. Just hang up if you disagree.
I have also intentionally not read the correspondence between WCL2 and Louis since the April 12th women’s conference until this blogpost was finished. I didn’t want to taint my writing tone here. Before the next publishing date I will have read it in its entirety. If that concerns you, maybe ask yourself why. 
So, my fellow campers: if anyone would like to do their homework right along with me, please first read “The rest of the story” linked here: Regarding the Women’s Conference. Password: capitalized last name of Jennifer’s conference co-organizer.
Best wishes!
Next:
Garment of the Laborer
“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but even more to stand up to our friends.” -Albus Dumbledore
This Post Has 15 Comments
Aimee so appreciate your post and desire to find the truth.This is what we all need to do!!It is not about who can tell the best store.It has taken a lot of courage to do what you have done and speak your truth. You have set a good example for all of us.You have given me courage to follow your example ❤️🙏 Loa Smith
Thank you Loa! ❤️🙏
I have been married for 20 years and not once in all this time has my husband EVER hit me or strangled me and or physically attacked me -no matter if we got into a heated argument or how mad I might have made him. I can’t believe you tried to rationalize abuse by examples of different marital cultural differences (if we use that example then Islamic marriages to 8 year old girls is OK- not rape🤮), gorilla memes and examples of nick names, etc, and then try to convince us to believe that all of this is OK. That is sick Aimee.
ANY TIME a man abuses someone (physical, mentally or emotionally) especially the one person he should be protecting the most. He’s an abuser. No if’s, ands or buts. There is no justification. None.
Holly, I’m so sorry you misunderstood my earlier points. The examples you gave fall under abuse of inequality. Meaning a husband cannot beat his wife. He is stronger. A parent cannot beat their child. They are bigger. An adult marrying a child is an abuse of inequality and violates that child’s agency. A married couple who are both MMA fighters could mutually choose to spar together, in fun and to train. He would have to show more restraint with her but they both agree to the activity. I am not justifying abuse of any kind; physical, mental or emotional. In the examples of the gorilla couples, if the male was beating her with intent to hurt, maim or kill the zookeepers would intervene and separate them. But what it looked like to me was a like loving husband giving his wife a good tease. Maybe to you it looked too aggressive. That’s OK. That’s maybe not what your marriage looks like. The natural order and hierarchy of governing principles tell us we have moral obligation to intervene when there is an abuse of inequality, such as the examples you cited. And you’re right, in those situations there is no justification. None.
No, I understood you perfectly.
Lou Naegel attacked his wife. He strangled her. That is abuse. Lou Naegel IS an abuser.
The only real question here is if, as you say, you aren’t justifying abuse -why do you feel compelled to defend, minimize, or justify Louis Naegels violent behavior?
For me there is no ambiguity. There is no context that excuses hurting Ashley. NONE. His actions against her alone are more than enough reason for him to lose his certificate.
I disagree that size or physical strength determines who is abusing who. That mindset is either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to shift harmful behavior away from an abuser.
In 2006 the three men on the Duke men’s lacrosse team were accused of raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at an off-campus party in Durham, North Carolina. The case drew intense national media attention, quickly framing the players as guilty amid racial, class, and gender tensions.
However, the investigation collapsed when DNA evidence excluded all accused players, witness statements proved inconsistent, and prosecutors were found to have withheld exculpatory evidence. In 2007, the North Carolina Attorney General dismissed all charges and formally declared the players innocent. The district attorney, Mike Nifong, was later disbarred for ethical violations.
The case is now widely cited as a cautionary example of prosecutorial misconduct, media-driven presumption of guilt, and the failure of due process under public pressure.
I asked a question in a previous post along the lines of “what is the purpose of these councils/votes?” Moreso with the intention of wondering if the folks in SLC believed that any decisions reached by these tiny groups had any power over anyone or any fellowship not participating? I can see now that this really isn’t the issue.
I’m just a lone believer watching from the desert. I don’t know any of you but I worry for you. My heart hurts for you. Nothing about this behavior indicates a desire for one heart. All I see is a desire for vindication and total surrender of the opposing side. What is the point of all this? Does this really bring people together? Is it really the welfare of Zion? Is it really to come closer to Christ? Is it justice? Justice is God’s domain. Mankind is terrible when it comes to making righteous judgements. Mercy is so much easier to get right.
Enough with the he said/she said, hearsay, and backroom deals. It’s time to move past that. It’s time to accept that we, in all actuality, have no power or authority over anyone else. We cannot compel or coerce. We can simply acknowledge injustice (perceived or otherwise), make our case, attempt to persuade, and let Heaven do the rest. Then focus on what brings you together instead of what drives you apart.
Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
Aimee, you say: “I am the only one among you—and not even sitting on the women’s council— who has heard Louis’ full testimony first hand. Why is that?
I would have rendered a different judgement, if it were me.”
You ask why. The answer is simply because Louis chose not to attend the council and share his side of things. If he truly believed he was in the right, then he would have no reason to fear attending the council to defend himself, even if it was “unjustly held”.
If he is repentant, or if he truly believes that he didn’t deserve to have his certificate of trust to perform public priesthood ordinances removed, then all he needs to do is call the same women in a meeting together and share his side, and only 7 of the 14 would need to vote in favor of reinstatement. He doesn’t need anyone to speak on his behalf.
Furthermore, Jennifer has claimed publicly that Louis doesn’t know what the charges were or what he did wrong, when the truth is that several of the witnesses have sent testimonies directly to Louis (which he asked for and still won’t acknowledge having been received).
These are the fruits of this man.
Emmelyn, thank you for your comment. Louis does acknowledge that he received the written statements of some of the witnesses against him. He’s addressed the accusations in written form back to the council. Many other charges however, he was just supposed to guess without knowing who or how much or when. For example, I mentioned a few names to him of people I knew were upset and he called them straightaway to sort things out where they will be made to feel fully whole. That is now underway. If he knows someone is upset he will do everything within his power sort out any misunderstanding and to right the wrong.
Holly and Aimee, thank you for continuing this difficult conversation with passion and conviction. I hear deep concern and pain in Holly’s words,abuse is never acceptable, and no one should minimize real harm. At the same time, I appreciate Aimee’s effort to bring nuance and context to how we discern these things. As someone who has known Louis as a friend for some time, I admit I come to this with care for him. But that doesn’t change my commitment to good reasoning for everyone involved. I’ve been reflecting on how these discussions can get distorted, and here are some *logical fallacies* I’ve noticed recurring (in my own thinking too) offered as a mutual self-check, not to accuse anyone:
– Appeal to personal experience: Using one’s own marriage (“My husband never….”) as proof of what happened in another’s. It informs empathy but doesn’t establish facts.
– Hasty generalization: Broad conclusions about a person from incomplete, secondhand or unverified accounts
– Begging the question: Assuming abuse is proven to then label someone an abuser, without independent verification.
– False dilemma: “Either fully accept the accusations or you’re justifying/minimizing abuse” no room for inquiry, due process or nuance.
– Appeal to emotion: Letting outrage replace evidence (valid feelings don’t make allegations facts).
– Argument from silence: Inferring guilt from no public rebuttal or certain actions.
For transparency: I asked Louis directly if he’s ever met or spoken with Holly Ong. He said he doesn’t believe he has ever even met her. That doesn’t resolve the serious claims, but it highlights how certainty can form without direct contact. I’m not about about dismissing pain, excusing harm or ignoring abuse…. physical, emotional or any kind is wrong, full stop. It’s a reminder that when reputations, families and callings are at stake, our pursuit of truth needs to be as rigorous as our intentions are good. The community deserves that, especially after months of this unfolding (from early council processes to these conversation). Praying for healing, clarity and mercy for all
Thank you for sharing the logical fallacies. I understand the passion and with equal passion denounce violence in a marriage. That’s not what this is. When and IF Louis’ ex-wife gives explicit permission, I will give the bullet points of why her version of events is fabricated on the women’s Slack, not in public.
Aimee and Kim –
I’m going to be clear, and then I’m done engaging on this.
This isn’t about hypotheticals, logic exercises, comparisons, or unrelated cases. It’s about an act of violence. Strangulation and/or attacking is not teasing, not sparring, and not subjective. It is abuse.
I also want to correct an assumption that you made Kim. I am not speaking from personal pain or emotional distress – please don’t assume. Using a normal and healthy marriage – fights and all- is stating what normal is. Saying that we shouldn’t judge a man early in his marriage because they’re getting to know each other still -is justifying a husband abusing his wife. You state you are Lou’s friend – that’s is a biased position. I’m stating a position based on what I reviewed and what I witnessed in the April conference process. I attended the April conference. I studied the evidence that was presented. All of what was given to us from both sides of the matter (and what you’ve posted on your blog). I asked questions. I approached it without bias or a predetermined conclusion. I listened and took notes. My belief comes from the evidence given.
We were told at that conference that the decision made there would put this issue to rest. And yet here we are, nearly a year later, still having this conversation and still seeing it pushed back onto us. I never spoke up at the conference. I’m speaking up now – softening or justifying abuse or calling a victim a liar is disgusting to me – especially from other women. I’m not misunderstanding anyone. We can agree to disagree. I’m not continuing this discussion.
Holly thank you for sharing your perspective and for attending the conference. I respect that you approached it seriously and took notes.
For the sake of clarity for anyone reading: I was also present at the April conference, read every available document beforehand, attended the reasoning zooms and what I recall being shared publicly were broad categories of charges, such as priestcraft, deception and abuse in a relational sense. The primary defense offered was the validity of the process itself. I do not recall any mention of strangulation being presented publicly, nor evidence of such. Details were explicitly withheld on the grounds of privacy.
I appreciate you correcting any assumptions about your motives. Abuse is serious and never justifiable, and I share the concern for protecting those who are harmed. My intent here hasn’t been to minimize abuse but to advocate for discernment thats grounded in clear facts, transparency and a process that allows meaningful understanding rather than conclusions without particulars.
I’m not responding to prolong conflict, but because the comments are open and there are others reading who may not have been present at the conference. I think it matters to distinguish between accusations, evidence and process.
I also believe that knowing someone personally, caring about them and being willing to speak directly with them should matter when we are asked to sit in judgment over their life and reputation. (at least in our community) Proximity doesn’t guarantee truth but neither does distance.
I sincerely hope for healing and truth for everyone involved, Thank you for the conversation, and I wish you peace.
Amen
Aimee, I am glad that you have been writing regarding these things. I think it is a good that you have had a chance to talk to both. With a story from just one or the other, it is hard to understand or make a fair judgment. With both, you can work towards resolving descrepencies in the stories in order to find the truth. It sounds like you think these matters should have been left between the husband and wife. I don’t know, but my gut is telling me yes.