Women's Council 1 Process Defense

On February 13, 2025,  Women’s Council 2 was first notified of the Disputer’s intent to try the council at the April 12, 2025 Women’s Conference. Stephanie Snuffer sent this notification only to Council 2. It contained the Disputer’s 54-page “position” paper against them, 26 of those pages were emails from Women’s Council 1. The Disputers requested a response from the council and to have mediation with Stephanie between February 10 and February 24th. 

Included in the 54 page “position” paper was this statement from Woman Disputer [WD]: “Successful mediation would comprise the following 2 elements”:

An agreement
- The original WCL members make the public claim [MIQ]’s 2nd WCL was Illegitimate.

- OR agreement by me (WD) that the proceedings were legitimate and the removal of my complaints.

And a remedy:
- EITHER - Because a letter was sent to “the Movement” at large announcing [MIQ] guilt and priesthood certificate removal, a rectification letter needs to be similarly addressed and sent. The letter should announce the illegitimacy of the WCL process and the remediation of MIQ priesthood certificate. This letter must be approved by [WD] and Stephanie Snuffer.

- OR an announcement by [WD] on her blog that she has dropped her complaints and acknowledges the legitimacy of the WCL and its outcome. For this WCL to be deemed legitimate, I would also need you to provide MIQ with the transcript of WCL1 and WCL2. Upon reviewing the transcripts, MIQ may find new complaints. If he asks for my help and I agree with his concerns, I would be willing to help him present those new complaints.

 

All 14 members of Women’s Council 2 made significant personal sacrifices to carefully review and respond to the 54-page document submitted by the disputers. She required our response by February 24th. This effort included numerous Zoom meetings, hundreds of messages and edits, and many hours taken away from family, work, and other responsibilities. Despite the tight timeline, Women’s Council 2 sent a 13 page response to the Disputer on February 25, 2025. [See First Letter to Disputer here] 

Women’s Council 2 was given 1 day to respond so that the Disputer could have time to prepare her 3rd rebuttal. The Council Women sent their 7 page response on March 6, 2025. [See 2nd Letter to Disputer here]

The MIQ also sent the Women’s Council 2 his testimony. [See MIQ Testimony here]

Women’s Council 2 and only one of the Disputers, not both, met in mediation via Zoom with Stephanie Snuffer as moderator on Sunday, March 9, 2025 for 10 hours. Women’s Council 2 made some concessions during the mediation in good faith that the Disputer would consider an alternative to making this dispute the subject of the April Women’s Conference. Those concessions were:

1. Amberli and Disputer would meet and reason together.
   
   They did meet over the phone on Monday, March 10th for several hours. Amberli felt the discussion was productive, and that the Disputer came to a greater understanding of the processes used, and the misinformation the Disputer had spread.
   
   After this discussion Amberli and the WD also met via Zoom with Stephanie Snuffer on Thursday, March 13th.
   
   
2. Amberli would invite the Disputer to meet with the Smedleys (home fellowship for Council 2) in a private meeting.
   
   The Disputer refused the meeting.
   
   
3. That the women of the council who felt comfortable doing so would reach out to the MIQ and invite him to socialize and to speak face to face.
   
   In two different communications (1 text and 1 email), Amberii invited the MIQ to meet with her and her husband in private in her home, as old friends, so they could speak face to face and reason together.
   
   Additionally, Amberli invited the MIQ by email to meet with the couples who witnessed and were negatively affected by his abusive behavior in the UK, the incidents which were the subject of Council 1. Denver and Stephanie Snuffer would be included in this meeting as moderators. All couples and the MIQ were invited to this meeting. The MIQ responded with a refusal to meet with Amberli under any condition. [See Attempted Reasoning emails here].
   
   
4. The Disputer agreed to pause her campaign against Council 2 to allow mediation and reasoning together to take place directly among those impacted by the situation. The Disputer agreed to allow time for this to happen.
   
   Within 4 days of the 10 hour mediation, despite the efforts and concessions put forth by WCL2 to reason together, the Disputer made the unilateral decision that “mediation failed” and announced her intentions to move forward with the Women’s Conference as a result. 
   
   

On March 14, 2025, Women’s Council 2 received two documents containing the Disputer’s agenda for the conference proceedings. These included three pre-conference Zoom meetings to take place on March 23, 30, and April 6, 2025. Women’s Council 2 was notified on Sunday, March 16, 2025 that the Disputer would make a public announcement about the intentions for the April WCF. Having already provided sound reasoning and explanation for all complaints presented, and having already extended the invitations agreed to as concessions, the council was confused as to why the Disputer insisted that “mediation failed”, and therefore were confused about what the Disputer planned for the conference. 

On March 17, 2025 Women’s Council 2 was notified of the rules the Disputers required the council to obey, and the deadlines they were expected to meet regarding the Zoom meetings. However, the Council lacked any information about what exactly the Disputers needed from us and what the Council was actually defending. Women’s Council 2 expressed their concerns to the Disputers in an email on March 21, 2025. Part of the Disputers response was:

[MIQ] was given less than 1 week to plan and prepare everything for his council by himself. There are 14 of you and you have had at least 5x as much advance notice as he was given.

He was expected to do so with no knowledge of the complaints against him. You have known of [WD’s] complaints since WCL1 and were given a very detailed packet of complaints and evidence 5 weeks ago. Additionally, we have given you an outline that you may or may not choose to follow. It was meant to help you organize your defense to facilitate maximum understanding by the WCF. We would like for the women to understand you to the best of their ability.

[MIQ] was not asked for his input on any matters nor given the opportunity to mediate. You were given the opportunity to mediate. I have asked and am asking again for you to give your input on the structure if you believe something about it is unfair.I do not see how you can claim that [MIQ] was given a fair deadline to prepare while simultaneously claiming that you have not. By your own reasoning, either you’re both being treated fairly, or you’re both being treated unfairly.
 

Perhaps we are not as intelligent as presumed, but the women of Council 2 were genuinely confused by the documents submitted by the Disputers. The majority of the evidence presented referred to Council 1—yet not all of the women from that council have been included in this ongoing process. Despite this, we have made sincere efforts to reason with the Disputers throughout, engaging on many points in good faith. However, they have remained firmly committed to their disputes, their structure, and their decisions in most matters. 

Coordinating among 14 women takes considerably more time than coordinating with one individual. We have requested certain modifications to the WCF process to ensure fairness. 

For instance: 

• Since all 14 of us have been charged with unrighteousness, we requested additional time during the Conference to respond—so that each of us might be afforded the same consideration as the Woman Disputer. That request was denied. 
  

• Some members of our council are unable to arrive promptly at 8 am and asked for a slight time adjustment to accommodate not only ourselves but other women attending. That request was also denied. 
  

• We also heard from our sisters around the world, including two council members who are unable to attend in person, requesting Zoom access. That request was denied. 
  

• Finally, we proposed online voting to enable broader participation—yet that, too, was denied.
  
  

On Sunday, March 23, 2025, Women’s Council 2 informed the Disputers that they would be responsible for their own documents. In response, Women’s Council 2 created their own website to have more control over their documents, evidence, and related materials. The website, 14unanimous.org went live Sunday, March 23, 2025.

On March 24, 2025, Women’s Council 2 received an email from the Disputer containing legal-sounding language in response to our council’s request for copyright protection of our work. The threat carries no legal merit and was viewed as an intimidation tactic rather than a substantive concern.

On Sunday, March 30, 2025, during a Zoom meeting hosted by the Disputers, it was revealed for the first time that both Women’s Council 1 and Women’s Council 2 are considered to be on trial, and that both councils are considered to be an extension of a singular trial for the MIQ. Until that moment, neither council had been formally informed of this framing or notified that they were being judged in such a manner. 

A final deadline of March 31, 2025 was given to the Women for Council 1 and 2 to submit all evidence and supporting documents to a ”neutral” party (a family member of one of the disputers) for review and approval. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet that deadline.  However, we met twice last week via Zoom with the Disputers and Stephanie in an attempt to petition them for online viewing and voting during the Conference. As stated previously, those requests have been denied.

During the final meeting, we clearly stated that we were in the process of preparing our defense of Council 1 and would publish it as soon as it was completed. It can now be found here. 

The disputers chose the fight, set the rules, selected the dates, determined the venue, and outlined the agenda. They decided on the Zoom meetings, weekly discussion topics, and deadlines. They even chose the “neutral party” to approve our documents, established the rules of engagement, and decided who would have the privilege of voting and who would not.

The Councils have been forced to petition the disputers for any changes, as the disputers have controlled every aspect of this trial. From the beginning, the disputers have referred to the Councils as “illegitimate” and “unjust”. On June 20, 2024, the Lord said:

“I have given direction and it is not wise for the women to be commanded in every particular, but it is also not wise for the direction I have given to be used to achieve a predetermined outcome. The outcome should be based on, and the result of, what is learned in the council.”

“Let the women call a conference at a suitable time and place convenient to allow interested women to attend.”

“Reason together and draw upon the experiences from those past women’s councils. Let the women learn to come to agreement.”

“The voice of that conference decides all matters raised.”

“And I remind you that the majority of those who vote decide the voice of the conference of women.”

It seems that, despite all the professed concern the disputers have for following the exact process the Lord has established for Women’s Councils, they have chosen to ignore the instructions given to them regarding this conference. This was never intended to be a conference for women to reason together, but rather to achieve a predetermined outcome at all costs. Nevertheless, below we share our defense of Women’s Council 1.

---

WCL1 was a completely different and separate event from WCL2 with different sets of organizers, a different set of council members, a different home fellowship, different council members who were acquainted with the man’s daily walk, different charges, different witnesses, different evidence, different processes, and a verdict that failed to revoke his certificate. Therefore, because WCL1 was a completely different event from WCL2, the “evidence” the disputers have against WCL1 has nothing to do with how WCL2 was conducted. 

Furthermore, if a person was not in attendance at either council and therefore not an actual witness to any of the proceedings, was not privy to any of the evidence or witnesses, has no jurisdiction for either council, and has never even spoken to a council member to learn the truth of the matter, how can they stand in judgement and conclude that the council was “unjust,” “unrighteous,” or “illegitimate?” Especially since not all communication, viewpoints or discussion is represented by email correspondence that one is forced to use to try to piece together an accurate story with important context missing. 

The claim is that WCL1 did not follow fair and just processes, including notifying the MIQ, and for these reasons he chose not to attend WCL2. To the WCL2 members, one conference organizer said, “The Lord’s June 20th revelation is directly addressing the topics of our dispute as my complaints are all regarding the fairness of how the Man in Question’s trial was held.” She directly states that her complaints stem from the June 20th revelation where the Lord counseled the women to remember the protections given in the Bill of Rights “as they decide how to conduct councils involving those accused of transgressing the laws of God.” (Denver Snuffer blog, July 19, 2024, Full Text of June 20 Revelation). 

Although we did honor those protections in WCL2, we would like to remind everyone that this revelation was given after WCL2, so therefore we cannot be charged with not following the Bill of Rights, as stated in that revelation because that had not yet been given. At the time WCL2 was held in April 2024, the direction from the Lord included only what can be found in the T&C and in Preserving the Restoration, specifically pp. 511-512.

We’d like to also point out that the disputers clearly state their complaints are only about process, yet their proposed remedy is for the MIQ to get his certificate back, without regard for the reasons for which it was tried in WCL1, and tried and suspended in WCL2, and without following the process the Lord outlined for reinstatement of a certificate. The Lord has clearly outlined the process for restoring a certificate, and they are seeking to circumvent it by labeling the Councils as illegitimate, therefore bypassing the need to follow the Lord’s instruction for reinstatement.

One other note: having been commanded by the Lord to keep Women’s Councils private (T&C 157:57), most council members of WCL1 have gone to great lengths to obey the Lord and protect the man by keeping this information confidential. Therefore, we post only the relevant information below merely to demonstrate that WCL1 followed the Lord’s processes in how we conducted that council. 

Signed,

The women who served on both Women’s Council 1 & Women’s Council 2

---

DISPUTE #5: The man was not allowed to attend the council to “speak on his behalf”.

Disputers’ Reasoning:  The MIQ was not afforded the opportunity to “speak on his behalf” to a full and fair capacity and bring witnesses, therefore this council is illegitimate.

DEFENSE: This requirement was satisfied. 

The MIQ was invited to speak on his behalf. He chose not to provide witnesses. In addition, the Lord has given no provisions for labeling a council either “legitimate” or “illegitimate.” 

Preserving the Restoration, pg. 510 says, “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.” No such instruction exists in T&C 157:57 or 175:32. 

When notified of the council, the man asked if it could be postponed until the April conference in New York. The organizers felt a strong sense of urgency to convene a council due to the man’s behavior, which raised safety concerns for his wife and others within the movement. The organizers felt a deep and pressing responsibility to act in accordance with the Lord’s instructions—that women are to hold a council when a man’s behavior is called into question.They believed firmly that the Lord has entrusted women with the responsibility of serving as gatekeepers of men’s certificates, and in doing so, as guardians of the community. This conviction stirred their consciences and compelled them to act. 

The organizers sincerely believed they were fulfilling a God-given responsibility—one they approached with solemnity and great care. Furthermore, one of the organizers, Jennifer B. had been pondering on holding a council since events in Israel one year earlier. She did not feel the decision to hold this council was made in haste. Since the man lived overseas with no plans or even the means to return to the US, the organizers felt that waiting for April was not an option. Online participation was also not feasible due to the man’s admittedly unreliable internet connection, no computer, and the time difference between the countries.

Furthermore, considering the behavioral history of the MIQ and the violent nature of the charges being brought to the council, the organizers were very concerned for the safety of everyone involved should the man be present for the council. So the question they heavily considered was how could they obey the instruction in Preserving the Restoration to allow the man “to speak on his behalf” while still protecting the participants involved? 

The phrase “speak on his behalf” does not necessarily mean “in person.” People often “speak on their behalf” through their written words, through audio recordings, or through video. Even the Lord Himself has used written scripture to “speak on His behalf” for millennia. 

After carefully studying the matter and after much fasting and prayer for guidance on how to proceed, the organizers made the decision that the man would not be allowed to attend the council in person, however, he would be allowed to “speak on his behalf” via any other means he chooses— by video, text, audio recording, email, mailed letter, etc. The organizers then presented their concerns, their decision, and their reasoning for their decision to the council.

Allowing the man to be present was a major point of discussion during the first Council meeting. Some members felt that the man must be present to speak for himself. But many others, because they knew the man well, expressed concern for their safety and feared retaliation against them for daring to hold him accountable for his sinful behavior should he be present for the proceedings. After much discussion on the matter, the council voted on whether the man must be physically present or participate live virtually (which wasn’t a reliable option), or if his participation through email, text, audio or pre-recorded video would be sufficient to satisfy the PTR instruction that he “speak on his behalf.”

The council voted to accept the process presented by the organizers, as it provided protection for all participants, while still obeying the Lord’s instructions. It was voted that the man could send his defense in any number of ways— by video, audio, email, or text to address the charges, but that he would not be permitted to attend in person.

---

DISPUTE #6:  Due process violations – The council members presumed the man guilty prior to hearing testimony and evidence.

Disputers’ Reasoning: While statements about a person’s reputation are admissible in U.S. courts as part of character witness testimony, reputation cannot be the basis for violating someone’s due process rights. 

What we think they are trying to say: The fear of anger, retaliation, or violence toward the women are not valid reasons to prevent the MIQ from attending in person.

Side note: The contention that U.S. courts do not take the reputation of the defendant into consideration is patently false. Defendants routinely appear in court in handcuffs and shackles, or even appear by video precisely because of a reputation of violence. Furthermore, the U.S. legal system has witness protection programs and jury anonymity to protect those who serve in legal proceedings. Women’s councils have no such protection.

DEFENSE: This did not occur. 

When does a women’s council begin? The Lord has stated in the June 20, 2024 revelation, that “the outcome should be based on, and the result of, what is learned in the council.” Once Council 1 organizers had selected their council members and sent the initial invitation, the council was formed and was in session, considering the matter at hand. Emailing the council members pertinent documents, witness statements, and emails was in the scope of carrying out their duties as council members. Throughout Council 1, council members reasoned with each other via email regarding a number of items, discussed in person the written statements and evidence presented by email beforehand, voted during the two zoom sessions, and labored together as a council. Therefore, the emailing of charges, witness statements, and other pertinent details was not due to a presumption of guilt but rather was within the scope of the council as it was in session and acting as a body. 

DEFENSE 2: A women’s council is called when someone questions a man’s behavior and feels it's worth discussing whether the community should trust him to act in the name of the Lord. Naturally, the woman (or women) calling the council brings her own perspective that the man’s behavior is unacceptable, but the onus is on her to convince all 12 council members to reach the same conclusion.

However, If one woman enters with a predetermined outcome to retain, she can personally influence the outcome as her vote would be the deciding one. While all 12 must agree to revoke, it only takes one woman committed to protecting the man to control the council’s outcome. In this case, that woman is the one the Lord is most directly speaking to, as it’s more likely one person will act on their own judgment than for all 12 to have colluded together beforehand. As Denver stated: “It is hard to get unanimity. I think that is for a reason. It substitutes for a burden of proof, meaning that to get everyone in agreement would (should) require something like clear and convincing proof.” (“Questions about women’s councils”, Blogpost, January 18, 2024)

DEFENSE 3: The fundamental issue underlying the disputer’s charge is one of mistrust.  Without knowing the hearts of the women involved in Council 1, the disputers automatically assume that because the charges and witness statements were sent to the council while the council was in session, but before meeting in person for the first time, it must automatically follow that the organizers were feeding a presumption of guilt. This is a false accusation. Several council members have testified that they came to the council without any knowledge of the behaviors in question, and with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It is impossible to judge the hearts and intentions of all 13 council members. We would be wise not to presume authority to do so and to accuse them all of conspired wrongdoing.

 

DEFENSE 4: None of the charges presented during Council 1 were based upon private or “he said/she said” accusations that required discerning between conflicting stories. Instead, each charge involved public actions that were witnessed by multiple individuals and caused widespread concern. When numerous people witness for themselves a singular action or multiple actions of a man in a singular event, it becomes difficult for the man in question to credibly deny those actions. For this reason, the witness testimonies presented in Council 1 were especially compelling, and most council members found the MIQ’s defenses to be disingenuous. 

 

DEFENSE 5: Over the course of a two week period, two sessions were convened for the council proceedings. Towards the beginning of the first session, since the witness testimonies were in writing and had been sent to the council prior to the meeting, an initial vote was conducted just to get a feel for how the council members felt about the situation. The reasoning for this vote was based on counsel from Denver in his talk "Things to keep us awake at night", page 14. "Seven women must sustain, one being the wife, if the man is married. Before sustaining, in any fellowship group, you should first ask if any are opposed. If there are people who are opposed, they should be given the opportunity to explain the reasons before there is any further vote taken, so that they know why there is opposition. Those who vote to sustain should consider the opposing views and the opposition’s reasons and deliberate about that before they go forward. But if seven women are still willing to sustain, go forward."

Though Denver is speaking about sustaining a man in his priesthood, the organizers felt that this reasoning could also apply when considering the removal of a certificate. Therefore, after reading the charges and witness statements, and after the Man in Question refused to “speak on his behalf”, an initial vote was taken at the beginning of the first council meeting, in order to gauge whether enough had been shared for the council members to revoke their trust from the man.

During the first session, the council did not reach unanimity. Some women requested additional time to consider the matter more thoroughly, others wished to question the witnesses directly, and a few felt the MIQ should be given more time to respond to the charges. In light of these concerns, the council decided to allow for more time so that the women could be sufficiently informed to make a sound and righteous decision. 

---

DISPUTE #7:  Due process violations – Predetermined Outcome and Jury tampering / Jury Bias

Disputer’s Reasoning: Women’s Council 2 was headed by one of the same organizers and contained 8 of the women from Women’s Council 1, therefore they purposely “stacked the deck” against the man to include women who would automatically vote to revoke.

DEFENSE: This did not occur. 

First, the women from Women’s Council 1 do not see how this dispute applies to their council other than what is stated previously in charge 4. See the defense for that charge. Furthermore, the women who served on Council 1 were carefully selected by Jennifer Bowler and Amberli Peterson to not only fulfill the requirement to include women from the MIQ’s fellowship and women who were acquainted with his daily walk, but they also selected women who were viewed to be of high moral character.

DEFENSE 2: After the first council concluded, the Smedleys, with whom the MIQ had been living for months in the UK, felt impressed to contact Amberli Peterson (they had met her when she traveled to the UK in November 2023 to speak). The Smedley’s did not know that Amberli had been involved in the first council. They reached out to her to express their concerns regarding the man’s behavior they had witnessed, and a second council began to be formed.  Amberli asked Cherry Ann Redd and Whitney Horning to assist her. They determined that they absolutely could not retry the same charges, nor use the same evidence as council 1 as that council had concluded.

Therefore, the organizers of Council 2 made sure that their council brought different charges and different evidence so there could not be a predetermined outcome. There is NO requirement anywhere that successive councils cannot be held for the same man, or draw from the same pool of women. A woman may serve in multiple councils. However, these organizers desired to form an entirely new council. They reached out to over 18 women to participate. However, due to scheduling conflicts, health issues, concern about backlash for participating because of the notoriety of the MIQ, and other reasons, they were only able to obtain 6 new women. They began reaching out to council 1 members, beginning with the 2 alternates as they had not voted in Council 1, until they had enough women to serve on the council.

The 6 new women had very little to no understanding of what had happened in Council 1 when they agreed to serve on Council 2. This was to ensure that there was NO “jury tampering” or “jury bias” involved in the council proceedings. Again, It only takes one woman to retain a man’s certificate.

Side Note: The disputer has claimed that Council 2 "stacked the deck" by not including the two women who previously voted for the MIQ to retain his certificate during Council 1. However, including those same women would also be a form of stacking the deck. If those women had already made their decision in the first council, how could they be expected to render a different verdict in the second? Would their presence have truly made the second council more unbiased—or simply repeated the outcome of the first?

This is a valid and important question for the women of the movement to consider.

If women are hesitant to serve on a council, and the organizers have a very limited pool of potential members—either from the man’s home fellowship (which may be very small) or among those familiar with his daily walk—how do we ensure that council members are unbiased?

Additionally, the women who organize councils are already somewhat biased by nature of their involvement—they are often the ones who have witnessed the concerning behavior that prompted the council in the first place.

So how do we, as women, form completely unbiased councils when these constraints are at play?

It may be that forming a truly unbiased council is, in practice, nearly impossible. But perhaps our aim should not be perfection, but rather transparency, humility, and a sincere effort to follow the Lord’s instructions as faithfully as possible—even in complex, imperfect situations.

---

DISPUTE #8: Due process violations – The Right to a Public Trial, or at least transparency for the accused.

Disputers’ Reasoning:  The constitution guarantees the right to a public trial, thus ensuring accountability and transparency. The accused has the right to be present at trial and also to receive any transcripts or recordings that exist. In a letter written “to the movement” WCL2 makes a public statement informing the community that they had voted to remove the MIQ’s certificate. This is sufficient to prevent him from performing ordinances in public and is therefore all that the WCL should be divulging publicly about a hearing they claimed to want to keep private. The actual charges should not have been stated.

DEFENSE 1: Although a matter of opinion on process, this was satisfied.

First, this dispute conflates both councils and tries to marry actual rights with opinions. Obviously the Lord’s command for privacy prevents divulging the details or content of a council. For Council 1, the MIQ was sent a detailed list of the charges and questions to be answered in his defense. The council was held in private, as the Lord instructed. The nature of the charges were never divulged to the movement at large and have been kept private. Furthermore, Council 1 resulted in the MIQ retaining his priesthood certificate, therefore, there was no need to alert the community. Keeping the council a private matter, including the council members involved, was in the man’s best interest so as to protect his “innocence.”

DEFENSE 2: "The actual charges should not have been stated" is a matter of opinion. Shouldn't it be the right of the council to decide if the community needs to be alerted to a man's offenses?

DEFENSE 3:  Nowhere does the Lord require that recordings and transcripts be made of council meetings. Nor does it say in any instruction that the MIQ or his supporters are entitled to the transcripts and recordings. Therefore, not having them is irrelevant to the process required by the Lord.

Furthermore, there was no intent to obscure or withhold information from anyone. Amberli Peterson inadvertently failed to press record for the Zoom meeting of the first session of Council 1 and did not realize that she hadn't saved the recording of session 2, simply due to inexperience with Zoom technology. Her failure to record, keep a recording or make any transcript does not mean the requirements for following the Lord’s process were broken.

The notice of revocation sent to the MIQ at the conclusion of Council 2 stated that a transcript and recording would be made. The intention was that once he asked for reinstatement, those records would be shared with him at that time. However, the MIQ has not yet contacted the council for reinstatement. Furthermore, the recording was on one of the council members work computers which underwent a data dump and was consequently lost before a transcript of the 7-hour proceeding was made. The fact that there is no directive to save and transcribe recordings of councils means that this dispute is therefore unfounded.

Side Note: We have heard that the disputers do have a transcript of Council 1. If this is true, then we are perplexed as to how they obtained it, as the council organizers did not make one. If a transcript was obtained fraudulently (i.e. a trusted council member secretly recorded the sessions and sent those recordings or transcripts to the disputers) then a legal court would also find these as inadmissible. Not to mention it’s both morally and ethically wrong and violates the confidentiality and integrity expected of council members. It is our hope that the integrity of the women who served, and the sacred process they participated in, will be respected by all who seek truth and justice.

DEFENSE 3: The MIQ was invited to speak on his own behalf for Women’s Council 1 and was invited to attend Women’s Council 2. He chose not to participate in the second council. Notably, one of the primary disputers of both Council 1 and Council 2 had herself organized a Women’s Council in 2017. At that time, she believed the man’s behavior was serious enough that the entire movement needed to be warned. She also created a website where council decisions can be posted and fellowships warned. Given this history, the women of Council 2 reject this dispute. In publicly sharing the results of our council, we were simply following the very precedent she helped establish..

DEFENSE 4: The statement to the movement had purpose beyond merely preventing the Man in Question from acting without a valid certificate. The women involved also felt the need to inform the movement at large that the Man in Question’s actions presented a danger to the community. Using courtroom logic, charges and convictions are a matter of public record for this very purpose. Further, certain crimes that threaten community safety require extraordinary notice to the community (for example offender registries). No details of the Man in Question’s actions were given, but the charges were entirely appropriate to make known for the community’s protection. There is nothing in the Lord’s directions preventing a WCL from taking steps to protect the community by making general information about offenders known.

---

DISPUTE #9: Due process considerations – Statute of Limitations & Double Jeopardy

Disputers’ Reasoning:  The Man in Question’s ex-wife of 15 years was contacted in an effort to dig up further evidence to support a guilty verdict. The Man in Question’s own daughter testified “a lady named Amberly” repeatedly called her mother “because she was on a ‘mission’ to ‘bring down’ and ‘expose’ our dad.”

DEFENSE 1: This did not occur.

First, this pertains to Council 2. The disputers’ had believed that Council 2 “fired” the two women who had voted to retain the certificate in Council 1, found replacements who would “vote to revoke” no matter what, and retried the entire case again. To be precise, in the U.S. legal system, “Double Jeopardy” only applies to cases where the jury acquits the criminal. To be technical, if we are to apply the U.S. legal system directly to Women’s Councils, then a vote to retain by 2 women would be considered a “hung jury” which can be retried. However, for the sake of argument, we acknowledge that we agree that if a women’s council votes to retain, even if by only 1 vote, the matter can be considered settled. The disputers’ further reason that because 8 out of 14 women participated in both Council 1 and Council 2 this added to the appearance of double jeopardy. We state again, Council 2 brought new organizers, new council members, new charges, new evidence, and new witnesses.

DEFENSE 2: The statement by the MIQ’s daughter is a mis-statement. Amberli called her one time to ask the MIQ’s ex-wife a question about some very concerning _______________ that the Man in Question was involved in which had come to light after the first council concluded.

DEFENSE 3: Where has the Lord placed limits on what can and cannot be done to investigate a man’s behavior? Further, where has the Lord limited how far back in time a man can be investigated when there is a pattern of ongoing, long-standing behavior that must be understood?

In general, statutes of limitations are put in place to prevent bringing charges against a person for crimes committed “too long ago.” While the idea could certainly have a place in women’s councils (e.g., where a person could have changed their ways in the 15 years since something untoward was done, or been rebaptized as a sign of repentance), it did not apply to any of the charges addressed in the second council. All were related to very recent events.

DEFENSE 4: Is it Righteous to “be on a mission” to “bring down” and “expose” wickedness among us? Or is it merely Virtuous?
“…that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them.” (T&C 139:15) Perhaps there are things about the Man in Question’s behavior that the disputers simply don’t know, which needed to be revealed. In fact, the more his behavior was examined, the more evidence surfaced.

---

DISPUTE #10: A council member was released from the council for disagreeing with the organizers. Once a council is formed, members cannot be removed for having differing opinions.

DEFENSE: This claim is untrue, based on misinformation and is the opinion of the Disputers. 

Nowhere in any instructions (either from the Lord or in a court of law) does it state that a council member cannot be removed once a council is formed. There are many valid reasons a woman may need to be dismissed—for example, if she is found to be involved in or helping the man cover up the sins presented to the council, if she has made it clear that she entered the council with a predetermined outcome to retain or revoke the man’s certificate regardless of the evidence, or if she has broken the trust of the council by sharing confidential information she agreed not to disclose. 

The organizers of a council are responsible for inviting the women to participate. Therefore, and as such, they also have the right to release a member should it become clear that her continued participation would result in injustice to either the man or to the community. The claim that a woman can never be removed is simply the opinion of the disputers and is unfounded.

DEFENSE 2: During the week between the two sessions, the organizers became aware that two council members had been independently communicating with the MIQ, despite prior agreement not to do so. One had expressed during the first session that, regardless of the council’s decision, should the vote be to revoke, she intended to assist him in obtaining another certificate the following day. She also disagreed that a council should hold the MIQ accountable for his abusive behavior toward his wife while not holding his wife accountable also. She also made it clear that she viewed any charges related to a man's abusive behavior toward his wife as "a marriage issue," and therefore believed the council had no jurisdiction to judge whether he should be trusted to act in the name of the Lord if his behavior toward his wife was involved in the matter. All of this raised concerns among the organizers about this council member’s ability to remain impartial. However, she was allowed to remain on the council.

The other council member, a close friend of the MIQ who had been in communication with him despite agreeing to refrain from contact, was also communicating with the Disputer. She allowed the Disputer to attempt to insert herself into and control the council by using her to forward the Disputer’s communications. This was highly disconcerting and disruptive to the council members, leading to a breach of trust. Due to concerns about confidentiality and the integrity of the council's process, the organizers made the difficult decision to dismiss this council member for violating her agreement and breaching the council trust. She was dismissed for her actions, not her opinions. 

Her position was then temporarily filled by a new woman who was willing to step in. The dismissed member later offered a sincere apology to the council for her involvement with the Disputer, expressed understanding and remorse for why she was dismissed, and affirmed her commitment to maintain confidentiality and respect the council’s agreed-upon process moving forward. Taking her at her word, the organizers reinstated her to the council. [Please see email correspondence here]

Side Note: The disputers are trying to prove that contention within the council proceedings somehow leads to an unjust council. One claim they make is that “three of the women” on Council 1 stated in that council that they “HATE the MIQ”.

To be clear, none of the women who served on both Council 1 and Council 2 remember anyone making that claim. There were women who stated that they have been aware of concerning behaviors for years yet dared not bring the man to a council, but regardless, the women maintain that they were looking for any opportunity to extend forgiveness and grace to the man.

---

CONCLUSION

We the women of Women’s Council 1 did our best to acknowledge and follow the Lord’s instructions to the best of our understanding, with careful deliberation, reverence, and concern for all involved. We acknowledge that a Women’s Council is a sacred and weighty matter and should never be approached lightly, nor wielded carelessly. Throughout the process, we sought continual guidance from the Lord, took counsel together, and aimed always to protect the innocent, invite repentance, and preserve truth.

The claims against WCL1 reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual process, timeline, and spiritual discernment that took place. Many of the accusations stem from assumptions made by individuals who were not present, were not witnesses, and have not sought first hand understanding. Despite this, we have endeavored here to clearly and respectfully respond to each concern raised.

The Lord does not provide labels such as “legitimate” or “illegitimate” for councils in His scriptures. What He requires is faith, unity, honesty, and integrity among the women He calls to judge matters of priesthood in their communities. We met those requirements.

To date, no evidence has been brought forward that the council failed to meet the scriptural criteria outlined in T&C 157:57 or acted contrary to the teachings found in Preserving the Restoration. Instead, we have shown that:

• The council was properly convened by women who were acquainted with the man’s daily walk.
  

• The man was given the opportunity to speak on his behalf through multiple formats and invitations.
  

• The women were not coerced, misled, or manipulated but acted independently with solemn responsibility.
  

• The process was confidential, prayerful, and carefully executed according to the light and knowledge we had at the time.
  
  

As Denver Snuffer wisely noted, “It is hard to get unanimity. I think that is for a reason. It substitutes for a burden of proof, meaning that to get everyone in agreement would (should) require something like clear and convincing proof.” ("Questions About Women’s Councils," Jan 18, 2024)

In the end, this council did not revoke the man’s certificate. That outcome alone should silence all accusations of bias, vengeance, or illegitimacy. If our intent was to condemn, we failed. But if our intent was to seek the truth in righteousness, protect the community, and obey the Lord—we succeeded.

We stand by the integrity of Women’s Council 1.