WCL1 History

History of Women’s Council 1 for the MIQ

During a pre-conference Zoom meeting held on March 30, 2025, we learned that the processes engaged in by the women of Women’s Council 1 are now also being disputed along with the processes of Women’s Council 2. Furthermore, the conference organizers have stated that they intend to use “evidence” from WCL1 against WCL2 to somehow prove that WCL2 was an unjust council. The women who served on both Council 1 and 2 contend that the two councils have nothing to do with each other beyond the fact that six of the same women sat on both councils and that both councils were held for the same man.

Furthermore, when asked for clarification on what they are disputing exactly, since the MIQ retained his certificate in that council, the organizers simply stated that they dispute that Council 2 was the Lord’s council because women from Council 1 served on it.

We state that Women’s Council 1 and Women’s Council 2 were completely separate councils 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 different outcomes. Because WCL1 was a completely different and separate event from WCL2, the “evidence” against council members of WCL1 has nothing to do with how WCL2 was conducted. We therefore reject the evidence the disputers have produced from Council 1 as it is entirely irrelevant to Council 2.
We believe that the reason the disputers are using “evidence” from Council 1 (which failed to produce a unanimous vote and therefore absolved the man of his need for repentance) against Council 2 is because they wish to overturn the unanimous verdict to revoke his priesthood certificate which was achieved in Council 2, but lack any evidence of any wrongdoing or injustice inflicted by the women of Council 2 toward the man in that council. Therefore, they must use the “evidence” against the women of Council 1 to try to overturn the decision of Council 2.
In Amberli Peterson’s invitation sent beginning December 24, 2023 to the women who served on Council 1, she stated, “We ask that you…keep it in strict confidence, discussing it with no one except your husband to preserve the integrity of the process and to avoid any rumors that could derail or taint the proceedings.” Council members were also verbally advised that they were agreeing to avoid any outside communication with the Man in Question during the proceedings and to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all matters related to the council. This was done to protect the MIQ, witnesses, and council members, as the matter was highly sensitive. [see WCL1 Documents : Exhibit A-Invitation to Council Members 12:24:23]

Amberli reiterated the gravity of this concern again a month later on 1/22/24, the day after the council concluded, stating, “Therefore, we want to remind all who participated over these past few weeks that every single statement, email, and testimony that was in any way connected to this council is considered extremely confidential. Please keep everything you saw/heard/read as participants confidential, including and especially the identities of the other council members.” Every woman agreed to these conditions upon her acceptance of the invitation. Since the man was absolved of his need to repent, and for the protection of his “innocence”, it was in the best interest of all involved to keep the matter confidential and simply move on.
We are deeply concerned about how the disputers came to possess what they are now presenting as “evidence.” Most of this material appears to come from private and confidential communications—including emails, transcripts, and audio recordings—shared among the women of Council 1 and in conversations with the Man in Question. As the disputers were not involved in either council, they would not have had appropriate access to this information. Its current circulation raises serious concerns about a breach of trust and confidentiality by someone within the council. This situation is disheartening, as it suggests a departure from the principles of discretion, integrity, and respect for the Lord’s guidance regarding the private nature of a Women’s Council.
Furthermore, by sharing confidential materials as “evidence,” the conference organizers risk amplifying what amounts to gossip by giving it a public platform and requiring all attendees to listen before being permitted to vote. This approach raises significant concerns, especially regarding whether full and informed consent was obtained from all members of Council 1 to share their private communications—messages originally exchanged in what was understood to be a confidential and trusted environment. In fact, the members of Council 2 who also served on Council 1 had specifically expressed that such materials were not to be shared or used in any way.

It’s also important to note that, because the disputers were not part of Council 1, their access to and use of this information would likely raise legal and ethical concerns. In legal contexts, such material might be considered improperly obtained, sometimes referred to as “tainted evidence” or “fruit of the poisonous tree,” which is generally deemed inadmissible in formal proceedings.
The evidence the disputers are bringing forth from Council 1 is very selective, omits pertinent information and context regarding the process and the behavior of the MIQ, and is not the whole story. Never actually hearing from or discussing the truth of the matter with any council member directly, and not having every interaction, meeting, conversation or voice, be recorded in email, their evidence for “injustice” is based solely on misinformation, lack of information, hearsay, gossip, and assumptions made by the disputers and the disgruntled Man in Question. It is missing important context and key information, is highly redacted to skew the reader’s understanding of the facts, and is framed to paint the MIQ as a victim of injustice created by both Women’s Councils, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

FACTS OF WOMEN’S COUNCIL 1

We offer the following facts to clear up the confusion that continues to swirl around Council 1.

Jennifer Bowler [who did not serve on Council 2] and Amberli Peterson were the co-organizers of Women’s Council 1. Amberli had never organized or participated in a women’s council prior to this one.
The organizers studied all instruction and scripture thus far given, and prayerfully considered how they applied to the council at hand. They followed every instruction the Lord had given up to that point, and explained to the council their sound reasoning for the decisions regarding the process that they had made. After much discussion in the first council meeting, the council then voted to accept the process the organizers had established. With a majority voting to accept the process, the council proceeded as planned.
Jennifer Bowler fully believed and understood the Man in Question to be in her online home fellowship. She and her husband have been very close friends to the man for years. [See letter from Brian Bowler] Jennifer called on women in their fellowship to sit on the council. Amberli assisted in finding other women to help sit on the council. She searched for women who have known the man for years. Because several of the women on the council had fellowshipped with the Man in Question in various capacities, one was a family member, and one had been one of his best friend’s for many years, Jennifer and Amberli felt confident that they were holding the council in the man’s home fellowship and that they had met the Lord’s requirement for “daily walk.”
Several close friends of the Man in Question personally discussed his concerning behavior with him, and invited him to repentance before a council was even called. In every instance, the man refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and ignored the invitation to repent. [See statements here].
Though the MIQ was already aware that a council was being formed, and aware of the reasons why, the organizers also notified him of the council and explained the charges against him on January 11, 2024. The charges were detailed, he was asked to answer several questions, and he was invited to "speak on his behalf." A total of four emails were sent to the MIQ from the council organizers: One with the council notice and charges, one answering his questions, and two more with a list of specific questions from the council members. He was repeatedly invited to respond to the charges via email, text, audio recording, or video. He was given ample opportunity and a deadline to respond, allowing the council members time to review, consider, and pray about his defense. Additionally, two of his mutual friends personally discussed the council with him and offered to help convey his responses to the organizers. At least one council member also attempted to contact him to encourage him to defend himself. [See documents here]
The women on the Council were sent all of the charges and witness statements before the first session began on January 14, 2024 in order to give them time to study and pray over the matter before convening in person.
All charges considered in Council 1 were based on deeply concerning, violent and, frankly, abusive behavior witnessed by multiple individuals simultaneously during two separate occasions overseas. The charges were not rooted in "he said / she said" accusations; rather, the same events were personally observed by and had a negative impact on multiple members of the Covenant body of believers who witnessed the behaviors.
The first of two council meetings took place via Zoom on January 14, 2024. After extensive discussion about procedure, a vote was taken to adopt the process that the organizers had prayerfully established. This process was heavily influenced by the serious nature of the charges and the known violent history of the MIQ, as well as multiple threats towards those who testified of his behaviors. 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.

During the meeting, several council members requested that a second meeting be convened a week later, to provide more time:
- For the MIQ to “speak on his behalf” by responding to the charges
- For the MIQ to send witnesses if he wanted them
- Some wanted to hear from the witnesses directly
- Some wanted to hear from the wife of the MIQ (the victim of the battery), who up until that point, had not been asked to participate at all.
  
  After reasoning together, it was agreed that these requests would be honored and a second meeting was set to convene a week later.
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 violent and 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 "just a marriage issue," and therefore believed the council had no jurisdiction to discuss 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.

The other council member had also been in contact with the Disputer. This communication created a channel through which the Disputer inserted herself into the process in ways that were disruptive to the council members and council process. 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 breach of trust.

Her position was then temporarily filled by another 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 documents here] [AND Here]
Because of the rapidly evolving circumstances and council changes, two alternate members had already been invited to participate in the final session. All witness statements and evidence up to that point, being in written form, were sent to the new council member and alternates so they could be fully informed before the second meeting.These developments all occurred in the 24 hours leading up to the council’s second and final session.
The second Council proceeding convened on Jan. 21, 2024, to provide the man more time to “speak on his behalf” and to hear from the witnesses and the wife.
The 2 alternates attended only the second session. Since there were then 13 council members in attendance who intended to vote, the alternates did not participate in the proceedings other than to be in attendance and hear the proceedings, in case they were needed later. They did not vote.
Although the MIQ responded to the request to “speak on his behalf” 5 separate times, he refused to actually answer to the charges, answer any questions, or even explain his side in those responses. The deadline to receive his defense came and went. In his 6th response, the man finally sent a 9 page letter to the individual council member who disagreed with holding a council for “a marriage dispute”. This council member forwarded the man’s response to the council on the morning of the second proceeding. Despite the man not having respected the deadline or the organizers’ request to respond to them directly, the council was grateful that he had finally responded. His defense was read aloud and considered during the council proceeding. [Please see Documents Here].
During the proceeding, the council watched a 30-min video testimony sent by the man’s wife, providing her perspective of the events and behaviors that led to the council and the charges that were brought against him. In her testimony she formally revoked her support for her husband to hold a priesthood certificate. The MIQ was also encouraged to send a video response, but he refused.
At the request of several council members, the other witnesses involved were also asked to offer their testimony of the events in question. All witnesses and council members joined via zoom. The witnesses were then excused and the entire matter, including the MIQ’s defense was discussed by all the voting council members, with the alternates listening.
A vote was then called for and taken. Council 1 ended with the man retaining his certificate, as a unanimous vote was not achieved (11 voted to revoke and 2 to retain). However his wife formally removed her name from his certificate as she no longer sustained him.
The following day, on January 22 a letter was sent advising the man, “The outcome is that you retain your priesthood certificate on the condition that your wife, ______’s name is removed.”

We remind the women of the movement that the Lord has established a very high standard for the removal of a priesthood certificate. A single dissenting voice among the twelve is enough to halt the process, but all twelve must act in harmony to revoke. The fact that the MIQ retained his certificate, despite the serious behaviors addressed in this council, demonstrates that the Lord’s process inherently favors the man. As such, any perceived injustice the council may have committed was ultimately vindicated. For this reason, we believe the matter should be considered settled, as there is nothing further to dispute.

WHY 2 COUNCILS?

After Women’s Council 1 concluded, the man was sent an email stating that he had retained his certificate, but without his wife’s name, and the council members went about their lives.

A few weeks later, the family the man was living with in the UK (who had nothing to do with Council 1) had their own, different concerns regarding his behavior. Following weeks of promptings and having no previous knowledge that Amberli Peterson had been involved in Council 1, they contacted her for help. Around the same time others (who knew nothing about the First Council for the MIQ but only learned about it because the Disputer made it public on her blog), also contacted Amberli with concerns and their own witness about the MIQ’s behavior. This began the discussions of holding a second council for the MIQ, based on all new charges, new evidence, and new witnesses.

Amberli initially reached out to Cherry Ann Redd and Whitney Horning to see if a second council was needed. They agreed, but only on the condition that the second council would be based on all new charges, new evidence, new witnesses, and at least half or more new council members. Having learned valuable lessons from Women’s Council 1, the new organizers worked diligently to follow the Lord’s processes outlined in scripture to the best of their understanding. They openly acknowledge that some of the decisions made during the process were influenced by interference from the Woman Who Has a Dispute and many within the fellowship community, as well as serious challenges in working with the MIQ.

As they labored to form a new council, their desire was that it be comprised of 9-10 brand new women who knew nothing of the witness statements or proceedings of Council 1. They reached out to a total of 18 women to participate. For various reasons such as scheduling conflicts, health issues, concerns about backlash for participating due to the notoriety of the MIQ, and general unavailability, Council 2 organizers were only successful in obtaining 6 new council members. Therefore, they reached out to individual members from the first council, beginning with the 2 alternates who did not vote, until they had a total of 12 council members. Since there are always issues that come up causing a council member to step down (one of the members was due to have a baby right around the day of the council), they also chose 2 alternates for a total of 14.

As invitations to participate were extended, the organizers ensured that the council members would approach the council with a presumption of innocence and a willingness to retain his certificate if not convinced that the behavior in question warranted revoking, even if this meant going against the views of the other women. This reassured the organizers that the council members did not accept the invitation to participate with a predetermined belief that the man was guilty. In fact, the opposite was true.

The women who served on both Council 1 and Council 2 provide these statements in response to numerous assumptions and misunderstandings of the disputers. We ask the women considering the matter to please try to understand that when you read and review the documents provided by the disputers, there is always more to the story that you are missing.

We believe we were doing the best we could to follow the Lord’s process in real time. Hindsight always gives each of us opportunities for perspective and reflection.