Excommunication of Louis Naegle

Louis was excommunicated from the Church for allowing his testimony to be printed in the forward of Denver Snuffer’s book “Preserving the Restoration”. 

Attached are the following documents associated with his excommunication (I suspect that most of you will find these document interesting reading.):

1. Letter from Stake president notifying Louis of his disciplinary council. (Apr 24)
2. The letter Louis sent to his Stake president in response to his notification. (Apr 28)
3. Letter from Stake President responding the Louis’s requests mentioned in his response. (May 5)
4. Louis’s 15 page document that he presented to the Stake President to be read in his council. (May 11)
5. Letter from the Stake President notifying Louis that he was excommunicated. (May 12)

 It is not unusual that Louis was found guilty of apostasy to the Corporate LDS Church.  However there some things of interest, some very unusual, that transpired up to Louis’s excommunication which will now be outlined.

• Louis met regularly with his Bishop since last fall to discuss matters concerning how he felt about the gospel and the church, including his testimony found in Preserving the Restoration.  Although the Bishop was not in agreement with many of Louis’s actions or beliefs, he never threatened or belittled Louis, but rather listened respectfully to him.  As far as Louis knows and was told, the Bishop did not personally seek any disciplinary action against Louis nor did he notify or ask for recommendations from the Stake President.  Louis wishes not to lam-blast his Bishop.

• Someone other than his Bishop notified Louis’s Stake president concerning Louis’s testimony found in Denver's book, which precipitated the Stake President interviewing Louis.  Louis had two visits with his Stake President prior to receiving a letter from him concerning the disciplinary court.   Louis personally respects his Stake President and considers him a good man.  His communications with Louis during their meetings were much different than the words and tone of the letter he received from him announcing his disciplinary council.   In fact the words and tone were so different, that except for the last sentence that was written in the letter, the rest of it seemed to Louis to be following a text given to the Stake President from a General Authority or lawyer of the Church.  See the attached copy of the letter to get your own idea about that. It is worth the read.

• Not only was Louis targeted for Church disciplinary actions, but his son, who had been serving an LDS mission, also was targeted and labeled an apostate and sent home (on April 22 2016) dishonorably from his mission for being associated with his dad, even though his son did not endorse his father’s testimony nor has he read any of Snuffer’s books or participated in any activities associated with Snuffer.  See Louis’s court letter for the details surrounding his son’s treatment by his mission president.   One thing not mentioned in the Louis’s court statement is that the mission president called his son into his office on a Thursday and told his son he had a plane ticket for him to go home the very next day (on Friday).  That means the Mission President (or his superior) had already decided to send Louis’s son home before even talking to him.  And as you’ll read, there were ward members in his mission boundary that knew his son was going home before he even did.

• The fact that Louis’s son was targeted by his Mission President at nearly the same time that the Stake President decided to take action against Louis may also indicate that a General Authority was involved in orchestrating all these events since it is extremely unlikely that the Stake President and Mission President planned their separate but similar actions at nearly the same time by coincidence.

• The Stake President required that Louis sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if he was to attend the council.  In the end, Louis decided not to sign the NDA and therefore did not attend the council.  However Louis was able to submit a statement to be read in the council, which Louis provide the Stake President and which is attached.

• It was also unusual (but perhaps not exclusive) that the Stake President required that Louis provide him with the names of his witness along with the name of their bishop and stake.

• Louis’s response letter to the Stake President’s notification letter is actually a well-thought out and level-headed argument/statement.  It’s worth the read (the first paragraph of the third page really highlights how much lack of due-process occurs in these councils even though I suspect the Stake President actually thinks he's doing a good and honest thing).  Louis's court statement is also well-done.

This was also discussed by Adrian Larson.