All Activity

I personally don’t care if she signed a legal binding contract saying that she was interested in having group sex with 12 men and a monkey. I find every man who participated in this activity to be morally corrupt and deserves to be dragged. This is the way we demonstrate low tolerance for this behavior. I’m OK with that.

Regarding Positivism and history, I like this observation by Alan Goff: And this: Regarding historians, rather than mere "apologists" whose work you act as though can be safely dismissed by the simple act of labeling it as such, consider Peter Novick, speaking to the Latter Day Saints at a Sunstone back in 1989. So what is the problem? Novick explains: Dismissing believer's arguments without any deeper engagement than labeling them as "apologetic", for example, such things as the Aston's work on the detailed accuracy of the Book of Mormon description of the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, or the Matthew Bowen's recent work on onomastic word play in Book of Mormon stories, or Gardner's and Wright's and Sorenson's work on the Mesoamerican context, or Stubb's work on Hebrew, Phoenician and Egyptian influence on specific language groups, or the ritual and festival background of Benjamin's speech, the revelations of the 2017 LiDar surveys in Mesoamerica, and such does not demonstrate self-aware paradigm debate, but rather, uncritical ideological dismissal. It is fine to argue that apparent New Testament anachronisms and Christianity in 400 BCE solve the problem of the Book of Mormon as far as you are concerned. But as Kuhn observes all paradigm debates involve deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved," that no paradigm "solves all the problems it defines" and that any problem can be valued by different people as either as a "puzzle" to work on, or as a sufficient "counter-instance" that ends the need for further work. What you have cited as decisive, unquestionable counter-instances, I see differently, as puzzles that have what I see as existing viable solutions. For instance, a few years back, John Dehlin interviewed Mesoamericanist and Mayanist Michael Coe on what they offered as insurmountable problems for Book of Mormon believers. At one point, Dehlin asked Coe if there was any evidence of iron arrowheads or brass helmets in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times. No, Coe said, and they blathered on for a while as to why this was a serious problem that the Latter-day Saints would have to face, to the detriment of their faith. Neither showed the slightest awareness or interest in testing whether the Book of Mormon ever mentioned iron arrowheads or brass helmets. What they offered as a decisive counter-instance, was not even a viable puzzle to my eyes. This sort of thing happens with regularity among Book of Mormon critics. For another instance, when the Tanner's got the scripture on computer disks and searched for New Testament anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it turns out that Matt Roper used the same media and discovered that the Tanners failed to note where the New Testament phrasing they cited had Old Testament verbal and conceptual equivalents. Indeed, they could not have avoided generating those equivalents via the search engines available. Where is the hard, uninterpreted evidence from the history of translations from ancient texts that translation into the common language of a later time and different culture never introduces anachronism based on the need to make useful and intelligible translations, as well as due to the habits of thinking and expression that the translators themselves have acquired through their life experience and cultural background, and that critics always and inevitably have a sufficient grasp of every situation that they never make claims of decisive and telling anachronism that over-reach the implications of the evidence at hand? Barbour observes: I've published several examples of my network of theoretical assumptions and observations that can account for what you offer as counter-instances. If you want to solve the problem of my different readings via the "apologist" label, have at it. Saves effort. But also shows a lack of effort at the same time. One of the reasons I keep using Kuhn is that I find he focuses my attention in productive ways, and it also happens that I keep getting published in journals and books based on what I see. I even got an essay published at Oxford University Press in collaboration with one Margaret Barker. Regarding Barker's work, and its reception, I have read 18 of her books and many essays so far. I have explored her reception at length and I notice that she gets noticed and endorsed by interesting people, like the Rowan Williams, when Archbishop of Canterbury, by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, N. T. Wright, Andrei Orlov, Crispin Fletcher Lewis, and many others, and that books such as Temple Theology and The Risen Lord came about because she was invited by various professors to lecture at different Universities, and those who invited her to speak were impressed by what she offered enough to get her published. I personally find it fascinating to see how and where and when and what she published that led to her election to the President of the Society for Old Testament Study in England in 1999 while "just a housewife." I consider how her book Temple Themes and Christian Worship has a far more detailed listing of extensive sources than does Temple Mysticism, and that its publication led to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen awarding her a Lambeth Doctorate. So she is Doctor Barker, and not "just a housewife." (I am involved in preparing a bibliography of her work at present.) I don't expect her paradigm to be instantly adopted by people who are deeply committed to other paradigms. Paradigm change does not happen that way. It tends to be a generational thing. Copernicus, for instance, was not immediately crowned by all and sundry. But I notice that what she has accomplished is remarkable and notable. I continue to find her work valuable and productive of important and fruitful insights. One lukewarm review by someone who, I can safely say, has not tested her work in some of the ways I have tested it, does not overbalance my own 27 years of exploration. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Still standing by this statement there, Theodore?

No, it takes a lot to prosecute someone from profiting off actual abuse or tragedy. Alex Jones spent years actively encouraging his followers to harass the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings as crisis actors and frauds before they could organize a civil case and it still isn’t over yet years late as he tries to hide money, delay the payout, and dodge responsibility. That was causing active harm. This is just trying to threaten based off of probably imaginary evidence of imaginary abuse cases Ballard hopes will garner sympathy for him as he spins a web of conspiracies supposedly closing in on him. Those still supporting him are too stupid to connect basic dots and realize that he is claiming he is sitting on evidence of active and potentially ongoing abuse and holding it close to protect himself. If he was the hero he plays in his really bad movie he would release that data to try to save the children instead of leaving them in peril to protect themselves. Assuming they actually care about abuse victims at all.

Apart from mandatory reporting requirements, I can't think of a legal issue here. I can't think of a legal claim a private party could assert against him. There are limits to what legal remedies are available. Thanks, -Smac

NVM….brain is occupied with something else, major misread

Identity theft, I don’t know, not a lawyer 😛 ….something must be relevant to his appropriation of their abuse for his personal gain. And fraud/defamation if he is just pretending to have it to threaten the Church or more likely in my view, drive up donations and other support….but mostly donations as he appears money hungry from that whiteboard presentation I realize this is probably a nonstarter in our legal system. Too bad imo.

If they can read the text and make their way to the room, it seems they had enough presence of mind at that point to give consent even if they lost it later. We don't know if any of the seven men went into the room in response to the text. I'm not sure what you mean by "presence of mind." Under the New York law, it looks like everybody was voluntarily intoxicated. That does not itself mean consent was absent, only that the lack of consent cannot be imputed by law. Meanwhile, Jane Doe - by her own narrative - had enough presence of mind to consent to drinking alcohol, consuming Special K, and participating in multiple instances of group sex. "Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual." "The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent." Thanks, -Smac

Sorry, I meant "except Ballard." He is the only remaining defendant, I think.

Under the rubric of "mandatory reporting" laws, I assume? I really doubt it. This assumes he has what claims to have: evidence. I suspect he does not. My understanding is that he still lives in Utah. Per Utah law, "if a person {} has reason to believe that a child is, or has been, the subject of abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, the person shall immediately report the suspected abuse or neglect to the division or to the nearest peace officer or law enforcement agency." Apparently there is a criminal penalty for not reporting, but I assume this is very rarely enforced. I also doubt there is a "private right of action" component to this. Thanks, -Smac

In Utah (and Arizona and probably a bunch of other states), a victim can't sue a person for failing to report unless that person had a "duty of care" for the victim. I think it would be really difficult to show a "duty of care" in this case. But, a state prosecutor could file a lawsuit against him for failing to report and he would be liable that way.

I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways. Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K. Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems. If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds? Same question here. Was it possibly "non consensual sex" for the young men as well as Jane Doe? If not, why not? What differentiates Jane Doe? Per the 2024 statement (voluntary and sworn by by Jane Doe), they were all consenting to booze and Special K. Also, what are your thoughts about the "voluntary intoxication" law in New York? Thanks, -Smac

I think you mean humans where it’s bolded…or you should. Judges is a role. A role as a role is mixing stuff up. Of course, some humans could be both a judge and a God….as God is. But how many would be based on what the role of God consists of and whether they meet that criteria, not because the judges are human.

Logic that works with the world view of the particular belief system. For example, if one believes the world was created by the Divine separating the elements, creating order from chaos as do a number of ancient cultures, opposition in all things (not conflict, but contrast) could make sense. Contrast is what allows actual choice.

Oh yeah.

Requested or issued by the judge? And does “against” here mean “besides”? Ballard is the only remaining defendant?

If he’s not being sarcastic, but actually believes there’s an evil angel working this way…. (I suspect he is just getting even more carried away with his story). Every last person who is affected by this abuse Ballard is not exposing, but using to threaten the Church/publicize himself should sue him into oblivion. Is it legal to form a class action suit or whatever for unknown individuals to force him to put up or shut up? To expose his hypocrisy of using victims for his own benefit rather than protecting them and future victims? Any chance Ballard lives in a mandatory report state?

If they can read the text and make their way to the room, it seems they had enough presence of mind at that point to give consent even if they lost it later.

Even if she willing got into it, told him this is what she wanted to do (which would be insane just because of risk of physical injury/infection) before she took the drug, he had knowledge that she was under the influence of a mind altering drug and at that point could not give consent. Iow, he needed to consider she might not be able to articulate “no” if she changed her mind (such as when it became painful or one of the guys repulsed her for some reason if you want to actually believe she was into speed sex). I don’t see how from that point on it’s anything but non consensual sex.

I really have no time so will just respond here. A woman is invited to someone’s home by a “friend”. And she may or may not have been very (and voluntarily) drunk before even arriving. A few observations: First, even by your reckoning she was "given a mind altering drug." "Given." Not "forced to take." By her own account she consented to taking the ketamine. Twice, even (or maybe three times, as her sworn statement is a bit hard to follow as to exactly how many times she took the drug). There is, under the law (in New York) a very significant distinction between a person who is forced or tricked into consuming a mind altering drug and a person who voluntarily consumes it. Second, according to Jane Doe's voluntary and sworn 2024 statement, the frat guys were also taking this "mind altering drug." Third, if you are headed toward an implication that the drug rendered her incapable of giving consent, such that any sexual contact was nonconsensual, the same must be said about the frat guys. She had sex with them while they supposedly were also lacking the capacity to consent. I don't see much daylight between "She was too blotto to consent to sex that night" and "The seven frat boys, or some of them, were too blotto to consent to sex that night." And we can't say either of these things in New York, which has a "voluntary intoxication" law. Fourth, per the DA's report, I don't think we can say she took the Ketamine prior to the sexual contact. Jane Doe's 2024 statement is ambiguous: The foregoing conversation about Ketamine came after Jane Doe had - by her own account - consented to and participated in two "threesomes" with various frat guys. Fifth, Jane Doe's 2024 account does not claim that she was forced to take the ketamine, either the first time she took it for the second time. Sixth, after this "Male Number 4" “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body,” and "Jane Doe responded, 'Sure,'" and they did. Seventh, after that she was propositioned for a "foursome" and said no, then she took more Ketamine and participated in a third threesome, with no indication in her 2024 statement that she was forced to do either. Eighth, Jane Doe's 2024 statement was voluntary and provided to law enforcement. From the DA's statement: "Jane Doe’s {voluntary} sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual." I think this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. I think you are unable or unwilling to do this. Ninth, the DA went on to address the New York statute (which pertains to the third point above) : "The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent." This "loophole" is, I think, intentional. If it can be used to charge a man with rape because he had sex with a woman while she was voluntarily drunk, then the reverse must also hold. I'm not sure legislators want to see that outcome, which I think is why this provisions exists in some form in the laws of 19 states. I think this stuff needs to be acknowledged and addressed. I think you are unable or unwilling to do this. I think you instead are electing to disregard huge swaths of the facts - including facts taken from Jane Doe's own voluntary and sworn statement to law enforcement - so as to isolate and decontextualize the events you do want to address. As follows: No. I think you are mischaracterizing by omission. A lot. I don't know exactly when the text went out. Was is before her three consensual (by her 2024 account) threesomes? After the first? The second? The third? Was it after she said no to a foursome (between the second and third threesomes)? Nobody denies that a frat guy sent out a repulsive text, or that sex was being treated that night like a commodity, or merely an itch to scratch, or that everyone was ingesting booze and alcohol. The question here is consent. Under both the law and the facts alleged by Jane Doe in her voluntary and sworn 2024 statement, Jane Doe "did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual." As I have said before: Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. I think this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. I think you are unable or unwilling to do this. Would that include Jane Doe's behavior? If she was too blotto to consent to sex with the frat guys, then why can't the same be said about the frat guys being incapable of giving consent to her? Was her conduct "rape adjacent behavior?" If not, why not? I agree the behavior that night was disgusting. Full stop. The difference, I think, is that I think I include Jane Doe's behavior in that assessment, and you do not. I would really like to understand your theory of culpability here, and how that theory would not apply with equal utility to Jane Doe. Do you think Jane Doe deserves "public scorn?" By her own 2024 account, she had sex with guys blotto from booze and Special K, as was she. If she was incapable of giving consent, so were they. Sexual assault is a terrible thing. If it happened, those found culpable should be severely punished. The point I think you do not want to address is that your reasoning would seem to apply to inculpating Jane Doe. Sexual licentiousness is a terrible thing, as is recreational substance abuse. I do appreciate your comments here. I hope we can continue to have a substantive discussion. Thanks, -Smac

Where's Teddy? I thought he was Ballard's biggest fan.

I feel your summary is the correct line to take. The female was placed in a situation by her "friend". And she was in no position to agree with intercourse with with anybody, let alone a large number. Also, potentially, in no position to defend herself.

That's item #11 so it isn't a reworking of #10 so I don't know what it originally said. But in this one, it picks just one strong case. What about the others? It isn't really arguing the situation (by the way, the critic also seems to be really poor as a critic as well). It feels like it isn't doing any research or any investigation. Just pulling things from its memory and doing the bare minimum. I'm not seeing much benefit at this point. You need to change its instructions to have it do a much better deep dive. Also, we lost the apologist -> critic -> apologist reply -> judge with this. Now, the apologist just throws something against the wall, the critic kind of responds to it (sometimes it is just throwing something against the wall), and then the judge agrees with the critic because the apologist isn't doing anything to argue its position and the critic always gets the last word. I think that reply is missing. If you feel like it was too much for the apologist then flip it (critic -> apologist -> critic -> judge). But I would just say end it. This isn't really doing much. I can get much better results from my own interaction with llms.

What is your instructions for it? I asked claude to steel-man this argument and it gave a pretty decent steel-man. And your previous steel-man arguments (before you let chatgpt just go on its own) were much more decent. This is a distinct drop in behavior. It doesn't seem to even be trying. I would say just stop this experiment because it isn't doing an experiment anymore.

One doesn't need evidence to faith or truth something. Faith is probably best thought of when, indeed, it persists in the absence of evidence. There are also multiple forms of truth that are valid in the eyes of the one truthing. Therefore, I am not a fan of a constant search for evidence to somehow negatively impact or overcome another's faith or truth. If that is in the form of apologetics, then I think even less of it. I see this not only in sacred history but in other forms of historical inquiry as well. For example, there is one single rather questionable source for the “evidence,” better said as “belief,” that Francisco Ibarra came to Casas Grandes in his 1560s expedition. We actually don't know where he went, which is why a lot of “reputable” scholars leave his route off the maps of Spanish exploration routes. However, here in Casas Grandes where I live, the “fact” that he came here and heard of Paquime as the ruins of Casas Grandes has become gospel. We have Paquime pizza, hotels, tourist endeavors, plumbing, and on and on. Here, it is a crecimiento (belief), not a conocimiento (evidence-based knowledge). That distinction, however, has no bearing on its truth to the believer in the same. Any contrary evidence, like that of Fray Beaumont's classic six-volume history of Michoacan placing Paquime in Hopi or Zuni country, is cast aside in the "need" to believe. Where one “needs” to believe, evidence is of little value in dissuading. When one believes one holds thee truth; there is even less likely that evidence to the contrary will have any impact. In fact, that evidence may indeed reinforce belief. This is even more likely in a culture built at least in part on persecution identity, like that of the Mennonites. As far as truth, I think there are five valid forms: 1. Ontological truth, which in no way depends on human affirmation or interaction. It just exists - gravity for example. 2. Personal truth, which stems from one's personal and individual experiences. This is a particularly powerful form of truth that leads to conflict if you don't agree that my experienced truth is normative or generalizable. Why don't you see the world as I do? How can you be so wrong? 3. Rational truth that is indeed evidence-based. It is the result of study, research, etc., leading the researcher to the conclusion that this truth is factually based. Therefore, it is superior to other forms of truth. Who has superior facts wins. However, in reality, we pick our facts out of our owned fact barrels. This truth is the realm of the Knowite. Powerful truth. 4. Revealed truth that is the result of visions, supernatural communications, theophanies, scriptures, etc. It is a favorite Greek form of truth, especially when that which was hidden has been revealed as in John 14:6, where Christ is the revelator of the consummate revealed truth for the Christian. There are many who would like to make their revealed truth to be rational truth. This doesn't work in the eyes of the secular rational truth theorist. Rational and revealed truth stem from very different forms of truth. 5. “Truth as being” form of truth. This is an ancient form of truth that focuses on truth as a verb, adverb, or gerund. It does not define truth as correct and all others as incorrect. It is a way to live the truth—to truth in your relationships and in your self-awareness. You may notice I left out “absolute truth.” I think absolute truth is beyond our human capacity to absorb and comprehend. It might also be a mixture of all five other forms. I don't believe we were formed with the capacity to adequately comprehend absolute truth. We may try and try. Each form of truth is equally truthful for its adherent, especially if you don't prioritize the modern “correct or incorrect,” “true or false” binary definitions of truth. Many of my LDS friends are very binary. Either Joseph Smith was an OT prophet or a fraud. Either the BOM is what it claims to be or it is a fraud. This forces folks into an accept or reject mode and insists on a member- or an outsider-kind of relationship. So no, I am not a fan of singling out rational truth as the best form of truth. Another way of saying that might be to say that “evidence-based” belief is more likely to be accepted than revealed truth. I might even suggest just the opposite. Thanks for reading my epistle. I am trying to become more and more a truth as being-kind-of-Christian in my old age. Truth is a journey down a path, not a possession I own. Best to all.