Calm

When it comes to phrases and words that are seen as racist dog whistles, I give a lot of leeway to people who get into politics in casual discussions who might pick up language with baggage they don’t understand or care about because they don’t grok the consequences of using them. When it comes to professionals for whom communication is their life’s work, including attempting to know how the ‘other side’ thinks if only to challenge them better, but hopefully also to communicate understanding with each other, ideas they shared as well as disagree on and who have extensive access to materials critiquing their own words so they can easily find out how others are reacting….well, those people I hold to a much higher standard of word choice. Even if for their in-group the problematic words and phrases don’t hold the same meaning as they do in a group they are challenging, if someone truly cares about communication in between the groups, cares about increasing understanding, cares about others’ feelings, then I expect them to take care in choosing words and to avoid at least those that are significant problems and if truly intent on establishing understanding even if not agreement between the groups, even avoid the less baggaged ones. This discussion reminds me of when Richard Abanes, a journalist who wrote on controversial topics for Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists like Harry Potter, was writing his epic on the LDS faith. He acted as if he was very committed to getting it right, facts as well as avoiding offensiveness, even to the point of privately asking me to help edit his book (I had taken one chapter of his first edition and gone through it point by point on where he got things wrong, he wanted me to do that for the whole book, though of course it would just be taken as suggestions). When he asked that, he also asked I keep it private (a little too late as I had mentioned it to others for their opinion), but the next time he got called on inappropriate word choice, he threw out asking me as evidence he was serious about getting it right, so I don’t feel restricted in sharing this. He had chosen to use the phrase “celestial sex” to cover the idea of having spirit children when exalted and refused to change it when we told him that it conveyed the wrong idea as it focused on the wrong thing plus had inappropriate connotations (it seems like there were at least a half a dozen challenging him on this besides me, including some LDS scholars he claimed to really respect, but ZLMB is gone and I don’t know how to find a particular conversation on Wayback to doublecheck my memory). We went to great lengths to persuade him the tone and implications of that phrase conveyed something quite different than how LDS typically viewed the topic, but he refused to change it because he said that it was his audience’s perception…which made it clear he wasn’t interested in improving understanding as much as he was interested in reinforcing the stereotypes his audience was fond of, going for the sordid description more often than accurate. Charlie Kirk reminded me of Abanes, using words he didn’t have to because it was expected of him by his primary audience as they enjoyed getting their perceptions reinforced…and unfortunately quite a few phrases/ideas were racist imo. So I saw him as having great potential as a communicator who could have built bridges, but who chose entertaining his chosen market instead. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t stuff of his I liked a lot and wish was spread more, but I am like Nehor when it comes to professional communicators…avoid the racist hints (I also dislike when those on the left use language that implies or directly calls out conservatives in general as racist, uneducated, self centered, etc.; the dog whistles aren’t solely used by one group).

I had forgotten this had happened, but I believe it very much puts TB’s claims of hidden cabel members running an operation to discredit him while still pushing church leadership as decent people as improbable (not that I haven’t always seen it that way, but this confirmed my guesses of how things actually went down with the statement): From Governor Cox: I still have to do some speculating here, but I highly doubt Cox settled with speaking with someone at middle management level. He does not name who he talked to, but it makes sense he would only be satisfied by connecting with someone who was not just handling the phone and repeating what they were told. He had to have known he would get asked about this and besides possibly thinking of himself as a representative for all the little people wanting to know what the heck was going on, he wouldn’t want to look foolish and incompetent as he would if it came out later that it was a rogue statement and the person who assured him it was cleared what just some little guy who made assumptions. Cox is intelligent and would have gone for information to someone in upper levels, who would be able to find out what actually happened, imo. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2023/09/21/gov-spencer-cox-says-lds-churchs/

Have you looked into the whiteboard meeting accusation? If it is true, it’s pretty much about funneling money into TB’s pocket. Supposedly that is at least one time he lied about Pres Ballard’s involvement as a silent partner in the venture to potential backers. There is discussion off and on of the whiteboard on a thread that heavily dissected the claims being made on various sides back in Sep 2023. One detailed post is here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75552-tim-ballard/page/10/#findComment-1210162024

This is not to criticize you because it sounds like you are just commenting on the accessibility of these claims and I agree there is quite a bit out there. But I feel the need to add that just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to accept it as truth, just as claims of a flat earth or faked moon landing should be approached with skepticism first. You sound like you came across those posts quite some time ago and hadn’t researched it since and it is likely this was before the info about B Snow was easily accessible online, even in wiki at this point, as well as the info on satanic ritual abuse being debunked by therapists, LEOs, etc., but these days, no one responsible should be accepting this stuff as valid, imo, without insisting there is physical evidence made available to substantiate such. Too much harm has been done, imo, to automatically support the possibility or even to remain neutral to it. If someone insists it happened to them, of course you need to be careful in how you approach it as there is likely mental issues involved as likely someone has convinced them it happened or they convinced themselves (it doesn’t exclude the possibility of other forms of abuse either), which implies they are vulnerable. I also don’t mean someone should go online at sites promoting such as out there happening, arguing with those convinced likely isn’t going to change people’s minds. I just mean when one comes across it like on here in a casual conversation, presenting the evidence against it is important. There is real, horrific abuse out there. Attention paid to SRA not only pulls resources away from stopping actual abuse, but it makes it harder for many people to believe actual claims of children once they find out the truth. I think Tim Ballard is going this route because he is trying to inflate his own importance and he recognizes this is a fear inducing idea that puts people in a panic, which makes them more likely to contribute/support him. Given his law enforcement background, I think he is lying outright. It is unreasonable to me that he wouldn’t be aware of the issues surrounding SRA at this point if he is even a quarter as informed about children’s safety issues as he claims.

I get them from time to time, lol

I have been under the impression that the one thing they still push as a fulfillment of last days is missionary work, reaching out to all the world, but maybe it’s been more me inserting it into talks then them saying it.

I agree. I am curious though what marineland sees as the source of these desires. What first caused Satan to desire to be like God and in a way he didn’t consider God’s Will., but his own.

But what made him want that. First cause type of motivation. If you don’t understand what I mean… I want food. Why? I am hungry. Why? My stomach is empty and my body is signaling me I need to eat. Why? Because someone or something made my biology in such a way I need fuel, which triggers hunger so I get it. What made Satan so that he wanted to be like God?

I always got the impression when this argument was used was that the endurance to come was us tolerating the sufferings that our spirit children would go through without stepping in and ruining it for them like helping butterflies out of cocoons, we would know that it would work out for them in the best way possible as it had for us. (Which is rather circular…we suffer so we will let our kids suffer…and they suffer so their kids can suffer….).

Then why would they bother with the extensive efforts that Welfare and LDS Philanthropies require? I don’t think you are addressing enough context.

Her siblings did not support her in her claims, some vigorously contradicted her, even those not in the best relationship with Hugh or the Church.. It was a shame the lengths she went for this. I don’t understand why she thought her memory’s extreme weirdness was proof she didn’t make it up. I have some very vivid memories, guessing they are memories of dreams since I think someone else would have noticed that our whole neighborhood (50 adults at least) had been hypnotized in the middle of the night and ending up walking down street blank faced and ignoring the cries and tugs of their children (not small town, USA either, San Francisco suburb street separated from a very busy highway by just a chain link fence back then. Must have been hard for her thinking she had experienced something that she couldn’t get her family to accept, but she went too far in trying to get evidence. She seems to have survived, still hanging out with Oprah.

How do you explain the lack of any other response from Pres. Ballard if he actually told KB that he was not involved and would look into it?

Also this in relation to the Church: Elder Scott’s comment is very telling, imo.

And when last I checked all the credible ones traced back to one particular therapist who used repressed memories therapy improperly and got her license pulled for a couple of years because of it (I may be wrong on the length of time, but she got it pulled). There were some major family tragedies because she convinced spouses and children the father had abused them, including one that went to jail. My memory is another committed suicide, but that might not have been attached to her. You need to be very, very, very careful when dealing with recovered memories and children’s solicited testimonies. The McMartin preschool debacle is a prime example. No investigation by police of multiple jurisdictions found credible evidence outside of these recovered memories. I will find sources on this later if someone else hasn’t already. https://theconversation.com/the-legacy-of-implanted-satanic-abuse-memories-is-still-causing-damage-today-43755 cheating today and using wiki, have another appointment to hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic_(Utah) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/satanic-ritual-abuse-children-not-widespread-child-abuse-opposing

Huh?

Oh my gosh, you don’t know how much I wish he was innocent and all a simple misunderstanding because having a very public Saint who was a hero to so many in the conservative arena would have helped them be more accepting of us, imo, and I want everyone to be friends. I really liked him to begin with. I thought the idea of the movie was cool (I had no idea that the rescues OUR did were problematic) and didn’t really care that like most movies based on real events, it wasn’t that true to life.. And if Pres Ballard had spoken up and said “I got things wrong and falsely accused Tim, who is a good man”—which I think he would have done given the good man Pres Ballard was—it could have been that simple misunderstanding about the finances. But Pres Ballard didn’t even though he was fully capable of doing so and that pretty much sealed the deal. It’s either Tim Ballard is a liar or Elder Ballard is a liar in my analysis. I know who has the better track record. As far as the sexual misconduct accusations goes, I was still open to it being a misguided attempt, someone trying to sabotage his efforts for some reason (didn’t have to be a trafficking/pedophile cabal, but could be a rival rescue group worried about losing funding, the women could be fanatic liberals or persuaded by such who saw TB as a political threat, or a rival candidate, even some good but misguided people who thought he was doing more damage than aid to children and were hoping to shut down all rescue groups of those types by discrediting the biggest/best known), but Glen Beck—who was very proTB and highly unlikely to be persuaded by any anti conservatives as far as I can tell—turning against TB saying he had seen the evidence and believed the women solidly shifted me over rather than left me wondering if the allegations were true or not. Even so, if it comes out the women lied and they admit that or it’s somehow proven, I will be very happy because even if those women will suffer because they chose deception, I see it as less traumatic for them in the long run even if they go broke in the lawsuits than being sexually abused. I don’t want anyone to go through that. It messes people up deeply. I don’t think I have ever preferred the idea someone was actually abused vs made it up. Actual abuse is inherently more tragic imo, to those involved, victims, perpetrators, and loved ones of both, even if false accusations can destroy lives of innocent people and not just the accused.

His explanation is the Restored Gospel is true no matter what, it belongs to Jesus who is constantly by his side and he hasn’t lost his faith in that. And his watchmen analogy….even though that has been used for apostles iirc, he seems to be suggesting it’s lower level functionaries that are not doing their job (one of the Church lawyers was named, the man at Reputation Management who was originally on his side telling him it was a lie according to TB’s story has to have sided with the cabal because nothing was heard from him later). It is only when he gets to the Director that did him wrong is still at his job two years later that there is any hint of feeling betrayed by general church leadership rather than church employees, but he doesn’t get specific. He is ignoring in his public reasoning the implications about church leadership. Somehow they are as good as they ever were, he is removing them from the decision process. His portrayal of the Church spiritual side and the administration of it seems to have removed the 15 from any responsibility for the acts of those they employed. Doesn’t make sense to anyone else unless they want to believe it, I am guessing. I suppose there are those who believe church leadership who had oversight did nothing when Ensign Peaks got into trouble with the SEC, didn’t even ask questions, just allowed their deputies to choose how to do the work whatever way they want.

Especially if Pres Ballard truly considered him as a “son, a grandson”…which I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he did as that explains the unusual emotion and personal nature of the statement better than anything else imo. The only thing I can think of if TB was innocent (don’t believe that obviously) is the cabal (TB’s word for them) was able to convince Pres Ballard that the accusations were true….that whiteboard photo is pretty convincing as is the silence from TB about it when he is so vocal about everything else, but it would still be odd Pres Ballard would have just gone along with it if the Director had lied about his involvement. Surely the Director would have been released (intentionally not using his name since I believe TB is slandering him). Also TB is ignoring he had to resign three months previously from OUR or was he painting that as his choice and nothing to do with allegations (can’t remember), but him not working with OUR seems a bigger problem for him to me.

Right….Why would Trump care if he had misused Elder Ballard’s name or emotionally coerced women into sleeping with him? Nothing in the statement seems like it would matter to those working on rescuing children etc. who were supportive of TB before the statement was released unless they were LDS for the most part based on how the conservatives who backed Trump have responded to accusations of sexual misconduct. OTOH, accusations made elsewhere that TB was bungling the rescue stuff, likely causing kids who were not trafficked before to get trafficked while not providing follow-up care to prevent them being dropped back into it should have had a major impact. There was evidence some countries’ LEOs weren’t working with him anymore (assuming they did to begin with). Surely these types of accusations would have had much more impact on the rescues than a statement about morality and misuse of a leader’s name of a church few cared about. Besides his critics seeing the Church’s statement as further evidence he was a self centered jerk, what would have been the actual effect outside of LDS circles of the accusations, I wonder. Yes, it lost him the Senate race, but if he had become a senator, he wouldn’t have been doing rescues anymore himself, so he can’t believably claim the statement mucked up something he was withdrawing from anyway, imo…at least once he won. I suspect he would have staged a rescue if he needed a numbers raiser if the polls started looking bad for him. In the end, the Sound of Freedom movie and his work had given him a solid base outside of the LDS community. Is there any evidence the rest of the Christian community dropped him? I wasn’t paying attention and have only seen his promos which seem to show support for him. LDS were a great part of his infrastructure. I wonder what percentage of financial support came from Saints. I can see the statement making things hard for a time, stalling him while he reorganized things, but changing people’s attitudes outside church members….was that a thing?

I am pretty sure this was more rumor than solid info and therefore may not have come from him or been shared by him, so at this point best not to include it in any analysis. Might try looking for it.

Finished. Armchair analysis—he likely has serious sleep deprivation which could explain the bouncing around, etc, but I would not be surprised if he has ADHD as well aggravated by the sleep deprivation (he reminds me of some loved ones who have it and get rather intense and unfocused). I would advise him not to give podcasts when lacking sleep as it’s not a great confidence builder in his stability. And it made his frequent protestations he had forgiven all totally unbelievable to me. Especially at the end when he is opening condemning leaders for retaining the director on the Church’s payroll after TB claims he proved the Director was a liar. The Host and Ballard were going on about how they were going to ask the hard questions, the nitty gritty, and had all the answers at the beginning…I only came up with more questions.

One last point. He claims that Pres Ballard was going to correct things on the next Monday, which would have been the 18th. But nothing happened. How does he explain that? Pres. Ballard appears to have been coherent enough to respond since he even spoke in conference two weeks after the statement was released (and it was a beautiful, heartfelt talk). So how was he silenced? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/41ballard?lang=eng

I have a question for believers that popped into my head after watching two hours of his criticism of individuals in the Church. He makes a big deal about following proper procedure, doing what is outlined in scripture as the process, etc, but he refuses to accept the ruling and assumes that his appeals had not reached Pres. Nelson. Maybe he thinks Pres Nelson was in a cocoon oblivious to what is going on quite publicly. He also appears to believe the apostles are all good men, implying if they knew what was going on, they would back him. Or that none would have reached out to Elder Ballard or his family during the last few weeks of his life to check to see if the statement was by him or not if the Director released it without approval from higher ups. All decent people he loves, respects and follows…yet somehow they have done nothing for two years to try and find out the truth, because surely good men who had the authority and ability to do so would do so? I really would like to hear his explanation on why the First Presidency and 12 are okay with their underlings erasing a member’s contribution and somehow some guy not even in the line of priesthood authority (the directorship is a job, is it not, not a calling?) convincing a member’s priesthood leader into excommunicating him. Aren’t the First Presidency reading public statements released in the name of the Church? Is there not one faithful member among all those surrounding the First Presidency and Apostles who would call the scandal to their attention even if they were that isolated they never watched or read local news? This was huge when it came out. Doesn’t make sense. At the very least the Director would need to explain why there was such an odd statement released. Did he forge Elder Ballard’s handwriting to offer proof that it was from Elder Ballard? If so, why wouldn’t Elder Ballard say “not mine, guys”? Anyway, back to my original question….TB states he hasn’t broken his covenants so he doesn’t have to obey the instructions of his local leader. (Specifically about not wearing garments, he shows himself wearing them to demonstrate he is still a faithful member.) ——How many of you believe he is approaching his excommunication properly as a faithful member in the case of assuming he is telling the truth? (Thought experiment, you can imagine someone who was excommunicated based on lies and what would be the appropriate way to respond to unrighteous dominion by immediate priesthood leaders and lack of response from higher ups.). Does someone have the authorization by the spirit to ignore priesthood instruction when it is unfair or would it be more appropriate for a truly faithful member to accept in humility such instruction, while attempting to appeal the excommunication, etc? Is it part of his covenant to accept the limitations even if working to remove them? The reason this question occurred to me is he is refusing to participate in rebaptism because it would legitimize the claimed coverup. He says they have only taken away his temple access. I wonder if he is taking the sacrament. He was instructed to not wear garments, but he is ignoring that instruction and very publicly. I wish Smac was still posting. I would be very interested to hear his opinion on TB’s choice to go public and sue his SP, the Director, and others for defamation if (and it’s a massive if that I see as highly, highly unlikely) TB’s story was actually true given what Smac has said in the past about how to go about resolving disputes.

If someone can find a link to the ruling on the case, I want to check if the judge really says there was nothing in the emails anyway. Celeste Borys, et al. v. Timothy Ballard, et al., No. 230907663, filed October 10, 202

Well, he stayed on track for a bit. Boils down to no one who should have known about the denunciation if it was valid and properly done knew about the denunciation before it was released, very suspicious timing because it occurred right before TB was going to save the world (yes, very much overstating his claims, but it still feels like the vibe he is giving off to me), and the money trail leads back to George Soros, a known associate of human traffickers, if not one himself (that is the implication he made, correct?) I do think church people (I assume under instruction from the 12 at least, but could be wrong) went too far in distancing the Church from Ballard’s stuff. I also think he inflated how much he was involved with the Church. He claims to be the most involved with the Church of anyone not employed by the Church. My guess is Huntsman and some others have had more projects. I also don’t see Deseretbook as “the Church”, it’s a for profit venture where things get published and sold that aren’t correlated. It publishes romances, for goodness sake. And no one said he channeled Nephi, they said it was reported he used a psychic who did so (wasn’t there a recording of this individual?). And him saying he won a court case as if it exonerated him…pretty sure it just ruled the evidence unlawfully obtained, not untrue. ”Two of the other cases against Ballard have been dismissed, one under a new Utah law aimed at protecting Utahns from being sued for exercising their free speech rights and the other after a judge found a liability waiver prevented the woman from suing. Although none of the cases have so far been resolved on the merits…” https://www.ksl.com/article/51348970/utah-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-tim-ballard-says-plaintiff-improperly-accessed-documents He says he’s forgiven everyone involved. Yeah, don’t really buy that from the way he sounds and the language he uses. He has issues with that Stake President at the very least. I find his appealing to signs right and left and publicizing them rather than keeping them in his heart problematic.