Tim Ballard's New Rants About the Church

[halconero]

Gerrit Dirkmaat has repeatedly pointed out a tendency among members of the Church regarding the possession of secret knowledge outside of or even contrary to that given by the General Authorities and Officers of the Church. Typically, this involves some sort of special preparation for the Second Coming, either involving belief in some sort of esoteric doctrine, or prepper or prepper-like activities.

I would suggest that Tim Ballard's work with O.U.R. generally, and this specifically, display the same tendency. I've shared this before on this board, but years ago I worked in an area in which a (very small) of my job description involved anti-human trafficking activities, with a specific focus on labour trafficking. As part of this, I attended quarterly meetings with the main anti-human trafficking body in my province, where we discussed trends in human trafficking, including sex trafficking, and efforts to combat these. As I've stated elsewhere, most of this work was exceedingly banal. Around 90% of the work I did was from behind a desk, with the other 10% involving me getting out from behind my desk to go to an other organization's office to get the people there to do things from behind their desks. I only ever had to involve police once; not for a raid, but to escort someone to retrieve a passport. Almost all the work was done through similarly banal activities.

The type of human trafficking shown in The Sound of Freedom, where children are disappeared contrary to the desires of their parents into faraway clubs or jungle camps, exists, but only as a caricature. The vast majority of trafficking cases involve some measure of coerced consent by the trafficked, typically using social, financial, or romantic pressures. Just to be clear, that is not me blaming the victims. Rather, it is me point out that human traffickers typically find it less costly to use a combination of carrots and non-physical sticks to traffic someone. Virginia Giuffre of Jeff Epstein fame is a typical example of this. She wasn't bundled into a van; she was offered a job, paid travel, and (fake) job training as a professional massage therapist. No one rescued here; she rescued herself, which, by the way, is often the most common way people exist trafficking. In 100% of the cases I worked with, it was a victim coming forward after deciding they'd had enough, and seeking resources to sort out the practicalities of leaving their situation. The problem with the SoF and O.U.R. was the explicit and insinuated idea that cases like Giuffre were overshadowed by a much larger cabal of international networks, and that the solution was a series of fantastic raids, instead of things like regularizing visa status, easier access to economic resources, and interventions into media communications involving adolescents. In reality, less than 0.3% of childhood abductions involve strangers. Of these, most are committed by lone individuals with sexual or personal motives (e.g., a mentally ill woman abducting an infant to raise personally), not organized rings randomly picking children off the street or from photoshoots. Even in these much more limited cases, it is still true that the victim often willingly goes with the trafficker at first.

Regarding Ballard's accusations specifically, its a truism that the Gospel must be true, otherwise the Church must have collapsed years ago. I've served in leadership callings where we had to coordinate legal issues with the area authority, particularly around a disaffected member. At every moment, those authorities emphasized a bottom-up approach. They offered to support us with legal counsel, security, or personal support as needed, even as they asked us again and again, what we recommended from a disciplinary standpoint. I can't tell you how many times I ended conversations sincerely hoping that they'd offer more specific direction on how to act or what to do, but at each point, I was kindly and gently supported in developing my own thoughts, opinions, and, above all, guidance from the Lord. I can tell you that that is almost certainly how Tim Ballard's case was handled at the stake level. Oh, and the part about the high councilman defending him? Well yeah, that's literally how it works:

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 102

13 Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written.

14 But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak.

15 The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice.

16 And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice.

17 Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.

18 In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks.

This wasn't some maverick high council member bucking against the stake president; it's just how high councils work. Whatever the truth of the story regarding the painting crashing down, I know if I were the one giving that defence, and a picture of the Saviour came crashing down, it wouldn't someone indicate to me that I was in the right.

In either case, circling back to the point I raised by Gerrit Dirkmaat: for some segment of members, the simplest explanation, often supported by doctrine and Church leadership, is somehow never enough. It can't be that human trafficking is primarily caused by frictions in various legal and social systems; there has to be cabal out there that can be one-shotted. It can't be that Tim Ballard was inappropriately using financial resources and inappropriately name dropping Church leaders in a manner that has been repeated by unscrupulous grifters since time immemorial; it has to be the deep church represented by a particular spokesperson who, for whatever reason, cannot be controlled by the Church leaders (either because they've somehow lost control or because they're in on it). And when they think about the Second Coming, it cannot be that our best preparation for it is personal righteousness, service to others, missionary work, and worship in the temple, despite those being the very things that the prophets have told us will prepare us for the past ten or so years! No, instead, the secret juice must be contained in a Telegram thread that has absorbed more time than my ministering route has for the past five years (not hard, because the amount of time devoted to that ministering route is effectively '0').

Guess what? To the extent that secret combinations do explain so much misery in the world, we already know how to combat them from the examples given in the Book of Mormon: missionary work to the lower rungs of those heeding them and confidence in God's prophets to direct us as needed. There isn't a secret extra step!

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with this to some extent, it’s where I first went in thinking about this.  Also the difference in hoping to prove something wonderful (heaven) vs something awful (thousands are suffering torture in horrendous, systematic ways in our Church and leaders hide this), but then I considered they may be focused on looking on it as proving something hopeful (Tim Ballard is a good man doing good things effectively and more or less ignoring or downplaying what this means about everyone else).

To quote C.S. Lewis:

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

Also pedophilia has (for better or worse) become the worst sin so being able to ascribe it to your enemies gives you license to vent hate. The caricaturing of trafficking turns it from a business with an understandable and common motive (money) into something foreign (satan worship and sin for the sake of just being as vile as possible and the like). It lets you dehumanize your opponent. If they don’t operate like the rest of humanity it is easier to justify fighting them in an unjust way or directly harming them. This is especially tragic when the claims about their vileness are baseless.

As a side benefit if someone is a terrible person then making up much worse people helps them feel better about themselves and lets them feel heroic by comparison.

[MustardSeed]

Calm my guess is you will not get your question answered by Teddy.  Cognitive dissonance is a real bear. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Calm my guess is you will not get your question answered by Teddy.  Cognitive dissonance is a real bear. 

He has chosen to participate elsewhere tonight, so I think you are correct. 

[Chum]

9 hours ago, halconero said:

The type of human trafficking shown in The Sound of Freedom, where children are disappeared contrary to the desires of their parents into faraway clubs or jungle camps, exists, but only as a caricature. The vast majority of trafficking cases involve some measure of coerced consent by the trafficked, typically using social, financial, or romantic pressures. Just to be clear, that is not me blaming the victims. Rather, it is me point out that human traffickers typically find it less costly to use a combination of carrots and non-physical sticks to traffic someone. Virginia Giuffre of Jeff Epstein fame is a typical example of this. She wasn't bundled into a van; she was offered a job, paid travel, and (fake) job training as a professional massage therapist. No one rescued here; she rescued herself, which, by the way, is often the most common way people exist trafficking. In 100% of the cases I worked with, it was a victim coming forward after deciding they'd had enough, and seeking resources to sort out the practicalities of leaving their situation.

The problem with the SoF and O.U.R. was the explicit and insinuated idea that cases like Giuffre were overshadowed by a much larger cabal of international networks, and that the solution was a series of fantastic raids, instead of things like regularizing visa status, easier access to economic resources, and interventions into media communications involving adolescents. In reality, less than 0.3% of childhood abductions involve strangers. Of these, most are committed by lone individuals with sexual or personal motives (e.g., a mentally ill woman abducting an infant to raise personally), not organized rings randomly picking children off the street or from photoshoots. Even in these much more limited cases, it is still true that the victim often willingly goes with the trafficker at first.

This quote is so true it's nearly physics.  I wish the entire world would read it. 

A decade back: DC was binging hard on trafficking-hysteria. SESTA/FOSTA was going to be the counterproductive outcome of it (by making it harder for qualified leo to locate victims).
At that time, I figured that anti-sex-trafficking efforts can be divided thusly.
Groups of 1 or more people (usually women, often leo, typically underpaid) who were monitoring local sex ads and working with the community. 

Everyone else. Loud armies of trafficking-warriors who endlessly bullhorned about sex trafficking and turned it into mountains of cash for their orgs.  The orgs bought bad law in most states. If trafficking was on the news, that was the latter group living their dream.

Edited November 13, 2025 by Chum

[Chum]

oh look at the time

Edited November 13, 2025 by Chum

[ttribe]

Part 2 is out. The grandiosity, the appeal to "conspiracy," the threats, the use of "God" to justify his actions. It's all part and parcel of the conman. The grift goes on.

 

[JVW]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Part 2 is out. The grandiosity, the appeal to "conspiracy," the threats, the use of "God" to justify his actions. It's all part and parcel of the conman. The grift goes on.

 

This video is the first thing I've watched of Tim Ballard and here's what I think in no particular order:

- I hope that he does all of the lawsuits that he claims he's going to do. I'd be very interested to see depositions, documents, evidence, etc. Setting Tim aside, it would be interesting to get a peak behind the curtain of the church. Kind of like how it would've been interesting if the tithing case wasn't summarily dismissed and we got to see some financial statements.

- As a pretty well acquainted conspiracy theorist let's pretend, for a moment, that his claims are true; and he goes to court and things start looking favorably for him (which isn't likely, as I'll get into later). If that is the case then he will be a dead man. The alleged secret Luciferian cabals do murder people who attempt to expose them, people have been murdered for less. A few examples that come immediately to mind are Isaac Kappy or John McAfee who literally had a tattoo on his arm that basically meant "if I commit suicide I didn't commit suicide". The reason why it's not likely that he would win in court if the conspiracy is true is because they have a whole system established to hide any evidence. They have hog farms where they feed dead bodies to hide murders; they birth and raise children without birth certificates to prevent evidence trails; they have 3-letter agencies who harass and storm residences to confiscate evidence; etc. See Epstein as a prime example of evidence destruction or protection of the perpetrators. Again, this is a thought experiment, I'm not suggesting that this is reality, but based on what I see of Tim in this thread, it is how he views reality.

- Assuming Tim believes all of these conspiracies and isn't lying through his teeth for money, it is strange that he exudes such confidence and fearlessness in this battle against "the devil". He should reasonably suspect that any evidence on "the enemy" side will be gone by the time the trials start and that any evidence he has will slip away before it can be made useful. He should suspect that not only is his life at risk, but his family's lives as well, if he really believes in the conspiracies he's spouting.

- Regardless of how sane or crazy the man is, there is a part of me that admires him and wants to emulate him. I am a very low-key, idle, dispassionate kind of person and I really wish I could feel motivated, passionate, conviction, dedication, urgency, and hard-work to my beliefs and causes. I really admire that about Tim even though I do not agree with him. I have this same view of James O'Keefe, Jordan Peterson, John D. Rockefeller, Fidel Castro, George Soros, etc. They are all men who, for better or for worse, are passionate and dedicated to their cause and have struggled to make the world a better place according to their views and Tim gives me that same feeling. It's a character trait that I envy. My mother had that kind of personality and broke me at a young age so I like to believe I could cultivate it one day, but so far I just am drawn to it and married to it so I can be close to that sort of personality as I strive to emulate it.

- I don't believe in Tim's conspiracy, but I do believe that Tim is not entirely guilty. I don't believe that every slanderous thing said against him is true, and I'm willing to believe that if he was so well acquainted with so many high-level church officials that he would have made some bad blood with some of them somewhere along the way.

- I don't like Tim's way of viewing the world. He reminds me of Michael Rush. I tried getting through an audio book of his once about the 10 lost tribes and I thought it was one of the most retarded things I'd heard in a long time. Tim and Michael both speak in a similar way, though Michael comes across as much less crazy even though a lot of what he believes is, in many ways, more crazy than Tim.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

dedicated to their cause and have struggled to make the world a better place according to their views

A better place for whom though?  Themselves or others? Serious question, I haven’t studied any of them well enough to have an opinion on their motivation.

With TB, knowing he has to have known the consequences of the way he goes about ‘saving children’ because of his background and the criticisms of his work he is obviously imo aware of (because of his responses) that include result data, I believe his motivation is his ego and pocketbook, he wants to make the world better for himself.  Perhaps initially he cared about helping kids, etc (certainly hope so and in this give him the benefit of the doubt), but if he truly did still, he would be at the very least hesitant about some of the things he is promoting.

Not ruling out possible mental issues including paranoia, delusions, etc.  That would explain a lot if he’s going as extreme as it appears from your comments.  Going with a more probable explanation that would be hard to prove or disprove would be better for him legally, imo, and keep him with more mainstream appeal.  Julie Rowe prophesied herself out of a mass following because she started seeing herself as a messiah figure.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

My mother had that kind of personality and broke me at a young age

Broke you?  If so, why would you want a personality trait that likely harms those who depend on or love you? (Serious question, you have a way of writing that often makes me quite curious about the way you think, no judgment of it being good or bad, just mysterious to me  )

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 hours ago, JVW said:

This video is the first thing I've watched of Tim Ballard and here's what I think in no particular order:

- I hope that he does all of the lawsuits that he claims he's going to do. I'd be very interested to see depositions, documents, evidence, etc. Setting Tim aside, it would be interesting to get a peak behind the curtain of the church. Kind of like how it would've been interesting if the tithing case wasn't summarily dismissed and we got to see some financial statements.

- As a pretty well acquainted conspiracy theorist let's pretend, for a moment, that his claims are true; and he goes to court and things start looking favorably for him (which isn't likely, as I'll get into later). If that is the case then he will be a dead man. The alleged secret Luciferian cabals do murder people who attempt to expose them, people have been murdered for less. A few examples that come immediately to mind are Isaac Kappy or John McAfee who literally had a tattoo on his arm that basically meant "if I commit suicide I didn't commit suicide". The reason why it's not likely that he would win in court if the conspiracy is true is because they have a whole system established to hide any evidence. They have hog farms where they feed dead bodies to hide murders; they birth and raise children without birth certificates to prevent evidence trails; they have 3-letter agencies who harass and storm residences to confiscate evidence; etc. See Epstein as a prime example of evidence destruction or protection of the perpetrators. Again, this is a thought experiment, I'm not suggesting that this is reality, but based on what I see of Tim in this thread, it is how he views reality.

- Assuming Tim believes all of these conspiracies and isn't lying through his teeth for money, it is strange that he exudes such confidence and fearlessness in this battle against "the devil". He should reasonably suspect that any evidence on "the enemy" side will be gone by the time the trials start and that any evidence he has will slip away before it can be made useful. He should suspect that not only is his life at risk, but his family's lives as well, if he really believes in the conspiracies he's spouting.

- Regardless of how sane or crazy the man is, there is a part of me that admires him and wants to emulate him. I am a very low-key, idle, dispassionate kind of person and I really wish I could feel motivated, passionate, conviction, dedication, urgency, and hard-work to my beliefs and causes. I really admire that about Tim even though I do not agree with him. I have this same view of James O'Keefe, Jordan Peterson, John D. Rockefeller, Fidel Castro, George Soros, etc. They are all men who, for better or for worse, are passionate and dedicated to their cause and have struggled to make the world a better place according to their views and Tim gives me that same feeling. It's a character trait that I envy. My mother had that kind of personality and broke me at a young age so I like to believe I could cultivate it one day, but so far I just am drawn to it and married to it so I can be close to that sort of personality as I strive to emulate it.

- I don't believe in Tim's conspiracy, but I do believe that Tim is not entirely guilty. I don't believe that every slanderous thing said against him is true, and I'm willing to believe that if he was so well acquainted with so many high-level church officials that he would have made some bad blood with some of them somewhere along the way.

- I don't like Tim's way of viewing the world. He reminds me of Michael Rush. I tried getting through an audio book of his once about the 10 lost tribes and I thought it was one of the most retarded things I'd heard in a long time. Tim and Michael both speak in a similar way, though Michael comes across as much less crazy even though a lot of what he believes is, in many ways, more crazy than Tim.

Ooooo... You used the 'R" word... 

[JVW]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Ooooo... You used the 'R" word... 

Oh crap, I'm too lazy to read through my own wall of text. I should try to be more concise and brief in my writings. Thank goodness for control+F!

I stand by what I said, I think contextually the word "retarded" makes sense there. Now, I'm not suggesting that I'm smart or "quick" but I am saying that from my perspective Michael B. Rush is slooow in the head.

[teddyaware]

If Tim Ballard’s lawyer Mark Eisenhut is telling the truth in the following video, in which he presents the same evidence he used in court to successfully get Celeste Borys’ case against Ballard dismissed, it appears the case against Ballard as a sexual preditor may not be as cut and dried as many believe it to be. Ballard’s accuser Borys appears to be a prime example of an inconsistent and conflicted witness who utterly lacks credibility. The question is, among all of Ballard’s other accusers is Celeste Borys a lone dishonest outlier who was looking to cash in while Ballard’s other accusers are telling the truth about the “couples ruse,” or will it turn out that the rest of Ballard’s accusers are just as inconsistent, dishonest and money grubbing as Borys appears to be. Time will tell because by Ballard’s own zealous initiative this is all going to be exhaustively aired out and litigated in courts of law. If Ballard actually is guilty, his determined hard court press to bring all things pertinent to the accusations made against him to light has got to to be one of the most wrongheaded and foolhardy strategies ever conceived and executed by the human mind!

 

Edited December 6, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

while Ballard’s other accusers are telling the truth about the “couples ruse,” or will it turn out that the rest of Ballard’s accusers are just as inconsistent, dishonest and money grubbing as Borys appears to be.

Let us assume that all these women are money grubbing liars and not one of them has a valid complaint against TB.  They were also all volunteers that worked with TB, possibly very closely.  Kind of odd that so many of the volunteers appear to think this kind of behaviour was acceptable or maybe a good business model (fraud or conning in essence).  What kind of behaviour in an individual or organization attracts this type of person?

Serious question.  It’s outside my experience and I have never research anything even similar.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If Ballard actually is guilty, his determined hard court press to bring all things pertinent to the accusations made against him to light has got to to be one of the most wrongheaded and foolhardy strategies ever conceived and executed by the human mind!

It is one thing to say one is pushing for their day in court in public, it is another to actually follow through.  McKenna Denson comes to mind (my memory says once her cases in public started falling apart and her lawyers deserted her, she was ignoring deadlines for filing even while making claims she would push it through to the end for justice for her and all victims and in the end the case faded away because her lack of action iirc; this info was on Reddit, so doubt I could dig it up without a lot of work and I am booked for the day).

If TB is guilty, it still is best to be pushing his innocence so strongly in public to keep his support that is still sending him money happy as long as possible as well as it works to intimidate or tire out his accusers.  His attorney can contribute by looking intent on going to court by collecting all this evidence, but the actual purpose could be to wear out their opponents.  (Hopefully his lawyer is a decent guy and just doing his job.)

If I see him refuse a settlement from the Church (and I will be sooooooo disappointed if that happens for a couple of reasons) and actually end up in court and the evidence is also against him, then I will agree it was wrongheaded, but there is a reason why conmen keep lawsuits in their tool chest.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

If I see him refuse a settlement from the Church (and I will be sooooooo disappointed if that happens for a couple of reasons) and actually end up in court and the evidence is also against him, then I will agree it was wrongheaded, but there is a reason why conmen keep lawsuits in their tool chest.

Why would the church offer a settlement? TB is making very bizarre accusations. He would be better served to drop this particular conspiracy theory.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

Why would the church offer a settlement? TB is making very bizarre accusations. He would be better served to drop this particular conspiracy theory.

Tim is taking after a certain current president. The ability to lie enough that people believe it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Why would the church offer a settlement? TB is making very bizarre accusations.

Which is the second biggest reason why I would be so disappointed (first is I want Pres Ballard vindicated).

Nuisance suits that get settled are a thing though and the Church has settled before without admitting wrongdoing so they don’t have to open up records when there wasn’t a solid case in my view as the bishop had allegedly warned the mother not to take the man into her home and she chose to ignore the advice*** and allegedly chose to have him sleep in the same bed as her son for six months (assumption there as I don’t remember if the lawyers ever explained that was why they were settling and disclaimer I may be mixing up cases…added:  I am not, Franklin Curtis case).

If TB gets a judge who is willing to let him go on a fishing trip into financial and other confidential records even with the ridiculous claims (I don’t see it happening, but not a lawyer and  iirc in the case above most lawyers commenting were surprised the judge ruled to require the financial records be made available because it wasn’t necessary until if the Church was found responsible or at least some of the case was presented), I can see the Church possibly going to a settlement if TB agrees to stop spouting off this particular fantasy.  There are plenty of other conspiracies he can latch on to in order to keep the money rolling in.

***the advice was allegedly because of his advanced age, not history as the bishop claimed he was not aware of it, which he wouldn’t be through church records most likely unless Curtis had moved from the ward he had been excommunicated in and rumors were he moved around a lot.  The bishop would as well need to be serving when Curtis moved into the ward if he came straight from the ward he was excommunicated in as the annotation of ‘call me’ would have been removed after one move with the former bishop notifying the new one of the history, but no official record according to the older procedure

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If Tim Ballard’s lawyer Mark Eisenhut is telling the truth in the following video, in which he presents the same evidence he used in court to successfully get Celeste Borys’ case against Ballard dismissed, it appears the case against Ballard as a sexual preditor may not be as cut and dried as many believe it to be.

Pretty big “if” there as the statement is loaded with assumptions.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Ballard’s accuser Borys appears to be a prime example of an inconsistent and conflicted witness who utterly lacks credibility.

Or their testimony was just considered insufficient to pass muster in court. Your characterization is standard demonization and is not necessarily true.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The question is, among all of Ballard’s other accusers is Celeste Borys a lone dishonest outlier who was looking to cash in while Ballard’s other accusers are telling the truth about the “couples ruse,” or will it turn out that the rest of Ballard’s accusers are just as inconsistent, dishonest and money grubbing as Borys appears to be.

And an unproven assumption that just because it was not enough to move the case forward that it was all based on dishonesty.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Time will tell because by Ballard’s own zealous initiative this is all going to be exhaustively aired out and litigated in courts of law.

Or not. This wasn’t an example of things being aired out and exhaustively litigated. Just a determination it is not enough to convict. That is not proof of innocence.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If Ballard actually is guilty, his determined hard court press to bring all things pertinent to the accusations made against him to light has got to to be one of the most wrongheaded and foolhardy strategies ever conceived and executed by the human mind!

That is not what Ballard is doing or what is happening. You are saying he must be innocent because he is willing to fight it out in court. That is not proof of any kind of interest in bringing things to light. He isn’t volunteering information or anything.

You are clearly emotionally invested in this guy for some weird reason. You can just ask him out if you are that into him. Fanboys these days……

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Let us assume that all these women are money grubbing liars and not one of them has a valid complaint against TB.  They were also all volunteers that worked with TB, possibly very closely.  Kind of odd that so many of the volunteers appear to think this kind of behaviour was acceptable or maybe a good business model (fraud or conning in essence).  What kind of behaviour in an individual or organization attracts this type of person?

Serious question.  It’s outside my experience and I have never research anything even similar.

They are also putting themselves up for large-scale humiliation and degradation from people like teddyaware and people who are much less restrained in their hostility. This damage will be done to them whether they win or lose.

And yeah, if everyone you bring on board to this “volunteer’ gig that doesn’t need and shouldn’t have volunteers says you are a sex pest you are a sex pest. Plus the whole concept is designed by and for the sex pest. We have to go undercover and we have to pretend to be in a relationship so we don’t blow our cover. Yeah, I am sure it sounds convincing but if you know anything about stings or underconver work the whole idea is just stupid. This isn’t an episode of NCIS or whatever where you have to do extended time undercover. You literally pretend to be in a relationship for a few minutes until you make your move and bring in the cameras. You don’t even need a spouse for this whole ruse. It is rubbish. He did it because he wants to flirt with women. We have some of his chatlogs. He was flirting and being a sex pest and explaining how important it was to fake this vibe (that he wasn’t faking) to avoid getting caught.

I am not blaming the victims who got caught up in it but people defending him after it all comes out don’t have this excuse. Don’t be pro-sex pest shouldn’t be a high standard for people in general. I wish I could say that I find it baffling that so many Church members (most of them men) are willing to defend a sex pest but I just don’t. Patriarchal values at their finest……..yuck.

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are also putting themselves up for large-scale humiliation and degradation from people like teddyaware and people who are much less restrained in their hostility. This damage will be done to them whether they win or lose.

And yeah, if everyone you bring on board to this “volunteer’ gig that doesn’t need and shouldn’t have volunteers says you are a sex pest you are a sex pest. Plus the whole concept is designed by and for the sex pest. We have to go undercover and we have to pretend to be in a relationship so we don’t blow our cover. Yeah, I am sure it sounds convincing but if you know anything about stings or underconver work the whole idea is just stupid. This isn’t an episode of NCIS or whatever where you have to do extended time undercover. You literally pretend to be in a relationship for a few minutes until you make your move and bring in the cameras. You don’t even need a spouse for this whole ruse. It is rubbish. He did it because he wants to flirt with women. We have some of his chatlogs. He was flirting and being a sex pest and explaining how important it was to fake this vibe (that he wasn’t faking) to avoid getting caught.

I am not blaming the victims who got caught up in it but people defending him after it all comes out don’t have this excuse. Don’t be pro-sex pest shouldn’t be a high standard for people in general. I wish I could say that I find it baffling that so many Church members (most of them men) are willing to defend a sex pest but I just don’t. Patriarchal values at their finest……..yuck.

I feel sorry for his wife and kids, that's a terrible stain on their names, but hopefully it won't affect them just him!!

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for his wife and kids, that's a terrible stain on their names, but hopefully it won't affect them just him!!

 

She defended the “couples ruse” as a legitimate tactic. For this reason she was a defendant in the lawsuit for a while but the judge removed her with prejudice because the evidence against her was not enough to pursue a case.

So it seems she was okay with this deception and possibly with her husband taking other women to tantric yoga, getting couple ‘massages’ with sex workers, and these women giving her husband lap dances, and all the rest. Maybe this was an attempt to protect her husband. Maybe she was complicit. Maybe she was happy with anything that would keep her husband away from her. Maybe she was just scared.

I don’t know.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

She defended the “couples ruse” as a legitimate tactic. For this reason she was a defendant in the lawsuit for a while but the judge removed her with prejudice because the evidence against her was not enough to pursue a case.

So it seems she was okay with this deception and possibly with her husband taking other women to tantric yoga, getting couple ‘massages’ with sex workers, and these women giving her husband lap dances, and all the rest. Maybe this was an attempt to protect her husband. Maybe she was complicit. Maybe she was happy with anything that would keep her husband away from her. Maybe she was just scared.

I don’t know.

I hadn't realized this. Something going on there, it seems.

[JVW]

On 12/6/2025 at 5:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Pretty big “if” there as the statement is loaded with assumptions.

Or their testimony was just considered insufficient to pass muster in court. Your characterization is standard demonization and is not necessarily true.

And an unproven assumption that just because it was not enough to move the case forward that it was all based on dishonesty.

Or not. This wasn’t an example of things being aired out and exhaustively litigated. Just a determination it is not enough to convict. That is not proof of innocence.

That is not what Ballard is doing or what is happening. You are saying he must be innocent because he is willing to fight it out in court. That is not proof of any kind of interest in bringing things to light. He isn’t volunteering information or anything.

You are clearly emotionally invested in this guy for some weird reason. You can just ask him out if you are that into him. Fanboys these days……

Did you watch the lawyer video he posted? I'd say cliffnotes are if you start at around 15:40 until the end of the video. Considering that she wrote in an email to the church basically "I always felt safe with Tim and was never abused" that kind of does her in as far as that allegation goes. We'll see how the rest play out.

[JVW]

On 12/4/2025 at 3:33 PM, Calm said:

A better place for whom though?  Themselves or others? Serious question, I haven’t studied any of them well enough to have an opinion on their motivation.

It doesn't matter, what matters is their passion and dedication to their cause and ideals, even if they are evil. From the perspective of my little brain I view most powerful people as worshipping money, so money is their primary motivation and what they think about all day. I don't think that applies to everyone listed above, or on my larger personal list of people who have this drive.

On 12/4/2025 at 3:33 PM, Calm said:

With TB, knowing he has to have known the consequences of the way he goes about ‘saving children’ because of his background and the criticisms of his work he is obviously imo aware of (because of his responses) that include result data, I believe his motivation is his ego and pocketbook, he wants to make the world better for himself.  Perhaps initially he cared about helping kids, etc (certainly hope so and in this give him the benefit of the doubt), but if he truly did still, he would be at the very least hesitant about some of the things he is promoting.

Not ruling out possible mental issues including paranoia, delusions, etc.  That would explain a lot if he’s going as extreme as it appears from your comments.  Going with a more probable explanation that would be hard to prove or disprove would be better for him legally, imo, and keep him with more mainstream appeal.  Julie Rowe prophesied herself out of a mass following because she started seeing herself as a messiah figure.

Your view on his motivations is entirely possible. I'm going to take him at his word here as far as what motivates him because that's what I tend to do when it comes to public figures. If they are deceiving it tends to come to light sooner or later.