Tim Ballard's New Rants About the Church

[JVW]

On 12/4/2025 at 3:48 PM, Calm said:

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  )

Let me start by stating this belief I have about power - Those who break the rules are perceived as more powerful than those who don't. The inference here is that if one is truly powerful they have the ability to break rules. Example: a saint who pays tithing every month for their entire life and would have a panic attack if they missed a payment VS a saint who has historically paid whenever they felt like it and consciously choose to pay tithing even though could not without a second thought.

My mother was a powerful person. She could get things done, and she always got things the way she wanted them. She used that power, somewhat naively, in a bad way that damaged me and my siblings probably beyond repair. As I grew up my mother, whether consciously or not, would spend every opportunity trying to break my will until she succeeded at which point I did not have agency anymore. I don't know how much of my personality comes from my mom, but if I ever had any semblance of her powerful personality I don't remember it because she broke me at such a young age.

Because of the trauma I went through I do not really have any childhood or early adolescent memories. Only small fragments. Within a year after my parents divorce when I was 15 I was kicked out by my mom (because her new husband threatened to call the cops on me) and I moved in with my dad. He told me of a time shortly after that when he took me to McDonald's drive thru and asked me what I wanted to which I replied, "Whatever you want me to have." That small event is indicative of the way I had been raised, conditioned, and beaten into.

My life's journey now is twofold:

1) to not want to be dead (as an atheist because I thought ceasing to exist sounded so peaceful, as a theist because I know the afterlife is beyond any happiness I can feel on Earth).

2) to care, to be plugged in, to be passionate and loud and temperamental and have power to effect the changes I want to see in the world. As it stands right now I feel like I'm only 5% there but in reality I'm probably more like 40% there. Though my apathy, poor memory (b/c of lack of strong emotional response to most things), and lack of ability to connect makes me feel like I'm going to end up with Alzheimer's one day.

I want to be powerful and use that power in the right way, to build and uplift those around me, not in the wrong way to produce slavery and misery. Since I have lived through the "how not to do it" I hopefully would be able to avoid those pitfalls that would cause harm. Did that answer your question?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

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.

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.

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

Edited December 8, 2025 by teddyaware

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

He is not passionate about having all evidence brought to light, discussed, and exposed.  The Celeste Borys case was tossed because of how she gained the evidence, not because of what was in the evidence.  If he was really fine with all evidence being seen, he should have not tried to kill that case at this point.  Yes, she gained the evidence through extremely unethical means, but it shows that Ballard doesn't want the evidence seen.  He is trying to hide the evidence.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

"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.

I haven’t watched it yet and won’t until I get some stuff done.  Based on my experience reading complaints and listening to lawyers promote their clients’ cases (very limited, not an expert), I don’t trust the accuracy of their representation. They don’t have to prove the facts of their case until they are in court.  The complaint may be full of errors, possibly intentional.

So it weakens her position, but it depends on when she wrote it and under what circumstances and if she was coerced to do so, if she can prove that she was coerced or at least pressured by TB.  She wouldn’t be the first or last victim who acted like they are in a great relationship with their predator or even believe it for a time.  Fear can play major games with one’s mind.

Not saying this is for sure, but ruling out she was a victim based on that is premature, imo.

[JVW]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I haven’t watched it yet and won’t until I get some stuff done.  Based on my experience reading complaints and listening to lawyers promote their clients’ cases (very limited, not an expert), I don’t trust the accuracy of their representation. They don’t have to prove the facts of their case until they are in court.  The complaint may be full of errors, possibly intentional.

So it weakens her position, but it depends on when she wrote it and under what circumstances and if she was coerced to do so, if she can prove that she was coerced or at least pressured by TB.  She wouldn’t be the first or last victim who acted like they are in a great relationship with their predator or even believe it for a time.  Fear can play major games with one’s mind.

Not saying this is for sure, but ruling out she was a victim based on that is premature, imo.

The lawyer video was him reviewing a case that the judge has already ruled on, against the woman, and he shows the timeline and screenshots. He rambles about the Sound of Freedom movie for a few minutes, I didn't like that part, the rest of it was interesting. The email she wrote to the church is around the 15:40 mark.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, JVW said:

Let me start by stating this belief I have about power - Those who break the rules are perceived as more powerful than those who don't. The inference here is that if one is truly powerful they have the ability to break rules. Example: a saint who pays tithing every month for their entire life and would have a panic attack if they missed a payment VS a saint who has historically paid whenever they felt like it and consciously choose to pay tithing even though could not without a second thought.

My mother was a powerful person. She could get things done, and she always got things the way she wanted them. She used that power, somewhat naively, in a bad way that damaged me and my siblings probably beyond repair. As I grew up my mother, whether consciously or not, would spend every opportunity trying to break my will until she succeeded at which point I did not have agency anymore. I don't know how much of my personality comes from my mom, but if I ever had any semblance of her powerful personality I don't remember it because she broke me at such a young age.

Because of the trauma I went through I do not really have any childhood or early adolescent memories. Only small fragments. Within a year after my parents divorce when I was 15 I was kicked out by my mom (because her new husband threatened to call the cops on me) and I moved in with my dad. He told me of a time shortly after that when he took me to McDonald's drive thru and asked me what I wanted to which I replied, "Whatever you want me to have." That small event is indicative of the way I had been raised, conditioned, and beaten into.

My life's journey now is twofold:

1) to not want to be dead (as an atheist because I thought ceasing to exist sounded so peaceful, as a theist because I know the afterlife is beyond any happiness I can feel on Earth).

2) to care, to be plugged in, to be passionate and loud and temperamental and have power to effect the changes I want to see in the world. As it stands right now I feel like I'm only 5% there but in reality I'm probably more like 40% there. Though my apathy, poor memory (b/c of lack of strong emotional response to most things), and lack of ability to connect makes me feel like I'm going to end up with Alzheimer's one day.

I want to be powerful and use that power in the right way, to build and uplift those around me, not in the wrong way to produce slavery and misery. Since I have lived through the "how not to do it" I hopefully would be able to avoid those pitfalls that would cause harm. Did that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for opening yourself up and sharing. I hope your achieve your dreams in ways that benefit both you and those around you.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see.

You never encountered someone who promised to get the evidence out for all to see until he was actually in a place of power to do just that and then it didn’t happen for quite some time, maybe even called it a hoax?

Edited December 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

He is not passionate about having all evidence brought to light, discussed, and exposed.  The Celeste Borys case was tossed because of how she gained the evidence, not because of what was in the evidence.  If he was really fine with all evidence being seen, he should have not tried to kill that case at this point.  Yes, she gained the evidence through extremely unethical means, but it shows that Ballard doesn't want the evidence seen.  He is trying to hide the evidence.

Very, very good point.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JVW said:

The lawyer video was him reviewing a case that the judge has already ruled on, against the woman, and he shows the timeline and screenshots. He rambles about the Sound of Freedom movie for a few minutes, I didn't like that part, the rest of it was interesting. The email she wrote to the church is around the 15:40 mark.

Thanks for the summary. I just can’t go down that rabbit hole right now.   will later. 

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

Once again, you demonstrate how little you understand the lengths to which conmen will go to maintain their image as being in the right.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane.

False dichotomy. Set the bar so high for the ‘bad’ outcome and your favored ‘good’ outcome becomes probable by default.

I don’t see how his countersuits are likely to expose him. Discovery is happening with or without the countersuits.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

This is just totally wrong. Seriously, read the text exchanges. He wasn’t training anyone to act like a “sexual pervert”. The stuff he was doing was all very vanilla and was ostensibly entirely about him and the woman being able to convince people they were a couple. He was creepily pressing for doing more things to supposedly be better at faking this bond.

As a certified sexual pervert I can say the stuff they were doing wouldn’t make her ready even for the ethical side of the kink world. There was nothing about getting her to act like a predator.

And, of course, it is nonsensically stupid to use this ruse in the first place. You don’t have to have a romantic partner to set up a child predator party. He only did this so he could do this fake flirting thing. I have no idea how far he planned on taking it. Even if it didn’t go all the way guys like Ballard feed on the attention and being desired. My guess if he could get them to go all the way they would.

The only times they were degraded and humiliated were with him. Not in the actual sting. That should show exactly how necessary it was.

It may be time for serious self-examination if you are defending predatory sex pest behavior as a necessary evil to achieve a “higher good”. It is stupid and morally reprehensible.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery or lust after a woman in your heart unless it is part of unnecessary preparatory method acting for a hamfisted sex trafficking sting that won’t put a dent in actual sex trafficking.” -Jesus (probably)

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

You never encountered someone who promised to get the evidence out for all to see until he was actually in a place of power to do just that and then it didn’t happen for quite some time, maybe even called it a hoax?

Something about underage parties on an island somewhere? Something about that rings a bell.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

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.

Abuse victims often rationalize away the abuse at first or blame themselves. That is not as vindicating as it sounds.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Something about underage parties on an island somewhere? Something about that rings a bell.

Really?  It was just a pure thought experiment for me.😇

[grapevine]

Now it is called membership restrictions formerly disfellowshipped and withdrawal formerly excommunication.  I don’t think a High Council participates in membership councils formerly disciplinary councils.  Leaders do not say what goes on in those councils.  Respect privacy of the people involved in councils.

 

I am sure most people that need to repent are humble about it and will work with their leaders so the full repentance process can take place.  Since details of councils are kept confidential you won’t hear from leaders there. But the apostates rant about the injustice of the council, things they did wrong on and on.  People that did not make the rules or seek their positions.  That is people that don’t want to repent but find fault with those called to preside over them.

[JVW]

14 hours ago, grapevine said:

Now it is called membership restrictions formerly disfellowshipped and withdrawal formerly excommunication.  I don’t think a High Council participates in membership councils formerly disciplinary councils.  Leaders do not say what goes on in those councils.  Respect privacy of the people involved in councils.

 

I am sure most people that need to repent are humble about it and will work with their leaders so the full repentance process can take place.  Since details of councils are kept confidential you won’t hear from leaders there. But the apostates rant about the injustice of the council, things they did wrong on and on.  People that did not make the rules or seek their positions.  That is people that don’t want to repent but find fault with those called to preside over them.

They recently excommunicated Karen Hyatt described her excommunication experience during an interview on Mormon Stories podcast. She thought it was a great experience and that everyone did the best they could. One thing she described which I thought was fascinating was that councils no longer follow the D&C. They don't divide 6 for and 6 against anymore.

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

They don't divide 6 for and 6 against anymore.

D&C never specified 6 against. It only ever talked about 6 for.

 But yes, the split is not longer discussed in the handbook. Handbook 32.10.3 now says "7. The bishop or stake president asks for comments or insights from his counselors. If the high council has participated in a stake membership council, he asks for their comments and insights."

Edited December 31, 2025 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

D&C never specified 6 against. It only ever talked about 6 for.

 But yes, the split is not longer discussed in the handbook. Handbook 32.10.3 now says "7. The bishop or stake president asks for comments or insights from his counselors. If the high council has participated in a stake membership council, he asks for their comments and insights."

One more Doctrine and Covenants section we ignore.