Tim Ballard's New Rants About the Church

[JVW]

On 10/25/2025 at 2:53 AM, The Nehor said:

When I was younger and stupider I heard about a child trafficking case involving someone who created sadistic child porn. I looked into it because the punishment seemed incredibly harsh. Then I found out that hardened members of Interpol and other law enforcement organizations who primarily worked these cases called it the worst they had ever seen. I obviously didn’t see it but I did read a description. I barely made it to the bathroom before I emptied my whole stomach.

I know of one case where a guy in the FBI (family member of a friend) retired after about a decade in that kind of department. He killed himself a few days after leaving. It is a messed up world.

I don’t think Ballard falls into that group though. It sounds like he was making up his past in order to fundraise. He would boldly claim he worked for the CIA and other federal agencies but got very cagey when pressed for specifics. Also the terminology he used to describe his job when he was supposedly in the CIA is not CIA terminology.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/operative-or-intern-tim-ballards-story-of-working-for-the-cia-keeps-changing

I think he is a case of always being bad. I am basing this on an acquaintance of mine who knew him years ago. He described him as self-aggrandizing and a habitual liar about anything that could make himself sound good. This person was glad not to have to work with him anymore.

When law enforcement breaks under the strain or become too jaded Ballard is not what you get. You don’t get a flashy “look at me” daredevil bragging about how much good they do and trying to convince everyone they are a special forces version of Rambo. They usually become an alcoholic or succumb to depression or become abusive to try to deal with the pain.

I believe you, Nehor & Calm. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and inform me about Tim Ballard.

Edited October 28, 2025 by JVW
Misattributed quote to Calm, but she was very helpful in this thread as was Nehor

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

For Utah?  I thought Snow was the primary therapist who promoted it here.

Are you talking about the book?  Something Michelle iirc, Remembering Michelle maybe.

No, to kick off the whole thing in general.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Unfortunately a post by Ballard came across my FB news feed and, as suspected, he is using the Pace Memo as his source to claim the "Deep Church" is protecting and covering up SRA.

Edited November 9, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Pyreaux]

47 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Unfortunately a post by Ballard came across my FB news feed and, as suspected, he is using the Pace Memo as his source to claim the "Deep Church" is protecting and covering up SRA.

Dude, post it! I'm not in FB, and I almost can't believe this.

[Calm]

[Calm]

Of all the idiotic…..

Like no one else has known about this for 30 years and investigated?  Obviously the “deep church” (I would be laughing my head off if I didn’t know this could become a thing now) somehow controlled every law enforcement officer who saw this all over the internet….

Edited November 9, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I hope this is the opening of many out there's eyes opening up about Tim Ballard and the ilk.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope this is the opening of many out there's eyes opening up about Tim Ballard and the ilk.

The comments were frustratingly buying it unfortunately.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The comments were frustratingly buying it unfortunately.

Yep, I seen enough Ballard apologists that I believe we can officially begin using the term "Ballardites".

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yep, I seen enough Ballard apologists that I believe we can officially begin using the term "Ballardites".

He'll have his own church or at least formal following before long.  It's kind of inevitable at this point.

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yep, I seen enough Ballard apologists that I believe we can officially begin using the term "Ballardites".

But in spite of it all, if Tim Ballard’s legal team can prove in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence that Doug Anderson lied when he told reporters from the now defunct Vice magazine (why the bottom feeding Vice Magazine?!) that M. Russell Ballard renounced Tim Ballard when Elder Ballard hadn’t actually done so, then like it or not, and in spite of all of Tim Ballard’s imperfections, he’s is going to emerge from most of his legal troubles smelling like a rose, while the corporate church is going to going to get hit with a serious public relations black eye that will give the church’s enemies a propaganda bonanza.

And it’s hard to imagine that if Doug Anderson is legally demonstrated to be a liar who ran to sleazy, salivating reporters with a juicy though untrue story, it’s hard to imagine that he’s going to be able to continue to have a smooth sailing career going forward. And it must be said that whether Tim Ballard is legally vindicated or not, it’s always a sin to lie, even when it’s believed that someone is evil enough to deserve to be accused of wrongdoing without evidence.

I’m reserving judgement on this case because the legal annals are now too full of instances where the innocent people were convicted of serious crimes because law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, witnesses, judges and juries were absolutely certain that the innocent who later be totally vindicated deserved to be thrown into the slammer for life because they were absolutely convinced they were guilty as charged because “guilt” was written all over their unlikeable personalities and faces.

Edited November 10, 2025 by teddyaware

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

But in spite of it all, if Tim Ballard’s legal team can prove in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence that Doug Anderson lied when he told reporters from the now defunct Vice magazine (why the bottom feeding Vice Magazine?!) that M. Russell Ballard renounced Tim Ballard when Elder Ballard hadn’t actually done so, then like it or not, and in spite of all of Tim Ballard’s imperfections, he’s is going to emerge from most of his legal troubles smelling like a rose, while the corporate church is going to going to get hit with a serious public relations black eye that will give the church’s enemies a propaganda bonanza.

And it’s hard to imagine that if Doug Anderson is legally demonstrated to be a liar who ran to sleazy, salivating reporters with a juicy though untrue story, it’s hard to imagine that he’s going to be able to continue to have a smooth sailing career going forward. And it must be said that whether Tim Ballard is legally vindicated or not, it’s always a sin to lie, even when it’s believed that someone is evil enough to deserve to be accused of wrongdoing without evidence.

I’m reserving judgement on this case because the legal annals are now too full of instances where the innocent people were convicted of serious crimes because law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, witnesses, judges and juries were absolutely certain that the innocent who later be totally vindicated deserved to be thrown into the slammer for life because they were absolutely convinced they were guilty as charged because “guilt” was written all over their unlikeable personalities and faces.

If it was just a personal issue with Anderson, I get your point. But he is using a decades old memo that has provability issues to say there is a secret cabal within Church HQ actively seeking to cover up rampant SRA within the Church and implies that high up church leaders may be involved in that same SRA. That's where I have the issue.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

But in spite of it all, if Tim Ballard’s legal team can prove in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence that Doug Anderson lied when he told reporters from the now defunct Vice magazine (why the bottom feeding Vice Magazine?!) that M. Russell Ballard renounced Tim Ballard when Elder Ballard hadn’t actually done so, then like it or not, and in spite of all of Tim Ballard’s imperfections, he’s is going to emerge from most of his legal troubles smelling like a rose, while the corporate church is going to going to get hit with a serious public relations black eye that will give the church’s enemies a propaganda bonanza.

Ballard is suing Anderson?  Where do you see that?

And by using the Pace memo, that really hurts his image.  He should know better than that.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

But in spite of it all, if Tim Ballard’s legal team can prove in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence that Doug Anderson lied when he told reporters from the now defunct Vice magazine (why the bottom feeding Vice Magazine?!) that M. Russell Ballard renounced Tim Ballard when Elder Ballard hadn’t actually done so, then like it or not, and in spite of all of Tim Ballard’s imperfections, he’s is going to emerge from most of his legal troubles smelling like a rose, while the corporate church is going to going to get hit with a serious public relations black eye that will give the church’s enemies a propaganda bonanza.

And it’s hard to imagine that if Doug Anderson is legally demonstrated to be a liar who ran to sleazy, salivating reporters with a juicy though untrue story, it’s hard to imagine that he’s going to be able to continue to have a smooth sailing career going forward. And it must be said that whether Tim Ballard is legally vindicated or not, it’s always a sin to lie, even when it’s believed that someone is evil enough to deserve to be accused of wrongdoing without evidence.

Can you explain how you think this could have happened with Elder Ballard going along with it?  This turns Elder Ballard into part of the corruption since he had time to correct it and instead participated in destroying an allegedly good man’s reputation….apparently for political purposes.

I think I asked you before and you didn’t have a chance to answer (thread was locked?).  You seem to be able to assume Doug Anderson is corrupt and acted without direction from church leadership and still managed to keep his job after exposing the Church to massive liability and reputation damage if TB is accurate in his claim it was Anderson and not Elder Ballard who claimed the betrayal.

Edited November 10, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

Ballard is suing Anderson?  Where do you see that?

And by using the Pace memo, that really hurts his image.  He should know better than that.

TB mentioned this in the video that got posted not long ago, iirc.  He said he gave the Church 2 years to clear his name (apparently the kids getting abused and sacrificed during those two years matter less than his reputation to him) and since Brother Anderson still has his job, TB has decided they need to be called to accountability with a lawsuit.

Edited November 10, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the whole Ballard affair escaped, or was hidden from, the attention of Pres. Oaks, Pres. Christofferson, Elder Cook (Lawyers) or Elder Bednar.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the whole Ballard affair escaped, or was hidden from, the attention of Pres. Oaks, Pres. Christofferson, Elder Cook (Lawyers) or Elder Bednar.

Or that they all ignored a valid (rather than misguided and uninformed, though based on common perceptions of the time) appraisal of Satanic rites taking place with the structure of the Church for 35 years.

I was in Canada during in the 90s and still heard of the Utah satanic claims then and many times since.

They must have had really good cleaning crews at their beck and call for these sacrifices and literal bloodbaths in the temple or chapels such that no one ever noticed unexpected blood drops on the carpets from these murders.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Or that they all ignored a valid (rather than misguided and uninformed, though based on common perceptions of the time) appraisal of Satanic rites taking place with the structure of the Church for 35 years.

Yes. Given the Anti-Mormon claim of Satanic rituals being performed in the temple, it would have been a great opportunity to show we are giving satan the boot.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, teddyaware said:

But in spite of it all, if Tim Ballard’s legal team can prove in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence that Doug Anderson lied when he told reporters from the now defunct Vice magazine (why the bottom feeding Vice Magazine?!) that M. Russell Ballard renounced Tim Ballard when Elder Ballard hadn’t actually done so, then like it or not, and in spite of all of Tim Ballard’s imperfections, he’s is going to emerge from most of his legal troubles smelling like a rose, while the corporate church is going to going to get hit with a serious public relations black eye that will give the church’s enemies a propaganda bonanza.

And it’s hard to imagine that if Doug Anderson is legally demonstrated to be a liar who ran to sleazy, salivating reporters with a juicy though untrue story, it’s hard to imagine that he’s going to be able to continue to have a smooth sailing career going forward. And it must be said that whether Tim Ballard is legally vindicated or not, it’s always a sin to lie, even when it’s believed that someone is evil enough to deserve to be accused of wrongdoing without evidence.

I’m reserving judgement on this case because the legal annals are now too full of instances where the innocent people were convicted of serious crimes because law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, witnesses, judges and juries were absolutely certain that the innocent who later be totally vindicated deserved to be thrown into the slammer for life because they were absolutely convinced they were guilty as charged because “guilt” was written all over their unlikeable personalities and faces.

You know you  can just ask Ballard if you want to be an apostle of his new church. You don’t have to keep defending him here and hope he will notice.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You know you  can just ask Ballard if you want to be an apostle of his new church. You don’t have to keep defending him here and hope he will notice.

Can we not shift the subject to personal too much until teddy explains what he sees the behaviour of the First Presidency and the Apostles implying during the past two years, especially the silence from Elder Ballard?  He has mentioned this possibility a number of times before, but has never clarified how he sees this as happening in the greater context of Doug Anderson being under the supervision and working for these men (threads have often been locked because of getting personal or political and since this is a really important part of the narrative, I don’t want that to happen again).

So perhaps others can wait to comment until teddy gets a chance to fill out his idea on how this could have happened given what we know of how the Church operates plus even we accept TB’s narrative, Elder Ballard was fully aware of the announcement and was committed to resolving problems when he first heard about it.  

So what came next that there was silence from him and other leaders and Doug Anderson retained his job?

And what does that mean about the characters of the men leading the Church if you think they participated in a coverup for Doug Anderson (TB states there is a coverup and that seems to imply to me that top leaders are going along with it, but perhaps teddy sees a different possible scenario).

This isn’t my thread, so I am just asking as a favour because I am very curious.  I can’t imagine a situation where the leaders don’t come off as incompetent or corrupt and that doesn’t seem to be how Teddy views our First Presidency and Apostles, so I am very sincerely very curious about how he imagines this.  At the very least his explanation may help me understand other faithful members who accept Tim Ballard as possibly telling the truth.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

I'd like to wait for evidence too, the promise of proving the "Deep Church" is a powerful motivator to hold out. It's easy to get invested, not just in Ballard, but in the cause and the idea that the truth is being suppressed. What is crazy is how the power dynamic flipped. When does the lack of evidence becomes evidence of the conspiracy for those committed to the belief, making the wait for actual proof a potentially endless loop? Waiting for the evidence becomes an act of loyalty and faith against the perceived dark forces, regardless of how long the wait is or how many times the deadline for the "proof" is missed.

If the long debunked "Pace Memo" is the evidence of the "Deep Church" claim, it looks like a long wait for a train that won't come.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Waiting for the evidence becomes an act of loyalty and faith against the perceived dark forces, regardless of how long the wait is or how many times the deadline for the "proof" is missed.

 

Some would say this is how all promises through the Church pretty much operate, what the scriptures teach….enduring to the end in hope of things not seen.

 (I don’t see it that way, it just struck me as familiar when you said it)

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Some would say this is how all promises through the Church pretty much operate, what the scriptures teach….enduring to the end in hope of things not seen.

 (I don’t see it that way, it just struck me as familiar when you said it)

It hadn't escaped me that being a Latter-day Saint there is a bit of irony that I personally have entertained the Smithsonian, or the Vatican are hiding the truth of Mormonism. On the other hand, thinking poorly of Creation Scientists that think NASA, geologists, biologists are hiding the truth. While all Christianity depends on faith in many things without evidence.

I'd then have to say by religious faith we believe the proof of the faith's historicity is out there (hidden in the earth or by the Smithsonian/Vatican), but the foundation of your testimony rests on a personal, spiritual encounter with God. The evidence of the truth is, first and foremost, internal and current.

The Ballardite foundation of belief is based on a secondary claim (a powerful "Deep Church" enemy) that requires a primary, external object (documentation) to prove it. The belief is entirely conditional on the reveal. If its only the memo, the story collapses. They have a "good story," and no personal, divine encounter to substitute for the missing proof. The dilemma is that they put faith in a falsifiable, external evidence of a document, and the document hasn't been produced.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

there is a bit of irony that I personally have entertained the Smithsonian, or the Vatican are hiding the truth of Mormonism.

Really?  In what ways?

Sorry, ignore that…my brain getting attracted by the shiny.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The Ballardite foundation of belief is based on a secondary claim (a powerful "Deep Church" enemy) that requires a primary, external object (documentation) to prove it. The belief is entirely conditional on the reveal. If its only the memo, the story collapses. They have a "good story," and no personal, divine encounter to substitute for the missing proof. The dilemma is that they put faith in a falsifiable, external evidence of a document, and the document hasn't been produced.

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).

But I suspect there are more nuanced ways to look at it, which is why I am hoping Teddy ashes his POV and reasoning on leadership involvement and what this implies to him about their character (good? bad? both?)

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm