Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Tim Ballard


Calm

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just wish those prone to accept these claims were much more careful about accepting claims and anything connected with a financial or status benefit for the visionary people should be 1,000 times more cautious. Make sure it isn’t just wishful feelings testifying if the truth. 

And when you are involving the father of a missing child, you should be a bazillion times more cautious.   That is what is even more troubling to me about this. 

That angers me terribly to know that victims are being manipulated like this!  You don't freaking take the father with you on a psychic led goose chase, promising (without any evidence) that you will find his son!   To build up false hope like this with a desperate and grieving father is so reckless, unthinkable and angering to me. 

Quote

“Guesno, buddy,” Ballard said during the conversation. “He’s here. We’re gonna get him.”

That is so wrong!  That is like setting the father up to lose his son all over again emotionally.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

There are principles of algebra that are applicable to our evaluation of the world, meaning controlling for what you’re doing on both sides of the equation. I’m neither a defender nor detractor of OUR or Ballard, though do have certain opinions (that cross the line many times as to which “side” that may align with), but it’s really easy to throw up problematic issues without knowing what the standard or the comparison is. In this specific case, often many shortcomings of the organization is thrown up with an implication of “trust governmental authorities” without actually knowing what that comparison is. Specific to the use of psychics, well, okay…

From the Department of Justice:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/psychics-and-police-work

From the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf

There may be valid criticisms of Ballard and/or OUR. A bigger problem may be not being able to adequately contextualize that. Does it differ from its backdrop? How many other organizations and causes are problematic or don’t really achieve their intended ends or are perhaps causing more harm? I believe the answer to that would not only be surprising but also very disheartening. It’s actually more likely to be the rule than the exception, in my bias, but can become useful in shining a light on it selectively to create selection and availability biases.

Edited by Judd
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

And when you are involving the father of a missing child, you should be a bazillion times more cautious.   That is what is even more troubling to me about this. 

Yes, this is pure selfishness imo.

If you were truly concerned about helping the family, you would keep quiet until there were actual concrete results.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Is it just me or is anyone else having Paul Dunn flashbacks?

It has been over 30 years, so my guess is a good percentage of the board only remember him as exposed.  I never got into that kind of faith promoting stories (probably tied to my dislike of the spotlight whether on me or someone else), but I remember well how many others were.  My parents had one of his books, might have been a gift since I never heard them talk about his stories.  But Paul Dunn is who I thought of when  I first heard of Ballard’s manipulation of the facts; a good storyteller promoting a very good cause that went too far because the next story had to be ‘better’ and he like too much the story having him as the hero.  
 

I really want to know why Vice believes they have identified the real “Liliana” when they say her details are very different from how Ballard tells it and not just OUR rescuing her.  They properly did not expose her identity, but it leaves me having to take their word for it, the same as Ballard is asking.  And I feel differently about manipulating facts to include oneself as one of the heroes or even making up stories out of while cloth and taking away the heroine status of a victim who refused to be one and saved herself.  Taking the credit that belongs to others is inexcusable and is immoral, imo.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Judd said:

There are principles of algebra that are applicable to our evaluation of the world, meaning controlling for what you’re doing on both sides of the equation. I’m neither a defender nor detractor of OUR or Ballard, though do have certain opinions (that cross the line many times as to which “side” that may align with), but it’s really easy to throw up problematic issues without knowing what the standard or the comparison is. In this specific case, often many shortcomings of the organization is thrown up with an implication of “trust governmental authorities” without actually knowing what that comparison is. Specific to the use of psychics, well, okay…

From the Department of Justice:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/psychics-and-police-work

From the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf

There may be valid criticisms of Ballard and/or OUR. A bigger problem may be not being able to adequately contextualize that. Does it differ from its backdrop? How many other organizations and causes are problematic or don’t really achieve their intended ends or are perhaps causing more harm? I believe the answer to that would not only be surprising but also very disheartening. It’s actually more likely to be the rule than the exception, in my bias, but can become useful in shining a light on it selectively to create selection and availability biases.

I don’t care about the use of psychics.  I might use tea leaves if I was desperately searching for a child.  You protect the parents though, you don’t put other people at risk, and you don’t waste a massive amount of money (that could be spent on more effective things like providing for rescued victims) on poor leads even when desperate…at least not without fully informing the person who is providing the funding and the people taking the risk with that info.

I would like to know if one of their big donors went along as in they wanted to keep them on tap and nothing seals the deal like participating in an operation, I am guessing, or if it was more about needing some film for a project 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t care about the use of physics.  I might use tea leaves if I was desperately searching for a child.  You protect the parents though, you don’t put other people at risk, and you don’t waste a massive amount of money on poor leads even when desperate…at least not without fully informing the person who is providing the funding and the people taking the risk with that info.

I’m not commenting on the appropriateness or inappropriateness any alleged use of psychics and psychics wasn’t specifically my point. Another way of putting this is what it’s like to have a restaurant you enjoy but then end up getting to go back into the kitchen and see how the sausage is made. You may walk away with that experience being nothing like you expected or end up grossed out, so you eschew that establishment and go elsewhere, blissfully unaware what goes on in that kitchen because you haven’t been there, all the whole distracted with the thought of, “thank goodness it isn’t _______!”

None of that is to say that what you saw in the first kitchen wasn’t problematic.

Edited by Judd
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has been over 30 years, so my guess is a good percentage of the board only remember him as exposed.  I never got into that kind of faith promoting stories (probably tied to my dislike of the spotlight whether on me or someone else), but I remember well how many others were.  My parents had one of his books, might have been a gift since I never heard them talk about his stories.  But Paul Dunn is who I thought of when  I first heard of Ballard’s manipulation of the facts; a good storyteller promoting a very good cause that went too far because the next story had to be ‘better’ and he like too much the story having him as the hero.

I brought his The Ten Most Wanted Men book on my mission. I saw him speak live one time and I had a cassette tape of some of his talks. I don't remember having any questions in my mind about his stories being true.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Judd said:

None of that is to say that what you saw in the first kitchen wasn’t problematic.

Are you saying we shouldn’t complain about the standards of OUR and Ballard until we examine what goes on in other charities because their standards may be standard?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying we shouldn’t complain about the standards of OUR and Ballard until we examine what goes on in other charities?

I’m suggesting we don’t walk into the next restaurant assuming that by default they don’t have the same flaws. People can complain about any standards they want, but when the criticisms on something such as psychics come up, and we point to civil authority as the baseline or backdrop, it’s helpful to know that, as ridiculous and salacious as we find something like that to be, law enforcement is also using psychics. It may actually be that OUR utilized psychics precisely because of their attempts at approximation of, and prior experience or training in, law enforcement. That’s absolutely up for criticism, but don’t assume it’s just because you’ve got some rogue, cooky organization that you’re seeing something like that. 

Edited by Judd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Is it just me or is anyone else having Paul Dunn flashbacks?

Paul Dunn's fabrications were communicated by him in his official capacity as a high-ranking member of the Church.  So that's different.

On the other hand, Dunn's fabrications were self-aggrandizing.  That's a similarity.

Dunn's fabrications seemingly had no money-making component.  That's a difference.

Dunn was alleged to have engaged in problematic business matters in ways associated with his membership in the Church (see here).  That's a similarity.

Dunn initially attempted to rationalize his fabrications, but ultimately came clean and apologized.  So far Tim Ballard hasn't done that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Judd said:

I’m suggesting we don’t walk into the next restaurant assuming that by default they don’t have the same flaws

Of course.  We should learn from experience at least.  The various charity monitors can be quite helpful in this regard, though they aren’t fool proof.

Is there something that someone said that leads you to be concerned this is happening? (Trying to follow your thought process)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes I’m jarred by the departure from what I believe is “I feel like I belong amongst other members of the church”- when I hear this type of fringe tendency I think “what am I doing here!” 
 

Communication with dead prophets? I mean, if we’re going to communicate with dead people let’s communicate with Einstein or da Vinci. Oh for goodness sake, let’s talk to Prince. Why dead prophets of all things? My goodness we put church leaders on such a pedestal.

+1 for Prince. Dude was a musical genius.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Dunn didn’t claim that a cabal of pedophiles were trying to frame him. So far Tim Ballard has done that.

Wonder if Dunn would have worked that into his stories if he were alive and in his prime today. I remember reading a biography of Ezra T Benson and thinking, “good heavens what would general conference been like if that man was at the pulpit during the trump presidency and the popularity of QAnon.” Would have been wild. 

Link to comment
On 9/19/2023 at 6:47 PM, teddyaware said:

As far as I’m concerned, this bold, unequivocal statement from Tim Ballard tells me that there are only 2 possibilities: Either he’s an honest man who’s been telling the truth all along, and what’s happening to him is a deceptive hit job being carried out by some very evil people, or he’s the most audacious sociopath I’ve ever seen, a man totally devoid of conscience.

People who know Tim well say he is indeed an honest man of conscience, and that he’s being unjustly attacked because he happens to be flying directly over the target of some very evil people who will do anything to keep their abominable crimes hidden. You know, like the secret combinations the Book of Mormon prophesies will occur in the last days?

Either way, it’s going to be fascinating to learn if he’s either saint or devil, when and if the incontrovertible truth ever comes out into the open.

May I introduce you to:

- Bernie Madoff (Madoff Investments)
- Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos)
- Father Bruce Ritter (Covenant House)
- William Aramony (United Way of America)
- John Bennett Jr. (Foundation for New Era Philanthropy)
- Roger Chapin (Help Hospitalized Veterans and Coalition to Salute America's Heroes)
- Larry Jones (Feed the Children)
- John Donald Cody (United States Veterans Association)
- Greg Mortenson (Central Asia Institute)
- The Wingo Family (Angel Food Ministries)
- Somaly Mam (Somaly Mam Foundation)
- James Reynolds, Sr. (Cancer Fund of America)
- Zvi Shor (National Children's Leukemia Foundation)
- Kim Williams (Healing Arts Initiative)
- Brian Mullaney (WonderWork)
- Lola Jean Amorin (The Arc in Hawaii)

All of these people convinced the public they were "honest men (and women) of conscience" but it turned out they were just cons and fraudsters.

Source of charity fraud examples: https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/charitywatch-hall-of-shame

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Wonder if Dunn would have worked that into his stories if he were alive and in his prime today. I remember reading a biography of Ezra T Benson and thinking, “good heavens what would general conference been like if that man was at the pulpit during the trump presidency and the popularity of QAnon.” Would have been wild. 

I don’t think it would have ended well for President Benson. In his lifetime Hoover played him, pretended to be his friend, spied on him, and kept his distance as Benson was politically toxic. Benson betrayed Eisenhower with a ridiculous on the face of it conspiracy theory.

In the more recent climate I don’t think there was anyone who could have played him the same way. Would President Benson have fallen in with some weirdo schemes? Possibly, he did before:

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Judd said:

I’m suggesting we don’t walk into the next restaurant assuming that by default they don’t have the same flaws.

If I walked into a restaurant and saw they were spiking their sausage with sawdust to add volume and bulk to it I would *not* assume that other restaurants of repute were so engaged. By default I would indeed assume they were in compliance with food safety laws unless evidence suggested otherwise.

Link to comment
On 9/17/2023 at 9:22 AM, bsjkki said:

Has the church made a comment about an individual member in this way before? 
 

*For years I have thought the church PR department has made a multitude of missteps. Basically been inept. 

I don't recall the specifics, but yes, when they excommunicate a member of the Quorum of the 70's, George P. Lee.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...