Tim Ballard

[webbles]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

John Dehlin is reporting Ballards excommunication Monday night. 
 

https://x.com/johndehlin/status/1707481973617525016?s=46&t=ipJkniRwl_1iK-eoUKxnNw

Did this just come out of nowhere?  I thought all the reports had been he was still in good standing with the church.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you lend this statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

100 percent I think that woman experienced no sexual harassment. 

What about Tim Ballard's denial?  Do you lend that statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

If so, do you lend it the same "100 percent" credibility you do to the woman who made a statement via Instagram?  Why or why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

Did this just come out of nowhere?  I thought all the reports had been he was still in good standing with the church.

This whole thing started when the church issued a statement which said his behavior was "morally unacceptable". So no, I don't think all reports said he was in good standing with the church.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Anonymously.  And the allegations are conclusory.  No details.  No evidence.  Just the say-so of a lawyer.

This is always funny to me. For people like Tim Ballard this is not enough to form an opinion. But for your enemies, the merest whiff of internet rumor is enough for you to accept…

Huh?  What "enemies" do you imagine I have?  And what "internet rumor" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  What "enemies" do you imagine I have?  And what "internet rumor" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

The one where you were accusing members of the San Francisco gay men’s chorus of being child sex offenders

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Did this just come out of nowhere?  I thought all the reports had been he was still in good standing with the church.

I’m pretty sure the only one reporting that was Tim Ballard. Not the most credible source.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Huh?  What "enemies" do you imagine I have?  And what "internet rumor" are you referencing here?

The one where you were accusing members of the San Francisco gay men’s chorus of being child sex offenders

Where did I label them "enemies?"

And I apologized for my erroneous comments.  And you responded with "Thank you."

Do apologies not count when they are from people you dislike?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2023 by smac97

[morgan.deane]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

Did this just come out of nowhere?  I thought all the reports had been he was still in good standing with the church.

Ballard's comments about good standing came in response to the church's pr statement in Vice that started this. During a tour in Boston Ballard defended himself. During this defense Ballard reported a conversation with his stake president that said he was in good standing and he tried to claim the pr statement came from a rogue pr staffer with the church. Then Kwaku and Glen Beck made bizarre arguments on twitter that the church's statement was "effectively" or "socially" excommunicating Ballard, and because it was done outside of priesthood channels it was illegitimate. (They were both deleted a short time after being posted.) So if Dehlin's report is accurate, it turns out several talking points used in Ballard's defense are going up in smoke, most importantly, the argument that he was in good standing. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by morgan.deane

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What about Tim Ballard's denial?  Do you lend that statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

Of course. This isn’t rocket science. Innocent people with means and standing say they are innocent 100% of the time. On the other hand lots of guilty people say they are innocent too. Given what I know of men like Ballard, I’d have predicted 50:1 that he would deny allegations (98%). So while his denial is evidence, it’s not strong evidence. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If so, do you lend it the same "100 percent" credibility you do to the woman who made a statement via Instagram?  Why or why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

See above. It’s just bayes theorem.

Edited September 28, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Smiley McGee]

This whole thing is creating quite the dilemma. On the one hand, I really want to know how my QAnon-ish cousins (I have many) are processing this and what, if any, theories they’re cooking up or buying in to. On the other hand, I don’t want to talk to them. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

thought all the reports had been he was still in good standing with the church.

I thought he was the only one saying it.

Oops, should have read a bit further…what seeking said.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

This whole thing is creating quite the dilemma. On the one hand, I really want to know how my QAnon-ish cousins (I have many) are processing this and what, if any, theories they’re cooking up or buying in to. On the other hand, I don’t want to talk to them. 

Bug their house.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

This whole thing is creating quite the dilemma. On the one hand, I really want to know how my QAnon-ish cousins (I have many) are processing this and what, if any, theories they’re cooking up or buying in to. On the other hand, I don’t want to talk to them. 

The explanation is simple.

Since all this publicity about him has come out he is very recognizable to the bad guys. The Church has pretended to disavow him, even going so as to announce his excommunication and release false information to slimy news organizations like Vice and Fox 13.. Now he can continue to operate as an undercover agent rescuing kids because the bad guys are going to fall for the ruse. 

Amiright?

[Calm]

I have seen a couple of references to cease and desist letters being routinely handed out by OUR, the latest iirc where Greg Lopez got one he claims for saying OUR does pass through donations and does not do missions themselves anymore.

American Crime Journal claims they got one too.

Anyone aware of more info on these?  Would like to know if this is really a common occurrence as some are claiming.
 

Also, anyone know where the 1.6 million in legal fees claim is coming from?  

Removed the source because of too much garbage…

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  An investigation, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything.  Any organization worth its salt would have done that.  

No, I don't lend that probative weight.  It requires too much speculation, and does not have enough foundation to constitute evidence of culpability.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just so I get this straight, you have elsewhere given some unknown percentage of weight to Tim Ballard's denial, but 0% to the events of an investigation and his resignation shortly after meeting with the Board that ordered said investigation? Do I have that right?

Does the amount of money this guy stands to lose not impact the weight you apply to his denial? I'm genuinely curious about that.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Just so I get this straight, you have elsewhere given some unknown percentage of weight to Tim Ballard's denial,

No.  I begin with a presumption of innocence/nonliability.  

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

but 0% to the events of an investigation

No.  I don't know what you mean by "events of an investigation." 

Are you referring to OUR's investigation (per this article, "OUR said Ballard permanently separated from the nonprofit after sexual harassment complaints and an internal investigation, but the nonprofit declined to comment on the validity of those complaints")? 

The Davis County Attorney's?

Are you suggesting that the mere existence of an investigation of Tim Ballard constitutes competent, probative, admissible evidence against him?

What evidence are you pointing to here?

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

and his resignation shortly after meeting with the Board that ordered said investigation? Do I have that right?

No.

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Does the amount of money this guy stands to lose not impact the weight you apply to his denial?  I'm genuinely curious about that.

Tim is the target of the allegations.  Both the initial and ultimate burden of proof re: sexual misconduct lies with those asserting the allegations.  What competent, probative, admissible evidence is in view to substantiate these allegations?  AFAICS, none so far.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I begin with a presumption of innocence/nonliability.  

No.  I don't know what you mean by "events of an investigation." 

Are you referring to OUR's investigation (per this article, "OUR said Ballard permanently separated from the nonprofit after sexual harassment complaints and an internal investigation, but the nonprofit declined to comment on the validity of those complaints")? 

The Davis County Attorney's?

Are you suggesting that the mere existence of an investigation of Tim Ballard constitutes competent, probative, admissible evidence against him?

What evidence are you pointing to here?

No.

Tim is the target of the allegations.  Both the initial and ultimate burden of proof re: sexual misconduct lies with those asserting the allegations.  What competent, probative, admissible evidence is in view to substantiate these allegations?  AFAICS, none so far.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously, I'm talking about OUR's investigation since that's all I've mentioned thus far. 

Did you happen to see this statement issued by OUR?

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/9/28/23894444/operation-underground-railroad-tim-ballard-allegations#:~:text=At the conclusion of the,anyone who has been victimized.

Edited September 29, 2023 by ttribe

[teddyaware]

If Tim Ballard Isn’t telling the truth throughout the following one hour long interview, the only explanation that makes any sense is he’s a bonafide sociopath who’s utterly devoid of human conscience. After intently watching and listening to how Ballard calmly comports himself, and confidently answers each question put to him, it will come as a genuine shock if it turns out he isn’t being honest. But if he is playing fast and loose with the truth, this video provides a textbook example of how the devil is able to transform himself into a an eminently believable angel of light.

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Just now, teddyaware said:

If Tim Ballard Isn’t telling the truth throughout the following one hour long interview, the only explanation that makes any sense is he’s a bonafide sociopath who’s utterly devoid of human conscience. After intently watching and listening to how Ballard calmly comports himself and confidently answers each question put to him, it will come as a genuine shock if it turns out he isn’t being honest. But if he is playing fast and loose with the truth, this video will provide a textbook example of how the devil is able to transform himself into a an eminently believable angel of light.

Did he explain the Elder Ballard as a silent partner whiteboard  presentation?

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If Tim Ballard Isn’t telling the truth throughout the following one hour long interview, the only explanation that makes any sense is he’s a bonafide sociopath who’s utterly devoid of human conscience. After intently watching and listening to how Ballard calmly comports himself, and confidently answers each question put to him, it will come as a genuine shock if it turns out he isn’t being honest. But if he is playing fast and loose with the truth, this video provides a textbook example of how the devil is able to transform himself into a an eminently believable angel of light.

This should make you ask yourself how many other times you have been fooled by charismatic figures.

I would guess it happened to you in 2016 & 2020 also.

On Edit.

When evaluating truth claims, it's important to look at multiple sources. Do a simple google search for news on Tim Ballard and you will see how many different sources are presenting negative accusations and evidence against him. At a minimum the story about him being excommunicated should give you pause and the story from the church itself calling his behavior morally unacceptable should too.

You also have failed repeatedly to answer Calms question about the white board. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by CA Steve

[MustardSeed]

Reading through this appears that Smac is correct as he argues that these allegations are not enough to convict in a US court of law. Makes sense. This is Smacs lens as it is his career. 
 

Understanding is arguing that personal opinion has a place in life and that it’s reasonable to look at provided information and to decide that Tim is dishonest and probably even guilty.  We rely on our personal opinions on a daily basis, because not every judgment we make is gonna go to court. Innocent until proven guilty is only a rule in the courthouse. It is not a rule for personal opinion, nor is it unethical to decide that somebody is probably guilty of some thing. Without all of the evidence is the courts would require.
 

Let’s not forget that this conversation is really entertainment for us. A year from now this will be forgotten, and I doubt that any of us would otherwise be counting on Tim to rescue us or any of our loved ones from a certain fate of trafficking. So the assumptions and judgments we are making based on our own personal experiences of life dont require the restrictions and bounds of the courthouse.IMO. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

the only explanation that makes any sense is he’s a bonafide sociopath who’s utterly devoid of human conscience.

Why do you go to this conclusion? A lot of people lie when they are publicly exposed, and it does not make them sociopathic. A lot of people have affairs and that does not make them sociopathic. I would lean more towards narcissism if I had to diagnose without a proper assessment.  
I would go with that based on his charisma, his grandiosity, his defensiveness, and in all honesty, the way he looks.    But I’m interested in why you go with the most extreme personality disorder here.

 

edited to say that I don’t think that I am asking this question in good faith. I will be more transparent. I do believe that you go with the extreme diagnosis of sociopathic because it’s easier to attribute this type of brain to being the influence of the devil. When we can blame things on the devil, then we don’t have to fear that we ourselves will be in the same position because we have control over whether or not the devil has influence over us. Teddy I see you as a very black-and-white thinker and often times black-and-white thinkers use the devil as the most significant reason that somebody does something bad.

I also believe that you migh quote scripture to prove to me that the devil is the reason the bad things happen. I understand the doctrine about the influence of Satan in our lives. However, I think when we chalk all damning behaviors to the work of the devil, then it does not invite us all as human beings to introspect and find honest similarities between somebody’s bad behaviors in our own motivations, because we can just toss it away as the Devil. If, instead, we recognize that we are all human beings, capable of absurd behaviors, we can find our own armor chinks and commit to not making the same mistakes that we observe others making. IMO For what it’s worth.

Edited September 29, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Why do you go to this conclusion? A lot of people lie when they are publicly exposed, and it does not make them sociopathic. A lot of people have affairs and that does not make them sociopathic. I would lean more towards narcissism if I had to diagnose without a proper assessment.  
I would go with that based on his charisma, his grandiosity, his defensiveness, and in all honesty, the way he looks.    But I’m interested in why you go with the most extreme personality disorder here.

 

edited to say that I don’t think that I am asking this question in good faith. I will be more transparent. I do believe that you go with the extreme diagnosis of sociopathic because it’s easier to attribute this type of brain to being the influence of the devil. When we can blame things on the devil, then we don’t have to fear that we ourselves will be in the same position because we have control over whether or not the devil has influence over us. Teddy I see you as a very black-and-white thinker and often times black-and-white thinkers use the devil as the most significant reason that somebody does something bad.

I also believe that you migh quote scripture to prove to me that the devil is the reason the bad things happen. I understand the doctrine about the influence of Satan in our lives. However, I think when we chalk all damning behaviors to the work of the devil, then it does not invite us all as human beings to introspect and find honest similarities between somebody’s bad behaviors in our own motivations, because we can just toss it away as the Devil. If, instead, we recognize that we are all human beings, capable of absurd behaviors, we can find our own armor chinks and commit to not making the same mistakes that we observe others making. IMO For what it’s worth.

Wow, exactly! Well said.

 

[Tacenda]

Full documents from Troy Rawlings investigation. Maybe @smac97will give commentary hopefully.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/full-documents-tim-ballard-lied-to-donors-according-to-ex-our-employees

[ksfisher]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Full documents from Troy Rawlings investigation. Maybe @smac97will give commentary hopefully.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/full-documents-tim-ballard-lied-to-donors-according-to-ex-our-employees

It's kind of embarrassing to have this connected with the church in any way. 

It's looking more and more like the money flow was the main goal of the organization and any benefit to the children was incidental.