Tim Ballard

[Diamondhands69]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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

Yes. William law and the Nauvoo expositor situation. Turns out William law was telling the truth. You will need to do your own homework if you want to know more.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Not the same. They sent an unnamed statement to a news organization famous for political hit pieces against one of their members who was publicly contemplating a senate run. It has since been reported it came from Doug Anderson. The ‘hit piece’ is what it is. 
 

Seems very odd. 
Why would the church give this statement to ‘Vice?’

The same reason “unnamed sources” often comment on news stories involving their organization. It lets the organization get a chance to provide clarification on something within a news story instead of doing it after the fact where it is more likely to be missed by those reading the initial story. This is normal journalism.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Diamondhands69 said:

Yes. William law and the Nauvoo expositor situation. Turns out William law was telling the truth. You will need to do your own homework if you want to know more.

Not even remotely similar to this situation in either form or substance.

Also lol

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Judd said:

Some with the communication department

You mean the director of media relations?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/contact

Edited September 17, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Diamondhands69]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not even remotely similar to this situation in either form or substance.

Also lol

Uhhh read the hearing notes. Law was former first presidency and the hearing at the city council were pretty much a parade of people coming in making negative statements about William law to smear his character. There was very little debate about whether the contents of the paper were truthful or not. 
 

A few members of the council were secret polygamists.. one guy who came in to testify was Theodore turley ( js next door neighbor) who was married to three sisters. Two of which he had married just a month or so before.   No polygamy here lol. 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Uhhh read the hearing notes. Law was former first presidency and the hearing at the city council were pretty much a parade of people coming in making negative statements about William law to smear his character. There was very little debate about whether the contents of the paper were truthful or not. 
 

A few members of the council were secret polygamists.. one guy who came in to testify was Theodore turley ( js next door neighbor) who was married to three sisters. Two of which he had married just a month or so before.   No polygamy here lol. 

That does not make it similar to this situation at all and your elaboration just makes it less similar.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

The psychic stuff could be from a disgruntled employee, it could be risky telling lies in a criminal investigation, but it’s not like it isn’t done all the time as far as I can tell.  Iirc, Vice said it was one former employee making the claim about that and the Mormon messiah. 

The stuff about working with a psychic could be altogether false, and yet the Church's statement about Ballard could still be appropriate. 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Otoh, I find it hard to believe a church spokesperson would risk their job or that we wouldn’t hear he was fired.  And iirc the ex employee wasn’t the source for that info (the less than upright business stuff) Now could Elder Ballard have believed a lie told about TB?  Sure, but again I find it hard to believe the Church would allow such a statement without vetting it through lawyers who would have insisted on an investigation. 

Yep.  The statement is less about Tim Ballard per se and more about things he has said and done to imply that he has a working relationship with and/or the endorsement of Pres. Ballard.  In a sense, the statement is more about Pres. Ballard than about Tim Ballard.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

There is other stuff independent of the Vice report that I have heard over the years that leads me to believe Vice is closer to the truth than T Ballard is. 

For me, the most probative evidence pertains to or derives from a few things:

A) The Church's statement is a remarkably unusual and rare occurrence.  And apparently it was directed to Vice (not posted in the Church's Newsroom), from which I extrapolate that Vice contacted the Church looking for a statement, and there was enough meat on the bones (regarding Tim's claimed association/relationship with Pres. Ballard) that the Church was essentially compelled to respond.  

B) I think Pres. Ballard was directly involved in the statement to Vice.  But for his participation and authorization, I think the Church's Public Affairs Department would not have been issued.

C) Let's take a look at the statement from the Church (which, at this point, seems to be fully authentic) :

Quote

President Ballard and Tim Ballard (no relation) established a friendship a number of years ago. That friendship was built on a shared interest in looking after God’s children wherever they are and without regard to their circumstance.  However, that relationship is in the past.

Notice the focus here is on Pres. Ballard and the (now severed) relationship with Tim.

Quote

For many months, President Ballard has had no contact with the founder of Operation Underground Railroad (OUR). The nature of that relationship was always in support of vulnerable children being abused, trafficked, and otherwise neglected.

I think this information could only have come from Pres. Ballard.

Quote

Once it became clear Tim Ballard had betrayed their friendship, through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable, President Ballard withdrew his association. 

This is a fairly rare, but not totally unheard of, public statement from the Church about one of its members.  It is rare for the Church to publicly "call out" an individual member by name, or for it to use such forceful and condemnatory terms ("betrayed their friendship" ... "through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage" ... "activity regarded as morally unacceptable").

Quote

President Ballard never authorized his name, or the name of the Church, to be used for Tim’s personal or financial interests.

Here, I think, is the basis for the public rebuke.  The Church has had plenty of instances of having this or that member of the Church beeing in the public limelight specifically pertaining to his/her membership in the Church.  John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer, Ammon Bundy, Jeremy Runnells, Paul Adams, and a few others come to mind.  And some of these actually triggered a response from the Church:

• John Dehlin: Church Responds to John Dehlin’s Public Comments (10 February 2015).  As you can see, the Church responded to Dehlin's comments by name.
• Julie Rowe: LDS church flags member's book about latter-day calamities as misleading (31 August 2015).  The Church's statement here, a memorandum to Seminaries and Institutes, identified Rowe by name as the author of a book included in a list of "Spurious Materials in Circulation," and stating that the experiences she shares are her own personal experiences and do not necessarily reflect Church doctrine."
• Ammon Bundy: Church Responds to Inquiries Regarding Oregon Armed Occupation (4 January 2016).  The Church did not identify Bundy by name, but provided a link to a Washington Post article which names him, and the Church also specifically identified "the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands."
• Sam Young: Church Provides Statement Regarding Youth Interviews (29 July 2018).  The Church identifies Sam Young briefly, almost tangentially ("In response to media inquiries about recent activities by Sam Young the Church has issued the following statement...").
• Paul Adams: Church Provides Further Details about the Arizona Abuse Case (17 August 2022).  The Church identified Paul Adams (by his name and his actions) extensively.

I think the Church's statement about Tim is particularly specific and forceful because he apparently traded on his association with a high-ranking leader of the Church, and because the Vice article truly merited a statement from the Church.

Of the above public statements about individual members, I think the one about Ammon Bundy comes the closes to a public and direct rebuke.

Quote

In addition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never endorsed, supported or represented OUR, Tim Ballard or any projects associated with them.

I think it is this impression, that the Church has "endorsed, supported or represented OUR, Tim Ballard or any projects associated with them," that the Church attributes to Tim, and which impression the Church needed to address and rebut.

Quote

President Ballard loves children, all over the world. It has been his mission and life’s work to look after them, care for them, and point them to their Savior.

I think this is a good way to conclude the statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Not the same. They sent an unnamed statement to a news organization famous for political hit pieces against one of their members who was publicly contemplating a senate run. It has since been reported it came from Doug Anderson. The ‘hit piece’ is what it is. 

Seems very odd. 
Why would the church give this statement to ‘Vice?’

I suspect Vice contacted the Church with something like "Here's a big story we are about to run, and it involves extensive references to a purported relationship between Tim Ballard and one of the highest-ranking leaders of your organization.  Do you have any comment?"

Various news outlets have since covered this story - including the Deseret News - and the Church hasn't disputed the authenticity of the statement to Vice.  I think we must accept it as legit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/15/2023 at 10:15 PM, Tacenda said:

I hope my brother in law and sister see this news because last year or the year before we were out to dinner and they gushed about Tim Ballard and I was aware of the investigation back then, and I just had to tell them that I thought there was something up about him, and they looked at me like I was crazy.

My wife went and saw Cry of Freedom and was much moved by it.  I sat her down and told her about these recent developments.  She was somewhat troubled, but felt that the movie was worthwhile if for no other reason that raising awareness about child trafficking.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Yep.  I would say the clay was exposed to above the knees at least from what I saw over the years.

From my perspective, two of the biggest indicators to look at when considering a sensationalized story are:

A) How much self-aggrandizement is in view?

B) How much effort has there been at monetization?  The individual using notoriety to make money for himself?

Unfortunately, I think Tim doesn't do well with these metrics.  

Alvin York and Desmond Doss were, in my view, good examples of people who did heroic things, and who thereafter avoided the foregoing pitfalls.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, 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. 

Sort of.  The public statement about Ammon Bundy is a noteworthy example. 

These public statements/rebukes are rare, but not totally unheard of.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

Quote

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

In this way?  It depends on what you mean.  They did make a statement about Julie Rowe. Edit: though that was to be an internal statement to seminary and institute teachers.

Not the same.

Not "the same," no.  But the similarities are there.  See also the Church's statement about Ammon Bundy.

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

They sent an unnamed statement to a news organization famous for political hit pieces against one of their members who was publicly contemplating a senate run.

Vice initiated the communication with the Church, and the Church responded to the inquiry.  I think Vice was going to go ahead with the story regardless of whether the Church provided a statement or not.

The timing of the story may well have political considerations, but that's on Vice, not the Church.

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Seems very odd. 
Why would the church give this statement to ‘Vice?’

It's right there in the article:

Quote

In response to a detailed request for comment on these matters, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a statement, which reads, in full...

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The stuff about working with a psychic could be altogether false, and yet the Church's statement about Ballard could still be appropriate. 

Yep.  The statement is less about Tim Ballard per se and more about things he has said and done to imply that he has a working relationship with and/or the endorsement of Pres. Ballard.  In a sense, the statement is more about Pres. Ballard than about Tim Ballard.

For me, the most probative evidence pertains to or derives from a few things:

A) The Church's statement is a remarkably unusual and rare occurrence.  And apparently it was directed to Vice (not posted in the Church's Newsroom), from which I extrapolate that Vice contacted the Church looking for a statement, and there was enough meat on the bones (regarding Tim's claimed association/relationship with Pres. Ballard) that the Church was essentially compelled to respond.  

B) I think Pres. Ballard was directly involved in the statement to Vice.  But for his participation and authorization, I think the Church's Public Affairs Department would not have been issued.

C) Let's take a look at the statement from the Church (which, at this point, seems to be fully authentic) :

Notice the focus here is on Pres. Ballard and the (now severed) relationship with Tim.

I think this information could only have come from Pres. Ballard.

This is a fairly rare, but not totally unheard of, public statement from the Church about one of its members.  It is rare for the Church to publicly "call out" an individual member by name, or for it to use such forceful and condemnatory terms ("betrayed their friendship" ... "through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage" ... "activity regarded as morally unacceptable").

Here, I think, is the basis for the public rebuke.  The Church has had plenty of instances of having this or that member of the Church beeing in the public limelight specifically pertaining to his/her membership in the Church.  John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer, Ammon Bundy, Jeremy Runnells, Paul Adams, and a few others come to mind.  And some of these actually triggered a response from the Church:

• John Dehlin: Church Responds to John Dehlin’s Public Comments (10 February 2015).  As you can see, the Church responded to Dehlin's comments by name.
• Julie Rowe: LDS church flags member's book about latter-day calamities as misleading (31 August 2015).  The Church's statement here, a memorandum to Seminaries and Institutes, identified Rowe by name as the author of a book included in a list of "Spurious Materials in Circulation," and stating that the experiences she shares are her own personal experiences and do not necessarily reflect Church doctrine."
• Ammon Bundy: Church Responds to Inquiries Regarding Oregon Armed Occupation (4 January 2016).  The Church did not identify Bundy by name, but provided a link to a Washington Post article which names him, and the Church also specifically identified "the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands."
• Sam Young: Church Provides Statement Regarding Youth Interviews (29 July 2018).  The Church identifies Sam Young briefly, almost tangentially ("In response to media inquiries about recent activities by Sam Young the Church has issued the following statement...").
• Paul Adams: Church Provides Further Details about the Arizona Abuse Case (17 August 2022).  The Church identified Paul Adams (by his name and his actions) extensively.

I think the Church's statement about Tim is particularly specific and forceful because he apparently traded on his association with a high-ranking leader of the Church, and because the Vice article truly merited a statement from the Church.

Of the above public statements about individual members, I think the one about Ammon Bundy comes the closes to a public and direct rebuke.

I think it is this impression, that the Church has "endorsed, supported or represented OUR, Tim Ballard or any projects associated with them," that the Church attributes to Tim, and which impression the Church needed to address and rebut.

I think this is a good way to conclude the statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

And except for Ammon Bundy, they’re all apostates, correct? They just called a high profile member of the church ‘morally unacceptable.’ That’s a large scarlet letter. I think a general statement of non affiliation would have been enough. 
 

They’ve destroyed him…maybe deserved but ‘wow.’

Edited September 17, 2023 by bsjkki

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Why would the church give this statement to ‘Vice?’

They asked?

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

They asked?

It’s like the National Enquirer. I’m sure they ignore many requests from media about the thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church. They must have wanted to damage him. Because this was much more than a non affiliation statement. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And except for Ammon Bundy, they’re all apostates, correct?

IIRC, Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Rowe and Snuffer were all excommunicated for apostasy.

However, Jeremy Runnells resigned his membership, Paul Adams was excommunicated for, I believe, sexual misconduct, and Ammon Bundy is, AFAIK, still a member. 

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They just called a high profile member of the church ‘morally unacceptable.’

Well, no:

Quote

Once it became clear Tim Ballard had betrayed their friendship, through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable, President Ballard withdrew his association.

The Church did not elucidate what the "morally unacceptable" behavior was.

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

That’s a large scarlet letter. I think a general statement of non affiliation would have been enough.

Well, that's a judgment call, I suppose.

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They’ve destroyed him…maybe deserved but ‘wow.’

Looks like he may have been the author of much/most of his challenges, which apparently arose out of Tim misappropriating his relationship with and the name of Pres. Ballard "for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable."

As for what has been "destroyed," I think the important things are still readily available to Tim.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

They asked?

It’s like the National Enquirer. I’m sure they ignore many requests from media about the thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church. They must have wanted to damage him. Because this was much more than a non affiliation statement. 

I think Vice found some muck to rake.  And it looks like Tim Ballard created much of this muck.

The statement from the Church is more about Pres. Ballard than about Tim Ballard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s like the National Enquirer. I’m sure they ignore many requests from media about the thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church. They must have wanted to damage him. Because this was much more than a non affiliation statement. 

I would not be surprised if Elder Ballard is deeply hurt because that is what it sounded like to me.  This may be why it is less clinical than the usual stuff, because it is a personal issue rather than an issue of apostasy, but being Elder Ballard is a church leader and it is his church connection that Tim Ballard was using to promote himself and his business/charity, it is also appropriate to use the Church PR department to issue the statement rather than it come directly from Elder Ballard.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect Vice contacted the Church with something like "Here's a big story we are about to run, and it involves extensive references to a purported relationship between Tim Ballard and one of the highest-ranking leaders of your organization.  Do you have any comment?"

Various news outlets have since covered this story - including the Deseret News - and the Church hasn't disputed the authenticity of the statement to Vice.  I think we must accept it as legit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Glenn Beck says he reached out to his church connections and confirmed its authenticity.

 

Given Ballard’s connection to certain Heartland groups which hint at if not outright claim church leaders are being misled and Beck’s own response, I am concerned this could add to the lack of actual trust in church leaders that showed so clearly in the reactions to church leaders supporting vaccines and other Covid control measures.

https://juvenileinstructor.org/the-mormonisms-of-the-firm-foundation/

Quote

Last week, people flocked to Layton, UT, for the 29th annual Book of Mormon Evidence conference, hosted by the FIRM Foundation. Headline speakers included Heartland apologist Rod Meldrum, Wayne May, publisher of Ancient American Magazine (a publication with historic connections to the American Nazi Party), Eric Moutsos, an activist who became known in the state for his stance against pandemic restrictions, Hannah Stoddard of the Joseph Smith Foundation, and Tim Ballard, the Executive Director of OUR Rescue.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s like the National Enquirer. I’m sure they ignore many requests from media about the thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church.

I suspect you are correct.  I think this is likely because the misconduct committed by "thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church" does not involve allegations that a high-ranking leader of the Church has participated in or endorsed the misconduct.  Here, however, Tim Ballard appears to have involved Pres. Ballard in some of his (Tim's) dealings/behaviors in some very problematic ways.  

Again, I think the Church's statement is more about Pres. Ballard than about Tim.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They must have wanted to damage him. Because this was much more than a non affiliation statement. 

I think the Brethren deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than that.  The rarity of the public rebuke is, I think, evidence that their motives hew overwhelmingly toward safeguarding the privacy of individual members, even when misconduct is alleged.  But sometimes a member puts himself in the public sphere in such a way as to necessitate a public response from the Church.  I have already given a few examples of this.  Ammon Bundy.  John Dehlin.  Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect you are correct.  I think this is likely because the misconduct committed by "thieves, child abusers and apostates in the church" does not involve allegations that a high-ranking leader of the Church has participated in or endorsed the misconduct.  Here, however, Tim Ballard appears to have involved Pres. Ballard in some of his (Tim's) dealings/behaviors in some very problematic ways.  

Again, I think the Church's statement is more about Pres. Ballard than about Tim.

I think the Brethren deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than that.  The rarity of the public rebuke is, I think, evidence that their motives hew overwhelmingly toward safeguarding the privacy of individual members, even when misconduct is alleged.  But sometimes a member puts himself in the public sphere in such a way as to necessitate a public response from the Church.  I have already given a few examples of this.  Ammon Bundy.  John Dehlin.  Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve never seen Sound of Freedom and wasn’t a fan of Tim Ballard. But it’s weird to me to compare him to apostates actively working against the church. This article was still up Friday. 
I wonder if they spoke to him before destroying him publicly? 

Edited September 17, 2023 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Glenn Beck says he reached out to his church connections and confirmed its authenticity.

 

Given Ballard’s connection to certain Heartland groups which hint at if not outright claim church leaders are being misled and Beck’s own response, I am concerned this could add to the lack of actual trust in church leaders that showed so clearly in the reactions to church leaders supporting vaccines and other Covid control measures.

https://juvenileinstructor.org/the-mormonisms-of-the-firm-foundation/

 

The siftings never come in the way we expect them to.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’ve never seen Sound of Freedom and wasn’t a fan of Tim Ballard fan. But it’s weird to me to compare him to apostates actively working against the church. This article was still up Friday. 
I wonder if they spoke to him before destroying him publicly?

At least some of his stings were creating the problem he was supposedly trying to solve.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/05/sex-trafficking-raid-operation-underground-railroad.html

Let part of that sink in. At least two of the kids had never been trafficked before until Ballard showed up looking to “buy” kids. So he created the market. Then most of the kids were left behind. He rescued kids in that he prevented them from being trafficked to him specifically which wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t been there. It was always showmanship. Ballard either has no idea on how to actively fight real trafficking or at least no interest in that kind of fight. From the beginning he wanted a reality series, a movie, something to let him show off.

There are lots of real organizations dedicated to fighting human trafficking. They don’t have “jump teams” or let donors feel like they are quarterbacking a special forces mission so they get less attention. They also don’t brag about being supported or endorsed by apostles to drum up funding.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The siftings never come in the way we expect them to.

If you mean the sifting of ourselves, yes, I agree there.  If you are prepared so much you can recognize a sifting for what it is, I don’t think it is much of a sifting for you.  So it makes sense a true personal sifting is unexpected.

However, others may see it coming and I think many have for those who have seen the dangers for those who followed with faithful intentions certain Heartlander and/or American centric groups within the Church.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

I was told two of the children had been trafficked for the first time that day. It didn’t seem to occur to anyone that OUR may have created a demand. After the sting, I asked people on the jump team where the 26 kids were taken. I was given only vague answers. Aftercare wasn’t really their focus, I was told, but they partnered with people who did it well.

I found out what really happened from a Foreign Policy report:

In 2014, after OUR’s first operation in the Dominican Republic, a local organization called the National Council for Children and Adolescents quickly discovered it didn’t have the capacity to handle the 26 girls rescued. They were released in less than a week.

Quote

Some testified, the article reported. The local organization lost track of others. All those kids in 2014 got from us was a soda and a swim—and Ballard came out ahead in the deal.

A representative for Operation Underground Railroad said, “O.U.R. remains laser focused on our mission to help rescue and protect victims of child sex trafficking and exploitation, bring their perpetrators to justice, provide survivors with life-saving aftercare services, and raise awareness of this worldwide scourge.”

It doesn’t say what happened to the 8 arrested, but I have read other cases where the arrested are just released.

The after-care services seem to end as soon as they turn the cameras off.  It seems very strange to me with all the money OUR has gotten, they have not set up at least a tracking system with the kids so even if they leave the kids in others’ hands, they can step in if there are issues and provide follow up care when needed.  It would require a lot of work, but if the real intent is to change kids’ lives, why not do it?  It is very irresponsible to do it like they do.  And lazy. (From Nehor’s link)

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm