Tim Ballard

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

But it’s weird to me to compare him to apostates actively working against the church.

How do you mean? If he is using Ballard’s name to establish legitimacy among the flock (as the statement suggests) in what way is that not actively working against the church?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do you mean? If he is using Ballard’s name to establish legitimacy among the flock (as the statement suggests) in what way is that not actively working against the church?

I have often wished the Church spoke out more for those found using church connections for personal gain, especially if fraudulent.

Ballard is essentially another form of affinity fraud at least when it comes to members, it seems to me.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have often wished the Church spoke out more for those found using church connections for personal gain, especially if fraudulent.

That would be my whole ward. 😂😂MLM’s everywhere. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I agree with her and saw the movie as well.

[bsjkki]

Well, I guess the proper way to disagree is to make a public statement to a journalist writing a hit piece based on investigative materials never challenged in court without talking to the person you were wronged by and destroying their reputation for all to see. Right? That’s the way it’s done? Effectively ending Senate aspirations in one paragraph. 
 

I find the the whole thing odd. 

[longview]

39 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I find the the whole thing odd. 

It would be interesting to know what prompted the investigation by Davis County.  Since the matter is said to be "closed", will there be a report released to the public? @smac97 is there some way to find out?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

It would be interesting to know what prompted the investigation by Davis County.  Since the matter is said to be "closed", will there be a report released to the public? @smac97 is there some way to find out?

I don't know if a report will be released to the public.  I doubt the Davis County Attorney's Office will do that unilaterally.

I have submitted a public records request.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

It would be interesting to know what prompted the investigation by Davis County.  Since the matter is said to be "closed", will there be a report released to the public? @smac97 is there some way to find out?

Usually, isn’t it not okay to release investigation materials against people not charged of any crime? They will never get their day in court to cross examine or challenge. Is that only grand jury material? But I guess special counsels write reports after investigations. I’m not a lawyer. But I don’t think a formal report here was released and I don’t think reports on non charged crimes are routinely written. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Well, I guess the proper way to disagree is to make a public statement to a journalist writing a hit piece based on investigative materials never challenged in court without talking to the person you were wronged by and destroying their reputation for all to see. Right? That’s the way it’s done? Effectively ending Senate aspirations in one paragraph. 
 

I find the the whole thing odd. 

We don’t know if anyone talked to him or not, the Church hasn’t clarified that… and I hope they will…and I don’t think we can trust Ballard to be honest about it in the case of their being right, which seems likely to me.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know if a report will be released to the public.  I doubt the Davis County Attorney's Office will do that unilaterally.

I have submitted a public records request.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It would be interesting to see all the evidence. I’ve seen so many ‘rumors’ online. 
 

But I guess we should all just know Tim is a really bad dude and shun him. What else to conclude after that church statement. Right?

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don’t know if anyone talked to him or not, the Church hasn’t clarified that… and I hope they will…and I don’t think we can trust Ballard to be honest about it in the case of their being right, which seems likely to me.

He must be a grifting liar. 

[ttribe]

Ballard posted a melt-down post on X (nee' Twitter). Glenn Beck made a post on the same platform that was very critical of Church leadership for the handling of this situation, but later deleted said post. The ultra-right-wing members on X are having quite a rough couple of days.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It would be interesting to see all the evidence. I’ve seen so many ‘rumors’ online. 
 

But I guess we should all just know Tim is a really bad dude and shun him. What else to conclude after that church statement. Right?

 

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

He must be a grifting liar. 

Your snark, notwithstanding, there are and have been a number of reasons to be suspicious of T. Ballard for quite a while.

[Calm]

Slate links to another article with more details of raids in case you missed it or didn’t read the Slate article:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

It has been awhile since .I read it, I need to reread to be sure I have my claims right.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Your snark, notwithstanding, there are and have been a number of reasons to be suspicious of T. Ballard for quite a while.

And with this church statement suspicions are confirmed. 

[ttribe]

For those not on X, it's also been documented today that the Church has been removing articles by or about T. Ballard from its website. Given how the Church has operated in the past, I highly doubt it would be conducting itself this way without good reason.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And with this church statement suspicions are confirmed. 

More snark.

No, but it is additional evidence.

Meanwhile, if you have interest in being fair minded on the matter, I suggest reading up on the allegations of fraudulent statements, mishandling of "operations," taking credit for the work of others (especially law enforcement), and statements from former employees and volunteers that have been around for years. It might be an eye opening experience for you.

Edited September 17, 2023 by ttribe

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Slate links to another article with more details of raids in case you missed it or didn’t read the Slate article:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

It has been awhile since .I read it, I need to reread to be sure I have my claims right.

It seems like they are trying to do what they say they do with mixed results because the issues are so vast. Sad days we live in. 
 

 

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

More snark.

No, but it is additional evidence.

Meanwhile, if you have interest in being fair minded on the matter, I suggest reading up on the allegations of fraudulent statements, mishandling of "operations," taking credit for the work of others (especially law enforcement), and statements from former employees and volunteers. It might be an eye opening experience for you.

Could you provide links with. I read a Vice article based on an anonymous letter but they didn’t print the letter. It’s a bunch of innuendo but light on actual facts. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It seems like they are trying to do what they say they do with mixed results because the issues are so vast. Sad days we live in. 
 

 

This is what troubles me in the article, they could be doing it better but don’t.  It just isn’t because the problem is complicated and massive.

Quote

Less than three weeks later, the girls are released to their families on a judge’s order—well short of the three months of targeted care the rehabilitation organizations had hoped to provide. IJM’s Villeda claimed in an interview with 
Foreign Policy that his group asked OUR to consider a smaller operation “knowing that the Dominican government didn’t have the capacity to house the number of victims that they were expecting to rescue.” OUR, however, insists it was the government’s call. “Were there too many that were brought? Perhaps,” Ballard said in a phone interview in June. “But that’s the number that the Dominicans wanted.”

He also detailed his plans for his group’s future. “It’s not just a bunch of sex parties,” he explained. “It’s going to be raids on brothels; it’s going to be buying one kid on the beach from one trafficker … [and] military-
style raids on a slave-labor camp.” OUR, in other words, is just getting started.

Given the way Ballard talks about his work and how quickly they have expanded operations (so often a problem with charities and leads to too many important things falling through the cracks), I lean towards him lying about the government being the one that wanted the large number of victims.  I think “sizzle” is a good way to describe his approach. He is a very good storyteller.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It would be interesting to see all the evidence. I’ve seen so many ‘rumors’ online. 

I will let you know what, if anything, I receive.

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

But I guess we should all just know Tim is a really bad dude and shun him. What else to conclude after that church statement. Right?

Wrong.

Tim Ballard apparently either A) did some bad things, B) is plausibly accused of doing some bad things (the actual veracity of which is TBD), or C) some combination of A and B. 

Some of the conduct described in A and B has Tim Ballard making seriously problematic claims about his association with Pres. Ballard, one of the highest-ranked leaders in the Church.

VICE caught wind of these things and wrote up an extensive story about it.

I repose little confidence in VICE (the same can be said with most journalism these days), but it received information, chased down some information, corroborated some of it, and . . . perhaps most pertinent to this discussion . . . gave the Church an opportunity to speak as to the allegations involving Pres. Ballard.

The Church has a fairly long track record of not commenting on events involving individual members of the Church.  That track record deserves some notice and attention and appreciation.

There are times, however, when the Church is essentially compelled - by circumstance or by the volitional acts of others - to speak publicly on the actions of an individual member of the Church.  These are rare exceptions to the otherwise broadly-observed rule noted above.

When VICE contacted the Church, the Church could either A) remain silent as to the allegations involving Pres. Ballard, or B) make a public statement about those allegations.  It chose the latter.  There are likely all sorts of reasons for this, but in doing so the Church went against its normative rule (that is, silence).  

Public information has Tim Ballard putting all sorts of words into Pres. Ballard's mouth, as well as imputing to various troubling actions to him (such as being a "silent partner" in a for-profit endeavor (see, e.g., here).  How much of this is true is presently TBD.  But per the Church's statement, some of it is.

The Church has said nothing about shunning Tim Ballard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Could you provide links with. I read a Vice article based on an anonymous letter but they didn’t print the letter. It’s a bunch of innuendo but light on actual facts. 

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the-children-trafficking.html

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxev5/inside-a-massive-anti-trafficking-charitys-blundering-overseas-missions

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zjyg/operation-underground-railroad-touts-non-existent-partnership-with-american-airlines

https://americancrimejournal.com/american-airlines-issues-swift-rebuke-of-operation-underground-railroads-bogus-partnership-claim-with-the-airline/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

https://db.ministrywatch.com/ministry.php?ein=463614979

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-operation-underground-railroad-was-once-under-investigation/ar-AA1e9gCm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Well, I guess the proper way to disagree is to make a public statement to a journalist writing a hit piece based on investigative materials never challenged in court without talking to the person you were wronged by and destroying their reputation for all to see. Right? That’s the way it’s done? Effectively ending Senate aspirations in one paragraph. 

I find the the whole thing odd. 

I hope you can give this some further consideration.  The Church isn't in the business of "ending Senate aspirations."  It did not choose the timing of its public statement.  VICE did.  And it didn't incite or ratify the alleged conduct by Tim Ballard (in which he purportedly misappropriated Pres. Ballard's name).  

Please just take a step back and consider which is more likely, that A) Pres. Ballard and the Church have pivoted to a politically activist posture, and have initiated that pivot by derailing the political aspirations of one of the members of the Church, or B) that the member of the Church, Tim Ballard, did actually "betray" his friendship with Pres. Ballard "through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable"?

Now, I grant that there may be a third option, namely, that C) Pres. Ballard has been duped, that Tim Ballard did not make "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity," but that Pres. Ballard has somehow been persuaded through misinformation. 

Is that what you think has happened here?  If so, how do you account for the information/evidence cited in the VICE article?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the-children-trafficking.html

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxev5/inside-a-massive-anti-trafficking-charitys-blundering-overseas-missions

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zjyg/operation-underground-railroad-touts-non-existent-partnership-with-american-airlines

https://americancrimejournal.com/american-airlines-issues-swift-rebuke-of-operation-underground-railroads-bogus-partnership-claim-with-the-airline/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

https://db.ministrywatch.com/ministry.php?ein=463614979

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-operation-underground-railroad-was-once-under-investigation/ar-AA1e9gCm

Reading now. From the last one. Looking for evidence. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope you can give this some further consideration.  The Church isn't in the business of "ending Senate aspirations."  It did not choose the timing of its public statement.  VICE did.  And it didn't incite or ratify the alleged conduct by Tim Ballard (in which he purportedly misappropriated Pres. Ballard's name).  

Please just take a step back and consider which is more likely, that A) Pres. Ballard and the Church have pivoted to a politically activist posture, and have initiated that pivot by derailing the political aspirations of one of the members of the Church, or B) that the member of the Church, Tim Ballard, did actually "betray" his friendship with Pres. Ballard "through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable"?

Now, I grant that there may be a third option, namely, that C) Pres. Ballard has been duped, that Tim Ballard did not make "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity," but that Pres. Ballard has somehow been persuaded through misinformation. 

Is that what you think has happened here?  If so, how do you account for the information/evidence cited in the VICE article?

Thanks,

-Smac

There is another option…the Church believed the allegations and was so nervous about being associated with TB, they hurriedly issued a statement without consideration for the fallout or the target nor took as careful of an approach as they should have (though I personally believe it is likely someone contacted him at sometime in the past to at least talk about the issues, my guess is he brushed them off in the same way he brushed off concerns of the kids and how he was dismissive, but didn’t provide evidence iirc in the video linked here early on).

Edited September 17, 2023 by Calm