Tim Ballard as Plaintiff - He's Filed 2 Lawsuits

[smac97]

On 11/8/2024 at 5:40 PM, Calm said:

Quote

And Bundy's misconduct was not in dispute.

My guess is Elder Ballard didn’t think Tim Ballard’s behaviour was in dispute either.

Tim Ballard seems to dispute the allegations against him.  Ergo a dispute exists.  And some notion of "due process," even in an ecclesiastical setting, may be in order.

On 11/8/2024 at 5:40 PM, Calm said:

When it comes to the scam, I don’t see how it is.  Why is Elder Ballard’s name on the whiteboard?  

I don't know.  It sure looks damning.  But do we know who wrote the items on the whiteboard?  Per the Vice article, it was "drawn by Tim Ballard in 2019," but no explanation is given as to where, under what circumstances, who took the photograph, how Vice confirmed Tim Ballard drew it, etc.

On 11/8/2024 at 5:40 PM, Calm said:

Has Tim Ballard ever responded to that question?  I don’t remember him addressing it specifically, just saying he never misused Elder Ballard’s name.

Yes, the oblique and broad denial has been in view for a while.  But Tim Ballard is probably acting on legal advice, and has been for some time.  They've probably been telling him to limit his public statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tim Ballard seems to dispute the allegations against him.  Ergo a dispute exists. 

So any criminal that claims innocence means there is a dispute that exists?  Serious question 

As far as “due process”, has the Church ever described its membership councils in such a fashion? Serious question.

I think we will err if we claim due process when we allow for decisions of our leaders that can be made not by laws, but spiritual guidance.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Found this possible handwriting just for speculation to compare…to me the way he made the T and the h and e, look similar.  Also the r and t…

It would be such an easy thing to deny if it wasn’t his handwriting.  Yet he has said nothing about it not being his writing, his ideas while iirc he has denied sending at least some of the texts (again iirc, it may have been others denying in his behalf).

I haven’t even seen any of his defenders making the claim he didn’t do the whiteboard or there wasn’t a meeting.  Not court worthy evidence, but pretty damning imo.

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Tim Ballard seems to dispute the allegations against him.  Ergo a dispute exists.  And some notion of "due process," even in an ecclesiastical setting, may be in order.

So any criminal that claims innocence means there is a dispute that exists?

Are you saying Tim Ballard is a "criminal"?  Says who?  When was that adjudicated?  When were the allegations against him proven via the submission of competent, probative evidence?

4 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as “due process”, has the Church ever described its membership councils in such a fashion? Serious question.

Using the legal phrase "due process," no.  But the sentiment is clearly there.  See, e.g., Section 32.10.1:

Quote

Give Notice and Prepare for the Council

The bishop or stake president gives a member written notice of a membership council that will be held in his or her behalf. He signs the letter. It includes the following information...

And Section 32.10.3:

Quote

32.10.3

Conduct the Council

Immediately before the council begins, the bishop or stake president tells the participants whom the council is for and what the reported misconduct is. If necessary, he explains the procedures of the council.

Notice of proceedings is an inherent facet of generalized notions of fairness (which, in legal parlance, is often termed "due process").

Quote

The person, if present, is then welcomed into the room. If the bishop has been invited to attend a stake membership council, he is also invited into the room at this time. If the person invited the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president to be present and provide support, she or he is also welcomed into the room.

The bishop or stake president conducts the council in a spirit of love, as outlined below.

1. He invites someone to offer an opening prayer.
2. He states the reported misconduct. He gives the person (if present) an opportunity to confirm, deny, or clarify this statement.

Giving the accused an opportunity to admit or deny the accusations is an inherent facet of "due process."

Quote

4. If the member denies the misconduct, he or she may present information to the council. This could be written. Or the member may ask persons who could provide relevant information to speak to the council, one at a time. Such persons should be Church members unless the bishop or stake president has determined in advance that a nonmember may attend. They wait in a separate room until they are asked to speak. Each person leaves the council room when he or she is finished. They must be willing to comply with the respectful nature of the council, including its procedures and confidentiality. Members may not have legal counsel present. Nor may they have supporters beyond those referred to in the second paragraph in this section.

Giving the accused an opportunity to mount a defense, present evidence, etc. are inherent facets of "due process."

Quote

5. The bishop or stake president may ask questions of the member in a polite and respectful way. He may also ask questions of other persons the member has asked to provide information. Counselors in the bishopric or stake presidency may also ask questions. Any questions should be brief and limited to the essential facts.
...
11. The bishop or stake president shares the council’s decision in a spirit of love. If the decision is to formally restrict the person’s Church membership privileges or withdraw membership, he explains the conditions (see 32.11.3 and 32.11.4). He also explains how to overcome the restrictions and gives other instruction and counsel. A bishop or stake president may adjourn a council for a time to seek more guidance or information before making a decision. In that case, he explains this.

Adjudication of allegations of misconduct based on evidence is an inherent facet of "due process."

Quote

He explains the person’s right to appeal (see 32.13).

A right to appeal is an inherent facet of "due process."

Quote

Whether the person is present or not, the bishop or stake president notifies him or her of the decision as explained in 32.12.1.

Giving notice of the resulting adjudication is an inherent facet of "due process."

See also Section 32.10.2:

Quote

32.10.2

Obtain Statements from Victims

When a Church member is a victim (such as for incest, child abuse, spouse abuse, or fraud), the bishop or stake president contacts that person’s current bishop or stake president. These leaders determine whether it would be helpful to give the victim an opportunity to provide a written statement about the misconduct and its effects. These statements may be read in a membership council (see 32.10.3, number 3).

See also Section 32.4.3:

Quote

False accusations are rare but can occur. Priesthood leaders should be cautious when there is limited information besides one person’s word. For example, a member who is accused of adultery may deny the charge. The scriptures explain that “every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:80). “Two witnesses” means two separate sources of information. This could include the knowledge of a participant and some other reliable source. At times a priesthood leader may need to wait to act until more information becomes available.

Having adversarial proceedings be based on, and requiring, either A) an admission of misconduct (this is what happens almost all the time), or B) proving the allegations via evidence and witnesses is an inherent facet of "due process."

See also Section 32.13:

Quote

32.13

Appeal of a Decision

A member may appeal the decision of a ward membership council to the stake president within 30 days. The stake president holds a stake membership council to consider the appeal. He may also ask a bishop to reconvene a council and reconsider a decision, particularly if there is new information.

Again, a right to appeal is part of "due process."

The right to see alteration the adjudicated outcome based on "new information" is "due process."

Quote

A member may appeal the decision of a stake membership council by writing a letter to the First Presidency within 30 days. The member gives the letter to the stake president to submit to the First Presidency.

In a mission, a member may appeal the decision of a branch or district membership council to the mission president within 30 days. The mission president holds a membership council to consider the appeal. If time or distance prevents him from doing this, he follows the instructions in 32.9.4.

If a mission president conducted the council, the member may appeal the decision by writing a letter to the First Presidency within 30 days. The member gives the letter to the mission president to submit to the First Presidency.

A person who appeals a decision specifies in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision.

If a membership council is held to consider an appeal, one of two decisions is possible:

• Let the initial decision stand.
• Modify the initial decision.

First Presidency decisions are final and cannot be appealed again.

Having and providing notice about clear rules regarding deadlines ("within 30 days") and finality ("First Presidency decisions are final") is "due process."

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I think we will err if we claim due process when we allow for decisions of our leaders that be made not by laws, but spiritual guidance.

I am sorry, but I don't understand your point here.  From Section 32.10.3:

Quote

After all relevant information has been presented, the bishop or stake president excuses the member from the room.
...
The bishop or stake president asks for comments or insights from his counselors. If the high council has participated in a stake membership council, he asks for their comments and insights.
...
With his counselors, the bishop or stake president prayerfully seeks the Lord’s will about the matter. Only the stake president and his counselors or the bishop and his counselors should be in the room during this time. If a stake membership council includes the high council, the stake presidency usually goes to the stake president’s office.

The bishop or stake president tells his counselors of his decision and asks them to sustain it. If a stake membership council includes the high council, the stake presidency returns to the room and asks the high council to sustain it. If a counselor or high councilor has a different opinion, the bishop or stake president listens and seeks to resolve the differences. Responsibility for the decision rests with the presiding officer.

And from Section 32.13:

Quote

A person who appeals a decision specifies in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision.

The "presiding officer" adjudicates the matter.  He does so by considering evidence, whether it be an admission of misconduct (by far the most common situation) or gauging evidence (witness statements/testimony, etc.) as to disputed allegations.  The policies and procedures in the Handbook provide guardrails so as to ensure that the process, while ultimately being based on revelation ("With his counselors, the bishop or stake president prayerfully seeks the Lord’s will about the matter..."), nevertheless involved some measures designed to facilitate basic notions of fairness, notice, an opportunity to be heard, etc.  In legal parlance, these guardrails are referred to as "Due Process."  The Church does not use this term, but the concept is plainly there.

And in this instance, the Church made a public statement - to Vice magazine (!) - impugning Tim Ballard's morality without having first convened a membership council, without having given him an opportunity to admit or deny the allegations, an opportunity to defend himself and to be heard, and so on.  

Here's the statement:

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

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.

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.

"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."

Doug Anderson is the Director of Media Relations for the Church.  It's fair to say that he has authority/standing to make formal statements on behalf of the Church.  I do not dispute that.  What I find troubling in this instance is that the above statement was apparently made without first giving Tim Ballard an opportunity to be heard, and for the alleged misconduct to be adjudicated by those having stewardship and authority over him.  This would be Tim Ballard's stake presidency, not Doug Anderson.

Shortly after the above statement went public, Tim Ballard made a public statement (apparently on September 17, 2023) that he "never used Elder Ballard's name, ever," that he has "never traded on his {Pres. Ballard's} name," that he "never had any business dealings with him {Pres. Ballard}," and that he does not believe that the statement came from the Church.

Various news outlets, such as this one, later reported that "a church disciplinary council was held on September 27 before Ballard received a letter notifying him of his excommunication two days later."  I think it's fair to surmise that this is accurate (read the article, which explains why), but I don't think we can speak as to the actual and particular basis for the membership council and his loss of membership.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 11, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Found this possible handwriting just for speculation to compare…to me the way he made the T and the h and e, look similar.

It would be such an easy thing to deny if it wasn’t his handwriting.  Yet he has said nothing about it not being his writing, his ideas while iirc he has denied sending at least some of the texts (again iirc, it may have been others denying in his behalf).

He's been involved in litigation for quite a while.  He has every reason to constrain his public statements, and to work with his attorneys on this.  

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I haven’t even seen any of his defenders making the claim he didn’t do the whiteboard.  

Maybe they don't know what to make of the white board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

re you saying Tim Ballard is a "criminal"?  Says who?  When was that adjudicated?  When were the allegations against him proven via the submission of competent, probative evidence?

No, I am addressing your argument which seems to be if someone disputes a claim, the claim is always in dispute.  I am wondering where you draw the line where it’s okay to believe the facts are no longer in dispute.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Maybe they don't know what to make of the white board.

Some of them were at the meeting iirc.  

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Giving the accused an opportunity to admit or deny the accusations is an inherent facet of "due process."

His bishop has rescinded his letter saying Tim Ballard was in good standing. I don’t know if this below means he has had a membership council though.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/new-court-filings-detail-tim-ballards-discipline-with-lds-church

”Borys said she was tasked with obtaining a letter from Ballard’s bishop to show that he was still in good standing with the Church.

Court documents show Bishop Les Eldredge supplied the handwritten letter on September 17, 2023, but attempted to withdraw it via text message.

“In light of the Official Statement issued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints issued on Friday, 9/15/23, I am rescinding the letter I shared with you on Sunday 9/17/23,” Eldredge wrote. “Therefore, you are not authorized to use the letter as an endorsement of good standing for Tim (Ballard), to any organization.”

Borys said she was asked to testify at an LDS Church disciplinary hearing on September 25, 2023. She stated Ballard’s former bishop asked her to testify that she “pre-loaded” sexual messages onto Ballard’s phone for him to send to OUR employees as part of an undercover tactic or training designed to save children from human trafficking. She declined to testify.”

Edited November 11, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you saying Tim Ballard is a "criminal"?  Says who?  When was that adjudicated?  When were the allegations against him proven via the submission of competent, probative evidence?

They are in dispute in the legal sense and that is important for fairness in what is left of our justice system and that is a good thing.

I do not require a jury of his peers to figure out he is a snake.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Giving the accused an opportunity to admit or deny the accusations is an inherent facet of "due process."

His bishop has rescinded his letter saying Tim Ballard was in good standing. I don’t know if this below means he has had a membership council though.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/new-court-filings-detail-tim-ballards-discipline-with-lds-church

The bishop wrote a letter on 9/17/23, and the purported membership council was held several days later.  Meanwhile, the Vice article, which included the Church's statement about Tim Ballard's behavior, was published 9/15/23. 

In both instances, Tim Ballard had not yet received "due process."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

both instances, Tim Ballard had not yet received "due process."

As far as you are aware.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What I find troubling in this instance is that the above statement was apparently made without first giving Tim Ballard an opportunity to be heard

You have no way of knowing this.

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are in dispute in the legal sense and that is important for fairness in what is left of our justice system and that is a good thing.

I do not require a jury of his peers to figure out he is a snake.

To the nth degree, IMO. 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Tacenda

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

re you saying Tim Ballard is a "criminal"?  Says who?  When was that adjudicated?  When were the allegations against him proven via the submission of competent, probative evidence?

No, I am addressing your argument which seems to be if someone disputes a claim, the claim is always in dispute.  

Prior to an adjudication, yes.  Afterwards, not so much.

Here, the Church made a statement impugning Tim Ballard's morality, at which point in time he had not been given "due process," an opportunity to address the allegations against him.

Is it possible that the Church's statement, made several days before Tim Ballard's purported membership council, affected the proceedings?  That the stake president felt obligated to reach the same conclusions that the Church gave to Vice?

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am wondering where you draw the line where it’s okay to believe the facts are no longer in dispute.

Generally, when there is an admission, or an adjudication, or when the facts are facially outside the real of reasonable dispute.

Also, I can't find a cite in the moment, but my recollection is that Tim Ballard's wife has publicly stated that she spoke with Pres. Ballard after the Church's statement came out, and that - according to her - Pres. Ballard did not know anything about it.  I don't know how much credibility or probative value to lend to this, but it's out there.

Anyway, my point is more about this: Local leaders are supposed to adjudicate matters of member misconduct.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline

Quote

Church discipline is administered at a local level by those who know the circumstances and the individual best and who can be at his or her side throughout the repentance process.
...
Before Church discipline is ever considered, a local leader will meet with the individual — often many times — to discuss the nature of the behavior in question and to help them prepare to overcome their challenges. If the local leader feels that Church discipline is a necessary step, he will discuss that with the individual and notify them that a disciplinary council will be held.

The large majority of disciplinary councils occur at the ward, or local congregational level.
...
All Church discipline is carried out in complete confidence. Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the Church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/church-discipline?lang=eng

Quote

Some features of Church discipline have changed over time and in accordance with continuing revelation. In the early Church, disciplinary decisions were made public, and member confessions were often given in Church meetings. As many cultures have placed increasing value on personal privacy, the Church has treated disciplinary cases with greater confidentiality. Additionally, in early Church history, members often brought charges against each other before Church courts under broad categories such as “unchristian-like conduct.” Over time, the Church has issued more specific guidelines for local leaders. Today most disciplinary cases involve serious violations of established Church standards, or, in some cases, sustained public opposition to Church leaders or policies.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

Quote

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

For my part, I believe the foregoing statements are what happens pretty much all of the time.  However, in this instance there appears to be room to argue that the Church's 9/15/23 public statement about Tim Ballard arguably colored/affected how he was treated at the local level.  His bishop explicitly cited the Church's statement as the basis for reversing his "good standing" letter, and Ballard's membership council was convened a few days later, on 9/25.  We don't know what happened in those proceedings, including whether the stake presidency took into account the Church's 9/15/23 statement. 

The institutional Church, speaking on behalf of both itself and Pres. Ballard, publicly condemned Tim Ballard on September 15, 2023.  Eight days later, on September 25, 2023, Tim Ballard's stake presidency convened a membership council.  In the future it might not be unreasonable for critics and disaffected Latter-day Saints to point to what happened to Tim Ballard and infer that there may be times when disciplinary decisions being made by local leaders are, to some extent, "directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."

In other words, I think the Church's statement on 9/15/23 was a mistake, and for Tim Ballard personally, a potentially serious one.  If he is substantially innocent of the allegations, then the Church's condemnation of him on September 15, published to the world without according him due process and without his local leaders having convened a membership council, could be said to have improperly influenced the adjudicatory processes taken by his local leaders a week or so later.  

I think the Church's statement could and should have been framed so that the Church was speaking tentatively, without the conclusory statements regarding Tim Ballard's conduct.  The Church could have distanced itself from Tim Ballard without overtly and publicly impugning his character, without seemingly contravening - or calling into some question - the Church's statements elsewhere that disciplinary matters are handled at the local level.

None of this alters my perspective on the Church.  I still love it a lot.  I admire it.  I am grateful to be a member of it.  It makes mistakes here and there, sometimes even serious ones.  These mistakes do not alter or erase the reality of the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

both instances, Tim Ballard had not yet received "due process."

As far as you are aware.

Yes, we are operating with limited information here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Prior to an adjudication, yes.  Afterwards, not so much.

Here, the Church made a statement impugning Tim Ballard's morality, at which point in time he had not been given "due process," an opportunity to address the allegations against him.

Is it possible that the Church's statement, made several days before Tim Ballard's purported membership council, affected the proceedings?  That the stake president felt obligated to reach the same conclusions that the Church gave to Vice?

Generally, when there is an admission, or an adjudication, or when the facts are facially outside the real of reasonable dispute.

Also, I can't find a cite in the moment, but my recollection is that Tim Ballard's wife has publicly stated that she spoke with Pres. Ballard after the Church's statement came out, and that - according to her - Pres. Ballard did not know anything about it.  I don't know how much credibility or probative value to lend to this, but it's out there.

Anyway, my point is more about this: Local leaders are supposed to adjudicate matters of member misconduct.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/church-discipline?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

For my part, I believe the foregoing statements are what happens pretty much all of the time.  However, in this instance there appears to be room to argue that the Church's 9/15/23 public statement about Tim Ballard arguably colored/affected how he was treated at the local level.  His bishop explicitly cited the Church's statement as the basis for reversing his "good standing" letter, and Ballard's membership council was convened a few days later, on 9/25.  We don't know what happened in those proceedings, including whether the stake presidency took into account the Church's 9/15/23 statement. 

The institutional Church, speaking on behalf of both itself and Pres. Ballard, publicly condemned Tim Ballard on September 15, 2023.  Eight days later, on September 25, 2023, Tim Ballard's stake presidency convened a membership council.  In the future it might not be unreasonable for critics and disaffected Latter-day Saints to point to what happened to Tim Ballard and infer that there may be times when disciplinary decisions being made by local leaders are, to some extent, "directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."

In other words, I think the Church's statement on 9/15/23 was a mistake, and for Tim Ballard personally, a potentially serious one.  If he is substantially innocent of the allegations, then the Church's condemnation of him on September 15, published to the world without according him due process and without his local leaders having convened a membership council, could be said to have improperly influenced the adjudicatory processes taken by his local leaders a week or so later.  

I think the Church's statement could and should have been framed so that the Church was speaking tentatively, without the conclusory statements regarding Tim Ballard's conduct.  The Church could have distanced itself from Tim Ballard without overtly and publicly impugning his character, without seemingly contravening - or calling into some question - the Church's statements elsewhere that disciplinary matters are handled at the local level.

None of this alters my perspective on the Church.  I still love it a lot.  I admire it.  I am grateful to be a member of it.  It makes mistakes here and there, sometimes even serious ones.  These mistakes do not alter or erase the reality of the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Why in heaven's name are we discounting what the women are saying about him? 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

What I find troubling in this instance is that the above statement was apparently made without first giving Tim Ballard an opportunity to be heard

You have no way of knowing this.

I do not claim to "know."  Hence my qualification that "the above statement was apparently made made without first giving Tim Ballard an opportunity to be heard."

I think it's a reasonable surmise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Prior to an adjudication, yes.  Afterwards, not so much.

Here, the Church made a statement impugning Tim Ballard's morality, at which point in time he had not been given "due process," an opportunity to address the allegations against him.

Is it possible that the Church's statement, made several days before Tim Ballard's purported membership council, affected the proceedings?  That the stake president felt obligated to reach the same conclusions that the Church gave to Vice?

Generally, when there is an admission, or an adjudication, or when the facts are facially outside the real of reasonable dispute.

Also, I can't find a cite in the moment, but my recollection is that Tim Ballard's wife has publicly stated that she spoke with Pres. Ballard after the Church's statement came out, and that - according to her - Pres. Ballard did not know anything about it.  I don't know how much credibility or probative value to lend to this, but it's out there.

Anyway, my point is more about this: Local leaders are supposed to adjudicate matters of member misconduct.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/church-discipline?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

For my part, I believe the foregoing statements are what happens pretty much all of the time.  However, in this instance there appears to be room to argue that the Church's 9/15/23 public statement about Tim Ballard arguably colored/affected how he was treated at the local level.  His bishop explicitly cited the Church's statement as the basis for reversing his "good standing" letter, and Ballard's membership council was convened a few days later, on 9/25.  We don't know what happened in those proceedings, including whether the stake presidency took into account the Church's 9/15/23 statement. 

The institutional Church, speaking on behalf of both itself and Pres. Ballard, publicly condemned Tim Ballard on September 15, 2023.  Eight days later, on September 25, 2023, Tim Ballard's stake presidency convened a membership council.  In the future it might not be unreasonable for critics and disaffected Latter-day Saints to point to what happened to Tim Ballard and infer that there may be times when disciplinary decisions being made by local leaders are, to some extent, "directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."

In other words, I think the Church's statement on 9/15/23 was a mistake, and for Tim Ballard personally, a potentially serious one.  If he is substantially innocent of the allegations, then the Church's condemnation of him on September 15, published to the world without according him due process and without his local leaders having convened a membership council, could be said to have improperly influenced the adjudicatory processes taken by his local leaders a week or so later.  

I think the Church's statement could and should have been framed so that the Church was speaking tentatively, without the conclusory statements regarding Tim Ballard's conduct.  The Church could have distanced itself from Tim Ballard without overtly and publicly impugning his character, without seemingly contravening - or calling into some question - the Church's statements elsewhere that disciplinary matters are handled at the local level.

None of this alters my perspective on the Church.  I still love it a lot.  I admire it.  I am grateful to be a member of it.  It makes mistakes here and there, sometimes even serious ones.  These mistakes do not alter or erase the reality of the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t think most people think of membership councils as a kind of due process before which you cannot determine anything about someone engaged in harmful conduct. It seems the apostles do not agree with you at the very least.

Edited November 11, 2024 by The Nehor

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why in heaven's name are we discounting what the women are saying about him? 

Should we take an accuser's statement as established simply because the accuser is a woman?

Should we take the accused's denial as established simply because he is male?

Nope and nope.

My current assessment is that Tim Ballard probably did some bad things.  The "Couple's Ruse" thing just doesn't pass the smell test for me, particularly in light of some of the published text messages from him.  However, my current assessment is also that some of the allegations against him may be exaggerated, distorted, fabricated, etc.  This sort of thing happens in litigation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 11, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think most people think of membership councils as a kind of due process before which you cannot determine anything about someone engaged in harmful conduct.

I do not think this.  We are often called up on to reach conclusions about matters for which we have limited information and evidence.

Here, I think the Church's 9/15/23 public statement was worded in such a way that a bystander might reasonably infer that there may be times when disciplinary decisions being made by local leaders are, to some extent, "directed or coordinated by Church headquarters," that the Church's statement on 9/15/23 could be seen has having put Tim Ballard's stake president in a difficult position on 9/25/23.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It seems the apostles do not agree with you at the very least.

I think the apostles - particularly those with legal training - will readily agree with me that the Church's procedures for membership councils have substantial "due process" provisions within them.

Beyond that, what the apostles think about this is going to be pretty much pure speculation on your or my part.

I think attorneys who work with the law on a daily basis have a substantially greater appreciation for the importance of "due process" than the average Joe.  By way of illustration: Chad Daybell's trial in Idaho went took place in April and May of this year.  Imagine if the Idaho Supreme Court had, in February 2024, issued a public statement condemning Chad Daybell for his conduct.  Now, as it happens, I think Chad Daybell is pretty clearly guilty based on the evidence, but I would still have serious heartburn about the Idaho Supreme Court putting its collective thumb on the scales prior to his trial.  A trial by an impartial factfinder, a judge or jury, is a pretty important component of our legal system.  We need to get it right not only on the substance, but on the appearance as well.  If the Idaho Supreme Court condemned Chad Daybell before his trial, his attorneys would argue - likely with success - that the condemnation deprived Daybell of his right to Due Process because the judge and/or jury may have felt beholden or obligated to reach the same conclusion as announced by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here, of course, we are dealing with a set of ecclesiastical procedures.  The Church has no authority over Tim Ballard akin to Idaho's authority over Chad Daybell.  The Church can only restrict or remove Ballard's membership, nothing more.  But for those of us who repose tremendous value in membership in the Church, instances where the Church's safeguarding procedures were not fully observed can be disconcerting, regardless of whether the individual was guilty of the alleged misconduct.  Instances of the Church failing to observe procedural "due process" components is how people like Helmuth Hübener and Avraham Gileadi lost their membership.  While both instances were later reversed, I would prefer to see the procedures observed in the first instance.

Again, I still love the Church, and I sustain it in all material respects.  I think it made an error here, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not think this.  We are often called up on to reach conclusions about matters for which we have limited information and evidence.

Here, I think the Church's 9/15/23 public statement was worded in such a way that a bystander might reasonably infer that there may be times when disciplinary decisions being made by local leaders are, to some extent, "directed or coordinated by Church headquarters," that the Church's statement on 9/15/23 could be seen has having put Tim Ballard's stake president in a difficult position on 9/25/23.

I think the apostles - particularly those with legal training - will readily agree with me that the Church's procedures for membership councils have substantial "due process" provisions within them.

Beyond that, what the apostles think about this is going to be pretty much pure speculation on your or my part.

I think attorneys who work with the law on a daily basis have a substantially greater appreciation for the importance of "due process" than the average Joe.  By way of illustration: Chad Daybell's trial in Idaho went took place in April and May of this year.  Imagine if the Idaho Supreme Court had, in February 2024, issued a public statement condemning Chad Daybell for his conduct.  Now, as it happens, I think Chad Daybell is pretty clearly guilty based on the evidence, but I would still have serious heartburn about the Idaho Supreme Court putting its collective thumb on the scales prior to his trial.  A trial by an impartial factfinder, a judge or jury, is a pretty important component of our legal system.  We need to get it right not only on the substance, but on the appearance as well.  If the Idaho Supreme Court condemned Chad Daybell before his trial, his attorneys would argue - likely with success - that the condemnation deprived Daybell of his right to Due Process because the judge and/or jury may have felt beholden or obligated to reach the same conclusion as announced by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here, of course, we are dealing with a set of ecclesiastical procedures.  The Church has no authority over Tim Ballard akin to Idaho's authority over Chad Daybell.  The Church can only restrict or remove Ballard's membership, nothing more.  But for those of us who repose tremendous value in membership in the Church, instances where the Church's safeguarding procedures were not fully observed can be disconcerting, regardless of whether the individual was guilty of the alleged misconduct.  Instances of the Church failing to observe procedural "due process" components is how people like Helmuth Hübener and Avraham Gileadi lost their membership.  While both instances were later reversed, I would prefer to see the procedures observed in the first instance.

Again, I still love the Church, and I sustain it in all material respects.  I think it made an error here, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I suspect that the statement the apostles made was with a lot more information than we have and that the statement they made was downright charitable compared to what they could have said.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Should we take an accuser's statement as established simply because the accuser is a woman?

Should we take the accused's denial as established simply because he is male?

Nope and nope.

Perhaps we should consider that it is multiple women that Tim Ballard hand-picked who are reporting he was a huge creep? One denier and a bunch of accusers. These accusers have no reason to collude against him. Claiming to have been victimized is not a path to happiness or celebrity. It is humiliating and exhausting. One crazy person is easy to dismiss because sometimes people are irrational. This many? I doubt it. That means that either Tim Ballard intentionally chooses women who are evil or nuts or he is a spectacularly bad judge of character.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps we should consider that it is multiple women that Tim Ballard hand-picked who are reporting he was a huge creep? One denier and a bunch of accusers. These accusers have no reason to collude against him. Claiming to have been victimized is not a path to happiness or celebrity. It is humiliating and exhausting. One crazy person is easy to dismiss because sometimes people are irrational. This many? I doubt it. That means that either Tim Ballard intentionally chooses women who are evil or nuts or he is a spectacularly bad judge of character.

You say it better!

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps we should consider that it is multiple women that Tim Ballard hand-picked who are reporting he was a huge creep? One denier and a bunch of accusers. These accusers have no reason to collude against him.

They are coming together to sue him.  For money.

And by your reckoning, the accusations are more credible because there are "multiple women" making the allegations.

Are you sure there is "no reason to collude against him"?

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Claiming to have been victimized is not a path to happiness or celebrity.

I am curious why these women originally filed suit anonymously, and then thereafter "outed" themselves.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is humiliating and exhausting. One crazy person is easy to dismiss because sometimes people are irrational. This many? I doubt it.

It is that reaction - increased credibility - that may constitute a "reason to collude against him."

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That means that either Tim Ballard intentionally chooses women who are evil or nuts or he is a spectacularly bad judge of character.

Or there is a lot of money to be made, and colluding helps defray the legal expenses necessary to get there.

FWIW, though: My current assessment is that Tim Ballard probably did some bad things.  The "Couple's Ruse" thing just doesn't pass the smell test for me, particularly in light of some of the published text messages from him.  However, my current assessment is also that some of the allegations against him may be exaggerated, distorted, fabricated, etc.  This sort of thing happens in litigation.  

Thanks,

-Smac