Goodness, Gracious, Great Ball(ard)s of Fire!!!!

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Which is what makes me suspicious...well that and it is Vice.  

 

Even @NeuroTypical's link to the Deseret News does not have a direct connection to the Newsroom site which I find very strange.

As I understand it Vice was prepping their story and asked the Church’s media affairs director for comment; he emailed them back and then later provided that email to the Deseret News as well.  

When the Church (or other comparable institutions) comments reactively in this way, the comments often don’t end up on their news release website.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it Vice was prepping their story and asked the Church’s media affairs director for comment; he emailed them back and then later provided that email to the Deseret News as well.  

 

I knew that.

 

Quote

When the Church (or other comparable institutions) comments reactively in this way, the comments often don’t end up on their news release website.

I didn't know that.

[EH12NG]

Somewhere, somehow, there is a deviant in the midst of all of this and they need looking into. The thought alone of a saint running to Vice makes my skin crawl. As they say, in war ( even tho this is a war of words ) the truth is the first victim. So I wont be losing too much sleep over it. 

[Grunt]

Has anyone seen anything official from the Church or is this all just crappy reporting.   I don't know anything about this, but a quick search doesn't turn up anything official.

[Backroads]

This isn't a person I really pay much attention to (still haven't seen that one movie). I think the media will do what the media will do. Without more evidence, I'm content to remain a neutral party.

That all being said... no one, church members included, are perfect, and not all Latter-Day Saints are, well, saints. 

I guess I'm not making assumptions yet, but with all the stuff that happens in the world, I won't put him above such behavior.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Has anyone seen anything official from the Church or is this all just crappy reporting.   I don't know anything about this, but a quick search doesn't turn up anything official.

The Church’s response to Vice is legit; the Deseret News published the full statement. There are those suggesting that the author of the statement (LDS media relations director Doug Anderson) has somehow gone rogue; but the statement is now six days old and every day it goes unretracted/ unrebutted/ unsupplemented by the Church  (and, every day that Anderson keeps his job) seems to bolster the conclusion that the statement said substantially what the Church leadership wanted it to say.  

[prisonchaplain]

Sometimes outside views help. My impression is that self-promotion is deeply frowned upon in LDS circles. Worse would be to use church leadership for personal benefit. My sense, then, is that leadership took great offense at Ballard's name-dropping and use of LDS connections. They did so on behalf of the Church. I'm not sure any of this controversy speaks to other allegations against him or to whether or not his future political aspirations are plausible or commendable.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Sometimes outside views help. My impression is that self-promotion is deeply frowned upon in LDS circles. Worse would be to use church leadership for personal benefit. My sense, then, is that leadership took great offense at Ballard's name-dropping and use of LDS connections. They did so on behalf of the Church. I'm not sure any of this controversy speaks to other allegations against him or to whether or not his future political aspirations are plausible or commendable.

I don't think it takes an outside view to have this impression. It's mine as well.

I believe Tim Ballard name dropped anecdotally. I believe that was perceived by Elder Ballard as name dropping for gain. I think it's irresponsible of the church to condemn him publicly like they did though. Assuming the other allegations are false, they may have entirely destroyed his career. Someone should have called him and asked him to not use Elder Ballard's name any more. He probably (from my best understanding...which may be way off), would have complied -- even apologized.

But by publicly "denouncing" him, if all he made was a rather innocent mistake of telling what he felt was an interesting anecdote, not good.

I think, maybe, why I feel this way is I can see anyone in Tim Ballard's position doing the same. If I was working on a project and one of the prophets or apostles said, even in passing, "You're doing great!" or anything akin to that, I might well share that and get myself into trouble too. Which, you know.... lesson to learn I suppose.

Of course there may be things that went on that I'm unaware of. I only know that Tim Ballard stated that he never used Elder Ballard's name to self promote, and I believe that he believes that.

[prisonchaplain]

I agree that this probably comes down to Tim not believing he crossed the line (abuse of 'name' and relationship) and the Church believing he did. The message was communicated clearly though--don't even come close to abusing the church or its leaders for personal gain. No hint or whiff of that will be tolerated. 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it takes an outside view to have this impression. It's mine as well.

I believe Tim Ballard name dropped anecdotally. I believe that was perceived by Elder Ballard as name dropping for gain. I think it's irresponsible of the church to condemn him publicly like they did though. Assuming the other allegations are false, they may have entirely destroyed his career. Someone should have called him and asked him to not use Elder Ballard's name any more. He probably (from my best understanding...which may be way off), would have complied -- even apologized.

But by publicly "denouncing" him, if all he made was a rather innocent mistake of telling what he felt was an interesting anecdote, not good.

I think, maybe, why I feel this way is I can see anyone in Tim Ballard's position doing the same. If I was working on a project and one of the prophets or apostles said, even in passing, "You're doing great!" or anything akin to that, I might well share that and get myself into trouble too. Which, you know.... lesson to learn I suppose.

Of course there may be things that went on that I'm unaware of. I only know that Tim Ballard stated that he never used Elder Ballard's name to self promote, and I believe that he believes that.

Undercover work is necessarily shady business (I defended a couple of prostitutes who got caught in a massage parlor sting about 10-15 years ago; and after reading the report of what the SLC vice squad officers did, I really don’t know how those guys could go home and look their wives in the eye each night.  Suffice it to say—they enjoyed their jobs.  A lot.)

I could easily envision a scenario where people who were already part of Tim’s organization (so, no donor/financial gain aspect to it) got uncomfortable with some of his methods and were reassured by him with something along the lines of “Don’t worry about this psychic thing, I have President Ballard’s personal blessing that what we are doing is totally legit!”  

Do I believe that President Ballard withdrew association from Tim without attempting to offer so much as a word of explanation?  As someone who believes in President Ballard’s prophetic calling and good intentions and general character as a minister and a gentleman:  No; no I don’t.  Maybe he tried to reach out and Tim, basking in the success of his new movie, refused to take the call.  Or maybe he *did* get through to Tim and that Tim now, as an experienced undercover operator, is using his particular set of deception and manipulation skills in order to misrepresent his past activities and entice his current audience into believing that he and they have the same fundamental values.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

This is a situation, one of those pickles, where the Church is put in a bad position either way -- my opinion. The Church is taking a proactive stance it appears (if this is all reality). If the Church didn't take a proactive stance, and then these accusations are true could you imagine how many ex-members and antis would come out and use this as more evidence as to why they have left, "You see, <insert finger of scorn>." And then you have the opposite side, "I can't believe the Church didn't back him up...<insert finger of scorn>."

I think we are going to see the Church, more often than not, take the proactive stance for what appears to be better. Awkwardly backing a sexual predator to the end, until they find out he actually is, or take a proactive stance to back away. At the same time, I feel for any individual who is being targeted by our modern social and news media.

@Just_A_Guy --> I have wondered the same thing in this type of scenario, and you give evidence to confirm my thoughts. I knew of individuals who were undercover with drug rings. There were certain crowds where they had to take the drug in order to get further into the ring to find the head of the ring. I think in some ways finding the sexual predator rings might even be more disturbing (at least ones like shown in the movie). When I watched the movie Sound of Freedom it caused me to ponder even more what these undercover rings might do in order to track down these predators while keeping themselves from getting killed. Can a person truly come unscathed from this type of situation and hostile environment when undercover?

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Undercover work is necessarily shady business (I defended a couple of prostitutes who got caught in a massage parlor sting about 10-15 years ago; and after reading the report of what the SLC vice squad officers did, I really don’t know how those guys could go home and look their wives in the eye each night.  Suffice it to say—they enjoyed their jobs.  A lot.)

I could easily envision a scenario where people who were already part of Tim’s organization (so, no donor/financial gain aspect to it) got uncomfortable with some of his methods and were reassured by him with something along the lines of “Don’t worry about this psychic thing, I have President Ballard’s personal blessing that what we are doing is totally legit!”  

Do I believe that President Ballard withdrew association from Tim without attempting to offer so much as a word of explanation?  As someone who believes in President Ballard’s prophetic calling and good intentions and general character as a minister and a gentleman:  No; no I don’t.  Maybe he tried to reach out and Tim, basking in the success of his new movie, refused to take the call.  Or maybe he *did* get through to Tim and that Tim now, as an experienced undercover operator, is using his particular set of deception and manipulation skills in order to misrepresent his past activities and entice his current audience into believing that he and they have the same fundamental values.

Maybe. Maybe. And Maybe.

An awful lot of speculation.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe. Maybe. And Maybe.

An awful lot of speculation.

Indeed.

Then again, the scenarios exonerating Tim are also based in an awful lot of speculation.  

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

There seem to be a lot of "apparently" and "maybe" comments around this story. I have seen nothing official come out on what Tim was supposedly involved in and whether it is true or not. I will wait for the truth to come out before passing judgement. It is interesting that this all came out when rumors began to circulate that Tim was considering a Senate run?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed.

Then again, the scenarios exonerating Tim are also based in an awful lot of speculation.  

I think the primary difference (to my thinking) is Tim's claims. I see no reason to judge him as guilty when he claims he's not. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt is the charitable approach. He may be a dirt bag scum con man pervert. But until that comes out concretely, I'll presume he's being honest.

I know it can be read that one must choose between support for Tim or support for the church. I don't think so. I give the benefit of the doubt to both, and will wait and see.... or never know and maintain said benefit of the doubt.

I have no delusions that all members who claim to be "in good standing" are. I also have no delusions that all apostles are and have been perfect and never make poor choices in frustration or anger.

As I've said, in this case the accusations against Tim seem awfully convenient which makes me suspicious. And it strikes me that he's been universally presumed guilty without due process. I may be wrong. That's just how it strikes me.

On the actual accusations re: sexual stuff....it's SO very fishy. Like I get that sometimes someone under cover might need to get into some less than ideal predicaments. And how to balance that with moral cleanliness escapes me. But the accusations, beside being conveniently anonymous are...that he sent pics of himself in his underwear and asked women to shower with him to maintain cover.

REALLY?!?

Pictures in boxers or his tighty-whiteys? (Ooo...sexy....) And the LUDICROUS concept that alone in their hotel room he tried to convince a woman that they had to get naked, even though no one was watching, and shower together? Either he's the dumbest idiot in the world and believed the women to be the dumbest idiots in the world too or something is seriously off here.

Maybe I missed something.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the primary difference (to my thinking) is Tim's claims. I see no reason to judge him as guilty when he claims he's not. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt is the charitable approach. He may be a dirt bag scum con man pervert. But until that comes out concretely, I'll presume he's being honest.

As a matter of procedure, you are of course correct.  But to believe that the average person (myself included) can divorce their own tendency to jump to conclusions sufficiently as to not even entertain a whiff of judgement one way or the other is asking quite a bit.

I'm perfectly willing to wait and listen/read for more information.  But with what is already given, coupled with my individual notions/feelings, etc. I'm still leaning toward one direction or another.  But, of course, that could change with new information.

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As a matter of procedure, you are of course correct.  But to believe that the average person (myself included) can divorce their own tendency to jump to conclusions sufficiently as to not even entertain a whiff of judgement one way or the other is asking quite a bit.

Apropos of nothing: This sounds like: "To believe that teenagers can refrain from having sex is asking quite a bit. So let's just hand out condoms to all the 14-year-olds. We can't expect people to control their animal natures."

Sorry Carb.... I'm going to continue to expect better of you.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This sounds like: "To believe that teenagers can refrain from having sex is asking quite a bit. So let's just hand out condoms to all the 14-year-olds. We can't expect people to control their animal natures.

Teenagers refraining from sex is a decision.  It is conscious.  When you do it, you know it.

Jumping to conclusions is a reflex.  It is unconscious.  We tend to do this without even being aware of it.

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sorry Carb.... I'm going to continue to expect better of you. 

Did you ever?

Edited September 22, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Jumping to conclusions is a reflex.  It is unconscious.  We tend to do this without even being aware of it.

It's still a sin to judge wrongfully.

At the risk of sounding like I'm being patronizing, I'll leave these here despite the fact that you're obviously well aware:

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:"

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

"Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment."

"See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged."

I'm sure we could get into some debates over how these things relate to "jumping to conclusions". I don't disagree that jumping to a conclusion is a reflex. That doesn't make said conclusion right to have jumped to. I think it behooves us to step back and say, "Nope...even though that's my reflex, I'm going to suppress it and CHOOSE be charitable in my unwillingness to presume evil."

The fact that jumping to a conclusion is the natural man thing to do doesn't mean we shouldn't be making every effort to divorce ourselves from those tendencies, especially if we're aware that there's likely bias involved.

And, most importantly, I think that by making such choices and putting in such effort, while turning to the Savior and His atonement, we actually CAN divorce ourselves from those tendencies, and to SHOULD expect that of ourselves.

So I agree. The natural man is.....natural. But we should, and can, put off the natural man, with time, effort, practice, and the help of the Spirit.

It's a deeper subject than "don't judge" of course. Judgement is always deeper than the way people make it out to be. The idea of not judging at all is silly. It's not possible. Every thought, actions, word, etc., requires judgement. There is no neutral. So we should be taking care to not judge wrongly, unfairly, meanly, unkindly, unforgivingly, hatefully, pridefully, etc., etc. PARTICULARLY, when it's a situation of hearsay and rumor.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 9/22/2023 at 10:39 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the primary difference (to my thinking) is Tim's claims. I see no reason to judge him as guilty when he claims he's not. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt is the charitable approach. He may be a dirt bag scum con man pervert. But until that comes out concretely, I'll presume he's being honest.

I know it can be read that one must choose between support for Tim or support for the church. I don't think so. I give the benefit of the doubt to both, and will wait and see.... or never know and maintain said benefit of the doubt.

This is entirely honorable; but it does sort of lead one to wonder whether President Ballard improperly judged Tim as guilty.  A lot of people are suggesting that Tim was framed by Vice; but if President Ballard cut ties “many months ago”, then whatever the source of his info re Tim’s alleged wrongdoing was—it wasn’t Vice.

One other thing to bear in mind about this is that we tend to immediately assume that leftist accusations of sexual misconduct against conservatives are ab initio fabrications.  This may be true in some cases (Kavanaugh, Thomas); but it should also be noted that often the guys really were dirtbags but the left covered for them until a) the guys quit being leftists (Russell Brand, Donald Trump) or b) it became politically expedient to throw them overboard (Clinton, Epstein, Weinstein, Franken, and - probably coming soon - Biden).

The point here being that just because someone gets accused of sexual conduct doesn’t mean that the accusation is untrue. Often, it just means the left has decided to stop protecting someone.  

Edited September 23, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One other thing to bear in mind about this is that we tend to immediately assume that leftist accusations of sexual misconduct against conservatives are ab initio fabrications.

The right is doing the same thing the left did to protect Clinton in the 90’s. Attack the accusers, deny everything, and when it’s proven beyond all doubt that something bad did happen, the right will then say “We knew this all along, we didn’t like him anyway.” 
 

We all know the stages of grief. Denial, anger, bargaining and acceptance. Denial-“Vice is lying.” Anger-“Grr everyone hates Ballard!” Bargaining will be next. “Well yes, Ballard did bad things but he’s not like __________ who did worse.”  Acceptance will be something like “We should put our faith in God and not in mortal men like Ballard.” 

Edited September 23, 2023 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's still a sin to judge wrongfully.

No, it is a sin to judge unrighteously.

I can judge in a very logical reasonable manner based on the totality of the evidence at the time.  But when later evidence becomes available which would lead me to believe otherwise, then I would be wise to correct my initial assessment (judgment).

With only partial information, we certainly can make an incorrect judgment.  We can do all the right things with all the right intentions and still be incorrect because we simply didn't have all the information.  But that doesn't make it sinful.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No, it is a sin to judge unrighteously.

Actually, yes.

"And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." - Moroni 7:18

What? You think I'm making stuff up here?

I'm not sure what your point is anyhow. Isn't "wrongfully" and "unrighteously" about equivalent? He doesn't say "wrongly". He says "wrongfully". I think that distinction matters.

I'm not saying we can't make mistakes. I'm saying that we need to be careful in the spirit with which we judge and make sure it isn't done "wrongfully", or "unrighteously".

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

but it does sort of lead one to wonder whether President Ballard improperly judged Tim as guilty.

It does lead one to wonder. Though I think it would be just as unfair to presume that as it is to presume Tim is guilty.

I maintain...there isn't enough information to presume either way.

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One other thing to bear in mind about this is that we tend to immediately assume that leftist accusations of sexual misconduct against conservatives are ab initio fabrications.

Only when it seems decidedly convenient to the situation at hand. And particularly when the left doesn't seem to mind most sexual misconduct until perpetrated by someone on the right. But it's a problem on both sides of the aisle. Whenever there's any indication of any sort of impropriety on the other side the left and the right begin to salivate.

I understand why. But the side of me that tries knows it's still not right.

[mirkwood]

9 hours ago, LDSGator said:

The right is doing the same thing the left did to protect Clinton in the 90’s. 

Are you comparing some people on the right who are defending Tim Ballard with the majority of the left defending Clinton as "the same?"  

[LDSGator]

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Are you comparing some people on the right who are defending Tim Ballard with the majority of the left defending Clinton as "the same?"  

I’m comparing anyone on the right who defends him to those on the left who defended Clinton, Franken, Cuomo, etc. 

 

Without question the most depressing political event in my lifetime has been how the right embraced the tactics the left has used.