LDS Freedom Forum

OPMissionary wrote: ↑October 7th, 2023, 8:18 am

Seed Starter wrote: ↑October 7th, 2023, 12:18 am

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 6th, 2023, 11:52 pm Bleh, I read the Blaze article. It’s not looking good. Tim has responses to every accusation, but if they have the actual text messages, then it would show he lied.

The Brazilian wax thing, oh my! Lol That would have been a dealbreaker for me. Youch!!

He also allegedly used the Nephi story of cutting off Laban’s head to convince them to do the sexualall of things.

So far I've heard Tim say he had other people at OUR pre-load his phone with filth. That was on his recent Adam Corolla interview with his wife next to him. In the Glenn Beck investigative article, it said, "A source familiar with O.U.R. operations told Blaze News that Ballard was the only operative who ever "practiced" with women or sent explicit text messages to them in connection with a couples ruse. O.U.R. did not return a request for comment seeking clarification of these issues."

Through these couples ruses, both in the office and in the field, Ballard eventually engaged in sexual contact with some women and propositioned others, the women told Blaze News. "As far as physical [touching], he made it pretty clear that really the only thing that was not going to be considered, if need be, during an op was kissing on the lips," one woman said. "Everything else was pretty much a go and, honestly, more than just a go; it's something that I should anticipate and be prepared to make happen for the sake of the act."

Also from the GB article:
"Another woman claimed that, while on a mission, she and Ballard participated in several "sexual acts with the exception of actual penetration." She also stated that their sexual contact ended at the end of the mission.

Other women mentioned engaging in sexual acts and being in various states of undress with Ballard while on a mission, sometimes even while at their private accommodations when no one else was around. According to the women, Ballard would argue that they had to maintain the appearance of a romantic relationship at all times during a mission because suspicious traffickers might be surveilling them at any moment.

Ballard denied that he engaged in any physical contact beyond "hand-holding, arms around shoulders, stuff like that." He also alleged that some female operatives wanted to kiss him during a mission to put on a more convincing performance, but he always refused. "There's no reason to do it. It's not appropriate," he claimed he would tell them.

A source familiar with O.U.R. operations denied that O.U.R. would ever have approved of any sexual contact between couples ruse partners."

What a boy scout Tim makes himself out to be. They wanted to kiss more than I did but I said no LOL. Sure Tim.

And boy if this can be proven it will be a bad day for Tim. The outlet releasing this is owned by a long time friend of Tim and someone who ran the Nazarene fund and Glenn Beck kicked him out as CEO. Vice news going against Tim is one thing, this is Glenn Beck believing what he's seen. Glenn was defending Tim up until a short time ago so nobody can say Glen is trying to take Tim out. Perhaps the women are but they seem to be doing a great job at convincing Tim's friends that Tims dirty. Smoke smoke everywhere, the fire is coming...

"Despite these sometimes severe aftereffects, some of the women still hesitated to report Ballard's alleged behavior to those at O.U.R. or to others in their communities for fear of retribution. "He has threatened to destroy our lives if we speak out," one woman said.

"I have 1,000 bricks, and you only have one," Ballard allegedly warned another after she confronted him about his alleged behavior, she told Blaze News.

But their fear is not limited to Ballard or to his supposed allies at O.U.R. Many women also expressed to Blaze News a deep concern about the potential fallout of these accusations from the media and the public at large."

I'm not willing to jump on the anti TB bandwagon yet. Newsflash: people can lie. (Even women!) The most important question you have to ask yourself when a flurry of allegations come out against a person is: why now?

tmac wrote: ↑October 7th, 2023, 7:05 am The TB Dust-up is still ongoing? Some people (TB?) just don’t know when to call it a day.

BKColt wrote: ↑October 7th, 2023, 6:01 pm https://www.theblaze.com/news/blaze-new ... d-railroad

This investigative report has a lot of new facts not exposed before. Multiple semi-reluctant witnesses with LDS ties against TB.... my guess is this info and possibly more is what precipitated the quick response by the Church.

Although that Church response seemed odd at the time to many including Glenn Beck, this is likely the type of activity that led to the public trouncing.

Silver Pie wrote: ↑October 6th, 2023, 2:10 pm

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2023, 4:50 pm

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2023, 3:06 pmGerardo said something about he had on his show a gay married couple who were members of the church. They had a disciplinary council and the decision was to withdraw their membership. However someone somewhere stopped that from happening.

On the gay couple, it sounds like the bishop was going to excommunicate them, but Gerardo (and friends?) talked to bishop or stake Pres. and said , “look, according to the handbook, it’s not required to excommunicate them. So why do you have a vendetta against them?” So he changed his mind, and he decided not to excommunicate them. Weird times. Weird times….

Well, they were legally married. The temple plainly says you covenant only to have sexual relations to the person you are legally married to (no longer does it say men to women or women to men. That wording changed a long time ago).

cyclOps wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:22 am

Silver Pie wrote: ↑October 6th, 2023, 2:10 pm

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2023, 4:50 pm

On the gay couple, it sounds like the bishop was going to excommunicate them, but Gerardo (and friends?) talked to bishop or stake Pres. and said , “look, according to the handbook, it’s not required to excommunicate them. So why do you have a vendetta against them?” So he changed his mind, and he decided not to excommunicate them. Weird times. Weird times….

Well, they were legally married. The temple plainly says you covenant only to have sexual relations to the person you are legally married to (no longer does it say men to women or women to men. That wording changed a long time ago).

That’s not how it’s worded in the temple.

The law of chastity covenant still references a legal and lawful marriage in accordance with God’s law, which is between one man and one woman.

randyps wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 3:02 pm

InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 12:18 pm

randyps wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 11:31 am
Islam and sharia law is the ultimate evil spreading in the west right under our noses, we need friends.

So combine with Satan? Trust me, we don't need Satan as an ally to combat his other hand of evil islamists.

A world controlled by islam will not allow christianity

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 7:29 am

cyclOps wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:22 am

Silver Pie wrote: ↑October 6th, 2023, 2:10 pm

Well, they were legally married. The temple plainly says you covenant only to have sexual relations to the person you are legally married to (no longer does it say men to women or women to men. That wording changed a long time ago).

That’s not how it’s worded in the temple.

The law of chastity covenant still references a legal and lawful marriage in accordance with God’s law, which is between one man and one woman.

Yes, but you have to admit, it’s a strange change to make — why would you remove the fact that it’s between a man and a woman? It’s becoming readily apparent that the Church are taking steps towards accepting gay “marriage”, and this appears to be one of them.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:33 am Back to Tim Ballard, I suspect he is not guilty of the things he is accused of.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:31 am The change made it more difficult to countenance same-sex temple marriages in my view, because it added "in accordance with God's law".
This means that God's law would have to change. Some gay activist can't now sue the church for discrimination.

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 9:28 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:31 am The change made it more difficult to countenance same-sex temple marriages in my view, because it added "in accordance with God's law".
This means that God's law would have to change. Some gay activist can't now sue the church for discrimination.

And this is precisely what the Church have done over and over again — changed God’s law by “revelation”. There’s a precedent for it — and it shows no sign of ending.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 10:02 am

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 9:28 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:31 am The change made it more difficult to countenance same-sex temple marriages in my view, because it added "in accordance with God's law".
This means that God's law would have to change. Some gay activist can't now sue the church for discrimination.

And this is precisely what the Church have done over and over again — changed God’s law by “revelation”. There’s a precedent for it — and it shows no sign of ending.

I know that's the perception, but it doesn't really hold up. The Manifesto wasn't a revelation, and there's little evidence the priesthood restriction was ever God's law.
Can you think of anything else?

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 10:02 am

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 9:28 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:31 am The change made it more difficult to countenance same-sex temple marriages in my view, because it added "in accordance with God's law".
This means that God's law would have to change. Some gay activist can't now sue the church for discrimination.

And this is precisely what the Church have done over and over again — changed God’s law by “revelation”. There’s a precedent for it — and it shows no sign of ending.

I know that's the perception, but it doesn't really hold up. The Manifesto wasn't a revelation, and there's little evidence the priesthood restriction was ever God's law.
Can you think of anything else?

InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 10:21 am So what was the reason Tim Ballard was excommunicated ?

An accusation?


Is that all it takes? Because if that's the standard, then a whole lot more people should be excommunicated.

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 10:08 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 10:02 am

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 9:28 am
And this is precisely what the Church have done over and over again — changed God’s law by “revelation”. There’s a precedent for it — and it shows no sign of ending.

I know that's the perception, but it doesn't really hold up. The Manifesto wasn't a revelation, and there's little evidence the priesthood restriction was ever God's law.
Can you think of anything else?

The Manifesto wasn’t a revelation, but the Church now teaches that it is. And there’s plenty of evidence that the Priesthood ban was of God. Just a few days ago, a friend of mine took part in a debate over the Priesthood ban, which was just posted on Mormon Renegade. You should give that a listen, or see this presentation:

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:04 pm Well, no one, apart from the descendants of Aaron, have a right to the priesthood. Certainly not us Gentiles or Ephraimites.

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:16 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:04 pm Well, no one, apart from the descendants of Aaron, have a right to the priesthood. Certainly not us Gentiles or Ephraimites.

I don't believe that.

"I am entitled to the keys of the priesthood according to lineage and blood, so is Brother H. C. Kimball and many others — have taken kingly power and grades of the priesthood — this we would have taught in the temple if time had permitted. Joseph Smith was entitled to the keys of the priesthood according to blood: still he was the fourth son. But when we get another temple built, then we will teach you concerning these things." — Brigham Young (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young vol. 1 <16 February 1847> page 182)

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:34 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:16 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:04 pm Well, no one, apart from the descendants of Aaron, have a right to the priesthood. Certainly not us Gentiles or Ephraimites.

I don't believe that.

"I am entitled to the keys of the priesthood according to lineage and blood, so is Brother H. C. Kimball and many others — have taken kingly power and grades of the priesthood — this we would have taught in the temple if time had permitted. Joseph Smith was entitled to the keys of the priesthood according to blood: still he was the fourth son. But when we get another temple built, then we will teach you concerning these things." — Brigham Young (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young vol. 1 <16 February 1847> page 182)

Are you a descendant of Joseph Smith?
Joseph was descended from both Ephraim and Judah, and it has also been claimed that he was a descendant of Jesus, although that opens a whole can of worms of course.

cyclOps wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 12:22 am

Silver Pie wrote: ↑October 6th, 2023, 2:10 pm
Well, they were legally married. The temple plainly says you covenant only to have sexual relations to the person you are legally married to (no longer does it say men to women or women to men. That wording changed a long time ago).

That’s not how it’s worded in the temple.

The law of chastity covenant still references a legal and lawful marriage in accordance with God’s law, which is between one man and one woman.

Pre-1990:
We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

Post-1990:
We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

Benjamin_LK wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:21 am

randyps wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 3:02 pm

InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 12:18 pm

So combine with Satan? Trust me, we don't need Satan as an ally to combat his other hand of evil islamists.

A world controlled by islam will not allow christianity

Satan most likely won’t allow Islam or Judaism to exist either.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 8:31 amit added "in accordance with God's law".

Luke wrote: ↑October 8th, 2023, 9:28 am And this is precisely what the Church have done over and over again — changed God’s law by “revelation”. There’s a precedent for it — and it shows no sign of ending.