Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[ALarson]

On 8/7/2018 at 3:04 PM, mnn727 said:

So after reading your link. Elder Holland related the story exactly as it was printed by Moyle's son, yet people call Elder Holland a liar because Moyles son got some of the details wrong --- and thats Elder Hollands fault???

No, there were a few things added (iirc), but I agree that he did not purposely lie.  I'm not sure where some of the other details came from (that weren't in the original story), but he may have gotten them from others too   This was an issue with the biker story too (he told it as he heard it mainly).  So, Elder Holland mainly just repeated a story that wasn't accurate (and his source maybe embellished it or simply got details and dates wrong, etc.).

I think it's just a lesson that stories need to be vetted maybe and I'm wondering if that is now taking place more.  With the internet sources for people to search out and research details that may be different, exaggerated and embellished when told.  I don't know.  But it's been an issue for some to realize these stories are not always accurate, no matter what the cause.

Here's it stated in the conclusion of the blog post:

Quote

 

Conclusion

Mormon pioneer myths are common (I’ve got a bunch in my own family), but they do need to be corrected at some point. Perpetuating these embellished stories does a disservice to both those ancestors and their descendants. John Moyle did break his leg, he did have an ingeniously engineered wooden leg (currently on display at the Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum if you ever want to take a peek)[3], and he did spend many years of his life working on the temple. But details still matter, especially when you’re using his life as inspiration.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, there were a few things added (iirc), but I agree that he did not purposely lie.  I'm not sure where some of the other details came from (that weren't in the original story), but he may have gotten them from others too   This was an issue with the biker story too (he told it as he heard it mainly).  So, Elder Holland mainly just repeated a story that wasn't accurate (and his source maybe embellished it or simply got details and dates wrong, etc.).

I think it's just a lesson that stories need to be vetted maybe and I'm wondering if that is now taking place more.  With the internet sources for people to search out and research details that may be different, exaggerated and embellished when told.  I don't know.  But it's been an issue for some to realize these stories are not always accurate, no matter what the cause.

 

I happen to agree with you on this. There truly some amazing life stories among the pioneers. Unfortunately some of those stories have been embellished in the retelling. It happens a lot. And I wish that it did not. I think the story of John Moyle would be inspirational without any embellishments. My faith does not require it.

Glenn

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I happen to agree with you on this. There truly some amazing life stories among the pioneers. Unfortunately some of those stories have been embellished in the retelling. It happens a lot. And I wish that it did not. I think the story of John Moyle would be inspirational without any embellishments. My faith does not require it.

Glenn

I definitely agree.  Here's how the author of the blog put it:

Quote

That in no way takes away from his dedication and hard work. He worked hard, really hard, and his ACTUAL life story is inspirational enough without people having to fudge details for dramatic effect.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/6/2018 at 4:22 PM, TOmNossor said:

I found this while searching for something unrelated to this conversation.

Here is how the Catholic Church deals with folks who teach heretical things.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/11/08/was-theologian-hans-kung-ever-excommunicated/

This document details two individuals who both taught things not in alignment with Catholic truth claims.  While the document does not say it, it is clear to me that if they rejected Catholic dogma they were excommunicated "latae sententiae."  Hans Kung expressed a willingness to align his teaching with Catholic truth claims.  He exchanged many letters with the Vatican.  He may have never repented, and he was declared unable to teach Catholic theology, but he was never told he was excommunicated (he also didn't share the letters publicly and try to embarrass the Catholic Church).

In contrast, Father Tissa Balasuriya didn't express willingness to align his teachings.  He refused to sign a profession of faith.  He sued the Bishops in his area for impacting his book sales.  Ultimately he was formally told that he had excommunicated himself.

Bill Reel seems much more similar to Father Tissa than to Father Kung.

Charity, TOm

Just to understand Catholic teachings better I discussed it with a priest who said that yes, I was already excommunicated "latae sententiae" but quickly added that I could easily come back by going through the required steps as a "convert" which is actually a fairly lengthy process.

Of course, that is not happening, but he was very kind to explain it.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to understand Catholic teachings better I discussed it with a priest who said that yes, I was already excommunicated "latae sententiae" but quickly added that I could easily come back by going through the required steps as a "convert" which is actually a fairly lengthy process.

Of course, that is not happening, but he was very kind to explain it.

Hmm, this doesn't seem quite right to me, but I haven't studied canon law very much. My understanding is that yes, by joining the LDS church you are excommunicated latae sententiae, since you are an apostate (ain't that fun, Mark?) However, excommunication is different in Catholicism than in Mormonism. You are still Catholic and you will always be Catholic -- we're the cult you can't get away from! Catholic baptism cannot be undone, which is why you would not get "rebaptized" (there is no such thing in Catholicism).

From what I've read it seems like you would need to go to confession and then the priest would determine if you would need to see the bishop, since he is the competent authority to lift excommunications. It is exactly the same for someone who gets an abortion, though in our diocese the bishop has declared that all priests can absolve that sin and lift that excommunication.

I'm sure the priest knows more than me and I'm missing something, but going back to the Catholic Church doesn't seem as complex as this priest, via you, makes it out to be.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you come back to Catholicism and then you can report on what exactly you had to do and then we'll all know for sure 😁

[FearlessFixxer]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:36 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

@FearlessFixxer

This thread has morphed into accusations against you and your site. Smac and others are making the claim that you are encouraging people to steal and that the specific purpose of your website is for employees to transfer stolen documents from the church. Can you comment on this specifically.

1- Is the specific purpose of your website to get stolen docs from church employees, or is that possibility merely one source of potential leaked information? Is that the stated purpose or is it the practical reality of the site or do you get leaks from other sources?

2- How would you rebut the claim that you encourage theft of information?

No.  We do  not encourage people to steal documents or break NDAs.  If they do, they have done it on their own.  I even once had someone tell me they has a small window of time where they could access one of the main COB networks and asked if I wanted him to do it.  I told him no.  

We are a media resource that offers people an outlet for them to share documents that they think are in the public's interest.

It is no different than someone sending something to the Tribune or NYT, etc.

We will never satisfy active Mormons (literally the only people who criticize the website).  I gave up trying a while ago.  it is what it is.

[Calm]

Quote

It is no different than someone sending something to the Tribune or NYT, etc.

The Trib exists for a lot more reasons than posting documents about the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No.  We do  not encourage people to steal documents or break NDAs.  If they do, they have done it on their own.  ...

We are a media resource that offers people an outlet for them to share documents that they think are in the public's interest.

It is no different than someone sending something to the Tribune or NYT, etc.

We will never satisfy active Mormons (literally the only people who criticize the website).  I gave up trying a while ago.  it is what it is.

Why not just own up to the fact that you don't care how they get the information or what risk they incur for themselves so long as it suits your purposes and you don't have to bear any responsibility for it. You're more like a fence -- a dealer in stolen property, in this case intellectual property -- than the New York Times.

Quote

I even once had someone tell me they has a small window of time where they could access one of the main COB networks and asked if I wanted him to do it.  I told him no.  

Plausible deniability.

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

We will never satisfy active Mormons (literally the only people who criticize the website).  I gave up trying a while ago.  it is what it is.

1).  Mormons are probably the ones who care about mormon leaks (which is a moot point since the website is irrelevant and unknown to most everyone else), but they are definitely not the only one's who question websites that are dedicated to getting and publishing leaked/confidential materials.

Why Wikileaks is bad for us

Wikileaks is bad....

10 arguments for and against Wikileaks

What's really wrong with Wikileaks

2).  Non-mormons have definitely criticized Mormon-leaks.

"Ann Skeet, Hanson's colleague at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics expressed concern about those positions.

"It strikes me as odd to emphasize the transparency of another organization and then not share the parameters he is operating under," she said. "Is he putting up a shingle and saying, 'Send stuff to me?' Is he making clear what code he's following? Are they the ones of professional journalists, or is it a fly-by-night operation?

"It's hard to know what this person's motivations are," Skeet added, "and I'm not sure you can know that, unless the person who actually releases the information is willing to give you that information."

Like Jane Kirtley, director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law said, motivation is important to Skeet.

"This person is making decisions for other people," she said. "Whoever is deciding to post [Elder Eyring's} pay stub, that's private information. In my opinion, you'd have to have a pretty compelling reason to put that information out there without that person's permission."

"Another former Mormon, Rick Phillips, a sociology professor at the University of North Florida, called the revelations in McKnight's information dumps "pretty banal" in an interview with RadioWest.

Phillips also questioned McKnight's motives, saying he'd be mortified if someone uploaded his pay stubs to the Internet.

"I can't see any reason other than to attack the church why you would release the personal pay stubs of Elder Henry B. Eyring," Phillips said. "That seems a little bit gratuitous to me. There's nothing that reveals about the LDS Church that isn't revealed by the general letter talking about the increase in salaries. I don't know; it quacks like a duck."

News organizations have felt the same. After the President Eyring dump, media outlets have ignored what for a month were weekly MormonLeaks dumps."

Edited August 12, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why not just own up to the fact that you don't care how they get the information or what risk they incur for themselves so long as it suits your purposes and you don't have to bear any responsibility for it. You're more like a fence -- a dealer in stolen property, in this case intellectual property -- than the New York Times.

Plausible deniability.

 

He's stated in the past that he doesn't care if they are stolen or not.

"I don't know how the person got them, and I don't care," he said. "That doesn't play into the decision. ... If they have broken a non-disclosure agreement or have broken the law to obtain the information to send to us, that is their problem, not mine. If we receive something we think should be part of the public record, we will publish it."

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

He's stated in the past that he doesn't care if they are stolen or not.

"I don't know how the person got them, and I don't care," he said. "That doesn't play into the decision. ... If they have broken a non-disclosure agreement or have broken the law to obtain the information to send to us, that is their problem, not mine. If we receive something we think should be part of the public record, we will publish it."

 

Mr. McKnight's public expresion of indifference to receiving stolen property sure seems to come across as a not-so-tacit solicitation for others to send him stolen property.

And when you factor in his website, which is designed to facilitate the secure and anonymous transmission of data, well...

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Mr. Mc-Fly-By-Knight/FearlessFixxxxxx ... (how many "x-es" is that supposed to have again? ... )

Any response to Bluebell's refutation of your claim that "active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the only ones who criticize the Web site"?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70848-bill-reel-announces-he-faces-impending-bishops-court/?do=findComment&comment=1209842498

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

So we have to wait for the Church to press charges?  If he's stealing stuff and we know who he is why can't we just tell the police instead of whine about it on a message board?  

If I knew someone stole property from another can't I just turn that person into the police for investigation?  Must he who lost stuff be the only one who tell the police?  

If what he's doing is legal and is unchargeable well then I guess the best we can do is whine about it on a message board.  

Right?  

Edited August 13, 2018 by stemelbow

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So we have to wait for the Church to press charges?  If he's stealing stuff and we know who he is why can't we just tell the police instead of whine about it on a message board?  

If I knew someone stole property from another can't I just turn that person into the police for investigation?  Must he who lost stuff be the only one who tell the police?  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

If what he's doing is legal and is unchargeable well then I guess the best we can do is whine about it on a message board.  

Right?  

As Mr. McKnight's entire enterprise shows, for purposes of criminal prosecution, it ain't about whatcha know, it's about whatcha can prove.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that if one or more of Mr. McKnight's sources were discovered and if that person then were subjected to civil suit or to criminal prosecution under the appropriate cause(s) of action or the appropriate statute, respectively, Mr. McKnight wouldn't exactly be falling all over himself to rise to that person's defense.

Mr. McKnight skates on the thin edge of plausible deniability.  That's fine, if that's what he chooses to do: I assume he knows the potential risks inherent to doing so and accepts them.  But that doesn't exempt him or his actions from public critique, even if you dismiss such public critique as mere "whining."  And, as Bluebell's post from earlier shows, there are plenty of people who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who find Mr. McKnight's enterprise and his actions to be ethically suspect, at the least, if not criminal.  

And you've done your share of whining here (because you know full well that that's all you can do), and, in case you're wondering, no, your crap doesn't smell like roses while everyone else's smells like ... well ... actual crap.  

Just sayin'!  

Edited August 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

20 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Quote

@FearlessFixxer

This thread has morphed into accusations against you and your site. Smac and others are making the claim that you are encouraging people to steal and that the specific purpose of your website is for employees to transfer stolen documents from the church. Can you comment on this specifically.

1- Is the specific purpose of your website to get stolen docs from church employees, or is that possibility merely one source of potential leaked information? Is that the stated purpose or is it the practical reality of the site or do you get leaks from other sources?

2- How would you rebut the claim that you encourage theft of information?

No.  We do  not encourage people to steal documents or break NDAs. 

Yes, you do.

Quote

If they do, they have done it on their own. 

At your behest.

From your Reddit post:

Quote

Posted by

u/FearlessFixxer

 

Evil Apostate/Regular Dude...depends on who you ask

1 year ago

A message for Eric Hawkins et al (plus an update on current leaks)

Eric, you seem to be the current face of the PR department so I direct this to you...

If I have learned one thing over the last year (and more so over the last couple of weeks), it is that there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize.

Make sure you relay that to the brethren.

It is not just what has been leaked, but what many want to share but haven't yet found the courage.

One day they will find that courage and the dam will break.

As for the current status of leaks....

We are still working on one that could be big....it will take time.

I will be releasing some stuff today or tomorrow, but for the most part it will be mildly interesting at best.

On a bigger note, I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously.

I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about...

Cheers.

Here you addressed Eric Hawkins, who is the "Director of Media Relations at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

You spoke to Mr. Hawkins in his capacity as a representative of the LDS Church.

You told Mr. Hawkins that "there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize" ("COB" = "Church Office Building" = headquarters of the LDS Church).  You also reference "leaks" from the COB, that there are "many" employees of the LDS Church who have not yet "found the courage" to "leak" things from their employer.  The context makes it unambiguous that that you are referencing materials which employees of the LDS Church steal from their employer.  You go on to tell Mr. Hawkins that these less-loyal employees will eventually "break" the "dam" and "leak" even more materials stolen from the LDS Church.

You also told Mr. Hawkins that you were, at the time of your post, working on a "secure, wikileaks style" website "where people can submit stuff totally annonymously."  This website is now known as https://mormonleaks.io/.

You also told Mr. Hawkins that your website "might help light a fire under many of those COB employees [you were] talking about."

"Light a fire" is a phrase meaning "[to] stimulate someone to work or act more quickly or enthusiastically."  So you hoped (and presumably still hope) that your website will induce ("light a fire under") employees of the LDS Church to "work or act" to do what?

The answer, from the context, is plain as day: Your website is intended to induce/encourage employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from the LDS Church and "leak" those materials to you.

I'd like to here you respond to the foregoing assessment.  Rote denials on your part simply won't do.  

Quote

I even once had someone tell me they has a small window of time where they could access one of the main COB networks and asked if I wanted him to do it.  I told him no.  

A few questions for you:

1. Have you ever publicly denounced theft from the LDS Church?  If not, will you do so now?
2. Have you ever publicly announced that you will not publish any documents which you find out have been stolen from the LDS Church?  If not, will you do so now?
3. Will you dismantle the anonymity feature of your website so that you know who is sending you materials?  If not, will you do so now?
4. Will you publicly state that if you receive any materials which you learn or have reason to believe have been stolen from the LDS Church, you will return such materials to the LDS Church or else delete such materials?  If not, will you do so now?
5. If an employee of the LDS Church sends you materials which you learn or have reason to believe have been stolen from the LDS Church, will you notify law enforcement and the LDS Church of such theft?

I think the answers to all of the foregoing questions will be "no."  Each and every time.

I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I think my estimation is correct.  You will answer "no" to all of these questions because your "MormonLeaks" enterprise is designed to solicit and encourage theft from the LDS Church. 

You publicly denouncing theft from the LDS Church would undermine that objective. 

Your refusal to publish stolen documents, or dismantling the anonymity feature on your website, would undermine that objective. 

You destroying stolen materials, rather than publishing them on your website, would undermine that objective. 

You returning stolen materials to the LDS Church, or deleting such materials, or reporting such theft to law enforcement and/or to the LDS Church, would undermine that objective. 

You are soliciting and encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send such stolen materials to you.  That is the express purpose of your website ("I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously.  I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about...").

I honestly would like to be proven wrong about you.  I hope you re-consider what you are doing.

Quote

We are a media resource that offers people an outlet for them to share documents that they think are in the public's interest.

But not just any "people."  You have admitted (bragged about, even) your website being designed as "a secure, wikileaks style, site where people [specifically, but not exclusively, employees of the LDS Church] can submit stuff totally annonymously," and that your website "might help light a fire under many of those COB employees" to steal materials from the LDS Church and send them to you.

There is no other reasonable way to construe your remarks, Mr. McKnight.  You are encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and secretly and anonymously send those stolen materials to you.

Quote

It is no different than someone sending something to the Tribune or NYT, etc.

It's quite different.  The owners of the Tribune and the New York Times have not publicly bragged about creating "a secure, wikileaks style, site where people [specifically, but not exclusively, employees of the LDS Church] can submit stuff totally annonymously," or that such a website "might help light a fire under many of those COB employees" to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to you.

You, on the other hand . . . 

Quote

We will never satisfy active Mormons (literally the only people who criticize the website). 

Not so.  See Bluebell's post.

Get real dude.  If someone set up a website to encourage theft from, say, the Southern Baptist Convention, it would make perfect sense for Baptists to be disproportionately attentive to the existence and purpose and function of that website.  

Quote

I gave up trying a while ago.  it is what it is.

Indeed.  It is a website set up for the express purpose of soliciting and encouraging and facilitating theft of materials from the LDS Church by its employees.

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As Mr. McKnight's entire enterprise shows, for purposes of criminal prosecution, it ain't about whatcha know, it's about whatcha can prove.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that if one or more of Mr. McKnight's sources were discovered and if that person then were subjected to civil suit or to criminal prosecution under the appropriate cause(s) of action or the appropriate statute, respectively, Mr. McKnight wouldn't exactly be falling all over himself to rise to that person's defense.

Mr. McKnight skates on the thin edge of plausible deniability.  That's fine, if that's what he chooses to do: I assume he knows the potential risks inherent to doing so and accepts them.  But that doesn't exempt him or his actions from public critique, even if you dismiss such public critique as mere "whining."  And, as Bluebell's post from earlier shows, there are plenty of people who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who find Mr. McKnight's enterprise and his actions to be ethically suspect, at the least, if not criminal.  

And you've done your share of whining here (because you know full well that that's all you can do), and, in case you're wondering, no, your crap doesn't smell like roses while everyone else's smells like ... well ... actual crap.  

Just sayin'!  

It seems to me you said a lot of words and got upset with me, but didn't answer my question, kenngo.  if he's stealing property, as is claimed here, then turn him into the police.  If it's too hard to prove that he's stealing property, well, then perhaps that can inform us on the question of whether he's stealing.  If you want to say his sources are stealing and should be prosecuted, then so be it.  But that is addressing a question I did not ask.  

 

[Exiled]

When I was an active member, I always wanted to know what went on behind the closed doors at the church, especially at 47 E. South Temple.  The fact that they are secretive only made me want to know more.  Even so, the secrets they are hiding are probably nothing big.  They are probably siting on a lot of money and don't want the membership to find out because some won't sacrifice a meal, etc. in order to pay tithing to a multi-billion dollar church.  When I was down in Brazil, the members and potential converts had that idea and I am sure the tithing receipts suffered a bit because maybe a rich american church didn't need the money in their view.  Anyway, if there is truly nothing to hide, a church should be an open book.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me you said a lot of words and got upset with me, but didn't answer my question, kenngo.  if he's stealing property, as is claimed here, then turn him into the police. 

How is that a question?

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it's too hard to prove that he's stealing property, well, then perhaps that can inform us on the question of whether he's stealing. 

He is soliciting others to steal on his behalf.  That may also be subject to prosecution.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you want to say his sources are stealing and should be prosecuted, then so be it.  But that is addressing a question I did not ask.  

Here are your questions:

Quote

So we have to wait for the Church to press charges? 

I suppose we could turn him in.  I doubt the police would do anything with it, though, particularly without a complaining victim (the LDS Church).

Quote

If he's stealing stuff

Or soliciting/encouraging others to steal stuff and send it to him...

Quote

and we know who he is why can't we just tell the police instead of whine about it on a message board?  

We can.  But I'm not sure the police would do much, if anything, about it.  Moreover, such a prosecution would give Mr. McKnight more notoriety, which is probably what he wants.

Quote

If I knew someone stole property from another can't I just turn that person into the police for investigation?  Must he who lost stuff be the only one who tell the police? 

Anyone can report a suspected crime to the police.  

Quote

If what he's doing is legal

It may or may not be legal.  I suspect it's a violation of the law.

Quote

and is unchargeable

Not sure what you mean by "unchargeable."  The police find out about misconduct all the time, and just choose not to pursue the matter.  So to prosecutors.

There is no complaining victim here.  The LDS Church has apparently not filed a complaint with the police.  There are lots of potential reasons for that.  Ambiguity in the law.  Insufficient evidence.  Lack of desire to give Mr. McKnight more notoriety.  Jurisdictional headaches.  Probably quite a few more.

Quote

well then I guess the best we can do is whine about it on a message board.  

Whine: "to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.; to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way."

I don't see that here.  Instead, we have martialled evidence that, I think, rather clearly demonstrates the purpose and intent of Mr. McKnight's website (he is encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen items to him), and we are criticizing him for it.  And the criticism seems fairly measured and mature.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

When I was an active member, I always wanted to know what went on behind the closed doors at the church, especially at 47 E. South Temple.  The fact that they are secretive only made me want to know more.  Even so, the secrets they are hiding are probably nothing big. 

When I was in the National Guard I was a "97-Echo," a Military Intelligence linguist / interrogator.  Once I completed my formal training, I had to apply for "Top Secret" clearance, and until receiving clearance I was not allowed to attend briefings during which sensitive information was discussed.  So I filled out the application.  A few weeks later, I was interviewed by a representative of the government, as were some family members and co-workers.  After about two months, I received my clearance.   I was pretty excited at this point because I would be able to attend briefings that included classified information.  At my first briefing I went in and sat down and . . . was bored stiff for the next 90 minutes. 

Yes, the information disseminated to us was sensitive.  Yes, the information could have been damaging if it was released to the general public.  

No, it was not very interesting.  The vast majority of it was pretty boring stuff.  To be sure, there were a few interesting bits, but not much.

So it is, I think, with the vast majority of the goings-on at 47 E. South Temple. 

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

They are probably siting on a lot of money and don't want the membership to find out because some won't sacrifice a meal, etc. in order to pay tithing to a multi-billion dollar church. 

Right.  And those fatcat apostles and seventies are living high off the hog, amiright?

Or . . . not.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

When I was down in Brazil, the members and potential converts had that idea and I am sure the tithing receipts suffered a bit because maybe a rich american church didn't need the money in their view.  Anyway, if there is truly nothing to hide, a church should be an open book.

That's a very facile perspective, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me you said a lot of words and got upset with me, but didn't answer my question, kenngo.  if he's stealing property, as is claimed here, then turn him into the police.  If it's too hard to prove that he's stealing property, well, then perhaps that can inform us on the question of whether he's stealing.  If you want to say his sources are stealing and should be prosecuted, then so be it.  But that is addressing a question I did not ask.  

 

Assuming arguendo that what he does is perfectly legal, there are a lot of things that are legal that are not right and deserve to be decried and incur public disapprobation. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is that a question?

He is soliciting others to steal on his behalf.  That may also be subject to prosecution.

Here are your questions:

I suppose we could turn him in.  I doubt the police would do anything with it, though, particularly without a complaining victim (the LDS Church).

Turn him in.  The police can contact the Church and the Church will likely offer a complaint.  Let the process follow.  

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or soliciting/encouraging others to steal stuff and send it to him...

We can.  But I'm not sure the police would do much, if anything, about it.  Moreover, such a prosecution would give Mr. McKnight more notoriety, which is probably what he wants.

Ok.  So turning him in will only strengthen him.  Alright.  Don't do it then.  But then one must ask, doesn't talking about it here also give strengthen him?  

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyone can report a suspected crime to the police.  

It may or may not be legal.  I suspect it's a violation of the law.

Not sure what you mean by "unchargeable."  The police find out about misconduct all the time, and just choose not to pursue the matter.  So to prosecutors.

There is no complaining victim here.  The LDS Church has apparently not filed a complaint with the police.  There are lots of potential reasons for that.  Ambiguity in the law.  Insufficient evidence.  Lack of desire to give Mr. McKnight more notoriety.  Jurisdictional headaches.  Probably quite a few more.

Whine: "to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.; to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way."

I don't see that here.  Instead, we have martialled evidence that, I think, rather clearly demonstrates the purpose and intent of Mr. McKnight's website (he is encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen items to him), and we are criticizing him for it.  And the criticism seems fairly measured and mature.

Thanks,

-Smac

Much of it sounds like whining so I called it that.  But of course to worry about which word is used to describe the activity is really just quibbling at this point.  I hear ya.  Your position is clear--you have a complaint about Ryan McKnight.  Good.  He reads here, obviously, so I'm sure he's made note of it.  

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming arguendo that what he does is perfectly legal, there are a lot of things that are legal that are not right and deserve to be decried and incur public disapprobation. 

Sure we all have our opinions.  I've fine with that.  

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Turn him in. 

Nah.  I think the Church is aware of his goings-on.  I'll let the Church proceed as it sees fit.

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The police can contact the Church and the Church will likely offer a complaint.  Let the process follow.  

I'm not impeding the process at all.

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  So turning him in will only strengthen him. 

Reporting him to the police might give him more notoriety, yes.

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  Don't do it then.  But then one must ask, doesn't talking about it here also give strengthen him?  

In a de minimis sort of way, maybe.

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Much of it sounds like whining so I called it that.  But of course to worry about which word is used to describe the activity is really just quibbling at this point.  I hear ya.  Your position is clear--you have a complaint about Ryan McKnight.  Good.  He reads here, obviously, so I'm sure he's made note of it.  

Yes, he's aware.  But I don't think he plans of altering his behavior.  I think he's too invested in the idea of A) sticking it to the Church, while B) getting away with it and C) getting some notoriety for himself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nah.  I think the Church is aware of his goings-on.  I'll let the Church proceed as it sees fit.[/quote]

Maybe the Church is just waiting for someone like you to make the complaint.  They don't want to come off as petty.  

Quote

I'm not impeding the process at all.

Reporting him to the police might give him more notoriety, yes.

Ok.  then why bring him up here?  

Quote

In a de minimis sort of way, maybe.

Yes, he's aware.  But I don't think he plans of altering his behavior.  I think he's too invested in the idea of A) sticking it to the Church, while B) getting away with it and C) getting some notoriety for himself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds to me like the Church doesn't want to pay him notice because if they do more members will be curious about what he's up to.  He comes here and chimes in because he knows the negative publicity only helps his venture.  And you continue to talk about how he's stealing content, repeating your point over and over.  Guess we're all at an impasse.  

Edited August 13, 2018 by stemelbow

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe the Church is just waiting for someone like you to make the complaint. 

Exceedingly unlikely.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They don't want to come off as petty.  

Objecting to theft, or solicitation for theft, is not "petty."

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  then why bring him up here?  

Because this is a discussion board.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds to me like the Church doesn't want to pay him notice because if they do more members will be curious about what he's up to. 

Perhaps that's part of the calculus.  We just don't know.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He comes here and chimes in because he knows the negative publicity only helps his venture. 

And he has a relative who posts here, and who I think has told him about our discussions.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And you continue to talk about how he's stealing content, repeating your point over and over.  Guess we're all at an impasse.  

Yes, I will continue to point out Mr. McKnight's soliciation of employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and secretly and anonymously send the stolen materials to him, with the stated intention of him publishing these stolen materials to the world.

I find Mr. McKnight's behavior reprehensible.  And if he set up a website to solicit your family members, friends, neighbors, etc. to steal your sensitive information and send it to him for publication to the world, I think you'd feel the same way.

But since it's the Mormons in the crosshairs...

Thanks,

-Smac