Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[TOmNossor]

 

I forget the exact requirements for a CFR.  I will give you all I got.

I should first state that I WISH I knew as much about Mormonism as Dr. Peterson.  I would be happy to carry his books for him so that I could listen to his presentations and ….  I hope that I didn’t come across differently.

I KNOW it was a message board post, not a podcast.  I know it was before podcasts were a thing.  I think it was on ZLMB (but it could have been on the old FAIR Board).  I miss ZLMB!  I ONLY remember it because it struck me.  I doubt I responded as I would have been too timid perhaps today but certainly then.

Maybe I largely imagined it, but in this case my point is the same. 

 

I was trying to express to Sunstoned how from as early as I can remember I have rolled with the punches concerning things I believed about Mormonism.  I don’t think people should believe that early LDS Polygamy was a bad thing such that God had nothing to do with it, but Todd Compton’s book in the LDS book store (pre-Deseret in Albuquerque, NM) just seemed like a viable position to me when I read it.  I was a little surprised that he could/would say the things he said (otherwise I would have no memory of this event), but it was just part of the tapestry of Mormonism.  The same was true of the seer stone.  I do not remember EVER believing that Joseph translated in a more conventional manner with plates and spectacles.  My only memory was to see someone who I knew knew way more about this than I did questioning the stone in the hat.  I am pretty sure it was Dr. Petersen, but even that could be wrong.  At some point in time I came to grips with the idea that a miraculous book produced with a stone in a hat is still a miracle just like a miraculous book produced with direct access to angel delivered plates in a language nobody understood was/would be a miracle. 

 

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that I know EVERY problem and every CORRECT response to problems within Mormonism.  I fully expect to have slightly different views on this or that issue 10 years from now. I might say that I hope I have different views on the origins of the BOA 10 years from now because my current views are not strong enough to stand by themselves without being linked to the Book of Mormon and the Witnesses and ….  But, I do not anticipate any punches that come my way in the next 10 years will do serious damage to the conclusion I have held for almost 2 decades now. 

 

Anyway, that is the best I have.  Maybe my memory is flawed, but I find it unlikely I could find anything to substantiate my memory.

Charity, TOm

[cinepro]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a child refuses to eat dinner unless he gets dessert first, he is engaged in a power struggle with his parents.  He is using what "power" he has (disobedience).  Whether the parents capitulate doesn't detract from the child attempting to "bully" his parents "to force [them] to do what one wants."

Sam's biggest mistake is poor marketing.  He should have framed it as a "fast" in the hope that God softens the hearts of the GA's to be open to change.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sam's biggest mistake is poor marketing.  He should have framed it as a "fast" in the hope that God softens the hearts of the GA's to be open to change.

Unless, of course, he didn't intend his behavior to be a "fast."

Dishonesty is not good marketing.  It didn't work for Kate Kelly when she "framed" her protests against the Church.  If anything, I think her attempts to use MormonSpeak to justify her behavior alienated a lot of members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Excommunications are, numerically speaking, very rare.

This isn't even a point of controversy, IMO.  But here you go (one of the money quotes being: "We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight):

And then there's this exchange between Mr. McKnight and some fellow on another exmo reddit:

And this AMA by Mr. McKnight:

And this statement by Mr. McKnight:

That Mr. McKnight has set up his website is not in dispute.

No kidding. I haven't claimed otherwise.

That Mr. McKnight advertises his website as "provid[ing] sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents" is not in dispute.

Never said otherwise

Mr. McKnight's website is an open solicitation for employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Your characterization is ridiculous. Putting up a website is "openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him". I suppose you have evidence that information was stolen as opposed to a COB employee having access to it for some other reason?

Mr. McKnight admits that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose, but then proceeds to brag about how he has purportedly insulated himself from any such fallout.

Acknowledging that some info may have been stolen is hardly the same thing as encouraging someone to steal. I'm guessing he doesn't really know how information was gathered.

Mr. McKnight is inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to him.  He has publicly acknowledged that their behavior "might" be illegal. 

How is he "inducing" people to steal? Is he going to employees and trying to convince them to steal information or is he accepting information an employee provides? I can appreciate how you might feel that's a fine line, but to me there is a difference. What is he offering these people? Is he paying them? Are they gaining notoriety? What reward is he using to induce them to steal?

I echo Cinepro's question above: "[Ryan McKnight is] expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to [his] site. How is this not solicitation?"

Aren't you an attorney? (I apologize if I've confused you for someone else). How in the world can you think that expressing a desire is the same as a solicitation? I sure wish people would send me money. Making that statement is not the same thing as me actively soliciting for people to give me money.

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "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."

Are you saying that this is not indicative of an intent to induce "COB [Church Office Building] employees" to steal materials from the Church and send them to him?

Right.  Like Sam "I'm going to starve myself until the LDS Church capitulates to my personal preferences" Young.

Or Kate "We want the priesthood and nothing less will suffice" Kelly.

I'm not arguing that these people aren't playing hard ball, but they don't have the power to be bullies against the church.

Or Ryan "I'm publicly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send such materials to me" McKnight.  

Are you actually quoting McKnight here? Or are you putting words into his mouth and pretending like he said it to back up your claim?

And on and on and on.

Same here.  That's not keeping him from trying, though.

If a child refuses to eat dinner unless he gets dessert first, he is engaged in a power struggle with his parents.  He is using what "power" he has (disobedience).  Whether the parents capitulate doesn't detract from the child attempting to "bully" his parents "to force [them] to do what one wants."

There's not "natural consequence."  Sam Young is making a choice.  A public choice.  A do-what-I-say-or-else-I-am-going-to-starve-myself-in-order-to-coerce-you-into-capitulating-to-my-personal-opinion choice.

No so.  Excommunication is the result of misconduct (murder, incest, etc.).  The Church has never "required" anyone to perform an excommunicable act.

The Church's teaching that "murder will get you excommunicated" is a form of "bullying?"  

The Church "bullies" its members into not committing murder, incest, etc.?

I didn't realize we were talking about murder and incest. I guess you've moved the goal post. If you read back on my comments in this thread you will see that I agreed the church can do some boundary maintenance. If the church makes threats of excommunication if a person doesn't do what the leader says, like Bill taking down his social media or resigning, then yes, that is bullying. The church has the power in that relationship. They have the ability to harm Bill through excommunication if he isn't obedient to them. If they threaten Bill as a means to get what they want, they are acting as bullies.

Are you sure you want to stick with this line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

0 out of dozens of disciplinary councils ended in excommunication. OK. You say, excommunication is numerically rare. OK. Do you mean as a percentage of the total church population or as a percentage of disciplinary councils. I would agree that they are relatively rare when considering the total church population but I would have no way of knowing whether or not it is a rare verdict for disciplinary councils. Do you have any numbers or references that would back that up? I'd be curious to see what percentage of disciplinary councils ended in excommunication. Can you provide that?

 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

 

I forget the exact requirements for a CFR.  I will give you all I got.

I should first state that I WISH I knew as much about Mormonism as Dr. Peterson.  I would be happy to carry his books for him so that I could listen to his presentations and ….  I hope that I didn’t come across differently.

I KNOW it was a message board post, not a podcast.  I know it was before podcasts were a thing.  I think it was on ZLMB (but it could have been on the old FAIR Board).  I miss ZLMB!  I ONLY remember it because it struck me.  I doubt I responded as I would have been too timid perhaps today but certainly then.

Maybe I largely imagined it, but in this case my point is the same. 

 

I was trying to express to Sunstoned how from as early as I can remember I have rolled with the punches concerning things I believed about Mormonism.  I don’t think people should believe that early LDS Polygamy was a bad thing such that God had nothing to do with it, but Todd Compton’s book in the LDS book store (pre-Deseret in Albuquerque, NM) just seemed like a viable position to me when I read it.  I was a little surprised that he could/would say the things he said (otherwise I would have no memory of this event), but it was just part of the tapestry of Mormonism.  The same was true of the seer stone.  I do not remember EVER believing that Joseph translated in a more conventional manner with plates and spectacles.  My only memory was to see someone who I knew knew way more about this than I did questioning the stone in the hat.  I am pretty sure it was Dr. Petersen, but even that could be wrong.  At some point in time I came to grips with the idea that a miraculous book produced with a stone in a hat is still a miracle just like a miraculous book produced with direct access to angel delivered plates in a language nobody understood was/would be a miracle. 

 

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that I know EVERY problem and every CORRECT response to problems within Mormonism.  I fully expect to have slightly different views on this or that issue 10 years from now. I might say that I hope I have different views on the origins of the BOA 10 years from now because my current views are not strong enough to stand by themselves without being linked to the Book of Mormon and the Witnesses and ….  But, I do not anticipate any punches that come my way in the next 10 years will do serious damage to the conclusion I have held for almost 2 decades now. 

 

Anyway, that is the best I have.  Maybe my memory is flawed, but I find it unlikely I could find anything to substantiate my memory.

Charity, TOm

Zlmb is gone....and wasn’t searchable for years before that due to loss of names attached to posts ( they required reregistration and many were long gone)

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Quote

 

  23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR- I think if you're going to accuse someone of "openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him" you need to back that up.

 

 

This isn't even a point of controversy, IMO.  But here you go (one of the money quotes being: "We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight):

And then there's this exchange between Mr. McKnight and some fellow on another exmo reddit:

And this AMA by Mr. McKnight:

And this statement by Mr. McKnight:

That Mr. McKnight has set up his website is not in dispute.

That Mr. McKnight advertises his website as "provid[ing] sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents" is not in dispute.

Mr. McKnight's website is an open solicitation for employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Mr. McKnight admits that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose, but then proceeds to brag about how he has purportedly insulated himself from any such fallout.

Mr. McKnight is inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to him.  He has publicly acknowledged that their behavior "might" be illegal. 

I echo Cinepro's question above: "[Ryan McKnight is] expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to [his] site. How is this not solicitation?"

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "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."

Are you saying that this is not indicative of an intent to induce "COB [Church Office Building] employees" to steal materials from the Church and send them to him?

Right.  Like Sam "I'm going to starve myself until the LDS Church capitulates to my personal preferences" Young.

Or Kate "We want the priesthood and nothing less will suffice" Kelly.

Or Ryan "I'm publicly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send such materials to me" McKnight.  

And on and on and on.

Same here.  That's not keeping him from trying, though.

If a child refuses to eat dinner unless he gets dessert first, he is engaged in a power struggle with his parents.  He is using what "power" he has (disobedience).  Whether the parents capitulate doesn't detract from the child attempting to "bully" his parents "to force [them] to do what one wants."

There's not "natural consequence."  Sam Young is making a choice.  A public choice.  A do-what-I-say-or-else-I-am-going-to-starve-myself-in-order-to-coerce-you-into-capitulating-to-my-personal-opinion choice.

No so.  Excommunication is the result of misconduct (murder, incest, etc.).  The Church has never "required" anyone to perform an excommunicable act.

The Church's teaching that "murder will get you excommunicated" is a form of "bullying?"  

The Church "bullies" its members into not committing murder, incest, etc.?

Are you sure you want to stick with this line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is to your credit, Smac97, that you exhibit such patience in documenting the obvious.  You never once questioned the bonafides of the CFR, which was pretty plainly submitted in bad faith in the face of the extensive prior communications on this board in which all of the above came out.

Seems to me that CFRs submitted in such obvious bad faith ought to be grounds for expulsion from threads just as failures to answer CFRs are.

[Calm]

I see McKnight as the equivalent of a fence. He may not know if the items are stolen or not, he does not care as long as he gets what he wants...valuable property that belonged to someone else. 

Whether or not someone had legitimate access to material is irrelevant to whether they stole it, imo. A jeweler who was given diamonds to cut for his employer who then turns around and sells them rather than returning them to his employer’s possession is obviously stealing. It gets trickier with intellectual property, but if the intent of the employer is to limit the sharing of that info and they have a legal right to limit that sharing, then it seems pretty clear that sharing that info outside the bounds the employer has defined is stealing. 

McKnight solicits, imo, material that is not to be shared outside a limited group (for a variety of reasons).  Employees and church members who have legitimate access also understand the confident nature of the work...of council meetings, for example, where individuals’ private needs are discussed.  Those who have not made the confidential agreement by accepting the calling or job have no legitimate right to the info...unless they are going through trash bins off church property. 

I believe the Church takes confidentiality to extremes at times, such as access to statistics or trying to find who is on what committee and how to contact them.  Even so, that does not somehow turn removing material marked confidential and handing it over to someone not authorized to receive it into something besides stealing. 

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see McKnight as the equivalent of a fence. He may not know if the items are stolen or not, he does not care as long as he gets what he wants...valuable property that belonged to someone else. 

Whether or not someone had legitimate access to material is irrelevant to whether they stole it, imo. A jeweler who was given diamonds to cut for his employer who then turns around and sells them rather than returning them to his employer’s possession is obviously stealing. It gets trickier with intellectual property, but if the intent of the employer is to limit the sharing of that info and they have a legal right to limit that sharing, then it seems pretty clear that sharing that info outside the bounds the employer has defined is stealing. 

McKnight solicits, imo, material that is not to be shared outside a limited group (for a variety of reasons).  Employees and church members who have legitimate access also understand the confident nature of the work...of council meetings, for example, where individuals’ private needs are discussed.  Those who have not made the confidential agreement by accepting the calling or job have no legitimate right to the info...unless they are going through trash bins off church property. 

I believe the Church takes confidentiality to extremes at times, such as access to statistics or trying to find who is on what committee and how to contact them.  Even so, that does not somehow turn removing material marked confidential and handing it over to someone not authorized to receive it into something besides stealing. 

Utah code:  

Quote

A person commits theft if he receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, or who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding the property from the owner, knowing the property to be stolen, intending to deprive the owner of it.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It is to your credit, Smac97, that you exhibit such patience in documenting the obvious.  You never once questioned the bonafides of the CFR, which was pretty plainly submitted in bad faith in the face of the extensive prior communications on this board in which all of the above came out.

Seems to me that CFRs submitted in such obvious bad faith ought to be grounds for expulsion from threads just as failures to answer CFRs are.

You guys have got to be kidding. If you are going to accuse someone of encouraging people to steal you are going to have to justify it. And simply stating that he posts leaked documents and has a website is not the same thing as encouraging people to steal. If anything I'm hoping for SMAC to be a little more precise with his language. Nothing he wrote in that long post was evidence that McKnight "encouraged" COB employees to steal.

I suppose you can report me and see where the mods come down on this. But I'm seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around the board lately with lousy justifications. When CFR's are issued, they are ignored, or we get suggestions that by maintaining a website McKnight is encouraging people to steal. It's getting a little pathetic. If you're going to make an accusation, be prepared to back it up. It's pretty simple. If you know you can't back it up, don't say it.

[Calm]

If one opens a pawnshop for high end jewelry in a lower income area where very few legally own high end jewelry, advertises that one wants high end jewelry and that one does not require proof of ownership before one takes the jewelry, would it be appropriate to claim the pawnshop owner was soliciting stolen property?

———

If the material that McKnight is posting is known to be confidential according to the rules of the Church, both as a church and as a legal organization, what non violation of confidentiality method could be used to obtain the info outside of going through garbage bins off church property?  Serious question.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Mr. McKnight's website is an open solicitation for employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Your characterization is ridiculous. Putting up a website is "openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him". I suppose you have evidence that information was stolen as opposed to a COB employee having access to it for some other reason?

C'mon.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? 

If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents?  If it's not through theft, then what is it?

Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website?  

Why do you think Mr. McKnight has conceded that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?"

When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about?  Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what?

Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents he publishes from "sources" (which he may publish) and documents "the church wanted to send us" (which he categorically does not publish)?

We're not talking about "a COB employee having access" to the Church's materials.  We are talking about "a COB employee" stealing those materials and sending them to Mr. McKnight, per the publicly-stated purpose of his website.  

Quote

Quote

Mr. McKnight admits that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose, but then proceeds to brag about how he has purportedly insulated himself from any such fallout.

Acknowledging that some info may have been stolen is hardly the same thing as encouraging someone to steal. I'm guessing he doesn't really know how information was gathered.

He doesn't?  He has specifically stated that he vets documents he receives to make sure that they are not documents that the Church wants him to receive.  Now why would he do that?  Why does he decline to publish "anything that the church wanted to send us," and instead publishes things he has vetted to ensure that "that the church had nothing to do with?"

And if "he doesn't really know how information was gathered," then why has he admitted that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?"

Quote

Quote

Mr. McKnight is inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to him.  He has publicly acknowledged that their behavior "might" be illegal. 

How is he "inducing" people to steal?

By setting up a website specifically designed to facilitate the anonymous submission of stolen documents.

Again, Mr. McKnight vets documents and refuses to publish anything the "anything that the church wanted to send us."  Why would he do that?

Quote

Quote

Is he going to employees and trying to convince them to steal information or is he accepting information an employee provides?

Sorry, not buying this.  If I take out an ad campaign that says "I have set up a website that provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents about the LDS Church," and if I provide detailed instructions about how such "sources and whistleblowers" could utilitize that technical ability, and if I thereafter received anonymous submissions, and if I only publish things that I have confirmed are not "anything that the church wanted to send us," and if I also admit that my "sources might be [breaking the law by using my website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation," can I really credibly claim that I have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact me and send me sensitive documents about the LDS Church?

Quote

Quote

I can appreciate how you might feel that's a fine line, but to me there is a difference. What is he offering these people? Is he paying them? Are they gaining notoriety? What reward is he using to induce them to steal?

I've never said there was a quid pro quo.  But when Person X sets up a website that is designed to facilitate employees of the LDS Church ("COB employees," as Mr. McKnight describes them) in anonymously submitting of documents taken from the LDS Church without its consent (the very definition of "theft"), a "Hey, I never offered money in return for the materials I am encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal and anonymously send to me" defense doesn't really work.

Quote

Quote

I echo Cinepro's question above: "[Ryan McKnight is] expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to [his] site. How is this not solicitation?"

Aren't you an attorney? (I apologize if I've confused you for someone else).

I am.  Are you?

Quote

Quote

How in the world can you think that expressing a desire is the same as a solicitation?

Sigh.  

Quote

Quote

And on and on and on.

Same here.  That's not keeping him from trying, though.

If a child refuses to eat dinner unless he gets dessert first, he is engaged in a power struggle with his parents.  He is using what "power" he has (disobedience).  Whether the parents capitulate doesn't detract from the child attempting to "bully" his parents "to force [them] to do what one wants."

There's not "natural consequence."  Sam Young is making a choice.  A public choice.  A do-what-I-say-or-else-I-am-going-to-starve-myself-in-order-to-coerce-you-into-capitulating-to-my-personal-opinion choice.

No so.  Excommunication is the result of misconduct (murder, incest, etc.).  The Church has never "required" anyone to perform an excommunicable act.

The Church's teaching that "murder will get you excommunicated" is a form of "bullying?"  

The Church "bullies" its members into not committing murder, incest, etc.?

I didn't realize we were talking about murder and incest.

We're talking about excommunicable offenses.  You claimed (falsely, in my view) that "the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication."  I am rebutting that claim.  

Quote

Quote

I guess you've moved the goal post.

No, I am rebutting what I took to be a false claim about the LDS Church.  But perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  You said: "On the other hand, the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication."  What does that mean?

Excommunication is a consequence of . . . excommunicable conduct.  The Church uses Church discipline after the excommunicable conduct has happened, or where it is ongoing.  How is that problematic?

Quote

Quote

If you read back on my comments in this thread you will see that I agreed the church can do some boundary maintenance. If the church makes threats of excommunication if a person doesn't do what the leader says, like Bill taking down his social media or resigning, then yes, that is bullying. The church has the power in that relationship. They have the ability to harm Bill through excommunication if he isn't obedient to them. If they threaten Bill as a means to get what they want, they are acting as bullies.

Okay.  I see what you are saying.  I don't see it as bullying at all, though.  "Bullying" to me carries a strong connotation of misappropriated authority.  A gangster can "bully" a storeowner into paying protection money.  On the other hand, a private party can file a lawsuit against that storeowner, obtain a judgment against him, and then collect on that judgment.  That's not "bullying" because it's legal.  It's within the parameters of the law.  

You agree that "the church can do some boundary maintenance," but then disagree such "maintenance" can include church discipline.  I really don't get that perspective at all.  If the local leaders are threatening discipline, isn't that a good thing?  Why is it bad to give Bill Reel an opportunity to repent and bring his behavior in line with the doctrines and policies of the Church?  And if the threat of excommunication is within the parameters of the laws of the Church, then how is that bullying?  Membership in the Church is, after all, a bilateral choice.  Nobody is forcing him to remain a member.

Quote

Quote

Are you sure you want to stick with this line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

0 out of dozens of disciplinary councils ended in excommunication. OK. You say, excommunication is numerically rare. OK. Do you mean as a percentage of the total church population or as a percentage of disciplinary councils.

Both.  Disciplinary councils are, compared to informal discipline, quite rare.  Disciplinary councils resulting in excommunication are very rare.  The vast majority of disciplinary councils result in disfellowshipment or less, not excommunication.

Quote

I would agree that they are relatively rare when considering the total church population but I would have no way of knowing whether or not it is a rare verdict for disciplinary councils.

Well, we have quite a few men on this board who have participated in disciplinary councils.  You could ask them.  I have in the past, and the consensus seems to be clear (and conforming to what I have said).

Quote

Do you have any numbers or references that would back that up? I'd be curious to see what percentage of disciplinary councils ended in excommunication. Can you provide that?

Nope.  The Church doesn't disclose such things.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 6, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

It is not just that McKnight maintains a website, it is what he has said about it’s well. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see McKnight as the equivalent of a fence. He may not know if the items are stolen or not, he does not care as long as he gets what he wants...valuable property that belonged to someone else. 

That's an interesting analogy.  It doesn't reflect well on Mr. McKnight, though.  First, I think he does know "if the items are stolen or not."  He has specifically stated that he vets documents and does not publish "anything that the church wanted to send us."  I think it's quite obvious that his website is designed to facilitate theft, as evidenced by his coming here to brag about how the legal maneuvers he has employed to reduce the risk of him being held criminally responsible for receiving stolen goods.  And yet he has also come here and admitted that his "sources might be [breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose]."

Second, a "fence" can still be convicted of "possession of stolen goods" unless he did not know the goods were stolen.  Mr. McKnight, however, cannot assert that defense, since he knows the materials he is receiving are stolen.  Facilitating theft from the LDS Church is the entire point of setting up the "anonymous submission" process.  This is why Mr. McKnight gleefully (and publicly) crows about having sources who are "current employees of the Church," that "there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize," that his website is designed to "light a fire under many of those COB employees" regarding "leaks" (stolen materials) from the LDS Church.

Mr. McKnight is pretty brazen about all of this.

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whether or not someone had legitimate access to material is irrelevant to whether they stole it, imo. A jeweler who was given diamonds to cut for his employer who then turns around and sells them rather than returning them to his employer’s possession is obviously stealing. It gets trickier with intellectual property, but if the intent of the employer is to limit the sharing of that info and they have a legal right to limit that sharing, then it seems pretty clear that sharing that info outside the bounds the employer has defined is stealing. 

McKnight solicits, imo, material that is not to be shared outside a limited group (for a variety of reasons).  Employees and church members who have legitimate access also understand the confident nature of the work...of council meetings, for example, where individuals’ private needs are discussed.  Those who have not made the confidential agreement by accepting the calling or job have no legitimate right to the info...unless they are going through trash bins off church property. 

I believe the Church takes confidentiality to extremes at times, such as access to statistics or trying to find who is on what committee and how to contact them.  Even so, that does not somehow turn removing material marked confidential and handing it over to someone not authorized to receive it into something besides stealing. 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

It is to your credit, Smac97, that you exhibit such patience in documenting the obvious.  You never once questioned the bonafides of the CFR, which was pretty plainly submitted in bad faith in the face of the extensive prior communications on this board in which all of the above came out.

Seems to me that CFRs submitted in such obvious bad faith ought to be grounds for expulsion from threads just as failures to answer CFRs are.

You guys have got to be kidding. If you are going to accuse someone of encouraging people to steal you are going to have to justify it.

I have.  Quite a few times, actually.

Quote

And simply stating that he posts leaked documents

"Leaked" = "stolen."

Do you acknowledge this?

Quote

and has a website is not the same thing as encouraging people to steal.

His website is nothing but a solicitation for people to steal "sensitive documents" from the LDS Church and anonymously send them to Mr. McKnight.

Quote

If anything I'm hoping for SMAC to be a little more precise with his language. Nothing he wrote in that long post was evidence that McKnight "encouraged" COB employees to steal.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

Quote

I suppose you can report me and see where the mods come down on this. But I'm seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around the board lately with lousy justifications. When CFR's are issued, they are ignored, or we get suggestions that by maintaining a website McKnight is encouraging people to steal.

First, I responded to your CFR.

Second, Mr. McKnight's website has a specific purpose.  That purpose it to facilitate the transfer of documents stolen from the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight.  There really isn't any dispute about this.

Third, ah, never mind.

Quote

It's getting a little pathetic. If you're going to make an accusation, be prepared to back it up. It's pretty simple. If you know you can't back it up, don't say it.

I said it, and I backed it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 6, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

“Acknowledging that some info may have been stolen is hardly the same thing as encouraging someone to steal. I'm guessing he doesn't really know how information was gathered.“

Human nature being what it is, telling someone you are trying to remove any negative consequence of stealing is in essence encouraging/reinforcing stealing, imo.

The psychological term is “negative reinforcement”, removing aversive consequences or punishments. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

C'mon.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? 

If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents?  If it's not through theft, then what is it?

Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website?  

Why do you think Mr. McKnight has conceded that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?"

When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about?  Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what?

Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents owned by the Church and documents "the church wanted to send us?"

We're not talking about "a COB employee having access" to the Church's materials.  We are talking about "a COB employee" stealing those materials and sending them to Mr. McKnight, per the publicly-stated purpose of his website.  

He doesn't?  He has specifically stated that he vets documents he receives to make sure that they are not documents that the Church wants him to receive.  Now why would he do that?  Why does he decline to publish "anything that the church wanted to send us," and instead publishes things he has vetted to ensure that "that the church had nothing to do with?"

And if "he doesn't really know how information was gathered," then why has he admitted that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?"

By setting up a website specifically designed to facilitate the anonymous submission of stolen documents.

Again, Mr. McKnight vets documents and refuses to publish anything the "anything that the church wanted to send us."  Why would he do that?

Sorry, not buying this.  If I take out an ad campaign that says "I have set up a website that provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents about the LDS Church," and if I provide detailed instructions about how such "sources and whistleblowers" could utilitize that technical ability, and if I thereafter received anonymous submissions, and if I only publish things that I have confirmed are not "anything that the church wanted to send us," and if I also admit that my "sources might be [breaking the law by using my website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation," can I really credibly claim that I have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact me and send me sensitive documents about the LDS Church?

I've never said there was a quid pro quo.  But when Person X sets up a website that is designed to facilitate employees of the LDS Church ("COB employees," as Mr. McKnight describes them) in anonymously submitting of documents taken from the LDS Church without its consent (the very definition of "theft"), a "Hey, I never offered money in return for the materials I am encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal and anonymously send to me" defense doesn't really work.

I am.  Are you?

Sigh.  

We're talking about excommunicable offenses.  You claimed (falsely, in my view) that "the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication."  I am rebutting that claim.  

No, I am rebutting what I took to be a false claim about the LDS Church.  But perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  You said: "On the other hand, the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication."  What does that mean?

Excommunication is a consequence of . . . excommunicable conduct.  The Church uses Church discipline after the excommunicable conduct has happened, or where it is ongoing.  How is that problematic?

Okay.  I see what you are saying.  I don't see it as bullying at all, though.  "Bullying" to me carries a strong connotation of misappropriated authority.  A gangster can "bully" a storeowner into paying protection money.  On the other hand, a private party can file a lawsuit against that storeowner, obtain a judgment against him, and then collect on that judgment.  That's not "bullying" because it's legal.  It's within the parameters of the law.  

You agree that "the church can do some boundary maintenance," but then disagree such "maintenance" can include church discipline.  I really don't get that perspective at all.  If the local leaders are threatening discipline, isn't that a good thing?  Why is it bad to give Bill Reel an opportunity to repent and bring his behavior in line with the doctrines and policies of the Church?  And if the threat of excommunication is within the parameters of the laws of the Church, then how is that bullying?  Membership in the Church is, after all, a bilateral choice.  Nobody is forcing him to remain a member.

Both.  Disciplinary councils are, compared to informal discipline, quite rare.  Disciplinary councils resulting in excommunication are very rare.  The vast majority of disciplinary councils result in disfellowshipment or less, not excommunication.

Well, we have quite a few men on this board who have participated in disciplinary councils.  You could ask them.  I have in the past, and the consensus seems to be clear (and conforming to what I have said).

Nope.  The Church doesn't disclose such things.  

Thanks,

-Smac

We're spinning our wheels. It's clear we see things differently and that's not likely to change. I think your use of the phrase "encourage to steal" is inflammatory. We don't agree on what it means to encourage, and possibly even "steal". I simply don't see whistleblower types of activities as theft. I view McKnight's website to be kind of like a pawn shop. Pawn shops receive product from customers. Some of it may be stolen. I'm sure pawn shops are aware that could be the case. But the existence of the pawn shop doesn't encourage others to steal. Likewise the Mormon Leaks website is open for business. McKnight recognizes that some information may not be authorized, but just like the pawn shop the website has other sources/customers. It's not only about getting info from the COB. They would take info from other sources as well. It could be documents from a family member of a church leader for example. There are sources of information that would not be considered "stolen" even by you  

I disagree about the Disciplinary Councils. I've witnessed many excommunications at both the stake and ward level. Usually, only the most severe cases are taken to a DC so it doesn't surprise me that excommunications would result. I find it to be a bold and definitive statement that excommunications are rare. I don't believe you have any numbers to back up that claim, just your own personal experience, just as I have mine. Asking others on this board would hardly solve that issue.

If a formal disciplinary council is held there are multiple possible outcomes.

1- No action (This would seem to be more rare than excommunication. It's hard to imagine too many possibilities where it would get to the point of DC with the presiding leader not having just cause to call a DC. But I have seen it. For example, my SP told me to convene a DC for a woman in my ward who had been abused by her husband. She had done nothing wrong but the SP wanted to give the appearance of impartiality by holding DC's for both the husband and wife. No action was taken)

2- Informal discipline - Like the first, if informal discipline is the likely result the bishop would simply impose informal discipline without holding a DC

3- formal discipline- More serious

4- Disfellowship (my guess is this, along with formal discipline is where most DC's end up)

5- Excommunication- Again, if a DC is being held for a serious issue then this seems even more likely than possibilities 1 & 2. If it's being held at the Stake level that would even be more the case since if excommunication wasn't considered to be a reasonable possibility, then it would stay at the ward.

That means that for every DC there are 5 possible outcomes or a 20% possibility of excommunication. I think it would be very interesting to see actual numbers on this. IF excommunication was truly as rare as you propose, I'd feel better about things. But that hasn't been my experience.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have.  Quite a few times, actually.

"Leaked" = "stolen."

Do you acknowledge this?

His website is nothing but a solicitation for people to steal "sensitive documents" from the LDS Church and anonymously send them to Mr. McKnight.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

First, I responded to your CFR.

Second, Mr. McKnight's website has a specific purpose.  That purpose it to facilitate the transfer of documents stolen from the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight.  There really isn't any dispute about this.

Third, ah, never mind.

I said it, and I backed it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just don't agree that "leaked" = "stolen". We disagree. Surprise  

I also disagree that the website's "specific purpose" is to receive stolen church documents from COB employees. I acknowledge that's one source of possible information, but not the only source. I'm open to being corrected if there is sufficient evidence of this.

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

We're spinning our wheels. It's clear we see things differently and that's not likely to change.

Yes, it seems that way.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I think your use of the phrase "encourage to steal" is inflammatory.

I think Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project is inflammatory.  In and of itself.  

Mr. McKnight is encouraging other people to steal materials from the LDS Church and secretly send them to him.  He has bragged about this.  He has also admitted that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose.  

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

We don't agree on what it means to encourage, and possibly even "steal".

Okay.  I'm going with the dictionary and common sense.  I mean, I think we're in "patently obvious" territory here.  I find it quite strange that you cannot see what is, to me, pretty darn obvious.

If you were an employer, and if I set up a website specifically designed to allow your employees to send me "sensitive documents" owned by your company, and if as a result some of your disgruntled employees sent me such "sensitive documents" which I then publish to the world, I do not think you would have difficulty in figuring out "what it means to encourage, and possibly even 'steal.'"

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I simply don't see whistleblower types of activities as theft.

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought.

A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I view McKnight's website to be kind of like a pawn shop.

A pawn shop stocked only with stolen goods.

Are you seriously suggesting that Mr. McKnight has received documents from the Church through legitimate means?  If so, why all the secrecy?  Why the "anonymous submission" process?  Why the bragging by Mr. McKnight of the steps he has taken to avoid criminal liability?  Why the admission by Mr. McKnight that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes]?"

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Pawn shops receive product from customers. Some of it may be stolen. I'm sure pawn shops are aware that could be the case. But the existence of the pawn shop doesn't encourage others to steal.

Unless, of course, the owner of the pawn shop goes out of his way to tell prospective customers that they can secretly and anonymously give him stolen goods.  And only if those goods are stolen from a single source.

That's what Mr. McKnight is doing, after all.  Again, he knows the materials he is publishing are stolen.  That's the entire purpose of his website.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Likewise the Mormon Leaks website is open for business. McKnight recognizes that some information may not be authorized,

"May not be authorized" = "stolen."

Do you acknowledge this?

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

but just like the pawn shop the website has other sources/customers.

But the primary and intended purpose is to facilitate the publication of materials stolen from the LDS Church.  

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "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."

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not only about getting info from the COB.

Ah.  So as long as he's not dealing exclusively in materials stolen from the LDS Church, then he's off the hook.

Good luck with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

I have.  Quite a few times, actually.

"Leaked" = "stolen."

Do you acknowledge this?

His website is nothing but a solicitation for people to steal "sensitive documents" from the LDS Church and anonymously send them to Mr. McKnight.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

First, I responded to your CFR.

Second, Mr. McKnight's website has a specific purpose.  That purpose it to facilitate the transfer of documents stolen from the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight.  There really isn't any dispute about this.

Third, ah, never mind.

I said it, and I backed it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just don't agree that "leaked" = "stolen". We disagree. Surprise  

If not stolen, then what?  How do you account for Mr. McKnight's possession of materials owned by the LDS Church?  

Are you seriously suggesting that the LDS Church has approved of its employees secretly/anonymously sending "sensitive documents" to Mr. McKnight?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It is REALLY strange, in my experience, that you have participated in "dozens" of DC and have never been part of a decision to excommunicate. I think that's great, just strange.

 

I don't think it's strange at all.

In my prior stake, where I lived for 30 some years, I was unaware of any excommunications, except one.  I was in a bishopric for 8 years once (ward clerk), and no DC resulted in excommunication.  I once asked a long-time member of the high council if two particular brothers, whom I knew, might have been excommunicated -- I was aware that they had committed adultery -- and he responded that he could not remember anyone being excommunicated during his time in that calling.  Apparently disfellowshipments, although in the case of my good friend, I knew he had attempted to defend his adultery during his DC using scripture.  And he had not been excommunicated, despite his obvious lack of remorse.

The only excommunication I ever heard of during that entire 30 years was that of a member of my ward who had murdered someone, and injured several others.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it seems that way.

I think Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project is inflammatory.  In and of itself.  

Mr. McKnight is encouraging other people to steal materials from the LDS Church and secretly send them to him.  He has bragged about this.  He has also admitted that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose.  

Okay.  I'm going with the dictionary and common sense.  I mean, I think we're in "patently obvious" territory here.  I find it quite strange that you cannot see what is, to me, pretty darn obvious.

If you were an employer, and if I set up a website specifically designed to allow your employees to send me "sensitive documents" owned by your company, and if as a result some of your disgruntled employees sent me such "sensitive documents" which I then publish to the world, I do not think you would have difficulty in figuring out "what it means to encourage, and possibly even 'steal.'"

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought.

A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

A pawn shop stocked only with stolen goods.

You're making assumptions that every item Mormon Leaks receives is from the COB and is therefore "stolen". I don't know how you can be so certain that 1-everything comes from the CoB and 2-everything is stolen. Your assumptions just prove your bias.

Are you seriously suggesting that Mr. McKnight has received documents from the Church through legitimate means?  If so, why all the secrecy?  Why the "anonymous submission" process?  Why the bragging by Mr. McKnight of the steps he has taken to avoid criminal liability?  Why the admission by Mr. McKnight that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes]?"

Or from other sources. I don't buy the assumption that everything comes from the COB.

Unless, of course, the owner of the pawn shop goes out of his way to tell prospective customers that they can secretly and anonymously give him stolen goods.  And only if those goods are stolen from a single source.

That's what Mr. McKnight is doing, after all.  Again, he knows the materials he is publishing are stolen.  That's the entire purpose of his website.

I'm sure he suspects that some may be stolen but that's not the same thing as "he knows the materials he is publishing are stolen".

"May not be authorized" = "stolen."

No. I think "may not be authorized" = "may not be authorized"

Do you acknowledge this?

But the primary and intended purpose is to facilitate the publication of materials stolen from the LDS Church.  

Do you have some kind of mission statement from Mormon Leaks that states this? I honestly cannot understand how and why you think that everything in the world having to do with Mormonism must originate at the COB. I think there are other sources of info.

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "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."

Yeah. People who leak info usually want the security of anonymity. I don't see that as unusual or as an admission of illegal activity.

Ah.  So as long as he's not dealing exclusively in materials stolen from the LDS Church, then he's off the hook.

Good luck with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think it's strange at all.

In my prior stake, where I lived for 30 some years, I was unaware of any excommunications, except one.  I was in a bishopric for 8 years once (ward clerk), and no DC resulted in excommunication.  I once asked a long-time member of the high council if two particular brothers, whom I knew, might have been excommunicated -- I was aware that they had committed adultery -- and he responded that he could not remember anyone being excommunicated during his time in that calling.  Apparently disfellowshipments, although in the case of my good friend, I knew he had attempted to defend his adultery during his DC using scripture.  And he had not been excommunicated, despite his obvious lack of remorse.

The only excommunication I ever heard of during that entire 30 years was that of a member of my ward who had murdered someone, and injured several others.

 

That's great. I haven't had the same experience. Leadership Roulette, I guess.

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, it seems that way.

I think Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project is inflammatory.  In and of itself.  

Mr. McKnight is encouraging other people to steal materials from the LDS Church and secretly send them to him.  He has bragged about this.  He has also admitted that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose.  

Okay.  I'm going with the dictionary and common sense.  I mean, I think we're in "patently obvious" territory here.  I find it quite strange that you cannot see what is, to me, pretty darn obvious.

If you were an employer, and if I set up a website specifically designed to allow your employees to send me "sensitive documents" owned by your company, and if as a result some of your disgruntled employees sent me such "sensitive documents" which I then publish to the world, I do not think you would have difficulty in figuring out "what it means to encourage, and possibly even 'steal.'"

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought.

A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

A pawn shop stocked only with stolen goods.

You're making assumptions that every item Mormon Leaks receives is from the COB and is therefore "stolen".

Not "every item."  But the primary purpose of Mr. McKnight's website is to facilitate the submission of materials stolen from the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Unless, of course, the owner of the pawn shop goes out of his way to tell prospective customers that they can secretly and anonymously give him stolen goods.  And only if those goods are stolen from a single source.

That's what Mr. McKnight is doing, after all.  Again, he knows the materials he is publishing are stolen.  That's the entire purpose of his website.

I'm sure he suspects that some may be stolen but that's not the same thing as "he knows the materials he is publishing are stolen".

"May not be authorized" = "stolen."

No. I think "may not be authorized" = "may not be authorized"

Do you acknowledge this?

Oh, brother.  Let's say that tonight you catch a burglar absconding from your house with your wallet and other valuables, and he says "Hey, you have to let me go.  My behavior here was not 'theft.'  It was me taking possession of your possessions in ways that 'may not be authorized.'"

Would you let him go?

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

But the primary and intended purpose is to facilitate the publication of materials stolen from the LDS Church.  

Do you have some kind of mission statement from Mormon Leaks that states this? I honestly cannot understand how and why you think that everything in the world having to do with Mormonism must originate at the COB. I think there are other sources of info.

I've already provided a number of statements by Mr. McKnight, both from his website and elsewhere.  

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "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."

Yeah. People who leak info usually want the security of anonymity. I don't see that as unusual or as an admission of illegal activity.

"Leak" = "steal."

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That means that for every DC there are 5 possible outcomes or a 20% possibility of excommunication

This is a statistical misrepresentation. That there are 5 possibilities does not mean each has the same chance of happening. One outcome might happen 5 % of the time and another might happen 60% of the time.

McKnight is trying to practice " plausible deniability " when he says he does not know whether the documents have been obtained legally. I suggest he is heavy on the deny side and very light on the plausible side.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

McKnight is trying to practice " plausible deniability " when he says he does not know whether the documents have been obtained legally. I suggest he is heavy on the deny side and very light on the plausible side.

I don't even think he's trying the "plausible deniability" schtick very hard.  On this board he has A) bragged about insulating himself from the legal repercussions of what he is encouraging others to do for him (steal stuff from the LDS Church and send it to him), and B) he has admitted that his "sources" could be breaking the law when they do what his website is designed to facilitate (transfer stolen documents from the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight).

Theft.  That's what we are talking about.  I am reminded of a scene from  A Man for All Seasons, where Will Roper asked Sir Thomas More for permission to marry More’s daughter:

Quote

 

More: Roper, the answer is no and will be no as long as you’re a heretic.

Roper: Now that’s a word I don’t like, sir Thomas.

More: It’s not a likable word; it’s not a likable thing.

 

Ryan McKnight is engaging in reprehensible behavior.  He is encouraging others to steal materials from the LDS Church and send them to him.

Theft.  It's not a likeable word; it's not a likable thing.

-Smac