Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Kind of...except not really. Actual pawn shops make a concerted effort to ensure they aren't receiving stolen property, and they are required by law to provide the police with lists of everything they receive each day. Oh, and transactions at pawn shops aren't even remotely close to being anonymous - maybe in the movies they are, but not in real life. At a minimum, you're going to have your picture recorded on their video surveillance system, and you will be required to provide the pawnbroker with your ID when you make a sale; some states require you to provide fingerprints as well. 

MormonLeaks, on the other hand, makes no effort whatsoever to ensure that the documents they are receiving were obtained legally. They don't ask because they don't want to know. They don't care if somebody else is breaking the law; all they are concerned about is ensuring that they don't go down for it as well. 

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Kind of...except not really. Actual pawn shops make a concerted effort to ensure they aren't receiving stolen property, and they are required by law to provide the police with lists of everything they receive each day. Oh, and transactions at pawn shops aren't even remotely close to being anonymous - maybe in the movies they are, but not in real life. At a minimum, you're going to have your picture recorded on their video surveillance system, and you will be required to provide the pawnbroker with your ID when you make a sale; some states require you to provide fingerprints as well. 

Thanks for the info, my knowledge of criminal methods is limited to what I read and see for entertainment (fiction, Iow).

[TOmNossor]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

From my reading:

Catholic:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/45202/how-many-catholics-are-excommunicated-in-an-average-year

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Catholic-Church-still-excommunicate-people-If-so-what-are-some-recent-examples

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

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Kind of...except not really. Actual pawn shops make a concerted effort to ensure they aren't receiving stolen property, and they are required by law to provide the police with lists of everything they receive each day. Oh, and transactions at pawn shops aren't even remotely close to being anonymous - maybe in the movies they are, but not in real life. At a minimum, you're going to have your picture recorded on their video surveillance system, and you will be required to provide the pawnbroker with your ID when you make a sale; some states require you to provide fingerprints as well. 

MormonLeaks, on the other hand, makes no effort whatsoever to ensure that the documents they are receiving were obtained legally. They don't ask because they don't want to know. They don't care if somebody else is breaking the law; all they are concerned about is ensuring that they don't go down for it as well. 

 

If someone obtains an illegal document that shows real fraud going on within some business organization, I want to know about it. Maybe it'll save me a few bucks by avoiding a bad investment. If leaks help in catching a murderer or other criminal, we should applaud the leaks as the leaker helped put away a bad individual or individuals. If a leak sheds light on something important, I want to know. If a leak exposes someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal, then the leak should be kept private. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

If someone obtains an illegal document that shows real fraud going on within some business organization, I want to know about it. Maybe it'll save me a few bucks by avoiding a bad investment. If leaks help in catching a murderer or other criminal, we should applaud the leaks as the leaker helped put away a bad individual or individuals. If a leak sheds light on something important, I want to know. If a leak exposes someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal, then the leak should be kept private. 

Stealing is not always bad, imo.  For example, stealing hoarded medicine during wartime because someone intended to make a mint off of others' suffering or worse, to use biological warfare.  That does not change the fact it is stealing.

Actual whistleblowers where there is real fraud...that I applaud.

Promoting stealing of property, including intellectual property and then displaying it to satisfy curiosity....that doesn't impress me and is, I believe, immoral.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Stealing is not always bad, imo.  For example, stealing hoarded medicine during wartime because someone intended to make a mint off of others' suffering or worse, to use biological warfare.  That does not change the fact it is stealing.

Actual whistleblowers where there is real fraud...that I applaud.

Promoting stealing of property, including intellectual property and then displaying it to satisfy curiosity....that doesn't impress me and is, I believe, immoral.

McKnight's correspondence aren't whistleblowers, protected by statutes.

Edited August 7, 2018 by USU78

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Promoting stealing of property, including intellectual property and then displaying it to satisfy curiosity....that doesn't impress me and is, I believe, immoral.

Where I live, it's also illegal: 'In every employment relationship there are common law duties, one of which places an obligation on employees not to use or disclose their employer’s confidential information. This obligation operates whether written into the employment agreement or not, and continues after the employment has ended' (emphasis added).

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Reel's correspondence aren't whistleblowers, protected by statutes.

You mean McKnight?

At this point, it appears to me everything posted from the Church is just a curiosity and lots not even that, but just put up so he can claim he is getting leaks (though some are quite interesting...but that does not justify publicizing them).

He has posted some other stuff, like Denson's recording and police reports.  If it isn't an actual leak or confidential material (it was apparently Denson who gave him the recording, knowing what his site was, so to me that is implicit permission to post it) or gossip/libel, I don't have a problem with it at this point (there may be something I haven't thought of  that I find inappropriate).

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

If someone obtains an illegal document that shows real fraud going on within some business organization, I want to know about it. Maybe it'll save me a few bucks by avoiding a bad investment. If leaks help in catching a murderer or other criminal, we should applaud the leaks as the leaker helped put away a bad individual or individuals.

Sure, there are times when leaking information is going to be the right thing to do - especially when lives and health are at risk. 

I just popped over to look at the MormonLeaks site just now. Here's the subject of their latest release: Recordings of January 2017 Phoenix Arizona Multi-stake Meeting.

I have a funny feeling that if I listen to all of the recorded talks there's not going to be much in the way of "real fraud" or "murder" there. 

Let's get real. Nothing he [McKnight] is putting out is Watergate / Pentagon Papers level material.

Maybe someday he'll get a hold of something significant, but most of what I've seen posted on the site is fairly banal. 

 

Quote

If a leak sheds light on something important, I want to know. If a leak exposes someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal, then the leak should be kept private. 

Well, "something important" doesn't exactly sound like much of an ethical guide. How about a specific example:

MormonLeaks posted Elder Eyring's pay stubs (from several years ago) a while back. Do you consider that "expos[ing] someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal," or does that fall into the "something important" you want to know category?

 

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean McKnight?

At this point, it appears to me everything posted from the Church is just a curiosity and lots not even that, but just put up so he can claim he is getting leaks (though some are quite interesting...but that does not justify publicizing them).

He has posted some other stuff, like Denson's recording and police reports.  If it isn't an actual leak or confidential material (it was apparently Denson who gave him the recording, knowing what his site was, so to me that is implicit permission to post it) or gossip/libel, I don't have a problem with it at this point (there may be something I haven't thought of  that I find inappropriate).

Yup. Sorry.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

If someone obtains an illegal document that shows real fraud going on within some business organization, I want to know about it.

That is not what is being alleged here. In fact, Mr. McKnight has specifically stated that he does not expect to uncover any such documents as you are describing.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maybe it'll save me a few bucks by avoiding a bad investment. If leaks help in catching a murderer or other criminal, we should applaud the leaks as the leaker helped put away a bad individual or individuals. If a leak sheds light on something important, I want to know. If a leak exposes someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal, then the leak should be kept private. 

So which of these do you think applies in broad Strokes to the LDS Church?

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Stealing is not always bad, imo.  For example, stealing hoarded medicine during wartime because someone intended to make a mint off of others' suffering or worse, to use biological warfare.  That does not change the fact it is stealing.

Actual whistleblowers where there is real fraud...that I applaud.

Promoting stealing of property, including intellectual property and then displaying it to satisfy curiosity....that doesn't impress me and is, I believe, immoral.

Each case is different. I agree that stealing benign ip is of no import and idle curiosity is the devil's workshop, but that which exposes something harmful and demonstrably against the people is something different.

[Exiled]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not what is being alleged here. In fact, Mr. McKnight has specifically stated that he does not expect to uncover any such documents as you are describing.

So which of these do you think applies in broad Strokes to the LDS Church?

It depends as you know 😎.  Sometimes we are on the side of the angels and sometimes not. Each case is different. 

[Exiled]

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure, there are times when leaking information is going to be the right thing to do - especially when lives and health are at risk. 

I just popped over to look at the MormonLeaks site just now. Here's the subject of their latest release: Recordings of January 2017 Phoenix Arizona Multi-stake Meeting.

I have a funny feeling that if I listen to all of the recorded talks there's not going to be much in the way of "real fraud" or "murder" there. 

Let's get real. Nothing he [McKnight] is putting out is Watergate / Pentagon Papers level material.

Maybe someday he'll get a hold of something significant, but most of what I've seen posted on the site is fairly banal. 

 

Well, "something important" doesn't exactly sound like much of an ethical guide. How about a specific example:

MormonLeaks posted Elder Eyring's pay stubs (from several years ago) a while back. Do you consider that "expos[ing] someone's personal life where the exposure isn't criminal," or does that fall into the "something important" you want to know category?

 

What I expect to find are things on the border. Mormons don't go as far as other society but they have their moments.

As far as Eyring's paystubs, they are information and conformation of what was known. At least now the unpaid clergy meme is no longer, like we from SLC already knew.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours 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

@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?

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, 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?

This is like the farmer, asking the fox he’s caught by the henhouse, if he likes the taste of chicken. 🙂  Of course the answer is going to be no.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is like the farmer, asking the fox he’s caught by the henhouse, if he likes the taste of chicken. 🙂  Of course the answer is going to be no.

Since Smac is making claims and suggesting that aren't even being disputed, I think it's fair to ask. IMO Smac is making a number of leaps in reasoning based on his unfounded assumptions so why not ask the individual who is doing it? I don't know that I'll get an answer, but the fact that you don't even want to give the guy a chance to respond isn't particularly fair or open minded. Perhaps you're so confident in your knowledge that you can't learn anything. Must be nice.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I have watched people refuse to interact with basic scientific data in order to defend their young-earth notions.

I have seen people refuse to admit the Soviet Union fell, calling it a United Nations hoax, and voicing the notion that the US is about to be invaded.

I've talked with people who had dreams of impending prophetic callouts, who were expecting the phone call from their bishop any minute now, and I've watched these people discount and ignore clear statements from GA's that such stuff is nonsense.

I've talked with flat earthers, who have tried very hard to get me to think for myself for once in my poor deluded life.  

And I'm also reading HappyJackWagon's posts.  Holy crap dude, no really.  Take a step back and gain a little perspective here.  How many ways can a guy be wrong and still be convinced he's right?   I mean, it's not that hard - to move to "Yeah, FearlessFixxer is encouraging people to steal stuff from the church, and I think that's not a bad thing, because [reasons]."  You could still have an arguable case, even if you admit that orange is orange.

[Steve-o]

16 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

Is it a misrepresentation? Possibility is not the same thing as probability.

I agree that not every outcome would be weighted equally but how can anyone know what the real percentages are? Without that, it's just a 1 outcome out of 5 possibilities. How would you state the 1 in 5 possibility? This part of the discussion is interesting. I don't have experience participating in courts of love so I can't really add anything, but it makes sense that if a council is held there would be a consequence worthy of holding the council, which would take the first 2 possibilities off the table. That would mean excommunication would be 1 of 3 likely consequences, not 1 of 5.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Steve-o

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since Smac is making claims and suggesting that aren't even being disputed, I think it's fair to ask. IMO Smac is making a number of leaps in reasoning based on his unfounded assumptions so why not ask the individual who is doing it? I don't know that I'll get an answer, but the fact that you don't even want to give the guy a chance to respond isn't particularly fair or open minded. Perhaps you're so confident in your knowledge that you can't learn anything. Must be nice.

I think it's fair to ask, but I don't believe that anyone will be surprised at the answer.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I have watched people refuse to interact with basic scientific data in order to defend their young-earth notions.

I have seen people refuse to admit the Soviet Union fell, calling it a United Nations hoax, and voicing the notion that the US is about to be invaded.

I've talked with people who had dreams of impending prophetic callouts, who were expecting the phone call from their bishop any minute now, and I've watched these people discount and ignore clear statements from GA's that such stuff is nonsense.

I've talked with flat earthers, who have tried very hard to get me to think for myself for once in my poor deluded life.  

And I'm also reading HappyJackWagon's posts.  Holy crap dude, no really.  Take a step back and gain a little perspective here.  How many ways can a guy be wrong and still be convinced he's right?   I mean, it's not that hard - to move to "Yeah, FearlessFixxer is encouraging people to steal stuff from the church, and I think that's not a bad thing, because [reasons]."  You could still have an arguable case, even if you admit that orange is orange.

You're comparing me to a flat earther?  And you think I'm being unreasonable because I think Smac's language shows bias assumptions that can't be proven, and characterizes the website and McKnight in the worst possible way. OK

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're comparing me to a flat earther?  And you think I'm being unreasonable because I think Smac's language shows bias assumptions that can't be proven, and characterizes the website and McKnight in the worst possible way. OK

An "assumption" is "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."

But I'm not making an "assumption."  I've read Mr. McKnight's website.  I've looked at the documents he has published.  I've read his various comments (on Reddit, on this board, etc.).  Based on these efforts I have reached a conclusion ("a judgment or decision reached by reasoning").  I've explained my reasoning at some length.  I've asked you a number of questions in relation thereto, most of which you have studiously and repeatedly ignored.  That is, of course, your prerogative.  

Sorry, HJW, but this one doesn't even seem like a close call.  I'm fond of saying that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  But as to the purpose and practical effect of Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project, I don't think there is reasonable disagreement.  He's encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and secretly/anonymously send them to him so he can publish them on his website without the consent of the Church.

Nevertheless, I'm not particularly interested in trying to change your mind.  I'm content to let readers reach their own conclusions.  To me, however, Mr. McKnight's behavior is obviously and demonstrably execrable.  If he set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of HappyJackWagon to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to HappyJackWagon and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of HappyJackWagon) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this.  I think you would find my website's intended purpose to be to encourage others to steal your stuff and send it to me.

And you'd be right.

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're comparing me to a flat earther?  And you think I'm being unreasonable because I think Smac's language shows bias assumptions that can't be proven, and characterizes the website and McKnight in the worst possible way. OK

Yes I am comparing you to those other folks who refuse to see reality for what it is.  Your issue isn't with Smac, it's with the dictionary, and commonly understood definitions of what words mean.  It ain't healthy, friend.  Support what FF is doing all you want, but there's no need to run headlong into brick walls as you do it.  Dude deals in stolen things, admittedly, on purpose.

I mean, you even have a whole host of historical good guys who stole information and made them public.  Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat source that helped expose Watergate.  Reporters who risk life and limb to smuggle videos out of North Korea.  Turncoats like Benedict Arnold.  The spies in WWI and WWII who provided intel to the good guys, allowing more decisive battles and a swifter end to war.  You obviously feel FF's cause is just, why spend so much time pretending his methods aren't what they are?

[strappinglad]

49 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

That would mean excommunication would be 1 of 3 likely consequences, not 1 of 5.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Steve-o

Stated as such I agree. To go from the idea that exing is 1 in 5 or 1 out of 3 possibilities , which is correct, to then state that there is a 20% chance of excommunication makes the leap to probability which now can be argued is likely false because not all outcomes are equally likely. In a deck of cards there are face cards and non face cards. If I draw a card there are 2 possibilities ie. a face card or a non face card. It would be incorrect to say the chance of drawing a face card is 50% . Most people use the words possible and probable interchangeably .There is a difference that one could say was nit-picking. It is my personal nit so I picked at it. Sorry HJW.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yes I am comparing you to those other folks who refuse to see reality for what it is.  Your issue isn't with Smac, it's with the dictionary, and commonly understood definitions of what words mean.  It ain't healthy, friend.  Support what FF is doing all you want, but there's no need to run headlong into brick walls as you do it.  Dude deals in stolen things, admittedly, on purpose.

I mean, you even have a whole host of historical good guys who stole information and made them public.  Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat source that helped expose Watergate.  Reporters who risk life and limb to smuggle videos out of North Korea.  Turncoats like Benedict Arnold.  The spies in WWI and WWII who provided intel to the good guys, allowing more decisive battles and a swifter end to war.  You obviously feel FF's cause is just, why spend so much time pretending his methods aren't what they are?

Props. Those are good lines  Seriously, made me laugh. I disagree, but good lines.

Woodward and Bernstein encouraged Deep Throat to steal information? Really? Didn't know that? And you're right that I wouldn't characterize that as theft either.