Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Just FYI, as I am the relative in question, I am 99.9% certain I have never mentioned this board to Ryan in any other forum other than to comment on something he's already said here. But the idea that I have "told him about our discussions" here is wrong. I like Ryan, but I don't talk to him very often, and I'm certainly not interested in alerting him to discussions here. He's a board member and can read it for himself. Again, my memory could be wrong, but I cannot remember a single instance of telling him about a discussion here that he wasn't already involved in.

ETA: I've just perused my communications with Ryan (all on Facebook, as we haven't spoken by phone or in person for a few years), and I was right: no instances where I "told him about our discussions." Not sure why this matters, but I hate the idea of people thinking I'm furtively calling Ryan and saying, "Hey, they're talking about you again on MDDB!"

Edited August 13, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just FYI, as I am the relative in question, I am 99.9% certain I have never mentioned this board to Ryan in any other forum other than to comment on something he's already said here.

Ah.  I misunderstood.  Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  I misunderstood.  Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

I did find one FB message wherein I noted he had apparently angered a few people here, but again, but he'd done that by posting here.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I did find one FB message wherein I noted he had apparently angered a few people here, but again, but he'd done that by posting here.

It's a public board, and it may occasionally garner some attention from people who come across it.

As it is, however, the notoriety of this board seems to be quite limited.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a public board, and it may occasionally garner some attention from people who come across it.

As it is, however, the notoriety of this board seems to be quite limited.

Ryan managed to find it, so it isn't that limited.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a public board, and it may occasionally garner some attention from people who come across it.

As it is, however, the notoriety of this board seems to be quite limited.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is probably easily found if he were to google Mormonleaks or his own name to see what is being said.  It also makes sense to post about his site anywhere those expressing doubt show up to increase likelihood of someone willing to leak info to him seeing his offer.  Iow, free advertising.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Calm

[FearlessFixxer]

23 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.

 

No.  He did not access the network.  Also, I have said in many interviews that we don't concern ourselves with how the documents were obtained. Sources are fully responsible for that and must take whatever precautions they need to in that regard. This is no different than any other media outlet

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by FearlessFixxer

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Ryan managed to find it, so it isn't that limited.

It sure seems that way.  How many people post here regularly?  A few dozen?

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

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

Or . . . not.

That's a very facile perspective, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

The apostles could be conservative and still manage a lot of money. I don't think flaunting or not flaunting has anything to do with it and is a red herring. 

Facile? I think it is understood that people tend to contribute to those in need rather than those that don't need it. If the church published its tithing numbers on a regular basis, the argument that the widow must give her mite would lose its effectiveness for enough that it would show in the bottom line. Maybe not for you, but those who have the choice between suffering and tithing might think twice if the numbers were out there. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It sure seems that way.  How many people post here regularly?  A few dozen?

That's probably right. I think there are a lot of lurkers, however.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Quote

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.

No.  He did not access the network. 

But he asked you if he should.  Now why did he do that?  It's unlikely you were a random choice.

Quote

Also, I have said in many interviews that we don't concern ourselves with how the documents were obtained.

Except that you do concern yourselves:

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...

You have publicly stated that your website "might help light a fire under many of those COB employees."

"Help" employees of the LDS Church do what?  

"Leak."

Leak what?

Stolen materials.

How do we know that you are interested in stolen materials?  Because you have elsewhere disclaimed any interest in publishing materials that the Church wants you to receive:

Quote

Ryan,

Serious question here. Do you ever wonder if the Church is playing you? 

...

[Mr. McKnight]:

It is something that we are looking for in the documents we receive. Our process is not perfect, but I think I am pretty good at vetting information and so far I don't think we have released anything that the church wanted to send us. In the case of the paystubs, I can tell you 100% that the church had nothing to do with it.

You have also admitted that your sources "might" be breaking the law when they use your website for its intended purpose.

You just don't care if they break the law.

Because you want them to break the law.  By your own words, your website is intended to "help" employees of the LDS Church steal from their employer and send those stolen materials to you.

Quote

Sources are fully responsible for that and must take whatever precautions they need to in that regard. This is no different than any other media outlet

Are media outlets on record as hoping that their website "helps" employees of a specific entity steal from their employer and send those stolen materials to you?

'Cuz you are.  And that makes you quite "different than any other media outlet."

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I asked you several questions in this post.  Here they are again:

Quote

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?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

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. 

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

Or . . . not.

That's a very facile perspective, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

The apostles could be conservative and still manage a lot of money. I don't think flaunting or not flaunting has anything to do with it and is a red herring. 

It's not a matter of "flaunting."  The GAs have access to huge sums of money, and yet they are not enriching themselves.

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Facile?

Very.

There are many, many reasons why an individual or group may have "nothing to hide" and yet still not want their private, sensitive data stolen and published to the world.

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is understood that people tend to contribute to those in need rather than those that don't need it.

And yet very few of use contribute directly "to those in need," and instead donate to charitable organizations.  Like the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's probably right. I think there are a lot of lurkers, however.

But how many of those?  A few dozen more?  100-200, maybe?  

This board seems to have an exceedingly small audience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

But how many of those?  A few dozen more?  100-200, maybe?  

This board seems to have an exceedingly small audience.

Thanks,

-Smac

BTW, Ryan seems to have found this conversation about him without my help, too.

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exceedingly unlikely.

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

Because this is a discussion board.

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

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

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

What sensitive information are you imagining someone would care to steal from me and put it on a website?  My weight?  How much money I got?  The only reason Ryan has done what he has is because the Church has information that people want to know about and some feel they deserve to know.  As for me, I don't care so much.  If you want to keep talking about it, fine.  But at this point I think the only thing you are doing is contributing to his efforts.  More people will hear about it and more people will be curious and go are see what's all the fuss.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What sensitive information are you imagining someone would care to steal from me and put it on a website? 

Doesn't really matter, does it?

Quote

My weight?  How much money I got? 

How about your pay stubs?

Your social security number?

Your logins / passwords / PINs?

Your bank account numbers?

Again, it doesn't really matter.  "Sensitive information" is, by its own terms, "sensitive."

Quote

The only reason Ryan has done what he has

What Ryan "has done" being . . . what?

Publishing materials stolen from the LDS Church.  Do you acknowledge that some of the materials he has published are (or very likely to have been ) stolen?

Quote

is because the Church has information that people want to know about and some feel they deserve to know. 

Ah.  So you have information that, in my personal and self-appointed position, I have a right to know.

So would you be okay with me setting up a website and publicizing it as a means whereby your friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, etc. can steal the above sorts of information from you and secretly and anonymously send to me, knowing that my intention is to publish such things to the world?

I think we both know the answer to that question.

Quote

As for me, I don't care so much.  

That's quite understandable.  Your sensitive private data is not being targeted for theft and publication to the world.

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

Quote

If you want to keep talking about it, fine.  But at this point I think the only thing you are doing is contributing to his efforts.  More people will hear about it and more people will be curious and go are see what's all the fuss.  

Meh.  A few dozen people are reading this.  And I think quite a few of those people will read the compiled statements from Mr. McKnight, the assessments of his website, etc. and come away with a fairly negative opinion about his behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are many, many reasons why an individual or group may have "nothing to hide" and yet still not want their private, sensitive data stolen and published to the world.

It is a church, so what could those sophisticated reasons be? Is there some church r&d dept. we don't know about and it wants to keep its ip private?  I'm pretty sure no. Is the church laundering money for other organizations or people?  No. Is the church invested in some companies that the religious might see as problematic? Perhaps. 

Does the church have a lot of money? I think it does. So, why would a church with a lot of money wish to keep it private? Maybe lawsuit threats might increase? But I think the plaintiffs' bar already knows there is sufficient to pay claims. Maybe, there would be more call to spend resources on this or that? That seems to be a reason to keep the finances close to the vest. Some members might be confused as to ownership of their donations and may want to make suggestions? Then there is the facile reason that some may justify not contributing to a rich church if it comes down to contributing or not suffering.

Anyway, why do you think the church isn't open with its finances?

[DBMormon]

On 8/3/2018 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice again importance of the metaphor here that Mormon believers are akin to flat earthers, scientologists, and Trumpers.  I don't have to just accept the metaphor, and therefore, the whole implicit argument, without testing it.  I can actually ask if, for example, the recent LiDar surveys of Mesoamerica are as overwhelmingly devastating to the Book of Mormon as a satellite or space station view of the earth ought to be to a hypothetical flat earther.  (Watch the recent National Geographic TV Special on the Mayan Snake Kings for yourself.)  I can ask if L. Ron Hubbard's claims are as testable as the Book of Mormon and could compare personalities and character.  I can ask if Joseph Smith's plural wives made any first-hand, eye witness complaints about his behavior comparable to what first-hand, eye witnesses have said about Trump's behavior.  That is different than assuming the worst from Joseph, based on prejudicial comparisons rather than first hand complaints.  For that matter,  I can even compare what I have witnessed in Trump's words and actions to what I have personally explored in Joseph Smith's life and work.  It happens that when I do this kind of thing to test the viability of the metaphor offered here I do not seem to justify a claim of "overwhelming" .  Rather, the metaphor purports do the heavy lifting but really only provides misdirection.

"There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant."  ( E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 194, note 2.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

you actually help my point.  If having determined adherents in the most crazy and absurd of religions occurs then surely it will happen in a religion that is slightly less absurd or even only mildly absurd.  Pointing out that people maintain faith after knowing the issues and still believe and hence the religion must be reasonable and rational simply is a non-sequitur

Edited August 13, 2018 by DBMormon

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

There are many, many reasons why an individual or group may have "nothing to hide" and yet still not want their private, sensitive data stolen and published to the world.

It is a church,

More to the point, it is the LDS Church, and hence a second-class citizen, not entitled to the same privacy rights that are afforded to other groups and individuals.

If we were talking about someone setting up a website specifically designed to encourage your friends / family / neighbors / co-workers to steal your private data and secretly and anonymously send it to someone who dislikes you, for the express purpose of that recipient publishing your private data to the world, we would not be having this discussion.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So would you be okay with me setting up a website and publicizing it as a means whereby your friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, etc. can steal the above sorts of information from you and secretly and anonymously send to me, knowing that my intention is to publish such things to the world?

This has just gotten silly smac.  You do it to an individual and you're just being a jerk.  This is happening because many people feel they have a right to know about some of this stuff.  This is not happening because he's trying to ruin the livelihood of someone.  

His principle is simple.  The Church is getting large sums of donations from many people and those people ought to know what the Church is doing behind closed doors.  The difference is, of course, no one is giving me money.  But I'll tell you what as soon as I make billions upon billions from donations from others, I'll give you the personal information you want so you too can start a website dedicated to trying to get me to be transparent.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

So would you be okay with me setting up a website and publicizing it as a means whereby your friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, etc. can steal the above sorts of information from you and secretly and anonymously send to me, knowing that my intention is to publish such things to the world?

This has just gotten silly smac. 

Only because it's not your private data being stolen and published to the world.  If it were, you would not be calling this "silly."

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You do it to an individual and you're just being a jerk. 

So stealing from individuals is bad, but stealing from groups is not?

Says who?

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This is happening because many people feel they have a right to know about some of this stuff. 

And if I "feel" that I have "right to know about" your private data, are you okay with me encouraging your friends and family to steal it and send it to me so that I can publish it to the world?

The Golden Rule.  Do you dig it?

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

His principle is simple. 

Yes.  Theft from the LDS Church is okay, because Ryan McKnight doesn't care.

Some "principle."

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church is getting large sums of donations from many people and those people ought to know what the Church is doing behind closed doors. 

And that justifies the theft and publication of a private individual's paystub, then?

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The difference is, of course, no one is giving me money.  But I'll tell you what as soon as I make billions upon billions from donations from others, I'll give you the personal information you want so you too can start a website dedicated to trying to get me to be transparent.  

And you'd be okay with that?  With a person encouraging other people to steal from you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Just FYI, as I am the relative in question, I am 99.9% certain I have never mentioned this board to Ryan in any other forum other than to comment on something he's already said here. But the idea that I have "told him about our discussions" here is wrong. I like Ryan, but I don't talk to him very often, and I'm certainly not interested in alerting him to discussions here. He's a board member and can read it for himself. Again, my memory could be wrong, but I cannot remember a single instance of telling him about a discussion here that he wasn't already involved in.

ETA: I've just perused my communications with Ryan (all on Facebook, as we haven't spoken by phone or in person for a few years), and I was right: no instances where I "told him about our discussions." Not sure why this matters, but I hate the idea of people thinking I'm furtively calling Ryan and saying, "Hey, they're talking about you again on MDDB!"

That is exactly what a spy would say 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

That is exactly what a spy would say 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only because it's not your private data being stolen and published to the world.  If it were, you would not be calling this "silly."

So stealing from individuals is bad, but stealing from groups is not?

Says who?

And if I "feel" that I have "right to know about" your private data, are you okay with me encouraging your friends and family to steal it and send it to me so that I can publish it to the world?

The Golden Rule.  Do you dig it?

Yeah right.  You dont' feel that right at all.  You are being disingenuous.  But it's a far cry for you to demand transparency from me and people who have donated money to an org to demand some form of transparency from the org.  I think you know that, youre just being silly, as you seemingly agreed above.  

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Theft from the LDS Church is okay, because Ryan McKnight doesn't care.

Some "principle."

And that justifies the theft and publication of a private individual's paystub, then?

And you'd be okay with that?  With a person encouraging other people to steal from you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course I'd be ok if people who were giving me money felt they needed to know what I was up to, being all supported by their moneys and all that.  I'd hope I'd feel, without any questions from them, that I'd feel the need to be transparent, if I found myself in that situation.  Even if none of them were concerned about what I was doing with their money I'd hope I'd tell them anyway.  This is just a silly point you are going for, if you ask me.  The question I'd consider though do his actions  pushing for transparency outweigh the actions the Church is taking behind closed doors, in terms of my personal evaluation of ethics.  Is the good for transparency out-weighed by the act of putting stuff out there that the Church doesn't want out there?  

It doesn't sound like there is anything illegal about his efforts, so I guess we'll have to see disagreements about whether we each think it's a good thing or a bad thing.  I'm not really convinced either way, even though I really respect the notion that the Church should be more transparent.

[Exiled]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More to the point, it is the LDS Church, and hence a second-class citizen, not entitled to the same privacy rights that are afforded to other groups and individuals.

If we were talking about someone setting up a website specifically designed to encourage your friends / family / neighbors / co-workers to steal your private data and secretly and anonymously send it to someone who dislikes you, for the express purpose of that recipient publishing your private data to the world, we would not be having this discussion.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I know you want to equate a church, a charitable organization, to an individual. But they aren't the same thing. It seems obvious. Also, other churches disclose their finances, so why not the LDS church? Disclosure probably would solve the mormonleaks issue since that's what Mr. McKnight wants.

"Mormons in the crosshairs" - kind of a catchy title.