Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel $150 Challenge to Church Newsroom


Recommended Posts

Just now, juliann said:

The same thing I think about all the other discarded ideas in scripture. We need to remember that this “law” is so fuzzy few claim to understand it to begin with. It makes great fodder for fundamentalists though. 

I never quite got how a story from the scriptures about the individual choices of a married couple magically became a "law".

Link to comment
15 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I will admit that I am disappointed in the glee and satisfaction some are taking at Bill's expense.

He is our brother who has lost his eternal blessings.  All due to pride and short-term satisfaction.  This is a very sad situation.

So it's better to judge and be condescending  and point a finger at him as a sinner? 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, cinepro said:

Congratulations to "Kevin Owens", the winner, and thank you to Bill for issuing the challenge.  Whether or not Bill actually expected the challenge to be met, I think it was an interesting exercise (and I suspect the writers of the press release themselves might be surprised to see that actual quotes were found...)

Not that surprising. Both the Woodruff and Packer quotes have been quoted reasonably often. Particularly Packer and his The Holy Temple is a pretty prominently pushed book for people preparing for their endowments. (I thought the full book was online, but apparently it's just an excerpt) The Woodruff quote was prominent in the recent priesthood manual on him.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think it is clear that HE doesn’t intend to pay if he is expecting donors to do it for him. 

I think he sealed his own fate as far as respect goes when he set up a podcast for the woman who embezzled a huge amount of money from Exponent II. And then lectured her victims on forgiveness when she hasn’t paid it all back or admitted how much she took over the years.  (She is awaiting sentencing.) 

It is quite a feat to alienate the largest feminist group in Mormonism in one fell swoop. He was so off the rails Exponent  blogged a response to his mansplaining tone deaf male elitism. 

It will take a lot to top that. 

Just for the record, in a comment under his post conceding the contest, he says the following:

Quote

For those who promised to contribute or want to contribute to the prize money please PM me!

While this could be seen as a solicitation for money, I hardly think it indicates he doesn't plan on paying. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the church newsroom knew about the bet (which I doubt) I bet they would be tickled pink that Bill Reel paid someone to provide their references!   That would be like Leah Remini paying someone for references supporting Scientology.  :lol:

So are you suggesting that Remini is wrong about Scientology in the same way you think Bill is about Mormonism?  🤨

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

While this could be seen as a solicitation for money, I hardly think it indicates he doesn't plan on paying. 

He plans on other people paying which means HE doesn’t plan on paying for an uninformed bet they didn’t make. Poor form to say the least. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where does he say that? Official CFR for Bill Reel saying or indicating “he plans on other people paying”. I think Bill Reel has a lot of issues and would never hold him up as a poster child of anything. However, per the OP other people offered to pitch in. He is asking for those that offered to pitch in to PM him. He then says if anyone else wants to contribute they can PM as well. Connect the dots for me. How is saying “if you want to contribute PM me” an indication that he plans not to pay, or even easier, an indication that he plans on other people paying? I’m a bit slow, so please use small words to help me out here. 

 

Here’s an example. I offer to buy a my friend Sally a $150 stroller for her baby. A few friends wanted to pitch in. I ask them for their promised contribution. I then ask a few other people if they want to contribute? Have I now indicated that I don’t plan to buy the stroller or contribute to it if they don’t?

It might be accurate to say he doesn't plan to pay the entire $150 himself...but then he never really claimed he would pay the entire $150 himself.

He put out a challenge with the offer of the reward. The challenge was met. Now the reward will be paid. Why is this a topic of discussion?

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, juliann said:

He plans on other people paying which means HE doesn’t plan on paying for an uninformed bet they didn’t make. Poor form to say the least. 

Poor form? Yes! Hopeful that he won’t have to make good with his own money on a stupid bet? Yes! An indication that he won’t pay? I’m sorry I just don’t see it. He has too much ego and reputation on the line, especially for $150 (another story if it was $1000). Honestly if he didn’t plan on paying I think he would have just said the quotes provided didn’t meet what he meant to ask, or some other form of weaseling his way out. If he planned on not paying, why make a big post saying that he lost the bet!?

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It might be accurate to say he doesn't plan to pay the entire $150 himself...but then he never really claimed he would pay the entire $150 himself.

He put out a challenge with the offer of the reward. The challenge was met. Now the reward will be paid. Why is this a topic of discussion?

if he had in mind that others would pay it then why ask for $150? why is he spending other people's money? what gain would they get from giving him money? he got caught in his own trap and now wants others to bail him out

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Poor form? Yes! Hopeful that he won’t have to make good with his own money on a stupid bet? Yes! An indication that he won’t pay? I’m sorry I just don’t see it. He has too much ego and reputation on the line, especially for $150 (another story if it was $1000). Honestly if he didn’t plan on paying I think he would have just said the quotes provided didn’t meet what he meant to ask, or some other form of weaseling his way out. If he planned on not paying, why make a big post saying that he lost the bet!?

If I add Personally pay the debt will that help you?  Again, HE is not going to pay. That does not mean it won’t be paid. It only means,  He. Personally. Won’t pay.  For a gamble HE took. He is, instead, making others responsible. He hopes. 

So yes. Very poor form. He should have written that check 10 minutes after he got caught. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

He plans on other people paying which means HE doesn’t plan on paying for an uninformed bet they didn’t make. Poor form to say the least. 

Disagree.  If he loses a bet, and hands $150 to the winner, that says something positive about his character and his word. 

How he comes up with the money is his business.  There's nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening in asking for donations.  Maybe not my cup of tea, I'd be a bit embarrassed to do it that way, but my word is important to me, and I'd bear the embarrassment in order to pay my debts.  

My take on these things may be seen as a bit dated - it came from my father, born in 1922, went through the great depression, part of the greatest WWII vet generation.  I can hear him now: "A man's word is his BOND, son!  Without that, he's nothing!"  But I think it's a good take.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Disagree.  If he loses a bet, and hands $150 to the winner, that says something positive about his character and his word. 

How he comes up with the money is his business.  There's nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening in asking for donations.  Maybe not my cup of tea, I'd be a bit embarrassed to do it that way, but my word is important to me, and I'd bear the embarrassment in order to pay my debts.  

My take on these things may be seen as a bit dated - it came from my father, born in 1922, went through the great depression, part of the greatest WWII vet generation.  I can hear him now: "A man's word is his BOND, son!  Without that, he's nothing!"  But I think it's a good take.

my Father was born in Germany in 1932 and he too came through the depression, his attitude seems to be "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" Bill made claims and he got caught and now he's trying to make his business other people's business, why should I or anyone else bail him out? I, nor anyone else didn't make a stupid bet, he did and he should pay for it himself.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True to form, Bill is again slaughtering the mother tongue. “Infers” does not mean “implies.”

Maybe, now that I’m no longer working, and since he produces a great deal of written as well as spoken material, I could offer my services to him as a proofreader. 

Of course, I don’t come cheap, and my services may be too expensive for him. 

Maybe you could make a few....umm....editorial?....changes to his work. 😈

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So are you suggesting that Remini is wrong about Scientology in the same way you think Bill is about Mormonism?  🤨

No, I was making a comparison of Remini and Reel as vocal critics of an organization. I wasn't saying anything about the validity of their criticism.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

my Father was born in Germany in 1932 and he too came through the depression, his attitude seems to be "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" Bill made claims and he got caught and now he's trying to make his business other people's business, why should I or anyone else bail him out? I, nor anyone else didn't make a stupid bet, he did and he should pay for it himself.

Fair enough.  Perhaps my upbringing has been tempered with Elder Oaks' 1999 thoughts on unrighteous judgment.  I can see my dad agreeing with your dad, and judging Bill for how he got the funds.  (Just keep in mind, that generation also thought you could spot gays because they've got long hair, ear rings, and sing high parts in songs.) 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just for the record, in a comment under his post conceding the contest, he says the following:

While this could be seen as a solicitation for money, I hardly think it indicates he doesn't plan on paying. 

This bugs me if he doesn't pay out of his own pocket, since it appears to be a single request from just him. :(

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This bugs me if he doesn't pay out of his own pocket, since it appears to be a single request from just him. :(

Why? Did he promise to pay out of his pocket? Or did he simply offer a reward and is he ensuring the reward is paid? I don't know why we should require him to pay out of his own pocket if he didn't say he would. That's creating a new standard above and beyond the expectation that he should ensure the reward is paid as promised. Who cares who pays it? If others want to contribute, why would that be a problem?

Bill's responsibility is to ensure the reward is paid, as promised. IF no one else contributes, he should pay it all. But if others choose to contribute, why should I care whose account the $150 comes from.

The end.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So it's better to judge and be condescending  and point a finger at him as a sinner? 

Most certainly not.

But has the Church changed its policy around temple blessings and excommunication?  When my brother was excommunicated the letter he received was very explicit that he has lost the blessings of baptism and the temple.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why? Did he promise to pay out of his pocket? Or did he simply offer a reward and is he ensuring the reward is paid? I don't know why we should require him to pay out of his own pocket if he didn't say he would. That's creating a new standard above and beyond the expectation that he should ensure the reward is paid as promised. Who cares who pays it? If others want to contribute, why would that be a problem?

Bill's responsibility is to ensure the reward is paid, as promised. IF no one else contributes, he should pay it all. But if others choose to contribute, why should I care whose account the $150 comes from.

The end.

If it was only coming from him, in my mind, he should pay for it. If it was he and his friends, then a group effort. That's just my caliber of thinking, and nothing against him.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Fair enough.  Perhaps my upbringing has been tempered with Elder Oaks' 1999 thoughts on unrighteous judgment.  I can see my dad agreeing with your dad, and judging Bill for how he got the funds.  (Just keep in mind, that generation also thought you could spot gays because they've got long hair, ear rings, and sing high parts in songs.) 

Oh they probably would get along! hahahaha! My Dad doesn't like it when people complain about politics, he used to say something like, come talk to me when you see tanks coming down the street from two different armies, then we'll we'll hear your complaint!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why? Did he promise to pay out of his pocket? Or did he simply offer a reward and is he ensuring the reward is paid? I don't know why we should require him to pay out of his own pocket if he didn't say he would. That's creating a new standard above and beyond the expectation that he should ensure the reward is paid as promised. Who cares who pays it? If others want to contribute, why would that be a problem?

Bill's responsibility is to ensure the reward is paid, as promised. IF no one else contributes, he should pay it all. But if others choose to contribute, why should I care whose account the $150 comes from.

The end.

someone else's money isn't really his to offer, it's like me saying yeah i'll pick you up in my friend's lamborghini, without their consent! 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...