Jump to content
cinepro

Bill Reel $150 Challenge to Church Newsroom

Recommended Posts

I'm a bit surprised by all this to-ing and fro-ing. According to his own Facebook post, Mr Reel already paid out the wager. His request for contributions is to reimburse himself. It's pretty easy to check these things out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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

So soliciting donations is similar to stealing an expensive auto. It’s not just the antimormons that are rabid...

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So soliciting donations is similar to stealing an expensive auto. It’s not just the antimormons that are rabid...

I suspect Duncan is saying the person believes his friend will loan him the vehicle if he asks for it, but he doesn't care enough about the feelings of either the person he promises or the person he assumes will help him out to check prior to committing that they are okay with the setup that way.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that as long as one is willing to live with the consequences of getting a "no" (though there is if you know you can take advantage of a specific indivual who has a hard time if saying "no"), but I do think it is a rather self centered way to approach the world, assuming others will step in to take on the consequences for you rather than just accepting them as your own.  My experience is it causes at times a lot of unnecessary work because one isn't really allowed enough time to make plans to adapt and instead has to sacrifice/give up something one desires oneself to help one's friend or loved one.  People who make a habit of living that way need to grow up, imo, though we probably all on occasion make that sort of assumption.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So soliciting donations is similar to stealing an expensive auto. It’s not just the antimormons that are rabid...

I can't, won't and shouldn't make promises for other people is what i'm saying, especially when it comes to money

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I can't, won't and shouldn't make promises for other people is what i'm saying, especially when it comes to money

And Bill didn’t. He paid the money already per Hamba. Certain people already pledged to contribute towards the 150. He asked those people to follow through. He also made a comment to the effect that other donations would be accepted. He is not forcing anyone to donate. I personally find the ask tacky, but the man partially lives off donations people make to his podcast. I guess I don’t see a difference. I don’t get why people are foaming at the mouth here, and I certainly don’t view it as making a promise for someone else. That’s ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect Duncan is saying the person believes his friend will loan him the vehicle if he asks for it, but he doesn't care enough about the feelings of either the person he promises or the person he assumes will help him out to check prior to committing that they are okay with the setup that way.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that as long as one is willing to live with the consequences of getting a "no" (though there is if you know you can take advantage of a specific indivual who has a hard time if saying "no"), but I do think it is a rather self centered way to approach the world, assuming others will step in to take on the consequences for you rather than just accepting them as your own.  My experience is it causes at times a lot of unnecessary work because one isn't really allowed enough time to make plans to adapt and instead has to sacrifice/give up something one desires oneself to help one's friend or loved one.  People who make a habit of living that way need to grow up, imo, though we probably all on occasion make that sort of assumption.

I agree with much of this, and view it as a tacky request. This was not a hard sell though. He isn’t cornering anyone in a dark room, telling anyone their salvation depends on it etc. He made an off handed request in a comment under one of his posts. People can donate or not. I know that despite having read it and sympathizing with some of his views, I didn’t feel the slightest inkling of an urge to donate. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t get why people are foaming at the mouth here

I get it as more rolling of the eyes than foaming at the mouth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And Bill didn’t. He paid the money already per Hamba. Certain people already pledged to contribute towards the 150. He asked those people to follow through. He also made a comment to the effect that other donations would be accepted. He is not forcing anyone to donate. I personally find the ask tacky, but the man partially lives off donations people make to his podcast. I guess I don’t see a difference. I don’t get why people are foaming at the mouth here, and I certainly don’t view it as making a promise for someone else. That’s ridiculous. 

but he shouldn't have made promises he had no idea how he was going to keep, he made the offer with no idea if the quotations were in existence and voila! someone called his bluff and he got caught in his own trap and was scrambling around trying to cough up the dosh. He offered something he didn't have and I find that deplorable

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He offered something he didn't have and I find that deplorable

I don't think we have any evidence that he didn't have the money, just that he's happy to allow others to help offset the cost to himself after the fact.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think we have any evidence that he didn't have the money, just that he's happy to allow others to help offset the cost to himself after the fact.

if he had the money he should pay for it himself, I am going to say he can't afford to pay his debt, which times being what they are but he should have planned this all out before and it's crazy to have others pay. I think it's a trap of his own making and he fell in

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Duncan said:

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! 

Without consent? Is he stealing someone's money and then using that for the reward or is it being freely offered? This whole discussion is just silly and shows the knee jerk reaction so many have to pile on Bill at every opportunity.

If there was a reward offered for a lost dog, and you found the dog, would you care who contributed to the reward?

There is a group of critics who don't like Bill. That's ok. But making this an issue is just asinine.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Duncan said:

if he had the money he should pay for it himself, I am going to say he can't afford to pay his debt, which times being what they are but he should have planned this all out before and it's crazy to have others pay. I think it's a trap of his own making and he fell in

If others want to help him pay his debt, then I don't think there's any problem with that.  Asking if anyone wants to contribute to something like this is probably similar to someone saying they are going to grab a gift for someone's birthday and asking if anyone else wants to chip in.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Duncan said:

but he shouldn't have made promises he had no idea how he was going to keep, he made the offer with no idea if the quotations were in existence and voila! someone called his bluff and he got caught in his own trap and was scrambling around trying to cough up the dosh. He offered something he didn't have and I find that deplorable

I don't think it's deplorable, but it is kind of amusing.  :D 

(Though I'm not sure that he doesn't have the money to pay it himself.  He probably just doesn't want to and is hoping someone will bail him out).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure I"m missing something, but all this complaining about Bill and the 150 has me questioning myself.  As I understood, Bill offered anyone 50 dollars if they could meet the challenge.  While the challenge was out there, as I understand it, other people wanted to make the purse seem more worth someone's time so they said they'd contribute (perhaps 10 or 15 here and there from different people) up until it appeared to be around 150.  It doesn't seem like Bill or the others thought the challenge was going to be met.

Bill and the other people's mistake as it came to the challenge was they plain forgot that leaders have contradicted themselves and each other many times and on nearly every topic ever mentioned in Church.  It was a really stupid point for bill to get hung up on--the Church is now saying that prophets have taught that the ceremony will change.  It just so happens the lie in that statement is in the suggestion that leaders have not taught the opposite, which they have.  I saw someone else saying earlier in this thread that the Church is somehow vindicated because there were found 3 quotes wherein it says things about the temple can change.  That's not true.  Prophets of the past have both taught things can change regarding the temple and that nothing will ever change.  There's no vindication there.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Without consent? Is he stealing someone's money and then using that for the reward or is it being freely offered? This whole discussion is just silly and shows the knee jerk reaction so many have to pile on Bill at every opportunity.

If there was a reward offered for a lost dog, and you found the dog, would you care who contributed to the reward?

There is a group of critics who don't like Bill. That's ok. But making this an issue is just asinine.

 

 

and he doesn't do the same? he's the whack a mole the Renlunds were talking about, always moving onto the next thing, trying to stay relevant in the competitive world of exmo podcasting, blogs etc.

He got caught in his own trap, he offered something he didn't have for something he didn't think existed and he is now as they say 'reaping the whirlwind'

Edited by Duncan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and he doesn't do the same? he's the whack a mole the Renlunds were talking about, always moving onto the next thing, trying to stay relevant in the competitive world of exmo podcasting, blogs etc.

He got caught in his own trap, he offered something he didn't have for something he didn't think existed and he is now as they say 'reaping the whirlwind'

Come on, Duncan. Don't let you animas for Bill to cloud your logical thinking here.

What trap was he caught in? He offered. The challenge was met. Now the reward will be paid. I see no trap there. Now, if he doesn't pay up, then that will be a legitimate gripe. But this $150 whirlwind is not an issue or a problem.

Can you explain why you are upset with this arrangement?  Offer a challenge and reward for information. Challenge is met. Reward is paid. What in the world do you find wrong with that? Honestly, it makes no sense to argue against this. He didn't challenge anything immoral or unethical. So I don't know how you could argue against the challenge. If you can't argue against the challenge you are left only to argue with payment of the reward. But as long as the reward is paid as promised you're making up a problem and castigating Bill for your made up problem. You should consider what your motivation is for being opposed to this very simple arrangement of Challenge-Accomplishment-reward.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on, Duncan. Don't let you animas for Bill to cloud your logical thinking here.

What trap was he caught in? He offered. The challenge was met. Now the reward will be paid. I see no trap there. Now, if he doesn't pay up, then that will be a legitimate gripe. But this $150 whirlwind is not an issue or a problem.

Can you explain why you are upset with this arrangement?  Offer a challenge and reward for information. Challenge is met. Reward is paid. What in the world do you find wrong with that? Honestly, it makes no sense to argue against this. He didn't challenge anything immoral or unethical. So I don't know how you could argue against the challenge. If you can't argue against the challenge you are left only to argue with payment of the reward. But as long as the reward is paid as promised you're making up a problem and castigating Bill for your made up problem. You should consider what your motivation is for being opposed to this very simple arrangement of Challenge-Accomplishment-reward.

Come on,  as previously stated, if this wasn't about attention and polemics the normal thing to do would be simply to ask whether anyone knew any previous statements that supported that statement. And the reason there is a thread here is because of that

Edited by Steve J
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Come on,  as previously stated, if this wasn't about attention and polemics the normal thing to do would be simply to ask whether anyone knew any previous statements that supported that statement. And the reason there is a thread here is because of that

So you're offended that he asked the question and called for references?

Does he have a certain POV? Of course. I didn't realize that calling for references was such a scumbag move.

The first presidency made a statement about how church leaders have taught changes will be made in the temple. Bill didn't recall such teachings so he challenged it. He called for references. It was proven that some church leaders had taught that changes would be made to the temple. Bill's challenge was met. Now he's paying. What a jerk. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're offended that he asked the question and called for references?

Does he have a certain POV? Of course. I didn't realize that calling for references was such a scumbag move.

The first presidency made a statement about how church leaders have taught changes will be made in the temple. Bill didn't recall such teachings so he challenged it. He called for references. It was proven that some church leaders had taught that changes would be made to the temple. Bill's challenge was met. Now he's paying. What a jerk. ;) 

you honestly think Bill knew these references existed? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're offended that he asked the question and called for references?

Does he have a certain POV? Of course. I didn't realize that calling for references was such a scumbag move.

The first presidency made a statement about how church leaders have taught changes will be made in the temple. Bill didn't recall such teachings so he challenged it. He called for references. It was proven that some church leaders had taught that changes would be made to the temple. Bill's challenge was met. Now he's paying. What a jerk. ;) 

No, i am not offended that he asked. I'm not "offended" that he offered money. If I am anything,  I am more of the "insert eyeroll emoji" at his shtick in how he asked the question. 

Edited by Steve J
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you honestly think Bill knew these references existed? 

I think it's clear, Bill didn't expect the challenge to be met.  Of course he knew there was a chance it would be met, that's why he only offered 50 bucks.  If he felt really strongly that the challenge would not be met he'd offer 5 grand or something, for effect.  

It was met.  The big problem he faced is he thought all the quotes from past leaders which basically said the ceremony and ordinances would never change, represented, essentially, a canonized view.  He probably imagined other leaders and prophets would contradict each other, because it happens all the time.  But it is apparent, he really didn't think they would have contradicted each other on this.   

Whatever the case, cinepro enjoyed the whole challenge and found it worthwhile, so that's all that counts.  If we can entertain that dude, we've got something.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's clear, Bill didn't expect the challenge to be met.  Of course he knew there was a chance it would be met, that's why he only offered 50 bucks.  If he felt really strongly that the challenge would not be met he'd offer 5 grand or something, for effect.  

It was met.  The big problem he faced is he thought all the quotes from past leaders which basically said the ceremony and ordinances would never change, represented, essentially, a canonized view.  He probably imagined other leaders and prophets would contradict each other, because it happens all the time.  But it is apparent, he really didn't think they would have contradicted each other on this.   

Whatever the case, cinepro enjoyed the whole challenge and found it worthwhile, so that's all that counts.  If we can entertain that dude, we've got something.  

I like you! 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's clear, Bill didn't expect the challenge to be met.  Of course he knew there was a chance it would be met, that's why he only offered 50 bucks.  If he felt really strongly that the challenge would not be met he'd offer 5 grand or something, for effect.  

It was met.  The big problem he faced is he thought all the quotes from past leaders which basically said the ceremony and ordinances would never change, represented, essentially, a canonized view.  He probably imagined other leaders and prophets would contradict each other, because it happens all the time.  But it is apparent, he really didn't think they would have contradicted each other on this.   

Whatever the case, cinepro enjoyed the whole challenge and found it worthwhile, so that's all that counts.  If we can entertain that dude, we've got something.  

Did someone say the ceremony would never change? News to me. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn’t someone say the ceremony would never change? News to me. 

I think Bill set this all up by quoting leaders who said the ordinances would not change.  I do believe one or two of the quotes he used said not one word of the temple rite would change.  I"m not really eager to back and re-listen. 

Sounds like you may be interested to argue that the ordinances didn't change even if the ceremony did, or something?  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×