Radkey: Mormon Bishop Harrassment

[_Themis]

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out her attentions. It is there for all to see.

So? Not the point here. Your bias is the point, and it's easy for all to see here.

I can also reverse it on to you. Do you know the intentions of the former bishop?

You were the one to state his intentions without knowing him or having his side of the story. You can't get any more biased then this. You ignored her story to come up with something else you cannot possibly have known. Unfortunately this is usual for you regarding LDS issues.

He seems to fit a former bishop to a tee: showing concern for one of his former flock.

That was not really what she was saying, and since you don't know his story, you cannot possibly know. I know many former bishops, most being good people, are very different from each other. Some can be jerks. Try pulling you head out of the sand once in a while.

[_angsty]

Whatever might be said about her bias against the church and/or mental state, it really doesn't have relevance to her findings or complaints about this wacko bishop.

And how is this bishop a wacko? He called her to invite her back into the fold, nothing more. He showed concern for her. But he should have known that she would go to the press with a full report of the conversation. I feel sorry for the guy. He made a mistake by calling her and by showing concern. And she spits in his face. Such is life outside the church when hatred rules the day.

I guess I embrace a broader definition of 'wacko' than you do. I include the sorts of people who, after reading media accounts of Radkey's campaign against the church, think that calling her and inviting her back to the fold would be an appropriate course of action. The absurdity of it still makes me laugh. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that such a call would be unwelcome.

Further, he did not call her as a "friend". It is clear that they are not what you might reasonably call "friends," whatever he may claim. More likely "former acquaintances". Friends don't typically do things like violate clearly evident personal boundaries.

I think most people would consider this type of intrusion inappropriate and unwelcome. If a bishop from my past called me up out of the blue to invite me back to church, after having nothing to do with me for a number of years, I'd think he was wacko too. I certainly wouldn't take it as a show of "concern"-- more like a demonstration of arrogance and/or cluelessness.

But then, I take it as a rule that if my intention is to "show love and concern," I shouldn't assume it would be accomplished by by engaging in behaviors that will probably be interpreted as offensive.

[_Drifting]

Angsty,

I think it's worth remembering that this guy was not a serving Bishop when he bothered Radkey.

The Salt Lake City researcher said a former LDS bishop, Larry Shaw

[_angsty]

Angsty,

I think it's worth remembering that this guy was not a serving Bishop when he bothered Radkey.

The Salt Lake City researcher said a former LDS bishop, Larry Shaw

I'm not sure it makes a difference. I didn't assume he was acting as a bishop.

[_Drifting]

I'm not sure it makes a difference. I didn't assume he was acting as a bishop.

No, it makes it worse.
Instead of acting in the capacity of one with responsibility for a flocks well being, he was acting as a meddling member who thinks they have the right and authority to chastise others who aren't as righteous as they.

[_Themis]

I guess I embrace a broader definition of 'wacko' than you do. I include the sorts of people who, after reading media accounts of Radkey's campaign against the church, think that calling her and inviting her back to the fold would be an appropriate course of action. The absurdity of it still makes me laugh. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that such a call would be unwelcome.

Further, he did not call her as a "friend". It is clear that they are not what you might reasonably call "friends," whatever he may claim. More likely "former acquaintances". Friends don't typically do things like violate clearly evident personal boundaries.

I think most people would consider this type of intrusion inappropriate and unwelcome. If a bishop from my past called me up out of the blue to invite me back to church, after having nothing to do with me for a number of years, I'd think he was wacko too. I certainly wouldn't take it as a show of "concern"-- more like a demonstration of arrogance and/or cluelessness.

But then, I take it as a rule that if my intention is to "show love and concern," I shouldn't assume it would be accomplished by by engaging in behaviors that will probably be interpreted as offensive.

Whyme will find no good in people he views as critical of LDS truth claims, and he will find all good in those he views as believing member's. He will then state them as fact even though he can't possibly know most of his claims. He has been doing it for so long now that many have just put him on ignore.

[_angsty]

I'm not sure it makes a difference. I didn't assume he was acting as a bishop.

No, it makes it worse.
Instead of acting in the capacity of one with responsibility for a flocks well being, he was acting as a meddling member who thinks they have the right and authority to chastise others who aren't as righteous as they.

I disagree. Acting as a bishop would not have excused him. If he were a bishop at the time, and viewed himself as acting as such, he would have been just as out-of-line. Nothing about Radkey would have pertained to his interests as a bishop, as she is not a member of his flock and he has no business meddling period. Shaw has the same standing toward her regardless of whether he viewed himself as acting according to inspiration, authority, friendly concern, or whatever. That is to say, none at all.

[_angsty]

Whyme will find no good in people he views as critical of LDS truth claims, and he will find all good in those he views as believing member's. He will then state them as fact even though he can't possibly know most of his claims. He has been doing it for so long now that many have just put him on ignore.

So I've noticed, and I'm one of those many who have 'just put him on ignore'. I only noticed the response when it was quoted by a poster who is not on my ignore list.

[_Mayan Elephant]

There are all sorts of extreme behavior both in and outside of religion. I find Radkey's behavior a bit wacko also.

speaking of kooky crazy.

fence sitter, i was samuel brown's mission leader. even as a missionary, that dude was way the “F” out there. you're quote/signature is exactly how that dude talked about everything.