Interesting Article By Atheist Journalist.

[thesometimesaint]

Zeta-Flux:

You have not established any harm. No one is forced to listen to the missionaries. All it takes is a "no thank you". You don't even have to be polite about. But being a jerk is another issue.

[Zeta-Flux]

thesometimesaint,

I hope you understand that my posts have been mostly academic. In practice, I agree with LeSellers that most people are offended due to illogical emotion. They misunderstand our practice and beliefs, and feel threatened.

That said, I think your post raises two important points.

(1) What is the question? What is it we are talking about? The question could be "Is it rational to be opposed to our ordinance?" Or "Is it rational to be offended by our ordinance?" Or "Does our ordinance cause any measurable direct harm?" I think the answers to these questions differ.

(2) How do we establish harm? For example, no one is forced to listen to Satan. All it takes is a "no thank you" (over and over). You don't even have to be polite about it. Did Satan's temptations to the Savior "harm" the Savior?

The point I'm trying to make here is not that our ordinance has *any* connection to Satan's temptation, but rather that actions by others which we may view as evil do not necessarily correspond to any "measurable harm".

[busybee]

Good start. Let's talk about what you see as the important incongruities.

So you would be willing to provide information for them to perform their ordinance, don't care about the goat, but would care if the ordinance actually involved the physical presence of your daughter. Is that correct?

If so here are some follow-up questions. What if it required her to personally give her consent for her name to be used? Would you allow her to make a choice on that issue? Would you be opposed to someone saying a prayer for your daughter in her presence? How about saying a prayer which invokes the authority of the priesthood they claim as members of their church? How about if they asked to actually touch your daughter as part of a prayer? In other words, what are the clarifying principles you use to justify opposition/non-participation to other churches ordinances?

About 16 years ago my husband (then aged 32) was critically ill in ICU, not expected to live. A friend of his from work, who was a pastor in his church, would call me every morning and every evening and pray for my husband over the phone. He had asked all the congregations of his church across the country to pray or him as we.. On one occassion he asked if he could accompany me to the hospital to see my DH. When we got there he asked if I would mind if he anointed my DH and lay his hands on him. I explained that the elders of the church had already given him an administration. He asked if he could go ahead anyway. I gave my consent because I was deeply touched by this friend's compassion towards us. He had actually been more of a support to me than the members of our own Branch had been. Although I knew he had no priesthood authority as we understand it as LDS, he believed that he was doing the Lord's work. Who was I to deny him that blessing?

[Zeta-Flux]

Although I knew he had no priesthood authority as we understand it as LDS, he believed that he was doing the Lord's work. Who was I to deny him that blessing?

And that, I think, is the fundamental question of this thread.

If your friend had offered to baptize your husband by sprinkling, would you have allowed that? Would you have the right to deny such work?