Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[Ed Anger]

I have left instructions for my chronicler to mark mart as 'hetreosexual'.

[Syt]

And yeah, Marty:  they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too.  So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now.  When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.

Why the fuck should I care about it?

Of course you wouldn't - gays are doing it all the time themselves. "Historical figure X? Yup, totally gay."

[Admiral Yi]

'hetreosexual'.

Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?

[Martinus]

And yeah, Marty:  they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too.  So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now.  When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.

Why the fuck should I care about it?

Of course you wouldn't - gays are doing it all the time themselves. "Historical figure X? Yup, totally gay."

Actually it's the opposite. It's the heteros coopting dead gays by saying that everybody must have been straight unless there is an overwhelming evidence that he or she wasn't. 

[garbon]

One is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith.  That is the choice of faith.

For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual.  That's not a choice of faith.

I am (according to AnchorClanker) agnostic, and I agree with this message. Everyone should be able to follow their religion in private or public as long as they don't violate other people's personal rights.

How are they violated? Aren't people allowed freedom of speech?

[Martinus]

Anyway, this is entirely different, as someone said. The mormons are NOT "rewriting history" by claiming that so-and-so was Mormon in life, or believed in the Mormon doctrine and whatnot.

What they are doing is bizarre and kinda weird but I can't see any harm being done in it. It's like praying for someone who isn't part of your religion, or the Catholic Church considering you a Catholic if you were baptised even if you subsequently denounce the church (you are merely excommunicated if you do, but still a Catholic).

Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.

[Ed Anger]

'hetreosexual'.

Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?

Wait, did my iPad autocorrect fuck up or somefink?

[Martinus]

'hetreosexual'.

Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?

Wait, did my iPad autocorrect fuck up or somefink?

I hate writing on an iPad. I am getting a small laptop next, no more of this crap.

[CountDeMoney]

On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.

That's only because vM's server is more powerful than the one in Provo.

[Valmy]

Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.

I do not really see it.  The baby was born into that religion.  It is like how you are forced to be a Polish citizen just because you were born to Poles in Poland no matter how limiting on your freedom to choose your national identity.  I could see this point if it locked you in for life but you can always leave.

But on topic yes it would be worse if the Mormons were capturing Jewish babies and baptising them.  But they are not doing that.

[Berkut]

saying that everybody must have been straight unless there is an overwhelming evidence that he or she wasn't. 

Isn't that a pretty reasonable perspective to take?

Most people were in fact straight, right?

[The Minsky Moment]

Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.

What exactly is the violation of religious freedom involved in infant baptism?

[Valmy]

Isn't that a pretty reasonable perspective to take?

Most people were in fact straight, right?

Who the hell knows.  Sexual preference identity is a really new thing.  Most of the Greeks who were getting it on with men and boys would identify heterosexual today.  So likewise it is difficult to split up people into modern sexual catagories unless it is so obvious it beats you over the head like Hadrian.

[mongers]

On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.

This is a huge issue with regard to archived material, as I and Money have pointed out, though he said it better than I did.
The Mormons have one of the most robust, well thought out data retention plans, whereas many government seem to have much worse, ad hoc, non-integrated systems throughout different government departments. 
What if in 300 years time the Mormon database is the only surviving, easily interrogatable database of any significance ?

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.

Oy Vey