LDS-themed Bloggers Need Not Tolerate Anti-Mormon Google Ads

Jeff Lindsay has the scoop:

When I first started this blog at, I was surprised to see ads for anti-Mormon sites appearing at the top of my page. I sent a complaint in to technical support. Wonderfully, they listened and upgraded my account to an ad-free blog. I have noticed some other LDS folks with blogs have anti-Mormon ads showing up. Don’t settle for that kind of abuse, brothers and sisters.

It’s a route that Orson’s Telly (current ad: “Out of Mormonism: Tools for Reaching LDS Mormons with the True Christian Gospel”), By Steve’s Consent (recently graced with “Are Mormon Beliefs Biblical?”) might consider taking. Plus (though I haven’t noticed anti-Mormon ads on them), it’s something that other blogspot users like Grasshopper, Demosthenes, the Brothers Bell, and Motley Vision might want to keep in mind, should anti-Mormon ads start (or continue, as the case may be) appearing on their blogs.

18 comments for “LDS-themed Bloggers Need Not Tolerate Anti-Mormon Google Ads

  1. July 27, 2004 at 6:59 pm

    I know I have seen several over at my blog. I should complain too…

  2. July 27, 2004 at 7:11 pm

    BCC welcomes diversity in advertising.

    “By Steve’s Consent”??

  3. July 27, 2004 at 7:17 pm

    Hmmm, thanks for the scoop Jeff (via Kaimi). For some reason, my blog was immune to anti-mormon google ads until very recently–the word “mormon” appeared in links to my blog from a couple of non- mormon-themed sites, and suddently the ads for sexy LDS singles and magnet therapy vendors were replaced with “Out of Mormonism,” “Mormons are Crazy,” “Mormons are Mean to Kitties,” etc.

  4. July 27, 2004 at 7:17 pm

    Or you can switch to WordPress that is free and has NO ads … (yes, I can’t resist plugging an open-source blogware that I think is amazing).

  5. July 27, 2004 at 7:24 pm

    Bah, I was too bold in my previous comment. My boldness hath run amok.

  6. July 27, 2004 at 7:32 pm

    I’ve managed to drive away the anti ads by posting pioneer songs, reviews of Mormon literary works that (almost) no one else has read, and the New York Dolls.

  7. July 27, 2004 at 7:39 pm

    Danithew, it’s OK to use the <b> tags. Just don’t use the <overbearing> ones.

  8. Nate Oman
    July 27, 2004 at 8:05 pm

    “BCC welcomes diversity in advertising.”


  9. July 27, 2004 at 8:15 pm

    Nate: Frankly, it’s already part of the TOS for blogspot/Blogger that they have control over the advertising block at the top of the screen. As such I have no real say in what they put up there — it’s their site, ultimately. While it’s nice of them to comply with requests such as Jeff’s, they’re under no obligation to do so.

    Plus, I really don’t care about it enough to do anything about it, and thought a nice funny remark to illustrate BCC’s “crazy liberal” side would be good. Lately, there haven’t been any antimormon ads I’ve noticed, and Google ads are about as unobtrusive as they come. Unfortunately, you decided to actually read what I wrote, for some reason, and so I must needs explain myself…

  10. July 28, 2004 at 12:18 pm

    If you take the route of signing up to allow Google ads on a privately-hosted site — as I do, drawing a small trickle of change my way when someone clicks an ad on my site — you can set up a list to restrict advertisers you don’t like. Since there aren’t really any anti-UU advertisers, I’ve only screened out the Scientology promoters, who are simply flooding the zone.

  11. Lehi
    July 28, 2004 at 12:20 pm

    So just because someone is against you, ban them. Sounds like Utah, all right.

  12. July 28, 2004 at 12:30 pm

    Because I have anti-mormon ads popping up on my blog, does that have implications for how I have to answer the temple recommend question about whether I support or affiliate with apostate groups?

    (for those who take things like this seriously- it is a joke… mostly….)

  13. July 28, 2004 at 1:25 pm

    My blog shows ads for “Moose Jaw Vacations” and “Mister Print”.

    Seems I’m fine for now.

  14. July 28, 2004 at 3:43 pm

    I vote for Lehi’s comment being one of the most weird recently: Kaimi isn’t from Utah or living there; Jeff Lindsey is, at least presently, from Wisconsin; William Morris is in California; and Philocrites is a Unitarian Universalist minister from I-don’t-know-where. Each of them says they don’t want to host objectionable ads on their sites. Somehow Lehi has read that as “Utahns for censorship.” Huh?

  15. Lehi
    July 28, 2004 at 3:59 pm

    No, I live in Utah, Jim, and I am a very very bitter Mormon.

  16. dan
    July 28, 2004 at 4:41 pm

    I just reviewed the ads on the four sites mentioned above and this is what I found:

    Let Us Reason – Help Brain Tumor Patients
    Things To Act – The Wisdom Project Forums, Will you vote for Bush?
    Intellecxhibitionist – Art of John James Audubon, Audubon Collectible Birds
    A Motley Vision – Deseret Book, Mormon (

    It doesn’t seem to be a common problem.

  17. July 28, 2004 at 6:50 pm

    When I don’t want referrals by my blog from searches or ads for whatever, I misspell or use numbers or symbols in place of letters. Like when I wanted to gripe about Par1s Hi1t0n. :^/

  18. Frank McIntyre
    July 28, 2004 at 6:55 pm


    I think “weirdest comment” should have two categories. One for weirdest comment on a live thread, and then another one for the bizarro comments that come in on dead threads over the weekend. Lehi’s comment just doesn’t hold a candle to some of that stuff.

Comments are closed.