Hacker News Reader

Comment by grantheaslip | Hacker News Reader

I know that this comment section isn't supposed to be about the church itself, but I can't help but be baffled by the way people are able to separate analyzing SEO optimization from the fact that the church itself is a fundamentally terrible organization. The church is full of racist scripture, institutionalized sexism, and dangerous sexual repression; and has been a major proponent of denying rights to gays. As long as they continue to have such regressive and backward policies, I don't care how good their SEO is.

Again, it's not that I doubt their SEO prowess, but how are people able to separate what an evil organization the LDS is from their SEO practises? I don't want to side-track this thread too much, but I'm genuinely curious about the way people are coming at this.

View on HN

I don't necessarily think you're trolling, but I totally understand why you're being downvoted.

Being able to compartmentalize and analyze different facets of something is (I think) an important intellectual tool. Example: I can enjoy Richard Wagner's music even though he was a demonstrably terrible person.

I'm not an LDS, and I don't like some of the things that the church does, but I can still appreciate the things they do well.

I definitely see what you're saying, and that's a very good analogy. I guess the difference for me is that Wagner's music and anti-semitism were two mostly separate things -- his music wasn't being used to promote his prejudices. On the other hand, the LDS's SEO, by its very purpose, is promoting their ideology.

I just find this casual discussion about the self-promotion of a group which at its very core believes that friends of mine are inferior, sinful, damaged goods because of the way that they were born a bit upsetting. Even if SEO practise is a separate topic from their scripture, I think that this kind of discussion attributes to them an undeserved level of legitimacy.

> I guess the difference for me is that Wagner's music and anti-semitism were two mostly separate things -- his music wasn't being used to promote his prejudices.

Actually, Wagner's music was used to promote his prejudices, however Wagner himself didn't have much of a role in said promotion (as he was dead long before the 1930s).

Hey, grantheaslip, I know this is offtopic, but I'm LDS and just fwiw, we aren't "a group which at its very core believes that friends of mine are inferior, sinful, damaged goods because of the way that they were born." In fact, the LDS church doesn't think anybody is damaged goods, gay, straight or otherwise. I have a few really good friends who are gay and LDS and would take issue with that statement, too. That doesn't mean that we see things the same way you do, but we wouldn't call anybody damaged goods. People are just too good and precious to be thought of that way.

To be fair, they just recently slightly improved their stance on homosexuality, but saying "the LDS church doesn't think anybody is damaged goods" is whitewashing at best. Here's the new, improved policy:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/37...

In short, gay people are sinners, are "subject to church discipline", but can be forgiven if they repent for their sins (i.e. stop being gay -- i.e. stop being themselves). Church leaders should tell them to "control unrighteous thoughts". And they aren't allowed to attend Church. The only substantive positive change is that church leaders are no longer told to send gay members to counselling, which they were up until a month ago. How is telling someone "you can't be a real Mormon or go to heaven unless you stop being gay" not telling them they're damaged goods?

I don't want to say you're lying about your gay Mormon friends, but presumably they can't actually go to church, and through some kind of Stockholm syndrome consider themselves a member of an organisation that thinks that "Homosexual behaviour can be forgiven through sincere repentance".

Sure, you can talk about how you think everyone is good and precious and deserves love, but beyond platitudes, the Church's policies on homosexuality are pretty clear.

2 quick responses and then I'll bow out. First, nobody is told they're not allowed to attend church. In fact, people who are excommunicated from the Mormon church are in fact _encouraged_ to keep attending so that they can come back into what's called "full fellowship" of the church by changing their lives to meet the standards of the church.

Secondly, there is a distinction between being gay and having sex. Mormons, gay or straight, can't have sex outside of marriage. If a gay person has outside of marriage they are subject to the same discipline that a straight person who has sex outside of marriage would have. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are simply chaste. Some of my gay, believeing Mormon friends are in heterosexual marriages. They do this with the full knowledge of their spouses, and with no hope of becoming straight, just because they feel like it's the right thing for them.

Nobody is telling anybody they can't go to heaven or be a real Mormon unless they stop being gay. They're saying, "be chaste." I know that's a distinction that will probably be lost, but it's a real distinction, and a real requirement that all Mormons try to live up to when they're not married.

All that notwithstanding, I assure you I'm not lying about my gay Mormon friends, if you're ever in the Salt Lake area look me up, I'm sure they'd love to meet you :) One of them is always looking for good hackers for various projects.

> First, nobody is told they're not allowed to attend church. In fact, people who are excommunicated from the Mormon church are in fact _encouraged_ to keep attending so that they can come back into what's called "full fellowship" of the church by changing their lives to meet the standards of the church.

You're probably right here. I've heard contrary, but I haven't done my research on that, and I know there's a tonne of misinformation on both sides.

> Secondly, there is a distinction between being gay and having sex. Mormons, gay or straight, can't have sex outside of marriage. If a gay person has outside of marriage they are subject to the same discipline that a straight person who has sex outside of marriage would have. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are simply chaste. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are in heterosexual marriages. They do this with the full knowledge of their spouses, and with no hope of becoming straight, just because they feel like it's the right thing for them.

By "just because they feel like it's the right thing for them", I'm assuming what you mean here is "because they have no other option". I can't imagine an openly gay person choosing to be in a heterosexual marriage because it "feels right". What you just said might sound perfectly natural in Salt Lake City, but it would be an utterly ridiculous, and possibly offensive idea in, say, Toronto.

> Nobody is telling anybody they can't go to heaven or be a real Mormon unless they stop being gay. They're saying, "be chaste." I know that's a distinction that will probably be lost, but it's a real distinction, and a real requirement that all Mormons try to live up to when they're not married.

But if you say "you can't get married to someone who's the opposite sex" and "you can't have sex unless you're married", what you're really saying is that gay people are never allowed to have sex with the gender they were born attracted to. I consider that cruel and inhumane. And I'm not buying the "gay people can go to heaven thing". The church's stated policy is that "Homosexual behaviour violates the commandments of God". That's a pretty clear indictment.

> All that notwithstanding, I assure you I'm not lying about my gay Mormon friends, if you're ever in the Salt Lake area look me up, I'm sure they'd love to meet you :) One of them is always looking for good hackers for various projects.

If I'm ever in SLS, I might, I really do want to understand the thought processes here, but I can't say that it's at the top of my list of travel destinations, with all due respect :).

I'm not an LDS by any possible stretch of the imagination, but I must say, SLS is actually a really nice town in a fantastically cool and wonderfully bizarre geographical setting. Flying into the city and over the salt marshes, is like flying into another planet. If you can get over the heebeejeebies of flying into LDS central it's really worth the trip. Kinda like visiting the Vatican in Rome in a certain sense.

Stay on topic and take your trolling elsewhere

Comment threads on HN aren't always about exactly what the article was about. I tend to see the article as a conversation starter, not a rigid, immutable topic. Sure, some people might disagree with what I wrote, but I don't think expressing a thought I had while reading the comments that isn't precisely about the article counts as trolling. Your opinion may differ.

No doubt. That's the whole point of HN: Intelligent discussion. Your comments, however, are SO off-topic (SEO and how an organization like theirs has done so well at it) that it comes across as trolling.

Please don't use HN the way you like to see it used.

Please follow the guidelines instead.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The first two words of the "In Comments" section covers this thread.

Good point. Also, "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." (e.g. religion)

On the same line: "Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation."

I might not word it quite as nicely, but this is stuff that I would say face-to-face. I'm not really an abrasive person when it comes to most topics, but there are certain things which I have absolutely no patience for, and the LDS is one of them. Any group which sees gays, blacks, and women as fundamentally inferior loses its case for respect in my mind. Civility has its limits, and doesn't mean that we're never allowed to express negative opinions (sometimes using strong language) toward anything.

"Any group which sees gays, blacks, and women as fundamentally inferior loses its case for respect in my mind."

It's a good thing the LDS don't believe that. They have actively come out to defend against gay harassment. The injustice to blacks was fixed back when slavery was abolished. Men are taught to cherish and respect women, not that they are inferior. Stop your trolling.

As far as I'm concerned, in any country with a separation of church and state, any group that opposes the ability of gays to marry is no friend of the gay community. They may have made some token gestures, but that doesn't change their core thoughts on gays, which is that the way they are is unnatural, and must be fixed. As long as they see being gay as a disease, and not a natural tendency, they're homophobic.

Their scripture is still full of outright, undeniable racism, and they consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. That's all the proof I need. They may have eased back on public racism, but for them to disavow their religion's racism would be to disavow their church entirely.

Mormon men may be taught to respect women, but women are taught that they should more-or-less stay at home and make babies, and for most of the community, if a women gets past her early twenties and isn't a housewife, it's seen as a failure. I consider that sexism.

grantheaslip, thank you for standing up for real morality; for "holding to the rod," as they teach the children in Primary to sing. The LDS general authorities hold to the rod of subterfuge and you hold to the rod of truth.

The LDS church is a devastating force of oppression to millions of people. Thank you for pointing it out for what it is. Thank you.

thats actually not what separation of church and state refers to. What it means is that no church is suppose to run the government, voters are allowed (and suppose to) vote according to their beliefs, including religion. And religions are allowed to have a stance on issues.

The rest sure, you can interpret it that way, but most mormons are very nice people. They don't take the scripture literally and is instead suppose to be symbolisms.

Actually only in the very beginning of the Book of Mormon is the dark skin used to identify "sinners". Later on, as in past the first 50 pages, skin color was a non-issue.

And finally, women can get past their 20s and be perfectly fine people. They can never marry and be normal people. LDS people do put a strong emphasis, if possible, on a traditional "stay home mom and working father", but that is not sexism.

Please stop your own trolling - or should we just call it for what it is: lying.

Women are treated as inferiors in the LDS church. Polygamy would have continued for generations without the intervention of the federal government. The LDS church spends millions of dollars to support continued discrimination against gays.

Until 1978 blacks could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church. Some quotes from the "Book of Mormon": 2 Nephi 5:21-23:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

3 Nephi 2:15 reads:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Mormon leader ("Elder") Mark E Peterson:

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders'...."

"If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

Etc etc.

Notwithstanding the cowardly, brain-dead, head-in-the-sand intellectual compartmentalization others are advocating here, I doubt any of us would be commending the SEO efforts of other organizations that have the kind of sordid history and unfortunate social passions the LDS church has had...and isn't shy about paying for.

^ Oh look, a throwaway account. I wonder who created it :/

^Oh, look, someone incapable of presenting any argument of your own, to any of the points. I wonder why that is? ;

babalicious, you know those statements from the book of mormon are about Lamanites which are American Indians, right? Not Africans? Just checking to make sure you didn't read them out of context..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com