Talk:Mormon folklore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of references[edit]

For this article in particular, I think citations are key. Please don't add examples of Mormon folklore unless you can provide a citation for it. Otherwise the article could contain — quite literally — anything anybody wants to make up. Snocrates 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History versus folklore[edit]

One definition or connotation of "folklore" is, "a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.".[1] Is this article suggesting that all of the examples given are "false or unsubstantiated"? Although some of the tales have been refuted by Church leaders or other evidence, many of the stories are still found in current Church lesson manuals (i.e., Church members believe them to be "history," not "folklore"). Should the article make any attempt to distinguish between history and folklore? Should it clarify that some of the "folklore" may, in fact, be true? -Milkncookie 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully read the article I think you will find the definition of "folklore" set out as well as a disclaimer that "folklore" does not equal "untrue". The distinction being made here is between folklore and church doctrine, not folklore and truth. Snocrates 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You attempt to say that Mormon Folklore can be events or beliefs that may be true but not doctrine, however, much of the article is laced with statements, subjects, or beliefs that are actual doctrine of the church and not folklore. This article holds many items that are believed to be of a sacred nature and appear to be an attempt at making the LDS church look ridiculous in their beliefs as opposed to trying to present factual data. Just because someone has a source does not make it factual. Many of the sources quoted are writings from professed antagonists of the church and do not represent the church in the appropriate light. I believe that most of this article is useless in giving someone trying to truly understand that topic and is not affiliated with the church. What we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know to be folklore is not what is being represented or defined by this article. The quote taken from President Harold B. Lee was to address actual folklore or untrue stories being circulated within the church. It was not used to condemn true stories that are circulated among church members. However, this quote is being used to give a basis of contradicting many beliefs of the LDS church but is not used in a way that would further clarify the topic of "Mormon Folklore." It does nothing more that dilute and confuse the subject and the overall content makes for a very ridiculous misrepresentation of facts. This article should be completely rewritten in a way that correctly addresses the subject of "Mormon Folklore" and does not confuse readers between actual folklore and church doctrine. For example, the story of Del Parson's painting is a story that is told among members but is not based in fact. These types of stories are what President Lee was referring to as they detract from the study of saving doctrines in exchange for fantastic stories that sound great but are not true. However, the statement regarding the garments worn by endowed members of the LDS church is misleading and offensively touches on a sacred subject that is not commonly discussed in public or the open by those that wear the garments. Adding the teachings regarding such a sacred part of the religion to something that is termed "Folklore" whether buried in the article is an attempt to define folklore as sometimes true is offensive to members of the LDS faith and misleading to those trying to use Wikipedia as a source of factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwsammons (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folklore

Tales and Popular beliefs[edit]

Think we should split out the two types of stories. There are lots of Mormon "tales" but popular beliefs relating to doctrine, church history, etc. are really quite distinct. And, of course, the Three Nephite stories, unique to Mormon folklore, fall into the belief category. Anyone want to help define the two categories? WBardwin (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Discourses as Folklore[edit]

Should this article mention that the [Journal of Discourses] may have passed into the realm of Mormon Folklore where it maybe studied as same? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I've never seen any LDS take the Journal of Discourses seriously; it's about as canonical as the Alvin Maker series. 69.49.67.186 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Given the recent edits, I thought it would be worthwhile to post my viewpoint. I think there is a misunderstanding of how the article (and the sources cited in the article) use the term "folklore". It does not mean that the thing is untrue or not actually believed or taught by Mormon adherents. The boundary between what is "Mormon folklore" and what is "true Mormon doctrine" is fuzzy—there is no bright line separating one from the other, and along this border there is no doubt significant overlap, and it definitely depends on the observer or the adherent. So for an editor to say something like, "that's not Mormon folklore—that's Mormon doctrine!" doesn't really make much sense in this context. Well, it does make sense, but it's just one point of view on the specific matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Reply from Rob Sammons

It does when everything is taken out of context. This article is a ridiculous mess. You take a definition or cite a source from one place, often out of context, and use it to support a completely different view point or source. You cannot use the description from Encyclopedia of Mormonism that is being stated to further illustrate it's own article and cited references to support the fact that someone else takes something that was said in a completely different light and call it a fact. What you are basically saying is that because the definition that was taken out of context from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says that the line between folklore and doctrine is fuzzy then people can reach all the way to the sacred doctrine of the church and call it folklore whether they know it to be so or not. One article asks about Mormon Underwear and offers no research into the fact, simply his opinion, however this reference is being used to validate now that the garments worn by endowed members is folklore because one person offered his opinion as such in one article. This is poor journalism and the entire article is laced with this types of ridiculous argument support. Mormon Folklore is not a term made up by those outside the LDS faith but rather a term used within the LDS faith yet it is being represented as if those not of the LDS faith own the definition of it. If you insist on defining this term so lazily and so blatantly contradictory, then another page with the term Mormon Folklore should be defined and this page should be clarified to be supported by those not of the LDS faith and that the original term taken from the culture of the LDS faith is being redefined. It is very clear that this article is not meant to clarify this subject but rather dilute it with comments taken out of context and references cited that are poorly researched and a stretch, at best, to be cited as a factual reference. Good Ol’factory you state that "for an editor to say something like, "that's not Mormon folklore—that's Mormon doctrine!" doesn't really make much sense in this context. Well, it does make sense, but it's just one point of view on the specific matter." However, most of the references cited by this article are nothing more than points of views, or worse, some are simply phrasings used by a writer to add flair to their writings but are being represented as factual research. This article turned in as a research paper at any high school level would receive a resounding "F" because of the lack of proper support for contradictory arguments. It uses references from leaders and scholars within the LDS faith to make a statement out of context and then opinions, not researched opinions mind you, from those not of the LDS faith to present LDS doctrine in a demeaning light. What this tells me is that the editors of this article are either systematically attempting to discredit the LDS doctrine by calling it folklore or they do not have an education beyond 6th grade level since they are unclear of what makes up a valid research paper. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts as supported by the common user, not a collection of biased opinions as this article so clearly supports. I am attempting to resolve this matter here as I have been emailed by persons from within Wikipedia that agree with what I am presenting but have asked me to go through these channels first before interceding. Anyone that replies had better have a better answer than simply restating that "since the line is blurred, anything that anyone says about LDS doctrine and can cite another source, whether opinion or not, becomes folklore" as that is a ludicrous and baseless claim. I also hope that your intelligence is at a level that you can enter this debate without simply restating the tired remarks that I have continually shown to be contradictory and lazily researched, in essence, false. You claim that what I write is an opinion so I guess what I need to do is write whatever I want and then cite someone else's opinion for it to become a fact. That is how this article supports the claims that are being taken into issue. Is this what constitutes fact? If one person says it, it is an opinion but if two people say it then it becomes a fact, especially if they say it on a different website? If that is not something you support, making a statement of opinion and citing someone else's opinion to make it factual, then this article needs to be fixed as that is the tactic employed to support many of the unfounded claims within the article. comment added by Rob Sammons (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult to respond adequately to a wall of text. I am not the sole (or even the primary) writer/editor of the article's content. The general approach of Wikipedia is that we rely on reliable sources—if reliable sources discuss something as being Mormon folklore, then it's OK for this article to do so. I have looked at the non-primary sources referenced on this page which discuss Mormon folklore, such as the book by the Fifes, the articles by Wilson, and so forth. I think that in light of what is written in those, the article does a fair job of representing what is written in those.
I don't think it's a good approach to impugn either the intent or the intelligence of other Wikipedia users, though. When that is done, you immediately set up resentment and barriers to progress. From my experience, most WP editors have good intentions and are reasonably intelligent human beings. But I have no interest in debating issues of truth vs. folklore or who gets to define what Mormon folklore is. From WP's approach, reliable sources define it, not us through debates.
I see you don't have very many edits on Wikipedia, which is fine, but I would encourage you to widen your Wikipedia editing experience, including reading up on the policies and guidelines, if you haven't already done so. That can really help in getting a feel for how things work. Welcome! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mormon folklore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mormon folklore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mormon folklore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Rachel, let me know when you are back on Wikipedia again, and we can start this review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farang Rak Tham:, I'm back on Wikipedia! Looking forward to your suggested improvements for the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations[edit]

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge about the subject, though I did review the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan nominated by Skyes(BYU). My own expertise is Buddhism, so I am more or less an outsider on this topic.

Overview[edit]

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:
  • No copyright violations.
  • The article makes for an interesting read, but is unclear at times. Detailed review follows.
  • There are many short sections in the article. I would recommend merging a few to improve readability.
2. MOS: You could add brief descriptions to the external links and further reading sources, to designate what kind of sources those are.
3. References layout: no dead links. You might want to add doi numbers to the journal articles, to help identify those sources more easily after the urls become dead links over time.
4. Reliable sources: Almost all sources have been written by people from LDS, but there are a number of sources that are published by independent publishers, guaranteeing some independent editorial oversight.
5. Original research: None found.
6. Broadness: Positively, the article covers multiple churches of LDS.
7. Focus: Yes.
8. Neutral:
  • The article's tone is a bit unencyclopedic at times, bordering on travel guide language. E.g. Towns in the Mormon regional area have a unique combination of features ...
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: Relevant. Human Hair Bracelet 1.jpg, 309 MSS P 24 B2 F13.jpg, Children near a farm in Willard, George M. Brown House.jpg, and 308 MSS P 24 B2 F13.jpg have incomplete descriptions or tags.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

Missionary lore[edit]

  • Missionaries tell stories to escape from the pressures of strict missionary life; often these stories include ways that missionaries try to escape missionary life but are discovered. Is a bit repetitive. Please rephrase.
  • Missionaries also tell stories about getting the best of a hostile world, even if it causes other people to suffer. Ambiguous. Please expand.
  • In some missions, it is common to burn clothing to mark special missionary anniversaries, such as a tie after six months of service and a shirt after one year. This is more of a ritual than a story. Please move to customs section.

Folk songs[edit]

  • Mormons in the 1850s and 1860s used secular songs for their own purposes. Please specify.
  • They wrote their own words to familiar tunes. Specify this as well.
  • ... as did Joseph Cain. Who is this? A songwriter?
  • ... Joseph and Hyrum's death. Wikilink or expand.

Testimonies[edit]

  • belief narratives: Unusual term. Is this from the sources cited?
  • Okay. I double-checked and maybe I made this term up to avoid close paraphrasing? I changed it to "conversion narrative" which is the phrase the cited article uses. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... fast and testimony meeting ...: You mean fasting?
  • ... that have become the subject of "testimony bingo" jokes. Confusing, please expand or rewrite.
  • ... were more likely to relate being surprised by the truth or that their conversion was part of a long process. Confusing. Please rewrite.
  • Eric Eliason notes ... You might want to specify his discipline: e.g. folklorist, sociologist, etc. Same holds for other scholars mentioned in the article.
  • ... receiving spiritual revelation about one's marriage partner ... About who should be one's marriage partner?
  • Even though the result is to support the status quo and have more children ... The previous sentence was about stopping to have more children. You need to indicate this contrast. Similarly, the previous sentence was about relief of guilt, but this is about independence.
I read over the article again, and I too find it confusing. I tried to make it more clear. Here's the quote: "The visionary experience delivers a woman from the throes of guilt, uncertainty, and the necessity of constantly justifying her decision both to herself and to others. She no longer has to decide; Heavenly Father has so clearly spoken the decision for her--through the voice of her own child. At the same time, He has touched her personally, marked her as spiritually worthy--and all this at a time when she most questions her own spirituality because of the guilt of the former decision not to bear children. For most, the intensity of this visionary experience is simply too much to resist--no matter what the reasons for the previous decision." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Tweaked.

Courtship and families[edit]

  • After a baby is born ... Different topic from the previous sentence. It is perfectly okay and not OR if you introduce this with a sentence like "There are also rituals that mark certain periods in life."
  • I added baptism, patriarchal blessings, and missions, which are included in the source, but I initially left out because they are also part of formal church membership. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Day[edit]

  • ... marching in wards ... What does this mean?
Sorry, I hadn't noticed it was an LDS term.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a wikilink for the LDS term pioneer. If so, wikilink in lead and body.

Handicrafts[edit]

  • ... "marvelously unself-conscious" ... What does this unself-conscious mean? Please expand or wikilink paraphrase.
  • ... (in Romanian) ... What does this refer to?
  • ... Ruby Swallow ... who is ...? You really need to say briefly who every person in the article is.
  • During the time when polygamists were jailed, at least one convict attempted to make hair flowers. Is this relevant?
  • Hair wreaths contained hair from multiple people and were displayed in public areas, symbolizing community unity. You mean in prison, or is this unrelated to the previous sentence?

Furniture[edit]

  • ... some Mormons have found ... Is this still happening? If not, better use simple past tense.
  • yes, it is still happening! Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any information about when the practice started. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon fundamentalists[edit]

  • Fundamentalist communities are intentionally built and are a different community from the more mainstream Latter-day Saints. Confusing, rewrite. Also, they are certainly a different community. I have already wikilinked to Mormon fundamentalism for you, and there is no need to state this.

Other issues not part of GA criteria[edit]

May 2018[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section later. I will also check for broadness later. Waiting for your response first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farang Rak Tham:. Unfortunately, BYU Studies doesn't have DOIs, so I can't include them for those citations. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the photos--the ones you linked all have descriptions, copyright tags, and categories.

I merged "Pioneer Stories," "Three Nephites Stories," and "Genealogy and Temple Lore" into a "Folk narratives" section.

Good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 05:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tone problem is one I've struggled with on this page, because the articles rarely have statistics on how popular or common something is, besides the fact that it was popular or common. The quote you mentioned refers to how a scholar specifically studied Mormon settlements and found a set of four things that, if present, indicated a settlement was Mormon with a high degree of accuracy. I tried to reword it to reflect that "unique" was a word I was using in the technical sense. The article actually lists ten things, so I could expand this part if you think it would help the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the body of the article to see if that is required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 05:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Helps (BYU), do you have any plans to continue with this review any time soon? Normally a GA review must be finished in seven days, which is by tomorrow. I can give you another week, but I will only do that if you intend to go through with it. For what it is worth, the article is in quite a good state. I have seen articles that needed much more work to reach GA level than this article. It is really not that much work.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I intend to go through with it @Farang Rak Tham:! My apologies; Monday was a national holiday and I wasn't able to work that day. I think I have addressed the most recent issues in your detailed review. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made additional edits based on your additional feedback. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not much left to do. Almost there.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Just one issue remaining, Rachel Helps (BYU). The part on "un-selfconscious" above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it myself. Passing.
I'd appreciate it if you could review an article of mine on WP:GAN#REL. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I'd be happy to return the favor! I'll pick a page this week. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress[edit]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormon_folklore&oldid=1220238543"