Talk:Mormon folklore

Use of references
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)

History versus folklore
One definition or connotation of "folklore" is, "a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.". 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)
 * 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)

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)

Tales and Popular beliefs
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)

The Journal of Discourses as Folklore
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)
 * 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)

Recent edits
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) 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)
 * 1) Reply from Rob Sammons


 * 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106172131/http://sites.lib.byu.edu/worldhistory/folklore-william-a-wilson-folklore-archives/ to https://sites.lib.byu.edu/worldhistory/folklore-william-a-wilson-folklore-archives/

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

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

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609174656/http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/f/FIFE_AUSTIN_AND_ALTA.html to http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/f/FIFE_AUSTIN_AND_ALTA.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171107003720/https://sites.lib.byu.edu/worldhistory/folklore-william-a-wilson-folklore-archives/popular-search-topics/creative-invitations-for-dates-and-dances/ to https://sites.lib.byu.edu/worldhistory/folklore-william-a-wilson-folklore-archives/popular-search-topics/creative-invitations-for-dates-and-dances/

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

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