Talk:Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement

Title of this article: Cunning Folk Tradition vs. Magic

There are probably some that will object to the term "Cunning Folk Tradition" and would prefer "Magic". In naming this article, I chose the term for the following reasons:

1. The term "Magic" was used in many academic articles in the 1980s and 1990s, but has fallen out of favor. The term Cunning Folk Tradition has replaced it in academia, as a way to better present what was going on.

2. There is difficulty in distinguishing between "magic" and supernatural parts of religion. Where is the dividing line?

3. There is a negative connotation the term "magic" in the minds of many. It is a more NPOV. Many Latter-day saints vehemently object to the term.

4. It is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia (i.e. Cunning folk, Cunning folk in Britain).

Epachamo (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

John Steele

Hi, a while back one of my students made a page for John Steele. His work with Tomsonian medicine and magic seems related to cunning folk traditions but I'm not sure if it would merit a mention on the page. I'm also aware of a mass cursing Wilford Woodruff took part in (let me know if you want to know more). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely think it relevant and worth a mention on this page. Folk healing traditions were very much part of the cunning folk culture, not just the divining rods and seer stones. I would love a reference for the mass cursing by Wilford Woodruff. Epachamo (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is blocking my Google photos link, but it's on pages xvi and xvii of Waiting for World's End. If you e-mail me I can reply to you with the link to the two pages on it if you would like that. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I created a section on Astrology and included John Steele into that section. A section on Folk Healing is definitely necessary, and when created I think the information on John Steele should be added to that particular section.

Appropriateness of Sources

This article is considered controversial and has the potential to become an ideological battleground. An interesting read is this article about the First Vision, which did become an ideological battleground. I'd rather this article not go in that direction. There is no way around it, FairMormon is a self-declared partisan, apologetic site that generates a significant amount of polarization. Using it automatically gives the article a POV stench. This is also true with sites like Mormon Think, which is also partisan and polarizing. They are the definition of WP:NOTRELIABLE, as they "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." Furthermore, there is no need to use either of these sources as there are plenty of respected sources that can be used. In the section discussed, Brant Gardner is quoting Richard Bushman and D. Michael Quinn. All three of these historians are generally well respected with plenty of material to draw from. Again, apologetics have their place, just not on Wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

With this explanation I now understand your (possibly hyper-)sensitivity to anything from this publisher. I understand wanting to avoid an ideological battleground. Now that I understand your point of view I would observe that I don't have any indication that you understand my point of view. Please put some thought into what I've said as I think my points more than adequately override your concerns here. If you feel otherwise, please engage with my points:

• Publisher's bias and lack of peer review don't matter since it's just a background list. There is no argument being made that would be tainted due to bias.
• Like quoting a list of NBA teams from CNN or Fox. Biased source. Not peer reviewed. Doesn't matter. It's just a list.
• FYI, Bushman's book wasn't peer reviewed.
• Most sources cited on WP are not peer reviewed.
• The publisher behind this quoted paragraph is irrelevant since the paragraph is simply providing useful background and not making an argument or backing a point of view.
• Rewriting the paragraph in my own words would be more work than necessary,
• and would fail to give credit where due

Brant Gardner deserves credit for putting together a better list than Bushman, Quinn or anyone else. Is it fair (no pun intended) to take that away from him just because WP doesn't like where he published? Silencing anything from a given publication channel regardless of whether the specific content has the problem that is typical of that channel sounds like irrational censorship to me, though I hate to drag that word out. See my CNN/Fox analogy above.

Since the paragraph doesn't violate any WP policy I think the paragraph as written should remain. Let's resolve this by letting time pass and seeing whether the community feels like you do or like I do. One of us will learn something.

If you can't abide letting the paragraph remain then I invite you to let it remain until you rewrite it in a way that suits us both. I don't know how you'll be able to give credit to Brant Gardner if you do, but maybe you'll find a way.

Sound good? Davemc0 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know this source[1], is the Interpreter Foundation associated with FairMormon? The author is. But it is another source for the Gardner quote. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Davemc0, Let me respond to your points

• There is a clear hierarchy of source acceptability. I misspoke when I said that only peer reviewed sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Peer reviewed sources are preferred. Publisher's bias DOES matter. Apologetic are at the bottom of the hierarchy.
• This article is hardly a list of NBA teams. There might be other articles that Fairmormon would be appropriate, but not on something as divisive as this topic.
• Bushman is a well respected historian on a different level than Fairmormon. He is very careful to differentiate between his apologetics and history.
• The publisher does matter. People automatically see the publisher and form opinions. It taints the NPOV of this article. Fairmormon is WP:NOTRELIABLE. If a contributor to Fairmormon were to publish a critical piece, they would almost assuredly be excommunicated, and fired if they worked at BYU, even if what they wrote was true. I would add the Interpreter Foundation to that list.
• I'm will do the work. Come back in about 1 hour to see the results.
• Nothing in the paragraph is original to Brent Gardner. It is taking nothing away from him to cite his original sources where he got the information.

It is not just this publisher that I object to BTW, it is pretty much anything in this article Mormon_blogosphere, and critical sites like mormonthink, zelphontheshelf.com, cesletter.org, etc. They just don't have the scholarly rigor that will make this an outstanding article. This is not hyper-sensitivity, this is standard scholarly practice. Would you cite zelphontheshelf.com in a college paper? Would you in this article? No, because it is not appropriate. Epachamo (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your rewrite is fine. Thanks for doing it. To answer your question, yes, I absolutely would cite zelphontheshelf.com or any other disreputable publisher in a research paper if that's who did the work to compile background material I used that was not subject to the bias typical of that publisher. I feel like that would be the reputable, scholarly way to handle giving proper credit. I feel like considering any source to be taboo regardless of what it is saying to be academically unsafe. (And I have a Ph.D., in case it matters.) There's plenty of room for other points of view, so I have no problem with you feeling differently, so long as you're willing to make whatever extra efforts are necessary to make the article meet your own tastes, as you did in this case. Thanks again. Davemc0 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I have to object to "Chaffin, Maureen (February 16, 2018). Joseph: Prophecy Fulfilled. Outskirts Press. ISBN 978-1478784722" as a reliable source. The back cover reads, "The Adversary, enraged at this threat to his reign and realm, rose up in his wrath and viciously sought to destroy Joseph. Thus, began Joseph's extraordinary efforts to accomplish the Lord's commands, while desperately struggling to elude the murderous hands of his nefarious foes. And in so doing, Joseph unknowingly fulfilled ancient Hebrew prophecy." It is clearly religious, not scholarly literature. Don't take me the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with religious literature per se, just that Wikipedia is not the place to uncritically use it. The reason in the mind of the author for noting the Hebrew calendar was that it has cosmological significance, not that it was relevant to 17 year old Joseph Smith or those around him at the time. This is a modern connection, and if anything, is interesting evidence that a segment of modern Latter-day Saints subscribe to Hebrew Cunning Folk Astrology.Epachamo (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The back cover certainly sounds unreliable (but quite a gripping tale!). She emailed me a few weeks ago and said that the book grew out of her master's thesis and that her professors encouraged her to publish her work externally. Based on this I would strongly suspect that the bulk of the text is more suitable of a source than the cover would suggest. I haven't read her book yet but just ordered it. Have you read it? That back cover could just be marketing. Regardless, I assume you're right about it being a modern connection.

I also haven't read the Luffman book, but I think I had the same reaction to it that you did to this Chaffin book. The statement, "per contemporary astrological guides, the only night of the week ruled by Smith's ruling planet, Jupiter" almost made me both laugh and cringe. Does the Luffman book say that Joseph's contemporaries saw the date of the visitation in that light? If so, fair enough. But if it's just Luffman's observation then I would classify it the same as Chaffin - a modern-made connection that doesn't really contribute to the article (unless you want to expand the article to include present day saints and include both of these as examples). Davemc0 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Chaffin might be an amazing scholar, and I don't subscribe to the notion that religionists can't produce good scholarship. I really don't think that's what she was going for with this book though, and that's ok. I skimmed the first 50 pages or so that can be read here.

Ok, I just skimmed those fifty pages and I'm with you 100%. My consolation in the fact that I already ordered the book is that it's a gift for my mother-in-law, who is half Jewish and likes speculative history. Hopefully she can get past the fake first person writing style. I couldn't. Davemc0 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as the Jupiter, it seemed strange to me too, but apparently is a thing. A big part of Joseph Smith. Here is the full quote from the book: "Astrological guides specified that Sunday night was the only night of the week ruled by Jupiter. Jupiter, Smith's ruling planet, was the most prominent astrological symbol on his family's golden laman ('Holiness to the Lord') for summoning a good spirit". D. Michael Quinn gave a longer explanation in his book,

"Most readers immediately think of various characteristics for a person 'born and raised in America' that distinguish that person from someone born and raised in another country. Those with an astrological world view likewise think of various characteristics for a person born in the sign of Capricorn, for example. ... Contemporary almanacs show that Smith's birth on 23 December 1805 was in the sign of Capricorn, whose planet is Saturn. However he was also born in the first of three 10-degree arcs (Decans) of Capricorn. This Decan is ruled by Jupiter. In addition, a specific planet governed each year and Jupiter ruled 1805. Therefore, Jupiter ruled both his birth year and his birthdate within the zodiacal sign. Within the magic world view, Jupiter had enormous significance for Joseph Smith." "Joseph Smith as church president gave himself the code name 'Baurak Ale,' which had traditional use as an incantation for magic ceremonies emphasizing Jupiter" "Smith began praying late Sunday night on 21 September 1823 'to commune with some kind of messenger.' Astrological guides specified that Sunday night was the only night of the week ruled by Jupiter. Jupiter, Smith's ruling planet, was the most promient astrological symbol on his family's golden lamen for summoning a good spirit." (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View)

Supposedly this Jupiter Talisman belonged to Smith, at least according to Emma's second husband's family. I need to research it more. Jupiter was clearly a thing for Smith, and astrology was very much a part of the Smith family makeup. Epachamo (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So the potential relevance of the equinox date and the astrology is under the theory that Joseph felt a connection to Jupiter as part of a magic world view. For this article I don't think the astrological significance can be mentioned without mentioning how Joseph saw it as relevant. Otherwise it just comes out as a nonsensical modern interpretation, which is how I took it. So I think either the sentence should be removed or the Quinn quote should be added. As-is just doesn't work. But I think showing a connection between Joseph and Jupiter would probably be doing a disservice to the truth. There are three possible connections: "Baurak Ale", the symbol on the lamen, and the talisman. "Baurak Ale" is much more probably derived from Hebrew, as in Job 32:6. There are a ton of symbols on the lamen and nothing to indicate that Joseph identified with the Jupiter one. And the talisman's provenance is in considerable doubt. Since all three of these have a low chance of accurately connecting Joseph to Jupiter I think the better course is to remove the astrology about Jupiter. Otherwise we may as well just copy Quinn's whole book into this article and be done with it. Davemc0 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You might be right, but until you can provide a credible source, you are just a guy on the internet with an opinion. I can find two sources that find Jupiter significant (Luffman and Quinn), and many others not appropriate for Wikipedia. Quinn and Luffman are hardly anti-Mormons. Quinn was a BYU professor at the time he wrote the book and continues to believe in Joseph Smith's divine mission (although he was excommunicated in the 1990s for being homosexual). Luffman is a devout member of the Community of Christ, having served leadership positions in that church. Epachamo (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, Jupiter is obviously a sticking point, and I agree that at the very least it could use some context that is not there. I have removed it for now, but it is definitely noteworthy. Epachamo (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fox Sisters

The Fox Sisters are from Wayne County and began their careers as spiritual mediums there in 1848. Apparently, this is considered by some to be the birth of "spiritualism". (See the article Wayne County, New York.) I'm wondering whether or not it would be good to mention the Fox Sisters in this article. On the one hand, it illustrates the acceptance by many of the local population of that which is both supernatural and not established religion. On the other hand, the sisters confessed 40 years later that this was trickery, and just seems very different to me than Joseph Smith's dual roles as village seer while a teen and prophet restoring religious truth. Thoughts? Davemc0 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I do think it interesting that there Wayne County was the "birth of spiritualism" and there could possibly be a connection. That area of Eastern New York was the birth place of such a large number of religious movements, its stunning to think about. I don't think it should be included though unless there is a reputable source that connects the two with some thoughtful analysis. Otherwise it is WP:OR. Epachamo (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

references in popular culture

This is probably premature for Wikipedia, but it seems like interest in cunning folk traditions is increasing (or maybe I'm noticing it more). David Butler's The Cunning Man is a novel where the main character specifically uses cunning folk traditions, and the Arch-Hive's zine "Spells for Many Blessings" is an imagined folk magic book. It'd be best if another article would comment on this trend, but if I spot more references I'll list them here. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Cunning folk" does seem idiosyncratic

As anticipated by the original author, the title DOES seem a little "special". It's important to consider that modern LDS find the term "folk magic" unrepresentative if not offensive. At the same time, are there independent sources use the term "Cunning" to characterize the folk beliefs of the Smith family in the 1820s? That seems VERY anachronistic to that time and place and more to the point, "pardon my Greek", euphemistic. At the same time, there's no need to push a value-laden term like "magic", which suggests something apart from Christianity at a time and place when all Christians behaved similarly. Absent better sourcing, "Folklore" is better term than "Cunning folk". Feoffer (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Folklore is about oral tradition, including tales, myths, legends and proverbs. Cunning folk traditions is so much more than folklore. It is imbuing physical objects with supernatural power and the skill with which to use these objects. I'm not against changing it to something different, but I haven't been able to think of anything better. Epachamo (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)