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)

Requested move 6 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement → Folk magic and early Mormonism – Mainstream non-apologetic scholarship (Quinn, Vogel) uses term 'folk magic', not the euphemistic 'Cunning folk traditions'. Feoffer (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 10:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Although, I wonder if there may be even better titles possible. The term occult also seems used a lot in the sources. jps (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think if we're being truly dispassionate, we'd go with Early Mormonism and the occult, for parity with Scientology and the occult. But while the shoe does fit, LDS members abhor the term occult, and NPOV leads me to want to bend to accommodate their preferences. 'Folk magic' is a good middle ground, but if we're being real -- necromancy is pretty clearly occult, not folk magic. (and certainly not 'Cunning Folk') Feoffer (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  On further investigation, I think "occult" is probably the wrong term as it derives mostly from late nineteenth century practices, apparently first in reference to those of Helen Blavatsky. jps (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose but also wonder how signifficant an article there is in here, where a lot of it probably belongs in articles about the early Mormon church or Joseph Smith himself. "Cunning folk" is a very specific term that was used both contemporaniously and in the current (non-Mormon) academic literature to refer to a specific kind of practitioner of folk magic, folk knowledge, healing, etc. and "folk magic" reduces them to one of a myriad of arts they claimed to have ability in. It's pretty easy to find high quality sources specifically using "cunning folk". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Most cunning folk traditions tend to be labels for specific practices of Europe. The vast majority of sources that use "cunning folk" in reference to US folk practice seem to come from Mormon apologists, as Feoffer correctly points out. Non-mormon sources appear to prefer "folk magic". More generally, in the US, the literature appears to preference calling all such practices folk magic or other variants. jps (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Most cunning folk traditions tend to be labels for specific practices of Europe.

I've not encountered this, and in the era where cunning folk were running rampant we don't see too much of a distinction between the US and Europe for many of these discussions. I think I'm just struggling with WP:VERIFY on the change, here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sense of today's use of cunning folk seems to be distributed (not surprising). But searching for "cunning folk practices" of the early nineteenth century and you get Europe and Mormon apologists (most prominently, Stapley). jps (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

1830s sources reported Smith practiced magic, while I'm not seeing any sources (apologetic or otherwise) linking Smith with "cunning folk" until 1995. Feoffer (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect sources from the 1830s to reflect current academic scholarship on a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

But we do expect titles to be WP:COMMONNAME. For three centuries now, RSes have reported on Smith and 'magic'. Quinn's book isn't called "Early Mormonism and the Cunning Folk traditions", after all. Feoffer (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Owen Davies (historian) is just fine referring to it as "Cunning Folk" in his Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. He is also ok with "magic". Magic encompasses so much outside of what Smith and his followers were doing. Cunning Folk is so much more precise. Epachamo (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the idea that Smith and company were enforcing boundaries on their practice isn't well attested to. The simplest proposal seems to be that they were willing to include anything that they could convince others to accept. For example, trying to separate "witchcraft" from the various divinations and magical rituals Smith and company practiced is a distinction without a difference as far as the secular literature is concerned. jps (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As far as scholarship goes, the university press-published book The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology (2018)—which the Religious Studies Review called a book worth reading for anyone interested in the history of Latter-day Saint ritual practice and a fine contribution—apparently uses the term 'cunning folk'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  As jps alluded above, Stapley is a faithful LDS whose training is in chemistry. We absolutely can cite him for a Mormon perspective and quote his preferred terminology, but we can't represent him as a neutral, mainstream historian. Feoffer (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  If the book had been published by some apologetic organization, or if it was self-published, sure, I'd see what you're saying. But it was published by a secular university press. My experience from other discussions (ANI; NPOVN) is that an author having a religious affiliation isn't on its own a sufficient reason to consider an academically-published source unreliable or conflicted. The context of academic publication provides the filtering effect of editorial review, and the positive book review from a secular journal further gives me the impression it's scholarship and not reducible to mere apologia. As with all consideration of reliable sources, we use our best judgment and look at reviews to get a better idea of where something stands in the field, but dismissal based on an author's personal background without a consideration of merits doesn't seem like the best way. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do we really have to go through this discussion again for why OUP is not the best when it comes to academic press imprimatur? jps (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll defer to you and Anachronist on something like health science. But I'm skeptical of extending that criticism to OUP's history publications when the essay linked in the thread you linked criticizes an OUP history book by saying, seemingly, that 'European settler colonialism in the Americas inflicted genocide against Indigenous peoples', an interpretation held by no small number of academics, is actually a hot take that indicates outright unreliability (in the essay's words, would not be acceptable for citing facts). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need to overthink it -- 'Cunning folk' is NOT COMMON in discussions of Early Mormonism, while 'Magic' is. Authors who use the uncommon terminology to apply to Mormonism invariably espouse an apologetic/faithful viewpoint. Stapley is a perfect example of this. Feoffer (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Calling Quinn, who was literally being paid by the church when he wrote his book, a historian, but referring to Stapley, as apologetic, is a double standard. Neither one are completely independent, and both have their affiliation. To call Stapley's work apologetic is going to far, and makes me doubt that you actually have looked through the book. In his book he questions the legitimacy of the First Vision for example, something that would not be done in apologia. Epachamo (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't mean to suggest Stapley is 'apologetic' in the pejorative sense of the term, or that his voice should have no weight. But his views and language represent one 'faction' or 'school of thought' espoused apparently-exclusively by faithful LDS church members, not NPOV language we can adopt straight into the title.

  Looking over the Davies source you cite above, I see numerous references to 'magic' in early mormonism, but I'm not seeing him characterizing it as 'cunning folk'.(perhaps I'm not searching properly?)

  In any case, Davies clearly endorses Quinn's usage of the COMMON term 'magic'. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most faithful LDS would find Stapely borderline apostate to be frank. Davies also is just fine with "Cunning Folk". Epachamo (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  ... Davies begins his section on page 147. If we change the name to "Folk Magic", I won't throw much of a fuss. I still think that "Cunning Folk" is a more precise term, better demonstrating the lineage, and used more today than in the 1980s. As far as Stapley, the thesis of his book is that many Latter Day Saint ordinances have their roots in things that precede Smith and his revelations, or that weren't given through divine sources at all, but in things like folk magic, or other New England traditions. This is borderline heresy, and not representative of the lay membership. I found his book fairly scholarly and detached FWIW, and it has been well received by the broader academic community. It's a good source. I'm struggling to think of anything in his book that a skeptic would object to. Epachamo (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Cunning folk" is how the subject is referred to on Wikipedia itself. See Cunning folk in Britain for example. Why would we change the term here, but not there. The literature draws a clear line between the New England tradition and the European tradition. Epachamo (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't a source. See WP:OTHERSTUFF 166.205.97.2 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats a misinterpretation of the argument. Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  What Epachamo's referring to here isn't WP:OTHERSTUFF; it's the criterion of consistency in our guideline for titling articles which guides that titles should be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles (like cunning folk in Britain). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  You would have a point if this was Cunning folk in Utah but if we look at articles like Christian views on magic, Christianity and paganism, Islam and magic, Spirit possession and exorcism in Islam, Folk Catholicism, Folk Orthodoxy, etc the consitancy argument goes the other way... If you're going for consistancy then Mormonism and magic or Folk Mormonism would be what you would actuall argue for not Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  A couple thoughts. This is definitely a tricky area. As the person who initially chose the name, I struggled with the best way to present it. "Folk Magic" definitely is a used term, as is just straight "magic", and there is definitely an argument to be made for any of the terms. The most neutral voice I found was Owen Davies (historian), who as far as I can tell is neither a Mormon nor in any way affiliated. In his book "Grimoires: A History of Magic Books" he has a significant section this subject, starting on page 147. He uses several different terms including, "magical activities", "occult activities", and "cunning folk". "Cunning Folk" and "magical" are used the most in his analysis, and "occult" is used the least. Epachamo (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you see why "cunning folk traditions" might be seen as an obfuscating euphemism for "magic"? jps (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I was the one who created the article and pretty much wrote the whole thing. When I named it I indeed struggled with what to call it, but at no point was there an intent to obfuscate. I've played out the factors already, but basically, the term "magic" is a very broad term that brings to mind everything from witches to Harry Potter wands. Can you see how that term might give the wrong impression? The term "Cunning Folk" is much more precise. The thing that made me choose "Cunning Folk" was that was how other Wikipedia articles titled similar articles. If we changed it to Folk Magic, I wouldn't put up much of a fight, but to accuse of obfuscating I vehemently deny and disagree with. Epachamo (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  When I named it I indeed struggled with what to call it, but at no point was there an intent to obfuscate I don't think jps is suggesting ill intent on your part. But because the term "cunning folk" is so rare in the US (even today), it has the practical effect of functioning as obfuscation. Feoffer (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I did not assume good faith in JPS intent with his comment. My apologies JPS. Epachamo (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's okay to impugn my motives--I never take offense to attempts to see if my perspective may be skewing in directions. Certainly, I am more likely to skew "anti-mormon" in certain venues and "pro-mormon" in others. (For example, when I tell the Fundamentalist Christians that Mormons are Christians :)) We also have a problem in that we are using the term "apologist" inexactly and need to fix it. There are more than one ways to act the apologist and some apologists end up as apostates as you rightly point out. jps (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is fair to be concerned that a title like "Magic and the Latter Day Saint movement" completely unadorned might give the wrong impression. After all, it's not an article about Magic the Gathering. :) But folk magic seems clear to me as a compound term, and it has the added benefit of identifying the correct genre for a broader audience in a way that "folk traditions" does not. jps (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's tricky. I would ask, on the first mention of "magic", "occult", or "folk magic" in this article (whatever we decide on), what Wikipedia article should that term link to? I'd argue it should still link to cunning folk. Epachamo (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about primacy of linkage as a principle. Certainly, we ought to have links to both in the article, and even more. Witchcraft is relevant. So is divination. But they're all already there, right?jps (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and they all should be there, I agree. Epachamo (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per the sources. The title is a euphemism meant to help preserve feelings, but sources are pretty clear the founders of Mormonism were into a variety of magical practices. I'd also support using a name like "Early Mormonism and the Occult". We should be following the sources. 166.205.97.2 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, most of the independent sources seem to use language other than "cunning folk traditions" which seems to be prefered by the Church's in-house scholars. When it comes to determining use like that we discount the non-independent positions heavily (basically the opinion which carries the least weight is that of the institution itself). My only hesitation is limiting the article to "early Mormonism" because that would mean not covering a lot of what is currenlty within the article's scope (this is a contemporary as well as historical topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Name a single "in-house" scholar that uses "cunning folk". Just one. This claim that the term is preferred by the Church is perplexing. I agree that "early Mormonism" is to exclusive. Epachamo (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am not certain that the LDS Church as an institution endorses the term "cunning folk" in this context, but what I am seeing here is that the sources which use "cunning folk" term with respect to this context are all easily connected with the LDS Church. Given that the phrasing is unique and, granted, the interest in the subject is going to skew towards those with church connections, there are multiple possible explanations for why this turn of phrase seems to be dominating the sources coming out of the Wasatch Range and I do not think we should be impugning motives beyond the empirical fact that there is something possibly parochial about the choice. Like, look here... a YA novel from Mormon culture about the "cunning man". :) [2] jps (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hah, that book looks hilarious, I'll have to check it out. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate that it pervades just the Wasatch Range. Popular Magic: Cunning folk in English History is written by probably the fore-most authority on the subject, and he uses both "magic" and "cunning folk" in the title. There are also these books: this book, this book, this book. There is a fairly good discussion of the subject in this somewhat older in this book (written in 1992), which is probably still relevant. None of these books are from the LDS tradition as far as I can tell. I really think the term "cunning folk" is becoming more pervasive everywhere in the literature, even outside the Wasatch Front. That said, I can get onboard with changing "Cunning Folk traditions" to "Folk Magic" as this has significant usage as well. Epachamo (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding from source reading is that there are three (and a half) contexts where "cunning" is used with this kind of meaning. The first which is the WP article focuses on is a pre-modern or early, early modern European provenance (and generally eighteenth century or earlier) of the "cunning-folk" identifiers, there is also a modern to contemporary (say post 1970s/80s) embracing of the term for certain New Age/Occult/Wiccan traditions, and then there are the Mormons. The remaining one half comes in the form of things like the final link you give which still, to my reading, seems to refer mostly to the first cunning in the European sense. Similar to that is this source, but, again, it's from an earlier provenance than Second Great Awakening discussions and seems to harken back to a European connection. jps (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if its right to say that magic culture grew out of Mormonism. I think its more accurate that it is the other way around. Magic culture in Europe pervaded New England well into the 19th century. Check out this article. It was a demon haunted world back then, and magic thinking was pervasive. Epachamo (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it did! I think, rather, that the current "cunning-folk" traditions of the New Age/Occult/Wiccan grew out of an appropriation of historical and anthropological considerations of the European version of the subject. I think the Mormon use is probably something like an isolate. jps (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  there is something possibly parochial about the choice. a YA novel from Mormon culture about the "cunning man": The proof that 'cunning folk' is an in-house Mormon term is... the title of a singular YA novel? That not being an academically published secondary source aside, it's hardly even persuasive as original research. The parochial perspective on this isn't "cunning folk" (what academics call these practices in and beyond early Mormonism); the parochial perspective would be something like "there was no magic" (historically false) or "it was miracles, not magic" (a POV interpretation). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  We aren't writing for academics. We are writing for the general public and we don't want to WP:ASTONISH them just because Mormon studies settled on a particular turn of phrase for reasons that are difficult if not impossible to zero in on. As Wikipedians, we should consider all the ways this subject and phrasing may be approached, and so I think it fair to see who actually uses "cunning" in the sense that this article title uses it. I wasn't trying to posit the "proof" of any proposition here. My point and that of others, to the extent that I think I understand them, is that "cunning" in this usage is a pretty uncommon term when compared to terms like "folk magic", and I find it noticeable that a lot of the use of the term with respect to practices relating to Mormons can be traced back to Mormons writing about the subject. jps (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps Folk magic and Latter Day Saint movement would be better, but I imagined other editors here might prefer a focus on early Mormonism to emphasize the modern rejection of magic in the LDS church? Feoffer (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I highly recommend reading Stapley's book. His thesis is that Folk magic has persisted into the modern era in various ordinances and practices. Certainly folk magic was openly practiced in early Mormonism, and today a Mormon would bristle at ANY term "magic", but that doesn't mean its influence is gone. People hear the word "magic" and think witches brews and such because that is the 21st century context, and a Mormon would respond, "no we don't do any of that". They are generally unaware of their history, what "magic" means in the 19th century context, where Christianity and "magic" were not mutually exclusive as they are now. What they are rejecting is the 21st century usage of the term, and are unaware of the 19th century practice and how it persists. Epachamo (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  The concern, then, is that the use of "cunning folk" is a way to get around the bristle. But we should not engage in this kind of gentle leading since we have an audience that extends beyond the Mormon bristle. jps (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not worried about bristle. I think the connotations of the word "magic" extend beyond the insular Mormon communities. Epachamo (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean "negative" connotations? There is very little in the discussion here that strikes me as not particularly "magical" and to the extent that there are broader practices that might be included under the "magic" umbrella, I'm not sure people are going to be confused into thinking for example that Joseph Smith was a stage magician or something. jps (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm... Ok, perhaps I am worried about the bristle. WP:PLA states: "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently." I'm willing to bet that by a wide margin the average reader of this article comes from a Mormon background. Those that come from an average Wikipedia reader are most likely somewhat religious. Virtually all christian religions 500 years ago saw zero distinction between magic and religion. If I were to call Jesus a great magician 500 years ago I don't think people would have a problem. If I were to walk into any church today and say "Jesus was a great magician", I'd get run out of their church. Magic is almost entirely associated with Satan within religious communities. It is a provocative term that evokes satanism. Even outside religious communities, the average reader irreligious reader is going to need a precise introduction as to what "magic" means in this context. Quinn spends a whole chapter on context, as do most others who discuss this. It was only when the enlightenment came around that a distinction between magic and religion was made. In Smith and his followers minds, and in the minds of a good portion of New Englanders in his area, there was nothing strange or irreligious with putting a head in a hat and reading a translation from a rock like crystal ball. Regardless of all of that, we should go with what it is commonly referred to. I am ok with "Folk magic" or "Cunning folk traditions". Epachamo (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't censored, and we aren't served by using euphemisms. The article on Mohamed has pictures of him, despite this being shocking to true believers. 12.75.41.25 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Its not an unreasonable euphemism meant to censor information. Its an academic term in current and active use. Epachamo (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The article on Mohamed has pictures of him, despite this being shocking to true believers.

  There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. It's shocking to specific Sunni believers. Shia is much less strict on images of Muhammad, and Wikipedia doesn't bias the theology of one major branch of a religion over another.

  I also think that insisting on "magic" instead of the academic term in common use when "magic" actually could introduce ambiguity feels like it's editorializing more than "cunning folk" is. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for being honest. I think it is valid to consider whether a particular choice of word or phrase might unduly bias a reader to a subject, but, on the other hand, I think it might also be helpful to challenge a reader who might be offended by a term to consider the categorical identities. I am reminded of fights we have over the term myth which, to be honest, are still ongoing. jps (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I'm opposed to the move because I think a few people here are unfamiliar with the scholarship around the term "cunning folk", but I think that the people arguing it's apologetics are missing the larger bit of apologetics here: I'm not entirely convinced that the entire content of this article shouldn't be split into Joseph Smith and Mormonism#Historical_overview page. Every time I look at the main body of the article I'm struggling to see, like with many Mormon topics on Wikipedia, where this fits into the broader wiki. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• A couple thoughts. Despite this being rated as a B-class article, it is woefully incomplete, and I'd give it a C rating. This article is currently focused a LOT on Joseph Smith, but magical thinking pervaded much of the early church. There is a section on Astrology, and seer stones, coffin canes, amulets and divining rods that discuss things little to do with Smith, but we are missing sections on healing hankerchiefs, consecrated oil, and influence on ordinances. The section on treasure digging is missing a ton of information. There is no section on the era of Mark Hofmann, where it became a hot button issue within the church, or how this thinking currently influences modern day mormonism. This article is currently around 3,000 words, and could easily be over 6,000. I'd argue that if we put it in the Mormonism article, that it would become WP:TOOBIG. Finally, this subject is frequently treated as a standalone topic in the literature, with entire books written entirely on this subject. Epachamo (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What scholarship do you think people are unfamiliar with? jps (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation. Best, Reading Beans 10:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Articles on controversial topics should be based on mainstream scholarship wherever possible. Neutral academic phrasing should always supersede euphemisms prevalent only among adherents of the topic. And of course a book by a religious apologist doesn't magically become a neutral source on that religion simply because it went through a secular academic publisher. The publisher affects reliability, not NPOV or independence. JoelleJay (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I do not understand how Quinn is being painted as a mainstream secular scholar (while he was a Mormon and an employee of BYU when he wrote his book), and Stapley is considered a religious apologist using euphemisms (when he had zero monetary connections to the church). "Cunning Folk" is not a euphemism, nor is it prevalent only among adherents of the topic. "Cunning Folk" IS neutral academic phrasing, as evidenced by Owen Davies and others who have ZERO connection to the church. Epachamo (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Who says I'm considering Quinn? And Stapley absolutely has monetary connections to the church as a practicing Latter-Day Saint. My impression from searching the literature is that "cunning folk" in the context of LDS is pretty much only used by LDS members. Of the scholarship that is not obviously by LDS, I find references to "folk magic" and "folk occultism" in "Kolob Runs on DOMO" by Jon Bialecki (no mention of "cunning folk"). "Richard Lyman Bushman and the New Mormon History" by Jan Shipps (who is arguably apologetic) discusses "folk magic" extensively with no mention of "cunning folk". She also notes "authors of conventional orthodox accounts generally left it to disbelievers to write about their prophet's active involvement in magic" and "all through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, charges that Smith was mixed up with magic continued to be central to non-Mormon accounts of the beginnings of Mormonism." This suggests the bulk of early scholarship on the subject had been by non-Mormons and supports the claim that the "cunning folk" terminology is a new euphemism employed by Mormon academics entering the field later. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying Stapley is not LDS, I seriously question anyone who paints his book as apologetic have actually read his book, nor is it considered apologetic by anybody I'm aware of. His entire thesis is that folk magic has persisted in modern ritual today. He is considered anti-mormon by some. He is not taking any monetary compensation from the church. Jan Shipps an apologist? You are in the minority on that one. Her scholarship is a bit dated, but hardly apologetic, and your source, even though it is a book review, demonstrates usage of the term "folk magic". The Jon Bialecki citation is also a good one for showing that "folk magic" is a widely used term, although his expertise is in modern mormon thought, rather than 1830s mormonism. You wrote: "The bulk of the early scholarship on the subject has been by non-Mormons." This is absolutely not correct, you have it backwards. Mormon academics opened the field and almost exclusively used the term "magic". Reed_C._Durham#1974_Nauvoo_speech was the first to really broach the topic in 1974 and he did so fairly dramatically, but the subject was really blown wide open with Michael Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, which for the most part holds up even today, and is fairly well regarded. Around the early 2000s, academics began using the term "cunning folk" more often to refer to practitioners of folk magic. Owen Davies is among the foremost scholars on the subject of magic, and uses the term in the context of early Mormonism (as cited previously). See for example: [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. You can see on google word trends how the word "folk magic" dominated "cunning folk" between 1980 and 2000 with almost twice as much usage up till 2000. "Cunning Folk" overtook "Folk Magic" in the early 2000s, and the usage of the terms is now about even [11]. Wouter J. Hanegraaff in his book "Esotericism and the Academy," pg 164–176, and Jonathan Z. Smith in his book “Trading Places,” in Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion page 215–229 both make solid arguments that the word "magic" can be problematic in a religious context. Bottom line, I'm ok if we change the title of the article to "folk magic" (I still prefer "cunning folk"), but to paint the word "cunning folk" as a euphemism mostly used by apologists is inaccurate. It is an academic term, with broad usage. Epachamo (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I said "cunning folk in the context of Mormonism" is a euphemism used by LDS. I am aware it is used in academia for other related topics, but the dearth of sources by non-LDS members using that term suggests it is not widely employed by them to describe the practices of Smith et al. "Folk magic" would be the more neutral term here, especially given the initial LDS resistance to characterizing it as "magic" -- it's not hard to conclude that "cunning folk" was the more palatable term to them even if it wasn't the most appropriate descriptor.

  Being a tithing member of LDS absolutely creates a financial relationship. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I'm ok if we change the title of the article to "folk magic" as it is a common term (I still prefer "cunning folk"). There is hardly a dearth. Owen Davies (historian) is non-LDS, and arguably the foremost authority on the subject, and has no problem using the word "cunning folk" in the context of Joseph Smith. In his book "Grimories" he devotes pages 147-152 to Smith and uses the term "cunning folk" in that context no less than five times. John L. Brooke, non-Mormon, Bancroft award winner, wrote a great book, "The Refiner's Fire:The Making of Mormon Cosmology," and used "cunning folk" a couple dozen times in the context of Mormonism. It's ok to use the term in this context. The more you study, the more obvious it is that Smith's family was totally descended from the English cunning folk tradition.

  Finally, what makes you think that Stapley pays tithing? Stapley is a well regarded academically (although considered promoting anti-mormonism by some), and hardly apologetic. Seriously, read some of his stuff, its good. If you find anything apologetic, let me know, I'd be interested. Epachamo (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Surely someone who becomes a stake president observes the usual tithing requirements for LDS members... JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Source? Seriously doubt it. Epachamo (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Huh, looks like there is another LDS Jonathan Stapley. Anyway, if he's still a member of the church what makes you think he doesn't tithe? JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly can't find anything that definitively states that he is even Mormon, although he probably is/was given he went to BYU as an undergrad 30 years ago. Particularly if someone is an intellectual, and not in the employ of BYU or the church, then you just can't make that assumption that he pays tithing. The church doesn't publish statistics, but I'd wager to bet that of the 17 million Mormons, only a couple million are actually tithe payers. Since the 2019 bombshell report by the on church funds, that number has without a doubt dropped even further. Among the liberal intellectual wing of the church, with people like Jana Riess, who are both members of the Mormon History Association, not paying tithing is more common. Finally, have you read his book? He's not exactly a Book of Mormon fundamentalist staying in the bounds of orthopraxy. Epachamo (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Notes for improvement

• Need a section Modern LDS total rejection of magic, etc. discuss LDS & magic
• Discuss 21st century LDS usage of 'cunning folk', citing examples. Can a source be found explicitly saying LDS prefer 'cunning folk'?
• Mention first modern public display of seerstones?

to be expanded. Feoffer (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• what practices do Modern LDS engage in which can trace their roots to folk magic practices of the early nineteenth century northeastern US?

Has the Modern LDS rejected magic? Traditions persist in modern day practice. That is Stapley's big thesis. There is no source that says LDS prefer 'cunning folk'. LDS prefer not to talk about this subject at all! Epachamo (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, post-1900 LDS is way outside my familiarity, so I think I was mostly going on a FAIR wiki article. Certainly don't want to put the cart before the horse by assuming. Feoffer (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FAIR is an apologetic site, and I would not go to it for any historical information, or to learn about this subject. It represents a viewpoint within the church, but cannot be considered scholarly. Epachamo (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

lol Yeah, I knew they weren't RS, but I assumed they weren't THAT far off. (That's why we don't assume) Feoffer (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Its hit and miss. Sometimes they can be very far off. I'd just be very careful. Epachamo (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Another question to add to the bulleted list: what practices do Modern LDS engage in which can trace their roots to folk magic practices of the early nineteenth century northeastern US? jps (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

... and beyond northeastern US. In the 1850s, there were more Mormons in England than in Utah, most of whom eventually migrated to Utah. They each brought their unique cultural influences. Epachamo (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Now, this is an interesting thought. What if the word "cunning" was imported into Mormon culture from England? I cannot figure out how Stapley settled on foregrounding that term, but it would be interesting to understand how Mormons in England specifically adopted folk magic from England and whether they called such practice "cunning" as is more common there still to this day (c.f. Davies). jps (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been my impression that titling this article using the term "cunning folk" is supposed to imply early Mormons themselves called it "cunning" any more than myocardial infarction implies that the average person calls it that and not "heart attack". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. My curiousity is whether it came from Stapley's culture. jps (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

From Stapley's book in the introduction (pg 4). Chapter 5 "explores the overlooked context of the transatlantic dispersion of “cunning-folk” practice. Early Mormon leaders were tremendously tolerant of folk ritual, believing as they did in supernatural power and an open heaven. And while some aspects of this culture were formally incorporated into church belief and activities, more commonly, church leaders equipped believers with the tools of liturgy to reach their desired ends. Like women’s performance of healing rituals, the incorporation of cunning-folk practice into the church shows important tensions between lay members and priesthood officers in the area of authority as well as the ultimate dominance of the ecclesiastical priesthood. However, as folk ritual often related to healing, cunning-folk practice is also an important context for the popular use of complementary and alternative medical therapies among Mormons today." Epachamo (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok I found this in a footnote of Stapley's book (page 166), that might provide insight into his thinking: "Religious studies scholars have challenged and complicated the utility of the term “magic” in the study of religion. See, e.g., Jonathan Z. Smith, “Trading Places,” in Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 215–229; Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), esp. 164–176." Epachamo (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

But how does "cunning tradition" avoid this challenge and complication? It feels very much like a euphemism treadmill. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it very well could be a euphemism treadmill. It could be that Stapley was looking for information to confirm a way he wanted to present the information. Epachamo (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet another quote, page 106: "When Joseph Smith established the Church of Christ in 1830, American villages lacked explicit cunning-men and -women, though aspects of their tradition—finding what was lost, healing, foretelling the future, and more—remained ambiguously on the fringes of society. Devils, not witches, were the Mormons’ supernatural threat, and, as Owen Davies has argued, “stripped of their unbewitching activities, cunning-folk were no more or less than herbalists, astrologers, and fortune tellers.”9 In this chapter I argue that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders explicitly and selectively translated aspects of this culture into the liturgy and cosmology of the LDS Church." The Owen Davies quote is from "Owen Davies, “Cunning-Folk in the Medical Market-Place During the Nineteenth Century,” Medical History 43 (1999): 73." Epachamo (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That last quote from page 106 makes me wonder at the choice of those following Stapley's lead in the use of the term since there were no "explicit cunning-men and -women". jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It was an explicit title in some villages in Europe, but the term was in wide use colloquially in America until the late 1800s. Epachamo (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to source American usage to no avail. What's the earliest source we can find that talks about cunning folk in the US and what's the earliest we have for early Mormonisms as cunning folk? 1995 was the earliest one I saw connecting CF to Mormonism. Feoffer (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)