Talk:Molly Mormon

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

Usage[edit]

Isnt this term mostly used within the church, and mostly to describe adolescent girls? I dont see it so much a term used to describe adult women. I see it more as a term used by teenagers (both boys and girls) to describe girls who won't participage in typical teen rebelious activities. I.e. "She would never get a belly button ring, she is way to Molly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.192.239 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 July 2006

I think originally that is what it referred to but when I lived in Utah it was definitely not gender specific. Pretty much anyone of any age (usually under 30 though) could be a MoMo. I was raised Mormon and lived in Utah for almost 13 years and have honestly never heard the Peter Priesthood one though. Its used both in the church to make fun of holier than thou Mormon's who practice the sillier abstination's of thing's or as peer pressure but also outside the Mormon community as a peer pressure tactic or joking way in making fun of non-Mormon's who wouldn't do things like smoke, drink, come out on Sunday etc.. but usually never in seriousness. When I was mormon I'll tell ya right now that I was the ultimate MoMo. RaynDrahps 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)RaynDrahps[reply]

I'd like to see this article nominated for deletion. It does not have a NPOV; it is not sourced; it is not germaine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.9.100 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 May 2007

Really the term Molly Mormon is used teasingly among LDS youth, same as Peter Priesthood. Neither of these nicknames are considered offensive, unless the person being addressed doesn't particularly like being called a goody-goody.... Abd btw Momo didnt come from Molly Mormon, its just short for 'Mormon' and isnt gender specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.226.132 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the abbreviated form is slightly more self-mocking, tonally (or, alternately, more akin to "those people"): "That family across the street is sure Mo Mo. They've got lots of kids."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede needs to be changed. No one uses 'MoMo' but rather "Modern Molly Mormon". I don't think MoMoMo will come into vogue either. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO[edit]

Unless this can be should to pass WP:NEO, I am going to nominate it for deletion. It needs reliable sources that discuss the actual meaning of the term. Until(1 == 2) 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree, and I'd support the nom for deletion. -Visorstuff 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try a prod first. Until(1 == 2) 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is a neologism, but I don't see how the article could legitimately be more than a dictionary definition. It's a pile of OR, and if we removed all of it, it couldn't be much more than a couple lines long. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you want to see this article deleted one way or another, for any poor reason you can come with. If not, why would you say "I don't think this is a neologism" and then turn around and write this comment essentially saying let's delete this silly neologism. You can't have it both ways. Please leave your personal biases out of this. Reswobslc 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal bias in this. I have no problem with "embarrassing" parts of Mormonism. I stand by my remark that it's not a neologism (at least not a very "neo" one). This article simply can't be more than a dictionary definition. Three users before me independently came to this conclusion. I'm honestly not out get you. I did not call you a good editor with irony. I've seen your stuff and it's top-notch. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only personal bias in this is the time and effort I've spent putting the article together that you want to undo. No matter what I do, it'll never be good enough for you. If "Molly Mormon" is just a dicdef with something to say about it, then perhaps so is "Nigger". After all, a nigger is a derogatory word for a black person, end of story, and you can go on and on about how somebody said nigger, somebody wrote nigger, somebody got shot saying nigger, and how Huck Finn said nigger, but in the end, nigger is just a "dic def" for a black person, per your logic. So why don't you AfD over there as well? There is nothing consistent about your zeal to undo my good-faith work. Reswobslc 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are examples of the word being used which have no analysis. There's little scholarly work that establishes these various meanings and their evolution with any authority (unlike nigger, or even Jack Mormon), and I still believe this is the sort of thing wikipedia is not. Nonetheless, you've added lots of sources, and many editors think WP:V is enough. You can be proud of this article. At any rate, in the future I'd appreciate it if you don't make personal attacks. ("I guess Luke's criteria for inclusion is whether it makes everything Mormon look shiny and delightsome." "talking out of both sides of one's mouth.") Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"She is a Molly Mormon. Patty Perfect. The Typical Mormon Woman. Different names for the same woman. She sits quietly in sacrament meeting, dispensing Cheerios and quiet books with dignity. She teaches inspiring, non-controversial Relief Society lessons. She wears sensible shoes and bears a striking resemblance to June Cleaver. She’s always ready with whole wheat bread for the needy. She’s our role model, as quintessentially Mormon as the Golden Plates."[1]. Sounds like analysis, and not mere usage, to me. Reswobslc 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe, maybe, perhaps, that I was simply wrong? Or do you still prefer to believe I'm one of the brethren out to scour the the wikipedia from unflattering coverage at Molly Mormon? Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you still haven't rescinded that AfD in spite of mounting evidence that it isn't going anywhere. Reswobslc 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm sorry for nominating your article. Cool Hand Luke 03:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for all the pressure exerted in fighting for its keep. (If pressure included better references and a better article, better for Wikipedia.) Reswobslc 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seven years later, the article is still here. I found it interesting and useful. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The halo[edit]

General reminder that per WP:NPA we are to attack the contribution, not the editor.

As for the commentary, I didn't say it was obvious. You did. You said it was like saying the sky's dark at night. If that's how you feel, then the caption should be redundant, but it's not how I feel.

I think that it's quite speculative to draw an inference of "attempted perfection" from the design. Halos connotate angels, and perfection. Perhaps the question mark shows it's attempted perfection, but we are not to draw these sort of inferences from primary sources. This goes back to more general problems I see where the term is used inconsistently. When we include primary sources like this, we should take care not to draw conclusions for the reader. I think the term is used more variably than the article suggests. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please! The rest of planet Earth can clearly see what the author intended on that book cover. Is this what they made you an administrator to do? You know, Carbon says that the atomic number for carbon is 6, but there's no reference after it to back it up. So does the article for every other element on the periodic table. Does that mean that's all original research too? Is it redundant as well, since we can already see from the table that it's number 6? You are putting WAY too much effort into attacking this article. Tell us all, what is your WP:POINT? There are plenty of administrative backlogs that need attention, not glossing up your religion on Wikipedia with these frivolous endless arguments. If they decide the image must go due to copyright, its caption a moot point anyway. Reswobslc 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an agenda here. I would just like the article to be as reliable as possible. You'll notice that I didn't randomly spackle flags in it. I didn't even flag the parts that make Mormons sound bad; I flagged the parts that I genuinely believe to be original research.
We don't need cites for some things (like C’s atomic number or the claim that Mollys are "stereotyped as being consumed by their life within the church") because many previous sources have come to these conclusions. These are not original research. This caption, however, analyzes a book cover in a way that has probably never been done before. That's the heart of OR, and I think it's bad here because of how variably the term is actually used. We ought not spoonfeed conclusions to our readers, especially when the conclusions are original to the editors of wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall, you pretty much put in writing not once, not twice, not three times, but four, that the entire article was original research, and the remainder was barely a "dicdef", which is why you sent it to AfD. If you recall correctly, the community corrected you and told you that was utter nonsense. Clearly your senses of WP:OR are out of tune here, regardless of what biases you claim to not have (normal unbiased editors wouldn't stick around this long). So, although this isn't the first time I've suggested it, why don't you leave this article alone? If it really has an OR problem, then have someone else edit it for you. Reswobslc 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to every comment is to attack the source. It's not really an argument here. I'm impressed with the work you put into this—you've proved that most of it is not OR. I was wrong again (see above). Users edit what interests them, and I'm no exception. I don't believe it necessarily indicates bias. You, for example, seem pretty normal to me (am I wrong?) Is there a good reason to keep this caption? If it's non-obvious then it's certainly OR. Cool Hand Luke 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing non-obvious is that the halo is hard to see when the image is only 4% of the size of the printed book itself. That's the main reason I felt it was a good idea to point it out. Reswobslc 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we mention the halo then? That would interject no analysis about the tone of the word. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized that you seem to have misunderstood me the whole time. My problem was not with mentioning the halo, but with the interpretation that it represents the Molly Mormon stereotype of "attempted perfection." The halo is fine. That must be why my comment seemed contradictory to you. I'm sorry for not explaining it better. I should have picked up on it earlier from your glazed donut comment. Cool Hand Luke 06:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I caught that part. But it seemed to me that your goal was to delete anything and everything you could, which I gathered from this. Had you removed just those two words, I probably would have went along with it. Regardless, I'm fine with the way it sits now. Reswobslc 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you assume good faith in the future, even for sinister Mormons. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Molly Mormon. 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) 04:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molly_Mormon&oldid=1204045580"