Mormon Apologists: What's left? or, what's next?

[_Chap]

No, because I am not the only one who uses the term "Mopologist." By definition, a neologism is a word that is in the process of entering common usage.

As of last night, I am not the only one who uses the term hættup; my World of Warcraft guild now uses it, as does my Second Life family, and my Sims characters. Tonight I shall tell my Lord of the Rings Online guild, as well as my Star Wars Galaxies order.

So, I guess it's a word by your definition, huh DJ?

Man... I can't believe hættup!

And, by the way, any reasonable person would think that "mopologist" is a person in the field of mopology, the study of mops and other floor cleaning utilities.

If a group of people actually do begin to use a new spoken utterance and/or written form to one another as part of their verbal communications, then Belmont will I think find that students of linguistics have no problem in acknowledging that a new word has come into existence. If he can really bring it into use, his 'haettup' may be a case in point (speculating on its derivation, I wonder whether Belmont may not have subconsciously derived it in part from the verb 'to tup', q.v.).

If the group using the word is relatively limited compared to the range of the language of which it is a part, we may want to say that it is part of a sub-group of the relevant language - perhaps an 'argot', an 'ethnolect' or a 'jargon'. The latter term is used for (amongst other things) the sub-group of a language used by people who specialize in some kind of activity. Certainly 'mopologist' would be part of a 'jargon' specific to critics of the CoJCoLDS. By the way, it is unlikely that anyone wanting to make up a word for someone who studies floor-cleaning equipment would choose 'mopologist', when the far more obvious form 'sphoungaristologist' would leap to the mind of any educated person. Anyway, 'mopologist' is already in use amongst a community of language users with a clear enough reference, and as Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, "the meaning of a word is its use in the language".

I am proud to be the first person to capture 'mopologist' for lexicography (the art of recording the use of words in the living language) - Wiktionary has of course made it so much quicker to begin that process than it used to be. I did not want to boast, but I suppose I should have guessed that someone as perceptive as Belmont and as clever at putting two and two together would not spare my blushes!!!!! How did he guess? I suppose it may have been something to do with my wondering aloud how he thought words got into dictionaries. Silly me for giving the game away!

I hope Belmont will ensure that the scholarly public will soon be aware of the birth of 'haettup' by creating a Wiktionary entry. My only problem is that if it means what Belmont tells us it means, that is "Darth J. thinks Jesus grew a temporary vagina" then that will be a bit hard to get into use by people speaking grammatical English, because it denotes not a recognizable part of speech (noun, verb, adjective etc.), but a proposition. English (or any other language known to me) cannot digest words like that at all easily. If on the other hand Belmont could get his community to use it in the sense of a verb meaning "to think that Jesus grew a temporary vagina", then it would fit very nicely into a sentence such as "Darth J. just haettupped". (It is of course a separate question whether that sentence enunciates a true proposition).

[Incidentally, may I say what a pleasure and honor it is, as a former believer in the Lord, to step once more into the atmosphere of reverence and awe with which all discussion of our Savior should be conducted? Belmont has set us a shining example of the way in which such hallowed things should be spoken of. Truly the Spirit is with him!]

[_Simon Belmont]

If a group of people actually do begin to use a new spoken utterance and/or written form to one another as part of their verbal communications, then Belmont will I think find that students of linguistics have no problem in acknowledging that a new word has come into existence. If he can really bring it into use, his 'haettup' may be a case in point (speculating on its derivation, I wonder whether Belmont may not have subconsciously derived it in part from the verb 'to tup', q.v.).

If the group using the word is relatively limited compared to the range of the language of which it is a part, we may want to say that it is part of a sub-group of the relevant language - perhaps an 'argot', an 'ethnolect' or a 'jargon'. The latter term is used for (amongst other things) the sub-group of a language used by people who specialize in some kind of activity. Certainly 'mopologist' would be part of a 'jargon' specific to critics of the CoJCoLDS. By the way, it is unlikely that anyone wanting to make up a word for someone who studies floor-cleaning equipment would choose 'mopologist', when the far more obvious form 'sphoungaristologist' would leap to the mind of any educated person. Anyway, 'mopologist' is already in use amongst a community of language users with a clear enough reference, and as Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, "the meaning of a word is its use in the language".

I am proud to be the first person to capture 'mopologist' for lexicography (the art of recording the use of words in the living language) - Wiktionary has of course made it so much quicker to begin that process than it used to be. I did not want to boast, but I suppose I should have guessed that someone as perceptive as Belmont and as clever at putting two and two together would not spare my blushes!!!!! How did he guess? I suppose it may have been something to do with my wondering aloud how he thought words got into dictionaries. Silly me for giving the game away!

I hope Belmont will ensure that the scholarly public will soon be aware of the birth of 'haettup' by creating a Wiktionary entry. My only problem is that if it means what Belmont tells us it means, that is "Darth J. thinks Jesus grew a temporary vagina" then that will be a bit hard to get into use by people speaking grammatical English, because it denotes not a recognizable part of speech (noun, verb, adjective etc.), but a proposition. English (or any other language known to me) cannot digest words like that at all easily. If on the other hand Belmont could get his community to use it in the sense of a verb meaning "to think that Jesus grew a temporary vagina", then it would fit very nicely into a sentence such as "Darth J. just haettupped". (It is of course a separate question whether that sentence enunciates a true proposition).

[Incidentally, may I say what a pleasure and honor it is, as a former believer in the Lord, to step once more into the atmosphere of reverence and awe with which all discussion of our Savior should be conducted? Belmont has set us a shining example of the way in which such hallowed things should be spoken of. Truly the Spirit is with him!]

Well, Chap: thank you for that linguistics lesson. I hereby change the definition of hættup to (verb) to grow a temporary vagina.

Now, keep in mind that this word uses the old-English ash character as denoted by the æ symbol, and not merely an a next to an e.

[_sock puppet]

If a group of people actually do begin to use a new spoken utterance and/or written form to one another as part of their verbal communications, then Belmont will I think find that students of linguistics have no problem in acknowledging that a new word has come into existence. If he can really bring it into use, his 'haettup' may be a case in point (speculating on its derivation, I wonder whether Belmont may not have subconsciously derived it in part from the verb 'to tup', q.v.).

If the group using the word is relatively limited compared to the range of the language of which it is a part, we may want to say that it is part of a sub-group of the relevant language - perhaps an 'argot', an 'ethnolect' or a 'jargon'. The latter term is used for (amongst other things) the sub-group of a language used by people who specialize in some kind of activity. Certainly 'mopologist' would be part of a 'jargon' specific to critics of the CoJCoLDS. By the way, it is unlikely that anyone wanting to make up a word for someone who studies floor-cleaning equipment would choose 'mopologist', when the far more obvious form 'sphoungaristologist' would leap to the mind of any educated person. Anyway, 'mopologist' is already in use amongst a community of language users with a clear enough reference, and as Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, "the meaning of a word is its use in the language".

I am proud to be the first person to capture 'mopologist' for lexicography (the art of recording the use of words in the living language) - Wiktionary has of course made it so much quicker to begin that process than it used to be. I did not want to boast, but I suppose I should have guessed that someone as perceptive as Belmont and as clever at putting two and two together would not spare my blushes!!!!! How did he guess? I suppose it may have been something to do with my wondering aloud how he thought words got into dictionaries. Silly me for giving the game away!

I hope Belmont will ensure that the scholarly public will soon be aware of the birth of 'haettup' by creating a Wiktionary entry. My only problem is that if it means what Belmont tells us it means, that is "Darth J. thinks Jesus grew a temporary vagina" then that will be a bit hard to get into use by people speaking grammatical English, because it denotes not a recognizable part of speech (noun, verb, adjective etc.), but a proposition. English (or any other language known to me) cannot digest words like that at all easily. If on the other hand Belmont could get his community to use it in the sense of a verb meaning "to think that Jesus grew a temporary vagina", then it would fit very nicely into a sentence such as "Darth J. just haettupped". (It is of course a separate question whether that sentence enunciates a true proposition).

[Incidentally, may I say what a pleasure and honor it is, as a former believer in the Lord, to step once more into the atmosphere of reverence and awe with which all discussion of our Savior should be conducted? Belmont has set us a shining example of the way in which such hallowed things should be spoken of. Truly the Spirit is with him!]

Well, Chap: thank you for that linguistics lesson. I hereby change the definition of hættup to (verb) to grow a temporary vagina.

Now, keep in mind that this word uses the old-English ash character as denoted by the æ symbol, and not merely an a next to an e.

I suspect a lot of early pubescent boys would like to undergo hættup, Simon, so that they can have a more pleasurable experience relieving their sexual frustration. During that temporary time, they can go f*** themselves. You may have coined a heck of a new term, even if it is only a fantasy one.

Heck, these boys could even honestly tell their bishops that they don't have a problem with masturbation.

[_Darth J]

Well, Chap: thank you for that linguistics lesson. I hereby change the definition of hættup to (verb) to grow a temporary vagina.

Now, keep in mind that this word uses the old-English ash character as denoted by the æ symbol, and not merely an a next to an e.

Good luck in your endeavor, Simon Belmont! You are indeed uniquely qualified for this effort. If there is anyone whose online persona shows a particular understanding of what it is like to grow a vagina, it is you.

I trust that in your work to make this word a true neologism, you will be linking to where I ever claimed that LDS doctrine requires Jesus to have had a vagina to have vicariously suffered the pain of a woman's rape. Yes? No?

I think Moplogetics has a bright and promising future of deranged, self-appointed crusaders who never went on missions taking up innumerable amounts of bandwidth to argue about ridiculous straw men.

I wonder, Simon, if you see Moplogists endeavoring to explain the Atonement in the elegant, reverent way you have. Since Jesus, not having a vagina, could not have personally experienced a woman's pain of being raped, it simply stands to reason that the Church does not explicitly teach that He suffered every possible thing that every man, woman, and child could possibly experience. So females are on their own regarding this aspect of the Atonement.

But what about same-sex rape, Simon? In your deep sense of reverence and religious awe at the most profound and important event in the Plan of Salvation, are you willing to allow that, since Jesus had "the correct plumbing," He at least could succor and give comfort to, say, a man who was gang-raped by other men in a prison shower? Or perhaps a woman who was anally raped? Surely, given the beautiful and sacred imagery you have suggested, Jesus could know what it is like to have been sodomized trillions of times, couldn't He?

Do you envision Moplogists addressing these issues in the same reverent, respectful tone that you have?