
Oh wait...
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." --Walt Whitman












Professor Liviu Librescu held the door of his classroom, Room 204, shut while Cho attempted to enter it. Librescu was able to prevent the shooter from entering the classroom until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door. Only one student in his classroom died.[35][36] Subsequently, a petition was started to rename Norris Hall to Librescu Hall to honor this professor.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak tried to save the students in her French classroom, Room 211, after looking Cho in the eye in the hallway. Colin Goddard, one of seven survivors in the French class, told his family that Couture-Nowak ordered her students to the back of the class for their safety and made a fatal attempt to barricade the door.
Hearing the commotion on the floor below, Professor Kevin Granata brought 20 students from a nearby classroom into an office, where the door could be locked, on the third floor of Norris Hall. He then went downstairs to investigate and was shot by Cho. Granata died from his injuries. None of the students locked in Granata's office were injured.

It must be Mormon week. I say that in lighthearted jest. Yesterday, two nice young guys knocked on my door and wanted to talk to me about it. Then tonight, I turned on my favorite channel (PBS)--that's right laugh all you want--and the program tonight is about the history of the Church of Latter Day Saints. I've been curious to know more about it all for a while, so I decided to watch. It's still playing right now. Have you ever seen the program? Usually I like and trust PBS shows well, but I have to be honest with you---if Mormonism believes and does (or has believed and done) all of the things the show says, I must be missing something because it is being portrayed as some sketchy visions, incredible (and perhaps unwise) movement across the country, and the carrying out of violence. Of course, that's not even mentioning the whole polygamy thing, which I am willing to allow may have just been a blip in the past and no longer is supported.
So what am I missing or what is not being portrayed correctly? There must be more to it or good, smart people like you wouldn't believe?
Sorry about your Mormon week! :)Note: she is a philosopher; hence the jargon.
Wow, that is a deep question! I did watch the PBS documentary on both Monday and Tuesday and overall I thought it was good and largely accurate. Remember though that, as TV producers their job is to focus on the controversial and the sensational, and leave almost everything else out. What they did cover, however, they covered accurately. I thought the eerie music and visuals used at certain times were a bit odd. Such things suggested a "meta-interpretation" or "voice of authority" about what the REAL interpretation of Mormonism was. In the end, though, I thought the series was good. It captured something important of the ups and downs of the Mormon experience.
I'm not surprised that you weren't too impressed by our story. Much of Joseph Smith's story, for example, seems implausible, even unbelievable. Especially to a critical mind it hardly seems to be taken seriously on an purely evidentiary basis. Joseph Smith himself seemed to realize this -- he said he wouldn't have believed it himself if it hadn't happened to him. And there are big issues, both ethically and epistemically, that arose after Joseph's time.
Many of the reasons I believe are reasons that are not particularly rational, or it least not rational in the sense that would be compelling to an unbeliever. Let me try to explain, though, why I continue to be Mormon.
1. Part of it has to do with the way Mormonism has enriched my life. Without a doubt, some of the best, kindest, more generous people I know are Mormons. Not all are of course, but many. Mormonism is a religion that demands that you actively participate in a rich community life; it demands that we use time and money for others. I have seen this process change me and those around me for the better. One of the people I admire most, my Dad, was the product of such a process. And if a religion can make people like my Dad, I think that is something of a small miracle. To be sure, there is no other group of people I would want to be with in a difficult time than my fellow Mormons.
2. Another part of why I am Mormon involves certain experiences I've had. As a missionary in Argentina, I was sometimes asked to "give blessings" to sick people. I was once asked to do this for a little 8 year old girl who had recently been diagnosed with Leukemia. I still remember her big brown eyes and her worried family. They were very poor and obviously didn't know what else to do -- they weren't even Mormons. Anyway, after I got done saying the prayer that is involved, I felt a presence I've never felt before. I left the city shortly thereafter and didn't find out what happened until later. I was talking to the missionary who had replaced me in that area and he said that, during the girl's next hospital visit, they couldn't find any trace of Leukemia. Of course, I realize there are other explanations for this in addition to the divine miracle theory -- perhaps even more "rational" explanations. But this experience seemed to suggest to me that I was in the faith community where I belonged.
3. Another part of the me loves various aspects of Mormon doctrine. Joseph's emphasis of communitarianism was a direct rebuttle to the unbridled capitalism of the day. His social views were grounded in economic equality. I like that. I also like how Mormons believe in an "open cannon" -- that there is no final last word and that one should always be open to new "revelation" in all of its different forms. This is a very pragmatic and post-modern idea, and it connects with Joseph's ideas about an "open universe" more generally. I also like how the church is, in many ways, deeply democratic. To many people, it sounds odd when I say that. But the church is largely governed by laity -- everyone takes a turn in community governance. I like how the church teaches the existence of the "Heavenly Mother" and that the divine life is not solely comprised by monotheistic patriarchy. I like the doctrine that God is embodied. It lends a dignity to our physicality that runs directly contrary to the Platonic, Augustinian, and Descartian traditions. In short, Mormonism teaches that equality matters, that democracy matters, that openness matters, that being a woman matters, and that bodies matter. There are a few more things, but that will do for now.
4. I find great meaning in Mormon community life. Wherever I go, I will have people to support me and look after for me. I have built lasting friendships. These communities, for me, have something of the divine about them. These church, both locally and globally, is also often involved in impressive humanitarian projects. Finally, I like the idea that family community is especially important and that family relationships last forever. As I think of my own family, I can't imagine living without them. Mormonism gives me hope that I will never have to. This is where temples and family "sealings" come in: to offer precisely that hope.
5. Having said that, I should say that many aspects of the modern church, from my perspective, have failed to live up to the doctrine. We have often not lived up to our obligations to minority groups. We have fought against women's rights when we should have been the first to support them. We have embraced materialism and become too comfortable with war. We have not welcomed in certain sorts of outsiders. In short, we've become, well, too sure of ourselves and closed. I also would be lying if I said I didn't have occasional doubts at times about things relating to LDS history and doctrine (just as I have doubts about equally important religious issues in Biblical history, Christian doctrine, and theism in general). My life is a constant struggle between doubt and faith and I'm not sure I've managed this struggle very well.
In the end, I think we Mormons are a bunch of imperfect people who are really trying to better ourselves and build better communities. The sincerity of the quest, the goodness of many of the people, the beauty of the ideals, and the voice of my own experience keep me Mormon.
Does that make sense? It was probably more than you wanted to hear.

A month of controversy over the decision to invite Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at Brigham Young University's commencement ended Thursday with more than 20,000 BYU graduates and their families, along with faculty and staff, soaking Cheney in applause....Cheney thanked BYU for the honorary degree and closed by saying, "I leave here as a proud member of the Brigham Young Class of 2007." A standing ovation lasted a full minute.Barf!
BY ANDY F. BRYAN
January 22, 1939
Assistant Professor Henry “Indiana” Jones Jr.
Department of Anthropology
Chapman Hall 227B
Marshall College
Dr. Jones:
As chairman of the Committee on Promotion and Tenure, I regret to inform you that your recent application for tenure has been denied by a vote of 6 to 1. Following past policies and procedures, proceedings from the committee’s deliberations that were pertinent to our decision have been summarized below according to the assessment criteria.
Demonstrates suitable experience and expertise in chosen field:
The committee concurred that Dr. Jones does seem to possess a nearly superhuman breadth of linguistic knowledge and an uncanny familiarity with the history and material culture of the occult. However, his understanding and practice of archaeology gave the committee the greatest cause for alarm. Criticisms of Dr. Jones ranged from “possessing a perceptible methodological deficiency” to “practicing archaeology with a complete lack of, disregard for, and colossal ignorance of current methodology, theory, and ethics” to “unabashed grave-robbing.” Given such appraisals, perhaps it isn’t surprising to learn that several Central and South American countries recently assembled to enact legislation aimed at permanently prohibiting his entry. Moreover, no one on the committee can identify who or what instilled Dr. Jones with the belief that an archaeologist’s tool kit should consist solely of a bullwhip and a revolver.
Nationally recognized for an effectual program of scholarship or research supported by publications of high quality:
Though Dr. Jones conducts “field research” far more often than anyone else in the department, he has consistently failed to report the results of his excavations, provide any credible evidence of attending the archaeological conferences he claims to attend, or produce a single published article in any peer-reviewed journal. Someone might tell Dr. Jones that in academia “publish or perish” is the rule. Shockingly, there is little evidence to date that Dr. Jones has successfully excavated even one object since he arrived at Marshall College. Marcus Brody, curator of our natural-history museum, assured me this was not so and graciously pointed out several pieces in the collection that he claimed were procured through Dr. Jones’s efforts, but, quite frankly, we have not one shred of documentation that can demonstrate the provenance or legal ownership of these objects.
Meets professional standards of conduct in research and professional activities of the discipline:
The committee was particularly generous (and vociferous) in offering their opinions regarding this criterion. Permit me to list just a few of the more troubling accounts I was privy to during the committee’s meeting. Far more times that I would care to mention, the name “Indiana Jones” (the adopted title Dr. Jones insists on being called) has appeared in governmental reports linking him to the Nazi Party, black-market antiquities dealers, underground cults, human sacrifice, Indian child slave labor, and the Chinese mafia. There are a plethora of international criminal charges against Dr. Jones, which include but are not limited to: bringing unregistered weapons into and out of the country; property damage; desecration of national and historical landmarks; impersonating officials; arson; grand theft (automobiles, motorcycles, aircraft, and watercraft in just a one week span last year); excavating without a permit; countless antiquities violations; public endangerment; voluntary and involuntary manslaughter; and, allegedly, murder.
Dr. Jones’s interpersonal skills and relationships are no better. By Dr. Jones’ own admission, he has repeatedly employed an underage Asian boy as a driver and “personal assistant” during his Far East travels. I will refrain from making any insinuations as to the nature of this relationship, but my intuition insists that it is not a healthy one, nor one to be encouraged. Though the committee may have overstepped the boundaries of its evaluation, I find it pertinent to note that Dr. Jones has been romantically linked to countless women of questionable character, an attribute very unbecoming of a Marshall College professor. One of these women was identified as a notorious nightclub singer whose heart he attempted to extract with his hands, and whom he then tried, and failed, to lower into a lake of magma. Another was a Nazi scholar he was seen courting just last year who, I’m told, plummeted into a fathomless abyss at Dr. Jones’s hand. And, of course, no one can forget the slow decline and eventual death of Professor Abner Ravenwood after Dr. Jones’s affair with Abner’s underage daughter was made public, forcing her to emigrate to Nepal to escape the debacle.
Demonstrates successful record in undergraduate and graduate teaching:
In his nine years with the department, Dr. Jones has failed to complete even one uninterrupted semester of instruction. In fact, he hasn’t been in attendance for more than four consecutive weeks since he was hired. Departmental records indicate Dr. Jones has taken more sabbaticals, sick time, personal days, conference allotments, and temporary leaves than all the other members of the department combined.
The lone student representative on the committee wished to convey that, besides being an exceptional instructor, a compassionate mentor, and an unparalleled gentleman, Dr. Jones was extraordinarily receptive to the female student body during and after the transition to a coeducational system at the college. However, his timeliness in grading and returning assignments was a concern. Establishment of an appropriate record of departmental and campus service: Dr. Jones’s behavior on campus has led not only to disciplinary action but also to concerns as to the state of his mental health. In addition to multiple instances of public drunkenness, Dr. Jones, on three separate occasions, has attempted to set fire to the herpetology wing of the biology department.
Perhaps most disturbing, however, are the statements that come directly from Dr. Jones’s mouth. Several faculty members maintain that Dr. Jones informed them on multiple occasions of having discovered the Ark of the Covenant, magic diamond rocks, and the Holy Grail! When asked to provide evidence for such claims, he purportedly replied that he was “kind of immortal” and/or muttered derogatory statements about the “bureaucratic fools” running the U.S. government. Given his history with the Nazi Party, I fear where his loyalty lies.
To summarize, the committee fails to recognize any indication that Dr. Jones is even remotely proficient when it comes to archaeological scholarship and practice. His aptitude as an instructor is questionable at best, his conduct while abroad is positively deplorable, and his behavior on campus is minimally better. Marshall College has a reputation to uphold. I need not say more.
My apologies,
Prof. G.L. Stevens
On paper, anyone who would call himself a Mormon is divorced from reality and reason. I must admit that I have atheistic biases, but even if I didn't, Mormonism still stands with Scientology.
On the other hand is my personal experience. I have never met a Mormon I did not both like and respect. They have all been academically respectable and generally more worldly and accepting than your average religious type. They have been immensely and genuinely friendly and helpful. Responsible, upstanding, well-meaning individuals. I must admit that even as a liberal, atheist, drinking, pot-smoking guy, I have always enjoyed their company and valued their friendship.
But always in the back of my mind there is a voice: "This guy is a delusional lunatic."
"A real rat baller," says an old high school teammate, Alan Lum. "He'd have a basketball with him in class sometimes so that between classes, when we had an hour or so, he'd get in a pickup game on the outdoor courts."
"Tall and skinny, lithe -- he was angular," says Marshall Poe, a pickup game buddy from Obama's law school days. "Because he didn't have any weight, he had to go up and over people to get the ball. He had good ups."
Now Barack Obama, presidential candidate, he once was Barry Obama, basketball player, maybe 6-1 and 170, quick, aggressive, a lefthander, a slasher with a nice double-pump shot in the lane.
A Dwyane Wade type?
"George Gervin," says Poe.
He adds this disclaimer: "Obama didn't have much of an outside shot. He wasn't a terribly skilled player, but he was good enough to play on the center court." The Harvard intramural gym had one real court with two narrow ones alongside. "The scrubs played on the side. Obama always played on the center court."
No serious basketball player has been president. Dr. Naismith, alas, put up his peach basket too late for the towering rail-splitter, Abe Lincoln. The Princeton All-American, Bill Bradley, never got much past midcourt in a presidential race. Al Gore came the closest, long after playing on Harvard's freshman team, but one doubts the old vice president had any ups, let alone good ones."
Obama. A year ago, visiting American troops in Kuwait, he played ball with soldiers from his home state, Illinois. "They might've expected an old, gray senator," says his deputy press secretary, Tommy Victor. "Instead, they get an athlete who relates to them on a different level." Obama's Occidental coach, Mike Zinn, quoted by The Washington Post: "Limited shooting range, although fairly accurate from 12 feet in. Very athletic, fast, good jumper ... a very good defender ... scored about 10 points and had six or seven rebounds per game."At age 45, Obama still can play. Word comes from Craig Robinson, the fourth-leading scorer in Princeton basketball history and now the head coach at Brown. It's also true that Robinson is Obama's brother-in-law, a kinship that gains you nothing on the playground. Robinson says: "He can hold his own in any pickup game. He's athletic, and he knows how to play the game. So he can fit in with all kinds, from the completely dangerous to the highly skilled. As anyone knows with knowledge of pickup games, that's quite a compliment."
How cool would that be? Instead of having a cheerleader for a president, we can have a slashing small forward.
By the way, I was trying to explain to Ellie the other day the difference between a jock and the gym rat. In high school, I was definitely not a jock, but I was a gym rat. Here is how I understand the difference: A jock is somebody who plays sports in large part because of the social identity that it brings, while a gym rat is more of an addict to a sport (usually basketball). The jock, from a outside, has a healthy social life. The gym rat is more solitary and, to outside observers, appears a bit twisted and sick -- a user who just can't stop. The gym rat's identity is, contrary to what some might think, more thoroughly based on a sport itself than the jock is. Both like to succeed in their sports, but for the gym rat the joy is intrinsic to the game. For the jock, the joy is picking up chicks after the game.










