Thesis (M.A.)--Brigham Young University, Dept. of Religious Education, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 145-156).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Africa, 1994.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Africa, 1994.

Thesis (M.A.)--Youngstown State University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 177-183). Also available via the World Wide Web in PDF format.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / We investigate aspects of differential K-theory. In particular, we give a direct proof that the Freed-Lott differential analytic index is well defined, and a short proof of the differential Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem in the setting of Freed-Lott differential K-theory. We also construct explicit ring isomorphisms between Freed-Lott differential K-theory and Simons-Sullivan differential K-theory, define the Simons-Sullivan differential analytic index, and prove the differential Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem in the setting of Simons-Sullivan differential K-theory. / 2031-01-02

This thesis combines two studies: the role of livestock in the temporal salvation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Mormon exodus of 1846 and Cornelius P. Lott's contribution in the care of cattle and sheep during that time period. At Winter Quarters, the Church and its members depended in large measure for their survival upon the sizeable cattle herds they had acquired prior to their exodus from Nauvoo and during their trek across Iowa. Church leaders relied on men like Lott, whose expertise in the care of livestock, contributed significantly to the salvation of the Latter-day Saints. The work investigates the American agriculture and livestock industry in the first half of the nineteenth century for the context in which the Latter-day Saints acquired livestock and subsequently herded them across Iowa. During that time period, Missouri and Illinois had an abundance of good livestock, which contributed to success of the Mormon exodus. After their expulsion from the state of Missouri in 1838, the Church was left destitute of property and had to build up their livestock again. By 1846, they had amassed numerous herds, especially as they made a concerted effort to gather livestock in preparation for their exodus from Illinois. Along the Iowa trail, they continued acquiring cattle in great number by trading many of their possessions with local settlers. As Church leaders had designed, the Latter-day Saints arrived at the Missouri River with thousands of head of livestock. Their herds, particularly cattle, provided a significant lifeline for the Church in both sustenance and trade. Because the Latter-day Saints' livestock was such a precious commodity, Church leaders had to be selective in choosing men to care for the animals. Cornelius P. Lott represents that class of skilled hands who took on such assignments. He joined the Church in 1834 and became recognized by Joseph Smith in 1838 as he played a key role as a leader in the conflict against the Missouri mobs in 1838. He demonstrated his skills with livestock when the Prophet employed him as superintendent of the Smith farm in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith became well acquainted with Lott and favored him with unique privileges, including his participation in sacred temple ordinances, unavailable to most of the Church until later. Such experiences gave Lott opportunity to associate closely with Brigham Young and the Apostles. Hence, when Young sought for trusted men at the Missouri River who could care for the livestock, Lott was a natural choice. This study is valuable to Church history because it shows the importance of livestock and the men who cared for them in contributing to the success of the Mormon exodus and the temporal salvation of the Church. It is important in American history because gives insight into the role of cattle during the westward expansion era.

<p>In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy.</p><p>The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections.</p><p>There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability.</p><p>The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical.</p><p>The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average.</p><p>In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point.</p><p>One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.</p>

In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy. The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections. There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability. The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical. The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average. In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point. One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.

Recent debates as to the place of Old South symbols and institutions in the South of the new millennium are evidence of a changing order in the South. I examine -- from a rhetorical perspective informed by Kenneth Burke's theory of identification and division -- four debates that have taken place in the South and/or about the South over roughly the past decade, 1995 to the present. In this decade, Southerners and interested others have debated such issues as 1) admitting women to the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel; 2) integrating displays of public art in Richmond to feature Confederates and African Americans side by side; 3) continuing to fly the Confederate battle flag in public spaces such as the South Carolina Capitol or including it in the designs of state flags such as those of Georgia and Mississippi; and 4) allowing Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who seemed to speak out in support of the South's segregated past, to continue in his position of Senate leadership. Looking at each of these debates, it is clear that at issue in each is whether the ruling order of the South should continue to be one of division or whether that order should be supplanted by identification. Judging from the outcomes of the four debates analyzed here, the order of division seems to be waning just as the order of identification seems to be waxing in influence over the turn-of-the-millennium South. But a changing South is no less a distinctive, continuing South. I argue that a distinctive Southern culture based on a sense of order has existed and continues to exist amidst the larger American culture. If some form of "Southernism" is to continue as a distinctive mindset and way of life in the twenty-first century, Southerners will need to learn to strike a balance between their past, with its ruling order of division, and the present, with its ruling order of identification.

Thesis (M.E.S.)--Evergreen State College, 2009. / Title from title screen (viewed 4/15/2010). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-67).