Missouri Conference Journal: Fill & Download for Free

It was Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson:Per the National Journal:After nearly a week of protests, the Ferguson Police Department has identified the officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown.Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said during a Friday morning press conference that Darren Wilson, a police officer who had been serving in the force for six years, was responsible for the shooting in the Missouri town.Source: Ferguson Police Name Officer Who Killed Michael Brown

Yes! According to the LDS Church History, “At one of our interviews, Brother Brigham Young and John P. Greene spoke in tongues, which was the first time I [Joseph Smith] had heard this gift among the brethren; others also spoke, and I received the gift myself.” (1:296–97). This would have been September of 1832.In Zebedee Coltrin’s journal entry for November 14, 1832, he writes that he “came to Kirtland to Brother Joseph Smith and heard him speak with tongues and sing in tongues also.” (Quoted in Lynn Ridenhour, The Charismatic History of the Restoration, p. 133.)This was not the manifestation of a known foreign language but an unknown tongue, such as you would encounter in an Pentecostal or charismatic meeting. The early Latter Day Saints were completely Pentecostal/charismatic, with tongues and the interpretation of tongues, gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, visions of angels, you name it.These manifestations are virtually unknown in today’s Latter Day Saint churches, but they can still be found in home meetings, conferences, and other places away from official church or denominational domination. According to Dr. Ridenhour, there are “hundreds”of Latter-day Saints in Utah that speak in tongues today, and probably an equal or greater number of Latter Day Saints in the Center Place (Missouri) who do.

Thanks for a very timely A2A, one year ago today, Dec. 23, 2016, the federal statute regarding dueling was amended - dueling is specifically prohibited in the U.S. Armed Forces by 10 U.S. Code § 914 - Art. 114. (b) Dueling. ‘Any person subject to this chapter who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting a duel, or who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the facts promptly to the proper authority, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”Note the word “challenge” in the statute. The law is couched in the terms of resolving a ‘personal matter’ and not in the terms of resolving a ‘legal dispute’. In the U.S. Constitution, the exclusive means of resolving legal matters (civil & criminal) lie in the Courts, whether by jury trial, where the juries finds the facts by weighing the evidenced introduced at trial; while the judge applies the law specific to the issues of the case. There are no other remedies of resolving legal disputes authorized except for non-jury trials agreed to by the parties; statutes; or, those being specifically contracted for, such as arbitration.The above referenced federal statute banning dueling in the Armed Forces infers that dueling might otherwise be legal under federal law. This is fodder for the cannons of law articles which in turn give state legislatures pause and sometimes result in legislation; although long ago, in 1822, Missouri passed an act to “suppress the barbarous custom of dueling” making anyone, including “aiders, abettors or counselors” participating in a duel where one party died, “guilty of murder”. A fair deterent that involves the use of ropes as the last neckties of the offenders. [See, Missouri Legislative Acts, page 380, Dueling, Chapter I, et seq. (13 December 1822)Arguably one of the most famous duels in history and a demonstration of why one might not want to engage in a duel because of “honor” between politicians. those being sitting Vice-President of the United States, Aaron Burr and the sitting Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton on July 11, 1804. There are disputed facts as to what the intentions of either duelist was, but it is known that Hamilton fired his pistol into the air above Burr’s head into a tree, then Burr took his time aiming while Hamilton stood still like an honorable gentleman of the time would and suffered a low abdomen gut-shot wound where the pistol ball ricocheted off the hip bone and caused extensive liver and internal damage that resulted in Hamilton’s dying a horribly painful death that lasted through the night and into the next day. New York and New Jersey both had anti-dueling statutes (which were rarely prosecuted) but in this case, both states charged Burr with murder, although neither reached trial. [The rivalry between Burr and Hamilton was longstanding; very bitter; and, the disputed facts of what the intentions of the two regarding the duel (missing intentionally or not; post-duel statements by the dying Hamilton to disparage Burr’s honor; Burr’s post-duel actions; etc.) are well worth your time to read. See note at end.]Today, dueling is not specifically covered by criminal statutes or penal codes in several states, so it is not technically illegal in those states; however, dueling could (and, would) be covered under other crimes, such as assault with a deadly weapon; manslaughter; murder; or other criminal acts with which a prosecutor could be creative with. A very interesting fact was brought to my attention by fellow Quoran Perry Lee who advised me that since the early 1800’s the Kentucky state’s oath of office contains “…..I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God." [See, The National Conference of State Legislatures] There is nothing like tradition to remind you of our path through history.Side Note: I was actually challenged to a duel in mid-nineties by a former member of the law firm who had gone off the deep end after being caught pilfering from the firm and a client ending in a federal conviction for postal and wire fraud. After serving his time, he became obsessed with me and another lawyer in the firm, periodically making death threats which culminated in an actual attempt to kill the other lawyer in our firm. Because of the crazy history with this guy and being alerted by the receptionist that he was holding on the line, I called another lawyer who had been involved with some of the matters to listen in on a conference call. He heard me be challenged to the duel; that I was given the choice of weapons (“you will probably pick a pistol because you’re a better shot than me”); and, a location in the country (“so we will be out of the way of the cops”.} After this went on and on, threatening me, my wife and my kids (he was drunk), I declined the challenge. After the man hung up, the lawyer I had listening in said he “could not believe what (he) had heard” and “how could you keep your cool from all the insults and threats he was making?”. That part was easy, don’t engage with someone who is certifiably nuts! Just listen and hope he is far away, but always keep an eye out just in case.Notes & References:"Pistols at Weehawken." Berg, Al & Sherman, Lauren; Weehawken Historical Commission. (2004)“Memoirs of Aaron Burr”, Davis, Matthew L.; (free ebook available from Project Gutenberg)"An Investigation into the Location of the Weehawken Dueling Ground." Flagg, Thomas R.; Weehawken Historical Commission; (2004)"Pistols Shed Light on Famed Duel." ; Lindsay, Merrill; Smithsonian, VI (November): 94–98. (1976)American Experience: The Duel. Documentary transcript, PBS. (1996)"The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton". Rorabaugh, W.J. (1995). Journal of the Early Republic. 15 (1): 1–23. doi:10.2307/3124381. JSTOR 3124381. [Free to read online, $12.00 to download]Dozens more, autobiography to maker of pistols with special “hair-trigger” to journal of psychoanalysis.