Minister arrested after taping Mormon pageant

SALT LAKE CITY - An evangelical Christian minister claims he was unlawfully arrested while trying to tape a performance of a Mormon-themed pageant in the Clarkston Cemetery near Logan Friday night.

Joel Kramer, 39, was arrested and booked for disorderly conduct after he told a Cache County sheriff's deputy he was not violating any laws by videotaping the pageant. The pageant depicts the life of Martin Harris, an early disciple of Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"These are free pageants, so there's no copyright violation and I'm within my rights to be on public land," Kramer said. "I feel like it was the LDS church influence. That's the reason I was arrested."

Kramer, who claims the entire incident was recorded on video and audio tape, said he was told by a sheriff's deputy the Mormon church had requested Kramer turn off his cameras.

Jail records and an online incident report for the Cache County sheriff's office confirm Kramer's arrest and booking. He posted $280 bail and was released.

No one from the sheriff's office was available to discuss the incident, a deputy said Saturday.

Mormon church spokesman Mike Otterson said he was unaware of what happened. A message left for Donald Jeppesen, who is listed as the information contact for the Clarkston pageant on a church Web site, was not immediately returned. Clarkston is about 160 miles north of Salt Lake City, the home base of the Mormon church.

Kramer is the director of Living Hope Ministries, a non-denominational ministry based in Brigham City, that says its mission is to bring Bible truths specifically to members of the Mormon church.

Kramer has produced several videos, including "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon" and "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon," which can be watched over the Internet for free or purchased.

He said he tapes the Mormon pageants - he's recorded those in Palmyra, New York and Manti, Utah - and uses sections of the tapes in his evangelizing videos.

At other pageants, Kramer said he's talked with police but has never been arrested.

At the beginning of each pageant, an announcer asks the audience to refrain from taking photographs or video, Kramer said.

"It sounds like law, but it's a request," Kramer said. "It would be like me announcing over a loudspeaker that I would like them not to show the pageant."

Friday night, Kramer said he and three other men from Living Hope Ministries turned off their cameras and tried to reason with the sheriff's deputy, especially when told the cemetery amphitheater had been leased by the city to the Mormon church. They also changed locations in the cemetery, moving farther away from the amphitheater, but Kramer was still arrested.

"I told (the officer) you just arrested me for breaking the LDS rules," Kramer said, who added that none in his group went to the pageant to proselytize.

>>copyright dosn't only cover the sell of of an item for profit. it also cover's the unlawful display of something.

I know that. I am not sure why you are making this point, or which of my posts you are responding to.

My points have consistently been twofold: that copyright infringement is defined not by recording something but - as you confirm - with what you do with the recording; copyright infringement is a civil not a criminal matter.

Therefore those who have been commenting on this item, both for and against the arrest of the minister, on the assumption that he was arrested for copyright infringement are spouting drivel. He was arrested for disorderly behaviour.

fired at....? That's Sort of like saying "Lee died of natural causes... too much lead in his system." That's puting it mildly. Those shots happened to be in a firing squad that executed him for his murder.

I believe it's Krakauer's book, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN, which states a myth that's long circulated in LDS fundamentalist circles that Lee survived the execution squad & was hustled off by his son & others to live in Mexico. Krakauer said this myth is well known in fundamentalist enclaves and they were surprised that this myth isn't well known outside of it.

Do I believe this myth? No. But the circumstances are a bit odd. Lee before the shooting asked the shooters to aim for his heart. He fell back directly into his coffin, which was immediately hustled out of there by his son. According to the fundamentalist myth, this was the machinations of a powerful Brigham Young who could arrange to have Lee wear something bullet proof over his left chest/chest area & then hustle him out of there before anyone knew what was what.

Historically, not every scheduled "execution" has turned out to be so...So at least "fired at" matches the vantage point of numerous LDS fundamentalists.

His book bashes religious fundamentalism in general. I would say he is not an unbiased source. Hence the lavish prasie by the MSM.

I agree w/you that Krakauer is not an unbiased source. Also, some of his comments are slams against anyone who exercises faith in God--not simply LDS.

So I would agree that his book needs critical reviews...and that folks come to divergent points about many points in his book. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't unveiled great chunks of historical truths. It's harder to lie about history than other disciplines (like philosophy, etc.) because you can compare it to multiple sources...and much of what he writes about has already been sourced and compiled from multiple sources--so those aspects of his book didn't originate w/him, anyway.

That's what's also problematic about the way the LDS church has treated former BYU history prof Quinn. I don't agree w/Quinn on his stances on some key social issues. But when it comes to history, it's harder to lie about it minus some contention arising. I think much of the General Authority "target practice" aimed at Quinn was simply shooting the messenger for being uncouth about not practing proper public relations (doesn't present LDS in the best light, unveiling all this historical dirty laundry).

Blood Atonement is a false doctrine. Critics point the the Journal of Discourses to prove it was taught. I've posted about it before, I'll reprint it here for you. It is not a doctinre or tenet or creed of the Mormon church.

Yes, blood atonement is not currently a doctrine, tenet, or creed of the Mormon church. Agreed. Why do you say "critics point to the Journal of Discources to prove it was taught," as if the only alien non-Mormons have the right to make such a claim? Can't Mormons who can read also open the pages of the Journal of Discources and likewise conclude, "Yes, the Journal of Discourses prove it was taught"? [But has since been disavowed by current general authorities]

You treat the Journal of Discourses almost like it was kryptonite and that LDS are Supermen (gods-in-embryo).

All this raises a question or two. Does the LDS church (its publishing houses) still sell the Journal of Discourses in a multi-volume set or DVD series?

I know I have a copy of a Deseret Publishing ad placed in a Salt Lake City newspaper from the 1960s that offers the entire JoD volume for a price and absolutely raves about the JoD as a "must-read" for saints. You don't think the church was wrong for publishing JoD or ads like these, do you?

So, we know that in contemporary times the LDS church has financially benefitted from publishing a teaching (blood atonement) which, it says, is no longer a worthy teaching. But I've never heard the LDS church call Brigham a false prophet for teaching blood atonement. No, instead, they name universities after prophets who taught blood atonement.

A member of the Church attended various meetings and conferences of the Church, in his own version of shorthand he copied down the sermons. Some of the talks he did not write at the time but up to a few weeks later as he best remembered them. He did this over a period of approximately 25 years. He decided that all this material should be published. So he did publish the material privately for which he received money (profits). To do so he had to reconstruct what he meant by his shorthand from the past 25 years. This man was not called by the church or held any position as recorder or historian. What he wrote is very valuable material for historians and people interested in the what early apostles and prophets "possibly" said. While it does provide a great window into some early sermons of early church leaders it is clearly not accepted as Canon of the Church.

My comment in the previous post totally shatters this nonsense. If this was merely a private publishing enterprise, then why was Deseret offering this volume in its entirety?

Is Deseret a "private" publishing enterprise, or is it owned by the LDS church? It may have originally began as something not fully sanctioned by general authorities; but it didn't remain that way.

Also, you beg common sense. Many LDS, because of their knowledge of a foreign language, are doing an excellent job serving their country in the CIA. Just because they weren't "called by the church" doesn't mean that their assessments and descriptions of documents, speeches, etc. of happenings in a given country are not accurate.

The same could be said of multiple secular LDS journalists or LDS writers. Are you implying that because the church didn't "call" them to such positions that what they describe in their accounts is automatically less than accurate? Shame on you for slandering (by innuendo) the integrity of those who painstakingly recorded for then-current and historical purposes a record of their times without offering further proof that it was indeed inaccurate.

If you read any in-depth description of Brigham Young's control of Utah Territory, you understand how autocratic he was [and I do concede that in the Wild West, if control was going to be maintained...some degree of centralized control was needed]. My point is that if this "secretary" who recorded shorthand these sermons and events was off-kilter, Young had opportunity to review and correct it. He didn't.

Any secretary who would "make up" teachings and insert it into the mouths of the prophet would have been run out of the basin...excommunicated...etc. Such a person's reputation would have been nothing as a liar, etc. I can't imagine anyone in the shadow of the most powerful religious and civil authority in the territory (Young was governor, after all, and no ordinary governor) would have to gall to create false doctrines.

All you can do is point to these teachings as never being officially canonized under the D&C umbrella. That doesn't give you the right to revise history or slander Brigham's scribes.

I replied in the previous post before I read this one. You admit Krakeauer is an unbiased source. Sorry for the off the cuff response slamming him more. I don't know much about Quinn.

Is there weird stuff going on in "Fundamentalist" apostate Mormon groups? Yes I would agree. It's weird stuff (like this article). I disagree though when what someone who is not of my faith (especially if they are a murderer) is compared to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a proof that all Mormons are crazy.

The Church did go through a systematic "cleansing" (for lack of a better word, but it probably fits) of divergent views in the 80's. My parents had subscribed to Sunstone and Dialogue. The General Authorities spoke out against them in conference and told members to not subscribe to them. Some of the articles were good. Some clearly had false religious doctrine. I remember reading an article in my Mom's Sunstone promoting Homosexuality among Mormons. Much of it also promoted liberal views and feminism. So I am glad they purged the false doctrines.

BYU also has booted some feminist professors. Some history professors have been fired too. I am not particularly familiar with Quinn. I don't see a problem with it. Most churches have some sort of mechanism for enforcing doctrinal purity. Say for example a Bishop in the Catholic church preaches in services that abortion is OK. I assume there is some sort of Disciplinary proceeding and peer pressure brought to bear. If the Bishop fails to change/repent from their heresy and sin of preaching abortion they would be booted. The Mormon church has disciplinary courts to deal with False Doctrines.

A god book that incorporates both pro and anti literature about Church History is "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling." There are topics Mormons do shy away from. For example Most people understand Brigham Young was a polygamist. Fewer understand Joesph Smith was. Some church members would rather not talk about it or just don't really know. Rough Stone Rolling does a good job of presenting the context of Joseph Smith and delves into obscure parts of history.

"All you can do is point to these teachings as never being officially canonized under the D&C umbrella."

That is exactly the point I am making. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Blood Atonement is not Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A good way to better understand the specific nature of Brigham Young's prophetic office is to look at the Biblical porecedant. A good example is Moses in the OT. Moses, God's prophet, takes the credit for the miracle of causing the water to come from the rock.

Was Moses actinng as prophet (spokesman of God) when he took credit for the miracle? No. Otherwise one could claim God was lying. Moses was later chastened for it and repented. (Num 20, 27, Ex 17, Duet 32) However when he told Pharoah to let the children of Israel go he was speaking specifically on behalf of God.

Anything Brigham Young may have said while not acting under God's direction as prophet is not Doctrine. For example if Brigham woke up and said, "Hmmmm I want ash cakes with maple syrup this morning instead of my usual eggs." He would not be saying anything "prophetic". If however God told him to lead the Mormons across the plains and he then told them to do it he would be acting in his prophetic office.

Blood Atonement is a False Doctrine. My previous post about the how the author of the J of D wrote it 25 years after the actual sermons sheds doubt on its accuracy. (He was not Brigham's scribe). If it was an accurate protrayal of what BY talked about he was not speaking under the influence of the Spirit but probably leaning on his own understanding as a man, as Moses did at times.

The Church actually has a mechanism to deal with things such as this. The Prophet can say something. Then the members are told to go home and pray about it. Each person is free to agree or disagree with what the prophet says based on their own inspiration. For larger issues like Canonized scripture and official manifestos it is presented before the body of the Church which votes on it. In this way the Doctrine and Covenants was presented before the body of the Church and voted in as Canonized scripture. The Journal of Discourses has passed no such mechanism.

Most Churches and even "groups" of churches that band together for political issues have similar types of mechanisms, manifestos, mission statements etc. for deciding what the organization will represent and what it will not.

As for Deseret Book it is run as a business. They sell Harry Potter books. I hope you don't start claiming Mormons believe in Muggles and play Quidditch.

Do I believe this myth? No. But the circumstances are a bit odd.

not every scheduled "execution" has turned out to be so...So at least "fired at" matches the vantage point of numerous LDS fundamentalists.

You don't believe the "myth" purported by the author and admit in another post the author is biased. So why do you keep promoting his stuff on FR? Perusing some of your other posts you seem to be quite conservative. So why does a liberal agnostic get a free pass when he bashes Mormons?

You definitely would not write a statement like "Bush caused 9/11 instead of Bin Laden." (see post #199 for the author's own words) So why the sudden "respect for those of Diverse views" when it comes to promoting Myths about Lee's execution?

It's good to critically review everything we read & hear. But I know of no one who reads the a.m. newspaper or listens to Cable/network news who, upon completing the story or tuning in to broadcast segment, concludes, "I'm going to suspend judgment on 100% of what I just heard (or read) until I check out the theological orientation of the journalist."

Do you run all journalistic news through a filter like that? If you don't, are you giving them a "free pass"? I mean, the MSM is chock full of atheists, agnostics, lapsed church members and the like. By all means, inform me of your comprehensive list of who the faithful journalists are so I can maintain a "pure-source pipeline" of truth!

I'm sure that not all of the "literature and learning" done by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 1:17) was theologically correct. He was, after all, an exile in Babylon. Yet God gave him access to it and understanding of it. God considered it relevant.

Finally, aside from the one book you mention, are you going to tell me with a straight face that most of the LDS history portrayals--the ones that made it through the "P.R.ish" edits--are "unbiased"?

I find it very interesting that you put together two themes clearly attended to by Krakauer in his book. Your post #167 mentions:

I disagree though when what someone who is not of my faith (especially if they are a murderer) is compared to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a proof that all Mormons are crazy.

Krakauer writes about the Laffety brothers who attended a fundamentalist "school of prophets" in the county backyard of BYU. Two of the Lafferty brothers were convicted of murdering a sister-in-law and her young child.

Then, in post #168, you hit upon a major theme of one of Krakauer's chapters--that one thing widespread among LDS is the ability to claim personal inspiration (by praying about something).

You stated: The Church actually has a mechanism to deal with things such as this. The Prophet can say something. Then the members are told to go home and pray about it. Each person is free to agree or disagree with what the prophet says based on their own inspiration.

Krakauer says pretty much the same thing...and then mentions that the "school of prophets" would have these meetings so that they could corporately decide whether these revelations (impressions) were ones they were supposed to act upon. You see, it wasn't just that the Laffertys were cold-blooded killers. The eldest Lafferty brother, who was a former LDS bishop of his ward (he was influenced by his brothers to join the fundamentalist sect), said he had a revelation that he was supposed to kill his sister-in-law.

Now, keep in the mind that the fundamentalist school of prophets rejected this as a revelation from God. Yet this former upstanding member of the LDS church maintained his belief it was from God.

All it took was a burning bosom. Now who do you suppose left him with the idea that a burning bosom is all that's needed for a revelation to be true? The fundamentalists? Nope, try again. It's a standard teaching of the LDS church from beginning to current times!

The Church did go through a systematic "cleansing" (for lack of a better word, but it probably fits) of divergent views in the 80's. My parents had subscribed to Sunstone and Dialogue. The General Authorities spoke out against them in conference and told members to not subscribe to them. Some of the articles were good. Some clearly had false religious doctrine...Much of it also promoted liberal views and feminism. So I am glad they purged the false doctrines.

The difference between my focus of Brigham and the above is that you are talking about grass roots here. I am talking about the supposed "living prophet."

BYU also has booted some feminist professors. Some history professors have been fired too....I don't see a problem with it. Most churches have some sort of mechanism for enforcing doctrinal purity. Say for example a Bishop in the Catholic church preaches in services that abortion is OK. I assume there is some sort of Disciplinary proceeding and peer pressure brought to bear. If the Bishop fails to change/repent from their heresy and sin of preaching abortion they would be booted. The Mormon church has disciplinary courts to deal with False Doctrines.

Again, now you're going to tell me that if blood atonement was an unofficial false teaching taught by Brigham that Brigham was subjected to the LDS church machinery of either being "fired" from his prophet job (like a BYU prof) or could have been run through "disciplinary courts to deal with false" teachings?

A good example is Moses in the OT. Moses, God's prophet, takes the credit for the miracle of causing the water to come from the rock. Was Moses actinng as prophet (spokesman of God) when he took credit for the miracle? No. Otherwise one could claim God was lying. Moses was later chastened for it and repented. (Num 20, 27, Ex 17, Duet 32) However when he told Pharoah to let the children of Israel go he was speaking specifically on behalf of God.

You've got to understand that this one incident was no small matter in God's eyes. I mean look how many God-pleasing things Moses did in his life. A pretty good track record, right? Yet, if God was basing faith upon personal worthiness and spiritual merit badges, then how come God told Moses that it was because of this incident that he would not personally enter the promised land?

In God's eyes, it was a scandalous lack of faith...instead of trusting and taking God at his word, Moses struck the rock in a manner of his own choosing.

Anything Brigham Young may have said while not acting under God's direction as prophet is not Doctrine.

Perhaps. But you've spent a lot on these posts saying how the LDS church has disciplinary measures, how a church has a canonization process, how a church has a voting process, etc...but you're neglecting to mention two things:

(1) All of those things are in place for the very reason of giving the average church member a filter so that when they hear a teaching that runs counter to a former teaching, they'll know it right away--or at least somewhere in the middle of all these processes. Yes, not everything a prophet says is going to be prophecy because 100% of a person's words won't be coming from God's direction. But I can at least tell you this much: A true prophet's new teachings will at least keep from militating versus existing teachings. Aside from the what-is-prophecy vs. what-is-not-prophecy issue, there is the issue of consistency and teacher integrity.

(2) Joseph Smith basically said he himself was the canonization process (one quote of his that any of his sermons were "as good as Scripture")...and LDS teachings since have touted (using the book of Amos passage) how the distinction of their church from any other is that they have a living prophet. The LDS church doesn't tout its disciplinary process, its canonization process of new revelations, or its voting process (all things you've highlighted). It touts its living prophet. Therefore, we need to shine a bright light on whatever that "living prophet" has taught others to embrace, whether it was official doctrine or not.

For example if Brigham woke up and said, "Hmmmm I want ash cakes with maple syrup this morning instead of my usual eggs." He would not be saying anything "prophetic". If however God told him to lead the Mormons across the plains and he then told them to do it he would be acting in his prophetic office.

I sit down. A waittress serves my table. She says, "What can I get you this a.m.?" I tell her, "I'll have a stack of blood atonements--but all served up solo, mind you." She says, "coming right up!"

I'm sorry. But I couldn't resist. "Ordering up" an unofficial teaching of blood atonement is not on the same scale as a prophet proclaiming that scrambled eggs is the only way to eat 'em in the Utah territory. You've constructed a false level of equivalency.

Blood Atonement is a False Doctrine.

"Doctrine" is simply "official teaching." You might think we're mincing words here, but basically, you are saying "blood atonement is a false doctrine" and I agree it is. But then you try to turn around and say it was never a false doctrine of the church, and I say, while there's lack of clarity about its "official" status, the fact remains that it was a teaching taught, and therefore it is accurate to say that "blood atonement is a false teaching taught by the prophet of the LDS church."

A teaching is a teaching, whether it's done in some alleged "prophet's uniform" or not!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.