Posted on 08/14/2006 9:03:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
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.
It's unclear if prosecutors will formally charge Kramer with a crime.
Really... just the other day on FR was this thread...
Teens defend polygamy at Utah rally
You reason like a Democrat.
They did not claim to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, nor were they asking that the Church change its position.
They were asking the STATE to change.
They were defending their breaking of the law, and asking the state to change.
Once again, anyone who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who advocates or becomes involved in Polygamy, is excommunicated. That is all the Church can do.
I never clainmed to be unbiased or that Mormon histories are unbiased. But on the point of Krakauer I feel it would more appropriately fit into the mission of KOS not FR.
You gave me some Conservative Christian sources who disagree with the Mormon church. I feel that is fair. Continuing to push a liberal liar on FR is not. initially when his book was talked about it was presented in a tone of truth (that his was an honest assessment of Mormons). I pointed out it is not. Only through our debate have the layers been peeled back about what the author is really trying to say.
You haven't conceded the point about Krakauer, I didn't ask you to stop writing from Conservative or Christian's viewpints. Why do you make common cause with this liberal author when it fits your agenda?
Yet this former upstanding member of the LDS church maintained his belief it was from God.
Elizabeth Smart's abductor was an excommunicated Mormon. Does that mean the Mormon church is responsible for the pedophiles crimes? No.
The book is the one that makes that leap in putting together themes.
It goes like this.
Some ex Mormons killed a person.
They used to be Mormons.
Therefore Mormons must have a belief system of killing people.
That is the intent of the author to implicate the larger faith of Mormons for the murders of a few. It is a false argument.
Prophets and Apostles are not infallible. We don't teach that they are.
Peter denied Christ three times. Timthey was a little over Zealous and favored a political solution to the Roman/Jews conflict. Timothy doubted the Ressurected Lord.
If Brigham did teach one false Doctrine in a Sermon out of 50 years of Sermons I think it is in line with other Apostles who made mistakes sometimes.
I am merely making the point that Brigham young is similar to Moses. Both are not infallible. It is not a requisite of being an apostle or prophet.
If you talked about Moses in this way in effect what you would be doing is using only Numbers 20:10-12 and ignoring the rest of the writings of Moses. True it is important to recognize Moses made a mistake was chastened and repented. He is still called the meekest man on Earth by the Lord and is still is his prophet.
I feel the same way about Brigham Young. He is still the Lord's prophet even if he made a mistake. YOu feel differently because you feel Brigham is not a prophet. You say he uses "some alleged "prophet's uniform"". Makeing a mistake does not diqualify one from being a prophet.
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.
The Pharisees and Saduucess used this argument to preach against the "new" things Jesus taught.
Should read.... Simon was a little over Zealous...
2)The rest of this thread just seems to be old-fashioned 'Mormon-Bashing'. Which is just about as stupid as it gets. The Mormons (I am not a member...I come from a long line of lapsed Catholics) here are fine upstanding people who believe in the Constitution and are willing to defend it. They believe in the sacredness of the family. They are pretty much conservative to their core.
If they have a slightly different view of Christianity...so be it. But they ARE Christian.
And bashing them does nothing to help this Nation...it just is a time-tested method the Liberals use to divide us.
redrock
The mission of any Web site is to proclaim truth, not obscure it. In this case, we are discussing historical truth and how that effects the generations that follow.
Why do you make common cause with this liberal author when it fits your agenda?
Our common cause, whether it's you and me, or a liberal and me, or an agnostic and me, is truth insofar as we can agree. All of us have blind spots. All of us have varying degrees of accurate assessments about life, about history, about God, etc.
The apostle Paul supposedly cited the Greek poet, Epimenides in Titus 1:12-13 and referenced this same poet in Acts 17:26-27. Even though Epimenides "groped for and found" a way to appease an offended God by arranging for a sacrificial act similar to what was done in Old Testament Israel, he would probably fit well into your "agnostic vs. believer" scheme.
I suggest you post a note to the apostle Paul, telling him he should not have "found common cause" with Epimenides--that citing his writings or his sacrificial act "would more appropriately fit into the mission" of the Greek classics, not the Bible.
You seem to be under the illusion that anything done that offends the P.R. sensibilities of Salt Lake Citydom is meant & solely intended for purposes of bashing anyone (or anything) that happens to have fallen into the historical/generational pathway of that book.
Krakauer can't be faulted that the first three LDS presidents embraced polygamy; and that the first two LDS presidents embraced blood atonement.
My whole point in discussing this with you is to get you to realize that
(1) Even in a family, you can't have the family patriarch embrace a key teaching & pass it down a generation or two, and then suddenly somebody down the generational line slams on the breaks of that teaching...and veers off in another direction. [And just because it's true the new driver is heading in a new direction, you can't fault others who come along & point out the trails of the old pathways are still visible]
And to continue using that analogy, (2) Let's say some great-great grandson of the family patriarch does something very extreme but would still be within the general sanctioned ballpark of what his forefather taught, you can't blame some writer who makes a connection between what the great-great grandson did w/what his forefather taught. It's not bashing to realize that, yes, in our culture, in our families, in our world, there are indeed trickle-down effects.
I mean read the OT prophets where God specifically says he is holding a group accountable for the actions of their grandparents. [Let me know if you need chapter & verse on that]
You keep insisting that you don't think Brigham taught blood atonement. And you keep using generic guessing that Brigham's scribe wrote some of these accounts 25 years after the fact.
Evidence #1: George D. Watt recorded the first four Journal of Discourses volumes (volumes 3 & 4 have some of the important blood atonement sermons). The fact is that not only were these recorded for posterity, but they were often also recorded in the Deseret News.
One of Brigham's member of First Presidency, chosen by him, was the mayor of SLC, Jedediah M. Grant, who also taught blood atonement. Grant's blood atonement sermon was also cited in the July 27, 1854 Deseret News. One of Brigham's blood atonement sermons was also cited in the Deseret News on Oct. 1, 1856. These were also then published as vol. 3 & 4 of the JoD.
Evidence #2: The Journal of Discourses references blood atonement 7 times. The Deseret Book Company, owned by the LDS church, published a 1954 reprint of John A. Widtsoe's "Discourses of Brigham Young" (1925).
Widtsoe wrote: "Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses. As he tratraveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved."
Evidence #3: A common publisher of LDS history and LDS authors is Signature Publishing. In its book, Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869 (see chapter 11), it concedes that Grant was also cited in the Deseret News Oct 1, 1856 on this topic...the book says "Brigham Young repeated the doctrine and approved of it."
Evidence #4: When talking about blood atonement, Grant simply copied some of the language used by Joseph Smith himself. Joseph wrote, "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296). In the October 1, 1856 Deseret News, Grant said: Those who need to have their blood shed where water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye. You may think that I am not teaching Bible doctrine, but what says the Apostle Paul. I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this Kingdom? I believe that there are a great many and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated where we could shed their blood. Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed. Let the smoke ascend that the incense thereof may come up to God as an atonement for your sins."
Don't you recognize the "smoke ascend...up to God" language that both Smith and Grant both used?
Evidence #5: A former LDS president, Joseph Fielding Smith, a nephew of Joseph Smith, wrote in Doctrines of Salvation 1:135,138: "Man may commit certain grievous sins - according to his light and knowledge -that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as the power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent."
You keep insisting that teaching a teaching, even if it's not an official teaching, won't have short-term or long-term consequences.
Let's briefly look at the short-term consequences:
In 1958 the BYU Professor of Church History, Gustive O. Larson, acknowledged blood atonement was indeed practiced:
According to Larson's January, 1958 Utah Historical Quarterly--p. 62: "To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation."
John D. Lee in his tell-all book says that an LDS man of Danish descent, Rasmos Anderson, confessed to adultery with his step-daughter. The Cedar City LDS authorities (the bishop's council) then had Anderson kneel next to an already dug-grave and Anderson's throat was cut from ear to ear--with council members holding him so that his blood ran into the grave. Lee said that the "killing of Andersion was then considered a religious duty and a just act." (see Lee's 1877 book, Confessions of John D. Lee, pp. 282-283).
My point here is that if we both agree there was at least a short-term impact, that at least gets us closer to understanding what, if any, longer-term significance there has been.
You say that even prophets are fallible and make mistakes. Agreed. A key test for a prophet, though, is meeting the rigorous standard of Dt. 18:20-22:
Verses 21-22: "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."
If the message of blood atonement did not come into fruition as a true doctrine, then the prophet spoke presumptuously. You say, "so what?" We all speak impulsively or presumptuously at times.
But the KJV, Dt. 18:20, makes it clear what God's opinion is of that: "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."
In addition, Joseph Smith, in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God." Either the Godhead is the one who totally atones for all of our sins, or, as some have taught, there are some sins for which people have to shed their own blood. Jesus' blood wasn't good enough to cover those sins.
So, do we know the character of the One who covers all of our sins? Or do we dilute the Savior's comprehensive coverage of the cross?
What? Is every family fracus or conflict a "bashing" to you that "does nothing?"
Some family friction is helpful because some folks like to stuff things & never get it out in the open (to deal w/it, find common ground, and move on). Some folks like to hide things under the rug, as if that was some grand strategy.
If your assumption is that every disagreement is divisive, boy, are you ever wide open to a dictator who may come along some day in this country. ("Don't be divisive," said Hitler's cronies).
Even the apostle Paul said in the New Testament that he opposed Peter to his face. And the Jews and Paul and Apollos rigorously argued in the synagogue. But I guess you have a higher vantage point than the apostle Paul and know better, eh?
Okay, politically and social ethics-wise, there are great commonalities there between LDS & traditional Christians.
But please explain to me how both of the following can be considered "the same" enough to be cut of the same cloth:
How can there be one universal God (the Judeo-Christian God) and how can there be multiple (thousands/millions/billions...who knows?) of gods? LDS believe folks can become gods. Christians say, "Nope. Sorry. The book of Revelation describes one single throne. Not multiple divine franchises decked out around each galaxy or universe."
Even the LDS themselves (Ensign magazine) say they worship a different god than we do. So this isn't simply my claim.
#1, I didn't know that this gentleman was arrested on charges of trespass. I guess I missed that in the article. Wanna point out where it says that?
Even when this guy was confronted, note that the police did not move him off of the rented property.
Axe to grind? Maybe a sword to sharpen [Bible calls the word a "2-edged" sword]. Such a sword both wields the gospel, and at the same time, defends versus those who would label leaders of the church-at-large corrupt while also calling all of our creeds an "abomination."
Now if you read Joseph Smith's first vision account, widely circulated by the LDS church, that's what he did. He labeled our leaders corrupt; and he said all of our creeds were an abomination. Now the only question is, does that charge deserve a response, or should we either be censored or censor ourselves? What do you think?
To bring the discussion back to the original article posted here, I think the guy who was arrested is simply wielding a "sword" called a videocam and a Web site, and that he is responding to the charges made versus the church-at-large...charges made almost 175 years ago and continue to this very day
Eli is a good example. Moses could be one since his entire generation died before being allowed into the promised land. In the BoM the Lamanites are punished to the fourth generation for the sins of Laman and Lemuel.
"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."
Moses' false words and Peter denying Christ. They are both dead now but they are still true prophets. They were not in those instances when they denied. Plus I don't think Peter said "in the Name of the Lord, I don't know the man" So he was not speaking prophetically but he is still an Apostle of the Lord.
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.