Walter Martin's False Claims

[solomarineris]

Solomarineris,

you wrote:

Whoever said his "accomplishments" are funny? His claims are funny; his "accomplishments," as you are pleased to call them, are about as funny as a train crash.

I meant, "funny" in a sarcastic way, considering his own claims about his brand of Christianity and evolution is close to reflect the same "funny" elements that he abhors in Mormonism

All hate ideologies rely upon marginalising, demonising, misrepresenting and lying about their target group. Anti-Mormonism is unique among hate ideologies in that blatant deception is regarded as a positive duty and a Christian[TM] virtue, and that is largely thanks to the "Reverend" "Doctor" Walter Martin.

Your continuing faith in the Church's impending collapse is touching, considering that there is no evidence whatsoever that such a collapse is coming.

But don't tell the others in your set. I've noticed that your crowd frown upon holding evidence-free beliefs.

your definition of "Hate Ideology" is as extreme as an Islamist extremist. I don't think W. Martin hated Mormons, neither does Hanegraaf, they might be grossly misled in their ideology but I listened both of them enough to say this in confidence.

The impending implosion of faiths are inevitable. If you care to read the information from different locations of the world and closer to USA, one cannot hide the fact that The wards are draining of intelligent serving people, the fact is that in some cases drainage so acute that it will be impossible to sweep under the rug anymore.

Europe is allreadly lost in a big way, N. America cannot sustain any type of growth from conversion at all.

S.America's numbers were grossly inflated anyway and nowadays one would be better off not to ask how many members we do have in Chile, Brazil or Mexico.

I am not writing this to make you feel bad, it is a fact. I think most Brethren know it but they don't know what to do about it.

If there is any consolation in this news is that other churches are hemorraghing equally.

A piece of advice I can give you is; I am not your enemy, nor I hate the Church.

Regards,

Pahoran

If you have to use terrorists you have lost the debate. Go to another thread you are finished in this one. ~ Mods

[Pahoran]

Solo,

you really must learn how to type your reply outside of the quote box.

You wrote:

All hate ideologies rely upon marginalising, demonising, misrepresenting and lying about their target group. Anti-Mormonism is unique among hate ideologies in that blatant deception is regarded as a positive duty and a Christian[TM] virtue, and that is largely thanks to the "Reverend" "Doctor" Walter Martin.

Your continuing faith in the Church's impending collapse is touching, considering that there is no evidence whatsoever that such a collapse is coming.

But don't tell the others in your set. I've noticed that your crowd frown upon holding evidence-free beliefs.

your definition of "Hate Ideology" is as extreme as an Islamist extremist.

You really ought not to make these kinds of comparisons. I don't want my thread shut down because of Godwin's law violations. If you can't avoid them, stay away, please.

A hate ideology is an ideology of hatred. There's nothing "extreme" about that.

I don't think W. Martin hated Mormons, neither does Hanegraaf, they might be grossly misled in their ideology but I listened both of them enough to say this in confidence.

I haven't mentioned Hanegraaf. As for Wally:

Is it or is it not hateful to fabricate accusations of "cover-ups" and orchestrated institutional lies? Wally did that.

Is it or is it not hateful to fabricate accusations of murderous conspiracies? Wally did that.

Perhaps you, like Hoops, think this kind of behaviour is a manifestation of "Christian[TM] luuuuuurve." Frankly, I can't see it.

The impending implosion of faiths are inevitable.

Of course. For example, the Church has "imploded" from 2

[Pahoran]

One of Martin's better-known falsehoods is his famous lawsuit against the Church. The short version is as follows:

An Elders Quorum President from California attended one of Martin's lectures and heard him make a false statement of LDS doctrine which he supported from a nonexistent reference: Journal of Discourses, volume 4, page 485. The EQP, who owned a set of the JoD, knew that volume 4, like every volume except the last, contained only 376 pages. He spoke to Martin afterwards and pointed this out to him; Martin acknowledged the error and said that he would correct it in future.

The EQP didn't believe him, so he attended another of Martin's lectures and brought the volume with him. When Martin repeated his fabricated reference, the EQP stood up, opened his copy of JoD and exposed the old fraud.

Martin then blew a gasket. He shouted that he'd been defamed and slandered, and launched a lawsuit against the individual and against the institutional Church. The basis of his complaint was that the Church had interfered with his business, thus causing him to lose income. Just in case anyone thought he was running a "ministry."

The outcome of the lawsuit was that Martin lost. Completely. The basis for this was that, by publicly, both personally and in print, attacked the Church, he had fueled a specific public controversy and made himself a public figure. Thus, any defamation action needed to show actual malice, and he was unable to do so. (Examination of Martin's own public statements might indeed show actual malice, however.)

After he lost his case, he kept on referring to it as if it was ongoing, and promising his hearers that it would bring to light amazing instances of Mormon skulduggery.

In reality, the only skulduggery this lawsuit disclosed was Martin's own.

Why is this relevant? Because, not only is Martin revered as a "great man" in some quarters, his methods, as described above, are still being diligently used.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bjw]

Ya, my father is completely brainwashed by this guy, and he used to be in his ministry years ago. I tried to tell him about the court case and everything and my dad tried to tell me that the church probably changed the JoD Vol. 4 and the geneology records of Brigham Young to try to show Walter Martin as a liar. I just wish there was a way I could convince him. Many of these EV preachers become "cults of personality" and have a very strong hold on their followers. I'm hoping my dad will wake up and realize the truth about this guy. I'm going to try to get him some information on it.

[Calm]

my dad tried to tell me that the church probably changed the JoD Vol. 4 and the geneology records of Brigham Young to try to show Walter Martin as a liar.

The first claim is easy enough to rebut as I believe my copy of the JoD predates Martin. Now you just need to convince him to come to my house to see it, lol.

He is obviously not thinking clearly and is in defense mode as there are way too many hardback copies that could be pulled as evidence by Martin if indeed the Church did change things.

[jwhitlock]

Ya, my father is completely brainwashed by this guy, and he used to be in his ministry years ago. I tried to tell him about the court case and everything and my dad tried to tell me that the church probably changed the JoD Vol. 4 and the geneology records of Brigham Young to try to show Walter Martin as a liar. I just wish there was a way I could convince him. Many of these EV preachers become "cults of personality" and have a very strong hold on their followers. I'm hoping my dad will wake up and realize the truth about this guy. I'm going to try to get him some information on it.

This is interesting to me because we as LDS are often accused of "worshiping" our prophets in this manner. I've tried to be very careful to let me faith in Christ be the driving point of my foundation in the Church. Though I honor Joseph Smith and the other prophets and leaders of the Church, I do not base my faith in them. I test what they teach through study and the Spirit. I do not have unrealistic expectations of them as people - I understand they have weaknesses and can make mistakes.

The cult of personality, or "priestcraft", that surrounds people such as Walter Martin can be very destructive to the spirituality of those who follow them and base their spiritual faith on them. In the end, they are men, and they will fall - along with those who have placed their faith in them and blindly accepted their teachings without trying them against the Spirit.

[jadams_4242]

Ya, my father is completely brainwashed by this guy, and he used to be in his ministry years ago. I tried to tell him about the court case and everything and my dad tried to tell me that the church probably changed the JoD Vol. 4 and the geneology records of Brigham Young to try to show Walter Martin as a liar. I just wish there was a way I could convince him. Many of these EV preachers become "cults of personality" and have a very strong hold on their followers. I'm hoping my dad will wake up and realize the truth about this guy. I'm going to try to get him some information on it.

The only way you will ever convince him of anything is thru the spirit.

[Hoops22]

Perhaps you, like Hoops, think this kind of behaviour is a manifestation of "Christian[TM] luuuuuurve."

The sea breezes addling your brain? I never said this, or anything like this. You are looking for hatemongers under every rock.

Nor have I, I don't believe, ever mentioned Walter Martin or Hank Hannegraf in any writing or conversation ever in my entire life.

[Daniel Peterson]

Nor have I, I don't believe, ever mentioned Walter Martin or Hank Hannegraf in any writing or conversation ever in my entire life.

You just did.

Guilty!

Off with his head!

[Droopy]

As I recall, there was another lawsuit Martin footed against the Church having to do with fraud. This was derived from his longstanding major thesis that the Church taught one set of doctrines to attract converts, but then sprung the real stuff on them once they were in the Church. He sued the Church for Fraud, in essence charging the Church with falsely advertising and promoting its religion

Or am I mixing this up with something else? I seem to clearly remember reading this in one of his pamphlets back in the seventies.

[bjw]

The only way you will ever convince him of anything is thru the spirit.

Ya, I tried e-mailing him the Walter Martin info but he never got it. His wife probably deleted it. What I did give him though was a Bible and triple, Restoration DVD, "Testaments" DVD, and "Marvelous Work and a Wonder' by Legrand Richards. I hope and pray that he listens to the Spirit and reads it all and comes to his senses. He honestly believes everything Martin said about the leaders of the church running it all like a scam and the Spaulding theory stuff that Martin taught. Maybe the Spirit will get him to investigate further. At one point in time I never thought I would be in this church either, and the Spirit worked on me, so I still have my hopes.

[Hoops22]

You just did.

Guilty!

Off with his head!

Dr. Peterson is a smug pretentious academician. Finally, evidence to the contrary!!

[Chronos]

Please keep it civil.

~Chronos

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please keep it civil.

~Chronos

This means no more joking!!

[Hoops22]

I am kidding, just in case you don't know.

[Monte Jefferson]

4) Martin claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young. When genealogical research showed that this was not the case, he backed down; but rather than admit he was wrong, he changed his claim to the more nebulous and less easily tested one of being a "relative" of Brigham Young. As though such a relationship somehow lent legitimacy to his false claims.

The Mormon Church claimed that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the American Indian. When genealogical research showed that this was not the case, it backed down; but rather than admit is was wrong, it changed its claim to the more nebulous and less easily tested one of being "among the ancestors" of the American Indian.

9) Martin claimed that an LDS ward is run by a bishop and two teachers. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Among some evangelicals, the roles of counselor and teacher are blurred. That's at least easier to believe than a horse is a tapir.

[Dale]

Monte-The LDS wording was based on a misreading of the Book of Mormon text. By changing the wording in the introduction's it has admitted the wording was wrong. But even so a genetic marker in common with Jews does exist. Critic's of the book have argued that it was introduced way prior to Lehi. But the evidence seem's to support the Book of Mormon. http://www.cumorah.com/bookofmormondnarebuttalsignature.html The "among the ancestors" wording is very testable. It's also a reasonable change of wording in light of current DNA research.

Although the Lamanatites were a different race from the Nephite's. And the Nephit'es were never Jews. They were of Mannasah if i recall right. So i am not certain what pure link could be expected to be found through DNA studies anyway. But the current DNA research when not waved away by Signature Book's is that 2,000 year's ago, or more some kind of recent migration from the Old World to the America's happened. The M3 marker could have only gotten here through a migration. That's why some at Signature Book's have argued for an very ancient migration because it makes the Book of Mormon based on DNA research look good.

Dr. Walter Martin did make some phony claim's during his ministry. But i would if i had his book like to discuss his issues not his ethical behavior. But Evangelicals do have a habit of heaping to themselves such teachers.

[Pahoran]

The sea breezes addling your brain? I never said this, or anything like this. You are looking for hatemongers under every rock.

On the contrary. The point is that you seem unwilling to accept that any self-proclaimed EV's could ever be acting out of any but the most charitable motives. Evidently none of your fellow-CARMites have the slightest hostility towards us at all. I simply point out that such behaviour as this is inconsistent with your rose-tinted view of your coreligionists.

Nor have I, I don't believe, ever mentioned Walter Martin or Hank Hannegraf in any writing or conversation ever in my entire life.

Dan beat me to the punchline on this one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hoops22]

On the contrary. The point is that you seem unwilling to accept that any self-proclaimed EV's could ever be acting out of any but the most charitable motives. Evidently none of your fellow-CARMites have the slightest hostility towards us at all. I simply point out that such behaviour as this is inconsistent with your rose-tinted view of your coreligionists.

Dan beat me to the punchline on this one.

Regards,

Pahoran

I freely admit that every religion, denomination, sect or whatever has those who act for less than charitable reasons. Even LDS.

[Pahoran]

The Mormon Church claimed that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the American Indian. When genealogical research showed that this was not the case, it backed down; but rather than admit is was wrong, it changed its claim to the more nebulous and less easily tested one of being "among the ancestors" of the American Indian.

Irrelevant and off-topic. Also false. It is not the case that "the Mormon Church" simply fabricated the "principal ancestors" (note the spelling) claim in order to enhance its own prestige, but merely interpreted its revealed scriptures that way. The notion that "it backed down" as a result of "genealogical research" is an article of an idolatrous faith known as "scientism."

And you are entitled to your little superstitions if they bring you comfort.

Among some evangelicals, the roles of counselor and teacher are blurred. That's at least easier to believe than a horse is a tapir.

The Church, of course, has no doctrine on this question, but just exactly what kind of animal do you think a tapir is?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hacedor Costoso]

I hereby testify to each and every one of you that I know that the church owned Alpha Beta supermarkets.

Well....not exactly...

But every Sunday on the way home from the Pomona Ward building (my dad was bishop and my mom was always tied up in meetings so we always walked home), I spent enough money on .17 cent packages of red vines and the darn hot chocolate vending machines to be able to say that Mormons owned Alpha Beta....and Hamilton drugs for that matter - and don't forget Taylor Maid donuts and Al's liquor store (for candy only).

I'm sure that my family (six kids) walking home from church kept those stores in business!

Walter Martin should have gone after those *$*& jack mormons who owned Smith's Food King before Kroeger bought them out....Dee Smith....now he was an anti-Christ!!

Hacedor

[soren]

1) Martin claimed to be an "ordained Baptist minister," and so he was--but only for two years. He was ordained in 1951, and his ordination was revoked in 1953.

2) Martin claimed to have an earned doctorate. His boosters on CARM assured me that he got it from California Western University in San Diego. He did not. He got it from an institution formerly known as California Western University, now California Coast University, in Santa Ana. CWU in San Diego is a legitimate and highly regarded institution; the former CWU in Santa Ana is, or at least in 1976 was, a mail order diploma mill.

3) Martin was calling himself "Dr Martin" for years before he paid the fee for his mail order doctorate.

4) Martin claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young. When genealogical research showed that this was not the case, he backed down; but rather than admit he was wrong, he changed his claim to the more nebulous and less easily tested one of being a "relative" of Brigham Young. As though such a relationship somehow lent legitimacy to his false claims.

I have never read the section of "Kingdom of the Cults" the deals with Mormons, which I don't consider a cult anyway. I thought the section on the Jehovah's Witnesses was pretty good and the chapter in which Martin argues against mind control as an explanation for cultic manipulation was actually profound. In brief, Martin points out that people who belong to cults are there by their own free choice, even if the decisions that placed them there were made on the basis of misleading information. An apologist's job is therefore not to break anyone's control over other peoples' minds or replace it with a different kind of control, but to provide new information whereby they can reassess their past decisions and perhaps make a new decision in favor of salvation. This is a less obvious insight than it appears and few people, even among those who realize the truth of it, reflect upon it sufficiently. Genuine evangelism demands the admission that one does not have, nor should seek after, power over other people.

For this reason your posts saddens me lot, particularly because Martin documents a lot of Charles Taze Russell's false claims to scholarship in order to show the bad character of the JWs' founder. It is a shame to think that Martin himself made similar pretenses. Alas.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have never read the section of "Kingdom of the Cults" the deals with Mormons, which I don't consider a cult anyway. I thought the section on the Jehovah's Witnesses was pretty good and the chapter in which Martin argues against mind control as an explanation for cultic manipulation was actually profound. In brief, Martin points out that people who belong to cults are there by their own free choice, even if the decisions that placed them there were made on the basis of misleading information. An apologist's job is therefore not to break anyone's control over other peoples' minds or replace it with a different kind of control, but to provide new information whereby they can reassess their past decisions and perhaps make a new decision in favor of salvation. This is a less obvious insight than it appears and few people, even among those who realize the truth of it, reflect upon it sufficiently. Genuine evangelism demands the admission that one does not have, nor should seek after, power over other people.

For this reason your posts saddens me lot, particularly because Martin documents a lot of Charles Taze Russell's false claims to scholarship in order to show the bad character of the JWs' founder. It is a shame to think that Martin himself made similar pretenses. Alas.

You do know the esteemed "Doctor" hated and completely maligned Catholicism, right?

[soren]

You do know the esteemed "Doctor" hated and completely maligned Catholicism, right?

Yes, I know he did, but I do not automatically write him off on that basis. There is no reason that recognizing and lamenting a persons vices must exclude any recognition of their virtues. In fact, it is often because we recognize a person's merits that we see the tragedy of their faults most clearly.

[Sentinus]

Ok, ok, let me get this straight. Reader's Digest version:

1. Guy teaches other religions are false.

2. Starts his own religious group.

3. Teaches doctrine contrary to many religious denominations of his time.

4. Guy then lies to cover up less than savory "skeletons".

5. Aggresively proselytes and seeks new membership.

6. Establishes a following of noticable size.

7. Gets "attacked" by larger faiths.

8. Survives.

I wonder do the members of this group or faith see the LDS investigation as an "attack" or "anti" them?

I wonder do they often wonder why they can't just practice their faith without such persecution?

I wonder if these members believe that while there may be some truth to what people share regarding the less than savory character of its founder, that what they teach makes them better people and overall more righteous?

I wonder if they question why people continue to dredge up "specks of History" when currently they teach differently?

I wonder if these members believe that being members of this group strengthens their families?

I wonder how many of these members believe that what you are saying is deceitful and fathered by Satan?

I wonder do these members believe that all the so called "facts" against their founder are true, or do they merely dismiss it as "anti" propaganda taken out of context?

I wonder if any of these members has been told a different version of the story, and wish that those that have problems with their teachings simply only ask current members for "correct" info?

I wonder how many of these members think that all LDS are "anti" them?

I wonder if the new leader will claim ignorance of prior uncomfortable teachings?

I wonder if the new leader will "evolve" the doctrine and in time slowly eradicate all past "embarressments" by discrediting or cheapening the the validity of past "uncomfortable" teachings/doctrine, and then choose to only look at the current "good".

His daughter is currently running the info site and is trying to rewrite at least one of her fathers books to make it more "modern". Also another interesting note. The Daughter and the current "president" Hank Hanagraaf seem to disagree on who should take over. One says it was intended to stay in the family and the other, well claims differently.

Maybe the Daughter will stay put and Hank will lead a large following into Northern Canada and establish a thriving city, and become a Worldwide religious movement. Who knows what people could debate about say in another 150 years?

Additional thoughts.

The first group he "attacked" was 7th Day Adventists, and then JW's. Mormonism wasn't even immediately on his radar. He also had problems with many other religions including a handful of "Mainstram Christian" groups (Mostly Charimatics such as Copeland and Hagin). I mention this because it seems he was very outspoken and critical of many denominations. He was outspoken (Some would argue this made him great and defend his colorful choice in words.)He was clearly wrong at times, right at others. And a man, he never claimed "prophethood". So while he did represent a religious opinion, or stance he NEVER (To my knowledge) claimed his opinions were authoritive, or from God.

Funny I read these posts and it all sounds so familiar.

Regards,

Sentinus