Walter Martin's False Claims

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

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

What does this have to do with the claim that Martin was a descendant of Young? Abosulty nothing. Not to mention your characterisations are false too.

[captain-jack]

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.

...

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

Regards,

Sentinus

You're right! It does sound so familiar, however, was Joseph Smith filled with such contention? Satan will try to persuade the children of men by looking much like the real thing.

[Sentinus]

Seems Martin is not much different than Jim Roberton of Concerned Christians, though Robertson's packaging seems to be a bit slicker. But in the end, they can't seem to help but lie. Here is a sampling of the lies Robertson publishes at Concerned Christians, and at anti-Mormon rallies he attends:

I watched the video on this website, Understanding Your Mormon Neighbor. I took 2 full pages of notes of blatant lies that Jim Robertson tells. These are not simply doctrinal disagreements. These are out and out lies, starting with the lie that he was ever a branch president. Here is a sample of the lies:

1. Robertson used to claim he was a bishop. Later he backed off and claimed he was a branch president. He was neither. He was a counselor in a branch presidency.

2. Robertson claims the members are arbitrarily assigned which ward they will be in.

3. Robertson claims that the Standard Works are prioritized in importance, with the Doctrine and Covenants being first, the Pearl of Great Price second, the Book of Mormon third, and the Bible forth.

4. Robertson claims that the Church does not encourage members to read the Bible.

5. Robertson claims the Church did not consider itself to be Christian prior to 1972.

6. Robertson claims all temples have a diagram showing the spirit world, earth, the temple, and the three degrees of glory. (Itâ??s a diagram he used in his presentation, and said it was in all of the temples.)

7. Robertson claims there is no devil in Mormonism.

8. Robertson claims David O. McKay said that he was the mediator between God and man. (I've asked Robertson to show me the quote. I have yet to see it.)

9. Robertson claims that the Church encourages faithful spouses to divorce their non-believing spouse.

10. Robertson claims that an endowed woman cannot go to the temple without her husband.

11. Robertson claims Mormon wives will have a new baby every 9 months for eternity if they go to the Celestial Kingdom.

12. Robertson claims that the eternal progression of God means that He gets smarter and more knowledgeable.

13. Robertson claims that the Church teaches that we will rule over our own planets as Gods.

14. Robertson claims that Mormons do not believe that the blood of Christ washes away sins.

15. Robertson claims that Mormons do not believe in the virgin birth.

16. Robertson claims that when he announced to a friend who was a counselor in a bishopric that he was leaving the Church, that his friend told him that he would be back because Robertson likes sex. I canâ??t prove that Robertson lied about this, but Iâ??m willing to bet that he did.

17. Robertson claims that in Mormonism the husband makes the decision whether or not the wife gets to go to the Celestial Kingdom.

18. Robertson claims that the Church sponsors scouting programs in order to proselyte young boys.

19. Robertson claims that Joseph Smith described the first vision as being surrounded by darkness and two personages appearing.

20. Robertson claims that Mormons define a generation as 100 years.

21. Robertson claims that Joseph Smith â??completely rewrote the Bible.â?

22. Robertson is claiming that polygamy is being practiced in Mesa by Mormons just like it always was. Robertson claimed that the Church sanctions plural marriages today. A man just has to go to a different state and get married in a different temple.

23. Robertson claims that any Mormon man can marry an unwilling living female for eternity, by simply having his current wife go through the temple by proxy for the living female.

25. Robertson claims that the naval and knee marks of the garment used to be cut into the flesh.

Robertson makes a lot of claims about what goes on in the temple ceremony. I wonâ??t go into specifics, but suffice it to say that patrons in the temple are not instructed by Lucifer, they never say a prayer that says Hail O Magnificent Lucifer or any Hebrew derivation thereof, and they never put on an apron that represents the power and priesthood of Lucifer. Robertsonâ??s lies about the temple are broad and bold, probably because he knows we wonâ??t go into detail.

From the Concerned Christian video, Understanding Your Mormon Neighbor

If you are so concerned about this might I suggest you move this post in its entirety to the Concerned Christians Board and allow for someone to answer. Or if you don't mind I could paste it there for you. You should take up your concerns with your fellow man in person. IMO

I look foward to your response.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

You're right! It does sound so familiar, however, was Joseph Smith filled with such contention? Satan will try to persuade the children of men by looking much like the real thing.

You asked:

"was Joseph Smith filled with such contention?"

Come on, you have been doing this long enough, how one interprets his teachings and actions is soley opinion.

You said: "Satan will try to persuade the children of men by looking much like the real thing."

Agreed.

Regards,

Sentinus

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I would think his fundamental misapplication of the pejorative "cult" would be enough to make one at least begin to question his overall methods and approach.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Come on, you have been doing this long enough, how one interprets his teachings and actions is soley opinion.

Especially when one starts a thread about Smith's alleged boastings and winds up looking the fool for clearly taking things out of context; demonstrating that one was either being dishonest or lazy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LoaP

Your box is full I cant send you a PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LoaP

Your box is full I cant send you a PM.

Should be good now.

Stop using threads to discuss your personal doings, loap and mola. you guys are both really ugly too ~Mods

[Lightbearer]

Walter Martin, by his fruits (books, tapes, etc) was to me, described very well as follows:

(2 Peter 2:10-19) "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb *** speaking with manâ??s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."

That is what I really think of Walter Martin he was an evil vicious little man and I say may the Lord judge him for what he has done in raising his heel up against the Lord's anointed, perhaps it can be said of him as it has of many others: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

[Sentinus]

Especially when one starts a thread about Smith's alleged boastings and winds up looking the fool for clearly taking things out of context; demonstrating that one was either being dishonest or lazy.

See exactly my point. Thank you. You interpret things in your own biased way, and I will do so likewise. Hence my determination not to debate with the good captain on the issues regarding Joseph Smith, and chose to stay on topic. What exactly does your above statement have to do with the Op, or for that matter my dialogue with Captain Jack?

Regards,

Sentinus

[LifeOnaPlate]

See exactly my point. Thank you. You interpret things in your own biased way, and I will do so likewise. Hence my determination not to debate with the good captain on the issues regarding Joseph Smith, and chose to stay on topic. What exactly does your above statement have to do with the Op, or for that matter my dialogue with Captain Jack?

Regards,

Sentinus

I just have to get a little cheap shot in once in a while, it is my fallen nature. Strangely you let that thread die...

I also thought you were hitting the nail on the head, and offered further proof of your point, provided by your own actions.

[Sentinus]

I just have to get a little cheap shot in once in a while, it is my fallen nature. Strangely you let that thread die...

I also thought you were hitting the nail on the head, and offered further proof of your point, provided by your own actions.

You said: "I just have to get a little cheap shot in once in a while, it is my fallen nature. Strangely you let that thread die..."

Well its a good thing none of has to be perfect, I understand. Many times I see opportunities to do likewise, I just try and remember that this is all opinion based and that none of us really is capable of showing our true intent and concern via text based communication.

You said: "I also thought you were hitting the nail on the head, and offered further proof of your point, provided by your own actions."

Not quite sure I am following this. Is this another "cheap shot" OR is this a comment on something else said and I am simply not putting it together?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Pahoran]

Ok, ok, let me get this straight.

So why didn't you actually try to, then?

Reader's Digest version:

1. Guy teaches other religions are false.

"Guy" selects a particular subset of "other religions" to go after. Is that what you mean?

2. Starts his own religious group.

Did he? Which one?

Are you aware of some "Church of Walter Martin" that the rest of us haven't heard of? Do worshippers there make the sign of the toupee?

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

"Doctrine" is an unusual word for Martin's polemics.

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

What "skeletons?" Are you referring to the false claims he made in the process of attacking other faiths?

5. Aggresively proselytes and seeks new membership.

What "membership?"

6. Establishes a following of noticable size.

Not really. Most of his "following" attend actual churches. Martin has an "audience cult," not a church.

7. Gets "attacked" by larger faiths.

So Robert and Rosemary Brown are a "larger faith," are they?

Who knew?

8. Survives.

Actually he's dead.

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

It's not a "group or faith." Why would you think that it is?

Oh, I realise that you are trying to make some "point" or other by fabricating bogus parallels between Martin and the Church of Jesus Christ, but why would anyone try to argue that in good faith? You certainly did not.

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

What faith? What 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?

Can anybody seriously think that about Martin's demagoguery?

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?

What "teachings" are those?

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 any of their critics will see a need to dishonestly misrepresent their statements?

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".

What "doctrine?"

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?

Maybe if Hank were to start an actual "religious movement," your ridiculous paralells might actually start to mean something.

Additional thoughts.

Additional? Wouldn't you have to have some actual thoughts before you could call any others "additional?"

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

Only because you have striven mightily to contrive to make it so. Were you really convinced by your own transparent sophistry, or were you merely hoping that others might be?

You have made one valid point about (against) Martin and his polemics. It is not the case that he was a crazed religious zealot with a fanatical hatred of the Church of Jesus Christ. Rather, he was a cynical opportunist who was ready to exploit whatever latent prejudices and fears might trouble his audience. Put another way, he was nothing but a demagogue, a rabble-rouser appealing to the basest instincts of the rabble he was trying to rouse. Accordingly, the great scandal of Walter Martin--and Jim Robertson, and Matt Slick, and the late John L. Smith and others--is not that such people exist, for there are always going to be ignorant people who detest their neighbours for no good reason, but that they were and are successful. Not only are these people the products of a single religious tradition, but more significantly, the rabble they love to rouse--and that is always so willing and ready to be roused by them--is found almost exclusively within that tradition. Thus it is that each of these guys is a large, unsightly and festering boil on the face of the Evangelical Protestantism that can never quite understand why we find it such an unattractive suitor.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

You said: "I just have to get a little cheap shot in once in a while, it is my fallen nature. Strangely you let that thread die..."

Well its a good thing none of has to be perfect, I understand. Many times I see opportunities to do likewise, I just try and remember that this is all opinion based and that none of us really is capable of showing our true intent and concern via text based communication.

You said: "I also thought you were hitting the nail on the head, and offered further proof of your point, provided by your own actions."

Not quite sure I am following this. Is this another "cheap shot" OR is this a comment on something else said and I am simply not putting it together?

Regards,

Sentinus

No, I absolutely believe you have described your own methods of approaching the prophet.

[soren]

I would think his fundamental misapplication of the pejorative "cult" would be enough to make one at least begin to question his overall methods and approach.

Iâ??m fine with questioning his methods. The only way to read any book is to question its methods, especially controversial literature. Thatâ??s as true of Catholic authors as it is of EVâ??s and Latter-day Saints. My point here has not even been to defend Martin. I only say that he isn't a simple bad guy.

I think it is a snap-judgment to say he is uses cult as a perjorative and take that as evidence of bad methodology. What matters is not the way you respond to a word, but the way the author intends to use it. And Martin is very careful about spelling out his intentions and method for the reader, providing thereby a stardard by which his work can be judged. In fact, he starts off the books talking about what he means by cult and clearly defining his own premises and standpoint. For the first two pgaes of the book:

In his study of modern American cults and minority religious movements as found in his text, â??These Also Believe,â? Dr. Charles Braden, emeritus professor at Northwestern University (1954), and John C. Schaffer, lecturer (1955), and visiting Professor at Scripps College (1954 to 1956), made a number of observations with which this writer agrees. In regard for the term â??cult,â? fowr instance, Dr. Braden states:

â??By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups that are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total cultureâ? (Preface, xii). I may add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered around a specific person or personâ??s misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovahâ??s Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. The Christian scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It would be possible to go on citing many others, such as the Unity School of Christianity, which follows the theology of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain many major deviations from historical Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as Christians.â?

It is my conviction that the reader is entitled to know the theological position from which this volume is written so that there will be no misconceptions about the ground for my evaluation. I am a Baptist minister, an evangelical holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, and teach in the fields of Biblical Theology, Comparative Religion, and Apologetics, and am currently Director of the M.A. program at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (Orange, CA). It is impossible for me to agree with Dr. Braden, â??an unrepentant liberalâ? (p. xi) or to agree that I â??hold no brief for any particular cult, nor â?¦ violently opposed to anyâ? (p. xi). While I am in agreement that â??in general the cults represent the earnest attempt of millions of people to find the fulfillment of deep and legitimate needs of the human spirit, which most of them seem not to have found in the established churches.â? (p. xi). I feel there is still much more to be said. It has been wisely observed that â??a man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for almost anything.â? So I have elected to stand on the ramparts of Biblical Christianity as taught by the apostles, defended by the church fathers, rediscovered by the reformers, and embodied by what is sometimes called Reformed Theology.

It is the purpose of this book then, to evaluate the so-called cults and â??isms which today are found in abundance in America and, in quite a number of cases, on the great mission fields of the world. My approach to the subject then is threefold: (1) historical analysis of the salient facts connected with the rise of cult systems; (2) the theological evaluation of the major teachings of those systems; and (3) an apologetic contrast from the viewpoint of Biblical theology, with an emphasis on exegesis and doctrine.

Knowing full well that Martin was as classically anti-Catholic as his reformed Baptist roots, I find it hard to see any of these words as the rantings of a mere bigot. You say that â??cultâ? is a perjorative. Indeed it is. But does Martin intend to use it that way? Is he wielding it as a scare-word to substitute for rational thought? To the contrary, he his is giving an upfront explanation of his principles, and, by providing a clear definition of his terminology, he prevents he reader from thinking about the word in a perjorative way. That Martin explicit agreement that â??the cults represent the earnest attempt of millions of people to find the fulfillment of deep and legitimate needs of the human spirit, which most of them seem not to have found in the established churchesâ? is a valuable insight that strongly diffuses prejudicial thinking, right there at the start of the book. If the way you think about the word â??cultâ? determines the way Martin should be judged in using it, you do little more than simply deny him the right to speak for himself.

Again, I do not discourage criticizing Martin. I certainly owe no allegiance to him. I only say it is important to be accurate and circumspect about what we criticize. For instance, though he is welcome to use â??cultâ? with whatever means he finds appropriate, I do not think either definition that he puts forward really cuts to the heart of the concept. I believe a cult is a social organization designed to prey on its members by turning them into willing victims. By this definition I do not count Mormonism as a cult, whereas I do count a lot of other movements as cults that are not even religions, or in any case are not theistic, like Scientology and the various spinoffs of EST that were booming in Southern California when I lived there in recent years. If there is a common thread in cultic world views, it is not this or that unbiblical doctrine, but that they teach theologies or philosophies that substitute power for love.

It is of course, for this reason, that I find it sad to see know that Martin himself used deception, since deception is my nature a way of enforcing power at the expense of love. I hope he repented. But that does not mean there is nothing to learn from his book. What it means is that he was a sinner. It also means one must be a bit more circumspect in reading him than otherwise. But it does not make him the Devil. I keep a bookmark with a quote from Solzhenitsn that reads â??If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?â?