Customer Reviews

The Maze of Mormonism

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This is an exceelent book. When you see reviews of both extremes, you know you have a good book. Ignore the rabid rant reviews from LDS. Having been a Mormon myself, I can give you my testimony that this book is a well written, very scholarly book.

The section on the Book of Abraham alone is worth the price of the book. Smith claims he translated a book striking similar to Genesis (complete with King James English)from an Egyptian hieroglyph found in a mummies case. This hieroglyph, thought to be destroyed in the Chicago fire, resurfaced in 1968 (a story in Ensign magazine ran the article). Martin's book gives the REAL translation of this hieroglph...portions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead!
This book is not about hate or making money, it's about common sense (such as why would Israelites write in Egytian???)While we are on the subject of money, the Mormon Church is a coporate empire with wealth equal to a fortune 500 company. Martin lists many of the assets of the Mormon Church (at least what they owned in 1978, which no doubt by now their assets are much larger). Controling interest in Utah Power and Light, The L.A. Times, Roy Rogers Hambugers, to name just a few. 9 million memembers, tithing 10%+, do the math.

The book also shows how Mormonism is so out of align with traditional Christian theology that it can not be called orthodox Christianity. The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace, etc., are all heresies to Mormonism. Martin compares the Bible to Smith and Youngs "revelations", with startling results. When you get this book, you won't believe how your LDS friends will tap dance around the truth and come up with the most ridiculous sounding excuses. Read them the part where Smith predicted everyone alive in 1830 would live to see Christ. Their explanation makes the new math seem easy.

Get a copy of this book! Hopefully the publisher will put it back in print again. Used copies are pricy, but worth it!

I found this to be the most informative book I have read on the doctrine of the Mormon Church, & I have read many. My favorite aspect of this book is that it was not a book of opinion. In research, I don't care what someone "thought" of a situation; I want to know the facts...period. That's what this book is. It cuts to the chase & bypasses opinion. Martin includes photocopies of many, many supportive documents...both from the LDS hierarchy & otherwise. Mormons are the only people I've found that dislike this book; maybe that's because it DOES threaten the foundation of their organization..

Was 'Doctor' Martin a Doctor?

Walter Martin claims a Doctor's Degree that he doesn't have? Martin received a doctoral degree of sorts in 1976 from California Western University. However, he applied the term doctor to himself well before that date.

In the 1974 court records he said that he received his, "Master's Degree from New York University in Philosophy of Religion, and completed my doctoral studies at New York University pending my thesis."

And asked for further and better particulars he said, "I finished my Master's thesis in 1956, and I finished all my doctoral work up to my thesis in 1968." (Brown 1986, 36)

Later on his Bible Answer Man radio program he said, "My Master's thesis? Let's see, Oh, my Doctoral thesis. I didn't do a Master's thesis." (Brown 1986, 38)

Of course he should realize that you don't do a Doctoral thesis, it would be a Doctoral Dissertation. In speaking of his Master's degree, New York University indicates that, "A thesis was not required for Mr. Martin's field of study." (Brown 1986, 40)

Martin felt entitled to the title of "Doctor" before he actually bought the degree. As early as 1974 there are several examples were Dr. Martin was used to refer to him. Even earlier, in 1966 on his mother's death certificate, he refers to himself as "Dr. Walter Martin." (Brown 1986, 42-48)

The fact that his name on the death certificate was 'Dr' Walter Martin directly contradicted his statements under oath in his 1975 suit against Bruce Johnson in which he says be received his doctorate at a later date than those times he used the title 'doctor' to beef up his claim to be a serious scholar.



Actually Walter Martin likes to make more claims than he can support. In the Christian Research Newsletter of 1977 he said,

"Dr. Martin holds degrees from



Stony Brook School,
Adelphi University,
Biblical Seminary,
New York University, and
California Western University."


That sounds impressive, but Stony Brook is just a high school,
Adelphi University he only attended for about 4 months,
He attended some summer classes at Biblical Seminary.


He received his Bachelor's degree from an unaccredited school in 1951 and 1952. At the time that he applied for admission to New York University they accepted credits from unaccredited schools. (Brown 1986, 31-35)



Is Dr. Martin's doctoral degree legitimate? California Western University where Mr. Martin obtained his Ph. D. degree advertises in its literature that "No classroom attendance is required." (Brown 1986, 51).

The California Department of Education says about the school, "California Western is an non accredited degree granting school, which has been operating since 1973 or '74. The school is basically a correspondence school with an instructional staff of four persons who are all called deans."

"It is entirely possible that this school offered a degree in Comparative Religion in '76; however, we have no record of this." (Brown 1986, 52)

Walter Martin says that California Western, "isn't a correspondence school at all, and it is accredited in the State of California." (Brown 1986, 55).

The Director of graduate admission at UCLA explains that, "California Western University in Santa Ana is not accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges which is the accrediting association for the State of California." (Brown 1986, 63).

California Western was only recognized as a candidate for accreditation from the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges, Grand Junction, Colorado. (Brown 1986, 58)

The secretary of the accrediting association for California wrote, "the National Association of Private, Nontraditional Schools and Colleges in Grand Junction, Colorado, is not recognized by the Council on Post secondary Accreditation of the U.S. Office of Education." (Brown 1986, 59)

The Christian Research Institute attempted to refute these claims in a 1993 report. They started with the statement: "Facts which are not disputed concerning *Walter Ralston Martin* are as follows: He is an ordained Baptist minister and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention." We have already seen where both of these statements were in fact false.

California Western University lost a name infringement suit in 1981 and so they changed their name to California Coast University. (Brown 1986, 61)

CRI quoted a report by Dr. Bear: "California Coast University...was one of the first of California's non-resident universities...CCU is the only non- resident school in California to have received state approval of all degree programs offered...each faculty member holds recognized degrees from traditional schools."

CRI also quoted from the California State Department of Education has stated in the California Education Code, Section 94310(b): An institute may be granted full institutional approval if the superintendent approves every degree offered by the institution. The law mandates the superintendent to determine -- in advance of issuing an approval and in renewing such approval -- by a qualitative review and assessment of the institution through the use of an institutional self-study and a comprehensive onsite evaluation by a qualified visitation committee impaneled by the superintendent: that the curriculum is consistent in quality with curricula offered by established accredited institutions; and the courses achieve their professed objectives, with verifiable evidence of the students' academic achievement being comparable to that required of graduates from accredited institutions.

But in the case of California Western University, this doesn't seem to have occurred. At least the State of California, Department of Education responded in 1981, "California Western is an non accredited degree granting school, which has been operating since 1973 or '74. The school is basically a correspondence school with an instructional staff of four persons who are called deans. It is entirely possible that this school offered a degree in Comparative Religion in '76; however, we have no record of this." (Brown 1986, 52)

It would appear that the superintendent did not make the evaluation as outlined in the code quoted above because they have no record of the Comparative Religion degree. The Christian Research Institute's report concluded with a statement, "Yes, Walter Martin's doctoral degree is legitimate, and no, it really does not matter." They were wrong again about it being a legitimate degree and it matters a great deal. This establishes Walter Martin's credibility. He was not interested in the truth, he was interested in twisting the information and even lying if it would support his priestcraft. This is particularly obvious in his assertion that he was a descendent of Brigham Young.



Was Dr. Martin an Ordained minister?

Walter Martin has made several claims to authority to the ministry. However, the only ordination he had, when he first began his ministry, was revoked two years later. Since then, at various time over the next thirty-three years, he has falsely claimed to be an ordained Baptist minister, and ordained minister of the American Baptist Convention, and he presently claims to be an ordained minister of the Southern Baptist Convention. Our research indicates that he is none of the above. (Brown 1986, 3)

The fact that he was ordained in 1951 has been confirmed by a letter from his ordination pastor. However that same letter also states that his ordination was revoked.

"A few days before the ordination we discovered that Walter Martin's wife had obtained a divorce in Reno, Nevada. This fact was presented to the Ordination Council. We proceeded with the ordination on July 16, 1951 but with the understanding with Walter that if he ever re-married, we would have to revoke his ordination."



"It was in 1953 that we learned that Walter was re-married. We called the Ordination Council and informed them of our church's decision to revoke Walter's ordination, which our church did." (Brown 1986, 7)



In 1973, Walter Martin's first wife took him to court because she didn't feel that he was living up the the divorce agreement. Among other things she charged that he was he free-lance preacher. His reply is a matter of court record, "I would like to state that I am not a free-lance preacher, but an accredited professor of biblical studies and an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing" (Brown 1986, 298)



In 1984 the American Baptist were asked if they had record of an ordination of Walter Martin. Reverend Linda Spoolstra responded, "Walter Ralston Martin is not listed in the American Baptist Churches' Professional Registry, nor is he listed in our Directory of Professional Church Leaders. This means that he has no standing in our denomination." (Brown 1986, 9)



In 1975 Walter Martin filed suit against Bruce Johnson and the Latter-day Saints (which he lost). Under oath he made the following statements: "I am on the staff of the Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, and I am an ordained member of the Southern Baptist Convention, although I came from the American Baptist Convention" (Brown 1986, 13)



In Literature from the Christian Research Center which was founded by Walter Martin he again claims in 1980 to be a ordained minister and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, Barbara Denman from the Home Mission Board responded, "We have searched our Southern Baptist annual, our Arizona convention annual and our own Home Mission Board personnel records for the name of Walter Martin, but were unable to come up with anything. Evidently, he is not Southern Baptist, nor is he ordained." (Brown 1986, 17)

The mystery is cleared up a little bit by Robert D. Hughes of the Southern Baptist Convention of California. This letter is interesting not only for what it shows about his his lack of ordination, but also for his actually lack of commitment as a Southern Baptist.

"According to the former pastor of the San Juan Capistrano church where Walter Martin held membership, there is no record of any Southern Baptist ordination."

"It seems he came to that church on promise of a letter from some American Baptist church or fellowship, and apparently was not too well investigated at the time. His attendance was very sporadic, according to the former pastor only one or two times a year during the time that he had knowledge of it. He assured me there was no real interest in Southern Baptist work or life but rather an opportunity on Mr. Martin's part to use that church to further his own agenda."

"It appears also that his financial support of the church was in the same league as his attendance, only a small amount once in a great while."

"This pastor does not consider him either a Southern Baptist in attitude and spirit or a supporter of Southern Baptist life and ministry." (Brown 1986, 18)



Did Walter Martin lie about being a descendant of Brigham Young?

While he thought it would serve his purposes, Walter Martin claimed that he was a descendant of Brigham Young. He was shown complete genealogies that proved that he was not a descendant of Brigham Young. Then he changed and made the assertion that he was only a relative of Brigham Young. A claim that is also easily provable to be false. We can only imagine that Walter Martin wanted to make such a claim so that it would appear that he came out from Mormonism.

On a taped lecture, Walter Martin falsely stated that Wayne Cowdrey was a descendant of Oliver Cowdery and that he was a descendant of Brigham Young:

"Wayne Cowdrey and I are very close because he is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, who allegedly wrote down the Book of Mormon that Joseph dictated. He is now a reborn Christian. I am a descendant of Brigham Young - successor to Joseph Smith, ruler of the Latter-day Saints Church--a born again Christian. Would anybody ever think that Cowdery the scribe and Young the successor would stand together on the platform and expose the whole thing as fraudulent? Here we are, the irony of God is remarkable!" (Brown 1986, 70)

The only thing that is remarkable is how easily Walter could say things he knew were not true. In the preface to this book, The Maze of Mormonism, Dr. Martin stated that his mother was a, "descendant of Brigham Young, but disciple of Jesus Christ." Even a couple years after he had acknowledged that he was not a descendant, the dedication had not changed. (Brown 1986, 70)

After the genealogy was thoroughly checked and verified that he was not a descendant, Martin claimed:

" ... .we did a little bit of checking and found out we were related to Brigham Young through one of his brothers, but not a descendant" (Brown 1986, 76)

Walter Martin's mother, Maud Ainsworth, was the daughter of Joseph Ainsworth and Annie Young. Annie's parents are John I. Young (born about 1835), and Marion. Although several genealogists have checked for any relationship between John I. Young and Brigham Young, no relationship was ever found. (Brown 1986, 88)



Did Walter lie about having a lawsuit against the church?

Bruce Johnson challenged Walter Martin's use of a false quote during one of his lectures. Walter Martin threatened to sue and did. He filed a suit against Bruce Johnson and the LDS church on May 21, 1975. He asked for $1 million in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages and attorney's fees. (Brown 1986, 102)

This suit was all started because Dr. Martin was using a non-existent reference. In a lecture at Westminister Presbyterian Church he quoted from Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, page 385. Mr. Johnson asked him how he could be quoting from page 385 when the book only had 376 pages. Martin said that he would let Mr. Johnson prove that he was wrong in a court of law:

"If you're right and I'm wrong, you've ruined me. If I'm right and you're wrong, the Mormon Church in California is going to be terribly embarrassed." (Brown 1986, 102)

On a motion from the defendants, the court entered a summary judgment against Martin's suit. Walter Martin asked for an appeal and a retrial. They were both denied by the court. Walter's final petition was denied on Feb. 13, 1979. (Brown 1986, 317) Therefore, after Feb. 13th, Walter Martin had lost his suit and no further action was possible. But that didn't stop Walter from claiming that a suit existed which he had already lost. As late as 1985 Walter Martin was still claiming that, "This case will come to trial in Orange County, California." (Brown 1986, 99)



Is Walter Martin interested in being accurate? We have already seen many areas where Mr. Martin fails to be honest or accurate.

He is not an ordained minister.
He claims to hold a doctorate that he never really earned.
Her claimed the title 'doctor' before he had received his bogus degree from a correspondence school.
He knows that he is not related to Brigham Young, but he continues to claim that he is.
And even his suit against the Church is misrepresented and he talks about it going to trial after it has already been dismissed. But even when he loses, he twists that to indicate that the church is too powerful. That is nonsense, if you don't have any basis for a suit it has nothing to do with who you are suing.


Walter Martin sets the standard that must be his foundation,

"I also feel quite deeply that the facts contained in this book must be sound and reliable if my conclusions are to be considered valid and useful to the interested Christian. I have made every effort to accomplish this goal of accuracy." (Martin 1978, 12)

Mr. Martin likes to makes statements that have no basis in fact and instead of reasonable scholarship he seems to be just passing on rumors. He states in his Maze of Mormonism,

"The Mormon Church controls 78 percent of the sugar beet industry of the United States,
controls U.S. Industries (a large conglomerate), and
owns large blocks of stock in the Central Pacific Railroad." (Martin 1978, 20)
All of these statements are false.

The church has had a controlling interest in U&I Sugar Industries. However U&I only owns up to 13.1% of the sugar beet industry. That is a long way from 78%. (Brown 1986, 139)

The Central Pacific Railroad and the Union Pacific together built the railroad that was linked at Promontory Point, Utah in 1869. In 1885 the Central Pacific Railroad merged with Southern Pacific Railroad and was no longer known by that name. There has not been a Central Pacific Railroad in existence since 1885! (Brown 1896, 141)

If the Mormon church controls U.S. Industries, they don't know anything about it. In 1981 the U.S. Industries vice president stated,

"This will confirm my advice to you that the Mormon Church does not control U.S. Industries and that, to the best of my knowledge, it has no substantial stake in the company." (Brown 1986, 145)

Walter Ralston Martin (1928-1989) was perhaps the originator of the modern evangelical "countercult" ministry, having founded the Christian Research Institute in 1960, and acting as host of the "Bible Answer Man" radio program.

He writes in the Preface to this 1978 (2nd revised edition) book, "This book... is designed to deal in survey form with a particular problem--the Mormon Church, its gospel, and its zealous advocates... In this book we have dealt as much as possible with primary sources and have documented our conclusions accordingly. In our study of the Mormon religion, the author openly acknowledges that we have approached Mormonism with the theological tenets of historical Christianity foremost in our thinking, and we have weighed the faith of the Mormon 'saints' theologically in this light."

Here are some quotations from the book:

(Quoting John Price) "It is simply ridiculous today to claim that major Near Eastern style wars were fought by hundreds of thousands of people in upper state New York with metal swords and armor and horse drawn chariots. Not only is there no evidence for such phenomena, but there is extensive evidence in that area for an indigenous shift from hunting to simple horticultural societies, after they received corn, beans, squash, and other domesticates from neighboring societies." (Pg. 56-57)
"Has every white male Mormon been ordained to the priesthood? According to this 'revelation' by President Young, the Mormon Church should only be proselyting the negro. Also, all the white Mormon Priesthood holders should now have their resurrected bodies of flesh and bone!" (Pg. 185)
"How could Nephi and just a handful of men build a temple like Solomon's when it took Solomon 7-1/2 years using more than 180,000 workers to complete the temple in Jerusalem?" (Pg. 313)
"The Book of Mormon declares that nobody can read 'Reformed Egyptian' because it was 'altered' (Mormon 9:32-34). Yet Joseph related the story of Martin Harris ... visiting Professor Anthon, who supposedly said that the translation of the characters was 'correct.' How would Anthon know if they were correct, if the Book of Mormon is true?" (Pg. 317)
"Doctrine and Covenants 84:4 said that the New Jerusalem and the temple would be built 'in THIS generation' by the gathering saints. It has NOT been built yet. More than 143 years have gone by since that prophecy was given." (Pg. 319)
"How could Joseph carry the golden plates around so easily ... when the plates had to weigh at least 230 pounds?" (Pg. 319-320)
"Time and time again we are told that Joseph ... 'died a martyr's death.' Yet the specifics of the dastardly murder of Joseph as related in the Documented History of the Church... clearly reveal that he died in a blazing gunfight---John Wayne style---and he is reported to have killed a couple of the Mobocrats in the process... the universally accepted definition of a martyr is one who dies WILLINGLY and WITHOUT RESISTANCE?" (Pg. 321-322)

If you want knowlage of mormon religion, this is the book, I bought this book 15 years ago and lent it to another mormon and never got it back.
Read it to other mormons and they had no answers to the facts inside it.
Verse yourselves with the facts in this book and you will have a great time schooling mormons at your door.

This book stunned me with the information provided. The research was well done and based on facts and information mostly provided by the LDS church.

Anyone that disputes what is written in this book or calls it twisting the truth has not read it. Most of the information is provided by the church, so if it is false...then the church is too. So, either way you can't help your eyes being opened.

This book is incredible! Very accurate and well researched. Would recommend this to anyone seeking information on Mormonism.

Any one who doesn't like this book is either ignorant or has something to hide themselves. Mormons pose as Christians and they are NOT. They pretend to be conservative happy family religion and they are NOT. This book is a God sent for those who want TRUTH. Walter Ralston Martin did his research and I am very thankful! An excellently thorough book! I bought 2 copies so I could use one as a loner! If you want the truth, buy this book and read it cover to cover!!!!

Dr. Martin was an excellent researcher, and had a talented pool of assistants and editors to assist him.
This book is a thorough expose of Mormonism, and offers irrefutable evidence of the lies this cult was built on.
Mormons are good people, and they do take care of each other, but they are not Christians, at least not according to what the earliest known New Testament documents and early church leaders knew a Christian to be.
God was not some alien born on another planet who came here with his wife and grew into Godhood after fathering several children.
The book is wordy, and requires focus, but if you read it, you will know what Mormonism is, and is not.

In this book, Walter Martin gives strong documentary evidence which exposes the Mormon Church for what it really is: A non-Christian Cult.

He gives details about many flaws in their belief system about The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, Native American ancestery and more. He also goes on to mention it's racist background and background into the occult...

WALTER MARTIN: 10 points.
MORMON CHURCH: -100000.