No Giuliani, No McCain

"Frankly, I couldn't care less; not even if a gun was held to my head."

Oh, you're good. You know insults would probably bring me back. It's just hard to not respond to your spew.

This is an obvious lie. If you really, honest-to-God did not care in the least, you wouldn't reply. And you know it.

As for the rest, I'm not going to let you bait me into saying something you can hit the abuse button on. I suspect that is what you're going for.

You said -- "I don't give a damn! You are a bigot! Are we clear?"

CAIR?? Is that you...

Regards,
Star Traveler

[d*mn the facts -- full speed ahead...]

Walter Martin was a damned liar and a fraud. So was/is his wife.

Now come on, tell me just which branch of Christianity you belong to. We're all dying to know.

who is man enough to step up to the plate and take charge and lead the nation

Obama and Hillary are leading the charge as of now.

The stupid party is standing around with their pants down around their ankles.

Hinduism and Buddhism are cults, according to your KOOK source. I didn't see much more, so tell me, according to him, is Judaism also a "cult"?

The crackpot used to be on the radio here.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/martin.htm

My grandson is almost 9 months old. :-)

Awwww! I figured he had to be little because last I knew you didn't have grandchildren yet!
My oldest got married this summer and I am after them already to get a MOVE on! My YOUNGER sis has 3 grandchildren that she LORDS over me all the time!

I'll bet you are loving be a grandma!

If you keep posting the same thing, over and over again, to the same thread, that IS considered to be "spamming" here and against posting rules. It is also against FR's rules and considered to be spamming, if you post the same thing to various, different threads.

You've an oldish sign-up date....why don't you know the rules here?

The FACT is, that your supposed "respected" source was a fraud, a liar, and a KOOK.

You asked -- "What kind of "Christian" are you; what sect of Christianity do you belong to?"

The best description (although it's getting a bit overused these days) is "Evangelical". But, the term is getting a bit "worn" and somewhat "loose" these days.

In terms of "denomination" -- you can refer to the Southern Baptist Convention (and you'll find that they refer to Mormonism as a *cult* too). The Southern Baptist Convention is counted as the largest Protestant Denomination in the United States.

The *basic tenets* of the Christian faith -- will be the *exact same ones* that the Southern Baptist Convention adheres to (and which will be outlined, also, in the book "Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin, as he defines, very precisely the historic Christian beliefs and what holds all Christians together). It's all *standard* and *basic* and *historic* Christianity.

It seems that you're very unfamiliar with this -- it would appear.

I hope that answers your question very well...

And then you asked -- "And who are YOU, to tell those who believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, that they are NOT Christians?"

A person becomes a Christian by very well defined terms and doctrines -- as espoused in the Bible, the Word of God. They are outlined in the doctrines of the faith. For example -- if one was to become a member of a church of the Southern Baptist Convention -- they would go through classes that would ensure that they understood the basic and historic Christian faith and are able to agree with it -- and then they would be a member of that church. That's the way it usually goes.

You obviously have never been through one of those membership classes, learned about the historic Christian faith and have never had to agree to those same doctrines and tenets of the faith -- in order to become a member in one of these kinds of Christian churches.

It must be very unfamiliar to you...

Regards,
Star Traveler

I wasn't "baiting" you, nor was what I said insulting, in any way; unlike the personal attacks you hurl at all and sundry.

You just can't let go. LOL

I am polite. When posted to, I respond.

Great call with the Duck Hunt reference.

I've never understood all these people that want a wall on the border with Mexico but they say nothing about the vastly longer and vastly less defended border with Canada.

Given Canada's lax immigration policies and their arab/muslim asylum laws, the lack of our gaurding the border with Canada is MUCH greater of a threat than the southern border.

Don't forget Ressam with the LAX plot was coming from Canada, not Mexico. The recent plot to blow up parliament was in Ottawa not Mexico City.

It would appear that perhaps they just have a bigger pronlem with Mexicans and Los Gringos than the white folks up in Canada. But who knows?

I know all about Mormons. Probably more than you will ever know. So what?? No, they aren't Christians. AND???? What's your point?

...unlike the personal attacks you hurl...

You're one to talk.

"Good luck with your recuperation from that lobotomy."

How hypocritical. This is what you call polite?

You said -- "Walter Martin? Who falsely claimed to be an ordained minister of the Southern Baptist Convention, even though his ordination was revoked in 1953? Who called himself Doctor even though he bought his degree from a diploma mill?"

His work is absolutely impeccable and it *is recognized* by Christian theologians as *the handbook* for both a concise and thorough explanation of various *cults* and how they depart from Christianity.

That work has been continued and updated by others (since Walter Martin died a number of years ago), to keep it current and it's still considered *the authoritative work* on the cults.

There is absolutely not a single Christian theologian that has any fault to pick with his work -- at all.

You're barking up the wrong tree there.

And besides that -- you could eliminate that one work and find *500 other sources* for the *cult nature* of the Mormon church and how they are absolutely not Christian and do *not* follow the historic Christian faith.

One simple statement here should make it clear to most readers. How many Christian churches have you gone to who refer to Lucifer (i.e., "Satan") as Jesus Christ's brother. It keeps getting worse and downhill from there...

We're not talking about "rumors" here -- but *teaching* of the Mormon church. And this is absolutely *against* Christian theology. Like I said, it keeps going downhill from here.

Regards,
Star Traveler

OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What an eyeopener! LOL

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)

Does Dr. Martin claim a Doctor's Degree that he doesn't have?
Dr. Martin received his degree in 1976 from California Western University. However, he applied the term doctor to himself 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 when he was asked to elaborate 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)

I guess Mr. Martin felt that he could assume the title of "Doctor" before he actually had 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 would seem to directly contradict his statements under oath in his 1975 suit against Bruce Johnson. The transcript records,
"MR. BUCKNUM: Q Reverend, have you ever referred to yourself as Dr. Walter Martin?

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 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.

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 suit 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) Therefor 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)

That Star Traveler would stoop to using such a discredited source is sad.

Don't bug your daughter...she'll have children, or not, when they are ready, or not. LOL

Yes, I LOVE being a grandma and can't wait to give the wee one his presents and his stocking. He won't remember it, but this being his very first Christmas, it is very special! And I can't wait to get some of his sweet kisses.