Walter Martin and CRI
John Baskette
Dr. Walter Martin. I did some investigation by calling CRI and by
talking with some old friends of Walter Martin and wish now to share
what I have found.
For those of you not familiar with Walter Martin, I will give a brief
summary. Dr. Martin wrote the book _Kingdom of the Cults_ that exposed
certain religions that purport to be Christian as non-Christian cults or
heresies. (I have always felt that CRI's use of the term "cult" was a
little disingenuous. What is really meant is "heresy". Some of the
"heresies" deserved the cult label but not all.) The most prominent of
these were the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. He wrote other
books including _The Maze of Mormonism_ and _Essential Christianity_
and he co-authored a book _Jehovah of the Watchtower_. He also hosted
for many years a nationally syndicated Christian radio call in show,
_The Bible Answer Man_.
Perhaps more importantly, Walter Martin founded the Christian Research
Institute (CRI). CRI continues to produce _The Bible Answer Man_ and
puts out a journal _The Christian Research Journal_. CRI is now headed
by Hank Hanagraff (who I judge to be less astute than Walter, but a much
better business man) and is growing rapidly. Martin was an evangelical
Protestant and somewhat fundamental in religious belief (i.e. The Bible
is inerrant). He was fairly broad in his acceptance of all the various
denominations as Christian including the Roman Catholics and Orthodox
(a Jesuit priest, a Father Paqua, was a good friend). The basis was an
adherence to a set of doctrines regarded by Martin as being essential --
The Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, salvation by grace -- most
of which are mentioned in the early church creeds and the ecumenical
councils.
Walter Martin died a few years ago, but CRI has become what maybe the
leading "cult watch" organization in Christendom. A great many
evangelicals get all or most of what they know about religions such as
Mormonism or The World Wide Church of God or the JWs from Martin's books
and CRI. CRI is now at the forefront of groups that are criticizing and
anathematizing the "word of faith" movement Pentecostal evangelists like
Benny Henn and Kenneth Copeland because of their aberrant Christology.
As one would expect, Martin generated a lot of controversy and efforts
were made to discredit him. One of these efforts was by some Mormon
writers, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Brown, who wrote _They Lie In Wait to
Deceive_ (Vols 1, 2 &3). They make a number of claims about Dr.
Martin regarding his marriages and ordinations and claim that his Phd.
was received from a degree mill. I have not read these books.
I called CRI (The number is 714-855-9926). They sent me two pieces of
literature. One was a statement that the Browns "have twisted the
information they did receive, often by dishonest or questionable means,
completely beyond recognition.", etc. The other was a document, _Does
Dr. Walter Martin Have A Genuine Earned Doctor's Degree?" This document
says of Martin, "He is an ordained Baptist minister and a member of the
Southern Baptist Convention. He is also sympathetic with the
Charismatic movement. He holds four earned degrees including a Master's
Degree from New York University." The document goes on to defend Dr.
Martin's Phd. from "California Coast University" in Santa Ana,
California.
Next I spoke with Bob and Gretchen Passatino. They are old friends of
Dr. Martin. They have authored several books such as _Answers to the
Cultist at Your Door_, _Witch Hunt_, and _What to do When the Devil
Dares Your Kids_. Gretchen edited and actually wrote most of Martin's
_The New Cults_ which was written by Martin and The CRI staff. Walter
Martin wrote a forward to their book _Witch Hunt_.
In the last couple years Bob and Gretchen have been involved in the
Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) hysteria that has been so popular in
evangelical churches. They wrote an article with Jon Trot for
Cornerstone magazine that exposed Lauren Strafford (who wrote a book
_Satan's Underground_) as a fraud. They collaborated with Cornerstone
in the investigation of Mike Warnke. In fact, the authors of the
Cornerstone article that exposed Warnke as a fraud did all of their West
Coast research while staying at Bob and Gretchen's home in Costa Mesa.
(I went to dinner with them and the Passantinos one night. The
Cornerstone people tend to be very conservative theologically, but they
are very liberal politically. This could be why Warnke made a public
statement a few weeks back accusing Cornerstone, the Passantinos and
CRI of being part of a "murderous" Satanic cult (I read this in
Christianity Today).)
According to the Passantinos, Walter Martin received a Bachelor degree
from Shelton College. They were not sure what it was in, but that it
was some kind of religious studies. It was at this school that he
studied Greek and Hebrew. One of his professors was Oliver Buswell.
The school was not accredited at the time, but it had applied for
accreditation. It's programs were structured in the traditional way
with a campus and Library. Shelton College was supposed to be in New
Jersey or New York. I could not find any information on them.
After this, Martin applied for a masters program at New York University.
Yes, this is the fully accredited and well known and regarded
institution in Manhattan that has a great Law School and a good
religious studies department. He was admitted on the condition that
he maintain at least a 3.5 average. One of his professors was the
atheist scholar Sydney Hook. He graduated and received a Masters
Degree in Religious Education. Bob says that he has seen the diploma.
After receiving his masters, Martin continued to study for his Phd. He
allegedly completed all of his course work for the Phd. at New York
University and had prepared a dissertation which originally was about
the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Doctrine of the Trinity and also about
church history. The problem he had was that he and his faculty advisor
(who was a theologically "liberal" Christian -- well to the left of
our moderator I think but I don't know) had substantial disagreements
over what his dissertation should be about and he never completed it for
many years.
In the '70s Walter Martin moved to Orange County, California to teach
at Melody Land School of Theology, a large independent Pentecostal
located across from Disneyland pastored by Ralph Wilkerson (not to be
confused with David Wilkerson). The school lasted for maybe 10 years
before scandals at the Melody Land church caused it to disband. During
that period Martin started CRI. Later he taught a Bible class at the
Newport Mesa Christian Center which is an Assembly of God church. CRI
still conducts a Bible class there to this day.
During this period he also decided to resolve his problems with his
degree. On the advice of his friend, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, he
applied to a small non-traditional and non-resident college then known
as California Western University, but now known as California Coast
University (CCU) for a Phd degree. All courses are correspondence
courses. The school accepted all of his New York University credits.
He spent a year at the school and simply finished up his New York
University Thesis. He submitted it and defended it and was awarded a
Doctorate in Philosophy and Theology.
I live within a few miles of Santa Ana and I never heard of this place.
I was able to call them on the phone. They offer degrees in management,
business, psychology and they offer a doctoral program in education.
They are licensed by the state of California. They are accredited by
the National Association of Non-Traditional Schools and Colleges (???).
They claim to have 18,000 students and alumni.
CRI's literature quotes Dr. John Bear's book, _Bear's Guide to Non-
Traditional College Degrees_ which says, "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." The literature also has a lengthy quote from
the California Education Code, Section 94310(b) which says, "Such
institutions have been evaluated favorably as being consistent with
accredited institutions in terms of curricula quality and verifiable
evidence of graduates' academic achievement."
It seems to me that Martin has a well earned Master's with a high GPA
from a tough school. He did do almost all of the work needed to earn
a Phd from this school as well. I do not know if his Phd from CCU is
properly described using the words "degree mill". The school seems to
be more substantial then some degrees by mail outfit pulled from a
National Inquireror Ad, but I do not think that I would bother with CCU
myself. I am not impressed. I can see why Dr. Martin would not wish to
talk about this very much. If the facts that I have been given are
accurate -- and I think that they are, Bob and Gretchen are very honest
and live simple lives -- then Martin does have sufficient study and
background to justify his credentials to do the work he did.
Regarding Martin's ordination, I have less information. According to
Gretchen he was first ordained at an American Baptist church in Long
Island. This ordination was revoked at a later time after he was
divorced and remarried. According to Gretchen the information given
in the Brown's book about Martin's divorce and remarriage is
"egregiously distorted", but I do not know the facts. In the 70s
he was ordained again by a Southern Baptist Church in So. California
but the Passantinos did not remember where. According to Gretchen
he was also ordained a third time by another American Baptist Church.
She claims to have seen all three ordination certificates.
Willard C. Smith wrote:
>The San Juan Capistrano church (Southern Baptist) held Mr Martin's
>membership. There is no record of his ordination. If you don't believe
>me than contact the Southern Baptist General Convention of California
>
> P.O. Box 5168
> Fresno, California 93755
> (phone: 209-229-9533)
>
>However, if you are interested in Mr Martin's 1951 ordination, than I
>can give you lots of info. It was revoked in 1953. Yes, Mr Martin was
>aware that it was revoked. No, it was not from the Southern Baptists.
I think that what Richard Pitts said about Baptist churches is true that
local churches can ordain whoever they like and that you will not have
all such ordinations on record. What I dislike about what is said here
is the implication that Martin is hiding some terrible scandal. If Mr.
Smith will post his claims and where he gets his information, then I
will try to check them out.
I used to go to Dr. Martin's Bible Class at Newport Mesa when He was
alive. One of the irony's of his character is that while he was very
broad in his acceptance of religious traditions that accepted the
essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith, he was extremely
acrimonious when confronting "cultists" which included religious
liberals as far as he was concerned. He seemed to cultivate an ability
to find what is offensive and jump on it.
Once he was invited to participate in a Los Angeles Sunday night talk
show called "Religion on the Line" then hosted by a conservative Jew,
Dennis Prager (sp?) on a secular talk show station (KABC). Dennis is
an unusually tolerant and erudite religious Jew. Each week the show
would have as guests a Protestant minister, a Catholic Priest, and a
Jewish Rabbi. There would periodically be representatives of other
faiths also. The clergy selected would range all over the theological
spectrum from liberal to conservative.
In his Sunday morning class, Martin promised that he would not in any
way compromise or dilute the gospel in order to "get along". He
assured everyone that no one would forget the time he came on the show.
He kept his promise. Not long after the show began Martin made clear
his knowledge that all Jews who reject Christ are going to burn in Hell.
This normally effective tactic, however, failed to enrage his ever
tolerant host who understood the logic of Martin's position and
appreciated it anyway.
Martin was undeterred. He was able to find the appropriate toes to
squash when he discovered that the Jewish Rabbi that week was an
orthodox Jew! An inheritor of the traditions of the Pharisees! It was
not difficult to turn the conversation to the crucifixion of Christ
whereupon Martin was able to declare to the Rabbi, "You crucified Him!"
(I imagined his extended index finger jabbing the air when I heard this
and cringed.) As you can imagine all pandemonium broke out with that
gem of a comment.
In spite of this, I do not think that Martin was anti-Semitic, but
there is a multitude of Southern California Jews that will never believe
otherwise.
God Bless!
John Baskette j...@macsch.com
Daniel Segard
j...@macsch.com comments:
> Martin was undeterred. He was able to find the appropriate toes
> to squash when he discovered that the Jewish Rabbi that week was
> an orthodox Jew! An inheritor of the traditions of the Pharisees!
> It was not difficult to turn the conversation to the crucifixion
> of Christ whereupon Martin was able to declare to the Rabbi, "You
> crucified Him!" (I imagined his extended index finger jabbing the
> air when I heard this and cringed.) As you can imagine all
> pandemonium broke out with that gem of a comment.
>
> In spite of this, I do not think that Martin was anti-Semitic,
> but there is a multitude of Southern California Jews that will
> never believe otherwise.
either. Though he was certainly a product of his generation in this
regard. Hopefully most Christians of today are a bit more sensitive to
the things that have occured over the past 2,000 years betweens Christians
and Jews.
The calling of a modern Jew a "Christ killer" or similar is
obviously not going to win any points with the Jewish community (be they
Messianic or not). A much better approach is to say "we killed Him"
(speaking of mankind as a whole), rather than attempting to single out the
ancestors of a certain group of modern people. (Be they modern Jews or
modern Roman Catholics [since the Romans performed the actual
crucifixion]).
I heard Dr Martin say a number of things over the years that I was
uncomfortable with. But I don't think any of them were extreme enough
that I would be willing to put him in the anti-semitic category. He
didn't believe in a Jewish conspiracy, I don't think he believed that all
Jews everywhere were operational antichrists, or anything extreme like
that. He just wasn't sensitive enough....
s
Hal F Lillywhite
[Lots of lines deleted]
> A great many
>evangelicals get all or most of what they know about religions such as
>Mormonism or The World Wide Church of God or the JWs from Martin's books
>and CRI.
Sad but true I'm afraid. I've read only a limited amount of what
they put out but notice that I don't consider their portrayal of my
religion to be very fair. Of course they have a right to publish
what they think. What disturbs me is that so many people, as you
say, get *all* their information on the subject from this one
source, a source which I consider rather biased. This is equivalent
to getting all your information on the United States from Radio
Moscow broadcasts during the 1970's, or to getting all your
information about Christianity from Annas and Caiaphas.
Fer cryin' our loud folks, get information from more than one
source! If you listen to somebody's enemies at least listen also to
him (or his friends).
Marty Helgesen
ed a fictional Chicago saloon-keeper named Mr. Dooley. A passage
that I've seen quoted a number of times begins when someone asks Mr.
Dooley, "Are you a Romanist?"
"A what?"
"Are you a Roman Catholic?"
"No, thank God. I'm a Chicago Catholic."
Daniel Segard, discussing the claim that the Jews crucified Christ,
says, correctly, that we all crucified Christ and that we should not
single out the ancestors of a certain group of modern people. Howev-
er, he then says, "(Be they modern Jews or modern Roman Catholics
[since the Romans performed the actual crucifixion])." Modern "Roman
Catholics" are not the descendants of the ancient Romans. In fact,
"Roman Catholic" is not the official name of the Catholic Church.
(Some Catholics do use it, which is why it is part of the legal name
of some church bodies that are incorporated in the states in which
they exist. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term "Roman
Catholic" was devised to replace the more hostile and derogatory
"Romanist" when a more neutral term was considered to be useful. If
someone asks me my religion, I will reply, "I'm a Catholic." If
someone asks me, "Are you a Roman Catholic?" I will reply, "Yes, I
recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and the
visible head of Christ's one Catholic Church." I was asked the
second question several times when I was a streetcorner speaker for
the Catholic Evidence Guild of New York and that is the reply I gave.
If, as was probably the case, the questioner considered the terms
"Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" to be equivalent, the "Yes" answered
his question. If, on the other hand, he intended to use a "Yes"
answer to say, "By acknowledging that you are a Roman Catholic you
acknowledge that there are Catholics who are not Roman" -- and there
are people who would use that approach, although it is more common in
England than in the United States -- the rest of the answer fore-
stalled that. He would have to make his argument directly.
I am a Roman Catholic in the sense that I am a Washington American.
The pope is the Bishop of Rome and the administration of the Catholic
Church is located in Rome. The administration of the United States
is in Washington. If the South had won the Civil War and had suc-
ceeded in seceeding the term "Washington American" might exist today.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
-- C. S. Lewis
W. Michael Kelley
which include allegations that Cornerstone and CRI (inclusive, Walter
Martin) are conservative. Further, this is levelled at them as an
accusation. I have a hard time with this. Even more, I see complaints
that he labels JWs and the Mormons as the occult. Why should there be any
other classification? My research has been specifically with Mormons, but
both they and JW have views quite contrary to the Evangelical church--the
church that Christ said would never pass away but that the Mormons claim
is apostate. To further make people uncomfortable would be to include
that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult. In fact, if it is a cult, it is
the most effective, as most people would highly believe otherwise.
However, I am willing to Scripturally substantiate my claims, if people
are skeptical. CRI and Cornerstone reflect a 20th Century movement to
regain the Truth behind Christianity when it is viewed in all of its
majesty, rather than the smattering of Christian "taste" one gets in an
errant liberal faith.
wke...@oyster.smcm.edu
(W. Michael Kelley)
[Obviously this depends upon what you mean by "cult". For most people
it includes features of high-pressure indoctrination that I think
don't fit Mormons and Catholics. Others uses the term to refer to
anyone whose views they consider theologically irresponsible. With
this definition I can understand that you would consider both groups
"cults". My experience with past discussions is that arguing over
the term isn't so useful. It's more important to make sure people
understand what features about a group are problematical. I think
we're generally done that in discussions on Mormons and JW's.
Catholics and Protestants of course do so with great regularity.
--clh]
W. Michael Kelley
> source! If you listen to somebody's enemies at least listen also to
> him (or his friends).
I understand the issue which is at the root of this statement.
However, there is more here which is important. Those who have not the
Spirit's guidance and instruction (according to Scripture) are blind to
the Truth. Scripture says that there will come a time when people will
not desire true doctrine but will turn away to doctrine that will tickle
itching ears. So, upon listening to non-Christian religion viewpoints,
one risks submission to the twisted truths and deception inherent from the
father of all lies. Thus, it is important to get a grounding from
reliable books like Martin's Kingdom of the Cults before ever going into
studying other religions. If we do things like study other religions
without God's guidance, we risk going in alone, and so open ourselves up
to danger and (worst of all) lies. So, the criticism of persons who
actually try to understand the nature of cults by Martin's books are
completely unbiased. It is not necessary to re-invent the wheel about
understanding the lies behind cults to help those involved. If we all
spent all our time rediscovering the obvious, we would do nothing else.
Truse, it is also important to read a cult's own materials. In fact,
Martin supports this statement, so once again the arguments given are
unfounded. Martin said that the best proofs against a cult are their own
documents (i.e., Mormonism). So, I would ask that criticism along these
lines be legitimate, rather than just an attempt to funnel feelings of
being "attacked." I would think that persons reading about a cult
signifies a genuine concern for an individual. Desiring to know the Truth
shows more concern than a desire to empathize with lies.
Christ said that the Truth would set us free. So, I would suggest
one study the Truth and teachers of the Truth to help understand lies.
Cultists' arguments are circular and based on the fact that their minds
are veiled. By none of these arguments do I suggest that cultists are
second-class or not intelligent or (far from it) unworthy of an ear. What
I do suggest is that those involved know the Truth before sailing a sea of
lies. I've seen too many Christian friends' faith fall by reading the
Satanic Bible. If Satan can debilitate people in any way, I think it is
important for us as Christians to warn others of means of bondage and also
to preach Christ's deliverance. In Christ was light. Thus, the same
should be true of us.
W. Michael Kelley (wke...@oyster.smcm.edu)
John Baskette
>In the article, many things are purported about Walter Martin and CRI
>which include allegations that Cornerstone and CRI (inclusive, Walter
>Martin) are conservative. Further, this is levelled at them as an
>accusation. I have a hard time with this. Even more, I see complaints
>that he labels JWs and the Mormons as the occult. Why should there be any
>other classification?
Hello, I wrote the article. I regard myself as conservative, an
evangelical Protestant. Do I believe in inerrancy? I have not decided yet.
Do I believe in all the essentials that CRI espouses? Yes. Do I regard
the JWs and Mormons as heretical? Yes.
I do not think that any of these groups would view the label theological
conservative as being inaccurate or scurrilous.
"J'accuse" is a curious accusation in light of the fact that my post was
written primarily to explain and defend Martin's academic credentials
against accusations that Martin's got his Phd from a degree mill. I
thought that my passing comments about Cornerstone and my friends the
Passatinos put them in a favorable light.
Yes, I did comment negatively on CRI's and Martin's use of the term "cult"
(not occult -- cult -- the term occult is used to refer to groups or
practices that use secret knowledge or skills to cultivate supernatural
power -- oujai boards, astrology, palm reading, spiritism, pyramid power --
the New Age movement for example. Allegations regarding Mormon underwear
not withstanding, not even CRI says that Mormons and JWs are occult.)
Yes, I related a story about Martin that makes him look bad. My intention
was more to explain Walter Martin to people than to put him down. Martin
would offend people with his sensationalistic and acrimonious style. In
public interaction, he would often lead off a discussion of Mormonism with a
remark like, "They believe that Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of
Lucifer!" Most Christians view any such opinion as hideously blasphemous.
Now, _The Pearl of Great Price_, Moses 4:1-4 will confirm that technically
this is true, but once understood in the context of Mormon polytheistic
teaching, this doctrine does not have the kind of blasphemous implications
that come to the mind of most evangelical believers.
Martin's style is probably the reason why CRI has been successful. There
have been writers and researchers with more knowledge than Martin, but
Martin was a great communicator. There is an unfortunate tendency in the
church for people to listen to the most sensationalistic and attention
grabbing teachers. It is the extreme and wacko people like David Hunt or
Tex Mars or Constance Cumby or Bob Larson or Mike Warnke or Johanna
Michelson or Hal Lindsey or Trinity Broadcasting Network or etc. ad naseum
that are more successful in fund raising. Groups like Jesus People USA go
unnoticed and put out publications like Cornerstone magazine at a loss.
Perhaps Walter Martin's approach was best on pragmatic grounds. He was
able to be sensationalistic and get the usual band of Christians idiots to
send money to him where it would be used more responsibly instead of sending
money to the usual band of Christian thieves and/or nut cases. (CRI is a
member of the EFCA.) (I think that it is something of a general principal
that the extremists in any area, religion or politics, outflank the moderates.)
Martin's book _The Kingdom of the Cults_ mentions the sensationalistic
stuff that Martin would headline in his talks only in passing. Looking
at the section of the book on Mormonism, you will see a description of
Mormonism; A review of the history of Mormonism that is critical of
Joseph Smith; A discussion of the book of Mormon and why it cannot be
regarded as an inspired work of God; A discussion of Mormon theology starting
first with the Mormon priesthood and the authority of the Mormon church; A
discussion of the Mormon doctrine of God and the Holy Spirit. Only near the
end of the section do we see any mention of fringe teachings such as the
Adam-God theory espoused by Brigham Young. Many Mormons point out correctly
that these fringe teachings were "speculative" and are not official church
teaching. But, as is pointed out in the book, these teachings were taught by
the founding prophets of the church, and the church has never officially
repudiated these speculative teachings. It is perfectly fair to point them
out if only to question the prophetic authority of the Mormon church and it's
prophets. The book is partisan, but it is accurate.
John Baskette j...@macsch.com
BTW, I agree with the poster who said that people, "should get their
information from more than one source!" and to get first hand information,
not just information filtered through an antagonistic source.
Marty Helgesen
John Baskette wrote that Martin started CRI in the 70s when he was in
California. He no doubt did something with CRI in the 70s, but it
existed before then.
In early 1969, or possibly late 1968 I discovered the radio program
"The Bible Answer Man" on WFME in New Jersey. WFME is the New York
Metropolitan Area outlet of Harold Camping's Family Radio network.
The program was not a network program but a local program produced by
the Christian Research Institute in Wayne, New Jersey. When I dis-
covered it while browsing on the FM dial the host was Walter Bjorck,
sitting in for Walter Martin. Walter Martin had started the program
but by the time I discovered it he was doing a lot of traveling and
Walter Bjorck, who worked with him at CRI was a permanent replace-
ment. For the several years that the program was on after I discov-
ered it I heard Martin only two or three times. Eventually they
acknowledged this fact and stopped saying Bjorck was sitting in for
Martin. That means that CRI and the Bible Answer Man program existed
long enough before my discovery of it for Martin to have established
himself as the regular host and then started traveling so that Bjorck
became a permanent replacement. I have correspondence with Bjorck
(who was not a minister, but a well-informed layman) dated and post-
marked 1969 and I started writing not long after I started listening
which is how I can date my discovery of the program.
Martin was traveling to raise funds for a project to set up an on
line computer network to serve Christian colleges and other bodies
with databases containing information on archaeology, evolution,
cults, etc. A newsletter, undated but postmarked May 21, 1969, says
CRI has been working on this project for several years. Advances in
computer technology since then have provided the means for such
networks although perhaps not quite as Martin envisioned them.
Now I have a question that perhaps someone familiar with CRI can
answer. A year or so ago someone posted to another list, as part of
a discussion of Mormonism, information from a taped broadcast from
1976. The speakers said that Brigham Young taught that Jesus is the
Jehovah of the Old Testament,but Elohim was His father, and Jesus is
merely one god among a pantheon of gods. That's all. There's nothing
distinctly unique about the Lord Jesus as far as being God because
the Mormon missionary has the opportunity become a god too. They
then said that, although the Mormon Church does not teach it today,
Young also taught that Jesus Christ came about from a sexual union
between Adam, the first man in the garden, and the virgin Mary, and
He is the offspring of that union.
The speakers then said that Walter Martin, whom they described as a
direct descendant of Brigham Young, was speaking on Mormonism in
California when a Mormon elder called him a liar and said he was
misrepresenting their literature when he said that Young taught that
Jesus was the son of Adam and Mary. This led to Martin suing the
Mormon for slander or libel, after the Mormon refused to retract his
accusations of lying. The case was scheduled to come to trial the
next year (1977) and Martin was reported to be enthusiastic about
having the opportunity to cross-examine Mormons under oath about
conflicts between their current teachings and the teachings of Brig-
ham Young whom they regard as a prophet.
When I read this posting I asked if anyone knew the outcome of the
lawsuit. No one did, but at least one person who contributes to CRI
said he would write and ask, warning that CRI is slow in answering
its mail. So far, unless I missed it when I was nomail, there has
been no response. Does anyone in this newsgroup know what happened?
Daniel Segard
Marty Helgesen interjects:
> Daniel Segard, discussing the claim that the Jews crucified
> Christ, says, correctly, that we all crucified Christ and
> that we should not single out the ancestors of a certain
> modern Jews or modern Roman Catholics [since the Romans
> performed the actual crucifixion])." Modern "Roman
> Catholics" are not the descendants of the ancient Romans.
Roman Catholics" who are actually descended from ancient Romans. If this
were not true, then perhaps it could be explained why none of the ancient
Romans adopted Christianity as their religion? Or are you saying that all
the descendants of the ancient Romans switched to the Protestant version
of Christianity just as soon as it was available? Either way, it doesn't
seem likely.
> If someone asks me my religion, I will reply, "I'm a Catholic."
> If someone asks me, "Are you a Roman Catholic?"
parish in the Yellow Pages under the CHURCHES heading, what sub-heading
would you recommend that they look under? I presume you are suggesting
that they should look under "C" for Catholic, and that it will not be
found under "R" for Roman Catholic. Is this true?
(My congregation is found under SYNAGOGUES - Messianic in the Yellow
Pages.)
[There are a couple of reasons for using the term Roman Catholic.
Within the Catholic tradition, it is used to distinguish Roman
Catholics from several Eastern groups that are also in communion with
the Pope, e.g. the Maronite Catholics. They are not directly ruled by
the Pope, as the RCC is, but are in communion with him and the RCC,
and acknowledge his authority. Within the Protestant tradition, it is
used because Catholic without any qualifier refers to the universal
church. In earlier days, less polite terms were used (e.g.
Romanist). I think both sides are trying to avoid the polemics of the
past. The nice thing about the term Roman Catholic is that it has
reasonable justification on both sides, and thus can be used in joint
discussion without offending anyone. --clh]