Response to Pastor Ed Young, Fellowship Church "A Bout With Doubt," Sermon on Mormons (Delivered on Dec. 10, 2000) by Cooper Johnson May, 2001 When a friend of mine mentioned to me one Monday morning that his Pastor had preached a sermon on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (part of a series of sermons on other religions), my first thought was, of course, that I wish I could have heard what this Pastor had to say. I'm always interested in what others have to say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as LDS for Latter-day Saints or Mormons. From this point forward, I will refer to as the Church of Jesus Christ), to which I am a member. I must admit, my second thought was one of suspicion. I wondered if the sermon was one of those full of deception and untruths, based on the work of anti-Mormon ministries, which is so common. When my friend told me that he bought the tape of the sermon, I immediately asked if I could listen to it, to which he agreed. As we continued the conversation, I quickly learned from my friend that the sermon indeed had the potential for being exactly what I suspected. I then offered and promised my friend a thorough response from me to the claims made by his Pastor. I listened to the tape on the way home from work that evening. I was appalled! I could not believe what I was hearing. I literally got sick to my stomach. I couldn't believe that the Pastor of a church as large as this would be so careless and irresponsible as to preach the lies and deceptions that I heard on that tape. I decided then and there that I would respond to you, Pastor Young, directly. I will not question your intentions and will assume that you were not aware of the numerous errors that you spoke that day. Among these are errors of facts, dates, sources, authors, in addition to errors of interpretation of what the Church of Jesus Christ actually believes and teaches. And, of course, the numerous double standards that are erected to judge the LDS doctrine and practices would indeed condemn you in your Christian belief in the Bible. I'm sure you would agree that one must be very careful in the standards one uses to judge others. Many times, these standards will backfire and your sermon is no exception. Introduction As you will see below, I have made a point to be very thorough and complete in my reply to your sermon. I'm not just some defensive Mormon. I feel very strongly about what I believe. I have studied and prayed often to be guided to God's truth. I have found it in the Church of Jesus Christ. And because I feel so strongly, I am quick to defend my faith against detractors of the Church. I'm sure you would feel the same way if someone was communicating lies and deceptions about your Church. Again, I will not presume to know your intentions. I don't know how much of the research you did for this sermon, but it is extremely apparent that the research was substandard, at best. It appears to me, as a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ, that you have relied entirely on non-Mormon sources. Most of these rely upon old, outdated, and false arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ which have been answered time and time again. On this point, I would like to turn to a paper written by two Evangelical Christian Scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen (Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?, 1997): "The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholarsIt is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex. A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matterOur fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not." The conclusions of Mosser and Owen are specifically applicable to the points you make in your sermon. I encourage you to read the entire paper. The point is that your arguments have been refuted over and over. However, anti-Mormon authors continue to make the same claims and arguments without addressing the LDS answers. They continue to use sensationalism for the purpose of shock value. Additionally, your sermon clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the truth about what the Mormons actually believe. It is my opinion that the reason you have such a skewed view of the Church of Jesus Christ is because, as I mentioned above, you are only using non-Mormon sources in studying the Church of Jesus Christ. I requested a list of your sources used for this sermon and I have to admit that I wasn't surprised to find that of the 23 sources provided (books, tapes, and websites), only one was an LDS source. And this was a website www.mormon.org listed by you as "the official site of the Mormon Church," which is not true. First of all, this website isn't even up and running (it is currently and has been under construction), and second of all, the official website for the Church of Jesus Christ is www.lds.org. This site is the personal hobby of John Hayes. As much as I see this approach constantly, I continue to find it very backwards. If you want to know what the Church of Jesus Christ believes, why wouldn't you go to the Church of Jesus Christ sources. If I am considering the purchase of a Toyota, I don't go to Ford and GM to get my information and then draw my conclusions. If you were considering buying stock in AT&T, would you go to MCI and Sprint to gather their opinions on which to base your decision? Well, let's get to my response. I intend to go through your sermon, in the order in which you presented it and provide my answers to your claims. In most cases, I will only be correcting errors made by you in your sermon. I don't plan on debating or arguing doctrine and who's right and who's wrong in that respect. I would be more than happy to discuss doctrine with you on a separate occasion. However, my purpose in writing this response to you is to correct the gross errors, lies, deceptions and misunderstandings you preached regarding the Church of Jesus Christ, in addition to the double standards you use to judge. You will be surprised as to how many of the standards you use to judge the Church of Jesus Christ would condemn your beliefs also, when you apply those same standards to you. The statements you made in your sermon will be in blue and my remarks will be in black. Pastor Young: The Mormons have hired some of the best marketing firms in the world to help them position themselves, to market themselves along side of other Christian denominations. I'm not sure about the use of the world's best marketing firms (I'm sure they didn't want to consult with poor firms), however, I'm certain you would agree that there is nothing wrong with using good marketing with respect to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have definitely used some unique and contemporary marketing for your church. Let us look at a few examples: 1. You have "fellowshipchurch.com" plastered on your church building bigger than the actual name of the church. 2. A substantial website presence with a "home page" design with movie reviews and weather, etc...with the apparent objective of attracting more people to use your website as a home page and thus attract more people to your church. 3. Here is my personal favorite Taking Baptist out of the name of your Church a few years back and marketing yourself as a non-denominational church. Members of your church say that technically, the Fellowship Church is part of the Southern Baptist Convention, but in reality, the church is non-denominational. In an article about your church and others, the Jim Jones reported, "Young plays down his connection to the Southern Baptist Convention." (Reporter News Jan 16, 1999) You were also quoted as saying that taking the word Baptist out of the name of your church, "is one of the greatest things we've ever doneMost of our church wouldn't be here today if we had Baptist in the name." (Christianity Today, Jun 14, 1999) I don't know if you hired marketing firms or not to help you make these marketing decisions, but we could make a few changes to your original statement and turn this around using your own words. Compare this statement to yours above: The Fellowship Church has made some strategic marketing moves to help them position themselves, to market themselves along side of other non-denominational Christian Churches. Your original remark is quite clearyou are attempting to paint a picture of the Church of Jesus Christ as deceptive, without foundation. Your point is obviousthe Church of Jesus Christ tries to appear as a regular, run-of-the-mill, traditional Christian Church, to deceive people. Along Side Other Christian Churches? I agree that the Church has some great commercials on TV and produces some great materials to demonstrate it's message of Jesus Christ. However, if our Church wanted to appear as traditional, run-of-the-mill mainstream Christian, why would it highlight it's differences? For example, many of the TV commercials produced by the Church of Jesus Christ highlight the Book of Mormon. Much of the recent press that the Church of Jesus Christ receives in print has to do with the building of new Temples all over the worldTemples are yet another major difference between Mormons and mainstream Christianity (this press is due to press releases by the Church of Jesus Christ). One other pointwhy would the Church of Jesus Christ, who supposedly is trying to "market themselves along side of other Christian denominations," highlight the belief in Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God in the first Missionary discussion. When LDS Missionaries teach the Gospel to people investigating the Church, they have 6 "discussions" or lessons that they teach. The first discussion is about God, our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, who they are and how God communicates through Prophets and then concludes with a message that God chose Joseph to be a Prophet. Now this is an over simplification of the discussion, but these are the major points. This is how the Missionaries kickoff the discussion about what the Church of Jesus Christ believes and teaches. Obviously, our belief in Prophets and Joseph Smith as a Prophet certainly sets us apart from mainstream Christianity. Of course, the Church of Jesus Christ presents itself as Christian (we are followers of Christ). That doesn't mean we are attempting to present the Church as just another Christian Church. The LDS is certainly not just another Christian Church. Pastor Young: Mormons also teach their Missionariesto use words that resonate with those of us who are believers. They teach them to use words like Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father, the Bible is the word of God. And to people who know just a little about Christianity, they say whoa, it's the same thingthey believe like I believe. But, they have put a unique spin on their doctrine. They have brought Christ into it more. Your point is extremely deceptive, Pastor Young. You insinuate that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches it's Missionaries to dishonestly and deceptively use certain words, like Jesus Christ, to lead people to think we are something we are not. Your point is once again clearthose Mormons don't really believe in Jesus Christ, or a Heavenly Father or that the Bible is really the word of Godthey just try to trick people into believing they do. Well, let's take a look at these words that we teach our missionaries to use to deceive people: Jesus Christ? It's in the name of our Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and has been for 170 years, since the beginning! The words "Jesus Christ" appear on every official Church document, on every Church owned building (Church, Temple, etc). In the Articles of Faith (written by Joseph Smith, in the early 1800's, when someone asked him to summarize the beliefs of the Church), you will find, at a very basic level, our beliefs in Jesus Christ (there are 13 Articles of Faiththese are 1, 2, and 4): 1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. 3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon's Title page states that one of the main purposes of the book is for the "convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ" In the Book of Mormon, an ancient Prophet, named Nephi, records the following (in about 550 B.C.): "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26) Jesus Christ is at the center of our religion. For you, or anyone else, to insinuate otherwise is disingenuous and absolutely false. Shame on you. (I will address the Church's more detailed beliefs on Christ in greater detail below) Heavenly Father? You must be kidding. Of course we believe in our Father in Heaven. When you ever hear a Mormon pray, you will hear a prayer to "Our Father in Heaven," or "God, Our Heavenly Father." We pray to him and him only, in the name of Jesus Christ (as taught by Jesus, himself). As I mentioned before, the first subject in the discussion/lessons taught by the Missionaries is our belief in God, our Father in Heaven. In the Gospel Principles teaching manual for Sunday School (which teaches our basic beliefs in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from beginning to end48 lessons primarily for new members), the very first lesson is "Our Father in Heaven." All of this is documented on the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ, www.lds.org. In the Book of Mormon we find statements like: I say unto you, that there are not any among you, except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things, but what knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are; and also have been taught concerning the records which contain the prophecies which have been spoken by the holy prophets, even down to the time our father, Lehi, left Jerusalem; (Mosiah 2:34) In the front of the Book of Mormon, we find the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. These men wrote their testimony that they saw the gold plates that were translated to the Book of Mormon. Here are a few of their words: "And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen." Of course, you may also refer to the first article of faith above to identify our belief in our Father in Heaven. The Bible is the word of God? And as difficult as it apparently is for you to believe, we do in fact believe in the Bible to contain the word of God (of course, your insinuation that we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God contradicts your remarks belowlater in your sermon where you admit that we view the Bible as scriptureFYI). Again, I refer to the Articles of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." In the Gospel Principles teaching manual, in the lesson on "Scripture," you will find the following introduction of the lesson, which explains the LDS belief on the Bible: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the ChurchThe Bible is a collection of sacred writings containing God's revelations to man. These writings cover many centuries, from the time of Adam through the time when the Apostles of Jesus Christ lived. They were written by many prophets who lived at various times in the history of the world. The Bible is divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Many prophecies in the Old Testament foretell the coming of a Savior and Redeemer. The New Testament tells of the life of that Savior and Redeemer, who is Jesus Christ." So, Pastor Young, these words, "Jesus Christ," "Heavenly Father," and "the Bible is the word of God," are terms that we truly believe in. If you didn't realize this when you delivered your sermon, you know it now. It would have only taken a quick trip to the LDS website (all of this information is therethe lesson manual, Articles of Faith, Scriptures on-line and much more). These are most certainly not just words we use to make us seem more like other Christians. Honesty and integrity are values that we hold dear. We would never use deception for any purpose. These terms are realJesus Christ is real to us, Heavenly Father is real to us, and the Bible is real to us. I have come to know of the love that Jesus has for me and the love that my Father in Heaven has for me. Much of what I have learned about that love comes from the Bible. Chapter's 14, 15, and 17 of the Gospel of John are two of my favorite chapters of scripture. Pastor Young: Historical data shows that his [Joseph Smith's] father spent most of his time trying to find Captain Kidd's treasure with a divining rod. Just a quick point on this comment of yours. First of all, you are making a generalization that "historical data" does not support. Did his father spend some time looking for gold? Yes, history demonstrates that he did, which was a common practice for poor farmers (remember this was around the time in our history of prospecting for gold and other precious metalsthe gold rush of 1849 was just around the corner). However, did he spend MOST of his time engaging in this activity? We don't know that and, in fact, the historical record seems to indicate this was an impossibility, with all of the time he spent farming and clearing land for farming. Let's not get over-zealous, Pastor Young. And did he search for "Captain Kidd's treasure with a divining rod?" We have no ideathe historical record certainly does not demonstrate this. This is called making a mountain out of a mole hill, for shock value purposes. I would be interested to see your original sources here. Because your argument has no real value or impact, I will move on, leaving it on the table for further discussion if you wish. Pastor Young: Joseph Smith, one day was confused about which fellowship to hook up with. So he began to walk out into the woods and Joseph said God, the Father and God, the Son, these are his claims now, appeared to him and told him that all churches are wrong and all churches are an abomination. Remember? Smith said that God, the Son and God. The Father told him that all churches are wrong, I'm quoting now, and their all an abomination. Well, Pastor Young, here is our first example of a factual error and putting words in someone's mouth that they did not say. I don't know who you are quoting, but it is most certainly not Joseph Smith, because he never said such a thing. We will get to that shortly, but let's start with your first comment. Joseph was not confused about "which fellowship to hook up with." Joseph wanted to know which church was right. He wanted to know which church taught the true gospel of Jesus Christ. See, to some people, and certainly for Joseph, it is a search for truth. It's not just hooking up with some fellowship (unfortunately, many people see it that wayjust hooking up with some fellowship, as opposed to looking for the true Church of Jesus Christthe true gospel of Jesus Christ). The Joseph Smith Story Now, Joseph was becoming confused since all of the Churches taught something different from the others and all interpreted the Bible a little different than the others. Joseph was reading in the Bible one day and came across James 1:5 which, as you know, directs us to pray and ask God when we lack wisdom. So he decided to do just as the scripture directed: ask God which Church was true and right. He then went into a grove of trees to prayto pray and ask God which Church to join. What an example! More people should follow this example and prayerfully consider what Church to join. Yes, Joseph then describes a vision of God, the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ appearing to him. And he received an answer. Did Joseph say that his answer was that "all churches are an abomination?" Joseph Smith never said any such thing. Where are you quoting from? You need to check your sources. Had you gone to the Church of Jesus Christ website (www.lds.org), you would have found the actual quote (kind of funny that the Church of Jesus Christ would put that on their website, considering they are trying to "position themselves along side other Christian denominations). Had you gone to a LDS source, like the LDS website, when you said "and I'm quoting now," you would have actually been quoting Joseph Smith, just like everyone thought you were. Let's take a look at what Joseph actually said. From his own testimony about what happened when he went into the grove of trees to pray about which Church was right. "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight;" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19) Do you see what you have done? I don't know whom you are quoting here, but you have twisted this quote from Joseph Smith to say something that it doesn't say. At no point does Joseph say that "all Churches are an abomination." He does indeed say that their "creeds were an abomination." That's like me saying that Ford Escorts are horrible carsand you quoting me as saying that all car manufacturers are horrible companies. Creeds, an Abomination? When he says creeds, what does he mean? Well, there are several creeds adopted by different traditional Christian denominations. These creeds were made after philosophical councils since the 2nd and 3rd centurycreeds being authoritative summaries of the declaration of belief on certain subjects, otherwise controversial (i.e. the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity, etc): The Creeds of Nicea (Constantinople 381 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD), the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. Constantine, the Roman Ruler (Constantine was not a Christianhe was a Pagan) called for the first council and creed in 325 A.D. Controversies abounded in Christianity at the time regarding many issues, the nature of God, being one of the most significant. Constantine called for the council of Nicea for the purposes putting an end of the controversy and unifying his empire. Now, Joseph claimed that he was told in this vision that these creeds were an abomination. Let me give you a couple of reasons why I think he was told this. For example, these creeds teach that God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being one substance and one person demonstrated in 3 personalities or one substance and essence demonstrated in 3 persons (there are several ways of describing the conceptthese are the ones I've heard most by Protestants and Catholicsof course, ask an average Joe Christian, you will get hundreds of descriptions). Of course, Jesus himself describes his oneness with the Father as being one in purpose, not as one substance (being the same person as God, the Father). Here are the words of Christ in the Gospel of John: "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou,Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:11, 20-23) Certainly, Jesus wasn't asking for the they (meaning the Apostles and believers) to be of one substance with the Father and Jesus but different persons or personalities. He was, of course, asking for them to be one in purpose and perfectly united in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one. So, if Jesus describes his oneness with the Father as being one in purpose, and not one person in three personalities and being of one substance, I can understand why He might view this as an abomination, or another word for disgrace. Additionally, these creeds describe God, the Father and Jesus Christ as being co-equal. But, we need go no further than the same book of John to discover that this is not so, according to Jesus Christ, himself. Here are his words in John: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewiseI can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:19,30) Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. (John 8:28) Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) It is most certain that Jesus consistently and clearly, describes the Father as being greater than He. So, again, this being the case, I can understand why Jesus would view these creeds that describe him as equal with the Father as a disgrace (abomination). Sometimes it is necessary to peel the onion back a couple layers to understand something better. So now we know that neither Joseph Smith, nor Jesus Christ called all Churches an abominationonly the creeds. And now we know why the creeds might be considered an abomination. All Other Churches and Truth Additionally, Joseph does indeed say that he was told by the Lord himself that they (these other churches) were all wrong. Now, this can be a little offensive to people of other faiths, and I understand that. You know just as well as I, Pastor Young, that people can easily be offended when it comes to the gospel. Many people don't think it is appropriate to call other religions wrong. But as you know, when 2 people have directly conflicting opinions, mutually exclusive, on a given subject, at least one of them is wrong. If I say the grass is purple and you say it is red, at least one of us is wrong. Perhaps both of us. And as a matter of fact, if you believe it is red, as soon as I say it is purple, I am, in effect, declaring you to be wrong. So, some people can take offense to the fact that Joseph claimed that he was told all other Churches were wrong. However, let us look at this from a simply logical perspective. When you have 30, 50, 100, 500 churchesor how ever many churches there areand they all preach of Jesus Christ and they all preach out of the Bible, but they all teach beliefs and doctrine a little different from the rest, one must logically questionwhich one is right? The Methodists believe differently than the Baptists, the Baptists believe differently than the Presbyterians, the Presbyterians believe differently than the Lutherans, the Lutherans believed differently than the Catholics, and so on (even within one denomination, one would find differing beliefs). If we took 10 churches in the Dallas area, all teaching something a little different (some believe in the Calvinist view of predestination, some believe in the Lutheran view, some believe once saved always saved, some believe one can fall from grace, some believe tithing is necessary, some believe in the Nicene view of the Trinity, some believe in the Modalism view of the Trinity, etc.), could we say that they are all right? No. Could we say they were all wrong? Not necessarily. But, at best, only one could possibly be right, and the rest would be wrong, not to say that they all don't have some truth. So, when searching for absolute truth, can they all be right at the same time? Can 1+1=2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7? No. One must logically determine that not all of these churches can be right. At best, only one of them could be absolutely right. That doesn't mean that they are all destitute of truththat is to say, they may all have some truth and maybe they have quite a bit of truth, but they can't all have all the truth. Let's take a simple subject to illustrate my meaning. Baptismone would think that this is a fairly simple thing to understand within Christianity. However, when you start to look at all of the different beliefs about baptism, one starts to question. For example, one church may believe that baptism is essential to salvation, another church may say it is not. Yet another church may say that not only must one be baptized in order to be saved, but you must be baptized as an infant, or you will go to hell. Yet another church may say that one should wait until the person understands the concept behind baptism. And another church may say you must be baptized by immersion, totally going under the water, and another church may say that sprinkling of water over the head is all that is necessary. And one church may say that you must be baptized by one who is in authority to do so, like a minister, and another church may say that it doesn't matter who baptizes youheck you could baptize yourself if you desire. Does this all make sense or does this sound confusing? Kind of sounds confusing doesn't it. We could go on and onjust on this subject of baptism. Now, just apply this formula to the hundreds of different points of doctrine in Christianity and you have one confusing mess. You don't have THE Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have many different beliefs and interpretations of scripture. We can look at the New Testament as an example. Jesus taught one gospel, not several (baptism was either essential to entering the Kingdom of Heaven or it was not essentialI'm not even going to get into which is right). Most of the NT was written by Paul, John, Peter, James to correct the people and to ensure they were teaching, believing and practicing THE gospel of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a free-for-all. Joseph Smith's Own Words Here are the words of Joseph Smith on this subject. He is describing his thoughts and motivation before going to God in prayer (remember, he is describing events at the time he is 14 years old): "In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and astrife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright and who was wrongI often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it? While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of aJames, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack bwisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Never did any passage of ascripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed bwisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects cunderstood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in adarkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would bgive liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:8-13) All of these churches simply cannot be right. They cannot all be correct and true at the same time. God is not the author of confusion. It is simplebaptism is either essential for salvation or it is not. One must be baptized by immersion or not. Are you following me here? Of all of the beliefs on baptism, only one, at best, can be right and true. God doesn't just leave these things up to us "Oh, you folks just decide amongst yourselves and whatever you come up with is fine with me." God does not work that way and I know you agree with me. So when Joseph said that the Lord told him that they were all wrong, this doesn't necessarily mean that Joseph believed or that we are to believe that everything that all other churches teach are wrong. Just that they don't have it all right. Now, according to the word of God, the Church should be the very foundation of truth. Paul wrote to Timothy and communicated this concept: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1Tim 3:15) So, I think Joseph had a reasonable expectation that among all of the different churches, there might be one that was that very "pillar and ground of truth." Let's move onto your next point. Pastor Young: Dr. Walter Martin puts the matter into perspective "With one special revelation, the Mormon church expects its intended converts to accept the totally unsupported testimony of a 15 year old boy, that nobody ever preached Jesus Christ's gospel from the close of the apostolic age to the restoration through Joseph Smith, beginning in 1820. We are asked to believe that the Church Fathers for the first five centuries did not proclaim the true gospel. That Origen, Justin, Iraneus, Jerome, Eusbius and later, Thomas Acquinas, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, Tindale, Wycliff, Knox, Wesley, Whitfield, and a vast army of faithful servants of Christ all failed where Joseph Smith succeeded. With one dogmatic assertation, Joseph pronounced everybody all wrong, all Christion theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt, all in the name of God." Check this out. "How strange for this to be presented as restored Christianity when Jesus Christ specifically promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church in Matthew 16:18. In Mormonism, we find God contradicting this statement in a vision to Joseph Smith some 18 centuries later." In other words when Smith had the revelation, all of Christianity from the time of Christ until this 15 year old kid is just, like, obliterated, wiped out, they were all wrong. That's what Joseph Smith said. Wow, there is a lot to address here. I want to address the source, Walter Martin, and I will do so below (this is the only source that you quote in your sermon and it appears that you use many of his argumentsI am very familiar with Martin and he makes many of the same mistakes found in your sermon), however I will address the body of Martin's quote, first. I will break up this quote to answer it in an organized manner. Walter Martin: With one special revelation, the Mormon church expects its intended converts to accept the totally unsupported testimony of a 15 year old boy, that nobody ever preached Jesus Christ's gospel from the close of the apostolic age to the restoration through Joseph Smith, beginning in 1820. First of all, Martin apparently creates a standard for Joseph's testimony of his vision. We are now to require that all visions must be supported? What if we applied that standard to the Prophets of the Bible? Did Moses have support for the instances described in the Old Testament when he walked and talked with God? No, we do not. What support do we have for Moses' conversation with God on the mount when he received the 10 Commandments? None, other than his own testimony. What about Noah's testimony of God's command to build the Ark? No support. Paul? Paul surely had support for his vision of Jesus. No. We could go on and on. Again, one must be careful with the standards one uses to judge. They may be applied to your own belief. The Apostasy-A Need for Restoration What we are "expected to believe," is this (and this is taught in the Biblesee below): Over a period of time after the resurrection and ascension of Christ and the death of the Apostles, many of the truths of the Gospel were changed and some were completely lost. There was an apostasy (i.e. a falling away). Greek philosophy and concepts started to infiltrate the church and beliefs and doctrines started to change. The Church and gospel of Jesus Christ was changed and ceased to exist in it's purity. And there were no prophets/apostles to lead, guide, teach and correct the people. So, when the teachings and doctrines of the gospel started changing, there was no one to correct the changes. This was the apostasy, indeed from the Apostolic age to the 1800's Additionally, no one is "expected to believe" that no part of the gospel was ever taught during that time. Parts of the gospel were preached. Parts of the truth made it through those 1700 years. I find it hard to believe that you or Martin or any other Protestant would disagree with the fact that there was indeed an apostasy or falling awayI don't understand why Martin has a problem with this. We need look no further to the Protestant reformers around the 16th century to find statements that would agree with this concept of the apostasy. Now remember, these are the reformers who started Protestant Christianity, to which you are a part. Reformers and the Apostasy The father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, himself, agrees with the LDS view of the apostasy: "I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely DESTROYED; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has CEASED TO EXIST AMONG THOSE WHO SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED IT." (Martin Luther (1535). In Galat. Weins IX, P.I. 293, 24-27, p. 50, Luther and His Times, p. 509, Martin Luther, p. 188) Now, Luther goes even further to say that Christianity had "ceased to exist." This is pretty strong language. The point being that the gospel that was established by Jesus Christ was no longer to be found on the earth in it's entirety. (Author's Correction, 10-18-2001: It has been determined that the above quote by Luther is not accurate. It is actually a combination of 3 different quotes that someone put together years ago. While Luther made all these statements, they were unrelated and should not have been put together like this. This was my mistake. I did not check the original source on this quote. I am not taking it out, due to the fact that this is a copy of the actual response I sent to Pastor Young. I don't want to be accused of editing my original work, after the fact. At the same, I want to make it known to all readers that this quote is not accurate and is a mistake. Thus I am posting this corrective note. For a more detailed explaination of the above quote, please refer to Kevin Barney's remarks on the FAIR website.) Let's look to another famous reformer, John Wesley, who said: "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that FATAL period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; From this time they almost totally ceased; The Christians had no more of the spirit of Christ than the other heathens. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and HAD ONLY A DEAD FORM LEFT." (Wesley's Works, vol. 7, Sermon 89, pp. 26-27) Again, not only was the full and complete gospel not to be found but, Christ's Church had "only a dead form left." Thomas Jefferson, who had an interest and a hope in a restoration of the original gospel of Jesus Christ, had this to say: "The religious builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticism's, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkersHappy in the prospect of a RESTORATION of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger persons to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engraffed into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." (Jefferson's Complete Works, vol. 7, pp.210 and 257) Little did Jefferson know that the restoration of Jesus Christ's church, the primitive and original gospel, was right around the corner. The following is a statement by Roger Williams, an influential Baptist reformer and founder of the oldest Baptist church in America, to which you and your church, being of the Baptist denomination, would trace it's roots. Williams admitted the following: "There is no regularly constituted church on the earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the great head of the church for whose coming I am seeking." He continued "The Christian churches of the day are so corrupt that there can be no recovery out of this apostasy till Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew." (Picturesque America, page 502) So, there you have it. I don't understand at all why you or Walter Martin would disagree with the idea that, over a period of several hundred years, the gospel was changed. That primitive Christianity didn't exist. That there were no more apostles/prophets or anyone with the authority to lead and guide the church or to perform the ordinances (i.e baptism). That there was, indeed, a falling away, also known as an apostasy from the truth. Of course, as many of the men above concluded, once one comes to this understanding, one must also realize the need for a restoration of the true gospel by apostles/prophets, with the authority to lead and guide the church. If this weren't enough, we will discuss below the teachings of the apostles and prophets in the Old and New Testaments regarding this apostasy. But, let's turn to the next part of Walter Martin's statement We are asked to believe that the Church Fathers for the first five centuries did not proclaim the true gospel. That Origen, Justin, Iraneus, Jerome, Eusbius and later, Thomas Acquinas, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, Tindale, Wycliff, Knox, Wesley, Whitfield, and a vast army of faithful servants of Christ all failed where Joseph Smith succeeded. With one dogmatic assertation, Joseph pronounced everybody all wrong, all Christian theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt, all in the name of God." First of all, Joseph never said that "all Christian theology was an abomination" or that all "Christians are corrupt." This is typical of Walter Martinbend the truth, twist the facts, and even lie when needed, to accomplish his goals. This will become more evident below. I also find it interesting that Walter Martin names 14 men, all who apparently, according to Martin (and I assume you agree with him) preached the "true gospel" of Jesus Christ, according to Martin. This is interesting because most of these men disagreed with the others about many doctrines. Certainly you don't believe that all of these men believed and taught the same gospel do you? Most of them believed and taught the gospel differently than the others. For example, Calvin and Luther disagreed on the doctrine of predestinationCalvin believed it, Luther did not. So, how could both of these men have proclaimed the true gospel? In fact, Luther taught that polygamy was allowable in certain situations (we will discuss this at greater length below) and several others did not. Additionally, at least two of the early Church Fathers that are mentioned, Irenaeus and Justin (who lived in the first few centuries after the death of Christ), believed in the concept of deification, the belief that men can become gods (we can become like God), or deified. Irenaeus demonstrated his belief when he stated, "If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods." Irenaeus put it another way when he said, "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, preface) And Justin Martyr, additionally taught that in the beginning, men were "made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus "deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124, 2nd century) So here is the thing I find most interesting. If you, Pastor Young, and Walter Martin believe that all 14 of these men taught the true gospel, then can I assume that you believe in the doctrine of deification? Or how about Zwingly or Hussdid they teach the same gospel? Here is my point, Pastor YoungI believe that all 14 of these men taught parts of the gospel, part of the truth. They were good men trying to teach what they knew. However, they didn't have all of the truth. In order for God to restore the true gospel back to the earth, as John the Revelator described in the book of Revelation, He would need to choose a prophet, like He had done so many times in history. I think Martin would have done well to have thought through this before making that statement. Concluding Walter Martin's statement, "How strange for this to be presented as restored Christianity when Jesus Christ specifically promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church in Matthew 16:18. In Mormonism, we find God contradicting this statement in a vision to Joseph Smith some 18 centuries later." We find no contradiction, whatsoever. I am very familiar with this passage (it is one of my favorites, starting with verse 13 through 19) and you should know better than to fall into Walter Martin's trap of placing limitations on these words of Jesus that he in no way intended. Here is the verse: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Joseph did not say nor did he teach that the gates of "hell" have prevailed or would prevail against the Church. The good news is, and Joseph's Smith's message was, that Jesus Christ's Church has indeed been restored to the earth! God has prevailed! It was prophesied by many prophets that their would be a falling away and that truths of the gospel would be lost along the way, but if you read the scriptures that I mention below, after this falling away, all truths would be restored. There is no contradiction in what Joseph Smith claimed that God said and what is contained in Matthew 16:18. The word prevail has connotations of "overcoming in the end," and "winning, despite obstacles and set backs." So, much like in sports, a team may lose games during a season, but may, in the end, win the championship and thus prevail. The point is that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that and never have. There is no contradiction. The Bible and the Apostasy Now would be a good time to see what the Bible really says about the apostasy. See, it's not just a view held by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is held by many others, as above and the Bible teaches it. The Apostle and Prophet Paul, in trying to correct the Thessalonians in their belief that the second coming of Jesus Christ was imminent, specifically prophesied that Christ would not come again until the apostasy. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" (2Thess. 2: 3,4) An Old Testament Prophet, Amos, prophesied of this apostasy, likening it unto a famine of hearing the words of God: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord; And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it." (Amos 8:11,12.) Here, the Lord is telling of a time when a complete apostasy would be on the earthno revelation from God to guide the people to truth. Paul prophesied to Timothy of apostate doctrines that would creep into the church. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (1 Tim. 4:1-3. 5) The Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah, prophesied of the apostasy in vision. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24: 5) This everlasting covenant, as I'm sure you know, is Christ's gospel of salvation...not the law of moses. The blood of Christ, through the shedding of which the atoning sacrifice was wrought, is distinctively called "the blood of the everlasting covenant." (Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 13:20) It is evident then that Isaiah's prophecy relating to the breaking of the everlasting covenant, could have no reference to a departure from the Mosaic requirements, but must refer to a then future condition of apostasy following the establishment of the everlasting covenant by Jesus Christ, himself. Hold on, though. If you don't believe that, proceed below. Paul again exhorts Timothy to preach truth and prophesies of the apostasy. "I charge thee, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine; for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2Tim. 4: 1-4) And lastly, this prophecy based on the vision of John the Revelator, referring to conditions in the latter days, he reveals... "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and worship Him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of water." (Rev. 14:6,7) For commentary on this verse, we turn to James E. Talmage "While it is true that this scripture does not specifically predict the apostasy, the breaking up of the Church is treated as an event actually accomplished. The Revelator looked beyond the period of disruption and saw the brighter day of the restoration of the gospel--a re-establishment of the Church through the ministry of an angel. It is illogical to assume that the gospel was to be brought to earth by a heavenly messenger if that gospel was still extant upon the earth. Equally unreasonable is it to say that a restoration or re-establishment of the Church of Christ would be necessary or possible had the Church continued with rightful succession of priesthood and power. If the gospel had to be brought again from the heavens, the gospel must have been taken from the earth. Thus the prophecy of a restoration is proof of an apostasy general and complete. (Talmage, The Great Apostasy, 1909) A great falling away from the truth is prophesied throughout the Bible, pointing to a time between the death of the Apostles and a time of a restoration of the gospel in the latter days. You summarize Walter Martin's statement with the following: Pastor Young: In other words when Smith had the revelation, all of Christianity from the time of Christ until this 15 year old kid is just, like, obliterated, wiped out, they were all wrong. That's what Joseph Smith said. No, that is not what Joseph Smith said. He never said all of Christianity was obliterated or wiped out at any time. This is your attempt to drastically overstate what Joseph Smith really said. Of course, to state what Joseph Smith really said wouldn't be as sensationalistic, although it would be right in line with what the Bible says and what other well known men significant in the Reformation period have said. Pastor Young, I really don't think you meant to say this. I could be wrong, but I think you were in the moment, just searching for the right words to summarize this quote from Martin and you chose the wrong words to use. Joseph never claimed Christianity was obliterated or totally wiped out at any time. But, the church did cease to exist as it did originally 2000 years ago (see more explanation above). Jesus' Original Church and Today's Church Let's make a list, a list of a few elements, practices, beliefs, and doctrines found in the original Church of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. As you read these, ask yourself, "Did these elements make it throughout the years, or did they get changed, done away with or cease to exist?" Revelation through Prophets/Apostles to lead and guide the church (these men received revelation from God) (1Cor 12:27-28, Eph 2:19-21, Matt 7:13-20, Acts 13:1, Acts 21:10) Priesthood Authority (the Apostles received priesthood authority from Jesus and having that authority, they ordained elders, seventy, priests, deacons, bishops, etcto help lead and administer the gospel on more of a local level) (Mark 13:34, Luke 9:1, John 15:16, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5) Baptism was a necessary ordinance and was performed by immersion by one who had priesthood authority. (John 3:3-7, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:37-38, Matt 28:19) The Gift of the Holy Ghost was bestowed by the laying on of hands to those who had been baptized (this was a separate ordinance from baptism also performed by one with the priesthood authority to do so) (Acts 8:12-18, Acts 19:1-7) Ordinances were performed for the dead (1Cor 15:29) The Church was the true church and taught the true gospel and was the foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15) There was no paid ministry. In other words, the ministers didn't make a living off of their ministry (2Thes 3:7-9, 1Cor 9:18, Matt 10:8) Now, Pastor Young, can you name a church that contained through the ages or currently contains the above elements? I challenge you to demonstrate to me the Church that contained all of the above. When you determine that such a church did not exist, I then challenge you to identify a church that exist today that even claims to have the above, other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Walter Martin Background Now, before we move on, I want to address the subject of Walter Martin and his credentials. Again, I think it is worth looking into who Walter Martin really is for two reasons: first, this is the only source that you actually cite in your sermon, and two, although your research department sent me a long list of sources you used in your sermon, it is very apparent that you use much of Walter Martin's material. Walter Martin could be considered the father of anti-Mormon material. He was very prolific in his anti-Mormon writings (books, newsletters, magazine articles, etc), sermons and radio broadcasts (Martin hosted the original "Bible Answer Man" radio show). A significant portion of today's anti-Mormon arguments can be traced back to Walter Martin. But what kind of man was Walter Martin. One would expect the man that called himself the Bible Answer Man and the founder of the Christian Research Institute, to be a man of Godan honest mana man of integrity. Well let's see (Note: The following is based on the research of Robert and Rosemary Brown. This is all documented in hard copies of letters, affidavits, radio transcripts, etc. in their book, They Lie in Wait to Deceive. If you would like a copy, let me know. I don't have it electronically or I would include it here). Let's start by answering the question, who is Walter Martin? According to Walter Martinhe was a professor of Comparative Religion and Apologetics at Melodyland School of Theology and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Kings College. Martin was an "ordained Baptist Minister," in addition to being "recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on Mormonism," according to a quote on the cover of his book, The Maze of Mormonism. He was the founder and former director of the Christian Research Institute and former host of the Bible Answer Man radio show. Again, according to Walter Martin, he held degrees from Stony Brook School, Adelphi University, Biblical Seminary, New York University and a Ph. D. from California Western University. In addition to his book, The Maze of Mormonism, Walter Martin has written several books, including the well known Kingdom of the Cults and other booklets and tracts. I must stress that the above is according to Martin, himself. In order to determine who Walter Martin really is, we must dig in to his claims and see how legitimate these are. So let's dive right into this. All documentation supporting my conclusions regarding Walter Martin have been researched by Robert and Rosemary Brown in their book, The Lie and Wait TO Decieve, Volume 3. Walter Martin's Degrees/Credentials As I mentioned above, Martin claims to "hold degrees from Stony Brook School, Adelphi University, Biblical Seminary, New York University and California Western University." (CRI Newsletter, 2nd Quarter, 1977, Vol. 1, #2, p.3) One would reasonably conclude that these are college degrees. One usually doesn't list High School diplomas in a list of scholarly credentials. However, Stony Brook School is just thata school that qualifies students for a high school diploma. Additionally, according to Adelphi University, which is an institution of higher education, Walter Martin attended the school for a total of four months and have no record of any degree earned by Martin. According to New York University, Martin earned a Bachelors Degree from Shelton College, an unaccredited university, which NYU accepted at the time, for Martin to pursue his Masters Degree. NYU no longer accepts degrees and/or credits from unaccredited universities. Martin claims to have earned an additional degree from the Biblical Seminary, now known as New York Theological Seminary. However, according to this school, Martin only attended "summer courses," directly after completing his Masters Degree from NYU. With this knowledge, it isn't much of a surprise to know that the New York Theological Seminary (formerly, Biblical Seminary) has no record of Martin earning a degree from this school. California Western University, according to the State of California, is a "non-accreditedcorrespondence school, with an instructional staff of 4 persons who are called deans." Now, Walter Martin publicly denied that California Western University is a correspondence school on a Bible Answer Man radio Broadcast in addition to stating that it is "accredited in the State of California." Not surprisingly, the State of California, in addition to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, isn't aware of any accreditation . When a scholar lists a Ph.D., one can safely assume this person has completed "countless hours of course-work, writes a dissertation that may take years to research and write, and must pass stringent oral and written exams." This is what a Ph.D. should represent, however, it is clear that Walter Martin did not go through this rigorous exercise. California Western University advertises "No classroom attendance is required." Even more surprising, Walter Martin didn't wait until he received his "Ph.D." to call himself Dr. Martin. Many documents demonstrate that Walter Martin used the title of "Dr." and had others refer to him as "Dr." long before he received the questionable Ph.D. from California Western University. It is important to realize the importance of accreditation as it relates to an educational institution. It helps to determine the value of that school's degrees. An official and legitimate accrediting association evaluates the academic value of an institution (the competency of it's faculty, library offerings, educational programs, record keeping, resources, etc.). To obtain official and legitimate accreditation, an institution must go through continuous evaluations and recommendations. This ensures that a university keeps it's standards at a level satisfactory and equal to reasonable expectations and consistent with other schools. Legitimate and accredited schools like Arizona State University and UCLA refuse to accept credits from schools like California Western University. What does all of this mean? It means that, when it comes to Walter Martin's claims of his educational background and credentials, he cannot be trusted, nor can one place value on his education. What have we learned? We have learned that Martin claims that he earned degrees from schools he only attended for a short time. He indeed did not earn degrees from Adelphi University or Biblical Seminary, which he claimed in his CRI newsletter. We have also learned that Martin falsely referred to himself as "Dr." Walter Martin well before he received a Ph.D. from California Western University. We have learned that this Ph.D. is of questionable value, in the least, and was issued from an unaccredited school and was a correspondence school, at that. We learned that Walter Martin falsely claimed that this school was accredited by the State of California and denied that it was a correspondence school (of course the State of California couldn't disagree more). One is left to ask, why did Walter Martin feel like he must deceive? Well, only Martin knows the answer to that question. Let's look into other claims of Walter Martin. Ordained Baptist Minister? Walter Martin was ordained in July of 1951, by the First Baptist Church of Hempstead, N.Y. But, because Martin was divorced the prior year, he was ordained with the understanding that if he re-married, "we would have to revoke his ordination." The ordination council learned of the 2nd marriage and revoked his ordination in 1953. Of course, this didn't stop Walter Martin from continuing to claim to be an ordained Baptist Minister. In a law suit against is 2nd wife (this marriage also ended in divorce, as well), Martin claimed to be "an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing." It should be of no surprise that the American Baptist Convention has no record of an ordination of Martin. Four months after his second divorce, Martin married his 3rd wife and claimed in a different law suit thereafter, under oath, to be an ordained member of the Southern Baptist Convention. You guessed it. Walter Martin's name is not to be found within the records of this organization, either. In fact, according to the Southern Baptist General Convention of California's Executive Director, "there is no record of Southern Baptist Ordination." Additionally, the same Executive Director indicates that Walter Martin was not considered "either a Southern Baptist in attitude and spirit or a supporter of Southern Baptist life and ministry." It is amazing to me that Walter Martin would continue to claim his affiliation with religious organizations he has never even attempted to join, much less be ordained to minister within. Walter Martin voiced these claims on radio shows and public speeches, documented these claims on his books and newsletters. Martin never backed down on these claims nor did he ever attempt to document his claims. Brigham Young's great-grandson? In several lectures, Walter Martin claimed to be the great-grandson of Brigham Young, famous former leader of the Church of Jesus Christ, successor to Joseph Smith. In March of 1977, Martin stated in a lecture at Melodyland School of Theology, where he taught, that he was a "descendant of Brigham Young." In his book, The Maze of Mormonism, Walter Martin dedicated the book to his mother, "Maud Ainsworth Martin, descendant of Brigham Young, but disciple of Christ," which, of course, makes Martin a descendant of Brigham Young. Martin continued to use this dedication on all editions of this book, through 1984. This became just another standard element of Martin's credentials, often used. On a radio show, in 1981, Robert Brown presented Walter Martin with his genealogy and Brigham Young's genealogy to prove that Martin was indeed not a descendant of Brigham Young. At that time, on the air, Martin admitted "that was in error and it was corrected." Martin continued to explain that he is only related to Brigham Young and not a great-grandson or descendant. And when pressed, Martin got very defensive and said, "I said I am related to Brigham Young. I am. I don't have to prove it to him or anybody else. If he would like to make a statement publicly that I definitely am not that is a falsification anything of an accusatory nature, that he is willing to test legally fine." So, at this point, Martin has admitted that he is not a descendant of Brigham Young and stated that it was corrected. However, Martin's next edition of The Maze of Mormonism, in 1983, still had the same dedication to his mother, "descendant of Brigham Young." Additionally, Walter Martin then stated in 1984 that he was related through one of Brigham Young's brothers and that he has proof of it, but no one has seen this proof. Walter Martin is not the great-grandson of Brigham Young. He is not a descendant of Brigham Young and he is not a relative of Brigham Young in any way, other than by virtue that we are all descendants of Adam and thus all related in some way (a little bit of a stretch). Walter Martin Conclusions In the end, I think it is obvious that Walter Martin is willing to say about anything to help himself appear as more of an expert on the Church of Jesus Christ and more of an authority in the area of comparative religion. The net of all of this is that Walter Martin could have chosen to truthfully communicate his educational background, just as he could have chosen to be re-ordained by some other organization or not claim to be ordained at all. And Walter Martin could have chosen not to claim to be a great-grandson, descendant, or relative of Brigham Young. However, the fact remains that Walter Martin indeed made the decision to be untruthful, to be deceptive, to dishonestly buttress his qualifications and credentials. And if a man is willing to do that, what does that say about his work and his product? What can we expect from his other claims? Likely more of the same. Let us move on to the "historical facts" about Joseph Smith that you mention: Pastor Young: It's a historical fact, ladies and gentlemen, that Joseph Smith was arrested in 1826, for the demonic practice of glass-looking. Well, first of all, Pastor Young, it is not a historical fact. "Glass-Looking," was not even a crime in New York state in 1826. You can check the law books. Now, there is evidence that a "hearing" was held on some misdemeanor charge against Joseph in 1826, I will grant you that. However, he was acquitted and charges were dismissed, whatever those charges were. Joseph Smith had many enemies that would invent accusations against him to put him in jail. It is amazing what some people will do to make another look bad. Of course we need not look any further than the bible for examples of thisJesus Christ himself was arrested and indeed executed on trumped up charges. And of course if you are going to utilize these types of standards to judge Joseph Smith, let's apply them to Moses, who fled Egypt, running from murder charges. Or maybe we should apply those standards to Elijah, Isaiah, and Paul, accused of misdeeds. Or even Joseph of Egypt and Jeremiah, who spent time in jail. Once again, Pastor Young, be careful of the standards you use to judge. Pastor Young: It's a historical fact that he [Joseph Smith] was killed, himself, in a shoot-out. Well, Pastor Young, if you think 4 men in a stand-alone jail, a building about the size of a small bedroom (Joseph and three others in jail on more trumped up charges) against a mob of men (estimates are around 200) storming the jail, showering the jail with bullets, killing two of themif th |