Talk:Walter Ralston Martin

Untitled

The logic of this statement defies objectivity:

Let us first consider, then, if indeed Walter R. Martin has any real claim to be called "Dr." and then ask ourselves honestly what credentials are required to critique the LDS church.

The argument being laid counter to the claims of Martin in his denouncements of the LDS faith or his pronouncement of the Mormons as a cult is the untruth, the deciet, the unsupported claim to a personal title that speaks about the lack of integrity of a man. To suppose there is some stature to be attained prior to attaining a right to 'critique' is not a consideration of this article, rather the facts of his thoughts as he reports them in his own works, the actions of his life as a matter of public record, and the assessments of validity. It is more than appropriate for anyone to question the source of someone's degree. In this case doing so resulted in a very unwholesome fact -- the good doctor was not above deceit. Let us not water down that simple fact by questioning whether or not someone need be a doctor to write a critique of the LDS faith when one thing is certain, it is a mistake to rely on anyone who would do so with fraudulent intent. 4 March 2007

who wrote this drabble? Poll CRI ?? These comments have no place in this article. These are clearly opinion and serve no measure of counter point, rather bias. Here is one example:

He claims Mormonism is polytheistic. It is. Plurality of gods is part and parcel of LDS doctrine

I don't know what part or parcel he has in mind, but he is a lunatic to put forth such trash talk. The LDS faith IS christianity at its height. One God. Of course if you are a muslim who thinks that the trinity is polytheism, well we can all agree that you are simply biased, uneducated, and a heathen. In the Christian theology, the Trinity is One God, 3 IN One. It isn't impossible of comprehension -- I understood it as a child; would anyone dare to assert that proton, neutron and electron are not one atom? Father, Son and Spirit do not constitute polytheism any more than water, ice and steam are multitudes.

If this is the best Walter Martin has, he can hardly be considered expert at anything having to do with religion, lastly the nature of cults. Those who throw such terms around are doing so for emotional reactions, as thoug there is some coded meaning in the term. By definition, if he want to make an association with a cult being

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

Mormonism is far from this narrow minded exaggeration. Its leaders have change numerous times since its founding over 150 yrs ago. It has long been the fastest growing Christian church in the world and is now in every nation on earth. The only unorthodox matter of this faith is that it is Christian, unlike those who claim to be but are only watered down versions that make no apology for their aberrations of doctrine and are indeed up or down according to who stands behind the pulpit, relying heavily on the charisma of the pastor for attendance and membership. The Mormon's have little if any reliance on who is at the pulpit, because there is no charimatic leader pounding the pulpit or embarassing the congregation each week. LDS members live in the society right alongside the mainstream living their lives in the open of society, in every nation.

Any claim of being a cult is absurd and has as it purpose only to ellicit unfounded ire; it is soliciting unreasoned prejudice as a last result of failed logic, if not a complete abrogation of understanding christianity.

The Official Response is "Copywritten!"

"Official Response to Criticisms" The following is an "official" response from the Christian Research Institute, that is "copywritten," concerning Walter Martin's doctorate. No one has any business taking away or adding to (changing) said response whatsoever. This exact response can also be found at http://www.waltermartin.org/degree.html. If you have a problem with the following then you should write about it in another section.

"Walter Martin's Doctorate

Any Latter-day Saint dealing with "anti-Mormon" literature is bound sooner or later to run into the name of Dr. Walter Martin, a man who, perhaps more than any other, is cited as the final word on the subject of orthodox Christianity and the cults.

Facts which are not disputed concerning Walter Ralston Martin are as follows: He is an ordained Baptist minister and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention (see Questions? page). He is also sympathetic with the Charismatic movement. He holds four earned degrees including a Master's Degree from New York University. He is trained in the ancient languages of the Scriptures, although he is careful to maintain he is not a linguist. Demonstrably, his areas of expertise are Religious Education, Philosophy, Ancient Church History and of the faith." Many Mormons feel this loosely translates "attack on the faith," for if the claims of the LDS church be true, Martin is no defender of anything that is true or holy.

The fact which most certainly is disputed is Walter Martin's claim to having an earned doctorate from a legitimate degree granting institution. Arguing most vocally of late against Martin are Mr. and Mrs. Robert Brown of Arizona in three extensive publications, "They Lie In Wait To Deceive" Volumes 1, 2 and 3. (Further volumes are contemplated.) They have flatly rejected the genuineness of Dr. Martin's degree and, indeed, have lumped him together with Dee Jay Nelson, a purported Egyptian scholar whose degree, it is agreed by all -- Mormon and non-Mormon -- is an absolute humbug, bought and paid for from an outfit in Washington State that was ". . . by no means even remotely a borderline legitimate school," but was rather ". . . the most dangerous kind of degree mill." (Bear's Guide To Non-traditional College Degrees, 6th Ed., p. 129).

Let us first consider, then, if indeed Walter R. Martin has any real claim to be called "Dr." and then ask ourselves honestly what credentials are required to critique the LDS church.

First, while this writer is generally uncomfortable with the term "expert" in any application, there most certainly is a uniformly respected expert in the field of Alternative, or Non-traditional College Education. After having had the privilege of communicating with him, I am confident he would likewise prefer some alternate epithet to "expert," but he nonetheless is an expert. His name is Dr. John Bear. His degrees are legion, and they are earned and easily verifiable. Many years ago Dr. Bear became fascinated with the entire concept of college without campus. This fascination led him to a field of research heretofore untouched, and resulted in the publication of "Bear's Guide To Non-traditional College Degrees," cited above.

Robert and Rosemary Brown, in their criticism of Walter Martin's doctoral credentials, pointed out that California Western University, now known as California Coast University, is operated out of humble headquarters in Santa Ana, California, and does not bear a physical resemblance to what one would conjure up in one's mind when one imagines a University. Dr. Bear, however, is careful to note that some very fine programs are offered by small schools. Such apparently is the case with California Coast University.

"California Coast University was one of the first of California's non-resident Universities. CCU is the only non-resident school in California to have received state approval of all degree programs offered . . . each faculty member holds recognized degrees from traditional schools."

Dr. Bear, who, it should be noted, has no interest in any religious controversy, concludes with this observation: "For those persons willing to spend a year or more to earn their (graduate) degree, California Coast University offers an excellent alternative" (Bear's Guide, 10th Edition, p. 85).

We are therefore compelled to concede that Walter Martin does have a real claim on the academic title "Doctor," having earned his degree from a legitimate institution of alternative higher education. It should also be noted that Dr. Martin completed all his graduate studies at New York University, a fully accredited school, and simply submitted his thesis at CCU. Honesty compels us to reject the Brown's comparison of Dr. Martin's degree with the phony, dime-store diploma of Dee Jay Nelson. There is no comparison!

For additional information supporting the accepted status of CCU and Dr. Martin's degree, the California State Department of Education has stated in the California Education Code, Section 94310(b):

The degree is conferred by an institution having full institutional approval by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for all degree programs offered. Such institutions have been evaluated favorably as being consistent with accredited institutions in terms of curricula quality and verifiable evidence of graduates' academic achievement.

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

Approved institutions and the degrees and credits they issue are deemed to be meeting the superintendent's standards and those comparative qualitative standards existing in accredited institutions. The degrees and credits earned from approved institutions enjoy relatively wide recognition and acceptability.

Now that we have examined Dr. Martin's claims, let us ask again our second question in this outline, "What credentials are required to critique the LDS church?"

A key to this question lies in the area of easily verifiable fact. For example, what if you are suffering from a mortal disease and someone comes along who claims to be a doctor of some healing art, and tells you that if you will follow his prescription you will be made well? Obviously, in such a case, you would be a fool not to check such a one's credentials. His claims are not easily, if at all, verifiable.

However, if someone comes to you and tells you your house is on fire, you need do nothing but peek out the door and look to see if he is telling you the truth. In other words, easily verifiable fact.

In the area of Mormonism, Dr. Martin makes certain claims. He claims Mormonism is polytheistic. It is. Plurality of gods is part and parcel of LDS doctrine. Dr. Martin claims Mormonism is a system of works. It is. Any LDS individual would be happy to affirm that he or she is working his or her way to the Celestial Kingdom. Dr. Martin claims that the Book of Mormon has no archaeological endorsement from any non-Mormon scholar. It truly has no such endorsement. Even Mormon archaeologists acknowledge this. Dr. Martin claims that no matter what your works may be, you will die in your sins if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God (not a god, or a product of sexual intercourse, but God!).

Yes, Walter Martin's doctoral degree is legitimate, and no, it really does not matter. Down through the centuries God has used both the great and the simple to bring the gospel message: He used the sinner Matthew and the scholar Paul. He used the wealthy Shedd and the destitute Brainerd; He uses great books and even little articles like this one. The message is all the same: Christ died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Christ did not die for "Adam's transgression alone" but for all "our sins." Thank God for His matchless gift, which cannot be earned, which is not for sale at any price!

In addition, let the readers of this file remember that the Brown's line of response amounts to little more than a "kill the messenger" reaction. The messenger has gone home to his reward. The message has been taken up by many more who join now with an even greater voice; "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." R. Poll, CRI

A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.

Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute. ------------------------------------------------" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.63.114 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

LDS Objections to Martin

Clearly, an attack on on a man's qualifications is intended to discredit the man, but the arguments still stand. Can the mormons refute his arguments? That is the key. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottcs (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

My Removal of An Entire Section

Please do not quote entire blocks of text from another website in an article, when it's obvious that a simple link to that information is more than adequate on Wikipedia. Perhaps even more more importantly, please do not give editing "instructions", explicitly in the body of an article, as to whether or not the material can be edited by others. I realize that the subject of religion in general is highly controversial, but quite frankly, I don't think that in itself is a reason to completely toss Wikipedia policy aside.

Thank you

Deconstructhis 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

There seems to be back-and-forth editing on the controversies section. I would encourage both parties involved in that, and any other parties with light to shed on the situation, to explain their actions here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

C. Fred: The audios the Morgans (graftedin73) claim are "new" have long been a part of the Walter Martin Resource Library. Darlene Martin, the widow of Dr. Walter Martin, is not concerned with the content of the tapes, only with the Morgans' infringement on her copyright. The Morgans were asked privately not to post these audios, and they posted them. They were asked to take these audios down and they refused to do so. They were asked by Mrs. Martin's attorneys to stop infringing on her copyright, and they refused to comply. We respectfully request that Wikipedia remove any quotes from the NMCC class audios.--Jill M. Rische, eldest daughter of Walter Martin and agent for Darlene Martin.

C.Fred: Darlene Martin does not own the copyrights to the material posted, as Jill Rische claims. We received a letter from Darlene's attorney, but their assertions of ownership have never been litigated in a court of law. Also, they have not provided one shred of evidence to support their claim of transference of Copyright Ownership from CRI, to Darlene Martin. We have asked to see their evidence. They have yet to provide it. The material we have is clearly copyrighted by Christian Research Institute (CRI). Additionally, the information we posted is 'new' as it has never been posted online before. If indeed the Risches have copies of the material as they claim, then they have supressed important information. This is their choice, but they should not be allowed to suppress our choice to make the material available for review. Rick Morgan, Dr. martin's Son-in-law.GraftedIn73 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Controversies section has existed for quite some time. During this time, my wife, one of Dr. Martin's daughters, and I have never publically commented, as we have had no first hand, non POV information to contribute. That changed when we were sent over 600 cassette tapes that were stolen from Christian Research Institute over 15 years ago. 7 of those tapes were clearly marked where Dr. Martin made comments about, expressed his opinion of, and announced his plans for Hank Hanegraaff. Our decision to make MP3s of these tapes available publically, was driven by the belief that Dr, Martin ought to be allowed to speak publically for himself, on this controversial matter. Our opinions of his words are not the point we are trying to promote. We are attempting to promote HIS words, so that any individual, who is interested, may include that material in their own examination of the evidence. To publically criticize Hank Hanegraaff is one thing. To repeatedly suppress Dr. Martin's own words, and to attempt to keep them out of the public discourse is wrong. My edits have only been made to restore the text I added to the original article section. My additions did not change a single word of the existing text. My additional words clarified for the record that the entire Martin family has not been in opposition to Hank's leadership of CRI. We have not attempted to bloat this article with the reasons why we support Hank. We have simply tried to briefly and succinctly correct the record, and make the new information available for consideration. Rick Morgan -- GraftedIn73 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The tapes, and inclusion of them, is a stickier issue. The problem is going to be, how much is on the tapes, and how much is interpretation of what's on the tapes? If the article text sticks closely to what is on the tapes, even though it's a primary source, it's probably includable.

The split in the family is the easier issue. Is there a secondary source that indicates there's a split in the family on the issue? Newspaper story, magazine profile? —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For the very reason you mention, I described the content of the tapes, using Dr. Martin's own words. I did not want it to be an interpretation issue at all. The article text is nearly identical to the tapes. The only thing that is 'additional' is the portion of the article that indicates the date. Even this is taken from the label of each cassette, as a person viewing the cassette would see. So even this is 'identical' to the tapes, just not the audio portion.

For the split in the family, I am not aware of any place where this has been publically discussed before. There are 'allusions' to it on pages that I have seen, but typically it has been presented as 'the Martin Family' on one side and Hank on the other. My wife and I have never wanted to publically 'advertise' the split. Even when we made these audio tapes available on our website, WalterMartinJude3 and on YouTube, www.YouTube.com/WalterMartinJude3, we did not mention the split specifically. We did obviously mention our support of Hank, so the savvy reader would realize that there was a split, but we did not 'showcase' it in any way. All we have ever highlighted was that these tapes, which belong to and were stolen from Christian Research Institute, were sent to us. When we received them, we contacted CRI to see if they wanted them returned. The board of CRI graciously gave us the tapes, and permission to use them. Rick Morgan -- GraftedIn73 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred, In response to your previous request, I have posted my explanations here. Jill Rische has failed to comply with your request, and is once again deleting my text from the Controversies section of the article. Her first activity was under the name 05nitram, a play on Martin50. Now she is removing my texts under the name TruthBringsLight, an odd choice of names since she has only attempted to shroud this article in darkness by continually removing my additions that point to Dr. Martin's own words on the subject. I have removed exactly 0 of her text, including the highly POV paragraph that attempts to discredit our WalterMartinJude3 site. I am asking Wikipedia's help to stop this sabotage of my contributions. Thanks! GraftedIn73 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

C. Fred: The audios the Morgans (graftedin73) claim are "new" have long been a part of the Walter Martin Resource Library. Darlene Martin, the widow of Dr. Walter Martin, is not concerned with the content of the tapes, only with the Morgans' infringement on her copyright. The Morgans were asked privately not to post these audios, and they posted them. They were asked to take these audios down and they refused to do so. They were asked by Mrs. Martin's attorneys to stop infringing on her copyright, and they refused to comply. We respectfully request that Wikipedia remove any quotes from the NMCC class audios.--Jill M. Rische, eldest daughter of Walter Martin and legal agent for Darlene Martin. (My Wikipedia usernames have never been nitram05 or Martin50). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.211.244 (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which quotations do not comply with the guidelines for non-free content? The only direct quotation I see in the controversies section is a scant four words. Paraphrasing with attribution is acceptable use of the material as a secondary source. Additionally, as there is no link in the reference citation, there's no issue with a link pointing to an infringing site in the reference tag. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

C.Fred: Darlene Martin does not own the copyrights to the material posted, as Jill Rische claims. We received a letter from Darlene's attorney, but their assertions of ownership have never been litigated in a court of law. Also, they have not provided one shred of evidence to support their claim of transference of Copyright Ownership from CRI, to Darlene Martin. We have asked to see their evidence. They have yet to provide it. The material we have is clearly copyrighted by Christian Research Institute (CRI). Additionally, the information we posted is 'new' as it has never been posted online before. If indeed the Risches have copies of the material as they claim, then they have supressed important information. This is their choice, but they should not be allowed to suppress our choice to make the material available for review. Rick Morgan, Dr. martin's Son-in-law.GraftedIn73 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

I have removed most of the material from the controversies section. There was not one independent source. Basileias (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding POV, the article itself reads like someone defending their favorite cult leader and the talk section doesn't dissuade me from that notion. While there are many neutral things supported as facts, the controversies section is way out of hand with over the top defenses. It just makes the accusers look justified. If you really care, note the controversies and a calm counterpoint and leave it at that. 68.106.235.38 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by Cultists

It must be noted that the controversies section has been subject to vandalism- mostly by LDS members- for some time, lacking sources to back up what they say, often simply quoting other Mormons. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts. Not personal attacks on deceased individuals who are not here to defend themselves.

The facts are simple:

• Dr. Martin completed all his coursework at New York University.
• Dr. Martin spent much time teaching in churches (up to three times a week not including his own local bible class).
• Dr. Marin decided to submit his dissertation to CCU, a school which offered part-time studies for those who have other commitments.
• CCU was given accreditation by the sate of Californaia before Dr. Martin began his work. Which means his doctorate is valid. Simple.
• CCU was given national accreditation by the the Distance Education and Training Council which investigated CCU and concluded that its state accreditation was of a high standard and thus awarded national recognition. And that ALL of the courses it had offered were valid courses despite the claims of the vandal 50.39.181.30 (who said it was not accredited to offer a Comparative Religions course) who provided NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER.

Two alternative arguments are presented by Cultists are as follows. CCU was a degree mill thus Marin's doctorate was not valid. This is simply ignoring the facts that it was accredited by the state and that it was investigated as part of a national study, who concluded the degrees awarded were of the same standard as nationally accredited schools. The other argument is that CCU was not nationally accredited therefore his doctorate is invalid. The article makes clear that CCU was awarded national accreditation after his degree was awarded however to say that the state accreditation is insufficient to offer a valid doctorate is nonsense since most institutions rely on regional accreditation, especially since DETC disagrees with you. Furthermore don't these people realise that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago are all non-nationally accredited schools!

If you went to a high school accredited by California and graduated, do you have a valid qualification? Of course you do. No cultist would say you did'nt but since it has to do with a person whose work has lead to many cultists leaving their organisation, only then do they attack it. Clear Cultic mindset. Maybe some of these people should read >(Janice M. Karlen, Accreditation and Assessment in Distance Learning, Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, Volume 1, Issue 4, Fall 2003 (November 2003). "Most institutions rely upon one of the eight regional accreditation organizations for their accreditation status.")<

To fail to provide the facts above, only providing partial information (That CCU was not nationally accredited at the time of the degree, btw neither was Harvard) is simply dishonest and is merely an attempt to undermine his work. If you want to do that then fine, mislead people but don't do it on wikipedia. Do it on your Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Christian science or Scientology website.

Kurioslesouschristos (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  ****   ***** 

Some corrections and explanations.

   California did not accredit California Coast University in 1974. California approved all of the academic content and all of the degree programs at CCU, in a state agency that discontinued operation in 2011, and was replaced by a new agency that has also given full institutional state approval to CCU. State approval is the world wide standard for education outside of the USA and a small number of other countries that fell under USA influence. Accrediting is a different category than state approval, and carries no legal authority except when and where state law is applied to it. California Department of Education issued a detailed explanation in writing about the legal and academic status of CCU to any one who requested it, stating that CCU had full institutional approval, also the degrees were on equal legal standing with any accredited degrees that had met California requirements, for example specialized professional accreditation or full institutional accreditation. Not all accredited degrees were legal or recognized in California, as late as 1986, for example degrees from partially accredited institutions, and those with provisional accreditation that had not met additional requirements.
   Doctor John Bear gave favorable reference to California Coast University in 1982 and 1984 at a time Doctor Bear was associated with a competing nontraditional university Columbia Pacific University which eventually lost it's state approval and was closed by California Court in 2000. The link to CPU gives useful insight to how state approval might be lost or gained, and how it differs from accreditation. Astrojed (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

   ****   *****
13 August 2015 (UTC) 

    There is doubt about the area of specialization for the PhD degree. CCU does not give out personal information without a signed authorization. An unsubstantiated claim has been published that the doctorate was in comparative religion. Other people have not claimed to have that type of degree from CCU, where the four schools publicized at the time were Education, Psychology, Business, and Engineering (Management Option). The question remains unanswered, with speculation on other web sites that Education might have been the topic of the PhD degree, also other CCU graduates do not necessarily share Walter Ralston Martin's opinions about Mormons. Doctor Lee W. Ralston was Dean of the Education school at CCU, and a well known educator in California. Other references are few and unreliable for Wikipedia standards. Much of the controversy occurred after Lee Ralston died. California Laws were changing and the future of CCU was in doubt. National Accreditation of CCU changed the controversy making it more specific to Walter Ralston Martin and less about legitimacy of CCU. Astrojed (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walter Ralston Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130411165206/http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=178 to http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=178

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Walter Martin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)