This site is

 
BOGUS 'Dr' WALTER R MARTIN & The CRI
BOGUS 'Dr' WALTER R MARTIN & The CRI

A Piece of Work

There is hardly time enough to do proper justice to the wicked lies 'Non-Doctor' Walter R Martin told, continued to tell after his grossest lies were exposed, and the institution he founded continues to tell about him now that he has gone to his reward. 

However, since he was one of the luminaries of the 'counter-cult'  movement we cannot pass him by without recounting some of his major lies and distortions. 

  

NOT a 'Dr'

No Doctorate other than the one he BOUGHT from a Degree Mill

Walter R Martin

LIED about being a Doctor

  

Walter Martin claims a Doctor's Degree that he doesn't have?   

Martin received via USPS a doctoral degree of sorts in 1976 from California Western University which has been proven to be nothing more than a degree mill. However, he applied the term doctor to himself well before that date.

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

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

Later on his Bible Answer Man radio program he said,

"My Master's thesis? Let's see, Oh, my Doctoral thesis. I didn't do a Master's thesis." (Brown 1986, 38)

Of course he should realize that you don't do a Doctoral thesis, it would be a Doctoral Dissertation.

Speaking of his Master's degree, New York University wrote,

"A thesis was not required for Mr. Martin's field of study." (Brown 1986, 40)

However, it must not be forgotten that Martin felt entitled to the title of "Doctor" before he bought his Doctoral degree. As early as 1974 there are several examples were Dr. Martin was used to refer to him.

Even earlier, in 1966 on his mother's death certificate, he refers to himself as "Dr. Walter Martin."  (Brown 1986, 42-48)

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

    

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

  

"Dr. Martin holds degrees from

  

  1. Stony Brook School,
  2. Adelphi University,
  3. Biblical Seminary,
  4. New York University, and
  5. California Western University."

  

  1. LIAR!  Stony Brook is a high school!
  2.  LIAR! Adelphi University he attended for about 4 months! Then quit!
  3. LIAR! He attended a few summer classes at A Biblical Seminary.

Seeking clarification about these phony degrees Martin claimed, I, Ronnie Bennett-Bray, wrote to the CRI asking for details of the places, dates, and subjects in which Martin's publicised degree were obtained

It was a straight-forward inquiry seeking information.

I received a reply from CRI that said they could not

"understand what you are seeking!"

That was the response from the CRI although my request for information about Martin's degrees was stated clearly and in plain English.

 
Bogus degrees are sources of great embarrassment to the CRI, and continue to be embarrassing long after Martin died because they are no more forthcoming or honest than they were when their Chief Liar was alive. So sad. 

  

It is extremely sad  that those whom Martin deceived with his florid lies in pursuit of his millionaire status continue to follow a LIAR rather than follow God and Christ.

  

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

  

Is Dr. Martin's doctoral degree legitimate? California Western University, the degree Mill - you send them the bucks and they print out and send you your PHONY CHEAPO BOGUS "Doctoral" LOL "Degree" is the same place where Plain Old Mister Martin obtained his "Ph. D." degree advertises in its literature that

"No classroom attendance is required."

  

The California Department of Education says about the school,

"California Western is an non accredited degree granting school, which has been operating since 1973 or '74.

"The school is basically a correspondence school with an instructional staff of four persons who are all called 'deans'."

  

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

  

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

  

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

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

The secretary of the accrediting association for California wrote,

"the National Association of Private, Nontraditional Schools and Colleges in Grand Junction, Colorado, is not recognizedby the Council on Post secondary Accreditation of the U.S. Office of Education." (Brown 1986, 59)

The Christian Research Institute attempted to refute these claims in a 1993 report. They started with the statement:

"Facts which are not disputed concerning *Walter Ralston Martin* are as follows: He is an ordained Baptist minister and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention."

However, we have already seen where each of these statements is, in fact, false.

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

CRI quoted a report by Dr. Bear:  

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

CRI also quoted from the California State Department of Education has stated in the California Education Code,  Section 94310(b):  

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

But in the case of California Western University, this doesn't seem to have occurred. At least the State of California, Department of Education responded in 1981,

  

"California Western is an non accredited degree granting school, which has been operating since 1973 or '74. The school is basically a correspondence school with an instructional staff of four persons who are called deans. It is entirely possible that this school offered a degree in Comparative Religion in '76; however, we have no record of this." (Brown 1986, 52)

It would appear that the superintendent did not make the evaluation as outlined in the code quoted above because they have no record of the Comparative Religion degree.

  

The Christian Research Institute's report concluded with a statement,

  

"Yes, Walter Martin's doctoral degree is legitimate, and no, it really does not matter."

  

They were wrong again about it being a legitimate degree and it matters a great deal.

  

This establishes Walter Martin's complete absence of credibility. He was not interested in the truth, he was interested in twisting the information and even lying if it would support his priestcraft. This is particularly obvious in his assertion that he was a descendent of Brigham Young.   

  

Walter Martin LIED about his being an Ordained Baptist minister afte he was UNFROCKED for dishonesty

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

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

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

  

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

  

In 1973, Walter Martin's first wife took him to court because she didn't feel that he was living up the the divorce agreement. Among other things she charged that he was he free-lance preacher. His reply is a matter of court record,

  

"I would like to state that I am not a free-lance preacher, but an accredited professor of biblical studies and an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing" (Brown 1986, 298) 

  

In 1984 the American Baptist were asked if they had record of an ordination of Walter Martin. Reverend Linda Spoolstra responded,

  

"Walter Ralston Martin is not listed in the American Baptist Churches' Professional Registry, nor is he listed in our Directory of Professional Church Leaders. This means that he has no standing in our denomination." (Brown 1986, 9) 

  

In 1975 Walter Martin filed suit against Bruce Johnson and the Latter-day Saints (which he lost). Under oath he made the following statements:

"I am on the staff of the Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, and I am an ordained member of the Southern Baptist Convention, although I came from the American Baptist Convention" (Brown 1986, 13) 

  

In Literature from the Christian Research Center which was founded by Walter Martin he again claims in 1980 to be a ordained minister and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, Barbara Denman from the Home Mission Board responded, 

"We have searched our Southern Baptist annual, our Arizona convention annual and our own Home Mission Board personnel records for the name of Walter Martin, but were unable to come up with anything. Evidently, he is not Southern Baptist, nor is he ordained." (Brown 1986, 17) 

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

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

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

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

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

  

Walter Martin LIED about being a descendant of Brigham Young

  

   While he thought it would serve his purposes, Walter Martin claimed that he was a descendant of Brigham Young.

He was  shown complete genealogies that proved that he was not a descendant of Brigham Young.  

Then he changed and made the assertion that he was only a relativeof Brigham Young. A claim that is also easily provable to be false. We can only imagine that Walter Martin wanted to make such a claim so that it would appear that he came out from Mormonism. 

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

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

   The only thing that is remarkable is how easily Walter could say things he knew were not true. 

In the preface to this book, The Maze of Mormonism, Dr Martin stated that his mother was a,

"descendant of Brigham Young, but disciple of Jesus Christ."

  

Even a couple years after he had acknowledged that he was not a descendant, the dedication had not changed. (Brown 1986, 70) 

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

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

   Walter Martin's mother, Maud Ainsworth, was the daughter of Joseph Ainsworth and Annie Young. Annie's parents are John I. Young (born about 1835), and Marion.   

Although several genealogists have checked for any relationship between John I. Young and Brigham Young, no relationship was ever found. (Brown 1986, 88) 

 

Walter Martin LIED about having a lawsuit against the church long after his frivolous lawsuit for $11,000,000 was thrown out of court

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

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

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

On a motion from the defendants, the court entered a summary judgment against Martin's suit. Walter Martin asked for an appeal and a retrial.

They were both denied by the court. Walter's final petition was denied on Feb. 13, 1979. (Brown 1986, 317)

Therefore, after Feb. 13th, Walter Martin had lost his suit and no further action was possible.

But that didn't stop Walter from claiming that a suit existed which he had already lost.

As late as 1985 Walter Martin was still claiming that,

"This case will come to trial in Orange County, California." (Brown 1986, 99) 

 

Walter Martin was NOT INTERESTED about being HONEST   

We have already seen many areas where Mr. Martin fails to be honest or accurate. 

  

  1. He is not an ordained minister!
  2. He claims a 'doctorate' that he bought and did not earn!
  3. Her claimed the title 'doctor' before he had received his bogus degree from a correspondence Co. with no classrooms!
  4. He knew that he was not related to Brigham Young, but he continued to claim that he was even after he was given absolute proof by professional genealogists!
  5. And even his suit against the Church is misrepresented when he talks about it as a future event "going to trial" long after it had been dismissed.

  

But even when he loses, he twists that to indicate that the church is too powerful. That is nonsense, if you don't have any basis for a suit it has nothing to do with who you are suing. 

  

Walter Martin sets the standard of dishonestythat was the foundation of ALL his LIES when he said:

  

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

  

Mr. Martin makes statements that have no basis in fact and anre lies instead of the research he claimed to do he did not more than pass on other people's lies and invented many of his won to damn  Mormonism and start ugly lying  rumors.

For example, in his book "Maze of Mormonism" he lies  when he informs his gullible readers that:

  

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

  

All of HIS statements above are TOTALLY FALSE. 

 

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

  

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

  

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

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

  

Yet millions of Gullibles have lined Liar Martin's pockets because they don't know any better and because the CRI is incapable of being honest and acting as honest Christians and enlighten those it has and continues to dupe. They must ask theselves the following two questionsat least:

  

  • What is "Christian" about the "Christian Research Institute?"
  • When did lying become any part of Christian principles and behaviour?

  

  

Do not let the CRI, which is Liar Martin's Legacy,
suck you dry and fill you with lies.
  
You deserve much better and it is not worth YOUR money!

  

  

THIS MAN'S LYING WORKS are NOT TRUSTED by Christians That Love God, Jesus, or  the TRUTH

NOT A REAL " Dr " but a lying BOGUS "Dr"  bogus Walter Martin