Conference tecrus::mormonism

================================================================================
Note 188.19               "The God Makers" book & film                  19 of 21
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                        9 lines  10-DEC-1988 17:40
                             -< What does he say? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Note 188.18 by NWD002::JOLMAMA

    Hi Matt,
    
    This is the first I have heard of this book, though I have heard
    of Dr. Walter Martin before. What does he have to say about the
    LDS church?
    
    Rich

================================================================================
Note 188.20               "The God Makers" book & film                  20 of 21
CASV01::PRESTON "Better AI than none at all"         13 lines  11-DEC-1988 14:55
                                -< Dr. Martin >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Walter Martin is director of the Christian Research Institute,
    in (I believe) San Juan, Calif. He is also author of "Kingdom of
    the Cults."
    
    I do not have any of his books, but about "The God Makers" he says
    this:
    
    "The God Makers is an accurate account of the theology, goals, and
    secrets of Mormonism. It is told in a popular, readable style with
    an eye to evangelism and apologetics. The facts are all here; it
    is a most usefule volume, valuable for both pastors and laymen."
    
    Ed

    I, myself, would not hold much credence in what Walter Martin says
    about Mormonism.  I have read The God Makers and put
    it down because of its blatant errors and lies.  Thus, if Martin
    says  the book is an accurate picture or Mormonism, I would say
    he is "out to lunch" and not believe anything he says or writes
    about Mormonism.
    
    I have heard mention of several non-Mormon authors who have written
    about Mormons in a more objective, more factual and less sensational
    manner.  But, I cannot remember their names.  Perhaps, someone else
    can fill in the gaps.
    
    Mormonism as a phenomenon (social, policital, religious, health,
    etc.) seems to fascinate non-Mormon authors from time to time. Several
    good books have been written from these perspectives.  Usually,
    however, more sensational (and untrue) literature seems to attract
    the general public's attention.
    
    Paul
    

I think that we need to approach our discussion of Walter Martin and "The Maze
of Mormonism" from two viewpoints.

Most importantly, we need to discuss his statements about the LDS church to
see if they are factual, accurate, and objective.  We need to study his
sources to see if he uses information from Mormon theological and historical
sources in or out of context.  We need to study his language to see if he uses
inflammatory phrases and makes unsupported charges to imply things that are
not supported by his sources of information.

In addition, I think we need to study Martin himself to see if we can understand
his motives for criticizing the LDS church and to see what bias he has in his
personal attitudes about Mormonism (everyone has bias).  If we understand his
motives and bias, then we can better understand the context and significance
of his statements.

I've been reading a series (presently three volumes) of books called "They
lie in wait to deceive", by Robert L. & Rosemary Brown.  The title of the
series is taken from Ephesians 4:14: "That we henceforth be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the
slight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

The Browns believe that Martin and the other persons discussed in the series
(see note 105.64 through 105.70 for a discussion from volume 1 of the series
on Dee Jay Nelson) are claiming things about themselves that are not true and
in so doing are projecting themselves as self-proclaimed authorities on the
history and doctrine of the LDS church.  We LDS believe that these people
present LDS history and doctrine in an inaccurate and distorted way, and that
from the general viewpoint there is a correlation between the honesty of people
claiming to be authorities and the objectivity of their information.

The "They lie in wait to deceive" series consists of photocopies of primary
and secondary evidence, and observations made by the Browns about that evidence.
They present both evidence to identify the claims made by Martin and the others
and evidence to rebut those claims.  The information that I'm planning to
present about Martin will take several replies.

As a final comment for this reply, I would like to say that I don't own a
copy of "The Maze of Mormonism" and haven't read it.  I do hope that persons
who have read it will post comments, questions, challenges, etc. from the
book so we can discuss Martin's statements about the LDS church.

Allen

Walter Martin himself set the stage for our look at his credentials.

    On one of his radio programs, "The Bible Answer Man", November 14, 1984,
    KANN, Ogden, Utah, Walter Martin commented on the importance of verifying
    credentials.  The caller said that a preacher and his family came into
    his town and set up a trailer across from his house.  The preacher was
    making his way across the country preaching the gospel.  The caller
    wondered if Martin had heard of him.  Walter Martin replied:

        "No, I never heard of him ... There are all kinds of people like
        this running around the country and saying that they preach the
        gospel.  Do you know what I do when I run into people like this?  I
        start asking them for their credentials.  I want to know who they
        are, where they came from, what schools they went to, and what their
        training was, and if they get very testy, then I say, 'Look, you
        can't train me and you can't teach me if you don't know anything,
        and I want to know where you got what you have.'  Well, that pretty
        generally cuts them off because most of them don't know anything."
        ("They lie in wait to deceive, vol. 3, p. i)

Claims of Ordination
---------------------

On the back cover of "The Maze of Mormonism", Walter Martin claims he is an
ordained Baptist minister.

    Dr. Martin is one of the important voices in the evangelical community.
    He is an ordained Baptist minister, executive editor of the periodical
    from Christian research Institute, FORWARD, and popular radio personality
    with his Bible Answer Man and Dateline Eternity programs.  (They lie in
    wait to deceive, vol. 3, p. v)

In court records concerned with the suit of his second wife for additional
child support, Martin claimed to be an ordained minister of the American
Baptist Convention.

    8.  regarding the allegations set forth in [can't tell what one word is
    on the microfilm copy] of Mrs. Martin's affidavit, I would like to state
    that I am not free-lance preacher, but an accredited professor of biblical
    studies and an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in
    good standing.  (They lie, p. 8)

After moving to California, Martin claimed to be a member of the Southern
Baptist Convention.  The following statement is part of the court record of a
suit by Martin against Bruce A. Johnson and the LDS Church (which he lost,
incidentally).

    Q   Other than being the Professor of Theology at the school you
    indicated, are you a Reverend, or do you have a congregation, a
    diocese; something of that nature?

    A   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.  (They lie, p. 13)

Martin furnished a biographical sketch for "Who's Who in Religion, 2nd edition,
1977, in which he referred to his 1951 ordination to the ministry and his
claim to be a minister of the Southern Baptist Convention.  (They lie, p. 15)

In his Spring 1980 newsletter of the Christian Research Institute, Martin
repeated his claim to be an ordained minister and a member of the Southern
Baptist Convention.  (They lie, p. 16)


1951 Ordination
----------------

In a letter dated May 13, 1985, Robert D. Hayden, Pastor of the First Baptist
Church of Hempstead, NY, explained the 1951 ordination of Walter Martin.

    Dear Mr. Brown:

    In answer to your telephone calls and letter regarding Walter Martin,
    the following is on our church records.

    Walter Martin was an attendant of our church and had attended the National
    Bible Institute in New York City.  Our church had issued a call to
    fellowshiping churches to form an Ordination Council.  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.

    I trust that this answers your question.  (They lie, p. 7)


Professional Registry of American Baptists
------------------------------------------

In a letter to Rosemary Brown, Linda C. Spoolstra, Executive Director of the
Commission on the Ministry, American Baptist Convention said that Walter Martin
had no standing in their organization.

    Dear Rosemary:

    This letter is to confirm in writing what I said to you over the phone
    last week.  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.

    As you know, the American Baptist churches of the Pacific Southwest does
    not know anything about Walter Martin.  We receive our information from 
    the regional administrative units.

    I hope this clarifies the matter for you.  (They lie, p. 9)


American Baptists - West
------------------------

Delight E. Macias of the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest
explained to Rosemary Brown that Walter Martin did not appear to be an
ordained American Baptist Minister.

    Dear Miss Brown:

    This is in response to your telephone call requesting information on a
    Walter Ralston Martin.

    Our denominational headquarters in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, has no
    record of Mr. Martin.

    In addition, we have searched our records here in the regional office and
    find no record of him.  Therefore, as far as we are aware of it, Mr.
    Martin does not appear to be an ordained American Baptist minister.
    (They lie, p. 10)


Southern Baptist Convention
---------------------------

In a letter to Rosemary Brown, Barbara Denman, Promotion Specialist of the
Home Mission board, Southern Baptist Convention explained that Walter Martin
was not Southern Baptist and was not ordained.

    Dear Ms. Brown,

    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.

    You might check with the American Baptist Convention.

    If we can help you further, or if there is more information to follow
    up, please let us know.  (They lie, p. 17)


Walter's Former Pastor
----------------------

Robert D. Hughes, Executive Director-Treasurer of The Southern Baptist General
Convention of California, explained to Rosemary Brown about Walter Martin's
activity in the San Juan Capistrano church.

    Dear Ms. Brown:

    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.  I trust
    this will answer your concerns in the matter.  (They lie, p. 18)

Educational Claims
------------------

In the Christian Research Institute Newsletter, 2nd Quarter, 1977, Vol. 1,
#2, p. 3, Walter Martin made the following claims about his educational
background.

    Dr. Martin holds degrees from Stony Brook School, Adelphi University,
    Biblical Seminary, New York University and California Western University.
    (They lie, p. 31)

Let's take a closer look at those claims.


Stony Brook School
------------------

In a letter dated September 10, 1981 to Robert Brown, James A. Adare, Director
of Development for Stony Brook School, said the following.

    Dear Mr. Brown,

         The Stony Brook School is a college preparatory school which qualifies
    students for a high school diploma.  We do not issue college diplomas.
    (They lie, p. 32)

Walter Martin may have a high school diploma from Stony Brook School, but he
does not have a degree.


Adelphi University
------------------

Geraldine B. Cosgcrove, Supervisor Transcript & Certification for Adelphi
University, said the following in a December 1, 1981 letter to Robert Brown.

    Dear Mr. Brown,

    This is to certify that Walter Ralston Martin attended our university
    from Sept. 16, 1946 thru January 31, 1947.  (They lie, p. 33)

Walter Martin does not have a degree from Adelphi University.


Shelton College
---------------

Even though it is not mentioned in the Newsletter quote given above, Walter
Martin does have a degree from Shelton College.  He graduated May 1951 with
a B.A. degree in Philosophy.  (They lie, p. 34)
    

New York University
-------------------

Walter Martin's claim to a degree from New York University is valid.  He 
received a M.A. degree in June 1956.  (They lie, p. 34-35)


Biblical Seminary
-----------------

Immediately after receiving his masters degree from NYU, Walter attended a
summer session at the Biblical Seminary (now known as the New York Theological
Seminary).  Margaret J. Rathnum of the Admissions Office at NYU said the
following in her December 3, 1981 letter to Robert Brown.

    Dear Mr. Brown:

    I am responding to your telephone call regarding Mr. Walter Ralston
    Martin, who took courses at New York theological Seminary (formerly The
    Biblical Seminary in New York) in the Summer of 1956.

Walter Martin has no degree from The Biblical Seminary.



California Western University
-----------------------------

On July 10th, 1974, a man named Tom Neal applied for permission to operate
a correspondence school under the name of California State College of Santa
Ana.  On the next day, Neal changed the name of his school to California
Western University. (They lie, pp. 49-50).  In his 1976 school catalog, Neal
made the following claims about his school.

    1.  No classroom attendance is required.
    2.  Each Program is self-paced.
    3.  Each Program can, in most cases, be completed in a substantially
        shortened time period, as compared to the traditional education
        system.
    4.  Each Program is less expensive than comparable Programs in other
        private, independent Colleges and Universities.
    (They lie, p. 51)     

To further document that California Western is a correspondence school, Robert
Brown obtained a letter dated December 3, 1981 from the California Department
of Education in which the following was said.

    California Western is an nonaccredited 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.
    (They lie, p. 52)

In a letter dated October 6, 1981 to Robert Brown, Thomas Neal, Executive Vice
President of California Western University said that Walter Martin did not
have a degree from that school.

    Dear Mr. Brown:

    Reference your letter of September 24, 1981, and Mr. Walter R. Martin.
    To the best of my knowledge he is neither a student or graduate of
    California Western University and has not been on our faculty or
    administration.  (They lie, p. 57)

When Brown read this letter on the Mary Jane Popp radio show, Walter was very
upset and said he would demand an apology from California Western.  Mr. Neal
subsequently wrote the following letter to Walter Martin.

    Dear Dr. Martin:

    Sorry for the confusion that may have been caused regarding your status
    with California Western University.  This letter is to certify that upon
    detailed review of your file, California Western University awarded a
    Doctor of Philosophy Degree in 1976 to Walter Ralston Martin.
    (They lie, p. 57)

Walter Martin does have a degree from the correspondence school.


Walter Changed His Story
------------------------

While appearing as a guest on the Mary Jane Popp radio show on December 2, 1981,
Walter Martin said he had four degrees, two from Shelton College, one from
NYU, and one from California Western.  Apparently since writing (or at least
approving) the 1977 newsletter, Walter Martin had second thoughts about
claiming nonexistent degrees.  (They lie, Vol. 2, p. 114)

Claimed to have written a Master's Thesis
-----------------------------------------

In a court deposition filed in his suit against Bruce Johnson and the LDS
Church (August 1975), Walter Martin claimed to have written a Masters thesis.

    Q  Would you tell us briefly your training, experience, and background,
       starting with your college training?

    A  Yes.  I attended college at Adelphi University, Garden City, New York;
       Shelton College, which was then located in New York.  I received a B.A.
       and a B.R.E. Degree, Bachelor of Philosophy, Bachelor of Education.
       Master's Degree from New York University in Philosophy of Religion, and
       completed my doctoral studies at New York University pending my thesis.

    Q  Give us the date of that final work.

    A  The date of which?

    Q  When you graduated and finished your thesis.

    A  I finished my Master's thesis in 1956, and I finished all my doctoral
       work up to my thesis in 1968.
    (They lie, p. 36)


No Master's Thesis Required
---------------------------

In a letter dated September 22, 1982, from Ada Meloy, Assistant General Counsel,
NYU, to James L. Tanner, a Phoenix attorney, Meloy said that NYU did not require
a master's thesis for Walter Martin's field of study.

    Dear Mr. Tanner:

    Your letter of September 8, 1982, has been forwarded to this office for
    response.  University records show that Walter Ralston Martin received
    an M.A. degree from New York University's School of Education (now called
    School of Education, Health, Nursing and Arts Professions) in June 1956.
    A thesis was not required for Mr. Martin's field of study -- "Pastors and
    Other Religious Leaders in Denominational Religious Bodies and Schools."
    (They lie, p. 40)


Martin Changes His Story
------------------------

On his radio program, The Bible Answer Man, KANN Christian Radio, Ogden, Utah,
February 15, 1985, Walter Martin said he did not write a Master's thesis.

    CALLER:  Great.  One other question, Walter, real quickly.  Could you tell
             me what your Master's thesis was on?

    MARTIN:  My Master's thesis?  Let's see.  Oh, my Doctoral thesis.  I didn't
             do a Master's thesis.

    CALLER:  Okay.

    MARTIN:  My Master's (work) was at New York University, and we had an
             option of either doing the Master's thesis, or I believe four or
             six extra credits, so I think at that time I did the four or six
             extra credits, whatever it was, and then I did a Doctoral thesis
             later.

    CALLER:  What was that on?

    MARTIN:  It was on JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

    CALLER:  Thank you very much, Walter.

    MARTIN:  You're welcome.
    (They lie, pp. 38-39)

Martin's claims about California Western
----------------------------------------

In his Bible Answer Man radio show on KANN Christian Radio, Ogden, Utah on
February 16, 1985, Walter Martin was discussing Volumes 1 and 2 of the
"They lie in wait to deceive" series by Robert Brown, and he said that
California Western University was not a correspondence school and that it
is accredited in California.

    MARTIN:  ...I said, "You [Robert Brown] don't like the fact that I
             I graduated from California Western University.  If fact, you
             have challenged that I did."  I said, "Now, here's the proof
             that I did," and we provided the proof.  The next thing he
             turns around and says is that California Western is a
             correspondence school.  It isn't a correspondence school at
             all, and it is accredited in the State of California.  He
             never did any homework at all, so all we did was to say, "Okay,
             we'll just turn both books [of Brown's] over to our attorneys
             and let them worry about it, and we'll take whatever their
             recommendation is, but Mr. Brown, and let me say this publicly,
             okay?  Mr. Brown is a studied, consistent liar.  Okay?
    (They lie, p. 55)


The facts about California Western
----------------------------------

I have already given evidence in my reply in .7 that California Western was
originally begun as a correspondence school, that it advertised no classroom
attendance was required, and that the California Department of Education said
it was a nonaccredited school and was "basically a correspondence school".
That letter was written three years before Walter Martin said on his radio
show that California Western was accredited in California!

Next, let us look at Walter Martin's statement that it is accredited in the
State of California.  California Western was recognized as a candidate for
accrediation by the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools
and Colleges (NAPNSC), this recognition being given on February 19, 1976.
However, that organization is not recognized by the Council on Postsecondary
Accrediation or the U.S. Office of Education.  This is documented in a letter
from Delsie M. Austinson, Secretary of the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (the accrediting organization that is recognized by the Council on
Postsecondary Accrediation and the U.S. Office of Education) to Robert Brown.

    Dear Mr. Brown:

    I am writing in response to your letter of December 6, 1984.  California
    Coast University in Santa Ana, California, is not accredited by our
    Commission, and it has not applied for accreditation.

    The National Association of Private, Nontraditional Schools and Colleges
    in Grand Junction, Colorado, is not recognized by the Council on Post-
    secondary Accrediation or the U.S. Office of Education.  (They lie, p. 59)

California Coast University is the name by which California Western University
is now known, due to its loosing a name infringement suit in 1981.  Brown
also gives a letter from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (he choose
Colorado because that is the home state of the NAPNSC) that states that the
Colorado Commission on Higher Education "does not regard accrediation by
that association [NAPNSC] as fulfilling the statutory requirement that
postsecondary institutions be accredited."  (They lie, p. 60)

Claimed Relationship with Brigham Young
---------------------------------------

The present edition of "The Maze of Mormonism" contains the following
statement.

    TO THE MEMORY OF MY MOTHER, MAUD AINSWORTH MARTIN, relative of
    Brigham Young, but disciple of Jesus Christ--a constant source of
    encouragement to my father and to his youngest son in the pursuit of 
    a difficult calling. [taken from my copy]


Walter Martin's Genealogy
-------------------------

Robert and Rosemary Brown researched the genealogy of Walter Martin, using
the resources of the LDS Genealogical library in Salt Lake City.  They have
published that genealogy in volumes II and III of their "They lie" series.
In volume III, they give photo copies of the birth, marriage, and death
records that document the connection of Walter to his grandmother Annie E.
Young and his great-grandfather John I. Young.


No Connection with Brigham Young
--------------------------------

The genealogy of Brigham Young is well known.  In a letter dated 10 January
1984, Larry L. Platt, a professional genealogist, stated that Annie E. Young
was "definitely not a descendant of Brigham Young."

    Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brown:

    Annie E. YOUNG, the reputed grandmother of Dr. Walter R. Martin, was
    born on or about 17 November 1860 in Ohio.  She died 4 September 1906
    in New York City, New York, and was buried in Rosehill Cemetery, Chicago.

    The said Annie E. YOUNG is definitely not a descendent of Brigham YOUNG,
    the Mormon Church leader and prophet.  The descendants of Brigham YOUNG
    are well documented and Annie E. Young and her father are not among
    them.  (They lie, p. 87)


In a letter dated June 11, 1986, Ronald Vern Jackson, President and Senior
Archivist of Accelerated Indexing Systems International described his research
of Walter Martin's ancestry.


    Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brown:

    Per your request to see if there is in fact any connection between the
    genealogy of Brigham Young and his brothers to a John Young (or a John
    I. Young) married to a Marion, who had a daughter named Annie. My staff
    and I have conducted a very long, very comprehensive and very interesting
    investigation into the ancestral backgrounds of several anti-Mormons
    claiming relationships to the Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-day Saints.

    The results of our investigation is that the good "Reverend" Walter Martin
    is giving a lot of lip service to a relationship to Brigham Young supported
    by no facts at all.  You asked if we would check Mr. Walter Ralston
    Martin's claim to fame in being related to Brigham Young's family through
    one of Brigham's brothers, as announced by Martin on his radio programs.
    My staff, along with the staff of another major genealogical firm, worked
    untold hours for many months to see if Mr. Martin was related to the 
    Brigham Young family.  They have all given me their professional word that
    there is not a shred of evidence that directly links Mr. Martin to Brigham
    Young and/or his brothers in any way, shape, or form.  (They lie, p. 88)

"The Maze of Mormonism" originally stated in its dedication that Walter Martin
was a descendant of Brigham Young, but after Robert Brown published volume II
of "They lie", Walter admitted that the dedication was incorrect and that he
had directed his publisher to change it to a "relative" of Brigham Young.  In 
volume III, Brown published the evidence given above (plus details I've omitted)
but Walter Martin has not retracted his claim to be a relative through
Brigham's brother, and the copy of "The Maze" that I purchased last week
contains that claim in the dedication.

This is the end of the information about Walter Martin himself that I am
planning to post to this note.  Anyone who has read the book or who has
questions about it, is invited to enter into a discussion of the "nuts &
bolts" in the book.  I will be happy to share my observations as I read it.

Allen

    
    But, has anyone read the book?  Is the book correct?
    
    Matt

Hi Matt,

It's on my list, after I finish "The God Makers".  In the meantime, I'm
hoping that persons who have read the book will post their reactions, questions,
etc.

Allen

                                THE MAZE OF MORMONISM
                                ---------------------
        Topic for Analysis: Archeology and the Book of Mormon
        
            On page  53 of the MoM book there is an excerpt of an article
        by John Price  who  is described as a former Mormon.  The article
        quoted is from THE  INDIAN  HISTORIAN  (Vol.7,  no.  3, 1974).  A
        footnote on the bottom of  the page prohibits me from quoting the
        article without permission, so I will  list  some  of  the points
        that it makes (Well, OK, I did sort-of quote the  lists of items,
        but tabulated the observations concerning the items).
        
            The Jaredites are described from the BoM  as having possessed
        a  variety  identifiable  items in their culture.   Amoung  these
        were:
        1)  Fruit,  grain,  cattle,  oxen,  cows,  sheep,  goats,  swine,
            horses, asses, elephants, and the honey bee.
        2)  Houses,  tents, spacious  buildings,  thrones,  prisons  with
            doors, and large barges.
        3)  Silks and fine linen.
        4)  Metallurgy of gold, silver,  iron,  steel, copper, and brass.
            Extensive mining that "cast up  mighty  heaps of earth to get
            ore."
        5)  Tools to plow, sow, reap, hoe, and thrash.
        6)  Swords of steel, shields, breastplates, and headplates.
        7)  Writings on engraved metal plates.
        
            The  people  of  Lehi and those  associated  with  them  from
        Zarahemla  are  described  as  having  possessed  the   following
        identifiable objects within their culture:
        1)  Corn, wheat, barley, cows, oxen, horses, asses, sheep, goats,
            and swine.  Grape wine and bread.
        2)  Tents,  houses of wood and cement, gates, spacious buildings,
            towers, palaces,  temples,  prisons,  dungeons,  burial  in a
            sepulchre, walled cities, highways, and large sailing ships.
        3)  Short skin girdles;    clothes  of  silk, linen, and "homely"
            cloth; and coats.
        4)  Metallurgy of gold, silver,  iron,  steel, copper, and brass.
            Coins of gold and silver.  Ringlets and bracelets of gold.
        5)  Axes,  chains, a compass, seer  stones,  tools  to  till  the
            ground, ladders, cups, and cords.
        6)  Bows and arrows, quivers, darts, javelins,  swords,  daggers,
            clubs,  slings,;   metal armor of breastsplates,  armshields,
            and  head-shields;  horse drawn war chariots;  fortifications
            of earth  works,  timber walls, and towers for the defense of
            cities and in  a  great  defensive line between Nephrites and
            Lamanites.
        7)  Writings in "reformed Egyptian"  on  engraved plates of gold,
            written egravings on stone, and written correspondence in the
            form of epistles.
        8)  Sacrificial and burnt offerings of the first of flocks.
        
            In addition to this the BoM depicts courts  of  judges ruling
        in terms of written laws, a seven day week  with a day of rest on
        the final day, and people paid wages in gold and  silver  coinage
        where they were employed.
        
            BoM references for the material above  and  the  other quotes
        within the article are:  Omni 1:15;   Ether 14:4;  15:15;  15:33;
        1 Nephi 18:23-25; Enos 1:21; Mosiah 10:5 and Heleman 6:13.
        
                          ****************************
        
            The archeologically  accepted  facts, as listed by Mr.  Price
        are:
        1)  The New World  did not have wheat, barley, cows, oxen, horses
            or  elephants  (after  about  5,000  BC),  asses,  sheep,  or
            domesticated goats or swine.
        2)  No native Americans made wheat  bread  or  grape  wine.   The
            indigenous  fauna  and  flora  were  corn,  beans,  squashes,
            potatoes, tomatoes, manioc, turkeys, llamas, etc.
        3)  Pre-Columbus America lacked the wheel, and thus chariots.
        4)  There  is  NO  evidence  that  ancient Americans had silk  or
            linen, metallurgy of iron, steel, or brass;  nor metal coins,
            chains, or armor.
        5)  No  trace  of ancient plow agriculture of wheat or barley has
            been found.   Neither is there any evidence of pastoralism of
            sheep or cattle from the time frame depicted in the BoM.
        6)  No evidence from the aboriginal New World depicts any form of
            court of law guided  by  written  law,  nor  the concept of a
            seven day week, nor is  there  any  extant coinage to support
            the economy indicated in the BoM.
        7)  Near Eastern style wars, fought as described in  the BoM with
            swords, armor, and chariots, engaging hundred of thousands of
            people  in the area of upper state New York would  have  left
            some  visible  evidence, but NONE has EVER been found.  There
            is much  evidence  to indicate a progression from an original
            hunting  society  to    one   based  on  simple  horticulture
            incorporating the indigenous plants and animals.
        
        8)  I  see  other  things  listed that my own knowledge indicates
            could not have been so, but will leave that for you  to think
            about.
                            ***************************
        
            In conclusion to this I will add one  of  my own observations
        that  has  come  to  light in the time since  the  MoM  book  was
        published.  In the past few years, the science of genetic tracing
        has been developed to the point where it is possible to establish
        genetic ancestry with  extreme  precission.    This  has  made it
        possible to prove once  and for all that the American Indians are
        decended  from  East  Asian/Chinese stock  and  NOT  from  Middle
        Eastern  or  even  European lineage.   I  am  not  aware  of  any
        competent  scientist  who seriously contests these findings.    I
        don't think I need to explain the significance  of this to anyone
        with an LDS background!
        
            I  look forward to seeing what evidence is offered to explain
        these observations.   I will wait for activity to slacken on this
        topic before introducing the next one.
        
        "...though Kings may sit upon their thrones,
            my God Almighty reigns!"
        - Ed

>        4)  Metallurgy of gold, silver,  iron,  steel, copper, and brass.
>            Extensive mining that "cast up  mighty  heaps of earth to get
>            ore."
>
>        7)  Writings on engraved metal plates.
>
>        4)  Metallurgy of gold, silver,  iron,  steel, copper, and brass.
>            Coins of gold and silver.  Ringlets and bracelets of gold.
>
>        6)  Bows and arrows, quivers, darts, javelins,  swords,  daggers,
>            clubs,  slings,;   metal armor of breastsplates,  armshields,
>            and  head-shields;  horse drawn war chariots;  fortifications
>            of earth  works,  timber walls, and towers for the defense of
>            cities and in  a  great  defensive line between Nephrites and
>            Lamanites.
>
>        7)  Writings in "reformed Egyptian"  on  engraved plates of gold,
>            written egravings on stone, and written correspondence in the
>            form of epistles.
>
>        4)  There  is  NO  evidence  that  ancient Americans had silk  or
>            linen, metallurgy of iron, steel, or brass;  nor metal coins,
>            chains, or armor.

Ed,

There is evidence of mining of ore and the use of ore in Mesoamerica.  Pointers
to the notes are

    155.1 & 155.2   Metals in Ancient America
    156.2           Writing on Metal Plates

After you've read those notes, we can discuss the importance (or lack of it)
of that information.

Allen

    Re: Note 192.14 by ISLNDS::COX

    Hi Ed,

    The title of your note is "Archeological Evidence", but the thrust of
    the note is really the *lack* of archeological evidence. A thing cannot
    be disproved by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence *does*, however,
    raise many interesting questions, but it does not answer very many
    questions. A good example of this is the instance of the horse. 

>           The archeologically  accepted  facts, as listed by Mr. Price 
>       are: 
>       1)  The New World  did not have wheat, barley, cows, oxen, horses 
							           ^^^^^^ 

    The only archeological "facts" that can be established is if a
    particular item *is* found. If it is *not* found, it is not a fact that
    such an item did not exist, only that it has not yet been found. In the
    case of the horse, there have been recent archeological discoveries
    that establish horses in America long before it was originally thought.
    Thus the archeological thinking has changed on this subject. See note
    31.23 on this subject. A more accurate statement would be "no evidence
    of <fill in the blank> has (yet) been found", rather than "<fill in the
    blank> did not exist". 
    
>       3)  Pre-Columbus America lacked the wheel, and thus chariots.
    
    This is another example of archeological inaccuracy. Wheeled artifacts
    have been discovered from the Americas. 
    
    Of course, you mention many other items that have *not* (yet) been
    found. I submit that such things raise questions, but do not answer
    questions about the truth or error of the Book of Mormon. On the other
    hand, many things that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were
    unknown in Joseph Smith's day have been found. While this does not
    "prove" the Book of Mormon, and serves merely as a parallel to the Book
    of Mormon, it does answer the question whether or not the item in
    question existed in America. Such evidence includes the horse, as well
    as remarkable discoveries in metal working, medicine, architecture,
    cement, and many other things. 
    
>           In conclusion to this I will add one  of  my own observations
>       that  has  come  to  light in the time since  the  MoM  book  was
>       published.  In the past few years, the science of genetic tracing
>       has been developed to the point where it is possible to establish
>       genetic ancestry with  extreme  precission.    This  has  made it
>       possible to prove once  and for all that the American Indians are
>       decended  from  East  Asian/Chinese stock  and  NOT  from  Middle
>       Eastern  or  even  European lineage.   I  am  not  aware  of  any
>       competent  scientist  who seriously contests these findings.    I
>       don't think I need to explain the significance  of this to anyone
>       with an LDS background!
    
    I am not familiar with the research that you have mentioned, though I
    find it very interesting. However, I will say that Mormons do not say
    that the Book of Mormon peoples were the only ones who lived upon the
    Americas, nor do we assert that all of the American Indians are
    descended only from Lehi's family and those who accompanied them from
    the land of Jerusalem. 
    
    Thus, questions are raised about which Indians have been found to be
    descendants of Asian stock, and have they been descended only from this
    lineage, or does the heritage of some Indians include Isrealite
    genetics, perhaps mixed with that of other peoples? To answer this, of
    course, all Indian groups would have to be tested. 
    
    I do not present my response as the comprehensive answer to all that
    you have raised, but perhaps as a little food for thought. Also, I will
    say that my knowledge that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God has
    come to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, and not from archeological
    evidence. The scientific assertions are interesting, but inferior to
    the personal witness to me from God. Thus, I am thankful to God for
    this sacred record, and I am confident that in the final analysis, such
    assertions will be swept aside as so many have before. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

In .14, Ed introduced the topic of genetic testing of the American Indians.
I've created note 237 for that topic and moved the appropriate replies from
this not to that one.

I've created note 235 for a discussion of Book of Mormon animals and have
posted some interesting comments from John L. Sorenson, professor of
anthropology and chairman of the Department of Anthropology at BYU.

I've created note 238 for a discussion of Book of Mormon plants.

In .14, Ed presented information from MoM about archaeological problems
with the Book of Mormon.  I don't have time right now to research all of
the items in that reply, but in my subsequent replies, I have provided 
pointers to information about quite a number of the items.  In this reply,
I would like to comment on Martin's discussion of archaeology and the BoM.

Under the heading "Archeology and the Book of Mormon", Martin presents 
an article by a man named John Price that was published in "The Indian
Historian", volume 7, no. 3, 1974.  Martin doesn't give any information
about Mr. Price, so we don't know how credible he is to write about
Archaeology and the BoM.  Martin does say that Price is a former Mormon,
and I wonder why he said that since that information has no bearing on the
credibility of Mr. Price.  I suspect that Martin was implying that Price
left the Church because of the Archaeology/BoM problems; however, if that
is what Martin was trying to do, he was a bit dishonest since there are many
possible reasons why Price left the Church, and we have no reason to believe
it was because of the BoM.

As we read the information from Martin about Archaeology and the BoM (or read
.14), we must remember that Martin is talking about *parallel* evidence not
*direct* evidence.  Martin is critical because the BoM speaks of horses, for
example, and science knows of no horses prior to the Spaniards.  If science
discovered that horses were in the New World before the Spaniards, would that
prove the BoM true?  No, of course not.  Parallel evidence can not prove
anything true or false; it can only increase or decrease the plausibility
of something being true.  And so on for the other items listed in .14.  The
BoM does claim certain things about the Jaredites and Nephites.  The more of
those things that are found by science, then the more plausible the BoM 
becomes; the fewer of those things that are found by science, then the less
plausible the book is.  The information I have posted from John L. Sorenson
shows that science is finding evidence of the things claimed by the BoM (such
as the bones from a pre-Spanish horse!), so from the archaeological viewpoint,
the BoM is more plausible that it was a few years ago.

Martin, however, would have us believe that the BoM "is betrayed by external
evidences....Archeology has uncovered many of the errors in 'The Book of
Mormon' and removed it permanently from the ranks of reliable historical
writing." (MoM, p. 53)  Martin seems to believe that the final verdict from
science about the BoM is in and that nothing different will *ever* be
discovered by researchers.  Sorenson's book which was published after MoM
shows that that attitude is incorrect.

Allen

In his article, John Price dismisses the notion of transoceanic migrations to
the New World by acknowledging there is evidence of "rare" visitations to the
New World but stating that these migrations were mostly after A.D. 1000 and
were usually of no significant cultural influence. (MoM, p. 56)

John L. Sorenson, however, gives a different perspective of such migrations.
He observed that some researchers now believe that transoceanic migrations
did occur (long before 1000 A.D.) and influenced the native peoples, and they
are arguing such in their professional journals.  I've posted Sorenson's
comments to note 239.

Allen

Warfare and the Book of Mormon is being discussed in note 240.

Hi Ed,

Sorenson's book has a lot more interesting information, but I don't have
time to type it in; I recommend that you get the book and read it.

I think I've finished replying to your comments in .14.  I will be interested
in hearing your reaction to the postings I've made.

Allen

On page 20-21 of MoM, Walter Martin states that the Mormon church

 -- controls 78% of the US sugar beet industry
 -- controls US Industries (a large conglomerate)
 -- owns large blocks of Central Pacific Railroad
 -- Zody's-Hartfield Department Stores are Mormon-owned and wages are
    paid directly to the Church

In a radio lecture given on March 1, 1977 ("They lie in wait to deceive,
vol. III, pp. 135-136), Martin added the following to his claims of Mormon
Church assets.

 -- Control of American Stores
 -- Zion Merchantile
 -- European Health Spas
 -- Jack La Lanne's Operations (owned by US Industries mentioned above)
 -- Alpha Beta Stores
 -- Marriott Motor Hotels

Brown claims that Martin in another taped lecture claimed that Safeway stores
was owned or controlled by the Mormon church (Brown didn't give a date for
the lecture.)  

Robert & Rosemary Brown in Volume III of "They lie in wait to deceive"
discussed these claims of Martin.

1.  Control of 78% of the US sugar beet industry.  Brown said, "The truth is
    that the LDS Church held a substantial share of the common stock in U & I
    Sugar Industries from 1966 to 1978.  During its very best year (1973), 
    U & I had 13.11% of the U.S. beet sugar (392/2990) and 3.66% of the total
    sugar produced in the United States (392/10,719) according to Agricultural
    Statistics, 1981, published by the United States Department of Agriculture.
    13.11% of the sugar beet industry of the United States is nowhere near the
    78% quoted by Martin." (pp. 138-139)

2.  Control of US Industries (a large conglomerate).  Brown received a letter
    from Leonard Simms, Vice President Associate General Counsel of U.S.
    Industries.  Mr. Sims said the following.

       You indicated that you had come across a statement in the book THE
       MAZE OF MORMONISM by Dr. Walter Martin to the effect that U.S.
       Industries is controlled by the Mormon Church.

       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. (They lie, p. 145)

3.  Ownership of large blocks of Central Pacific Railroad.  The Central Pacific
    Railroad was merged in 1885 with the Southern Pacific Railroad, and Central
    was dissolved.  There is no Central Pacific Railroad.

4.  Zody's-Hartfield Department Stores are Mormon-owned and wages are
    paid directly to the Church.  A letter from Edward D. Solomon, President
    and Chief Exec. Officer of Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. (Martin had the two
    words reversed) said the following.

       There is absolutely no affiliation between Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. or
       any of its divisions with the Mormon Church.

       Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. is a publicly owned company whose stock is traded
       on the New York Stock Exchange.

       The only possible connection which comes to mind between our company and
       the Mormon Church is that upon occasion we utilize members of that
       church to perform physical inventories in our stores for which they are
       paid a fee which, as I understand it, is donated to the church.
       (They lie, p. 147)

5.  Control of American Stores.  Mr. Michael T. Miller, Senior Vice President,
    Investor/Public relations said in a letter to Brown.

       I am absolutely certain the mormon church has never owned, controller or
       influenced the direction of American Stores Company or its retail stores.

       American Stores Company is a publicly held company ....
       
       To my Knowledge, the founders of the Company and today's major
       stockholders have never been affiliated with or members of the mormon
       church.

       The Company finances its construction and growth only through legitimate
       financial institutions, and has never borrowed or received funding from
       the church in question or any of its privately owned entities.

       The answer to all of your questions is a simple, "NO"!


6.  Zion Merchantile.  Martin is correct on this one.  It is common knowledge
    that the Mormon church founded and owned until recently ZCMI.  

7.  European Health Spas.  Brown states (p. 142) that "The LDS Church never
    had any interest at all in the European Health Spas.  The European Health
    Spas failed and are no longer in business, an unlikely ending if they were
    either owned or controlled by the LDS Church!"  Brown gave no supporting
    documentation for his statement, probably because the company no longer
    exists.

8.  Jack La Lanne's Operations (owned by US Industries mentioned above).  Mr.
    Gregory A. Andruk, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, said the
    following.

       In answer to your letter dated December 18, 1985, the Jack La Lanne's
       Health Spas located in Southern California are privately held and have
       no association with the Mormon church.  Mr. La Lanne licenses his name
       to various health spas around the country.  The affiliation and ownership
       of other health spas using the Jack La Lanne name with the Mormon Church
       is not known to me. (They lie, p. 143)

9.  Alpha Beta Stores.  Alpha Beta stores are a wholly owned subsidiary of
    American Stores, discussed above.

10. Marriott Motor Hotels.  In MoM, Martin said that the Marriott Hotels are
    owned by J. Willard Marriott (who is a well known Mormon), but in the radio
    broadcast referred to  above, Martin said the hotels were controlled by the
    Mormon church.  Mr. W. Don Ladd, Vice President Government Affairs, said
    the following.

        The question "Does the Mormon Church control Marriott Motor Hotels"
        is ridiculous.  This is a public stock company with over 25,000,000
        shares outstanding, held by over 28,000 investors.  I have no knowledge
        of the amount of Marriott stock the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
        Day Saints holds, but whatever it is would be a relatively small
        percentage of the total.

        The LDS church has never told our company how to run its business
        or exercised any influence or pressure, nor has it ever given our
        Company money.  Again such inferences are ridiculous.

        Since the Marriott family is Mormon, some erroneously jump to the
        conclusion that the company is owned or controlled by their church.
        Again, as a public stock corporation, the company is operated under
        laws regulated by the Security Exchange Commission. (They lie, p. 146)

11.  Safeway.  Mr. Louie Gonzales, Public Relations Manager said the following.

       Safeway Stores, Incorporated is a publicly held corporation owned by
       its shareholders.  It is not owned, nor ever has been owned, by the
       Mormon Church.  That rumor has been around for years, but it is just
       that, a rumor. (They lie, p. 148)

    I know the manager of the Northboro Marriott.  He's our Executive
    Secretary (very much a member).  He told me that, other than the
    Marriott's, he is aware of very few Mormons within the Marriott
    organization.
    
    Steve

    
>>4.  Zody's-Hartfield Department Stores are Mormon-owned and wages are
>>    paid directly to the Church.  A letter from Edward D. Solomon, President
>>    and Chief Exec. Officer of Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. (Martin had the two
>>    words reversed) said the following.
>>
>>       There is absolutely no affiliation between Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. or
>>       any of its divisions with the Mormon Church.
>>
>>       Hartfield-Zodys, Inc. is a publicly owned company whose stock is traded
>>       on the New York Stock Exchange.
>>
>>       The only possible connection which comes to mind between our company and
>>       the Mormon Church is that upon occasion we utilize members of that
>>       church to perform physical inventories in our stores for which they are
>>       paid a fee which, as I understand it, is donated to the church.
>>       (They lie, p. 147)
    
    Come on here, if we are to apply those standards, then we own Neiman
    Marcus too. My ward was out one night doing inventory and the pay we
    got for one nights work, was donated to the church. There was absolutly
    no ownership implied by that. Was is the point in proving that the
    church got money anyway, I remember a few year ago Italian newspapers
    announced that the Catholic church owned controling interests in a 
    factory that produced condoms, so what!! Maybe our church do have some
    money, but they operate a lot of building worldwide, help a lot of
    people, and it all costs a lot of money. Is anybody impling that
    somebody is making a huge profit on this?? I personally know several
    highly placed church official, and they get paid substancially less
    than DEC pays me ( even with the paystop ). I recent the idea that
    there is something wrong with the church investing our money, and
    don't see why we have to defend it. You want us to buy savings bonds??
    
    I hope we can end this discussion of  financial holding, because I
    really do not see the revalence of it ( maybe somebody would explain )
    otherwise I would rather discuss questions of faith and hear story 
    that would help my spiritual growth.
    
    Peter

Hi Peter,

Way back in .0, Matt asked what we thought of the Maze of Mormonism book.
I'm just beginning to read the book and comment on it (I obviously don't have
the time to research everything in the book, so I will be picking items that
I have information on and can reply to).  I posted my previous reply about
Walter Martin's claims concerning the financial assets of the Church to show
that Martin's claims were inaccurate.

The question of whether churches should own businesses is interesting but not
part of Walter Martin's discussion of the assets of our Church.  In claiming
that the LDS church owned or controlled various businesses, Walter Martin was
not disagreeing with Churches owning businesses; he was trying to show that
the LDS church (which he referred to in his introduction as the largest of the
cults) is a vast empire and very influential.

I personally see nothing wrong with any church owning businesses as long as that
ownership is done legally and in the open, all taxes are paid, and the churches
do not attempt to escape taxes by claiming that their tax exempt status applies
to the businesses.  However, this is a topic for a new note if anyone wants
to discuss it.

Allen

RE: < Note 192.26 & 27 >

>Walter Martin ... was trying to show that
>the LDS church (which he referred to in his introduction as the largest of the
>cults) is a vast empire and very influential.

Despite Martin's silly claims and faulty evidence, I'll happily concede his 
point. The Church is a vast empire, and it is very influential. 

But, as has been said, so what? What is the implication?

It seems to me one would *expect* the true Church to be both wealthy and 
influential. How would poverty and powerlessness enhance a church's 
authority?

/kevin

In chapter 1 (Mormon History and Joseph Smith Jr), Martin discusses the claim
of the LDS church to be the only true church.  His comments concerning the
first vision are as follows.

    With one dogmatic assertion Joseph pronounced everybody wrong, all
    Christian theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt...
    (p. 31)

In that short statement, Martin claimed three things about Mormon doctrine.

1.  Everybody [i.e. all Christians] are wrong.

2.  All Christian theology is an abomination [this would include the
    atonement of Christ].

3.  All professing Christians are corrupt.

These claims are frequently made by anti-Mormons, but they are incorrect
claims.  Let's read Joseph's account of the first vision to see what God did
tell him.

  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; that those professors were all corrupt; that:
  "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me,
  they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,
  but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith--History 1:19)

God told Joseph the following.

1.  All Christian churches were wrong, meaning they were not Christ's and did
    not have his Priesthood.

2.  The Creeds of the Christian churches were an abomination.

3.  The professors of the churches were corrupt.

It is very plain that nowhere in the first vision did God tell Joseph that
all Christians were wrong.   That claim by Martin is false!  The statement by
God referred to the church organizations not to the people within those
churches.

It is very plain that God did not tell Joseph that all Christian theology is
an abomination, and that claim by Martin is also false!  Joseph was told that
the creeds of Christianity are an abomination, referring to the creeds adopted
by the Catholic Bishops and scholars during the middle ages, such as the
Nicean and Apostles Creeds.  Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ was
born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, gave his life as an atonement
for sin, and provided the resurrection for all. Those concepts are at the heart
of Mormonism!

Allen

One thing that bothers me as I read from Martin's book is his apparent
belief that things pertaining to Mormon history are straight forward and
clear cut, i.e. there are no gray areas.  I'm bothered by this, because in
matters pertaining to history, nothing is final, nothing is clear cut.  New
information is always being discovered by researchers, and many times that
information causes the scholars to change their perspective of things.

This attitude of Martin's is present in his discussion of Joseph Smith's
"first vision".  Martin first reviews the story of that vision as recorded
in the Pearl of Great Price.  Then he introduces the results of research by
a Reverend Wesley P. Walters about the date of the vision.  In Martin's mind,
Joseph had his date wrong, and therefore his story is a fabrication and is
fraudulent.  As far as Martin is concerned, the issue is clear-cut and
Joseph is a fraud.  Martin gives no information to support Walter's findings,
and he ignores the fact that not all historians agree with Walters.

    In his carefully researched publication, 'New Light On Mormon Origins
    From Palmyra, New York Revival', the Reverend Wesley P. Walters
    painstakingly demolishes in a scholarly and dispassionate manner Joseph's
    reliability as a historian and the attempts of Mormon mythmakers to repair
    the pieces of the Palmyra Humpty Dumpty.  Walters demonstrates that no
    revival such as Joseph Smith, Jr. described took place in 1820, according 
    to the records of the churches in that area.  However, what does emerge is
    fascinating.  The records of the Presbyterian Church in Palmyra reveal that
    there was indeed a revival in 1824, but that *no revival took place in
    1820*.  Far from being insignificant, the dating of the Palmyra revival is
    tremendously important to the whole fabric of Joseph Smith's story.
    According to Joseph, his "First Vision" occurred *after* the revival.
    However, since history tells us that the revival took place in 1824, Smith's
    *second* vision (which he says took place on September 21, 1823) would have
    had to precede the revival Joseph mentions.  In the "Second Vision," the
    angel Moroni communicated the miraculous message concerning the "golden
    plates" of what was to become 'The Book of Mormon'.  But since the true
    date of the revival was 1824-25, the veracity of the "Second Vision"
    collapses.  The dating of the Palmyra revival, then, is most important.
    Since it did not occur in 1820, Joseph could not have been asking God in
    1820 which church was right and which to join, and the entire "First
    Vision" becomes a fraudulent story. (MoM, pp. 27-28)

This question of the date of the first vision is being discussed in note 68.
I will briefly review the points of the discussion that I feel are important,
but those interested should read note 68 to pick up the details.

1.  It is clear from reading Joseph's description of the religious activity
    in his area as recorded in the P of GP, that the religious revivals were
    not confined to Palmyra but were taking place over a larger area.

2.  There is historical evidence that revivals were being held in that area
    in 1819 and 1820, and that churches in that area were showing increased
    memberships during the time that Joseph claimed to have had his vision.

3.  Far from being a clear-cut issue, as Martin would have us believe, our
    knowledge of the religious activity in Western New York during the time
    that Joseph Smith lived there is fuzzy and is in need of more research.

	I heard today on an Atlanta area Christian radio show that
        Mr. Walter Martin has just passed away.