The Kingdom of the Cults

Rating:
Summary: Powerfully Researched, Updated Analysis
Review: Anyone engaged in something more than a casual interest in apologetics will discover an incredible value in Walter Martin's classic "The Kingdom of the Cults." This updated edition is similar in structure as earlier editions, but fairly acknowledges major changes in theology and activity in various religious groups. Intended for the thinking Christian and the open-minded nonChristian, Martin's book has continually challenged people to rely on Scripture for their theology.

This is an unusual book in that it is neither an evangelical or fundamentalism critique of those who disagree, but a deeper look at the histories, documents, arguments at groups in opposition to orthodoxy. I first read this skeptically, but was impressed by the immense research by Martin and his team of editors.

There is a dual functionality to "The Kingdom of the Cults." Not only does it explain the distinctives of groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses and the Church of the Latter Day Saints, but in doing so, it teaches Scriptural fundamentals of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and provides direction for testing our own faith with the Bible. Martin's exposure of what the groups themselves are claiming will disturb many within the group as they discover the truth. He is quick to grant the strengths of a group, but points them to Scripture to make their own comparisons (as opposed to relying on Martin's views). He prefers the reader to think for himself, not content to depend on his book, or any other book but the Bible. This balance is rare in Christian literature, and a value in reading "The Kingdom of the Cults."

Martin provides a meaty analysis of all the major groups, as well as primary lines of thought within Protestant perspectives, and Roman Catholicism. Beyond specific groups, there is plenty of coverage of the general critical analysis on topics like mind control, apocalyptic cults, the impact of cults on the mission field, Eastern religions, and language and psychological issues.

He is sure to point out a group's popularity (like the fast growing LDS and Islam sects) doesn't make it truth, truth is not democratic.

Martin is bold to use the groups' own literature rather than hearsay, to prove his points. This has stirred controversy among those such as Muslim students, LDS laity and JW leadership who have not known of the difficult history of their church. He leaves room for the vagaries often existing when dependent on secondary sources.

This edition includes substantial portions of the refutations and other dialogues, providing the reader an idea of the response from the cult's leadership. Sadly, it shows that though the book is quickly disputed, none take Martin to task. In many cases, they agree, but are uncomfortable at the label 'cult.'

The bibliography is 27 pp strong, organized by topic and group. This is in addition to the 12-page Scripture Index.

"The Kingdom of the Cults" includes an appendix of several groups. For example, the Worldwide Church of God's full acceptance of the Trinity is explained, as well as the foundation for this significant move in their theology.

"The Kingdom of the Cults" also criticizes the Word of Faith movement. It is careful to show what this movement believes, and how it is not simply Pentecostalism under another name. "The Kingdom of the Cults" emphasizes "there are many sincere, born again believers within the movement" (Hank Hanagraaff).

I recommend "The Kingdom of the Cults" enthusiastically. Buy it, and read it contemplatively and compassionately as you discover what your neighbor might believe.

Anthony Trendl

Rating:
Summary: Top-notch Biblical Scholarship and Discernment
Review: As one reviewer already mentioned, those who argue that Dr. Martin had anything derogatory in mind when he called his book Kingdom of the Cults, in reference to his study of various religions, have either purposely disregarded Dr. Martin's own direct statements in the book, or simply didn't read the book carefully. Despite false allegations about Dr. Martin's doctorate ("degree mill") education and other unsubstantiated assertions about people "lambasting" him for "inaccuracies," the Kingdom of the Cults remains a perennial classic in its field.

What Dr. Martin attempted to do, as he clearly stated, was to evaluate various belief systems as they compared with the doctrines of the historic Christian faith. All the cults, and many major religions like Islam, deny certain historic Christian doctrines: The trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. With scholarly information and exhaustive documentation using mainly primary source material, Dr. Martin evaluates, in about 20 chapters, religious traditions from The Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, and Spiritism, to Islam, Seventh-day Adventism, and Unitarianism, to name a few. It should be noted that although Dr. Martin includes the Adventists in his book, he clearly says that he does not consider them to be a cult religious system outside of orthodoxy, but a Christian sect with some heterodox beliefs, such as soul sleep and soul annihilation.

Since the exhaustive nature of this book and limited review space does not permit a review that does justice to Dr. Martin's work, I will only give a few examples of how he evaluated some religious teachings in comparison to historic, orthodox doctrine, focusing on how Dr. Martin contrasted the Jesus of orthodoxy with the "Jesus" of the cults.

Explaining Jehovah's Witness doctrine using their own works in context, Dr. Martin wrote: "For Jehovah's Witnesses, their Jesus is an angel who became a man. He is a god, but he is not God the Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity" (p. 379). Earlier in the book, Dr. Martin demonstrated how the Watchtower Society purposely mistranslated John 1:1 so that Jesus becomes "a god" instead of God, which is pointed out as simply bad Greek grammar and exegesis (pp. 85, 86).

Quoting Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, from her "Science and Health" book, Dr. Martin demonstrates that her "Jesus" is also an unorthodox one: "The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist. Thus he virtually unites with the Jew's belief in one God, and recognizes that Jesus Christ is no God as Jesus Christ Himself declared, but is the Son of God..." (p. 378).

Dr. Martin also demonstrated from primary sources that Mrs. Eddy plagiarised from many sources to produce her "Science and Health" book. The plagiarism is obvious when you see it as it reads in Dr. Martin's book in parallel columns, as it was reproduced prior to his book in the New York Times of July 10, 1904. This was not something Dr. Martin invented, but a fact publicized in a well-known newspaper prior to his work.

Furthermore, by taking Dr. Martin out of context, one reviewer gave the false impression that he falsely attributed to the Christian Scientists the idea that they do not accept the inspiration and authority of the Bible. However, what that reviewer did not quote, conveniently, was this, "Christian Science, as a theology, and all Christian Scientists, for that matter, both affirm that the Bible is God's Word and quote Mrs. Eddy to 'prove' that their whole religion is based upon the teachings of Scripture. Mrs. Eddy said: The Bible has been my only authority. I have had no other guide in 'the straight and narrow way' of Truth (Science and Health, p. 126)." (p. 143). Then Dr. Martin went on to say, with documentation, that, "To the average Christisn Scientist the Bible is a compilation of ancient writings 'full of hundreds of thousands of textual errors...its divinity is...uncertain, its inspiration...questionable...It is made up of metaphors, allegories, myths and fables...It cannot be read and interpreted literally...'" (p. 144).

And finally, Dr. Martin deals with the Mormon view of Jesus from their own literature, which he quotes as saying, "Each of these gods, including Jesus Christ and his Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious body of flesh and bones..." (p. 380).

Dr. Martin then goes on to further explain their position by stating, "...in fact, the Mormons have a full pantheon of gods. Jesus, who before His incarnation was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, was also a polygamist, the husband of the Marys and Martha, who was rewarded for his faithfulness by becoming the ruler of this earth" (p. 380).

The sad fact is, most who criticize Dr. Martin's work either have not really read the book, have not thoroughly researched behind his information, or simply are not really qualified to make sweeping charges of "pseudo-scholarship" and so forth that they make in classic ad hominem style. Apparently those who are within the cults Dr. Martin exposes are bothered by the facts. But it is one thing to disagree with someone by emotional attachment, which is understandable, but it is another thing to prove he is inaccurate or misleading, which no reviewer here, and no one else of credible scholarship to my knowledge, has been able to do. The only one that even pretended to come close to proving Dr. Martin wrong on a point actually misrepresented him so badly that it becomes all too obvious that ulterior motives, not a quest for truth and honesty, are at work.

If you want a comprehensive, scholarly guide to help you discern the difference between the historic Christian faith and other religious systems (especially those using the name "Christian"), then this is the definitive work you need in your reading and reference library, especially the updated version. Buy it, read it with an open mind, and know the truth.

(This review is of the Bethany House expanded and revised edition, 1985)

Rating:
Summary: Jesus Christ, which one?
Review: Bottom line, if you have a distorted view of who Jesus Christ is you are lost. Those are not my words, they are his words. So I will call Jesus Christ the most narrow-minded person in history because he said: (I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6)

Most people will admit that we are sinners by nature and Jesus Christ is the only religious leader that says he takes away sin. Not Buddha or anyone else, so without Jesus Christ you will die in your sins.(John 8:24)

As Christians it's our job to point out errors that are made by groups or people that call them self Christians, with love and respect.

Find out what the bible has to say about Jesus, don't listen to what man have to say about who Jesus Christ is, I think that's Dr. Martin's intentions, (heads-up). Read God's word, and not a twisted view of what someone says the bible means. God is faithful to help you understand Him and his word. Deception is all around us, so be careful.

With Love,
Chip

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: If only there were a "0 Star Review" option!
Review: For the sake of honesty, I will start by disclosing the fact that the only section of "The Kingdom of the Cults" which I have read is the section treat--or, rather, mistreating--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (popularly called "Mormonism," "The Mormon Church," etc.). But, if I may say so, a study of this section alone was enough to reveal how grossly inaccurate and poorly researched this book is.

I will indicate but three random examples, in the interest of brevity.

(1) The non-existent "first draft" of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript. Like so many anti-mormons before him, Walter Martin jumps on the Spaulding Manuscript bandwagon, suggesting that Joseph Smith gathered ideas and concepts for the Book of Mormon out of some "first draft" of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript. Unfortunately, for the anti-mormon crowd (Martin included), this alleged "first draft" has never been discovered. What's more, no one, not even the most "scholarly" anti-mormons to date have been able to suggest how such a first draft of the manuscript might have come into the possession of Joseph Smith, even assuming it existed.

(2) The very old "no horses before Columbus" argument (which even Parley P. Pratt shot down in his day). Martin seeks to refute the Book of Mormon on the grounds that there were no horses in America prior the the disembarkment of Columbus and his men on the continent. This argument, however, is pathetically frail. In a famous excavation in Mayapan, Yucatan, bones were discovered, and soon positively identified as being horse bones. The archaeologist determined them to be of pre-Columbian origin. The bones were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization." (See, Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 [1957]:278. See also, Pollock and Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957) 638 (Carnegie Inst. Washington, DC, Dept of Archaeology).

(3) Vilifying the Smith family. Martin endeavors to tarnish the image of the Smith family, stating--quite incorrectly--that, "There exists no contemporary pro Mormon statements from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately". In other words, he asserts that anyone closely familiar with the Smith family had nothing positive to say concerning them. This is shown to be false in that numerous contemporary pro-Mormon statements were made by those who knew the Smith family, even their non-Mormon associates!

Orlando Saunders, a neighbor of the Smiths, once told an interviewer that the Smiths "...were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were . . . . He was always a gentleman when about my place." (See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," Brigham Young University Studies 10 (Spring 1970); p. 309.)

A Mrs. Palmer, who lived near the Smiths as a girl, said that the Smith family "was one of the best in that locality--honest, religious and industrious, but poor. The father of the family was above the average in intelligence. I have heard my parents say that he bore the appearance of having descended from royalty. . . . My Father loved young Joseph Smith and often hired him to work with his boys. I remember going into the field on an afternoon to play in the corn rows while my brothers worked. When evening came, I was too tired to walk home and cried because my brothers refused to carry me. Joseph lifted me to his shoulder, and with his arm thrown across my feet to steady me, and my arm about his neck, he carried me to our home." (See Hyrum Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, 1974, pp. 1-2.)

On the whole, Walter Martin's Mormon-bashing section has about as much credibility as an article in the tabloid newspapers at your grocery check-out stand.

Rating:
Summary: If only there were a "0 Star Review" option!
Review: For the sake of honesty, I will start by disclosing the fact that the only section of "The Kingdom of the Cults" which I have read is the section treat--or, rather, mistreating--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (popularly called "Mormonism," "The Mormon Church," etc.). But, if I may say so, a study of this section alone was enough to reveal how grossly inaccurate and poorly researched this book is.

I will indicate but three random examples, in the interest of brevity.

(1) The non-existent "first draft" of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript. Like so many anti-mormons before him, Walter Martin jumps on the Spaulding Manuscript bandwagon, suggesting that Joseph Smith gathered ideas and concepts for the Book of Mormon out of some "first draft" of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript. Unfortunately, for the anti-mormon crowd (Martin included), this alleged "first draft" has never been discovered. What's more, no one, not even the most "scholarly" anti-mormons to date have been able to suggest how such a first draft of the manuscript might have come into the possession of Joseph Smith, even assuming it existed.

(2) The very old "no horses before Columbus" argument (which even Parley P. Pratt shot down in his day). Martin seeks to refute the Book of Mormon on the grounds that there were no horses in America prior the the disembarkment of Columbus and his men on the continent. This argument, however, is pathetically frail. In a famous excavation in Mayapan, Yucatan, bones were discovered, and soon positively identified as being horse bones. The archaeologist determined them to be of pre-Columbian origin. The bones were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization." (See, Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 [1957]:278. See also, Pollock and Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957) 638 (Carnegie Inst. Washington, DC, Dept of Archaeology).

(3) Vilifying the Smith family. Martin endeavors to tarnish the image of the Smith family, stating--quite incorrectly--that, "There exists no contemporary pro Mormon statements from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately". In other words, he asserts that anyone closely familiar with the Smith family had nothing positive to say concerning them. This is shown to be false in that numerous contemporary pro-Mormon statements were made by those who knew the Smith family, even their non-Mormon associates!

Orlando Saunders, a neighbor of the Smiths, once told an interviewer that the Smiths "...were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were . . . . He was always a gentleman when about my place." (See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," Brigham Young University Studies 10 (Spring 1970); p. 309.)

A Mrs. Palmer, who lived near the Smiths as a girl, said that the Smith family "was one of the best in that locality--honest, religious and industrious, but poor. The father of the family was above the average in intelligence. I have heard my parents say that he bore the appearance of having descended from royalty. . . . My Father loved young Joseph Smith and often hired him to work with his boys. I remember going into the field on an afternoon to play in the corn rows while my brothers worked. When evening came, I was too tired to walk home and cried because my brothers refused to carry me. Joseph lifted me to his shoulder, and with his arm thrown across my feet to steady me, and my arm about his neck, he carried me to our home." (See Hyrum Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, 1974, pp. 1-2.)

On the whole, Walter Martin's Mormon-bashing section has about as much credibility as an article in the tabloid newspapers at your grocery check-out stand.

Rating:
Summary: Less than correct?
Review: I have a very good friend who is LDS with whom I discuss his religion often. He seemed a little concerned when I told him another friend had loaned me a copy of Kingdom of the Cults. I understand why. After reading the section on Mormonism in Mr. Martin's book, I asked my friend if he had any of the LDS books which were used as references by Mr. Martin. He lended me the ones he had, and after a few days of study, I discovered that many of the references did, in fact, NOT exsist. Those that did, appeared to have been quoted inacurately or had words transposed which changed the meaning of the original statement considerably. As a result, I would not consider this book a good source of factual information about Mormonism.

Rating:
Summary: Christianity is a cult
Review: I have found that this highly regarded book (within the Christian community) is completely false with regards to the TRUE definition of what a cult really is. It fails to expose the most controlling and destructive cult in the history of the world - Christianity itself. This book takes great pains to examine those whom it considers to be a cult, yet what it SHOULD have done is examine itself with its own great perception. But it cannot and will never do so. This is the very reason why it avoids explaining the true identifying marks of what makes a cult a cult. If it did this it would condemn itself in the process.

Study Lifton's "Criteria for Thought Reform", Margaret Singer's "Conditions for Mind Control", Steven Hassan's "The BITE Model", Kevin Crawley's "A Behavioral Definition (of 'cult')", Jan Groenveld's "Identifying a Cult", or Jeff Jacobsen's "Academic Research into Cults" (all standard works) and you will see what makes a cult a cult is NOT what they believe nor their doctrinal deviations from "orthodox" Christianity, but because of ITS BEHAVIOR and STRUCTURE. You will never learn this from ANY Christian source, because Christianity, with few exceptions, has an elitist view of itself in relation to all other beliefs and religions and views itself as having a unique cause, i.e., they are the only ones who are right - everyone else is wrong. They are the only ones doing God's will - everyone else is in apostacy. Christianity also promotes its cause actively, and in doing so, abuses the God-given personal rights and freedoms of others. This abuse can be theological, spiritual, social, and/or psychological. This is proven by the history of the Christian church and especially the tens of thousands of people who are leaving Christianity every year because of its abusive, cult behavior. No other religion in the history of the world has cause so much bloodshed, tears, fear, pain and condemnation as Christianity.

It is for this reason this book has had to create its own new definition of what a cult is and how to identify it, because if it took the standard, universal definitions it would expose itself and it own behavior.

Do the research from non-Christian sources (of which I sited above) with an unbiased, teachable heart and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

I recommend to any searching Christians to read the books of those sited above and such websites as Tentmaker and bible-truths dot com if you desire to still follow Christ and to be free from the control that traditional Christianity brings to mankind.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Selling Book In The World!!
Review: I havn't read 'The Kingdom of The Cults' yet, but I'm certainly going too. Taking the Bible literally is a very wise thing to do, considering that it the Word of God and it has stood for over 2,000 years and that it is still standing. Why wouldn't I want to know the history and doctrine of other religions? I recently read the history and beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses and I am appalled that people would follow a system built on lies and false prophesy and think that they are right in doing so. The JW's have twisted the Holy Scripture so that they could brain-wash people who don't know the Word of God into believing that they can't study the Bible for themselves, but have to have it explained to them through the Watchtower by the elders in the Kingdom Hall. Their teaching is still lies and false doctrine and they refuse to believe what is right and true. I can't wait to read this book, along with the Bible. In these last and evil days, no one needs to be misled by a cult, but saved by the revelent Word of God.

Rating:
Summary: Thanks for the reviews
Review: I would just like to say that based on the many reviews this book has gotten, both for and against, I will not be reading it. I can already tell by what other reviewers have written (even among some of those who defend the book) that this book is full of incorrect information, and perhaps even downright lies. I was hoping to find an unbiased, factual look at the various faiths that exist in the world, but I can tell just based on the reviews that this is not that type of book.

Rating:
Summary: Thoroughly Engrossing
Review: Let's keep one thing straight: 'Kingdom of the Cults' was written by a biblical scholar, from the point of view of a fundamentalist Christian. If you don't care for a world view centered on the core beliefs of Christianity, you will abhor (and probably refuse even to read) this book. If, however, you are a Christian thoroughly versed in scripture, or especially a Christian only beginning to be familiar with the Bible (and wanting to clearly understand the differences between Christianity and the other major world religions and quasi-'Christian' sects), or simply curious about Christianity (without an axe to grind), you will find this book totally engrossing. The book is organized on a chapter by chapter basis, with each chapter centered on a particular world religion or cult. Thus, the reader can choose a particular religion or cult (such as Hinduism or Christian Science, among many others), and delve immediately into this author's insights on the underlying doctrines of each. Somewhat suprisingly (because it is so "Non-PC"), the author considers the three other major world religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam) to be "cults." Even more suprisingly, the author patiently and thoroughly explores the doctrines undergirding these other epistemologies and compares them with Christian doctrine in a measured, methodical, and non-hysterical manner. The author thoroughly explains why these doctrines have failed in the past - and are currently failing - both in theory and practice. There is no "moral relativism" or "tolerance" in this approach. From the perspective of Christian theology, the author illustrates why those who are earnest members of any one of the Kingdom of the Cults face certain eternal damnation. The book then, is a hard-nosed (and by virtue of this approach, fascinating) study of Biblical doctrine seen through comparison with the other major religious doctrines of the world. Those who are tired of fence-sitting, limp-wristed, warm and fuzzy expositions of "feel good" Christian doctrine will find this work arresting and engrossing. Others, who are simply trying to understand why Christians believe what they believe, get a no-holds-barred explanation. Kingdom of the Cults could have been leavened with a dash more charity but the author's emphasis is on scholarship, not proselytizing. And, as noted above, the author directs this work to a Christian audience.