EGW View of the Authority of the General Conference in Session

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob, a question:  Do you have and have you read, the Fred Veltman report on the use the EGW made of material from other sources in writing THE DESIRE OF AGES. To answer your question, I obtained a digital copy that was placed on the Internet some years ago.  I do not know if the GC still has it available and I do not know what other sources may have it available at this point in time.

 

For other people who may not know about this report.  The EGW White Estate commissioned Dr. Veltman to study the book THE DESIRE OFAGES,  to see the extent to which EGW might have copied from other sources in writing it.  The standard edition of THE DESIRE OF AGES  runs to 863 pages including the index.    The      main part runs to 835 pages.  Dr. Veltman's  work runs to about 2,000 pages.  It took him about eight (8) years to complete.

Bob, in your study of these issues  related to EGW, have you considered this work by Dr. Veltman.  In asking that question, I do not mean what others have said about his work.  I mean, have you actually seen and reviewed his work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[LifeHiscost]

 

 

For other people who may not know about this report.  The EGW White Estate commissioned Dr. Veltman to study the book THE DESIRE OFAGES,  to see the extent to which EGW might have copied from other sources in writing it.  The standard edition of THE DESIRE OF AGES  runs to 863 pages including the index.    The      main part runs to 835 pages.  Dr. Veltman's  work runs to about 2,000 pages.  It took him about eight (8) years to complete.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​At the time of Ellen White's calling by God, it was not illegal to take the ideas others expressed (plagiarism) and use them if they were true or false. Any intimation that Ellen White continued to use an untruthful idea in her writings is not an attack upon the writer, but a direct attack against God's choice of a spokesperson, an unenviable position in which to be in.

God is Love!  Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

As we are discussing the use, by Ellen White, of the writings of  other people, I note that no one has brought up the issue of SABBATH READINGS FOR THE HOME  CIRCLE.  This was a set of books, Vol. 2, of which was published in 1877.

 

For more on this and some comments by the White Estate see:   NOTE:  I have not stated everything about this series as I expect people who are interested in it to study it for themselves.

http://library.ellenwhite.org/content/file/sabbath-readings-home-circle-df-51-z?numFound=12443&collection=true&curr=1803&sqid=1848699482&f%5B0%5D=bundle%3Afiles#document

By the way, the above could be considered a response to the person who said: 

 

Ellen White's worst critics have yet to produce any examples of copying that go on for word after word, page after page.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Kevin H]

The issue with 1923 is are we going to accept Mrs. White on her terms, Stephen Haskell's terms or Elder Washburn's and Wilkinson's terms?

W.W. Prescott read a book on fundamentalism and began teaching it at Battle Creek. One who learned it from him was Stephen Haskell. A. G. Daniels was also a fundamentalist, as well as D. M. Canright. Mrs. White asked Elder Prescott to stop teaching and to work with her writings. She also invited Elder Daniels and Elder Canright. They were all shocked as to what she was teaching them about how inspiration worked. Elder Canright left Adventism and joined the Northern Baptists, which was the most extreme Fundamentalist church and we know about his attacks on Adventism. Both he and Elder Jones had no reason to leave Adventism except that they were fundamentalists and learned that Mrs. White's inspiration did not fit the fundamentalist's picture as to how inspiration worked and they choose Fundamentalism over Mrs. White.

Daniels and Prescott on the other hand accepted White over fundamentalism and gave up fundamentalism.

Stephen Haskell continued as a fundamentalist and I have read many letters between them where he was trying to teach Mrs. White how her visions worked and Mrs. White disagreeing with him and trying to teach him how her visions worked. Both were frustrated that they could not convince the other, however they stayed close friends.
 

I also read a number of letters between Mrs. White, Willie White and Elder Washburn, Elder Wilkinson, and I believe that there was an Elder Watson as well. These letters were very similar to each other. The White's accused them of massive quotes of Mrs. White but that they were not understanding her message and thus despite quoting her that they were actually spreading their message and using the Mrs. White quotes to force their views on others and picking her quotes that sound like she agrees with them. Besides their letters there was other information from their followers accusing Mrs. White of no longer believing that she is a prophet because she disagrees with her quotes that these Elders liked to quote. That her messages use to come from God but now come from others such as Prescott, Daniels and her son Willie. And that Adventists needed to trust these elders to get the messages of Mrs. White that came from God not the ones that come from those other people. They accused her testimonies against them as not coming from God but from those other people and that they were going to preach what she got from God and not worry about these message that she claims to have written but which actually expressed the views of these other people.

Wilkinson would compare Willie White with Samuel's sons.

In 1923 it was not merely throwing Elder Daniel's out of office. But in 1919 he was teaching that Fundamentalism will destroy the church and needed to be fought. Now Elder Spicer was considered almost as big a heretic as Daniels, however he was a fundamentalist towards the Bible. He believed in two types of inspiration; Fundamentalism for the Bible and non-fundamentalism for Mrs. White. But unlike Elder Daniels who said that fundamentalism would destroy the church, Spicer would keep his heresy to himself and if our members wanted to be fundamentalists he would not oppose them like Daniels did.

 

Most people joined Haskell in his views of inspiration. A sizeable minority joined with Washburn and Wilkinson. Daniels was thrown out of office, Prescott was demoted. Willie White got to keep his job but it was stripped of all authority (basically he was fired but allowed to come daily to his office and get his paycheck). The religion facility of Washington Missionary College had worked closely with Mrs. White in how inspiration worked and taught what she taught them. They were thrown out and there were witch hunts for the non-fundamentalists to throw them out or limit their influence.

If we followed God in 1919/1923 we would have not have dealt with the Desmond Ford crisis, the Walter Rea crisis or have this issue with women's ordination; and we would have been much more advanced in our knowledge of the Bible. We have suffered for the General Conference in session rejecting what Mrs. White had been teaching and to instead accept a view of inspiration that came from Babylon. But there are too many in the church who feel that 1923 did not go far enough, or that Haskell's views were too moderate and need to get the Washburn and Wilkinson view.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Kevin H

[Pickle]

Bob, a question:  Do you have and have you read, the Fred Veltman report on the use the EGW made of material from other sources in writing THE DESIRE OF AGES. To answer your question, I obtained a digital copy that was placed on the Internet some years ago.  I do not know if the GC still has it available and I do not know what other sources may have it available at this point in time.

 

For other people who may not know about this report.  The EGW White Estate commissioned Dr. Veltman to study the book THE DESIRE OFAGES,  to see the extent to which EGW might have copied from other sources in writing it.  The standard edition of THE DESIRE OF AGES  runs to 863 pages including the index.    The      main part runs to 835 pages.  Dr. Veltman's  work runs to about 2,000 pages.  It took him about eight (8) years to complete.

Bob, in your study of these issues  related to EGW, have you considered this work by Dr. Veltman.  In asking that question, I do not mean what others have said about his work.  I mean, have you actually seen and reviewed his work?

​I have gone through a lot of material about copying, but have not analyzed Veltman's work.

However, I can give an example where this sort of thing can be helpful. Recall where DA says that Christ had within Him unborrowed and underived life. Long before the Baptist commentator John Gill said the same, and he believed was both in the Trinity and that Christ was the begotten Son of God. Thus I feel that Ellen White's words in DA have been misunderstood in recent times.

 

Gregory, I didn't understand why you brought up Veltman until I read your later comment. To be specific, I think it was in Sydney Cleveland's book that he provides supposed examples of Ellen White copying from Conybeare and Howson, and yet Cleveland couldn't come up with word for word, page after page. Unless you have an example from LP that Veltman gives, Daniells was just plain wrong. I have LP, and I have Conybeare and Howson, and the I can't find word for word, page after page, not being able to tell the difference between the two like Daniells claimed.

Think it at all possible that Daniells meant word for word for an average of 6 words in a row, at least once or twice on a page, for 5 pages in a row? That's not the impression I got when I read his statement about word for word, page after page

Edited June 10, 2015 by Pickle

[Pickle]

The issue with 1923 is are we going to accept Mrs. White on her terms, Stephen Haskell's terms or Elder Washburn's and Wilkinson's terms?

W.W. Prescott read a book on fundamentalism and began teaching it at Battle Creek.

​Kevin, I believe some of our scholars maintain that Daniells was pro-fundamentalism too.

A Catholic priest in What Else Would You Like to Know About the Church said that Seventh-day Adventists are the most fundamental of all the fundamentalist sects, holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I guess they felt that way since we keep the Sabbath instead of Sunday, because the Bible says to do that.

My problem with Daniells and Prescott's statements at the 1919 Bible Conf. is that they were just plain wrong in some of what they said. Daniells said there was going to be legal trouble over LP. How could there ever have been? Prescott said that the 1888 GC taught that the Catholic Church wasn't Babylon. No it doesn't. It simply says that the 2nd angel's message about a fall can't be referring to Rome while other parts of the book make it plain that Babylon includes Rome.

[Gregory Matthews]

Veltman's work is probably the gold standard on this issue.  To speak authoratively on this subject, one is just about required to have read it. And, as far as speculating as to what it says, that just does not work.

Case in point:  If Bob was aware of it, he would not have made the following statement:

 

 

Gregory, I didn't understand why you brought up Veltman until I read your later comment. To be specific, I think it was in Sydney Cleveland's book that he provides supposed examples of Ellen White copying from Conybeare and Howson, and yet Cleveland couldn't come up with word for word, page after page. Unless you have an example from LP that Veltman gives, Daniells was just plain wrong. I have LP, and I have Conybeare and Howson, and the I can't find word for word, page after page, not being able to tell the difference between the two like Daniells claimed.

Think it at all possible that Daniells meant word for word for an average of 6 words in a row, at least once or twice on a page, for 5 pages in a row? That's not the impression I got when I read his statement about word for word, page after page.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Kevin H]

What Prescott was pointing out was a miswriting in the 1888 GC. Mrs. White wrote that the Babylon was not the Roman Catholic Church. Prescott knew that was not what she meant so he suggested to her to add the word "Only" (or alone or something like that)  at the end of the sentence. which she agreed to.

Especially after 1923 fundamentalism grabbed our church and we have had a neurotic need to prove to the world that we are good Baptists. But the Walter Rea crisis helped to move a more away from Fundamentalism.

Now the Adventist Theological Society is more fundamentalist, and besides meeting with the Society of Biblical literature, there is another more conservative society they also meet with and participate with. However among that group they are seen as the liberals and not nearly as fundamentalist as the others. And even they are not as Fundamentalists as the Northern Baptists were when Elder Canright joined them. Too much evidence that they were too extreme that even the Fundamentalists had to modify.

Daniels was a reformed fundamentalists and being a Bible believer we are living in a culture where it is hard to tell how much Fundamentalism still has a hold of us even as we try to stay away from it.

[Pickle]

Veltman's work is probably the gold standard on this issue.  To speak authoratively on this subject, one is just about required to have read it. And, as far as speculating as to what it says, that just does not work.

Case in point:  If Bob was aware of it, he would not have made the following statement:

​Gregory,

Veltman's work concerned DA, as you stated. What bearing would that have on Daniells' statement about LP? I'm not following you.

[Pickle]

What Prescott was pointing out was a miswriting in the 1888 GC. Mrs. White wrote that the Babylon was not the Roman Catholic Church.

​But the 1888 GC nowhere says that Babylon was not the Roman Catholic Church. Read p. 382-383 and you will see that what I am saying is correct. The sentence in question says: "Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries." It plainly is saying that the message of Rev. 14:8 does not refer to the Romish Church. It does not say that Babylon is not the Romish Church.

And thus Prescott misspoke.

Especially after 1923 fundamentalism grabbed our church and we have had a neurotic need to prove to the world that we are good Baptists. But the Walter Rea crisis helped to move a more away from Fundamentalism.

​Walter Rea. That's the guy who in The White Lie lamented the fact that Adventist schools taught creation, right? He's the guy who tried to convince me that Lot's wife never turned into a pillar of salt. He's the one who told me that Abraham was never told by God to offer up Isaac, and that the Israelites were never told to slay the Canaanites.

Daniels was a reformed fundamentalists and being a Bible believer we are living in a culture where it is hard to tell how much Fundamentalism still has a hold of us even as we try to stay away from it.

​Again, according to the Catholic priest who wrote the book I cited, Adventism is the most fundamental of all the fundamentalist sects.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob, my intent has been to address the general issues of EGW using material that came, at least in part (sometimes in the whole) form others.  My intent has not been to address comments made by Daniels, or other people.

Veltman's work only deals  with THE DESIRE OF AGES.  I consider it to be the  "Gold Standard" for the following reasons.

1) Veltman establishes and defines a number of levels of copying.  These range from exact word for word to a very loose association of an idea.  AS you would be the first to correctly say, there is a big difference form a word for word copy and a very loose idea.

2) When Veltman states that an EGW passage was copied, on some stated level, he quotes the source, so one is able to evaluate Veltman's opinion.

3) Veltman  gives a numerical value as to the amount of material that he believes was copied, on some level, form other sources in THE DESIRE OF AGES.

4) Veltman gives a numerical value for what he believes in the average level of copying that EGW did in THE DESIERE OF AGES.

5) While other books by EGW may have different amounts of copied material, a knowledge as to how EGW used copied material in THE DESIRE OF AGES, is instructive as to how she might have used such in her other books.

6) I believe that Veltman's work establishes a factual basis for understanding EGW, her work and ministry as well as the production of her written materials.    In establishing the factual basis, is rebuts what both her critics and her defenders have said that is not factual.  It provides people a context in which to decide how they want to relate to EGW and her role in the denomination.

You will note that I have made few statements as to the specifics of the conclusions that Veltman made.  That reason is simple:

1) I would prefer that others evaluate his work for themselves and not simply accept what I say about it.  I am not the authority on which people should base truth.

2) It has been a number of years since I reviewed his work.  My memory cannot be depended on to remember every detail exactly.  I do not want to say that Veltman stated that EGW copied X per-cent of DA when in fact he says that she copied Y per-cent.

 3) When one makes a reference to what another has written, I think it is always better to check it out with he source.  People, I believe, in CA often take what another has said out of context.  I do not ant to do that.  So, go to the source.  See fror yourself what Veltman said.

By the way, Bob, I appreciate the overall tone in which you are engaging in this discussion.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Pickle]

A. G. Daniells: Yes; and now take that "Life of Paul,"—I suppose you all know about it and know what claims were put up against her, charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors of the book, Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into "The Life of Paul" without any credit or quotation marks. Some people of strict logic might fly the track on that ground, but I am not built that way. I found it out, and I read it with Brother Palmer when he found it, and we got Conybeare and Howson, and we got Wylie's "History of the Reformation," and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them.—"Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible," Aug. 1, 1919, pp. 17, 18.

This is one of passages in the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes that I take exception to, which has made me question the minutes' authenticity, since I wouldn't expect Daniells to make such glaringly false statements.

• Conybeare and Howson's book wasn't a copyrighted book in the U.S.
• There is no evidence of any threatened lawsuit.
• The earliest extant report of such legal trouble is in a 1919 book by Canright, according to F.D. Nichol's research.
• Daniells in these very same minutes raised questions about the holding-a-heavy-Bible-in-vision accounts, even though documentation for these was in Loughborough's Great Second Advent Movement, which had been in print since 1905. Why in the world would he unquestionably believe an impossible recent claim by an apostate, and disbelieve non-recent documentation compiled by a faithful Seventh-day Adventist and published by a denominational press? It doesn't make sense.
• Daniells claimed that when comparing LP with Conybeare and Howson, he found word for word, page after page the same, which is simply not true.

[Kevin H]

Yes, Walter Rea who's thinking got all messed up because he wanted the Bible and Mrs. White to fit nicely into his presuppositions of how inspiration was supposed to work and was all frustrated because the Bible and Mrs. White did not meet his expectations. Instead of yielding his expectations to the standard presented in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, he threw them out because they did not fit the views he followed which was presented in the Philadelphia 1919 Bible Conference and the 1923 General Conference. If we made a different choice in the 1923 General Conference, either he would not have gotten so confused and taken down so many people with him. Or he would not have been a part of us and life would have moved on with out his attacks.

[Stan]

Other would say he did that because he had been just terminated from the Southern California Conference and was doing this for revenge.

[Johann]

I also read a number of letters between Mrs. White, Willie White and Elder Washburn, Elder Wilkinson, and I believe that there was an Elder Watson as well. These letters were very similar to each other. The White's accused them of massive quotes of Mrs. White but that they were not understanding her message and thus despite quoting her that they were actually spreading their message and using the Mrs. White quotes to force their views on others and picking her quotes that sound like she agrees with them. Besides their letters there was other information from their followers accusing Mrs. White of no longer believing that she is a prophet because she disagrees with her quotes that these Elders liked to quote.

​I fear that this method of reading Ellen Whie still persists.

[Kevin H]

I noticed that the people who got these letters from Mrs. White tended to be very popular and are the ones sited in footnotes in publications from some of our more conservative groups.

[Unchained]

For those of you who are interested in the issue of literary dependency in the writings of Ellen White I highly recommend this site: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html

The fact is that the alleged "borrowing" that Ellen White did is blown out of all proportions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes,  that work presents a numbr of typeical flaws that a re present in some evaulations.

The fact that Veltman understood those and generally did not make those errors is one of the reasons why his 2,000 pages is the "gold standard," although there are other reasons.