Ellen White-plagiarism proves she is a TRUE prophet??

[Guest truthseeker007]

My brains are often wrestling with the thought, why did an inspired prophetess of God need to plagiarise other books? We know that Ellen red a lot of books, and unsciously i am asking our heavenly monarch of the galaxies why did he send us a prophetess with questionable credibility for such an important message as the 3 angels message?

Then this thought came into my mind. Jesus often memmorised scripture, i believe with the holy spirit since the holy spirit makes people speak the right thing. I believe that Ellen White red a lot of stuff, but when she wrote her books she was maybe not aware of the fact that she plagiarised. Maybe it was actually the holy spirit who made her remember the right things she had ever red at the right moment. So maybe the holy spirit helped her to remember things so she could write them down.

This is unfortunately a theory which can never be tested. I am wondering, are there no witnesses who saw Ellen write her books?

What do you think of my theory, and do you believe she conciously plagiarised?

[Woody]

Her plagiarism demonstrates that there are many 'authorities of truth'. I appreciate that she used other sources. I find no fault in that. God obviously approved of it.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Yes but do you also believe that she conciously used those books or that the holy spirit made her memorise those books?that s the question i would like to have answered...

[Woody]

My opinion is that the Holy Spirit impressed her to use her thoughts which she had probably received from reading those authors.

The other option is that the Holy Spirit impressed both authors ... Ellen White and the ones she plagiarized. There can be many 'authorities of truth'.

[John317]

As you probably know, I believe without question that Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God. But the idea that she copied the material or used it without realizing that the words were from those other sources doesn't explain the data.

It may explain a small amount of the "copying," but it certainly doesn't explain the vast majority of it. Why not? Because of the way it appears in her books.

The question of Ellen White's "plagiarism" has been dealt with many times. SDA were aware of her using other sources as far back as the 1870s and 80s. It was not something that Ellen White was hiding. She often recommended the very books that she was using. These were books in her library. She sometimes explained why she used those sources. See, for instance, the Introduction to GC xii.

Attorneys who specialize in plagiarism have looked carefully at the historical and legal background of the charges that some have leveled against Ellen White, and they've concluded that Ellen White did nothing either illegal or immoral by the standard of her day. You may have seen some of the statements made by these expects in the law.

Ellen White didn't merely "copy" the sources she used but she made substantial changes in order to be in harmony with what she had been shown.

For instance, in her books on health, Ellen White often used the writings of others, but she selected them in accordance with what God had shown her in her health visions. The same applies with her book, The Great Controversy.

Another important point to consider is the fact that Bible writers did not do anything differently than Ellen White. Jeremiah was assisted by his secretary, Baruch, and the Gospel writers copied from one another.

For me the bottom line is that, as Redwood said, the Holy Spirit guided Ellen White in the choice of the material and in the writing.

[Taylor]

Right on.

[Gail]

Thanks, John317- I was going to say the same thing, that Ellen White did not break any law of her day concerning the use of other sources.

[Gail]

It seems to be that it would have been a HUGE task just figuring out which parts to use and which not.

[djconklin]

That would be the point that the critics cannot deal with.

---

I have worked on this subject for 6 years now and have learned a lot along the way. My bibliography on the subject has over 580 items in it: http://www.adventists4truth.com/bibliography.pdf.

I have a number of ebooks on it where I show the evidence: http://www.adventists4truth.com/ebooks.html.

In 1988 Dr. Veltman told us what kind of study needed to be done to prove, or disprove if Ellen G. White was a plagiarist. To the ebst of my knowledge I am the first and only one to have done such a study and that study will be published shortly in a scholarly, refereed journal:

Analyzing Alleged Plagiarism in Nineteenth-Century Literature: A Case Study of Ellen G. White’s The Desire of Ages

David J. Conklin, Jerry Moon, and Kevin Morgan

Plagiary 2008 3(5): 1-29 (25 July 2008)

Abstract

This paper proposes a method of determining whether the literary practice of a nineteenth-century author exceeded the generally accepted norms of literary borrowing for that same period of writing. The method takes as its case study one chapter from Ellen G. White’s Desire of Ages which, of all her works, has received the most extensive investigation regarding alleged plagiarism, and compares it to the corresponding chapters of 47 other works of the same genre and century, using the computerized literary tool WCopyfind to locate parallel phrases between the various works. These parallels are then evaluated for strength and frequency. Study results indicate that un-attributed borrowing of phraseology was rather common, and even considered to be more acceptable among the nineteenth-century authors of this genre than would be acceptable in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The minimal borrowing by Ellen G. White in this chapter was within the acceptable standards of that era.

found at http://www.plagiary.org/papers_and_perspectives.htm

Your personal copy can be purchased for $29.50 at http://www.plagiary.org/subscribe.htm

One can use this subject as an indicator: when the critics have been proven to be so wrong on such a simple point why whould we believe them on anything else?

[LifeHiscost]

plagiarised?

Plagiarism, as used in recent vintage, is the name of law made by man to protect those who want any return for an intellectual discovery to accumulate only to them, indicative of the natural tendency of man to hoard selfishly anything derived as a result of gifts originally given them by God for the benefit of mankind.

"That which has been is that which will be,and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 NASB

We can be extremely grateful Jesus placed no such restriction on the dissemination of the gospel. And any law that is put into practice for that purpose, both to restrict the message or the messenger, comes from a source not destined to survive the coming of Christ

Regards!

[djconklin]

Quote:

Plagiarism, as used in recent vintage, is the name of law made by man to protect those who want any return for an intellectual discovery to accumulate only to them, indicative of the natural tendency of man to hoard selfishly anything derived as a result of gifts originally given them by God for the benefit of mankind. ... We can be extremely grateful Jesus placed no such restriction on the dissemination of the gospel. And any law that is put into practice for that purpose, both to restrict the message or the messenger, comes from a source not destined to survive the coming of Christ

Interesting POV! Some women claim it is designed to discriminate against women.

One bit of fine-tuning: there is nothing in law about plagiarism. The law can only deal with copyright infringement.

===

Latest find:

Johnson, Elmer Douglas "David Ramsey: Historian or Plagiarist?," South Carolina Historical Magazine 57 (Oct. 1956): 189-198.

Presents some example of Ramsey borrowing heavily from the Annual Register and William Gordon. However, the examples are sans context so we cannot tell if they are typical of the whole. Johnson also notes that Ramsey borrowed heavily from previous works (this would be called self-plagiarism, today–-note the date of the article). On page 198 Johnson notes that Gordon, John Marshall and Hannah Adams "to mention only a few of his contemporaries ... who clipped generously from earlier works."

[phkrause]

Had the same thoughts John. People use others writings all the time. I could see if you copied someones stuff word for word and claimed it as your own. She never did that.

pk

[John317]

That would be the point that the critics cannot deal with.

---

I have worked on this subject for 6 years now and have learned a lot along the way. My bibliography on the subject has over 580 items in it: http://www.adventists4truth.com/bibliography.pdf.

I have a number of ebooks on it where I show the evidence: http://www.adventists4truth.com/ebooks.html.

The following paragraph from your first link especially caught my attention:

"Notes that when it was discovered that Melville copied his "Benito Cereno" from

an earlier publication by Amasa Delano no one called him a plagiarist. He further

notes that George Chapman, John Webster, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, James Joyce

and William Shakespeare all copied from their sources in various degrees. He

goes on to note that the conventions regarding source use differ based on the genre

of literature in question."

It is part of the proof that people who attack Ellen White are not being objective and even-handed.

As a student of Shakespeare, I know that there was no greater "plagiarist" than the great Will Shakespeare, but I don't hear anyone screaming about it. The fact is William Shakespeare took other people's writings and almost always made something great from otherwise mediocre works. That was part of his genius. He rarely created an original story or plot but he was the greatest creator of characters in all of world literature.

Ellen White did the same thing: under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she used the writings of other people to express what God had shown her, and she made significant changes in those writings, so that it is dishonest of anyone to claim that all she did was copy what others wrote.

[Woody]

Whatever she might have done wrong ... I feel that she should be 'grandmothered'.

[djconklin]

Quote:

People use others writings all the time.

Not exactly. Very few writers used the words of other authors. And when they did I have some real choice examples (still working on that ebook). I had thought that with the average person's limited vocabulary, subtract out words that wouldn't be used in this setting (the life of Christ) and similar POV (as believers), then when writing on a specific episode (like the trials before Pilate and Herod) I expected to see a large degree of overlap--instead I found very little!

===

Quote:

The fact is William Shakespeare took other people's writings and almost always made something great from otherwise mediocre works.

That is what Robert MacFarlane notes in his book Original Copy. The writers of the late 19th century felt that if you borrowed minor amounts and improved on it then you were an original writer. Perhaps that is why none of the critics in EGW's lifetime never informed her alleged victims, nor informed the wider public (like the New York Times which ran over 1,000 articles on plagiarism in EGW's lifetime and none were on her). They didn't want to look like idiots in the eyes of the world and have her acclaimed as an original American writer.

[antcreations]

has anyone here read the book Acquired or Inspired by Dr. Don McMahon? http://www.acquiredorinspired.com/news.shtml

i highly recommend every Adventist and critic to read his research. it comes with a CD-ROM filed with awesome research papers.

The CD alone is worth the purchase.

[djconklin]

I just found that two authors who published in 1868 have very striking similarity between the two. So, either one published very early and the year and other very late in the year, or they both borrowed material from a yet unknown earlier source!

[Twilight]

My concern is the negative connotation that the word "plagiarist" brings across. If we start using that when we are "defending" her, then we are going to confuse people.

It is like saying, "she was a thief, but it was okay".

We must also remember that an attack on Ellen White is an express attack on us understanding the Righteouness of Christ and the merits of a crucified and risen savior. That righteousness which we receive to enable our victory over sin through true sanctification.

Ellen White was the greatest teacher on this issue that ever lived as far as I am aware, she had the deepest fullest comprehension of this subject outside of Paul and possibly the Apostles is my view.

This is the truth that is being attacked, when we undermine Ellen White.

So let us not label her as a "thief" when we are "protecting" her.

[oldsailor29]

No doubt in my mind that Ellen White was a true prophet of God. But that does not mean God gave her the words to write, nor does it mean that changes would not be necessary. There were several times when she would say she had no light on the subject, when asked specific questions. She stated several times, that it was not her purpose to interpret difficult scripture.

Her purpose was to lead us through a difficult period. Did we come through with flying colors? NO!!!

Her first vision shows us the right path, being led by Jesus. Another vision 22 years later shows us on a different path, a path we will be forced to abandon.

Should we reform? Should we try to get back on the right path? Good questions, because Ellen White said that even with our defects and feebleness, the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only object on earth on which Christ bestows His supreme regard.

I think the best way to proceed is through individual reform. The reform will have to come from the people of the pews, not from Silver Spring. It will take a lot of prayerful study, but the journey is worthwhile. And if we can individually get ourselves back on the right path, eventually our church will be there too.

[Twilight]

No doubt in my mind that Ellen White was a true prophet of God. But that does not mean God gave her the words to write, nor does it mean that changes would not be necessary. There were several times when she would say she had no light on the subject, when asked specific questions. She stated several times, that it was not her purpose to interpret difficult scripture.

Her purpose was to lead us through a difficult period. Did we come through with flying colors? NO!!!

Her first vision shows us the right path, being led by Jesus. Another vision 22 years later shows us on a different path, a path we will be forced to abandon.

Should we reform? Should we try to get back on the right path? Good questions, because Ellen White said that even with our defects and feebleness, the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only object on earth on which Christ bestows His supreme regard.

I think the best way to proceed is through individual reform. The reform will have to come from the people of the pews, not from Silver Spring. It will take a lot of prayerful study, but the journey is worthwhile. And if we can individually get ourselves back on the right path, eventually our church will be there too.

I agree with the sentiment :-)

[Dr. Rich]

What IF the 'woman' found in Rev. 2:18-28 is Ellen White? Would not that be an important thing to know? Since the writings to the 7 churches are actually 7 messeges--or chapters--to the NEW Kingdom of Heaven, which is the same as the one found in Dan. 2, and got their start in 1843 (Dan. 8:14) and is the last Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 21:43) and meets all of the points found in the 10 Virgin prophecy (Matt. 25), then would it not be important to know that her teaching is now leading people away from the real truth?

The facts (yes real facts) show that EGW's visions could not have come from God the Creator--could they? Each person should do their own research. After all, why isn't the testimony of Jesus which has been preserved for us by His eyewitnesses (John 14:26) be good enough for everyone? Why does anyone need anything more from anyone AFTER Jesus left--like Mohamad, Saul/Paul, the writer of Hebrews, Joseph Smith, Nostradamas, and even EGW? Can't we all just be the people found in Rev. 12:17?

[LifeHiscost]

Can't we all just be the people found in Rev. 12:17?

For me, not if I'm going to believe all of Revelation.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Revelation 1:1-3 NKJV

And then I'm also motivated by earlier testimony (revelation) by Jesus.

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’" Matt 4:4 NKJV

Not to mention what the prophets, inspired by the Holy Spirit earlier, had to say.

"And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers.

His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that they should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church),

[That it might develop] until we all attain oneness in the faith and in the comprehension of the [full and accurate] knowledge of the Son of God, that [we might arrive] at really mature manhood (the completeness of personality which is nothing less than the standard height of Christ's own perfection), the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ and the completeness found in Him."

Ephesians 4:11-13 AMP underlined mine LHC

Blessings!

[oldsailor29]

another reply to Dr. Rich.

I thought Rev 2 & 3 were messages to the oversight angels of the churches. I'll have to check and make sure it says, "Unto the angel of the church ...." Another thing some have noticed is that each one of these messages contains all of the elements of the ancient biblical covenants.

But this ain't the subject. I have found that Ellen White's first vision leads us to follow Jesus. It is clear to me that she didn't fully understand that vision. And she had other visions which she didn't fully understand also. That itself indicates to me that she was a true prophet of God, because what false prophet would promote something they didn't understand?

Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." And EGW, like all the other true prophets of God, was a lesser light, leading us to the light of the world, Jesus Christ.

[djconklin]

Just finished looking at a claim made by Rea in Adventist Currents (now defunct?) back in 9187 that a chapter in Sketches from the Life of Paul was "taken entirely" from a sermon by Melvill--the actual amount was 15.5%. Whne I get my web site back up I'll have it available as an ebook.

[djconklin]

Of course the date in the previous ost should be 1987--kudo's to the alert readers!

I now have 85 authors that I have compared with each other.

The editor of the journal says it should be out in a couple of weeks.

M'Clintock and Strong (1867), (they had borrowed over 65% of their article on Pilate) said that "nothing more than this general acknowledgement ought, or could, be made." (preface to vol. 8)

Given that remark it was suggested that future printings of DA should say "Select isolated sentences and phrasing have been adapted from other life of Christ works, which have also been consulted to provide structure to chapters and occasional historical facts."

My response was:

I guess I would say that since the amount that was borrowed was so minor and inconsequential no notice is needed--in line with the standards of the time. Also, we need to remember that they didn't have an agreed upon standard as to how to acknowledge what was borrowed. In most cases when they borrowed far more than Ellen White there was no notice whatsoever. When there was large borrowing (i.e., virtually entire paragraphs) then they would tag the sources name onto the end. Very rarely did they put the borrowed material in quote marks. And Edersheim is the earliest, and very lonely, example of supplying side-notes (but, again, no quote marks). I suspect that I can go down to the mid 1950's, or later, before I'll find footnotes and quote marks related to borrowed material.