Did Ellen G White Copy?

[Gerr]

Hi Kevin, Gotcha mixed up with Gerry on the "Canfield" guy. Where can a person find his research? Just sticking with Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and the Apostle,Paul, would probably be the best and the safest. Not that Ellen didn't print some good stuff, I'm just alot more at peace since the Bible became my text book. God Bless

The Bible should ALWAYS be our authority in matters of doctrine. I am in no way saying she did not copy other authors. There is no question she copied whole paragraphs in the "The Great Controversy", especially Wylie. She openly tells the use of other authors right there in the author's preface of the same book. But the extent of copying in her other works is probably not as extensive as Rea contends because, as I said, Rea's criteria for inclusion is more inclusive. About this particular point, you might look for a book by Kevin Morgan for starters. Can't think of the title of his book at the moment.

[Kevin H]

Hi Gerry, No, Ellen didn't just use similar words, she used paragraph after paragraph and then some. I would like to know more about Rea's honesty you referred too. When you wrote "Others have looked at the same material since then and found that his criteria for inclusion of what was copied was too loose". Would word for word indicate too loose? Have you read "The White Lie"? Maybe you could clarify. Anyway, who is this other author, Cantel?, and where can I read his research? And then again, maybe I would rather not know. After reading Rea's research, I have to say, it was devastating. It made me angry at the church and Ellen for being dishonest, and mostly myself for not seeking truth. Now I stick with the Bible. Pick any book in the itinerary of the New Testament, and the story of salvation is all there. May God Bless

Mrs. White was honest about it. Rea takes quotes out of context to make her look like she is lying about her copying, and he appeals to TRADITION to make it look like a problem. Mrs. White (although elderly at this time) Elder Butler, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, Willie White and the Theology department at Washington Missionary College were teaching the truth about Mrs. White's inspiration and the role of copying in her ministry. She and Stephen Haskell would argue over this and wrote a lot to each other, Haskell supporting the developing tradition of Fundamentalism, and Mrs. White trying to talk him out of his fundamentalism presuppositions, and both were frustrated because they could not change the other.

Mrs. White died in 1915 during this fight. Butler died in 1918. In the 1800s Butler wrote a series of articles in the Review against the growth of Fundamentalism in the church. Frankly, I believe that it was his non-fundamentalism that kept him from doing a Canwright, (you were asking about Dudley Canright I believe). Prescott, Daniels, Willie White and the theology department at WMC continued the fight. Daniel's said that unless the truth is know that it would one day cause problems for Mrs. White. Your post is a fulfillment of Mrs. White's and Elder Daniel's prophecy.

Sadly most of our members did not want to hear the truth then due to the popularity of the growing fundamentalism. Rumors were going around that Willie, Prescott and Daniels had given up their belief in Mrs. White, and even rumors that Mrs. White herself no longer believed that she was a prophet and that she apostatized.

In the 1919 Bible conference Daniels and Prescott tried to teach the truth. The members rejected the conference and in the 1922 or 23 (I've seen both dates in documents for the conference, anyway the General Conference after 1919) 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 continue to go to his office every day and collect a paycheck) and the faculty of Washington Missionary College was thrown out of office. Daniels was replaced as General Conference President. Now Spicer was seen as just as big a heretic as Daniels, but unlike Daniels who felt that misconceptions as to how Mrs. White's writings came to be needs to be dealt with, Spicer was willing to keep his heresy to himself and let the church members believe what they wanted.

I see our church's problems as very much stemming from that General Conference. If Mrs. White, Willie, Prescott and Daniels views were preserved in 1923, you would not be experiencing the disappointment that you are going through.

Fortunately, I went to school with professors who were very open about these issues. Now the school had students who did not like what we were being taught about Mrs. White. One student bought in a paper and gave it to the professor saying that the paper teaches what he should be teaching. The professor read it and said "This author does not know what he is talking about, and I am very worried about him, because if he were to learn the facts he will turn against Mrs. White and will cause much trouble for the church, and thus I hope that he remains stupidly ignorant. I want to teach you the facts in a framework of faith." That paper was written by Walter Rea before he started this research.

Dudley Canright was an extreme fundamentalist. He was honest with the facts that he had available for him. Today we know more about the copying in the Bible and more on the development of the Bible than Canright had in his day. Canright was honest (although he mistakenly thought that Mrs. White was rich), and I believe that if he lived in our day, with the archaeology and rediscovery of the ancient world, that he would not have left the church. Rea is just someone who wants to hold on to his traditions, ignore facts, sloppy in his presentations, and knowing some of his relatives, he was hoping to become a conference president and when passed over began causing problems. I've read Rea, I've met Rea, I've seen him turn all read with anger and embarrassment as he was ripped to shreds in a debate and needed to put up his own straw men to knock down to avoid the issues brought up to him. Canright has impressed me. Rea does not impress me.

[Gustave]

Folks, lets use our heads a little bit here. Early on Ellen White was accused of taking or getting material from others and using / passing it off as things she got from 'God'. Her husband came to her defense and said NO, if she did it once she did it countless times.

Devout SDA's simply can't ignore that.

In any event I've always wondered why it's such a big deal that she copied anyway? When we have Ellen categorically repudiating what God The Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit said, not once-but multiple times why does it matter that she took material from other non SDA writers and passed it off as her own?

[Kevin H]

Folks, lets use our heads a little bit here. Early on Ellen White was accused of taking or getting material from others and using / passing it off as things she got from 'God'. Her husband came to her defense and said NO, if she did it once she did it countless times.

Devout SDA's simply can't ignore that.

In any event I've always wondered why it's such a big deal that she copied anyway? When we have Ellen categorically repudiating what God The Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit said, not once-but multiple times why does it matter that she took material from other non SDA writers and passed it off as her own?

But Gustave, the issue was not her copying, but whether or not the message came from the copied materials

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is my thoughts and not specific to any post:

1) Veltman has clearly demonstrated that EGW copied to an extent that most did not understand. He also has done very well in classifying the types of copying that exist as they are not all the same.

2) The church is endebted to Walter Rae for facts that he discovered. However, his analysis of those facts is often deficient. For this reason, his conclusions are often defective. Also, he did not do a good job of classifying the various types of copying that exist.

[Green Cochoa]

An intentional omission of a relevant fact is a lie!

[Kevin H]

And again Gustave is using an answer to a different question as the answer to this question. The question being answered was not whether or not Mrs. White copied, but if her message came from those she was copying or if they were coming from visions.

She used other's words, but the frame work that she placed them in was from the visions.

[Windsor]

This story predates Ellen White's death, but we're still stuck talking about it. My question is, "Why do we hold Ellen White to a higher standard than the Bible authors, who we know used other sources?"

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to EGW, let me say:

1) I believe that EGW copied, in some cases extensively.

2) I do not believe that EGW lied about it although I believe that she has often been misunderstood and mischaracterized by others.

3) I belive that God used EGW in a marked way and that the SDA denomination would not exist in the form that it is today if if were not for the ministry of EGW.

4) I believe that we got our doctrinal basis from the Bible.

I have some concern about the following statement that Green made:

Quote:

There is no command in scripture for us to "tell all." The things which we say should be true, but omissions are not always equivalent to lies.

While I have some concerns with the above, I must acknowledge that Green has also made a statement that is true. IOW, Omissions are not always equivalaent to lies.

One concern that I have is the following: An error in fact is not a lie. It is simply an error of fact. As I understand a defination of the word "lie" there is always an intention to decieve. It is that intention to decieve that makes something a lie.

IOW, if I fail to disclose facts known to me with an intention to decieve, I am, in my thinking guilty of telling a lie, even though my statement may not be false.

To further illustrate: Green and I have had some pointed discussions on some subjects. I have suggsted that Green is wrong in some of his statements. I have suggsted that on some points he has made, he has not stated everything that I thought was important.

However, I have never called Green a liar. That reason is simply due to the fact that I do not believe that Green has intended to decieve. I respect Green enough to believe that while I think he is wrong on some thing, I think that he is honest and stating what he believes is accurate.

Enough for now. I will continue in a following post to comment on another aspect that concerns me.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

There is no command in scripture for us to "tell all." The things which we say should be true, but omissions are not always equivalent to lies.

Let me further comment on the statement above with an illustration:

I have what some might call a hobby in which I meet with people who are in trouble in a very narrow field of life. This narrow field does not involve criminal law. I work with them in attempts to resolve their problems. I may go with them to formal hearings. I write documents that are read by others, some of whom may be judges. I do this without any cost to the individual.

In this role I have attorneys who back me up with advice and formal representation of my clients. They provide this advice to me free of charge to me and my clients. If formal representation is determined to be need by an attorney, rather than myself, or one of the others who works with me, their representational fees are provided outside of the client.

Recently, in a complex case that involved more than just me, we decided to seek the advice of an attorney. We probably delivered to that lawyer 1,000+ pages of documents that pertained to the issues at hand. In these documents was a formal transcript of a hearing in which a number of people testified under oath. A critical issue in my part of the case was whether or not one individual had testified truthfully in response to a specific question. I believe that I could prove that the individual had testified truthfully, but I need the attorney to give me his opinion.

The attorney reviewed the documents and gave me his opinion on the issue that I raised: In the opinion of the lawyer, that witness had NOT testified with candor. IOW, the lawyer believed that the witness had testified in a manner that did not fully reveal all of the important facts. Therefore, he believed that the witness had not testified with candor and had testified with an intention to deceive even though the actual statement might have been true.

So, at that point I listened to this lawyer, tell me how the law requires that witnesses testify with candor. Under oath they are required to give all of the relevant facts that pertain to the question that they are asked. They are not to testify in a manner that distorts the truth by leaving out factual material that impacts on understanding their testimony.

Folks, I wanted to know the truth about the testimony of that witness. In asking my question, I am now listening to a lecture on the importance of telling all that pertains to understanding the response to the question. I am listening to this lecture from someone who is not doing it in the name of God and Biblical standards.

Folks, I am concerned about any statements that we might make in regard to not telling everything that presents us, as children of God, as being less honest than the world expects of us.

NOTE: I am NOT accusing Green of this. I consider him to be honest.

NOTE: I am not going to get into a discussion of my work in helping people in this area, at this time. The time will come when I will write about it, but not now.

[CoAspen]

Appreciate your candor and honesty in posting. That is well needed.

[Kevin H]

Oh, one issue with the supposed denying of copying: The Review use to give copies of some of the books she copied from to new subscriptions and recommended others. If you were going to try to hide copying you should not give out or recommend people read the books you are copying from. This is what lead to the questions as people noticed her copying and fundamentalist ideas were starting to be discussed and promoted and the members had trouble reconciling reading what she copied with the new ideas starting to grow.

[Kevin H]

But even with it being information about the Reformation, people still saw that she was using their words. That does not change the facts that the questions were not whether or not she copied but was her message from what she was copying.

Also, the Review belonged to a coalition of 1000 religious journals who all gave each other a complementary copy of their journal to each other for the purposes of allowing their authors to copy from each other. In Battle Creek there would be weekly a handcart of these journals being wheeled to Mrs. White's house where she would have them spread out and speed read through the articles, pick the ones she wanted to copy from, then send the other articles around to the other Review writers where they could copy. And the authors of the other journals would pick articles from the Review that they would copy in their own journals. And people who were interested in religious readings would have had a few subscriptions and would have seen the copying between them. We don't find Mrs. White having a secret office in the basement of the Review with the other journals being secreted to her. But the journals were wheeled to her house right in the open and people visiting would see her copying away, and know that when she was done other writers will get their chance at copying.

[Ron Amnsn]

But even with it being information about the Reformation, people still saw that she was using their words. That does not change the facts that the questions were not whether or not she copied but was her message from what she was copying.

I can see the distinction that you are making here and I think it could be valid. When we're looking back more than a century to try to determine if someone was speaking truth about an allegation of copying, we would need to make sure we're understanding the situation in the historical context, rather than in our own context.

In our day the issue of copying would involve concerns about plagiarism, giving proper citations, and the possibility of giving the impression that the copied words came from divine inspiration rather than from other authors. But in the context of the 1800's, if it was common and well known that religious authors copied/borrowed from other authors, periodicals and books, then the issue of copying in that context would have been quite different than it would be if it occurred a century later.

From the published collections of EGW's periodical articles, it appears that the Review and Herald published an article from the pen of EGW every week, year after year for several decades. EGW also wrote frequent articles for the Signs of the Times and Youth's Instructor. Did people back then believe that God inspired EGW on a schedule that allowed her to meet her weekly publishing deadlines? Does God inspire people in a scheduled manner so they can meet man-made publishing deadlines? We don't see that happening with the prophets in the Bible, so it's quite likely that EGW's contemporaries realized that she was getting some of her weekly articles from non-inspired sources.

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is an interesting comment from the EGW Estate:

Quote:

Ellen White’s wide reading habits helped to fill in her broad conceptual framework with historical background and fresh ways to state her insightful perceptions.

When the White children were young, their mother read broadly in religious magazines looking for stories with moral lessons that would be suitable especially for Sabbath reading. She clipped the desirable articles and pasted them in scrapbooks.24

In the 1870s many of these articles were sorted out into books for different age groups. The first of these collections, Sabbath Readings, Moral and Religious Lessons for Youth and Children, contained 154 individually-paged stories.25 Later, Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle, a four-volume set of stories, appeared in numerous editions.26 At the turn of the century, Golden Grains, a series of ten pamphlets, each containing 72 pages, was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association.27 An undated collection of children’s stories, Sunshine Series, was also published; the first had ten pamphlets of 16 pages, and the second had 20 pamphlets of 16 pages each.28

Google <Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle> and you will find a number of postings. Most will refer you to a 1905 publication and that publication is on the Internet for reading today.

That book was not published directly by EGW. NOTE: I suspect that its author was a SDA, but do not have proof of that.

Look at the history of that book. It is clearly stated that it grew out of a collection of writings that were circulated among various denomination, some of which were not named. Each contributed and was free to use the work of the others.

Folks, that information places in context some of what we are discussing today.

[Kevin H]

Gregory: In my college Spirit of Prophecy class it was pointed out that "Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle" was compiled by Mrs. White, as writings that she saw as useful but which she could not use as filler in her messages so she just had those articles published.

A point of interests that the English teacher pointed out is that he did a study with a story that Mrs. White specifically condemned, and one of her studies from "Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle" and that most Adventists in the study gave high praise to the story that she had criticized, and kept quoting Mrs. White's comments on fiction and other Mrs. White quotes in condemning the story from "Sabbath Readings"

[Gregory Matthews]

I am aware of what you said by the EGW production: Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle. I referenced a book, Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle, that was published by someone other than EGW. I strongly suspect that the author of that book was SDA, But, I cannot prove it at this time.

In any case, this other book is on-line and can be read. This other author published it in 1905.

[Gus Foster]

John, Peter, and Jude used 1 Enoch in their writings.

Jude 14,15 -- Enoch 1:9; 60:8

Deut 33:2 -- 1 Enoch 1:9 author copied Moses

A thing about Moses --he wrote specifically, exactly what Jesus told him on the mountain. For example, the dimensions of the tabernacle. No notes! Was that copying?

1 Peter 3:19,20; 2 Peter 2:4,5

The Epistle of Barnabas 16:4 considered Enoch as Scripture

All authors copy good thoughts, and not until a few decades ago did they have to use references.

[Kevin H]

A thing about Moses --he wrote specifically, exactly what Jesus told him on the mountain. For example, the dimensions of the tabernacle. No notes! Was that copying?

Have you ever looked into the dimensions and descriptions of the Egyptian and other Canaanite temples? The only thing original about the Hebrews was their most holy was the smallest part instead of the largest, and the place where the major god should be was an empty space. Otherwise it is all copied.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Folks, lets use our heads a little bit here. Early on Ellen White was accused of taking or getting material from others and using / passing it off as things she got from 'God'. Her husband came to her defense and said NO, if she did it once she did it countless times.

Devout SDA's simply can't ignore that.

In any event I've always wondered why it's such a big deal that she copied anyway? When we have Ellen categorically repudiating what God The Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit said, not once-but multiple times why does it matter that she took material from other non SDA writers and passed it off as her own?

But Gustave, the issue was not her copying, but whether or not the message came from the copied materials

It's both because her husband claimed she didn't get those ideas from other books....

...Difficult to claim an "off world" source for material when the material is in a book you've read.

[Kevin H]

Gustave, I don't know if you don't know how to read, or if you are using the skills of a lawyer or reporter in twisting people's words to make it say something else. The audience of those "denial quotes" were addressed to people who were very well acquainted with her copying. You always like to ignore that little bit of information.

[ClubV12]

We know Jesus ascended Sunday morning, sometime after telling Mary not to touch Him. And I conclude He returned sometime Sunday late afternoon or evening when He next appeared to the assembled disciples. Who could NOW touch Him.

Now this is according to Seventh-day Adventist views and the prophets book, Desire of Ages.

The question is: WHAT did He DO in heaven that Sunday before returing to earth for forty days on Sunday afternoon?

Desire of Ages picks up the story at Revelation chapter 4 and 5.

[brackets are my comments] Is this happening on SUNDAY MORNING at His FIRST ascension? Or upon His return, 40 days later?

"There is the throne, [Father on throne in Holy Place] and around it the rainbow of promise. There are cherubim and seraphim. The commanders of the angel hosts, the sons of God [who are they?], the representatives of the unfallen worlds, are assembled. The heavenly council [who is this?] before which Lucifer had accused God and His Son, the representatives of those sinless realms [more unfallen worlds or Solar Systems?] over which Satan had thought to establish his dominion,--all are there to welcome the Redeemer. They are eager to celebrate His triumph and to glorify their King. But He waves them back... [as He did Mary?]. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of His Father. He points to His wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet; He lifts His hands, bearing the print of nails. He points to the tokens of His triumph; He presents to God the wave sheaf [He arose on the DAY of the wave sheaf offering, a Sunday], those raised with Him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at His second coming. He approaches the Father, with whom there is joy over one sinner that repents; who rejoices over one with singing. Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished," He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24. The voice of God is heard proclaiming that justice is satisfied."

Desire of Ages, pg 834

[Kevin H]

Gustave, I'm sorry about the maybe you don't know how to read comment above. However, when reading you need to ask two questions:

1. What did they say.

2. What did they mean.

You have made assumptions as to what you wanted her and James to mean by the words you picked. However part of the "What does it mean" is who is their audience.

For your interpretation to work, you need an audience of clueless people. However their audience was not clueless. They were talking to the people who either was doing the copying for them, or at least people who they have read the same books and saw the extent of the copying. You need to keep this in mind when interpreting those words. That is what you refuse to do. You insist on changing the audience so that it would appear that they are saying something different than what they meant by those words.

[Gustave]

Gustave, I'm sorry about the maybe you don't know how to read comment above. However, when reading you need to ask two questions:

1. What did they say.

2. What did they mean.

You have made assumptions as to what you wanted her and James to mean by the words you picked. However part of the "What does it mean" is who is their audience.

For your interpretation to work, you need an audience of clueless people. However their audience was not clueless. They were talking to the people who either was doing the copying for them, or at least people who they have read the same books and saw the extent of the copying. You need to keep this in mind when interpreting those words. That is what you refuse to do. You insist on changing the audience so that it would appear that they are saying something different than what they meant by those words.

[Gustave]

Where does one find this definition of a lie? It is not in the Bible. If it were, God has contradicted Himself.