"Plagiarist: Like countless youngsters today, White utilized Wikipedia-like sources in novel ways." -- quoted from above article.
--------------
Um, Jeremy (whoever you are), there was no wikipedia or any equivalent in White's day. Yes, she was a plagiarist - she used other authors' material extensively, paraphrasing whole books and in some cases publishing them under the same title (or near enough to) as the original author (ie., H.L. Hastings "Great Controversy").

Yes, she was sued - on one occasion because of a blatant plagiarism (Sketches from the Life of Paul, which she copied from W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson). On that occasion she had to withdraw the book from publication in order to settle the suit. But in most other cases she wasn't legally challenged and was able to continue selling the books. That the Adventist church continues to print the books today is dishonest and unethical to an obnoxious degree.

"...at least have the guts to own up to it." -- Pagophilus
-------------------------
That's really funny coming from you, Pag - why don't you tell us how you are?

Without Ellen White there is no Seventh-day Adventism. Does that mean all SDA's are fruit cakes?

I don't think so: In doctrinal error on several key issues of eternal consequence, however. Such a list as above serves no useful purpose outside of context---there are several serious works in print that do just that including Walter Rea, Ron Numbers, There are just as many that do a White Wash.

Far worse than Ellen White is the use and mis-use of her writings as canonical particularly in relationship to young people. The gray beards of the church is where the ire should be focused. They see the Church as their domain and fight to keep it that way. Now they have an friend in court--Ted Wilson.

The Sabbath issue is a killer--where time is Lord and Master rather than the Giver of Life in Abundance. . Sunday Keeping is not an ounce better. The Lord doesn't want time keepers, He wants a loving response to His unpeakable gift of love. The Cross, not time should be central to our reverence and witness.

it is time to let Ellen White rest in peace. Tom Z

Tom...

On some level I agree with you. I believe that salvation rests solely at The Cross. But I don't think this belief is adversarial with the 4th Commandment.

I agree with you that, in some cases, Sabbath has become a greater focal point than Christ. Adventists are so accustomed to having to navigate secular conflicts with the Sabbath, that they often (and mistakenly) confuse these victories with Christian testimony. It is always refreshing to hear Adventists share witness to God's work in their lives...in ministry, sharing the gospel, prayer, and more.

Free handling of literary sources can of course be interpreted as plagiarism... however spreading myths that EGW had to go to court is not nice either.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/jeremiah-films/response-to-video...

I'm not sure what the point of this blog is. It is disrespectful to the Lord's messenger to the remnant church. But I shouldn't be surprised since so many here don't believe the SDA Church is the remnant church, or that Ellen White was inspired by God to write what she did. And trying to analyze her by today's "enlightened" standards is useless. And many of the charges are false, with a few facts taken and twisted to cast her in a negative light.

She didn't neglect the rearing of her children. She took steps to make sure that they were well taken care of. To accuse her of that is akin to accusing Hannah of abdicating her child rearing responsibilities when she shipped Samuel off to be reared by Eli.

She was not cocky. If she was, then so was Moses, Jeremiah, Elijah, etc., etc. She stated things as they were. Her duties included a variety of things that go beyond what the word "prophet" encompasses.

The plagiarist accusation is a dead horse, thoroughly debunked and not worth rehashing.

"Self promoting" is a loaded term. She only did what the Lord instructed her to do.

She was not ordained. That's a myth that needs to be put to rest. If she had really been ordained, we wouldn't still be debating the merits (or lack thereof) of women's ordination.

A mentally ill person could hardly have written as she did. Next to the Bible, her writings are the most inspirational literature on the planet.

The lives of the Biblical prophets could be picked apart in the same manner, but what is the point? Neither Peter nor Paul was perfect, but, ignore their inspired counsel at our peril. So it is with Ellen White.

Come on, at least be accurate - she took her son to a phrenologist.Viennese medic Mesmer was on "animal magnetism" - a contemporary issue of the University, and Viennese medic Gall so to say founded the school of brain anatomy and its located functions, the field of Meynert, Broca, Bechterew, Heschl, Wernicke - - and turned down already by Monakow with his "Diaschisis".

"A mentally ill person could hardly have written as she did. Next to the Bible, her writings are the most inspirational literature on the planet."

Oh, please! I find a cookbook more inspirational than either EGW or the Bible. If you associate your devotional practices only with EGW and the Bible, of course you will find them (most) inspirational. A Muslim or a Hindu would laugh at your claim. Religion is nothing more than a self-delusion. And some delusions are ridiculously provincial. The Christian tradition itself has many authors who surpass EGW by any measure.

Get out more! The ghetto is stifling.

I agree with Tom when he said, "Without Ellen White there is no Seventh-day Adventism." Pastor White was human, just like you and me. But I think, we can all agree with this. Even though we may not agree with her 100% she was used by God as a vessel of light during her time. It blows my mind when I think about how God used a pastor with a third grade educatio to help raise a world-wide Church.

If one limits his reading about out EGW to what the SDA denomination and the White Estate has written, could they possibly be biased? There is an abundance of non-SDA writers who have written extensively on her and only by reading them and THEN refuting them based on evidence, not opinions, will remarks about her have any weight.

" Sabbath has become a greater focal point than Christ. Adventists are so accustomed to having to navigate secular conflicts with the Sabbath, that they often (and mistakenly) confuse these victories with Christian testimony."

So true. Because that is the one distinguishing mark of Adventism, of course it becomes the only practice that differs from all the protestant churches and must constantly be defended. Members are carefully taught all the key texts, even memorizing them. However, never do they read and study the NT writings that show the changes made from Judaism to Christianity but only rely on the OT for their proof texts as there is not one single verse written to the new Christians on ANY DAY that must be held sacred. They were not instructed on the importance of any day to worship: God could be worshiped any time and He would be there. There were no sacred festivals nor rituals, either. Christianity ONLY became a growing movement when it discarded Judaism. From the time of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. there is no historical record of Jewish Christians: It became open to every nationality and race in complete contrast to Judaism which neither attempted to convert nor accepted converts without circumcision--the one most important decision allowing Christianity to flourish. (In Judaism, no one could observe any of its special days unless they had been circumcised--and sabbath was the most important day.)

I am an atheist who has read both Ellen White and the Bible. Why shouldn't my opinion be relevant on a blog which can't possibly profess to be Christian? Blogs can't eat and drink the body of Christ.

Robert Sonter, I'm not the one making the accusations. Jeremy's the one who's bagging the church, while most likely being a pastor. Hence he's too afraid to put his name up. I'm just a regular church member and as far as I can tell nobody here would know me, and only one person on Atoday would know me. The authors should have the guts to stand behind what they write. The commenters - they don't have to.

@Elaine above who said:
"However, never do they read and study the NT writings that show the changes made from Judaism to Christianity but only rely on the OT for their proof texts as there is not one single verse written to the new Christians on ANY DAY that must be held sacred"

Hebrews 4:1-10or 11 - Apparently, the followers of Jesus used OT references in their discussion of the Sabbath... and it didn't bother them at all. In fact? even THEY use the OT example of God resting after creation on the seventh day... SATURDAY. And this passage seems to indicate that the SAbbath (7th day) is pretty important... even years after the death of Christ.

Also...

Luke 4:16- Jesus entered the Synagogue on the Sabbath as was his custom... Sabbath, in a Jewish society... SATURDAY.

Matthew 12: first 12 verses - Jesus eating on Saturday, thereby upsetting the Jewish leaders who felt that picking grain to chew on was a "sin" because it was on the Sabbath. Jesus stated to them that He was "Lord of the Sabbath"... on a SATURDAY.

Or Mark 1:32 - People brought their sick to Jesus after sunset on SATURDAY... Apparently, they thought that Jesus celebrated the same rest day as everyone in the OT did.

Frankly? There's nothing in the NT to indicate that Jesus or any of his disciples ever changed the day over to Sunday. So _until_ we find where Christ or the Disciples made the quantum leap to break from their history, their tradition, and their culture... and come out to say (paraphrasing here) 'Hey guys... since *insert reasoning here* we decided to start worshiping on the first day of the week instead of the seventh"... I'll stick with the day that Jesus worshiped and rested on... Saturday. Thanks.

"I think Jeremy is just trying to help people relate to Ellen White's humanity in a way that takes the focus off the veractiy of her prophetic gift."

In a less fundamentalist understanding of inspiration, humanity and the prophetic gift are not considered entirely separate issues.

You forgot:
Fraud
Liar
Delusional

Unbiblical.

"In a less fundamentalist understanding of inspiration, humanity and the prophetic gift are not considered entirely separate issues." -- John Mark
------------------------
John Mark,

If you think my understanding of inspiration is fundamentalist, you don't understand the issues I have with Ellen White. Of course prophets are human, so exhibiting evidence of humanity (with all that entails) doesn't negate a prophetic gift. What IS required, is evidence of special insights or revelation from God. I don't believe this evidence has been established in Ellen White's case (and we've had enough discussion of specifics in the past, so I won't detail my explanation of this, point by point).

Just for my own edification (so I can see how progressive is your own view of prophetic inspiration), could I ask you to indicate whether you believe each of the following were prophets?

- Plato
- Aristotle
- Galileo
- Isaac Newton
- Charles Darwin
- Albert Einstein

It's just a save face reaction John mark, the Church and it's scholars have to make Ellen White work otherwise the whole movement will collapse!

"have you actually read the apologists...?" -- John Mark
----------------
Indeed I have. I studied thoroughly over a long period of time, trying to find evidence that the truth I grew up with, really was true.

That's good because your summary of their points would indicate otherwise.

"The analysis quoted by the apologists is typically a percentage based on actual word comparison,"

"However her style was not to copy verbatim, but rather to paraphrase. So while an actual word-match comparison gives a relatively low percentage fit, if you look at the bigger picture you find whole chapters where the essential structure is the same, paragraph by paragraph."

That's not the case with the analysis I have seen. They were very conscious about dividing the various levels of copying. If I recall correctly my professor in undergrad even had a class activity where we looked at a piece of Ellen White's copying in DA and judged which parts fell into which categories of copying. He would also show us material directly from sites like Ellen White Exposed, and carefully rebut the specific material. So its seems rather disingenious to say the apologetics haven't addressed the key points. The critics are free to disagree with the defense, but if they want to be taken seriously they will address the points rather than simply repeating their own points they made 40 years ago. Scholarship is an ongoing conversation, and from what I've seen on this site, the one side hasn't moved on with the other side.

Tom Zwemer - Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:51

"The Sabbath was established under the Old Covenant. The Garden of Eden was the first sanctuary.

The Risen Christ established the New Covenant. Celebration of that event is a fitting response to that event."

Sounds like the typical Sunday keeper's response. By that logic, all of the other commandments were established under the old covenant at Sinai. So which of the 10 commandments can we ignore (other than the Sabbath, which so many hate)? How about stealing? I'd hate to be stuck in the old covenant, so stealing must be OK. Watch your car keys, Tom. While you're at it, keep an eye on your wife or girl friend, because the 7th commandment is out the door, as well. Wouldn't want to be legalistic.

"If I recall correctly my professor in undergrad even had a class activity where we looked at a piece of Ellen White's copying in DA and judged which parts fell into which categories of copying. He would also show us material directly from sites like Ellen White Exposed, and carefully rebut the specific material." -- John Mark
--------------------------
OK, so at least they covered the various types of copying. But that type of class activity is what I would loosely describe as "inoculation". The actual passages or web pages examined have been very carefully selected by the lecturer because he/she can credibly answer some of the specific points raised. In the process, they make you aware that the problems do exist, but convey the impression the problems are not nearly as significant as they've been made out to be.

Dear brethren, many Adventists are waiting for the final days of a war between Saturday and Sunday, but they forget that the Bible says that the war will be between the Name of Jesus and the False Messiah. Each person must take your choice. The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved". Jesus Christ is sufficient for our salvation.

"many Adventists are waiting for the final days of a war between Saturday and Sunday"

And that's why they hate the weekend :)

"Moses had the circumcision and the sabbath, Christ had the baptism and the communion."

I should expand on that. To borrow two terms from Eastern Orthodox liturgics, both covenants prescribed a "rite of entrance" and a "rite of proclamation". Circumcision and baptism constituted one-time rites of entrance in the covenant, while the sabbath(s) and the eucharist persistently rehearsed the confessional core of the covenant - the story of deliverance and the promise of rest (as peaceful and plentiful kingship) in one case, the story of sacrifice and the promise of presence in the other. The weekly sabbath only makes sense in the context of the Levitical calendar - new moons and jubilees are equally important and meaningful. On the other hand, the first Christians obviously ignored any association of the eucharist with a particular day of worship.

Although I can't agree with all on the list, I really liked it. It reflects the real life strengths and weaknesses of EGW. And I might add, the strengths are significant, especially for a woman of that age. Look what she has on Mary Baker Eddy! Where are those Christian Scientists, anyway?

Andrew Hanson -

The most critical point Jeremy didn't include. There is absolutely nothing origional in the many pages of Ellen White's writings. Every single item was first suggested and published by others. Her writinga are a patchwork quilt of theological, religioous, bebavioral, and dietary postulates gleaned from the minds and pens of contemporary scholars and colleages. In the main, her genius was two fold--excellent editors and proofreaders, and a sense of the cutting edge of health reform sweeping the nation.

Of course within the process, she included a host of bias and theological and scientific error.

If one goes through her work in sympathy one finds an essentially Holy Club of early Methodism. Now, is the time for an Aldersgate Experience. for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The call for Revivial and Reformation is the perfect tool for such a venture. Unfortunately, that does not seem the intent of Elder Ted Wilson. He seems to want to accent the Negatives and eliminate the Positives in to cultic oblivion.

Weimar died, look at the vile coming out of Hartland. Who among us would want to live at Wildwood?

There is no there there. The Gospel is an open invitation not a closed system.

Granted there are some good ideas in the pool of Ellen White's writings. But it is mixed with mind numbing nonsense --it is the mind numbing part that Elder Ted Wilson would bring the Church to heel.

God forbid that should happen to those he loves. Tom Z.

"Since Ellen White was so often ahead of the science of her time..."

Myth. Pathetic, too.

“Since Ellen White was so often ahead of the science of her time, I would be very careful about accusing her of scientific error.” -- Horatio

To the contrary, Ellen White was simply a product of her time, she was not “ahead” of anything. Her visions were based on what she read or what people told her. This is especially true in the area of science. For example:

Astronomy:
Ellen had a vision of the solar system. She was shown Jupiter and described it as having four moons. She saw that Saturn had seven moons, and Uranus had six. These were the number of moons astronomers had discovered around these planets by 1847, the year of her vision. Today we know that Jupiter has at least 63 moons, Saturn at least 56 moons, and Uranus has at least 27 moons.

Earthquakes and volcanoes:
"At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil. The coal and oil frequently ignite and burn beneath the surface of the earth. Thus rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted. The action of the water upon the lime adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and fiery issues. As the fire and water come in contact with ledges of rock and ore, there are heavy explosions underground, which sound like muffled thunder. The air is hot and suffocating. Volcanic eruptions follow; and these often failing to give sufficient vent to the heated elements, the earth itself is convulsed, the ground heaves and swells like the waves of the sea, great fissures appear, and sometimes cities, villages, and burning mountains are swallowed up."

Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plate movement, not coal burning beneath the surface.

The earth’s population:
"The present enfeebled condition of the human family was presented before me. Every generation has been growing weaker, and disease of every form afflicts the race. Thousands of poor mortals with deformed, sickly bodies, shattered nerves, and gloomy minds are dragging out a miserable existence. Satan's power upon the human family increases. If the Lord should not soon come and destroy his power, the earth would erelong be depopulated."

Forty years after this statement the world population was around 1.6 billion. Today it's close to 7 billion. Also, people are living longer and are healthier.

The evidence is clear that Ellen was simply a product of her time. There is no evidence to the contrary.

tg

Like it or not Without EGW there would be no SDA church anymore than you could have the LDS without Joseph Smith.

Both are cults based on latter day revelation with writings by their prophets holding equal authority with the Bible.

If you do not accept EGW as a Prophet then leave the SDA church there is no other honest way.

I firmly believe that the SDA church can easily survive on a Sola Scriptura basis.

I don't see a reason why it cannot survive without some un-Biblical doctrines based only on EGW. A "vision" in a cornfield later on confirmed by EGW becomes a central doctrine of a church? This has nothing to do with the Bible.

There is a great multitude of Adventists in the church that do not rely upon, neither accept the spurious un-Biblical theories that have been officially converted into so-called "doctrines." They consider the Bible as sufficient and the ONLY authorized source of faith and doctrine.

I don't see why those who are strict followers of Sola Scriptura (like myself) need to leave the church. This is pathetic!!! And who says so??? What is the fear of?

I personally don't have any problem with those who choose to believe in the White-created-supported beliefs. Their choice, fine. What I am against is for them to preach those theories as being Biblical doctrine, as if the SPO were now actually part of the Scriptura. No, it's not!

Boy, Did we luck out or what? I'll take Ellen over Joseph and Mary any day. Was this some kind of prophetic lottery, and we got the winning ticket?
I don't mean to denigrate others' faith, but the comparisons are telling.
So what shall we do with that?

"I'll take the word of an inspired commentator over a scientist any day."

Too bad.

From this blog one would think that Ellen White was a plagiaristic, pride filled, mentally ill person who was manipulative, sought the praise of man, neglected her children, was irresponsible with her finances, encouraged women to dress provocatively and got kicked out of church for reasons that can only be surmised.
“She is uninteresting and irrelevant to my generation so let me attempt to make her relevant through half mocking satire. She herself was humorless, so let us make her the object of humor instead - to thereby humor ourselves. My audience on Spectrum already, by the very nature of their discourse and platform, has a jaundiced view of her – they will undoubtedly get a kick out of this and be sure to publish it. Finally I will use a pseudonym just in case someone might disapprove of this less than stellar attempt at comic relief.”

Master con-person. Hired assistants to retread the writings of others, sold them for millions--in today's dollars--as messages received in vision.
Harry E

Among main reasons for the increase in average life spans over the past century are better neonatal care, control and cure of many childhood diseases, and better sanitation. People who survived childbirth and childhood diseases generally lived as long as we do today. In areas where there is poor sanitation and poor neonatal care, the life span is much less than in the western world. None of this negates her statements.

And what I meant to say was, "there's no way that you can be sure that the method she describes does not also produce earthquakes."

OK, an example of how you misrepresented her statements: her vision of the planets. I suspect she what an astronomer of that day would have seen through a good telescope. God didn't see the need to show her everything. That fact doesn't maker her statements erroneous.

She's an easy target since she's dead and can't defend herself, but I will not accept your spin on her statements.

All the nonsense hurled against her is just bilge and beanstalks. Truth will prevail.

It's been said before, if the church went to sola scriptura, it would join the rest of Christianity just like the Worldwide church of God did.

"TJG if you want to maintain credibility you should drop the planetary vision line... She never named the planets..." -- John Mark
---------------------------
John Mark, you're correct she didn't name the planets. It was one of those with her who named Jupiter and Saturn as the planets she was describing. But for this vision to have been real, God must have been showing her somewhere else in the universe that coincidentally had exactly the number of moons that Jupiter and Saturn were thought to have had at that time, as well as one of the planets having rings round it.

And the fact remains that James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates, Mrs. Truesdail, J.N. Loughborough, and many other early Adventists all believed this vision to be of our own solar system, and none of them ever reversed or altered that position. The possibility of this vision being genuine must be recognised as extremely remote, by any objective observer.

John Mark writes:
"TJG if you want to maintain credibility you should drop the planetary vision line. Using that line is evidence of someone who just reads whatever they find on the internet or that is written by the critics uncritically. She never named the planets, and the vision was given for the purpose of convincing Bates of her prophetic gift not to advance scientific knowledge on the number of moons for the planets, if God had showed her the number we have now, it would have defeated that purpose."

Hello there John Mark. How's things going? You amaze me. We had a rather lengthy discussion regarding Ellen White not that long ago. Towards the end you admitted that "Ellen White studies" was not your area of interest or expertise. Several of us shared a reading list for you that would bring you up to speed, but you simply weren't interested. You stated the following:

"...I don't have hundreds of hours to spend on Ellen White studies, as my academic interests lie elsewhere. I don't see that accepting Ellen White or rejecting her would make such a huge difference in my life. I have based all my doctrinal positions on the Bible, and Ellen White has simply been a great spiritual inspiration to me, and been influential in leading me to a more Biblical understanding of being saved by grace alone. If that's reason for you not to discuss the issue with me, that's fine; it's not my greatest theological interest. It just seems to be one of the topics that come up most often on this blog and it interests me in the broad theological sense of how it relates to the doctrine of Revelation-Inspiration and Scripture, but Ellen White Studies themselves would not be my area of specialization."

My, my, how things have changed in such a short time. You are now apparently "specialized" in Ellen White studies, even to the point of giving me advice on how to maintain my credibility. Thank you for the advice, but I'll maintain my own credibilty.

Now that this is your area of interest, let's discuss Ellen White. Let's start with your statement:

"She never named the planets, and the vision was given for the purpose of convincing Bates of her prophetic gift..."

So tell us John Mark, what was Ellen White's prophetic gift?

tg

TJG,

It doesn't takes a specialization in Ellen White studies to know the Planetary vision objection is a load of BS. We covered it in less than one class period. I probably haven't even recalled all the holes in that treasured example of the critics scholarship. I'm still not terribly interested in majoring in Ellen White the way you have, and if this is any example of the level of scholarship employed by the critics, than your Ellen White reading list would be about as useful as buying myself the Walter Veith series to study Catholicism.

No I'm focused, you're the one drifting. The focus is not Ellen White's prophetic gift, but the utter lack of credibility to the planetary vision objection, and how using that objection discredits the critics supposed commitment to scholarship. You're the one that wants to change the topic to "what is Ellen White's prophetic gift." which is a much broader subject. How about you be the one to stay focused and explain how the oft cited objection of the planetary vision is a problem to anybody who doesn't hold to a 1920s fundamentalist understanding of inspiration, and how using one' witness several decades later isn't an example of elementary school scholarship.

The debate: shrill and vulgar as it has become over the veracity of Ellen White demonstrates two critical human traits.

1. When cornered a beas including mant will fight back tooth and nail.

2. Immediately after the battle revisionists step in and rewrite history.

Ellen White a prophet or not is essential to the survival of classic Adventism.

But the point of Christianity is not about persons, personalities, even prophets.

In these last days God has spoken through His Son. What is His message? Is it not invitational rather than critical? Even His messages to the Seven Churches contains the invitation "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, and that the shame of they nakedness do not appear: and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see."

Christ continues: Behold I stand at the door, and knock: in any man hear my voice and open the door, i will come in to him and will sup with him and he with me." Rev. 18-

The essential error of Adventism is to tout the prefectablility of man, rather than the perfection of the Christ Event. We are called to be witnesses not to be the main event. That is the fatal flaw of Adventism. Adventism whats the focus to be on them not on Christ. "Look everybody--no training wheels.!"

Tom Z

Now, my attack on the planetary vision objection is really a different matter than all that. This should be seen as my act of Christian charity of pointing out the holes in that objection before one of these spectrumites presents that idea publicly. It is sort of intellectual equivalent of letting the critics know their zipper's down... Wait you already presented that idea publicly, my bad, better luck next time.

Aage Rendalen,

Ironically, I think post-modernism is saving Ellen White. Most of my friends who are active Adventists live the lifestyle of moderately conservative evangelicals and have little issue with thinking Ellen White was a prophet. They will go to movies, dance, listen to secular music, and drink caffeine, and believe that Ellen White was a prophet all without much guilt. Even on an evangelistic mission trip, all of the younger generation drank coffee and tea; these weren't young people on the back door getting ready to leave these were enthusiastic Adventists trying to get others to join the church. Ironically it is this "liberalism" that dooms the efforts of the critics, if Ellen White is not a straight-jacket the up and coming generation has no motivation to avenge her. Also since they have been exposed to the more positive portions of her writings they're inclined to buy the White Estate version, since it confirms someone who has built up their spirituality. That and the White Estate has the resources for high powered well oiled apologetics, while the critics are operating a home-spun operation as can be seen with some of low quality research behind some of the objections.

"So Ellen White didn't get the gift of stewardship, so what?" -- John Mark
----------------------
Is that the best you can do by way of response? Last I studied the subject, stewardship was a Christian duty, not a gift.

"Is that the best you can do by way of response? Last I studied the subject, stewardship was a Christian duty, not a gift."

Well contrary to popular tea-party thought some are more gifted with financial ability than others. Even if she was negligent on her Christian duty, it's irrelevant to her prophetic gift. Nowhere does God say impeccability is a condition of the gift of prophecy. Indeed, we are told that He chooses the weak things of the world to confound the wise; so I have no problem with God using someone who might have been more flawed than the rest.

Come to think of it, the Ellen White polemicists kind of remind me of Walter Veith fanatics. Refute one of their arguments as lacking sufficient backing, and they say something along the lines of: well you should research it yourself, Walter Veith's material is well researched , you just haven't studies it enough, there is a "sea of evidence." Well that's all well and good, but it kind of begs the question of why if you had a "sea of evidence" you didn't pick some good evidence for starters. These Ellen White discussions invariably result in one of the critics suggesting that we're unqualified to discuss the issue if we haven't read the entire dated corpus of White polemics. As if, you're holding back the best arguments against Ellen White because they're just too good.

For argument's sake, let's say Robert Sonter is right and suddenly my generation who lives the same lifestyle as any Evangelical young person except for which day they worship on, is going to grow up and care about whether the history of the church backs up Ellen White being a prophet. Even if that does happen your side is going to need to catch up with the denomination on its research. Right now one side primarily references polemics from the 1970s and homespun websites spinning off those polemics, while the denomination has detailed responses with a much more recent date prepared by trained researchers. Now if someone experience with Ellen White has been centered on books like Steps to Christ and Desire of Ages, and it has blessed them spiritually; which side do you think they're going to believe?

"Even if that does happen your side is going to need to catch up with the denomination on its research. Right now one side primarily references polemics from the 1970s and homespun websites spinning off those polemics, while the denomination has detailed responses with a much more recent date prepared by trained researchers." -- John Mark
-----------------------------
So what is your definition of truth? Is it just a theory plus lots of research $$$$?

No I made that reference to Saturn and Jupiter inre to TJG who was the first to mention the vision. Ctrl F seems to start with different people at different times, for some reason, but look closely and you'll see that it was your side which put forward this bogus argument as supposedly great piece of evidence.

We talked about the Shut door in class, and the fact that her visions actually led in a trajectory away from that viewpoint. I have to study that more in depth for this week's midterm so maybe I can get back to you in more detail on it. However, from what I recall there's a lot of misunderstanding and things taken out of context by the critics on this issue; which if the Planetary vision is an example of things critics find to be solid evidence, I would expect.

I love it. The more human Pr Ellen White is shown to be the more I can handle her! Very refreshing!!

My bad - "29 June 1951" in the previous post should read "29 June 1851".

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." Mathew 23:37

Evidently we've advanced beyond the whole stoning with stones to stoning with ego-centric opinions and character assassinations. The end result is actually the same....the voice and the message of the prophet are "silenced" and the spiritual hearing is muted...sometimes permanently.

"What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?" Isaiah 5:4

How tragic that instead of paying head to God's merciful and gracious provisions for the enlightenment of His church in these last days of earth's history, that people choose to hide behind the "Sola Scriptura" as their rationalization for attacking the wise councils of E.G. White. It's equally tragic that some people continue rehashing urban myths (Please read "The White Truth") and continue trying to punch holes in God's messenger for our day.

Our Heavenly Father has always provided "supplemental" information to His people to help them be better equipped to proclaim His "present truth." Why? because humans are dull in their understanding of spiritual/eternal matters and it's His love, mercy and grace that provides compensation for that. Ultimately we each will have to give an account for how we embraced or squandered the gifts so copiously provided. The stoning of prophets is one of the great hallmarks of a rebellious and stiff necked people.....heaven help us before it's too late.

Klimber
You are overlooking one important thing; " In times past God spoke through the prophets " Not now. Ever since the incarnation we can look to Jesus forl the complete revelation of God.

It is only if you believe Jesus failed in revealing God to mankind would you look to a latter day prophet for guidance be it Mahommed, EGW , or Joseph Smith, et al.

Jesus taught that any person can and does have direct access to the throne of grace without any intermederary other than Himself.The holy Spirit can and will guide you directly not distilled through the mind of another.

As a long term SDA member told me years ago while I was still a member of the SDA church Quote" I have known for forty years what an old fraud Ellen White is" end of quote.

“No I made that reference to Saturn and Jupiter inre to TJG who was the first to mention the vision… but look closely and you'll see that it was your side which put forward this bogus argument as supposedly great piece of evidence.” – John Mark

Regarding this “bogus argument,” my initial post which was in response to Horatio’s statement: “Since Ellen White was so often ahead of the science of her time, I would be very careful about accusing her of scientific error.”

My response to his statement was that Ellen White was not “ahead” of anything but was simply a product of her time. Her so-called visions were based on what she read or what people told her. This was especially true in the area of science. I gave three examples to demonstrate that Ellen was not ahead of her time based on what she claimed in the area of Astronomy, Earthquakes/Volcanoes and The Earth’s Population. John Mark chose to respond ONLY to the Astronomy claim (for good reason) by stating:

“TJG if you want to maintain credibility you should drop the planetary vision line.”

Since maintaining credibility is important, I’ll keep “the planetary vision line,” and for good reason:

“At our conference in Topsham, Maine, last Nov., Ellen had a vision of the handy works of God. She was guided to the planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc.” A Word to the “Little Flock,” p. 22. 1847

“We soon noticed that she was insensible to earthly things. This was her first view of the planetary world. After counting aloud the moons of Jupiter, and soon after those of Saturn, she gave a beautiful description of the rings of the latter. She then said, ‘The inhabitants are a tall, majestic people, so unlike the inhabitants of earth. Sin has never entered here.’ It was evident from Brother Bates's smiling face that his past doubts in regard to the source of her visions were fast leaving him. We all knew that Captain Bates was a great lover of astronomy, as he would often locate many of the heavenly bodies for our instruction.” J. N. Loughborough in Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists, p. 127. Also in The Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 258, 260, 261.

Ellen White was not "ahead of her time." The above quotes demonstrate this, unless you believe that there are "tall and majestic people living there." I don't.

tg

TJG

Insisting that your zipper isn't down isn't going to convince anybody it's not down, unless of course you have some buffalo wild wings. Here's the pertinent point in regard to your quote:

"One more point: How does the record of the phrases of Mrs. White's astronomy vision come down to us? The vision was in 1846. But, as already stated, the phrases are first found in Loughborough's book published in 1892, almost half a century later. And was he writing from personal memory? No. He was writing from the memory of what he had been told—most probably by Bates—years before he wrote in 1892.* Would any court admit such evidence as valid under any circumstances? No! We might add that Mrs. Truesdail, in 1891, also wrote from memory."

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc07.html

If you want actual scholarship , and an entire research paper on just this vision, feel free to check out the link. If, however, you're satisfied with second hand sources based on personal memory fifty years after the facts, as what you quote would indicate you are, than by all means stick with "Ellen White exposed" or whatever half baked pseudo-scholarship website you're pulling this stuff from. If, however, you want to join those of us in the world of historical research, where we actually look behind the sources of a book instead of just copying and paste; by all means drop the story and join us. `

It's fascinating how the critics suddenly become believers in prophetic infallibility in the modern day when it suits their purpose. If J.N. Loughborough remember hearing someone tell him about a vision 50 years ago that happens to be embarrasing for Ellen White...well than the Holy Spirit must have guaranteed Loughborough's perfect memory, and we shouldn't question his account in the slightest. Never mind that no serious historian would put merit in such a story; if it goes against Ellen White, it must have been inspired. If you're going to spend your life trying to debunk Ellen White, how about you spend just one day learning how to do research, or you could have just used common sense that would have helped with this story.

TJG,

Note in James White's account there's no mention of tall men. You could have simply used James White's account, or better Ellen White's own account of the vision, in which case, you would have been on solid historical ground. You wouldn't have much of a case against Ellen White unless you're a fundamentalist who thinks God has to give scientifically accurate information a hundred years in advance, in which case, you've just made a strong case against the Bible. But at least, if you would have used those sources you would have shown that you did background research and that you're actually serious about history instead of just trying to prove a point. But no, since Loughborough has the most damning story, you used that one, ignoring the fact that it was second or third hand written half a century ex-post-facto; showing how truly un-serious you are about getting the objective facts of the situation which you claim are all important to you. Also I have serious doubts that you have: "J. N. Loughborough in Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists, p. 127. Also in The Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 258, 260, 261." or a word to the little flock, and I'm guessing you pulled all of this second hand from a website without giving the website credit and without doing any original research on your own, which is kind of ironic considering how much you hate when people borrow without citing.

Aage Rendalen,

I don't doubt that there's spin on the part of the church, I don't have a big problem with people who reject Ellen White because they can't handle the real life picture. What does get my ire up is the hypocrisy of the critics, who repeatedly claim that they are completely objective, and just looking at the FACTS in a scholarly unbiased way, and then essentially copy and paste stories like this with an absolutely pathetic level of scholarship. If they would admit that they're biased just like the rest of us on this planet, that'd be fine. Instead I see them insisting that their sweat smells like roses. The White Estate is, of course, biased with a particular mission in mind, but I'll still take their level of research over what TJG presents, because at least they're trained scholars. The White Estate is to Ellen White something like the Jesuits to the Papacy; they're biased but I'll still take a history on the Papacy written by a Jesuit over one written by Walter Veith.

John,
Did you decide to fight for EGW no matter what the FACTS are?

You are yourself spinning a lot. Sometimes I feel you making some progress in understanding this issue correctly, then suddenly you make a 180 degrees turn and go backwards.

You should not defend any position until you make your mind. And this after examining the data objectively, and not only passionately. Study in thoroughly, and make your mind! Until then, it's better to proceed just asking questions rather than fiercely defending ideas that you may to have reject later.

"Did you decide to fight for EGW no matter what the FACTS are?"

No I decided to stick to the FACTS which is what makes me so devastated in TJG' s rejection of Fact's based scholarship. If I was my old post-modern self, who didn't believe in fact's I could just let TJG's lack of serious scholarship slide. But since he converted me to the wonderful world of facts, I can't accept a second hand story told 50 years after the fact. Imagine my disappointment when the guy who converted me to FACTs has apostatized so far as to consider a second hand fifty years ex-post-facto account worthy evidence. Imagine my disappointment when he forgets to mention the historical FACTS behind this account. Imagine my disappointment when I find the man who converted me to FACTs choosing to use the second hand, half a century old, account instead of just sticking to the original primary accounts made a few years later. Maybe the problem, is however, that we have a different definition of facts. My definition of historical facts, would be something that is historically verifiable. TJG's definition is any account made at any length of time after the facts no matter how removed from the facts that fits with TJG's preferred version of history. If that's the definition of fact, maybe I should reconsider my conversion.

"And her husband doesn't mention tall men there does he? But since you liked that version of the story that you found in your handy J.N. Loughborough book, you used that version despite its' faulty basis in historical credibility."

I used both sources, James White and John Loughborough. I don't prefer one over the other. Using both gives a different perspective, which I consider helpful in my research.

tg

Can honest scholars ignore such misuse of Paul and John? -- Tom Z.

Answer: No. Honest scholars cannot ignore the facts regarding Ellen White. They don't make up poor excuses for her either, like our friend.

tg

"Answer: No. Honest scholars cannot ignore the facts regarding Ellen White. They don't make up poor excuses for her either, like our friend."

You may be honest, but are you are by no means a scholar. Show me some a tiny bit of actual scholarship from you, or even some respect for historiography and you can lecture us on what scholars would do. Also don't tell us about "facts" when your level of scholarship that you refuse to back down on, shows she clearly don't give a rip about them.

John Mark, what exactly are you desiring us to believe about Pr Ellen White? and for what reason do you want us to believe as you do about Pr Ellent White? And what function do you see Pr Ellen White having in today's SDA church?

John Mark
You're turning this into a discussion--somewhat of a monologue actually--about historical scholarship when the issue is how you as a young SDA are going to relate to a fallible prophet. Your indignation about Loughborough is slightly misplaced in that the church for nearly one hundred years promoted his version of early Adventism as that of an eye witness. Although he has been shown to be unreliable, and should not be used to settle any argument for which there are plenty of first-rate source materials, the story of tall people on a planet in our solar system does not ring false. It is very much within the realm of the possible that she believed this. The real issue, though, is how do you deal with a prophet who was so quick to embrace false ideas from her contemporaries? Do you introduce a distinction between what is inspired and what is not (something she banned as demon inspired), or do you downgrade her to John Wesley or Martin Luther status, so that you can pick and choose without any qualms?

As to Ellen White's role in the present church, I haven't fully formulated my idea on that. My idea now is that it should be to encourage, inspire, and point to Scripture. She provides us a connection with a larger Christian tradition that can be a safeguard from falling into one unhealthy corner of the Bible as so many people often do. Christian tradition has its' pluses and minuses, errors sneak in, but at the same time the wisdom of the community can be a safeguard against falling for fanaticism. Ellen White provided and can still provide a community that tends toward the rejection of all tradition with a connection to a broader body of Christian thinking. I don't see Ellen White, in the role, of proving any of our doctrines. However, I see her presenting the Bible, in such a way, that can orient some away from falling into extremes. Of course, some will decide to only graze in one corner of Ellen White's pasture and will still fall for unhealthy extremism, and this all challenges me with the need for a larger role of the community in our search for truth. I'm only beginning in my quest for how to deal with that issue though.

Aage Rendalen,

The issue for me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be objective and fact oriented. The fact that the church used Loughborough as a reliable historian should have little weight with the critics who don't accept anything from the church unless it fits their agenda. Have I gotten carried away on this monologue, and become a bit pedantic...probably. I do appreciate the even handedness and cool headed approach you bring to such discussion. Of course, I wish you had the joy of faith, but your analysis always seems dispassionate and fair.

Tom Zwemer,

Thank-you. You are also a very reasonable voice. I agree with you on the center being Christ's righteousness. I'll follow your advice and quit this conversation on the planetary vision, as I've probably said everything there is to say about five times. :-)

"Now, my attack on the planetary vision objection is really a different matter than all that. This should be seen as my act of Christian charity of pointing out the holes in that objection before one of these spectrumites presents that idea publicly." -- John Mark - Sat, 02/18/2012 - 19:08

Based on the arguments you presented, and the ad hominem attacks, you are the only one who sees your contributions to this topic as an "act of Christian charity." Now that you have agreed to drop it, maybe you'll do better next time.

tg

"Based on the arguments you presented, and the ad hominem attacks, you are the only one who sees your contributions to this topic as an "act of Christian charity."

That was partially TIC. I'm not sure what you're referring to as ad-hominem, because attacking the poor quality of scholarship involved in resting your argument on a third hand account fifty years ex-post-facto, and the fact you probably copied and pasted this collection of information from a website without citing the website, is an attack directly on your argument, not on your person. For all I know you're a lovely and fine person, but if you consider the Loughborough account a reliable piece of history, you're not a good scholar. If there's somewhere I actually attacked your character, I apologize. I do not, however, apologize for attacking your sloppy research. Though, Tom and Aage are probably right that I got a bit too obsessed with it.

John,
I am going to ask you gain:

Did you decide to fight for EGW no matter what the FACTS are?

Don't do this, it's not wise. I know you may become discouraged and frustrated with all this, bur hey, many went through it in the past, including myself. And I can tell you, it's possible to survive.
Many of us had no support group (like this blog, or so). We had nobody to really rely on. We went through it by ourselves, learning step by step what the church didn't want us to learn.
Nowadays it's much easier!

"Did you decide to fight for EGW no matter what the FACTS are?"

No, I just don't call a second hand recollection put down on paper fifty years after the fact valid history. Aage Rendalen also states that such material is legendary. Surely you're not suggesting our agnostic friend has decided to fight for EGW no matter what the FACTS are?

"On the other hand, if Loughborough was complimentary to Ellen White, you would support him wholeheartedly."

Whatever. You're free to believe what you want about my intellectual honesty. Honesty is extremely high on my values, and I'm honest to a fault. I may be wrong, I may be pigheaded, but I don't lie. But there's no way for me prove that, so if it makes you feel better to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty; well I'm not sure how we can have a productive dialogue from that point.

"Cocky: White disclosed that she should not be called a “prophet” because she was so much more.

Plagiarist: Like countless youngsters today, White utilized Wikipedia-like sources in novel ways.

Sued: Not only with the Israel Dammon Trial, White was sued on numerous occasions and had to obtain lawyers and broker settlements."

I never contested any of those points. In my mind, it doesn't contradict with the possibility of God using her to lead the church in the direction he wanted it to go.

dl,

I was actually lucky at that time (1980s) because I was not a ministerial employee. I was not even working for the denomination. I was just a head elder of a church. Which means that I was free to read, think, and say whatever I wanted. But it was hard I must say, because the "guys upstairs" came after me anyway! And they were all friends that I knew from the school where we all had studied.... Well, long story.

Don't be discouraged. Just hang in there. Another thing you should consider in your journey is the "cultural environment" that you grew up in. After many years being a SDA, you will find it difficult to just move to another denomination. Been there, done that. And you certainly like to go to church on Saturdays. It's not that difficult to adjust, I mean, let people talk whatever they want, but you make your metal selection and let it be. Unless you go to a church where the pastor keeps parroting EGW every Sabbath, and bombarding the congregation with the Adventist triumphalism, legalism, and separatism (which happens in too many places, still). Then you are screwed. Then you have to move to Riverside-CA, and attend LSU church. A safe place, I guarantee.

John Mark
Not everything is the title article's list is correct. For instance, EGW was not sued over the Israel Dammon affair. Nor was Israel Dammon, for that matter. Dammon was prosecuted--which is a different matter--for disturbance of the peace. EGW was mentioned in the trial transcript, but not as an accessory. Nor can I think of any incident in which EGW had to face civil suits. In the 1919 Bible Conference transcripts A.G. Daniells asserts that the church was threatened with legal action by the publishers of Coneybeare and Howson's book on the Apostle Paul, but the matter apparently was settled out of court since no evidence of such an action seems to exist.

Nor does it make much sense to claim that she fought against the Catholic church because it was an oppressor. The Catholic church was a victim of oppression in the 19th century US, and EGW was on the side of the oppressor. And as far as taking on the US government over slavery and segregation, well, that was a mighty tepid crusade on her part. And declaring her a philosopher because "White grappled with existential questions," is not a serious observation. And the same goes for some of the other observations.

Bumper stickers can be entertaining, but reality is far more nuanced. The advantage of slogans is that they offer instant wisdom, the pretense that you can bypass the onerous task of looking into a matter to find out what the truth is.

S Styrra - Mon, 02/20/2012 - 01:55
The greatest insults to Pastor Ellen White,....

When you call her "Pastor" are you actually also acknowledging that she was indeed an ordained pastor?

TG and GT
Your reasons for staying sound a lot like the children of Lot had for ignoring their dad's plea to leave Sodom. All my friends are here. So if your friends jump off a cliff I suppose you would too.

Actually I would not want to be in your boots come judgement day. You both know that you are in a cult and instead of leaving and sounding a warning to others you stay and presumably support a false organization for your own personal selfish reasons.

So much for intergity and being led of the Spirit. There are two kinds of false witness. One is to tell a lie the other is to remain silent when lies are told.

Thanks George for sharing your story. It was great. There's more to mine as well, in fact similar to yours. I had to defend my "new" beliefs before a board of elders and then the entire church board. The Conference president even weighed in. I had several rather pointed exchanges with him. Quite revealing when you get to that level. The man is now a Union President. Bottom line: they voted to "prevent" me from teaching where I taught for 15 years, I was also the chairman of the school board for 7 years. That came to a halt as well.

Abe: We each have our reasons. I understand your reasoning quite well. However, here I stand along with my family "in the mud." There's mud on the other side of the fence too.

tg

@George Tichy and others:

George, it would be good for you to be fair a little bit. You speak about people throwing mud but what have you been doing all along? Precisely throwing mud.

By the way, a lot of people have been throwing mud at EGW here and have shown some dishonesty and blowing things out of proportion.

Did EGW copy passages from other publications? Maybe, but they represent a very small portions. But what are EGW's critics saying now, that she copied entire volumes practically verbatim? This is false.

And what about the charge of plagiarism? This is also unfounded for several reasons:
1) at the time, the practice of copying portions of other writings by other writers (even without acknowledging them) was largely spread and had been so for thousands of years (obvious when you study literature).

2) some authors who accused EGW of plagiarism themselves copied portions of others writers' texts showing that this practice was common as the copyright and intellectual properties landscape was totally different back then.

Here is a text that I found about a musician, Stephen Collins Foster, in his short biography:

"Throughout his entire career, Foster had problems financially. This was due to the laws of the 19th century regarding copyrights and intellectual property. Virtually no copyright law existed, and very few lawyers specialized in the laws that did. As a result, Foster had no way to keep other people from taking and rearranging his music, or to enforce the law upon the people who simply pirated his pieces."

So, we cannot expect people in the 19th century to have the same standards as people of today.

3) the work of a prophet is not to make a work of literature for profit but to warn God's people. That was her primary concern. When a doctor gives you a prescription to treat a serious condition he doesn't really care if the words on a prescription may be the same as the words used by another doctor (it may become that way some day since we are copyright happy in this country). This is the same thing for a prophet. After all, we see this in the Bible when we see Peter or Paul using texts from the Old Testament without giving credit to anyone. Should they be accused of plagiarism?

4) EGW herself explained that when she read a particular text and found that an idea in it was expressed in a better way than she could have done she would use it in her writings (Let's remember that the words are not dictated by God to the prophets. They choose their own words [unless God asks them to deliver a message verbatim, of course]). She was not aware of all these copyright and acknowledgment issues but when she became aware of that she took care of mentioning the authors.

I think that what is interesting on this blog is that, almost by definition, everything that can be hurled against EGW will be taken into consideration. People here doubt her words but seem to accept without investigation or discrimination the words of her critics. How interesting!

As some people have said here, EGW has been a source of inspiration and a blessing for many people, thousands upon thousands. Can the same be told of any of her detractors here? I doubt it.

People have criticisms against her? No problems with that. But if her detractors were honest and balanced they would also speak of all her positive contributions (that many people recognize) with as much passion as they have when criticizing her, which is not the case. Something is wrong here.

At the end of the day, countless lives have been blessed and changed for the best thanks to EGW and her writings. This is the best testimony ever.

>>>Can Adventism survive without her?

Elaine, I think it can survive without her.
However, if it CAN'T, then there is a real problem, because what kind of religion could it be that cannot survive without an extra-bliblical source.
So, I guess there is a problem in this respect. A serious problem.
!

Abe:

I understand where you're coming from, trust me I do. I no longer attend the church that took official board action to prevent me from teaching. However, when my daughter became deathly ill recently, the members of that church got together and prayed for her, not once but many times and my daughter's name appeared in the church bulletin under "special prayer" for about a year. This meant a lot to my wife and I, more than you know.

The reason I still call myself an SDA and attend occasionally is because of the "common folks," the ones who pray. Most of them don't really know what they believe or why they believe it, not really. If they had to defend their beliefs against a serious doctrinal challenge, they'd fall apart. I witnessed this first hand. Nevertheless, I socialize with the "common folks" (I'm not being derogatory in any sense) and I stay away from the administrators. I avoid them like the plague.

Am I a hypocrite? In one sense, yes. However, I believe the prayers of those saints were answered. My daughter is alive and doing quite well these days. I fellowship with the "common folks."

tg

" EGW herself explained that when she read a particular text and found that an idea in it was expressed in a better way than she could have done she would use it in her writings." (Anon7)

I'm sure many people would like to believe that to be the case. In reality, EGW denied vehemently that she had copied from other writers. But feel free to prove me wrong by quoting her on the subject of literary piracy.

As for literary laws, it's true that authors did not have the same protection in the 19th century as they have today, but that does not mean that literary piracy was not considered immoral. Obviously Stevens Collins Foster thought so, while you're left arguing that EGW should be excused for joining the literary pirates because there were so many of them. Today music and books are being pirated on the internet because legal protections for digitized art are in their infancy. That does not mean it's okay to start downloading other people's works, and especially not if you're going to use it for commercial gain.

Mud slinging is the practice of reducing people to the sum of all their weaknesses. EGW obviously has been the victim of that--and at times she herself was a practitioner of the same art--but bringing attention to the findings of modern EGW scholarship is a different matter.

@Aage Rendalen and George Tichy:

The point is that literally borrowing was not a moral issue back then. People had done it for thousands of years. In the 19th century, practically no copyright laws existed in America and most people were ignorant about them. To judge people of the past with today's standards is not intellectually honest above all for people who always say that the culture was different in the past and that it explains why people took particular decisions toward women (like not having them for leaders in the church).

TG
I fully understand where you are coming from.Even today after being out of the SDA church for ten years and no longer attending(Haven't been back since I left)there are members there whom I still consider friends.

But there comes a time when one must stand up and be counted when one must choose between God or Belial truth or fiction maybe you are not there yet maybe your time of choosing is already past.

If you find yourself biting your tongue when error is being presented as truth well my friend you are paying too high a price for fellowship.

Anon7
If Elaine doesn't beat me to it, I'll give you chapter and verse when I get home today. That is such a clear-cut issue that few people would even contest it. As for literary piracy, you yourself quoted a very disgruntled composer who had been defrauded of much of his livelihood because of literary piracy. Obviously he thought the practice was very wrong. The R&H, you'll be interested to know, also complained about literary piracy as early as the 1860s, and as Elaine points out, why would EGW have denied so vehemently that she had cribbed the contents of her health reform vision (1863) from contemporary writers (which she demonstrably had done), if it was considered above board?

EGW's problem was that she was not a good writer. Her handwritten draft of the chapter on Huss in GC is so poorly written that her editor(s) trashed it and only kept what she had cribbed. There is obviously a reason why handwritten manuscripts of her books are non-existent or fragmentary, at best. Even today, 40 years after Don McAdams uncovered the Huss fragment, it is being kept hidden by the church because it undermines confidence in the originality of her works. While in Switzerland one time, she resorted to a guidebook--without attribution--to describe, in her DIARY, the place she was at. Without James White and Marian Davis and others there would have been no books 'authored' by EGW. In her case, plagiarism was a necessity. She obviously had a construct in her head--I've used the analogy of Steve Jobs before--but she herself was incapable of pulling it off.

@Aage Rendalen:

Thanks. I am looking forward to having them (from you or Elaine).

Anon7
BJG's quotes weren't enough for you?

What about this one (Selected Messages, 1980, 3:282):

"That which I have written in regard to health was not taken from books or papers. As I related to others the things which I had been shown, the question was asked, "Have you seen the paper, The Laws of Life or the Water Cure Journal?" I told them No, I ha dnot seen either of the papers. Said they, "What you have seen agrees very much with much of their teachings." I talked freely with Dr. Lay and many others upon the things which had been shown me in reference to health. I had never seen a paper treating upon health.
After the vision was given me, my husband was aroused upon the health questions. He obtained books, upon our Eastern Journey, but I would not read them. My view was clear, and I did not want to read anything until I had fully completed my books. My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others." (Manuscript 7, 1867).

EGW lived under a lot of pressure from her critics and at times complained loudly:"Why, I ask, is all this zeal against me? I have attended to my business given me of God. I have injured no one...They have not rejected me, but Him who sent me." (3SM:351). She simply could not bring herself to concede anything for fear that her prophetic ministry would collapse like a house of cards. At times, though, she came close to admitting her reliance on human sources, as in this quote:

"Suppose--as some would make it appear, incorrectly however--that I was influenced to write as I did by letters received from members of the church. How was it with the apostle Paul? The news he received through the household of Chloe concerning the condition of the church at Corinth was what cased him to write his first epistle to that church. Private letters had come to him stating the facts as they existed, and in his answers he laid down general principles which if heeded would correct the existing evils." (5T 65)

I was curious about Kellogg and EGW, so read some of the letters to him from her, when I was at the seminary. They were kind and motherly, and of such a nature that I would have loved to have received them myself, if I had been straying. She clearly loved him and desired that he remain in the church. He was not so white a knight as Aage seems to imply.
I have been thinking of this issue of Ellen.
Would you agree that she was used by God to direct the church? It seems to me she was, and I would point to the successes that following her advice gave SDAs.
But she was flawed in the way she did things and wrote them. The above comment that she was not original is not quite true, for she has a certain style that is uniquely hers, as all authors do, even ones that use sources.
So she is a flawed individual, used by God to do a great work. Is that any different than any other that God has used is such circumstances? Besides, who else could have done it? Kellogg? Haskle? Jones? Waggoner? I just can't think of anyone else that could have pulled it off as successfully as she did
I would even think that more progressive thinkers might embrace this imperfect individual as an example of God's amazing grace when facing human weakness.

>> for she has a certain style that is uniquely hers

No, she has a style that was Fannie Bolton's and Marian Davis's and ...

Note the Wily Willie disguises and pretends this didn't happen -http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/HowEGWbksWCW.html
her faithful copyist; Marian Davis

Copyist is an extreme understatement. Note what the White Estate has written

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc31.html#sth14
The Polishing of Her Manuscripts
Her assistants were called upon, not to do creative, original work on her manuscripts, not to change the thought or intent, but simply to correct possible errors of grammar, to improve sentence structure, and the like, which, for lack of a better word, is sometimes described as polishing a manuscript. It would have been a very unprofitable use of Mrs. White's time if she had done this painstaking, detail work.

Amusingly, this is just after they have been arguing
In the first decades of Mrs. White's writings she had no literary assistant aiding her, except her husband. But he, the same as she, had but a few grades of formal education, yet Mrs. White's writings in those earlier decades reveal that she had no mean grasp of English, and only occasionally is a grammatical error revealed

The real point is that neither Willie nor the White Estate is a reliable source of information about how the books were created.

Compare this with
http://www.truthorfables.com/steps_to_christ.htm

and ask yourself why the White Estate has not produced large samples of the manuscripts in EGW's handwriting. She supposedly spent hours every day writing frantically. Where are all the pages?

Instead we find they can't produce a single page of Steps To Christ in her handwriting.

There is some samples here... although lots type-written (why type-written?, you ask...)

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/TheTrinity.pdf

/Bevin

Bevin,
I checked the three web sites you suggested. I did not find there anything new nor did I find some shocking revelation. Yes she used sources. Yes assistants helped her, but did not write manuscripts, and yes, STC was compiled from previous material.
But you have not answered whether you think she was used by God to assist the church, and whether, though a flawed person, God spoke through her. Hmm, what do you think?

Anonymous7:

When someone copies the works of others, how can their "views" be different or independent from the author they are copying from? Please explain this.

Your context argument does nothing to negate the fact that Ellen White was a plagiarist (a literary thief) and it certainly doesn't make things "clearer" as you suggest. Context does not explain why Ellen White copied the works of others without giving them credit: "[she] took literary expressions from the works of other authors without giving them credit as her sources" -- Fred Veltman, Ministry, December 1990. Why won't you accept this fact?

You also state: "EGW's messages came from God, not from other authors. If we take again the subject of the Sabbath, it was God who showed her the importance of that day because EGW was clueless about it at first."

According to http://www.whiteestate.org/pathways/jbates.asp, it states: "In 1845 he [Joseph Bates] read a tract by T. M. Preble on the Sabbath, published near Washington, New Hampshire." The article continues: "The next year, 1846, Bates wrote a tract of his own about the Bible Sabbath. This tract came to the attention of James and Ellen White around the time of their marriage in August of that year. They accepted the seventh-day Sabbath from studying the Bible evidence for it."

According to the White Estate, James and Ellen accepted the Sabbath via Joseph Bates and good old fashion bible study. So why do you argue that: "EGW's messages came from God, not from other authors?" The Sabbath example you give does not support your statement. It clearly came from "another author." Why do you believe it was necessary for God to show her (I assume in vision) the importance of the Sabbath? Didn't you accept the Sabbath without "a vision from God?" I did.

Do you have any evidence at all that demonstrates that the following is true: "My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others?" (Manuscript 7, 1867). The reference material given to you by several commentators above overwhelmingly disproves this.

tg

>>> But you have not answered whether you think she was used by God to assist the church, and whether, though a flawed person, God spoke through her. Hmm, what do you think?

It is clear that New England at the time was a place where religion was going in new directions - SDA, LDS, and many more all came out of the turmoil.

Where the right personalities - Wm Miller, Uriah Smith, EGW, J Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, and more - occurred with this turmoil, they caused new denominations to congeal rejecting the mistakes of the old, and making both improvements and new mistakes.

The Mormon's came through with some attractive ideas about how to live, and some radical ideas about who God and we are.

The Christian Scientists had some new ideas about healing.

The SDA had some good ideas about rejecting hierarchical organisations, creeds, and traditions and going back to basics - Bible study led them to the current state-of-the-dead and sabbath messages, the influence of Sylvester Graham and others led them to the health message. EGW had her ups and downs during this time, but basically she was one of the major but not dominant centers of action.

As the 1844 veterans died off, the new leaders and the EGW estate created a myth out of her, moving her more into the center of things and wildly exagerating her abiliies and contributions. They did so to create a focus for the new denomination which, with the failure of the 'soon return' concept, was in danger of falling apart, and to make themselves important as the high-priests of the oracle.

By 1919, it was a real problem - but the leaders were powerful enough to bury the issue.

In 1955-1960 the knowledge of her plagarism and assistants broke loose again, and was buried by pushing out of fellowship any who insisted on discussing it.

In 1980, the availability of cassette players, photocopiers, and cheap publishing caused the knowledge to be unsuppressable. The White Lie, the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, and Glacier View blew the top off the mountain. It was obvious to all who studied that EGW was a mixture(ratios depending on the assessor) of
> ill woman (head injury, mercury poisoning from father's hat making)
> religious woman
> God-inspired woman
> shrewd woman
> created persona from the people around her at the time
> myth created after her death

She, herself, could probably not separate out these factors.

Most of the books published under her name are not worth the space on a bookshelf. You would be better served with modern books on the same topics.

As has been pointed out before, the one book that has not been published is "The Fulfilled Predictions Of EGW" - for the simple reason that it would be blank.

I think God works with all people, and within all social movements.

/Bevin

Bevin,
So, Hmmm, although you said much, I still did not hear about whether God used her. From what you did say, the White Estate used her, the church used her, her illness used her, those around her used her, etc. Can I assume then that you feel that God did not?

What I don't understand is how this church, with its heterodox doctrines and difficult theology has managed in about 150 years to become such a prominent group (6th largest protestant church and growing) with world class educational and medical institutions and long life to boot, all in a sense resulting from her ill gotten advice. Just seems sort of strange to me. Did Nostradamus even managed it?

Now the Mormons have a great choir, and Utah, and the Christian Scientists have the Monitor, and SDAs have Ellen and all the benefits of her thinking. So, what gives? Was it God or indigestion?

And "Most of the books under her name are not worth a space on the book shelf"? There are even nonSDAs that would disagree with that assessment.

Allen

It was neither God nor indigestion but indiscretion partularly when it came to Paul. Tom Z

Hopeful,
The growth and success have special characteristics. We are a benevolent group, rather than a militant one, so I can't see how we can be compared to the Nazis, or even Islam for that mater.
Catholic beliefs are not so difficult, and they are growing, but slower.
What I am saying is that the phenomena of our growth and success is unusual, and it is a particular kind of success, that leads to good, and needs explanation. I think EGW explains it at least in part, especially when you compare us with the Mormons and Christian Scientists who arose about the same time and had prophets and have not been near so successful and not in the same ways.

Tom Z.
Very funny, but it does dodge the question.

Bevin,
Yes, after I posted, i reviewed your post and saw the last line, sorry.

I checked the growth curve you posted. it is, if I am not mistaken, a logarithmic curve, and represents a constant yearly percentage growth over time.
I also believe if you took only the time from say 1848 to 1880, the curve would look the same, a hockey stick type curve. I believe, in fact, that if you took any section of the curve from any year to any other it would take the same shape.

The reason is that growth has been more or less the constant throughout our history. So we were growing at the same rate now as then, even back in the 1860s.

But you say we cannot separate myth from reality. Isn't that what you guys are trying to do here? Get the myth and lies out in the open so they can be debunked? And now you tell me you aren't able to do so??
And here I was depending on you, Bevin, to straighten me out. Talk about disillusion!

After I posted this, I began thinking, our church is growing like a third world country. That is unusual growth. i don't think it can be explained on demographics and lifestyle alone. I think EGW is part of it, but we also have a strong self-identity. This is attractive. The mainstream protestants are loosing because they do not have this. We have a package that satisfies, and EGW is part of it.

What is interesting is the huge set of NON SDA books she had on her shelves, and the indications that she read extensively in them...

http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-admin.cgi?action=quick&do=...

http://library.swau.edu/adventist_heritage/ellen_g_white_research_center...

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1982/June/ellen-white:-prophet-o...

In my research I have had access to some of the very books once owned and utilized by Ellen White. An examination of her copy of John Harris' The Great Teacher, containing her penned signature on the title page, indicates that this book was obviously often used, and now we know of dozens of literary parallels with Harris. Her copy of Henry Melvill's Sermons (1844 edition) shows evidence of frequent use— the pages being folded in half, the comer of pages being folded diagonally, and ink marks on several of the pages. A typical parallel from Melvill is exhibited in Figure 4. Ellen White never underlined in any of her books, but on occasion she marked with vertical pen strokes or with "X's" the margins next to some favored quote or gem of thought. It was a set of vertical pen strokes that led us to find parallels between Melvill's statement on the "oracles of God" and similar statements in Ellen White's writings (Figure 5). Interestingly, a copy of the handwritten original for this set of parallels was published just prior to our discovery (Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White [1981], p. 90). The more we examine the library books once held by Ellen White, the more we are finding examples of the ways in which she used them and the extent of their use.

http://www.nonegw.org/egw89.shtml

/Bevin

@TJG:

Re-read what I said about the difference between a view and a literary expression. It is clear enough.

Also, don't speak as if she copied all the works or entire works of others. This is not the case and this has been proven. The plagiarism charge is incorrect. As I have already said, the practice of using some texts from others without giving credits had been a practice for thousands of years (and it was common in religious writings). Even some who accused EGW of plagiarism did, in fact, the same things in their own works, that is, they used other texts from other authors without giving any credits. Again why? Simply because it was still a common practice at the time above all for religous writings (nowadays, we would use the expression "fair use").

So to call her a plagiarist is intellectually dishonest.

You asked me if I have evidence that her statement, "My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others?", is true. I would say that the burden of proof that it is not true is on the shoulders of her detractors. Often, they make the same mistakes as you did, that is, taking sentences out of context, considering situations in the wrong context, listening to hear-says and exaggerations (for example, turning some borrowings into the plagiarism of entire books like I have heard some people say) or mixing different things together.

Concerning the Sabbath, here is what we can find at the White Estate (since you mentioned them) at http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp:

"During the first few weeks following their marriage, James and Ellen gave earnest study to a 46-page tract published by Joseph Bates, in New Bedford, Massachusetts. The tract, entitled Seventh-day Sabbath, set forth the Biblical evidence for the sacredness of the seventh day. Convinced that the views set forth were scriptural, they began to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. Some six months later, on April 3, 1847, Ellen White was shown in vision the law of God in the heavenly sanctuary, with a halo of light around the fourth commandment. This view brought a clearer understanding of the importance of the Sabbath doctrine, and confirmed the confidence of the Adventists in it. (Early Writings, pp. 32-35.)"

Here is what EGW said about her belief concerning the Sabbath at first:

"Elder Bates was resting upon Saturday, the seventh day of the week, and he urged it upon our attention as the true Sabbath. I did not feel its importance, and thought that he erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine.
But the Lord gave me a view of the heavenly sanctuary." (you can read the rest at Life Sketch)

The reason God found it necessary to confirm the importance of the Sabbath day was that most Christians were Sunday keepers, even the Harmons. So it was not easy for them to switch back to Sabbath (we still have the same problem nowadays when most Protestants consider that we don't have to observe the 4th commadment).

"So to call her a plagiarist is intellectually dishonest." -- Anonymous7

No, it's called accurate. Here's a lesson on literary theft:

"Although authors had been complaining about literary theft since ancient times, they had no recourse until 10 April 1710, when the world's first copyright act was passed in London: 'An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Author's or Purchasers of Such Copies,' known as the Statute of Anne."

"On April 15, 1789, David Ramsay of South Carolina, author of The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, petitioned Congress to protect that book and his next. The House voted to form a select committee, and Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina, Alexander White of Virginia, and Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut met to consider a course of action. On April 20, Tucker reported on the need for a copyright law, and on June 23, Huntington introduced an eleven-page bill: H.R. 10, from the first session of the first Congress. Echoing the language of the Constitution, he called it "A bill to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions... in the second Congressional session the two kinds of intellectual property were split into two bills."

"…President George Washington devoted part of his first State of the Union Address on 8 January 1790 to the topic: 'There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage,' he told the Congress, 'than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.' The Congress agreed, and the new bill, 'A bill for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, books, and other writings, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned,' passed the House on 30 April and the Senate on 14 May. It was signed by Washington on 31 May 1790, and became America's first Federal copyright act. For the first time, authors and proprietors were given 'the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending' their works. 'The crime of literary theft' had actually become a crime…”

"Congress amended that copyright law in 1831, extending the term of the writer’s copy rights to 28 years, renewable for another 14 years. Congress amended the copyright law again in 1870 and 1909, increasing the renewal term to 28 years. There were three international copyright conventions: the Berne Convention of 1886, the Pan American Convention in 1909 and the Geneva Convention of 1952." (See http://www.writing-world.com/rights/lynch.shtml)

Now to Ellen White:

"Ellen White was aware of the benefits of copyright to protect an author’s work. She copyrighted her books, even books in which she copied large amounts of material from other writers. For example, Ellen White copyrighted Sketches From the Life of Paul in 1883, which she copied large amounts from Life & Epistles of the Apostle Paul by Conybeare and Howson."

"Ellen White’s husband, James White, knew it was ethical (to say the very least) to credit his sources. In 1875, James White published a book entitled Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller. In the first paragraph he states: 'Before us is a plain volume, the title page of which reads, Memoir of William Miller generally known as a Lecturer on the Prophecies and the Second Coming of Christ, by Sylvester Bliss, author of Analysis of Sacred Chronology, a brief Commentary on the Apocalypse, etc.' In the closing paragraphs of the introduction he states: 'In gathering material from this work, we have copied very largely from Mr. Bliss, especially from the correspondence and writings of Mr. Miller which are incorporated into his Memoir.'
See: (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/egwcopy.html)

Ellen chose not to follow her husband’s ethical example. The reality is that she had to make a living after James died. Unfortunately, she did so by stealing the words of other writers and violating copyright laws already in place. If you do not want to accept this, at least accept this:

“It is just as wrong to appropriate to one's self credit for productions written by another as to steal a horse. One who boldly signs his name to another's article, and allows it to appear in print as his own, is a thief of the darkest hue. Taking another's knowledge and parading it as one's own is a despicable thing to do… It is a crime punishable by law. It is as much of a disgrace, to say nothing of the sin, as to break into a neighbor's house and steal his goods. All who profess common decency, much less Christianity, should eschew all form of dishonesty.” 1917 Youth Instructor

Ellen White was a plagiarist, pure and simple. This conclusion is called intellectual honesty.

Mike MacLennan: I agree that we should do as you suggest, but since it would remove the "gift of prophecy" it won't happen.

tg

The SDA is the 6th largest Protestant Church and growing?!

Where on earth did you get that assumption from?

SDA only have 16 million members worldwide, those numbers are dismal, especially compared to main stream Protestantism. The Southern Baptists have 30 million members alone in USA.

Bevin
Yes, other denominations have hockey stick type growth as you have shown.
You state that all one needed to have was, A) Small numbers around 1900, and B) a sense of belonging
Not so, the Scientists did not manage.
But Adventists, as I mentioned in my first post, have three things that set them apart, apart from growth, that come from following the prophet:
A. World class education system (the Chinese are consulting us on reform of theirs)
B. World class health system (what other group sends as many physicians per capita to third world hospitals and clinics? Remember praying for the "missionaries and the colporteurs?)
C. Long Life.
And Ellen was instrumental in the realization of these characteristics of Adventism.
In this regard, the Witnesses and the Mormons, like the Scientists have not managed.
Now, it is not just that our church grows, and has good organizational skills to realize the above, but the combination. And a combination that can be attributed to the advice of the prophet. You can argue that she got if from other sources, but then you have to admit that she sure was a master at culling the wheat from the chaff.
I have seen more clearly here, posting, that Ellen had her faults. At Seminary, we studied how she used sources, and it did not bother me. In fact, she used them in a creative way that I am not sure her critics realize. But her unwillingness to acknowledge the sources, well...
Be that as it may, I have benefited from her writings, having come to Jesus through DA, and have seen the benefits that I keep mentioning.
And it seems that in spite of her weaknesses, she was used by God to gift this church. At least that is not an unreasonable conclusion.

"You can argue that she got if from other sources, but then you have to admit that she sure was a master at culling the wheat from the chaff." -- Allen

So Allen, Ellen White was a prophet because God gave her the ability to know what to copy and what not to copy. This is your definition of a prophet according to scripture?

Also, do you want us to believe that there is no "chaff" within the writings of Ellen White?

tg

George,
He said "all movements and cultures", and being the literalist I am, I took it literally. If he just said movements, you might be able to narrow it as you said, but added culture, which is a pretty broad term. He will speak.

But I have never denied that God did not use other religions too. My point is that God did use EGW in a way that has been a blessing to the church and the world.

Abe,
I agree with you on one level, but not on another. Human as "vermin"? Doesn't sound like Jesus. I think God wept each time he had to allow those things

I like what the prophet said or, ahem, borrowed in P and P pg 728 referring to the Rebellion of Absalom:

"David had neglected the duty of punishing the crime of Ammon, and because of the unfaithfulness of the king and father, and the impenitence of he son, the Lord permitted events to take their natural course, and did not restrain Absalom. When parents or rulers neglect the duty of punishing iniquity, God Himself will take the case in hand. His restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil, so that a train of circumstances will arise which will punish sin with sin."

God has used evil to achieve his will, as Habakkuk teaches. But this is beside the point.

The Adventist movement is of a different sort, used by God for good and not evil or punishment, but to spread his word of life to the world, and show the benefits of living next to him. AND EGW IS PART OF IT, regardless of her weaknesses. If God used wicked Babylon,gentleman, why all this fuss over a Christian woman who clearly was used for good purpose, benefiting thousands, nay millions of this earth's inhabitants? The prophet has advised us not to feed on the chaff, which you persist in doing seeming to make it the main dish.

I remember when I first picked up Rea's The White Lie. I started reading it, but after a few pages put it down saying to myself, I can't read this. it is so full of bitterness and gaul, it will hurt me if I continue.

Now I believed like he did about the prophet, and I, too, was surprised and need i say even chagrined by the borrowing, but took a more balanced approach. Sure, she may have done that, but my faith in not based on her. She has helped my greatly and I will continue to respect her, follow her teachings and honor her, but my faith is based on the Bible, and she has persistently pointed me there rather than to herself. I am not sure what else can be said.

Allen
We differ on our understanding of EGW. I never accepted her as a prophet even back when I was a member of the SDA church but it was not until the GC of 2000 when her writings were made as inspired as Scripture that I finally cut my ties to the church.

I just am not into latter day prophets as I believe Jesus was the final and complete revealation of God.. That being said I do not even try to reconcile the OT to that revelation. The bloody excesses of the OT record was man doing what man does best and presuming that he is doing god's will thereby.

The God revealed by Moses was more Moses than God so to speak and the writer that said David was a man after God's own heart had an eye for promotion in the bureaucracy then representing what God was really like. To my way of thinking both the prophets before and after Jesus did a p---- poor job at revealing God to mankind as is witnessed by the sucicde bombers and the egocentric leadership of the SDA church.

Bevin, really? You can't tell the difference between the inspiration of Ellen White and that of Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy?

I'm so sorry, that tells me more about you than I wanted to know.

Perhaps you were being intentionally provocative?

George
Johseph Smith was the greatest coyiest of them all. He bought the defunked printers plates from a printer to sabage the lead from a prior project that had gone sour and turned it tinto the book of Mornion, he beefed it up by added large portions of Isa. The Peal of Great Price was a biographical story of his life and doctrine--no evidence fo any of it,, Joseph Smith didn't palagarized because his prior source never saw the light of day--but it was the work of another.

An hour on Google and you will have the whole story.

Tom Z

Horatio
You may not like what research has uncovered about EGW or what people here have made out of those discoveries, but when you use the word "misrepresentation", I would ask you to explain what you mean? Which facts have been distorted? Which "facts" are not facts, but lies?

Horatio:

The problem is not with Ellen White herself. She is welcome to copy whomever she wants and make any claim(s) she wants, like being "more than a prophet." The problem is that our church officials accepted what she did and said, in fact they encouraged it, and made their acceptance of her activity and claims the standard for our (church members) acceptance. This is wrong. Herein lies the problem.

tg

......." all them copied from other authors", ........

the myth of Sargon antedates Moses reed basket raft trip by over a thousand years.... so who copied from whom?

the Babylonian story of "the flood"...Gilgamesh, is far older than the Hebrew version....

isn't it possible that while the hebrews were "captive" in Babylon, learning to read and write, they learned of these earlier myths and adopted, and adapted them as their own stories?

and when people later adopted papyrus and the Hebrew-Phoenician alphabet in exchange for writing the antiquated and slower way on clay tables....

we inherited the hebrew version of the stories, not the earlier Babylonian ones.

note: is it possible that Moses 10C's were written with stylus on tablets of clay, as was the practice of the day? not "stone"

another practice of the day was that when you wanted to break a contract written on a clay tablet, you threw the tablet to the ground to break it... just like Moses did with the first set of 10 C's..Making Moses the first of the commandment breakers!!!!

1. Did Ellen White copy portions from other books and then attributed the content to a vision that she had received from God herself? ___YES __X_NO

2. Did she write about the SHUT DOOR saying that the message was received in vision? ___YES ___NO

3. Does the Bible contain sufficient information about God and the Gospel, so that the plan of salvation can be fully understood on a Sola Scriptura* basis? __X_YES ___NO

I shouldn't even bother to answer these questions because they are of the same nature as "Have you stopped beating our wife?" The facts are twisted to maker her appear in the worst possible light. I don't know much about the shut door issue, but I believe it has been taken out of context and twisted like so much of the other things she wrote. The fact that she copied something does not discount the fact that she was shown that same thing in a vision. She freely admitted using other people's materials, if it presented the truth as she understood it. And she said that if Christians had studied the Bible as they should have, her writings would not have been needed.

If she is as bad as you all say she is, then she isn't much different from Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith. We might as well all go join the Mother Church. There isn't much reason for the SDA Church if she was a false prophet, like so many here believe. I've read much, but not all, that her detractors have said, at it's all bilge, in my opinion. Everything that I have read of hers tends toward drawing people to Christ and to the Bible. She promotes Chritst and the gospel, not herself. But every prominent godly person in the Bible was maligned in a similar way.

These issues have been dealt with ad nauseum in other places, but you prefer to believe the naysayers.

Given the prior instruction and education that Joseph Smith or Ellen White were inspired of God, much depend on the earlier influences of parents and teachers to also accept, without subjective reasoning, that either of these were true prophets.

The "burning in the bosom" that Mormons speak of is very similar to the expression that some Adventists use on reading Ellen: "they inspire and lead me to God." Prior conditioning is a very effective tool as psychologists have repeatedly demonstrated. How many young SDAs from K through college have been taught that Ellen was a prophet and a founder of the SDA church? Is this not (un)subtle influence on young minds unable to discern for themselves? Is this not what the church has done?

After all this time, I wonder why those who completely and utterly believe in EGW and her inspiration refuse to even address serious issues with her, instead choosing to write off the person asking the critical question as not having enough faith, working for the enemy, etc.
Consider these facts:

A.) It is a matter of public record that in her formative years she suffered a severe head trauma which kept her bedridden for many weeks. It is also a fact that this trauma could very well have caused epilepsy, hallucinations, seizures, and brain issues over the lifetime of the victim.

B.) Whether you call if plagiarism or not, it is no longer a matter of contention or discussion that she borrowed words (uncredited) from other writers. Perhaps none as egregious as her book "Sketches From the Life of Paul", which contained so much direct copied material from W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson’s "Life and Epistles of Saint Paul", (written some 30 years earlier), that it was pulled and stopped publishing due to a threatened lawsuit. When have we known Prophets to do that?

C.) Has EGW ever had a prophecy not come true? What does the Bible tell us on how to judge a Prophet and his/her Prophecy? The company line that they were learning and better interpreting the scriptures does not fly when confronted with the fact that EGW considered herself a lesser light. If her message is from God, how can it be wrong?

I am a 4th generation Adventist and proud of my faith, but these issues, some of which I described above, are serious issues for any SDA who can take off the White tinted glasses of blind devotion and loyalty. EGW has done much good for our Church. This is indisputable. Her counsel and suggestions have propelled the SDA Church to being world leaders in education, missionary work, and medicine. Great harm has also been done in her name with her writings to thousands of people. She has made many comments which are of a questionable nature. For us in this time period with the luxury of hindsight and history to not address these issues, or for the GC to keep silent on the stronger credible questions of EGW is tragic.

Do those who have strong beliefs in EGW and her writings dispute that the 3 facts I put forth are true? If so, are they simply lies the enemy has propagated? The White estate themselves acknowledge the injury, and the GC has acknowledged the borrowing of works in their 3rd party review from the 1970s ('79?). The GC simply states that it was not plagiarism for her time. As to the last statement on her prophecy's, her writings speak for themselves.

B.) Whether you call if plagiarism or not, it is no longer a matter of contention or discussion that she borrowed words (uncredited) from other writers. Perhaps none as egregious as her book "Sketches From the Life of Paul", which contained so much direct copied material from W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson’s "Life and Epistles of Saint Paul", (written some 30 years earlier), that it was pulled and stopped publishing due to a threatened lawsuit. When have we known Prophets to do that?
Quoted by 4th Generation Adventist - Anonymous1844
****************************
Hello,
It is very clear from the above and the Elder Daniells testimony quoted by "Hopeful" that plagiarism was indeed an issue back in Ellen White's times.
My questions are:
[1] Why is that the SDA church and the Ellen White Estate refuse to acknowledge that this was a sin by bearing a false witness? (a clear violation of "Thou shalt not bear false witness.")
[2] Whenever any one tries to share the above facts, that person is demoted as was the case of Elder Daniells and Walter Rea. Shouldn't the whistle blowers be rewarded by the church instead of punished?
[3] Will the SDA church only do the right thing in regard to Ellen White's books, when it is threatened by a lawsuit?
[3] Why can't we acknowledge the sins of the past, and move forward with a clear conscience, knowing that our righteousness can only be found in Christ?
[4] When are we going to give the real "testimony of Jesus" to the world?
Cheers,
Mike

1844
You state:"It is a matter of public record that in her formative years she suffered a severe head trauma which kept her bedridden for many weeks. "

Actually that is not "a matter of public record.". EGW alone claims that she was disfigured in a rock-throwing incident, and she claims that her health ever afterwards suffered. I don't know--and I'm not sure if anybody else knows--if this actually happened. EGW may just as well have made up the story to deflect attention from her mixed-race looks. I suspect that it was racial slurs and not rocks that were hurled at her in childhood. Ellen White never hesitated to rewrite her biography when it suited her purpose, and that may very well have been the case here. According to her the accident put an end to her education, but she herself disagrees on when that happened, whether at age 10 or about age 12. As for disfigurement, her sister was similarly 'disfigured' without any rocks having flattened her nose.

....."clear from the above and the Elder Daniells testimony quoted by "Hopeful" that plagiarism was indeed an issue back in Ellen White's times.

Whenever any one tries to share the above facts, that person is demoted as was the case of Elder Daniells and Walter Rea."

we've all heard about Rea's troubles.....what happened to Daniels, especially if he was a GC official?

FYI,
Several editions of Conybeare's & Howson's book are free from Google eBooks. Some early editions of EGW books also are available.

For those of us born & bred in this church, dealing w/ the full reality of EGW is the Second Great Disappointment.

We need not reject her altogether, as she was devout & able to inspire others to greater devotion. For some, it means taking her literally when she said (as Horatio reminded us) that if Christians had studied the Bible as they should have, her writings would not have been needed.

>>>>"as she was devout & able to inspire others to greater devotion."

I would have no problem at all if her writings were considered of "inspiration to greater devotion." She sure was able to do this.
The problem resides with her support to doctrines contrary to the Bible and her blatant plagiarism. S
Her writing cannot be utilized to construct doctrine. (I mean, should not be...)

Aage, you are correct. The strongest evidence we have that EGW was injured was directly from her! If in fact we cannot trust her direct words on an issue (especially about herself!) then there are bigger issues to sort through:

"I turned to see how far she [the angry schoolmate] was behind me, and as I turned, the stone hit me on my nose. I fell senseless. When I revived, I found myself in a merchant’s store, the blood streaming from my nose, my garments covered with blood, and a large stream of blood on the floor.

A kind stranger offered to take me home in his carriage. I knew not how weak I was, and told him I should greatly soil his carriage with blood, and that I could walk home. Those present were not aware that I was so seriously injured. I had walked but a few rods when I grew dizzy and faint. My twin sister and my schoolmate carried me home. I have no recollection of anything for some time after the accident. My mother says that I noticed nothing, but lay in a stupid state for three weeks....

As I aroused to consciousness, it seemed to me that I had been asleep. I was not aware of the accident, and knew not the cause of my sickness."

SOURCE: Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1860, 1944), vol. 2, pp. 7, 8. For other accounts by Ellen White, see Testimonies for the Church (Boise, Id.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948), vol. 1, pp. 9, 10, and Life Sketches of Ellen G. White (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1915, 1943), pp. 17, 18.

TJG & George,
Was I too subtle in my two suggestions?

http://www.bible.ca/7-EGW-photo-gallery.htm

the "twins" look almost exactly the same....no apparent nose damage to separate them.

..."My mother says that I noticed nothing, but lay in a stupid state for three weeks....
As I aroused to consciousness, it seemed to me that I had been asleep. I was not aware of the accident, and knew not the cause of my sickness."

so apparently even Ellen did not know of any "damage" to her nose or face....

hhmmm.....beginning to wonder if Aage's theory could be right.

John
What I find interesting about the incident is that she specifically states that she was hit in the nose. If the blow to her nose was powerful enough to put her in a coma for a few weeks, one would at least expect it to show evidence of having been broken. A broken nose, especially back then, was difficult to set right, but in her case there is no evidence of such injury.

EGW could easily have passed for Black, back then as well as today. But while that fact could have been a great asset for today's international SDA church, if acknowledged, it obviously was not perceived to be an advantage back then. The paintings of EGW used in SDA books and publications (e.g. in the so-called 'Cinderella' picture on your link) show how the church went out of its way to purge her of any non-Caucasian traits.

Tom last year told a very telling story about the extreme sensitivity white people had back in the day when it came to 'Black blood.' A jokester in the church once told his mother, after church, that he had heard that she had 'colored blood.' The joke was that all blood is red, hence 'colored.' But Tom says that his mother was so shocked by the primary implication, that she had African-Americans in her family line, that she never forgot the incident. It's not much of a stretch to believe that EGW would have invented--or maybe more likely--exaggerated a childhood incident, in order to explain her racially ambiguous facial features.

Incidentally, the last picture on your link, the picture of EGW and her staff, explains why she was deep in debt when she died. There are fourteen people surrounding her. EGW lived the life of a duchess at a minor Downton Abbey, with servants of every kind at her beck and call. Like today's tele-evangelists, she enjoyed the good life.

People who have been in a coma for such a length of time (recall Gabby Gifford) have no recollection of what happened. If Ellen was 3 long weeks in a comatose state how could she have possibly recalled the incident, described in great detail?

Did her twin sister later tell her? Where is that mentioned? So much has been made of it in every story told, especially to children; much like the fable of her holding a heavy Bible for half-an-hour. These were all repeated to influence children and adults who were susceptible to miracles and magic. "Pandering" is the proper name for such shameless untruths: "lying for God."

As I've been saying, it seems to me the White Estate is not its own friend, so it hardly seems reasonable or compassionate to expect it to be our friend.

It's a fear-driven thing, I suppose, and will dissolve on its own in the light of day.

No direct correlation, but interesting....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Chri...

A 3 week coma implies a very significant brain injury. Since the blow was to the front, you would expect both frontal lobe and occipital lobe damage with possible internal bleeding.

Don't forget, we also have the mercury poisoning from this time, as she helped her father with his hatting profession.

/Bevin

Ellen could have been Adventism's Oprah Winfrey success story, 100+ years ahead of her time!

Guilt offerings? Never heard of this--ever? Salvation by works? OT seeping into NT? What is this? Why have I never heard of guilt offerings?