Ellen G. White and Her English Composition Skills: A Brief Summary
by Eduard C. Hanganu, January 23, 2015: This is a guest blog on a subject of interest to many Adventists. Eduard Hanganu is currently an Adjunct English Language Lecturer in the Department of English at the University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana.
Introduction
The traditional Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] folkloric and theological literature has often pointed to Ellen White’s “beautiful” prose as the indisputable evidence that the numerous books, articles, pamphlets, and other works for which she took credit and which were published under her name have a non-human but rather “celestial” or “divine” origin because the claimed “unique” and “wonderful” English language that defines her religious literature was handed to her through superhuman visions and angelic dictations.
Some readers, though, are not too impressed with the language in her publications and mention that the sentences, paragraphs, and chapters seem to be written in a bombastic rhetoric that appears to be designed to impress, dazzle, and distract rather than inform and convince. The writer seems to wish to impose a certain perspective on the readers – the unverifiable notion that some rhetorical format in a text would prove in itself and without doubt what or who originated the document.
Those who have searched deeper into the writer’s background are also faced with a puzzle that seems hard to solve: how could a woman with a limited or rather absent formal education publish books, articles, pamphlets, and other materials that appear to demonstrate above average English composition skills, a large lexicon, and also remarkable grammatical correctness?
While it is true that Ellen White made numerous, non-factual, and uncorroborated claims about her “visions” and that angelic “guard” that often dictated to her “divine” content, such fantastic claims still fail to explain how her illiterate and illegible longhand scribbles became the “beautiful prose” that continues to amaze and awe the SDA church members and persuade them to believe that the books and articles she published under her name are God-given and contain unadulterated and perfect truths.
This brief discussion is intended to summarize Ellen White’s English language skills from the information contained in her own autobiographical and personal comments which she made at different times in her life, and from information contained in the biographical book that her grandson, Arthur L. White, wrote, and offers some possible explanation for the radical and implausible distance between Ellen White’s non-existent language skills and the well-written documents that were published under her name and for which she took credit.
White’s English “Skills” Summarized
When she lived with her parents in Portland, Maine, Ellen White had an accident that produced a radical change in her life. She was nine at the time, and a classmate hit her on the nose with a stone.1 Due to the adverse health state that followed the trauma, “Ellen’s formal education ended abruptly.”2 She “was able to attend school but little,”3 and “it seemed impossible for [her] to study and to retain what [she] learned.”4 She was so weak that her “hand trembled so that [she] made but little progress in writing,”5 and she “could get no farther than the simple copies in coarse hand.”6 Because she was so debilitated, her teachers recommended that she leave school for a time until she regained her health.7 She never returned to formal education, and evidence shows that her English language skills never developed enough to be adequate for book and article publication.
She was 45 when she complained that she “[was] not a scholar,”8 that she could not “prepare [her] own writings for the press,”9 and that she wished to “become a scholar in the [grammar] science.”10 Her inadequate skills made it imperative that she have “help from her husband and others” at all times.11 The “prophet” even became so discouraged and disappointed with her poor editorial skills that she made the decision that “therefore I shall do no more with them [her documents] at present. I am not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own writings for the press. Until I can do this I shall write no more.”12
Arthur White mentions that “it was ever a source of regret to Mrs. White that her schooling had been very brief, and her knowledge of the technical rules of writing was therefore limited.”13 When she started to publish, she asked James White to “help her in preparing it [the work] technically for publication,”14 and he “would point out weaknesses in composition and faulty grammar.”15 Ellen White emphasizes the fact that her husband corrected her “grammatical errors”16 and eliminated “needless repetition”17 from her sentences and paragraphs. When James White “could not give time to the technical correction of all her writings,” 18 Ellen White was forced to resort to “editorial assistants” for the same work, that is, “the burden of making grammatical corrections.”19 That extensive editorial work was needed because often her sentences and paragraphs were not “grammatically consistent,”20 and were often plagued with “faulty arrangement,”21and “unnecessary repetition.”22 This happened because “she paid little attention to the rules of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling,” 23 and “there was much repetition and faulty grammatical construction [in her paragraphs].”24
Historian Ronald Graybill summarizes in the following manner the illiterate condition that characterized Ellen White’s English language composition skills and defined her handwritten manuscripts before the “editorial assistants” changed those scribbles into the “beautiful” prose for which Ellen White took unfair credit: With effort, Mrs. White could write neatly and compose clear sentences. Early in her career, most of her letters went out in her own hand. But with editors to rely on, she devoted less and less attention to style, grammar, and penmanship [emphasis added].25 She usually wrote in great haste and deep conviction. The result was a torrent of thoughts uninhibited by the conventions of complete sentences and compact paragraphs. Robert Peel said of Mrs. Eddy that “Some of the writing seems to be a rush and tumble of words, as though the writer’s thoughts were flooding ahead of her pen. Sentences are chaotic, punctuation erratic, quotations inexact, meanings obscure.”22 The words might be applied to Ellen White as well [emphasis added].25
Ellen White’s Editorial “Helpers”
Because Ellen White’s composition skills were so minimal and inadequate, she had to depend on what she liked to call “helpers,” “secretaries,” or “editorial assistants” who were hired to correct and edit her sometimes plagiarized pages, paragraphs, and chapters, compile that plagiarized material into books, articles, and pamphlets, and prepare the documents for the press. Jerry Moon, Church History Department chair at Andrews University, mentions the rather unknown and curious fact that “during her lifetime, Ellen White employed some 20 paid and unpaid individuals to help her in preparation of her letters and manuscripts for mailing or publication,”26 while “at any given time Ellen White would have between 6 and 12 employees working in her publishing enterprise.”27
Moon’s document includes ample information about all these known and little known “helpers,” “secretaries,” or “editorial assistants.” The information he provides includes their names, work times, “clearance” (how much freedom these individuals had to “edit” and “improve” Ellen White’s “manuscripts” or “autographs”), and their specific “work descriptions,” or what their particular assignments were.
Ellen White’s “Editorial Assistants”
Moon lists in this category the following “assistants”: James White, Mary Clough, Mary Kelsey White, James Edson White, W.C. White, Marian Davis, Adelia Patten, Miss E. J. Burnham, Miss Sarah Peck, Miss Maggie Hare, Mr. Dores E. Robinson, Miss Minnie Hawkins, “Sister Tenney,” Miss Frances E. Bolton, Mrs. W. F. Caldwell, and Charles C. Crisler. Out of these individuals, James White, Mary Kelsey White, James Edson White, W.C. White, Marian Davis, and Miss Frances E. Bolton had unlimited clearance—that is, they could plagiarize documents, perform heavy editing, and prepare documents for publication. The other people Moon mentions had limited “editorial” clearance. Their work appears to be confined to “copying” (whatever that means), and other similar basic activities.28
Ellen White’s Editorial “Consultants”
Moon also mentions a group of “consultants,” that is, individuals who were requested from time to time to provide her with advice concerning the materials she intended to publish, or perform research for her books and other materials. Among them are J.H. Waggoner, J.N. Loughborough, H. Camden Lacey, Edwin R. Palmer, J. H. Kellogg (the “pantheist”) and Dr. David Paulson, who are mentioned for consulting, and W.W. Prescott, who is mentioned for research.29
Conclusion
The evidence from Ellen White herself, and from her grandson, Arthur L. White, about her absent formal education and her impaired English language skills during her entire lifetime demonstrates that Ellen White did not have the English composition and grammar knowledge required to organize her possible ideas into fluent, coherent, and literate sentences, paragraphs, and chapters, and to prepare her notes and manuscripts for publication.
Given the ample information about the numerous and qualified “editorial assistants” who were used to “work” on her manuscripts all through her career as a writer, the most reasonable solution to the puzzle, and the best explanation as to how an illiterate woman could produce literate and even “beautiful” text that populates the numerous books, articles, and letters for which she took credit, seems to be that it was not Ellen White who wrote those documents and prepared them for the press, but the qualified “editorial assistants” who worked for her in the publication business but never received the due credit for their work.
References
1Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White: A Brief Biography.” Retrieved on December 30, 2014 from https://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp.
2Idem.
3Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen G. White (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1915), 18-19.
4Idem, 18-19.
5Idem, 18-19.
6Idem, 18-19.
7Idem, 18-19.
8The White Estate. MR No. 657-E. G. White Not a Grammarian. Manuscript Releases Volume Eight [NOS. 526-663], page 448. Retrieved on December 30, 2014 from https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=8MR&pagenumber=448
9Idem.
10Idem.
11J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Ellen White and Literary Dependency,” Ministry, June 1980, 5.
12Idem.
13Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant (Ellen G White Publications, 1956), 67-69.
14Idem.
15Idem.
16Idem.
17Idem.
18Idem.
19Idem.
20Idem.
21Idem.
22Idem.
23Idem.
24Idem.
25Ronald D. Graybill, The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteen Century (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press,1983), 191-192.
26Jerry Moon (2004), “Ellen G. White’s Use of Literary Assistants.” Retrieved December 30, 2014 from www.andrews.edu/~jmoon/Documents/…/03.pdf, 1.
27Idem, 5.
28Idem, 4-7.
29Idem, 7.
It is not unreasonable to believe that divine inspiration originated with Ellen and continued with those who assisted in preparing her writings for pblication in intelligible form
Donald, that is a great thought, but the notion that her “helpers” were also inspired at Ellen White’s level is denied by Ellen White herself, William White, Arthur White, and the White Estate. See my full research document,”Ellen G. White and Her Ghost Writer Book Shop” in Academia.edu
I believe that a current SDA theologian who also denies inspiration for the “ghost writers” is Jud Lake in his book, “Ellen White Under Fire.”
Also, there is the need for such claims to be verified with factual evidence. Fannie Bolton’s and Marian Davis’ personal claims are that they were not inspired bu that they plagiarized the content of the books for which Ellen White took credit under Ellen’s supervision and blessings.
I once admired the beauty of her language, thought, and powerful statements. But it all changed after I undertook my own research on the question of her alleged plagiarism. First I took the book The Story of Redemption and compared it with John Milton’S Paradise Lost. It was more than enough to convince me of her plagiarism. I continued my work with the Desire of Ages and could identify and document more than 115 authors who have parallels with Desire of Ages. Many of them are direct word to word and thought thought parallels, not forgetting,the sequnce too! A particular book I would like to mention is The Prince of the House of David, by Ingraham, 1855. It was from this book that she drew a large amount of fiction into Desire of Ages. To mention a couple of them: judas’ mortal remains consumed by dogs; and John meeting Jesus in the wilderness as He was being tempted. This information does not pass the Bible test of a true prophet – ‘To the law and to the testimony’. Having no good education, nor required grammar was no problem, she could read, write and COPPY! That’s all one needed to be a prophet.
The above short document is an adapted section of a large research document entitled “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” that is posted in Academia.edu under Eduard C. Hanganu together with other documents that might interest the readers of this article.
I consider myself a strong melancholic/sanguine, ragingly intuitive, and within that context, at age 11 I decided it was time to immerse myself in the holy literature of my church. So I set out to read The Desire of Ages by Ellen White.
What was my disappointment, however, to find a book whose author seemed to lack a consistent style and personality–in effect, I found her book woefully over-edited. I guess somehow I had conjectured that as a book authored originally by the Holy Spirit, DA would simply scintillate with divine fingerprints and personality. Instead, it seemed to brim with 19th-century style trying (to my young literary ear) to emulate the grandiosity of the romantic classics of its era on a topic that seemed better attuned to direct, more declarative prose. I was disappointed, couldn’t seem to stay awake long enough to finish a chapter, and closed the book for good at around page 73.
I lamented that it was my problem not yet to have grown into such material, and indeed I now appreciate her work more and more, perhaps because I read it for what it is rather than what my rabid imagination once hoped it would turn out to be—words directed to me expressly from On High.
Even so my early impression of one of her best-read books was that it was a work of a committee, rather than an individual, and with time we have learned more and more that this appears to be the case, and we understand a lot more about why this probably had to be…. Today I empathize a great deal with Sister White’s profound doubts about herself and her capabilities as a writer on serious spiritual themes. I am far less critical of her today than I was at age 11, when I concluded in my dark little heart that DA disclosed more about the psychological issues of the author than it did the excellencies of our Lord… I was a tough little critic back then, but probably not more so than most of my Baby Boom contemporaries wrestling by night with the angel of Ellen White….
I have always been touched by DA, and it has been a blessing in my spiritual life. Later as I learned the editing business, I did find editing problems, but it didn’t take away from the meaning. Like in so many other cases, “scholars” analyze good things to death like one would cut up a frog for study. The frog no longer lives in its beauty and wonder of life, but they see its dead structure and how they think it evolved. By being obsessed with what is dead, perhaps they miss its meaning in life.
It’s common sense to expect EGW’s writing to be in the style of her age just like the Bible. It’s too bad her estate didn’t do rewriting to keep up with the times. And given her transparency about her writing, she would obviously have assistants to get it as correct as possible.
I have not seen published books that give credit to their editorial assistants. Maybe the professor has. I have also re-written articles with permission of the author without credit, nor did I need it. The most important thing was that the meaning and experience of the author got through. I think this is just another critic AT got to stir some debate and controversy. That’s their job.
“It’s too bad her estate didn’t do rewriting to keep up with the times.” But, they have for several books. Steps to Christ was rewritten in more modern language and republished as Steps to Jesus (1981, 1997). William Fagal has done the same with the Conflict series (see http://archives.adventistworld.org/issue.php?id=1007&action=print).
Funny, I could never go past the middle of 100 Years of Solitude in my native Spanish, but I’m not sure that alone warrants a negative judgement of that work or its author. While generally viewed as a timeless masterpiece, I feel it speaks to a different generation. My opinion, again, is neither the only one nor, arguably, the right one. It’s just that: mine.
How do EGW’s published manuscripts compare with her verbal speaking skills?? Should a person present themselves to God to be a vessel of His
“speaking” the “Good News”, who are we to question why God would not have preferred a scholar?? With regard to the plagiarized content, in the nineteenth century it was not as strong a forbidden usage as it is today, especially when utilization was anecdotal, as much of EGW’s published output was. And this could have been that content added by educated editorial assistants. This thread, while perhaps scholarly in preparation, displays more of which “light” the author is most interested in presenting (denigrating) the personality.
The plagiarism bit has been gone over ad nauseum and the writing exonerated on a legal basis.
I am not one to take the lady as infallible but inspired in spirit. She was a product of her era and reflected the thinking of the time on changing knowledge such as science.
The visions were not given to educate on material matters but spiritual ones including health issues effecting the whole person. We miss the meanings while beating the horse that God has used to bring the movement as far as it has gone over the years.
Let’s not go back all the way back to the 19th century for evidence of “acceptable” plagiarism. Get a hold of Ari Posner’s scathing 1988 “The Culture of Plagiarism” piece in the New Republic for a more recent take on the topic. Surely, if JFK, MLK, and numerous well educated and articulate 20th century politicians, judges, journalists, book writers, etc. can get a free pass, so should an undereducated 19th century woman, right?
We all know who the scholars were in Christ’s day, yet He chose those who were most unlikely candidates, and made them fishers of men. My father-in-law was a deep sea fisherman with grade 2 education in the late 20’s in the past century, he was illiterate, my wife kept reminding him who Christ chose. These scholars were bent on killing their Savior literally. What about us and His prophet today?
The writings of EG White however written, does not agree with Bible Doctrine. I read her articles, and found them so depressing, repetitious, and own right unbiblical, that I had to stop out. Mostly out of boredom.
This is a most helpful article, appropriately drawing on good, relevant scholarship. Its thesis is modest, and is in keeping with what I have written about Ellen White over the years. I continue to see Mrs. White as possessing a prophetic gift in Adventism’s history, and I understand why her writings have been described as inspired. However, as historians and literary critics continue to examine Mrs. White’s work, we increasingly see her and her contribution to Adventism as possessing a thorough-going human element. I personally celebrate every advance in analytical knowledge, as it corroborates my conviction that God allows us humans more freedom than many of us are comfortable with and must be found at a more profound level of existence than the interventionist model suggests.
The psychological needs and quirks of EGW are very easy to see when reading only a little of her work. She was obsessed with her own ideas and compulsive about writing them regardless of their historical or scientific facts.
The sad part that one of the most prominent books, The Great Controversy, has had the greatest influence on the SdA church, even making eschatological doctrine. Her suppositions of future events were based on the contemporary anti-catholic sentiment in the U.S. but has now proved to be seriously outdated. The idea that Catholicism would eventually be so strong that it would force the entire world to bow at its feet is truly laughable now. With the Muslim population growing at a much faster rate than any Christian religion, such a likelihood of the papacy reaching such power was an obsessive reaction based on her “reading” of the time.
As a church pastor, trainer and coach I have found Ellen White to be insightful ahead of her time on so many key issues in ministry. From Church growth principles, learning styles theory, legalism, Pentecostalism, Rationale Emotive behavioral theory, pastoral leadership and many more. I don’t see how editorial assistants would have contributed to this amazing collection of insights on so many topics. It is when you look at Ellen White work as a whole that she is most impressive.
In reading the Great Controversy, or the Desire of Ages, the prose while beautiful, cannot account for the spiritual connection, and the experience of enlightenment that one receives. Our tendency to post-mortemize her writings into oblivion, and therefore miss the intended purpose, which is to illuminate the “greater light”, (while profusely acknowledging her status as the “lesser light”) is a dangerous pastime…one in which we may well cause others to be distracted from the greater message of Christ’s love, His death and salvation’s gift and promise.
Missing the forest for the twigs!
If God chose editors to assist His physically/educationally limited servant in delivering His message in a more linguistically acceptable way, that is His choice, not ours. I doubt the Bible was written solely by the prophets, but also had scribal “editing” staffs of hundreds. But the message is the same. Her message is consistent…even through her manuscripts as letters…the “voice”…the tenor… is the same…recognizable anywhere…no matter the “scribe”.
In all the books i have read, hers are unique,. Well i should say that modern theologians and scholars who have made a mission to destroy her work are also driven by jelous. Not to mention those who claim to be former adventists ( of which i doubt) who now open new ministries and own churches , but they dont present something better. Well Pharisees were jeolous of Jesus and always put a stumbbling block. Many may say she was a false prophet , when i read her material she honored God. Her wish was simple ” fear God and Him glory for the hour of His Judgement has come”. She exalted the cross. She lifted high the commandments of God. Many haters ( scientifically or in an educational language critics) tend to ignore her writings about justification by faith. This message is highly rated in adventists. So they quote her writings out of context. And put criticism after criticism. The truth remains whether she copied or not i dont know but her writings honoured God..
I too have read many of her classic books and there certainly is uniqueness, but that uniqueness was obviously not from her pen but borrowed from earlier authors! There is an endless list of works on the life of Christ and I had read more than forty of the best works. I can honestly testify that Ellen White’s Desire of Ages is least in the rank in comparison with thee books. Besides, what makes the Desire of Ages more interesting is the fact that it contains more of fiction than any book I had ever read. All the good things one can find in her writings can also be found in the writings of these non-Adventist writers. Let us not undervalue non-Adventist writers. God used them too.
She relied so heavily on John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” that it became much more like his masterpiece than the very limited creation story in the Bible. But since too many members, at least in the past, were not encouraged in SdA schools to read the great English writers, they praised her plagiarized work for the beauty of its language!
I was once very fascinated by her books – The Early Writings, Story of Redemption, and the Patriarchs and the Prophets because of their exciting stories not found in the Bible. But when I had read the Paradise Lost, I could see all her great controversy themes word for word, thought for thought, sequence in this book. The message was clear to me. I had to un-learn many things I believed and are taught by the church.
I am interested in the apparent assumption that someone without advanced “formal” education could not learn to write good prose. Of course there are numerous examples of those who did exactly this. Horace Greeley had practically no formal education. Mark Twain abandoned formal education at about the age of 12. Jack London ended his formal training at about the age of 13 and George Bernard Shaw at age 14. And I seem to remember that Abe Lincoln managed to write a little speech that we are faithfully admonished to study in our educational process. And finally there were some of those poorly educated chaps that added a few books to the scriptures.
It would be refreshing if on occasion Adventist Today published an article that pointed to some of the positive contributions of Ellen White.
Tim,
What you state is true, but those are exceptions. My experience as an English Composition instructor in college is that a writing style is a personal characteristic almost as persistent as our physical features.
At the beginning of the semester I would give my students an assignment in which I asked them to write a short narrative about themselves. Those were baseline papers, and from them I learned their peculiar writing styles. Later, when one of the students tried to plagiarize a written assignment, the style change alerted me to the unusual and that was almost enough to charge the student with plagiarism.
Graybill found out that becasue Ellen White relied more and more on “editorial assistants” as time went by, and that her writing skills (whatever they were) declined and did not improve towards the end of her life. You will find this information in the document “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” which is posted in Academia.edu under my name.
If you study those famous writers you will find that their formal education may have been short, but they were voracious readers. One cannot be a good writer without first and continuously reading many other writers.
That is what EGW did as evidenced by the books on her shelves. And although she denied having read them, her writing too closely reflects that either she, or her editorial assistants did read those books. Else, how could their words be almost quoted word for word?
I don’t believe EGW’s library shows that she was a voracious reader, but an ambitious accumulator of “wholesale” goods which her manufacturing company reprocessed into great personal wealth. Her lectures and letters indicate little or no knowledge consistent with even having read them.
When anyone asked her questions about the things she wrote, there was never the eagerness of a true author to add detail to her writings. Instead, “God is not in that question!”, or the Holy Spirit has not authorized you waste time on this type of thinking? And she was never sweet about it.
And what could be more absurd than copying Bible conversations in the arcane Jacobean dialect of the KJV, (errors and all) rather than sharing the actual modern-English words translated by God that she actually heard?
No one has ever provided objective evidence that she ever wrote or said or did anything that she could not have done without special inspiration. Methinks that if she hadn’t “grandmothered” in at the beginning, she would never have made it through the door.
Harry, you claim: “When anyone asked her questions about the things she wrote, there was never the eagerness of a true author to add detail to her writings. . . . And she was never sweet about it.”
Were you there when she allegedly said or did not say those things? Just curious how you her say it. . . .
Facts are an annoyance to true believers. Only myth elevated to facts facts are useful. And even if it shamelessly necessitates applying the mantle of imagined “inspiration” on assistants and editors.
Yes, she did imagine her visions and passed them as revelations. Here are two examples from her own words: “My imagination saw the pure river of water of life”. – 9 MR, p. 105; Letter 30, pp. 2,3, 1882.
“In imagination I gathered with the saints around the widespread tree of life”. – 9 MR, p. 104, 1990.
Compare these quotes with ones found in Word to the Little Flock, p. 15. Analyse and see which one these versions is telling the truth.
With such attention being paid to the utterly irrelevant and meaningless, why is anyone surprised at the poor condition of the church in North America?
The author says: “Out of these [editorial assistants], James White, Mary Kelsey White, James Edson White, W.C. White, Marian Davis, and Miss Frances E. Bolton had unlimited clearance—that is, they could plagiarize documents, perform heavy editing, and prepare documents for publication.”
He does not cite any authority for the claim that they “could plagiarize documents.” Even in the legal environment of the 19th century, I highly doubt that E.G.W. told her assistants, “I am authorizing you to go and plagiarize documents.” At worst, she might have said: “You can get some ideas from other authors or gather some materials from other works.”
In any event, drawing upon existing literature is not bad; it is the mark of scholarship as long as it is properly attributed. It is not clear exactly what the scholarly academic standards of attribution were in those days or whether she was even subject to those standards (as she was not producing academic theses), but Attorney Vincent L. Ramik conducted a thorough legal review and found that her practices were fully consistent with prevailing legal standards of her day. See http://www.EllenWhiteAnswers.org/answers/plagiarism .
Mr.Castro:
As I have mentioned before, the paper you have read is just a fragment from a large research document entitled “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” which is posted in Academia.edu under my name.
In that document you will find evidence for the undocumented statements I have made in this short paper. I am sure that you are aware of the fact that Adventist Today could not have published a 65 page single line document in a blog.
Eduard Hanganu
When EGW Estate openly and freely makes available all of the known original words and works of EGW then there will be no further need for speculation as to the quality of Ellen’s writing skills.
If the Dead Sea scrolls can be published in totality, what is preventing EGW Estate from scanning all of the original material they have and making it freely available?
“When EGW Estate openly and freely makes available all of the known original words…”
What is not available other than possibly very personal material?
Maranatha
Agree with your point completely. There is nothing there to hide. Not making it all available in some format suggests conspiracy theories. I think it is more expense and the likelihood that no more compilation books could be produced.
PS– as you know, the Dead Sea Scrolls have not been published in their entirety. And it was a huge hassle to get what was already available to academia to be opened up to all scholars and the public.
“The traditional Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] folkloric and theological literature has often pointed to Ellen White’s “beautiful” prose as the indisputable evidence that the numerous books, articles, pamphlets, and other works for which she took credit and which were published under her name have a non-human but rather “celestial” or “divine” origin because the claimed “unique” and “wonderful” English language that defines her religious literature was handed to her through superhuman visions and angelic dictations.”
This one-sentence paragraph needs work. It strikes me as “bombastic rhetoric that appears to be designed to impress.”
So true. As a work of academic research, this fails completely because of its tone.
I agree with Alfredo–the clause “bombastic rhetoric that appears to be designed to impress” goes beyond what I have ever heard anyone say in describing Ellen White’s style.
Fred Veltman’s view of her style was quite different: “Ellen White writes as if she is dealing with realities, whether on earth or beyond the world we see. The reader is not left to imagine anything except what it would have been like to have been in Palestine in the time of Jesus and to have faced the realities she is describing. [She] stayed with the main storyline and with the essential elements of the background and characterizations. The reader of the DA is hardly ever conscious of the text itself or impressed with the literary skill of the author. One is caught up with the narrative and its meaning and appeal. This cannot always be said of the sources she used” (Veltman, Full Report of the Life of Christ Research Project, pp. 930, 931).
Gladys King-Taylor described Ellen White’s style: “The style does not call attention to itself to the neglect of the thought which it accompanies” (Literary Beauty of Ellen G. White’s Writings [1953], pp. 35). King-Taylor also identified characteristic elements in Ellen White’s writing as: clearness of thought; careful word selection; forceful, effective sentences; use of contrast and antithesis; figures of speech–tropes, metaphors, similes, personification, metonymy, and synecdoche–and iteration (repetition), climax, and tense changes. All of these elements can be found in her manuscripts. The editing of her manuscripts only refined the elements.
Also, the author’s vague assertion that Ellen White’s editorial staff “could plagiarize documents” leaves the reader pondering what he could mean. Did he mean plagiarize other authors to include in Ellen White’s work? Neither Veltman nor I found any evidence that editorial assistants brought material in directly (Veltman, Ministry, Oct. 1990, p. 6; Morgan, White Lie Soap [2013], p. 101). Did he mean that they could take pieces of Ellen White’s own compositions that were better written and substitute them for parts of a manuscript? That would be true. White’s “workers of experience” were “authorized to take a sentence, paragraph, or section from one manuscript and incorporate it with another manuscript where the same thought was expressed but not so clearly. But none of [Mrs. White’s] workers [were] authorized to add to the manuscripts by introducing thoughts of their own. They [were] instructed that it is the words and thoughts that Mother has written, or spoken, that [were] to be used” (W. C. White to G. A. Irwin, May 7, 1900).
As Professor H. C. Lacey, who saw the preparation of The Desire of Ages firsthand, later attested:
“Never at any time, was there any alteration of the thought, or the insertion of an idea that was not already expressed in the original text. The resultant ‘copy’ was always submitted to Sister White herself for final…
Amid all the many writers and critics of EGW’s writings, who among those critics have seen the originals in her own handwriting?
If that information is available, who can furnish it?
The final published works cannot always be verbatim copies from her own handwriting.
The accusation of plagiarism by the author throws some doubt on what he has written. Stick to facts, sir, if you wish credibility.
It has been clearly shown that what some say is plagiarism was a common practice.
Maranatha
Plagiarism may have been a common practice. What was not so common, however, was to take plagiarised material, and then make the claim, ‘In a vision of the night season, The Angel showed me…..(plagiarised material).’ The truthful thing to say would have been more like, ‘Fannie Bolton showed me this nice/apt statement she had read….. and it expressed just what I felt perfectly….. I told her to include it.’
From the introduction of The Great Controversy:
“In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works. “
Can you site examples of “In a vision of the night season” that are then plagiarized words? Of course, there are times that a book or writing is put before ANYONE seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit just at the right time. That is not what you are saying, however, and you speak as if you know this was a regular practice.
As a college student my Professors encouraged us to memorize the following choice words from Mrs. Ellen G White:
C. Ed. 17, 18. “It is the work of true education to develop this power; to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen.”
I am not out to defend EGW, but it seems if what she wrote was spiritually true, why go to the lengths of analyzing her writing? She said she hired assistants and clearly felt unqualified to edit her thoughts, insights, and visions.
It’s too bad if the estate let everyone think she did it alone and claimed her personal work prosaic when she did not keep her problems with writing a secret. As a charismatic person, I would imagine she was a better speaker or at least the spirit in her came out in her lectures.
I am a believer in the Holy Spirit who can make even the plainest writing and speaking come to life. We find holiness in spiritual writers, because they convince us of the Truth of Jesus not because of their expertise in history, science, and other fields.
As for GC, the meaning seems clear no religion that mirrors what the church in Rome once did, can be holy as an organization. People are holy, not organizations which always mirror the beast of Revelation when they take away freedoms and replace Christ in our lives with false doctrines.
Hanganu’s background is left out. Is he familiar with Adventist culture?
To make a useful sense from the issue of Ellen White’s literary skills and the contribution of her literary helpers, including some foreign text blended in her style etc. one must read first her testimony about the nature and limits of divine inspiration. For example, speaking about the Bible,she made clear that,
“The Bible was given for practical purposes.{1SM 20.2}”…
“The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.
“It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.—Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886).{1SM 21.2}
Why then should we be so zealous in decrying Ellen White’s weaknesses as a writer (which she openly acknowledged) and her need of editorial helpers, if this aspect is not the real issue in Adventism today, but a strange zeal to discreditate the fruits of the Spirit of Prophecy, in order to be as largely abandoned as possible. If Paul himself needed secretaries, and John’s grammar in the book of Revelation is quite strange when not catastrophal (kind of thinking Hebrew or Aramaic while expressing in Greek, confusing tenses etc.), why wonder so much for White’s style. Fortunately for us, non-English speakers, Ellen White is still readable. The writer only was inspired, therefore only the message is important. Her style has no authority, nor her knowledge of history, science and technical aspects of theology. But the message(s) she had to transmit are important for us and I believe that we will met them at the last Judgment. The same is all the more true about the Bible. Have a happy Sabbath, dear brethren, and please let the faith that has lightened our childhood be kindled again.
Do you as a well informed person believe what you quoted from Ellen White was from inspiration? I am sure you know that she plagiarised from Calvin E. Stowe. Is that what you consider as the biblical doctrine of Ln spiration of the bible? This theory of inspiration was adopted by Ellen White to escape the charges of her plagiarism. It’s time that we study the bible for ourselves and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we will arrive at right conclusions without the Ellen White crutch!
My comment was intended response for Florin’s comment on Ellen White’s view on the inspiration of the bible. Not a response to your comment. Sorry about that.
Oddly and ironically, this piece is both repetitive and needs editing, even though it is very short. Badly needs editing!
While objectivity is the goal of scholarship, it remains a goal, not (usually, all being human) a reality.
This piece shows it bias and almost anger on the lines and between the lines. It should have been revised before publishing.
NOW as to EGW’s alleged inability, she did in fact gain a reasonable ability to write for herself, but editorial assistants and a reading committee are virtually universal in publishing a book, even today.
The earlier writings formed an established pattern. In mid-century it was the practice of magazines and newspapers to compete for the newly-literate American market. Since the R&H steam press was one of the largest in the country, it received many gratis religious and non-religious publications.
It was acceptable practice and ENCOURAGED that entire articles be reprinted in competing publications with only the requirement that the republication have a small note at the top that read something like “FROM THE INDEPENDENT” or whatever. That was considered great advertising for THE INDEPENDENT or whatever journal was the original publisher.
One of Adventism’s early stalwarts remembered trucking these hundreds of periodicals from the press to the White house in Battle Creek, and seeing Mrs White on the floor of her parlor speeding thorugh the periodicals.
Large folio sheets were sewn together by her for scrapbooks of articles chosen to be a background for her writing on this or that topic. It was the 1860s brand of the “SAVE” button on the computer. She took chosen articles and pasted them into her scrapbooks.
There were originally nine (probably) or more because one of them was marked “No IX” on its cover. There may be more, but five were in existence when I went through every page. Here and there she had made notes and comments, agreeing of disagreeing with an idea. Any suggestion that she was some kind of illiterate dolt is absolute nonsense.
There were empty spaces here and there where an article had been cut out, obviously to be used in some fashion. Again, EGW did not hide her sources. It was not in fashion when she began to write. I found an advertisement in the Review recommending the D’Aubigne multi-volume history that forms so much of the mid-section base of “The Great Controversy.”
Elder White was the AGENT for the sale of these books, making a commission, and recommending them with the note that he and his wife had often used them in their research and writing. That’s kind of the opposite of hiding your method, eh?
And by the way, THERE IS HARDLY A BOOK AMONG THE CLASSICL PROPHETS THAT DOES NOT QUOTE EXTENSIVELY, DIRECTLY OR BY REFERENCE, TO PAGAN WORKS THAT THEN EXISTED. That is utterly irrelevant to the main issue of inspiration.
Good points. There’s something to say for being consistent. If “plagiarism” and alleged poor composition are so critical to determining whether a source is inspired, we need to be honest and let that argument continue to its final conclusion when comparing Genesis 1-11 and ancient Near Eastern texts. Same goes for the poor quality of the Greek text of the Book of Revelation. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Absolutely correct, Alfredo. Some years ago I was asked to respond to Walter Rea by a local Adventist Forum. What was fascinating was that I asked that he boil down his complaints to several headings, and I took them one by one and compared the alleged ruination of Ellen White’s claims to inspiration with the Biblical canon itself.
Not a one that was not readily apparent — and in fact commonplace — in the Scriptures. Genesis 1:1-2:3 starts us right off with its polemic against the Enuma Elish, using the Bsbylonian Creation Story and taking its major terms one by one in the same order and arguing against the Enuma Elish’s conclusions. And it continues from there, though the ocmments I’ve seen on this site have again emphasized to me how little the average SDAdventist, laymen or “priest” knows about exegesis.
Ironically, the SDA SS quarterly (at least where I live) is all about Proverbs, with virtually NO introduction to wisdom literature, whether Hebrew or Egyptian. No hint that large portions of our “Proverbs” are drawn from prior Egyptian literature.
One wag friend mine who claims to be an atheist and is way too old to be angry still at his Advent childhood, cites the story of Moses being set afloat in a reed basket, as originally a story widely known about an ancient and well-known Mesopotamian emperor.
It appears that this fellow never thought that a story so widespread might have been what “inspired” Jochobed to send her baby to the same fate with the hopes that he too would become a great leader.
That books like Jonah or Amos could hardly exist apart from Egyptian wisdom (or that Tekoa was the end of the road from Egypt as far as wisdom schools, and that the wise woman of Tekoa who instructed David was doubtless the reason that David did two things: 1. Organized his entire empire strictly along the model of the Egyptian government, and 2. Saw to it that his youngest son and heir was thoroughly trained in Egyptian wisdom literature.
Nope, can’t complain about bad writing in the Revelation OR, I would add, Alfredo, the equally GOOD writing in the Gospel of John and make it have any bearing on the matter of inspiration.
In fact, after his death the Ephesian bishops (the “we” of the Gospel) commented on the life and witness of their beloved leader: “This [the late John] is the disciple who has “written” [so to speak] these things, we WE know that his testimony is true.”
Yup, stuck in a Roman garrison 65 miles off the coast, you might write Greek that is full of Aramaic semticisms. On the other hand, leading the Christians of Roman Asia in the great and cultured city of Ephesus, with the largest and most ancient Greek theatre in the Empire, with a “committee of assistants” like the Ephesian Elders (see Paul’s warning to them in his Farewell to them) and still argue about writing style!
Ellen White’s formal education may have been at the third grade level, but she could still speak and dictate. What’s important are the messages, how they relate to the Bible, and what we do with them. We can either reject or accept them. I believe she would want us to follow the the Bible first, using her writings only to supplement what it says.
Moses was a prolific writer and author of the Pentateuch, yet he, himself, acknowledged being verbally inarticulate. So the two skills can be mutually exclusive. I, myself, am a far better writer and editor than a speaker. So it’s quite understandable that EGW could have been as well. I’m sure her vocabulary and language skills improved by learning from her editorial assistants.
I do believe Mrs White had the prophetic gift. And hearing this about the helpers only reaffirms supposed doubts in the composition of the Bible.
Moses clearly had his own helpers as well, evidenced by the fact that Deut ends with an account of his own death. I doubt even Moses wrote that!
This story about Ellen White’s helpers only illustrates many of the concerns of sceptics of the Bible, using historical-critical methods, are simply straw men arguments. Even the idea of JEDP doesn’t seem so frightening.
Prophecy does not = scripture. I know that is hard for some to hear. There is a process whereby the divine revelation is perceived, explained, written down, edited, collated and finally accepted as cannon.
The editors are also part of the prophetic process, even though we usually only think about the original person having the vision. Luke mentions at the start of his gospel that he isn’t personally having visions but simply recording what is described in other accounts. In other words, his role is as one of these helpers – an editor.
Belief is based on “like” and that is verified by posts replying to this article. In other words persons that have chosen to “like” Ellen White cannot easily be persuaded by any argument to vacate or modify their support. Belief is the apex of opinion, once achieved, is a virtual final resting place, a fortress of security for the believer. Belief doesn’t come exactly at the end of reasoned, logical, step by step process, but by the satisfaction of personal criteria where emotion is a prominent player. Once “like” is achieved, contrary “facts” are seen as malleable, or distortions created by “nonbelievers,” or functional as reverse verification.
The ongoing emotional desire to find a visceral connection to the otherwise absent God long ago found a base in Ellen and continues to thrive trumping every reasoned analysis demonstrating her limitations. And that is because “like” has transformative powers. Critics are transformed into allies, liabilities are transformed into affirmations.
In science, in general, it is the strength of arguments, with verifiability, that gains acceptance of viewpoints. Not so with religious belief. It is the weakness that verifies viewpoints, because that is where God is to be found and the connection to Him. So it is with Ellen. She is verifiably weak, as demonstrated by Eduard C. Hanganu and a long parade of others. But for the “likers” her weakness is her strength. Only God could handily employ a handicapped person and her helpers to deliver his messages.
Suppose the Adventist church really was only the Adventist Church and not the Ellen Church and consider she was the prophet for the Assembly of God Church. Wouldn’t Adventists view her weaknesses revealed by the long line of her critics as evidence she belonged in the group of laughable modern prophets including Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy?
The Adventist Church really is the Ellen Church. The DNA is inseparably bound. Divorce impossible. Trial separation, never. That, in my estimation is neither good nor bad. It just is. It is a thriving example of the power of “like.”
Humbug! This has nothing to do with “like” and everything to do with PRESUPPOSITIONS.
IF I believe Ellen White was not a genuine prophet, did not have the prophetic gift, it would be because MY PRIOR OR CURRENT CONCEPTS OF WHAT INSPIRATION IS LIKE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN HER PRACTICES. THEREFORE SHE IS NOT A PROPHET.
Alright, that is what usually happens to disaffected SDAs about Ellen White. The classic case was the enthusiastic (some said “fanatical”) Walter Rea, whose lifework was to make compilations of Mrs White’s writings on every subject.
Then alas he found BORROWING, DIRECT QUOTE OR PARAPHRASE. (Of course, that violated the “This is the way a fundamentalist KNOWS inspiration works. It did not work that way with Ellen White. Therefore she was not inspired by God.”)
Ironically, her own description of how inspiration works in Selected Messages completely defies the fundy concept of inspiration — which, by the way, has been brought up repeatedly on these threads.
Equally ironically, “her own description” of how inspiration works was itself largely drawn from the writings of another, who suffered in his own sect for his views, that were utterly out of line with fundy concepts of inspiration then and now.
No doubt when Mrs White read or was presented with this material it clicked with her as exactly what her experience had been.
Which is to say if the PRESUPPOSITION is the opposite, that, in fact, Ellen White was guided by the Holy Spirit and received the biblical Gift of Prophecy (the one elaborated in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14) then the same data produces a very different conclusion.
Let’s not pretend. Some on here (mostly disaffected) have a presupposition that Mrs White was not gifted with biblical prophecy. Others think she was. VIRTUALLY ALL STILL HOLD TO FUNDY CONCEPTS OF INSPIRATION, HOWEVER.
And that is indeed ironic.
I read the list of “all these known and little known “helpers,” “secretaries,” or “editorial assistants.”” I recognized almost every name. So I guess they have been hiding in plain sight for many, many years?
I am wondering how many other widely published 19th century authors (or compilers or secondary sources or whatever) have had preserved almost all of their personal notes and correspondence for scrutiny by future generations? Indeed how many have made provision in their legacy for such preservation and scrutiny?
Again, hiding in plain sight?
This is not to deny that a very small amount of her known output has been covered-up or redacted by her conservators for whatever reasons. Nor would I attempt to defend her hagiographers and peddlers of “magical” stories about her life.
But I would submit that the list of 19th and early 20th century writers who have generated such a prodigious output that is as well-preserved would be a very short list (Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind).
Jim, see my comments above about the Ellen White scrapbooks and how and why she used the over 2,000 periodicals that came gratis the R&H Press in her writing, what the scrapbooks show about her extensive reading and her OWN editorial sensibility.
Also, please note as I said above that I found a contemporary advertisement for d’Aubigne’s large multi-volume church history. Ever quick to find a way to increase income, the Elder was the agent for these books and recommending them to his readership.
Funny thing is, he says he and his wife have often used these books in their work. It is hard to argue that you are hiding your sources and yet let young workers at the press bring the periodicals to you and see you actively researching them.
Or that you would advertise something that formed the basis of the center of a book like The Great Controvrsy in the pages of the Review!
Like you, except for one or two, I knew every name (and in teching “Ellen White and the Gift of Prophecy” had students do a section on “Mrs White’s Literary Production”
Whenever I read something that is crafted in such highly prejudicial and pejorative language (eg the pejorative “plagiarize” rather than the factual “copy”) I wonder about the objectivity of the author.
Have you read the entire 65 page treatise “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop?” Just checking.
Isn’t your post at this point highly “prejudicial and pejorative” of the author? Your castigation of the messenger, or the hint of it, doesn’t do you well, since that is usually the first indication of a hot air defense in lieu of substantial rebuttal. Relax, Jim. You “like” Ellen. My post above applies to you, too
Having never met the lady I do not know whether I like her or not.
I like some of her books but not others. Some of the compilations published in the early 1900s are particularly bad. If nothing else I would argue that she seems to have done a better job of riding herd on her compilers and editors than did the executors of her estate after her demise. And I would say that the books published over her autograph in her later years when she could afford to hire literary assistants are generally higher quality than those published earlier in her career when she and James were doing it all themselves.
Elsewhere on this web site I have objected to those who hang on her every word as if she were the last living (or now departed) oracle. For my part I think that in the context of her times she managed to accomplish an amazing amount of good. Though she certainly had her flaws as do I and every other person commenting here.
Reading through the document, I find that the author bases his conclusions uncritically upon the sweeping and often exaggerated statements of others rather than his own reading of her writings. Having read numerous manuscripts and letters of Ellen White (which are due for imminent release), I find that she did, at times, write with urgency and, therefore, neglected punctuation and committed certain errors in grammar and spelling. Yet, Ellen White knew that these would be corrected as her handwritten notes would be typed and sent out. Regarding the more important charge in the document:
“HARD AND IRREFUTABLE FACTS that escaped to the public through incautious SDA apologetic documents provide ample evidence that demonstrates that numerous and literate ghost writers PLAGIARIZED FULL PARAGRAPHS AND OFTEN ENTIRE BOOKS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES and assembled those stolen texts into
‘new’ and ‘original works,’ and also modified, changed, edited, and corrected Ellen G. White’s plagiarized scribbles into literate and legible paragraphs and chapters, and then submitted to the press those altered and edited fraudulent compilations under Ellen White’s name under the false claim and spurious pretense that all the information that was included in those ghost publications came straight and unmediated to Ellen G. White through direct visions from God or through authentic and real-time angelic dictations.”
I looked in vain in the document for any such evidence-irrefutable or otherwise–and I found none. This leaves one of the author’s major theses as nothing more than innuendo.
As I stated above, neither Fred Veltman or I found any evidence that either Marian Davis or any other literary assistant of Ellen White directly infused material from other authors into Ellen White’s manuscripts. (See WHITE LIE SOAP, p. 101.)
The author has gathered the work of others on the topic and relies heavily upon the unsupported charges of Walter Rea and a single cursory statement of Ron Graybill:
“With effort, Mrs. White could write neatly and compose clear sentences. Early in her career, most of her letters went out in her own hand. But with editors to rely on, she devoted less and less attention to style, grammar, and penmanship. She usually wrote in great haste and deep conviction. The result was a torrent of thoughts uninhibited by the conventions of complete sentences and compact paragraphs. Robert Peel said of Mrs. Eddy that ‘Some of the writing seems to be a rush and tumble of words, as though the writer’s thoughts were flooding ahead of her pen. Sentences are chaotic, punctuation erratic, quotations inexact, meanings obscure.” The words might be applied to Ellen White as well.
Those who have read her manuscripts know that this description is not true for the vast majority of Ellen White’s manuscripts.
As in this atoday article, so did Hanganu write the document, “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop?”–as a critic and not as…
I also wonder about the objectivity of many of those here who are prejudiced as well; prejudice works both ways.
Well, Elaine
Any trial must begin with the premise (or prejudice, if you want) of “presumtio innocentiae”.
Although its content would not be interesting to non-technical audiences, I have written a substantial amount of published material. Since most of this was produced as a “work for hire” I willingly assigned my intellectual property rights to those who paid (generally fairly well 😎 for my efforts. I have also compiled and incorporated and heavily edited the works of others for publication. In very little of the published results is there attribution to or acknowledgement of the contributors or their sources.
On the other hand, at least a billion people who have never heard my name have used the results of my work. Usually it is easier to get things done if you don’t care who gets the credit. That is the way the real world works, beyond the narcissistic personality cults of academia and the various branches of the entertainment industry (including mass media, sports, etc).
As it happens, I have also produced and refereed papers for scholarly professional journals. This is a very tedious undertaking. If you do a thorough job the bibliography may well exceed the length of the article itself. I like to read the footnotes and examine the references. But I am highly atypical in my reading habits.
Far more people have read Ellen’s works than will ever read mine. She is almost certainly the most widely published woman author in history and would be surpassed by only a few men. You can explain this however you choose. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts (attributed to Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan but often quoted by others without attribution).
Jim, I would speculate that far more interested people have read your works (outside the SDA soundproof chamber) to see what you had to say than what she said. The facts are up for grabs, or at least the basis for them. Outside of SDA audiences what base of readership is there, or has there ever been for Ellen? You can claim for her the role of most read woman, but the claim Is subject to verification and the reasons are suspect. If not for SDA publishing houses with their profit and evangelistic motives for publishing copious editions and multiple compilations of her ghost edited works what would account for any circulation? Her works have overflowed the Adventist sound proof chamber and spewed out of Pacific Press window slot window over the entire earth like Noah’s rain and dumped on “outsiders” who received them not because of their beautiful message or fine writing but because of the bank rolling of insiders hoping to convert the outsiders. Recent mass mailings in San Francisco are an example.
Jim, you have moved into wild (purposeful redundancy) hyperbole speculating that her readership overall “would be surpassed by only a few men (how about Joseph Smith using a similar demographic?).” Google the question any way you wish, you will find her not even in the running, not mentioned, of men or women most read in the last one hundred fifty years.
Jim, you may not realize that by recounting your publications you have inadvertently reduced hers, properly, to the make-believe world of faith. I don’t discount her worth or value as a religious commentator among a myriad of others, or as a role player in Adventism. I value your contributions more than hers. Just my opinion.
.
Having never met the lady I do not know whether I like her or not.
I like some of her books but not others. Some of the compilations published in the early 1900s are particularly bad. If nothing else I would argue that she seems to have done a better job of riding herd on her compilers and editors than did the executors of her estate after her demise. And I would say that the books published over her autograph in her later years when she could afford to hire literary assistants are generally higher quality than those published earlier in her career when she and James were doing it all themselves.
Elsewhere on this web site I have objected to those who hang on her every word as if she were the last living (or now departed) oracle. For my part I think that in the context of her times she managed to accomplish an amazing amount of good. Though she certainly had her flaws as do I and every other person commenting here.
Among men of her era, Karl Marx would be one of the most widely published, though he was a far less prolific author than Ellen. Joseph Smith might well be in that club as well.
From an earlier era there would be William Shakespeare. This is a curious example because nobody actually knows who wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare. There is no evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon ever attended school. The only contemporary legal documents executed on his behalf contain an illegible mark.
It is likely that William Shakespeare was illiterate and that his name was used by one or more authors who wished to remain anonymous. None of which detracts from the quality of the corpus of writing commonly attributed to him.
Do Mormons not also revere their prophet and find his words of wisdom to be the source and strength of their belief? Are they not taught from earliest childhood to diligently listen to his words?
Once a child is imbued with the sacredness of the Bible that it is “God’s Word” he is taught to handle it carefully and read it regularly.
Substitute “Adventists” for “Mormons” in the first paragraph and you have identical reasons for understanding that belief, taught very early, is much stronger than any later evidence or explanations. It becomes the DNA in the SdA genetic heritage. Why should anyone be surprised at the strong, often visceral rejection that would sully their icon and make it only human?
While some things are true, others are not. Either Ellen White or Joseph Smith was dead wrong and creating a substitute for the Christians religion. One was an orthodox Christian, the other a definable “false prophet” if you use orthodox Christian beliefs as your template.
So let’s see, did not Jesus Christ characterize the final age as a time when false Christs — and also false prophets — would arise and deceive many?
So if we listen to you, we can willy-nilly and without regard to the content of their teachings, exchange any 19th century claimant to the gift of prophecy and they are about the same?
Is believing someone who clearly was teaching a false religion that attack and undermines the gospel the same as someone who does not? Your argument is about emotion, not logic.
We do ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists no favors to continue our attempts to box up Ellen White between the covers of her books. The truth about Ellen White is to be found in her life story rather than under her byline.
Generations of misappreciation of Ellen White by Seventh-day Adventist writers and speakers quoting, here a sentence or there a brief paragraph, in constructing a thesis akin to a legal argument inevitably gives rise to examining Ellen White’s work in articles like this one. This is neither unwelcome nor inappropriate. However, Ellen White’s inspiration is far from settled by such analysis.
Ellen White’s understanding and claims with regard to inspiration makes it clear, as Florin Lăiu references from 1 SM 20, that when it comes to the most universally accepted inspired writing, the bible, ‘God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible.’
Now, whether Ellen White borrowed the words–words being what they are all words are borrowed and the more completely so the more encompassing the words used can be of the experience the author is attempting to convey–or whether Ellen White also employed readers, writers, ghost writers, and editors, in no way does this threaten to dilute her inspiration nor her expression of her experience.
What the article does make inescapable is that when we read Ellen White, we are reading the collaborative efforts of many to approximate the experience of one inspired person, in this case Ellen White.
The story of her role in Millerism, her role in the perseverance of God’s presence in the Millerite remnant that founded the Seventh-day Adventist church, and her role across the first six decades of Seventh-day Adventist church history is the story of her testimonies of God’s presence rather than some theological efforts on her part that formed the basis for Seventh-day Adventists liveliness, despite their having no creed other than the bible.
It is no wonder that the Smithsonian Magazine recognizes Ellen White as one of the 100 most influential persons in American history.
Nothing stirs the pot more than discussing the three special SdA doctrines: Sabbath, IJ and EGW. Touch those and you’ve struck a hornet’s nest.
Would think the author has gotten the message, JIM. With regard to the Mormons, they have in the past 2 years entered into the flames of the general public, due to the prominence of the Romney’s, split factions of polygamists TV programs, and general dismay of many Mormons delving into Mormon history. Just as the progressives in SDA.
“100 most influential women in American history” doesn’t give where she stands on a list: No. 1 or No. 99? As women did not even begin to be noticed until the beginning of the 19th century, that statement covers only two centuries; and if evenly divided, 50 for each century.
Can you furnish the link for that statement for our verification? Just as another comment here that she’s written more words than any author?
When one adds up all the numerous compilations and separate books, there is no doubt that there may be lots of words; but words mean nothing by themselves, else one could include the Oxford English Dictionary or the Latest Brittanica Encylopedia.
As for her inspiration and status of prophet, those are all very subjective and only found within the SdA denomination who have always been taught that she was an inspired prophet. One can always find what he is looking for.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/meet-100-most-significant-americans-all-time-180953341/
5,000 periodical articles and 40 books, comprising 50,000 manuscript pages according to the White Estate
http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp
Over a 70 year period, 50,000 pages is under 15 pages a week. This does not seem prodigious.
The top 10 high volume authors all wrote in excess of 500 books each. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20091113044242AANsVtP
Ellen White did not write books in order to convince people that she is a prophet. This was her last concern. She wrote to save souls. A lot of testimonies producing repentance, and a series of great books for large canvassing, Beginning with Patriarchs and Prophets and ending with The Great Controversy. It is false that only SDA read such books. In my country, they are also bought by numerous non-Adventists. I suspect that a large number of the present SDA believers have been converted to Adventism, after reading Desire of Ages, Great Controversy or anything similar. People have not been converted because they discovered that she was a prophet, but certainly they have found there the voice of the True Shepherd. This is the way God works, and this work is deep, no unbeliever can pull it out. I wonder if you have ever read through one of these monumental books. Only God knows how many souls have been saved for Jesus by the Spirit’s power working through this controverted instrumentality.
,
I agree with you Florin
About ten years ago Marvin Moore was invited to our church and talked about some theological “hot potatoes.” One of the issues he discussed was Ellen G White’s plagiarism charges. He stated that he knew that Ellen White “borrowed” from other authors, and that the “editorial assistants” did most of the work for her books, but in the end he said something like this: “I know about all these matters, but I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that her books were inspired and that they were from God.”
Those who CHOOSE to believe against the facts will not be persuaded by evidence. Their position is, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I have already made my mind.”
As I have mentioned before, the short article published in AT is just a small part of the document entitled “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop” posted in Academia.edu under my name.
The evidence I present in that 65 page document is that:
1. Ellen White could never write legible and intelligible text in English. Her minimal composition skills diminished rather than improved with time because she depended more and more on her “editorial assistants.”
2. Ellen White also plagiarized little. She was too busy travelling and speaking. Here extremely busy schedule left very little time for writing or plagiarizing.
3. The most part of the plagiarizing and writing was done by her “editorial assistants.” Evidence indicates that Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis are, in fact, her book makers. Ellen White herself actually called Marian her “bookmaker.”
4. Ellen White took unfair credit for the books published under her name but written by her ghost writers. She also benefited financially from work she did not do.
5. Even though it is claimed in her time plagiarism was not a legal issue as large as it is today (although no serious, factual, evidence has been presented for such a case) what she did was not ethical, and cannot be excused especially because her claims were so high. She claimed that the members of the “remnant” should be able to attain perfection in their lifetime and that all sins should be removed from their lives, but her personal life contradicts her claims and indicates that she was true to her claims and to herself.
Regarding (4) – Many people today (including Yours Truly) are employed producing intellectual property as “works for hire.” We assign in advance many rights we may hold, including the right of attribution, to our employers or clients. This practice is common not only in high tech but also in production of movies, TV shows, advertising, ghost-written books, etc. I was first paid to ghost-write while I was in college.
If you are working in an academic institution or similar venue where proper attribution is one of the professional norms that is well and good. Very little of the world beyond the ivory towers works that way.
I am affraid, dear Eduard, using the same logic, that some have chosen not to believe, and even search hard for reasons to reject Mrs White’s message and so to fuel their hate for the Ellen White phenomenon.
Such passional hate is specific to those who once have been Whiteolaters to the point of blaming the Church for every real or imaginary non-conformity to Ellen White. After discovering some flaws in her writings, unwilling to equally acknowledge the realistic criteria of inspiration (regarding the Bible as well as E G White’s books), they have run to the other extreme. I am sure you know personally such believers, and I suspect that this was also the sad experience of Walter Rea.
I noted that this is a real psychological and spiritual pattern, though it is not the only one. Sorry to say, but my feeling is that your research on Ellen White’s writing skills is strongly biased on the wrong side. I would not expect that you do an apologetic study, but I would want that you make your mind after studying the best SDA research in the area (including the book of Graeme Bradford, available on SDANET, At Issue) or have your own research on the sources.
Anyway, God’s message has NOTHING to do with a perfect and nice English composition. The divine inspiration does not consist in literary greatness, nor even in correct grammar. I hope my message will also be appreciated, not as inspired but as true, in spite of my weak English.
Probably you are right to be angry. I was angry too for months or more, when I discovered that the reality (about the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy writings) was different from my premises and mental frame about the divine inspiration. But after discovering the testimony about inspiration in 1 Selected Messages chapter 1, my faith was saved and it helped me advance in Biblical research. My prayer is that you will not prolong unnecessarily you legitimate angry. The Church should have informed us about such things, but She is not better than you and me. We are all vulnerable and easy to be lost by ouselves, but I still believe that God who began with/in us the good work is able to accomplish it to the end.
It seems that plagiarism has become a very honorable “occupation” in the SDA church, even among the most “honorable” theologians and scholars.
On the same web site, Academia.edu I also posted a paper in which I show how Roberto Ouro, an SDA college professor and pastor misred and plagiarized James Barr in a paper published in The Journal of the Adventist Theological Society.
I am curious to see what excuses could some of the posters who defended Ellen White’s plagiarism have for Ouro’s plagiarism.
That EGW plagiarized is an established fact. Whether it was a common practice and legal is not the point. . Articles were published in the RH about using EGW and not citing the source. So she knew what she was doing. Was she a bad person stealing the intellectual properties of others? That doesn’t seem to fit all the good things she did. SDA world-wide educational and medical systems are the result of EGW’s work. I don’t see the use editors as a problem. Just about every book published has gone through the hands of an editor. I think the question we need to ask is why did she plagiarize? I think that the issue is one of authority. She saw herself as a messenger of God and as such the authority on religious issues. To cite a source would have set the author of that source up as an authority which in her mind he was not.
Yep. I think she thought she was doing the right thing.
And she made little attempt to hide her means and methods.
And there was a LOT of copying and editing.
Not to mention a LOT of exaggeration by some of her hagiographers.
And possibly a LOT of exaggeration by her detractors.
This article seems somewhat poorly written and bears an uncanny resemblance to previous books criticizing Mrs. White on the grounds of alleged plagiarism, ghostwriting, and editorial assistance. The professor at least should have tried to find an original topic instead of regurgitating stale accusations made by others. He could also stand to work on his English composition skills. That is obvious even to me with English as a second language. Perhaps some of his content was drafted by a young student assistant, as is common in papers published by professors.
Amen!
By the way, though current “critics” try hard to make it seem that Mrs. White hid her sources and methods, she did not. You don’t write that someone like Fanny Bolton “is my bookmaker” if you are hiding your methods. And you don’t advertise d’Aubigne’s history of the reformation as a set of books you have often used in writing and preaching in an ad in the Review and Herald to your followers!
And we hear much of all this new information, how this just recently came to light. This has all been well known and part of the discussion at least since 1889.
Actually, these charges were thoroughly aired in two books by Dudley M. Canright, “Seventh-day Adventism Renounced,” (1889) and “The Life of Mrs. E. G. White,” published posthumously (1919).
Several times I have noted that current critics, while largely “hiding” or “ignoring” Canright ACTUALLY PLAGIRIZE HIM. Things just get curioser and curioser.
Exactly. The critics are like the “pot that called the kettle black.” They often plagiarize the poor deceased Dudley Canright, who is not around to cry foul. It is interesting that Canright’s works were not given attribution in any of the footnotes to this article. Yet he is the underlying fount from which it sprang.
Just to clarify, Jim, it was not Fanny Bolton who Mrs. White called her bookmaker. That was Marian Davis.
“Fanny never was my bookmaker. How are my books made? Marian does not put in her claim for recognition. She does her work in this way: She takes my articles which are published in the papers, and pastes them in blank books. She also has a copy of all the letters I write. In preparing a chapter for a book, Marian remembers that I have written something on that special point, which may make the matter more forcible. She begins to search for this, and if when she finds it, she sees that it will make the chapter more clear, she adds it.
“The books are not Marian’s productions, but my own, gathered from all my writings. Marian has a large field from which to draw, and her ability to arrange the matter is of great value to me. It saves my poring over a mass of matter, which I have no time to do.” (Letter 61a [April 23], 1900, pp. 4, 5, to G. A. Irwin in MR926 93.7–94.2, emphasis supplied)
This description and corroborating evidence shows how carefully Marian relied on Ellen White’s own phrasing in compiling the best of Ellen White’s expressions to rejuvenate her Spirit of Prophecy volumes in the new Conflict of the Ages volumes–Patriarchs and Prophets and Desire of Ages. (Great Controversy was not rejuvenated like these two books in the series, and Acts of the Apostles and Prophets and Kings were prepared after Marian’s untimely death in 1904.)
Having edited several books for other authors, I would have found her editorial agreement with Ellen White rather constraining. This is why the wording of Ellen White, though somewhat refined, comes through in her published works.
No, Sir! Mr Hanganu’s paper is worked by himself.
Mr. Lăiu, that’s what the professors all say: “This is my own original composition.” But the truth of the matter is that many professors have students working for them to research and help draft articles for publication. In the current academic environment of “publish or perish,” such student assistants are vital.
(Some professors’ papers are even inspired by–or even surreptitiously plagiarized from–papers written by students for class assignments.) Some professors choose to acknowledge their assistance in a footnote, but some professors do not. There is a saying in government work: “You never write what you sign, and you never sign what you write.” To some degree, that practice exists in the scholarly publishing world, as well.
Quite ironic when you consider the biased tone in this paper. The author is also guilty of the classic fallacy of logic, “petitio principii” (assuming as true the point to be proven: where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove [plagiarism] is included in the initial premise of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact).
Overall, it’s a rather weak paper, as well as being unoriginal. If it were to be graded by a freshman Composition 101 professor, it would likely receive a B. Perhaps the author should have sought some editorial assistance from the likes of Fannie Bolton before submitting it for publication.
plagiarize — we all need editors, even prophets!
For the inherent problems and easy manipulation of the extent of similarity, see comments here and an analysis that goes beyond that found in Walter Rea or the extended study commissioned by the Biblical Research Institute by Dr. Fred Veltman on borrowing in The Desire of Ages.
How many have even read Veltman’s study? Or are aware of it? But see:
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html
Plagiarism is not a moral problem in itself, it became so, just because it become, by law a binding convention for practical purposes, after the concept of intellectual ownership have been discovered/invented. I’m sure that God is not impressed by a lot of original and well written writings that have yet a dirty content. From an essential perspective, a godly writing must simply be true to God’s will, as a message, and as efficient as possible. Human pedantries are not God’s first concern.
Centuries before Ellen White, great writers too gave credit to their sources and even Ellen White contemporaries too followed the procedure. Being a prophet of God she should have known better or her angel should have guided her. Instead she was let free to plagiarise. She lied about it, which is a moral concern. Most of the Desire of Ages was composed of plagiarised material. For example, she wrote that Plate asked Jesus to forgive him that he could not save him. Which spirit gave her this information? It was plagiarised from the fiction, The Prince of the House of David. Let us be honest.
I have found great comfort in many of EGW writings. But I use her writings as a dredge looking for gold nuggets. Too many SDA use her writings as an oxegon mask through which they breath every word she ever wrote. They interpret scripture solely through her lens, and in effect make the Bible the lesser light and her the greater light. I believe the church should never have made her writings an “authoritative source for truth” as declared in our fundamental beliefs. She is a Bible commentator, subject to fallibility. It is strange irony that we condemn the RCC for following the Pope, and then turn around and do the same within Adventism with EGW.
Why taking seriously White’s authority is kind of popery, while taking seriously Paul or John is OK? I am not so interested in White or Paul because they have contain some gold nuggets (every good book must have some true and nice words), but because such inspired authors have a special authority — they spoke from God. And if it is from God, is a source of truth, not a human bla-bla.
The writings of Paul and John are part of the Bible. The Cannon has been closed since John the Revelator wrote the last book. Please tell me where to look up the book of Ellen. As far as I know the RCC is the only one that has a bible that has books I never heard of. Even the SDA “Clear Word” version of the Bible doesn’t have a book of Ellen.
Eduard
You are really on a mission to destroy adventist.
Are you not a psycho or hatred , bitterness or something.
I have been just reading your materials they are full of wormwood.
I m not a pychologist i am a colege student ,bt you are angry. I m trying to get your point but you have no point.
I wont be surprised if those documents you have i mean those original writings of EG
White, with your immediately friends were not created by you and your team, just to empower your ministry by discrediting adventist… I starting to doubt your source..
I wont be surprised if somewhere in the net you have written as a former adventist..
Start your own ministry and teach the truth you discovered about God. Not the truth about death old woman.
Well as the bible say ” you shall see them by their fruits”
Well it will her fruits in her ministry and your fruits of your ministry.
For those who seem to think EGW did not substantially plagerize you should read the book that the White Estate put out some time ago with dramatic examples of how she took the words of Henry Melvill. You can download a pdf copy from my blog at: http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2015/01/ellen-whites-plagerism-of-henry-melvill.html
plagiarize…..plagiarism….. I did it too, above on this thread. We all need editors and editorial assistants, it seems.
If she did? ..what is in it for you?
You want to start your own unplagiarizing church?
Do it. This is a free country,
Well i m still waiting for your truthful books to read.
Unless if what you are writing has been privoked by jeolous and bitterness
“Plagiary Warned” written in the year “1824”
The cover of the book has the following words:
“Who art thou that judgest another?”
The General Epistle of James chap. iv. v. 12.
“ Plagiary. A Thief in Literature ; one who steals the thoughts
or writings of another.” Johnson’s English Dictionary.”
“ But steal not word for word, nor thought for thought,
For you’ll be teaz’d to death, if you are caught !”
Bramston’s Art of Politics, Dodsleys Collection.
A review of Mrs. EGW library reveal that among her many books there was a dictionary called “Standard Dictionary” old edition. The Standard Dictionary is the same Dictionary mentioned above as “ Johnson’s English Dictionary”. Therefore, Mrs. White would know from a search in her dictionary the meaning of plagiarism.
Rev. John Angel James wrote on page 4 of his book Plagiary Warned:
“When a man prints and publishes, two things are presupposed, first, that the
compositions so given to the world are the works of the author whose name appears
in the title page; and next, that the author considers them above mediocrity.”
Therefore the question is asked; does, the composition of EGW writings which were given to the world are the sole work of the author whose name appears in the title page?
My research lead me to a book written by Rev. John Angel James, “Plagiary Warned” written in the year “1824”
“As to the vice of Plagiarism I shall say but little: the moral turpitude of the offence is
differently estimated by the moral apprehensions of different persons. As a Minister of the
Gospel of Truth I cannot, however, but consider it as a peculiarly disgraceful offence. It is appropriating more talents to yourself than you can honestly claim: it is an injustice to the reputation and rights of the real author: nothing can justify the falsehood or the meanness; you have no right ever to do evil that good may come. It has ever received the condemnation and contempt of all past and present ages, and I trust it will continue so to do.”
Rev James believed that plagiarism was a serious “moral turpitude offence”.
A further reading of the book Plagiary Warned by Rev. James pgs 107 – 108 states the following:
“When an Author sells the thoughts of another man, for his own, the larceny is called Plagiarism. The true plagiarist is he who gives the works of another for his own, who inserts in his rhapsodies long passages from a good book, a little modified. The enlightened reader, seeing this patch of cloth of gold upon a blanket, soon detects the bungling purloiner.”
Ironically, I heard that his book, “Plagiary Warned,” was itself plagiarized from a previous book named “On the Dangers of Plagiary” by Thomas McCann in 1803. Further research also revealed that McCann’s volume was partly plagiarized from the work of his student who submitted a term paper on the subject of plagiarism at Salem College in 1798. There is also some evidence that this unnamed student copied part of that term paper from his roommate, who had written a poem entitled “Whilst Literary Thieves Do Lurk.”
i believe Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write her messages dealing with the Good News of Jesus Christ. On other renderings she wrote as to the times in which she lived. Supposedly she was a prolific source of news on many subjects that were not inspired. Do to the heavy load she presented to her helpers, it was impossible for them to indicate the sources from which some of her material was borrowed, or they may have added the input at times. i believe EGW’s integrity was beyond reproach, and it is possible she didn’t think of providing credits of content which was used that agreed with her outlook on the subject matter. Until perhaps the middle of the 20th century, i don’t recall hearing about plagiarism.
I don’t believe EGW copying from other writers that expressed her thoughts better than herself wasn’t for the purpose of profiting from their labor. My hunch is she only used for better expression without desiring to make money of the labor of others.
Her limited writing skills doesn’t negate her being inspired of God. The use of scribes is known to have taken place in Scripture. As I understand it what her editorial assistants did was pass everything they had edited and put into better prose was read and approved by EGW before being sent out. We believe in thought inspiration, not verbal, but this reality plays hard against those that treat her writings as though each syllable is direct from God.
The bias in the blog that tends to push against EGW being a real prophet is found in sentences like this, “Ellen White did not have the English composition and grammar knowledge required to organize her possible ideas.” Possible ideas? Suggesting her writings really weren’t hers?
Ironically, the writers wherefrom Ellen White borrowed, copied, or “plagiarized”, s’il vous plaît, are probably not so much published and read today as it is Ellen White.
I don’t think Ellen’s ‘prophet status’ is under challenge so much because she plagiarised, or her ‘book makers’ plagiarised without attribution. But I do think it highly suspect that she has claimed to have received a ‘vision’ containing certain information, which we now know to have come from other authors. Ronald Numbers has more than adequately documented this in his Prophetess of Health. He also shows that Ellen specifically denied having read other authors, when it is known that she had the books on her shelves at the time, and their ideas are somehow reproduced in her works. “The Health message’ is almost entirely based on the work of others.
No, the real test of her prophetic status is the truth of her message. The most significant and unique doctrine she was called on to endorse by the brethren was that of the IJ. Yet how many SDAs now hold to the IJ as taught by Ellen? How many who teach Justification by Faith also teach ‘through the grace of God and their own diligent efforts…. their robes must be spotless……. able to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.’ etc.
The answer is not many. Even contributors to this site who claim to be SDAa in good standing, will not affirm their faith in the IJ as taught in Great Controversy.
So wherever Ellen received ‘the light’ on that pillar of Adventism, it has turned out to be rather dull. Not able to light the believer’s path at all.
“The answer is not many. Even contributors to this site who claim to be SDAa in good standing, will not affirm their faith in the IJ as taught in Great Controversy.
So wherever Ellen received ‘the light’ on that pillar of Adventism, it has turned out to be rather dull. Not able to light the believer’s path at all.”
All this proves is that mainline Adventism has embraced an apostate Protestant view of salvation. And just as a side note, if you care to examine the reality, those who attack EGW and her ministry always end up attacking the bible, sooner or later. Such as Brinsmead, Ford and many others who have abandon the bible after attacking her ministry.
In the end, it is not so important whether you understand EGW and her ministry. The bible is more than sufficiently clear to affirm her ministry.
One problem is this. She takes the bible and interprets it in light of the end of the world as being a present reality. Even though many bible writer are writing in the context of their present time frame. So a concept that may be a universal application, is used in a selective situation. And this can create confusion unless you understand this situation.
But this is not unusual in the historical process. Many prophecies in the OT that refer to specific present situations are applied to being about Christ and His incarnation. So, super-imposed applications do not negate the spirituality of the issue for some future event. Paul says, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbeliever.” And he refers to going to heathen temples for fellowship. EGW uses the same concept to negate SDA’s from marrying non-SDA’s. So we can say, “So what?” The principle is the same, even if the event is not.
But as I stated, those who attack EGW’s ministry will eventually attack the bible, if they haven’t already.
I’ve often thought, looking at Islamic fundamentalism on TV today, that if Moses, Samuel or Elijah or one of the iconclastic OT prophets were around today, they’d have more in common with Osam bin Laden or Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi than the likes of the Dali Lama or Pope Francis. And I’m not quite sure what to make of Martin Luther’s rampant anti-Semitism, or John Calvin’s Predestination.
Why would Moses (no doubt assisted by a small army of paid and unpaid helpers) plagerise his creation story from the pagan accounts of Babylon, the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis Story or the Epic of Gligamesh, with slight but important changes? Why would Luke and Matthew, quote, copy, alter and plagerise other earlier accounts? Why would Mark get his geography, history and translation of Aramaic words into Greek wrong?
Does God change or is it really human understandings, based on relative historical-critical circumstances change? Is prophecy the same as scripture? Is prophecy a joint-exercise, rather than something that relies on a single person?
If you know about the limitations and challenges of how the Bible was made, none of these claims against Ellen White should matter one whit. Adventists have always believed in present truth, in progressive revelation, that divine inspiration means the Holy Spirit is with the penmen, not in the pen.
Dear Serge,
Yours or Numbers attempt to describe an Ellen White that used to lie so grossly, is hardly believable. Why she would have done such stupd thing? And after all, how would have trusted James and his colleagues such behaviour?
Rather I have another explanation. Rarely she claimed to have received in vision technical details. She was discovered in vision only a philosophy of history, with some crucial “great controversy” moments. Thus she was taught how should we interpret the sense and the meaning of history, not necessarily the historical events in details. Therefore, her vision of the great controversy does not contradict her need to expand and concretize the message that she was given in vision, using proper historical books. The same must be true as regards her vision of the health reform. It is possible that she borrowed some ideas and practices from other authors, but in her mind, the supernatural revelations she has received consisted in a high philosophy of health, with different emphasis and more balanced. I am not aware of any 19th century contemporary who was ahead of E G White in this philosophy of health.
Her endorsement of the pioneer IJ doctrine is like any other E G White endorsement, like the endorsement of Miller’s doctrine, of Crosier’s study and of Uriah Smith. Any such endorsement is subjected to the dominant principle of the practical inspiration. As she wrote, “the Bible was given us for practical purposes”. If even Bible was given for practical purposes, then how much the theological studies that she endorsed, and even her own statement. They always must be understood in a practical, relative, limited manner, as the context requires; not in a precise, absolute or scientific paradigm. From this perspective, it is more important to know the visions themselves, than her own detailed explanations of those visions.
But anyway, it is quite possible that some of our theological progresses are not in the good direction. Just may be. I’m affraid that the justification by faith, which you mentioned, as we often hear today, is quite different from the Bible also, not only from E G White’s teaching. I am not convinced that our quite recent Evangelical emphasis, that diluted so much our distinctive message and missionary sense, is Biblical. For example, you refer to E G White’s statement that “through the grace of God and their own diligent efforts…. their robes must be spotless……. able to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator’.” The same “heresy” about dilligent efforts is freely found in the Bible (Mat 3:7-8; Lk 3:7-8; AA 26:20; Rom 2:13; 1Cor 9:26-27; Philip 3:12-15; 2Tim 2:5-6; 7:8; Heb 12:14; 2Pet 3:14). Since God finished His work in their life, He pardoned and sanctified them with a full measure of the Holy Spirit, and even sealed them, they will stand in the time of trouble.
(continuation)
Jesus continues to help them, His Spirit leads them, they still need Christ merits, and actually they are already covered by the merits of Christ and filled with His Spirit, so that the present forgivining mediation is not longer necessary in that time. I know very well that this idea is anathema to the Christian world, especially to good Evangelicals. But Biblical doctrines are rather paradoxical than simple, and God was often less than orthodox or politically correct.
We should consider that the popular gospel may not be the true Adventist message for which we have been destined to bring it as a last warning. Adventism is for longtime emasculated. When we will restore the Biblical soteriology, we will see the beauty and the divine reason of the IJ doctrine.
Serge: “Yet how many SDAs now hold to the IJ as taught by Ellen?”
Serge, that is a very generalised statement. I’m sure you are aware that nearly two-billion Christians believe in a pre-Advent Investigative Judgment. That is because the doctrine is also taught by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, although they call the IJ the “Particular Judgment” of the individual as opposed to the “General Judgment” at the Second Coming.
Do many of today’s Adventists think of the IJ in a different way to the SDA Pioneers? Yes many no doubt do. But many of today’s Adventists also think of God Himself (Itself) in a slightly different way too, adopting the “orthodox” view of the Trinity, whereas, SDA Pioneers never even used that word, preferring the term “Godhead”.
Serge: “So wherever Ellen received ‘the light’ on that pillar of Adventism, it has turned out to be rather dull.”
Serge it depends upon how you view the prophetic gift. I kind of see Ellen White as like the Oracle off the movie the Matrix, where she tells Neo he is not the one. It turns out he was the one, but he needed to hear he wasn’t the one at the time to accept his true mission.
Ellen White’s light was indeed ‘dull’, because she was mostly used by God as a reactionary force, driving Adventism towards “mainstream” and “orthodox” Christianity, not the reverse. Most of our disctinctive Adventist doctrines were actually thought-up by other people – not her.
In that way she had a very important role in building up the SDA Church, but was not quite the totalitarian founder in the same way as say Joseph Smith or Muhammed. Sometimes the Church leadership didn’t like her counsel, evident when she was all but exiled to Australia. She was the Adventist prophet but she wasn’t quite the Adventist queen.
The Sufferings of Christ, Chapter 29, Testimonies for the Church Volume 2, Pages 200-215, is one of the finest narratives written on the life of Christ that I have ever seen. In these fifteen pages Mrs. White’s very moving appeal calling for us to have a higher estimate of what it cost Christ to die on the cross cannot and has not been surpassed by any other writer in my opinion. She is of course personally acquainted with the Christ as Saviour and writes with such passion in this inspiring chapter, that even her critics, and literary critics too, cannot honestly deny.
Here are the opening and closing paragraphs of this chapter from the pen of inspiration:
In order to fully realize the value of salvation, it is necessary to understand what it cost. In consequence of limited ideas of the sufferings of Christ, many place a low estimate upon the great work of the atonement. The glorious plan of man’s salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God the Father. In this divine plan is seen the most marvelous manifestation of the love of God to the fallen race. Such love as is manifested in the gift of God’s beloved Son amazed the holy angels. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This Saviour was the brightness of His Father’s glory and the express image of His person. He possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God. “It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.” “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
He was eternally rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He was clothed with light and glory, and was surrounded with hosts of heavenly angels waiting to execute His commands. Yet He put on our nature and came to sojourn among sinful mortals. Here is love that no language can express. It passes knowledge. Great is the mystery of godliness. Our souls should be enlivened, elevated, and enraptured with the theme of the love of the Father and the Son to man. The followers of Christ should here learn to reflect in some degree that mysterious love preparatory to joining all the redeemed in ascribing “blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, … unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.”
I wonder if the professor received any editorial assistance or research assistance on his paper. Professors often take full credit for their publications even if they have students working for them in their ivory towers to research and help draft articles for publication.
In the current academic environment of “publish or perish,” such student assistants are vital–but sometimes their efforts are not acknowledge through any formal sort of attribution. Some professors choose to acknowledge student assistants in a footnote, but some professors do not.
There is a saying in government work: “You never write what you sign, and you never sign what you write.” To some degree, that practice exists in the scholarly publishing world, as well.
These realities are quite ironic in view of the biased tone in this paper. The author is also guilty of the classic fallacy of logic, “petitio principii” (assuming as true the point to be proven: where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove [plagiarism] is included in the initial premise of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact).
I think this paper is a rather weak composition, as well as being unoriginal (the concepts are largely borrowed from Canright, albeit without attribution). The quality of the English composition skills could have been improved by seeking some editorial assistance from the likes of Fannie Bolton before submitting it for publication.
Edward,
You wrote: “In Ellen White’s case and the pioneers, they never accepted they were wrong.”
I disagree. By coming later we often fall into the trap of thinking we have learned more and know more than those poor folks whose mistakes we think we see so clearly. We think we know better than they, so we argue point and counterpoint ad nauseum and to no real conclusion so the only real results are great wastings of time and diversion away from opportunities to get to know God better.
At the same time I completely agree with the last part of your Point #2, that inspiration is not what we think it is. What is it going to take for us to discover what inspriation really is? Taking the time to get to know God, to listen to Him, to discover His promise to inspire each of us by the Holy Spirit living inside us and guiding and empowering us. Judging by the fact that we’ve been given another opinion piece about Ellen White should be making us painfully aware of how much we prefer talking about God and how much we think we know about Him than actually knowing Him.
William Noel,
Amen! Point and counterpoint…well given…and well taken!!! Refreshing on this blog.
Thank you!
There is a grasping at straws mentality pervasive in the defense of Ellen because there is no other defense for the flimsy position of her claim, by her or her admirers, of her special “gift.” The rush to excuse what are now considered serious offenses under the heading of plagiarism based on a theory of historical permissible laxity or assignable rights or ghost editorship demonstrates the ethical paucity quickly granted in the name of belief. Why are ethics, usually conisdered the core proper of moral Christian belief so quickly and easily sacrificed in order to elevate a lady of questionable skills to an undeserved level? There is a reason.
In a court of law a witness discovered to be lying is discounted for all his testimony. In Ellen’s case, how does one know the real source of the fine words attributed to her? In this post, I see the glowing credits she gets via God by sycophants who are unable to accept reality and who are absolutely unwilling to part with their holy view of her. At best, her “gift” was as an editor and appears to have been eclipsed by those editors she selected to hover around her.
“The Truth” is an internal term Adventist apply to their religion (used to, at least; JW’s apply the same term the same way). It was based on the premise of no myths. Purity. In fact, it is a lie, it has never been , “True.” Adventism is built on myths, the largest is that of Ellen. It is the myth of Ellen and it is exposed in this and countless other critiques. The puny, defective defenses here are founded in wishful thinking and have no place to go except to attacking the wrong messenger, in this case Mr. Hanganu.
But, all religions are built on myth. A kernel of fact grows into a magic beanstalk which cannot be chopped down. Ellen is a great example. Even at the outset those who knew her well, saw her limitations, were skeptics of her “gift.” But the Ellen beanstalk was headed for the sky, the magic of a visceral connection with the unseen, invisible God, imputed to her was the fertilizer that feeds to this day. Critics will always come and go. The magic of Ellen will never go. The myth lives. The Adventist church really is the Church Of Ellen White.
“But, all religions are built on myth.”
This typical response simply affirms that those who attack EGW also attack the bible.
No, Bill, I’m not attacking Ellen or the Bible. I’m attacking you! Can’t you see the difference? Sorry, yours is the “typical” response.” It has nothing to do with the pull quote from me.
And your church is really the church of Bugs/Larry Boshell. As Voltaire famously said: “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” You believe what makes you feel satisfied to believe. And we all see truth differently.
Even the most brilliant trained theologians disagree with each other, which means at least one of them must be wrong. Ironically, both may be wrong. While they quibble over minutia of Christian hairsplitting, they may be in the wrong world religion.
It’s like quibbling over whether “2 x 2” equals 9.235 or 9.236 (when it really equals four). You may reach the pearly gates and find out that Orthodox Judaism is the one true religion. Or Islam. Or Buddhism. Or Hinduism. Or Shinto. Or Zoroastrianism. Or . . . Meanwhile, you spent your life quibbling over .235 vs. .236 when the answer was 4.
Some find spiritual comfort in beautiful things published in Ellen White books. Some find meaning in books by A. W. Tozer, Oswald Chambers, or Max Lucado. Personally, I don’t like any of those. I like Philip Yancey, Pope Francis, and Maharaj Yogi. Time to stop debating and denouncing others, and start searching for spiritual meaning for our own lives.
“You believe what makes you feel satisfied to believe. And we all see truth differently.”
Yes, my church is mine just as yours is yours. And my pull quote by you is exactly what I have espoused many times on this forum. I have used the word “like” as the catch word for “feel satisfied.” And I have always allowed in conversations a respect for one’s private belief and testimony even if we have had a raging disagreement.
I have also allowed that Ellen was, as far as I know a good person, of good intentions, who was a spiritual leader, and to be admired, but was only equal to countless others with fine helpful insights. That the elevation of her to near deity was not her doing as best as I can see. I have speculated there may have been a part of her human nature that enjoyed the role, however.
As to debating others, this forum is pretty much for that purpose, it seems. As for denouncing, not much of that happens here, at least for me, and only in a reply in kind, and often as retort in jest. If one wants to enjoy homilies there are appropriate forums for that function.
“As to debating others, this forum is pretty much for that purpose, it seems.” Actually, I don’t know whether that is the stated purpose.
But whatever the original purpose was, what’s the point? “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
I believe God leads us each personally and individually, and it is not our calling to judge, condemn, or correct others. God speaks in a still small voice in personal ways, and hearts (and beliefs) are changed mysteriously by the Holy Spirit more often than by debates.
Chad, you left out the most important part of my statement in you pull quote from me. Here it is: “As for denouncing, not much of that happens here, at least for me, and only in a reply in kind, and often as retort in jest. If one wants to enjoy homilies there are appropriate forums for that function.”
And if it would satisfy your sensibilities, I would happily substitute “conversations with others” for the words “debating others.” Everyone is on the forum as an exercise of free will, including you. The “still small voice” has free reign, passionate discussions, including those concerning Ellen, have no coercive power, and entrance and exit to the mix require no permissions. I’m unaware of any emigration from the church due to exposure here.
What’s the point? For me, education. I have a passion for learning why people believe what they do. What’s the point? For me, exposure of my ideas, conclusions and opinions to the scrutiny and judgment of people whom I have come to respect, most of whom are as far as the east is to the west from mine.
Larry said: “What’s the point? For me, education. I have a passion for learning why people believe what they do. What’s the point? For me, exposure of my ideas, conclusions and opinions to the scrutiny and judgment of people whom I have come to respect, most of whom are as far as the east is to the west from mine.”
Thanks, Larry. I have concluded that this forum is a waste of my time and will be moving on to other pursuits such as more time in personal devotions and community outreach, but I agree that conversation and dialogue can be useful.
I have enjoyed conversing with you. Although our opinions are different, I respect you and your beliefs.
I hope everyone here will demonstrate respect and hospitality and seek to find common ground and fellowship, rather then division. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matt. 5:9)
Since the comment limits were reached below, will add to here: thanks for your dialogue. Sorry to see you go!
You seem to be a good cartoonist, Mr Bugs, but this is not the way to convince honest believers that they are wrong. Actually, if we are wrong, why would bother someone to “save” us? All the fuss and fury against the Adventist message may have have spiritual causes, beyond the details that we discuss.
It’s safe to say that all denominations are “based on a person” to some degree. Consider Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Screven, Campbell, etc. Many of those founders held ideas that conflicted with the ideas of other denominations’ founders. Thus, at least some Christians were sure that some of those founders’ ideas were “not based on the Bible.” Ironically, however, every founder firmly believed that he was following “sola scriptura.”
And so do you. But who made you more qualified to know that you are right, than any of the brilliant denomination founders whose interpretations you might disagree with (and some of which disagreed with each other)? Twenty people can cross a bridge and, in reality, twenty people crossed a different bridge–because they all saw it through different eyes.
Anyone (Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Campbell, White, or you or I) can read the Bible and believe sincerely that “it clearly says thus and so.” But someone else of equal education and intelligence can read the same Bible and say “it clearly says something different.” I don’t think there is any “one true church.” They all have some good ideas and they all have some flawed interpretations of the one same Bible.
You and I may strongly disagree with certain ideas of the early SDA pioneers (and may even disagree with some current interpretations in the SDA Fundamental Beliefs), but we don’t necessarily have room to dogmatically condemn people as “wrong” for agreeing with them. Maybe there is still room for everyone to interpret the Bible as it seems sensible and right to them–whether or not you and I agree with their interpretation.
When we get to heaven we will be surprised. The first surprise will be that some of our theological-debate cohorts are not there. The second surprise will be how many of our opponents on theological issues are there. The third surprise might be that we ourselves are there.
Jesus will take pity on all who struggled to understand what the Bible says (all of whom thought they were the only ones who could read it correctly) and He will say: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, … Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)
We Adventists condemn the popular Christianity, because it is founded on human traditions with deep pagan roots. Any religion based on the soul immortality is pagan because makes the human soul of the same essence with God (eternal, and indistructible). Any religion that is not clear about origins, confusing Creator and Creation, or rejecting God’s original and universal project (6 days + Sabbath) based on a faithful Bible reading, is also essentially pagan. Unfortunately Miller (like many honest velievers today) could not see the real face of such deep heresies, but they are not more acceptable for that matter. One cannot read God’s oracles and commandments and at the same time support relativistic views about religion. We will not be led back to the PseudEvangelical beliefs embraced finally by can-rights and rats-laughs. If one reads the Gospels, one find there a Jesus much different from the popular Jesus of this world. Which Jesus should we follow?
Edward, it seems like stereotyping to say that all SDAs “are condemning all the other Christians who do not believe as they do.” In my experience, the majority of Adventists do not think like that. Individuals should be judged as individuals. I apologize for anyone who has treated you unkindly or has shown any animosity to your denomination or any other faith.
Although most denominations seem to believe they are the best church, we all need to appreciate each other and cooperate in reaching the lost. Jesus said: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold.” (John 10:16.) This broader view was specifically stated in the SDA book, Questions on Doctrine in 1957: “We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.” http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q48.htm
It really is a pathetic recognition of the small impact Adventism has had on the real world. Do you suppose Methodists or Catholics, or Presbyterians scan that list and joyfully announce their affiliates by faith? I have maintained that adherence to Sabbath keeping has quarantined a great body of smart, able, skillful, Adventists from making a recognizable mark in the world. They dwell in a sound proof chamber at their peril and to their loss. The myths of Adventism are its limitations and are not “Biblical.”
Just try to compare the social-cultural impact of the Christian sect in the first three centuries, with the old Jewish religion and the greco-roman cults and philosophies patronized by Caesar who were also Pontifex Maximus. Christians were seen as atheists, haters of the human race, arrogants and fools. Your words about the Adventist Church very convincingly fulfills the E G White’s prophecies about the last great apostasy (when the hardest blows will we receive from our former brethren). If E G White is of the same kind like Muhammad, Ann Lee, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker-Eddy etc., why don’t you hurry to mock those people at the same degree, and rather choose to plague the Adventist forums with a kind of wisdom that we explicitely reject?
Florin, I am amused at the huge net you have flung out hoping to reel me in me as a prize catch of the anti-everything fulfillment of Ellen’s apostasy warnings “out go the brightest lights” prophecy for the “end times.” My guess is you see me as a dim bulb! A bright light, not so much! But I can be tempted with flattery should it be offered!
Jesting aside, please reveal to me exactly how I am a “plague” on the Adventist forums (sic).
Florin, we have no right to shout and cry against some other prophet when the prophet of our beloved church needs some straightening. And you know that very well. Your paper on the judgment and the sanctuary reveal that you don’t accept her interpretation on Daniel 8:14 and on many other points you said she was wrong. Regardless, you accept her authority, even her inspiration. You have double standards in regard to Ellen White. Some of your comments ts are Un Christian.
Larry, pray tell, what marks of distinction have SDA’s forfeited by their religion, that would be of benefit to the world, that the contributions they have made have been beneficial?? Another book?? A football scholarship?? Another Hollywood celebrity?? Another Military Leader?? Although you are fairly critical of SDA’s and the Queen of the conservatives, They are generally law abiding, loving Christians with a reputation for providing love and service to the community in which they live, as well as good role models for their children, and neighbors. What else would you require of them, compared to the secular world around us and in us????
Earl, I grant it is a debatable issue. Your point of the high moral quality of Adventist people actually affirms my contention. My point is that these high principled people are not in high positions as moral compasses, where they might be, because of the cloistering effect of Adventism and emphasis on strict Sabbath keeping. One cannot affect where he can’t be a participant. Yes, where they are they play a positive role. But it is a limited sphere. Wouldn’t an Adventist CEO of a corporation, or of General Motors, a group Adventist baseball players, an Adventist governor or a few, or an Adventist news director, or an exemplary SDA in any of a thousand leadership positions (not available to Sabbath keepers), provide a base of positive influence in a moral sense? Yes, Adventist Christians contribute to the moral fiber of the world, but half as much as they might, I believe.
“Magic” is the key word and is right on.
“This is a book that has been plagiarized entirely from ‘Life and Epistles of Saint Paul’, written by W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson 30 years earlier.” Is that a fact? It was actually “partly” borrowed. And there was no attempt to hide it. She recommended that book.
But the greater issue is: how do you know you’re right when you say Ellen was wrong? You may both be wrong. Maybe Maharaj Yogi is right. Maybe Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is right. Or maybe I will declare that whatever I believe is right; and whoever disagrees is categorically wrong. Personally, I have a feeling that the one true religion is Judaism, since God Himself invented it.
That preface was not lying. Whoever wrote it was not trying to deceive anyone. Maybe she did receive special help from the Holy Spirit in writing that book. (We can’t prove otherwise; and lots of authors receive guidance of the Holy Spirit.) It certainly did provide application of the Bible to that day. It did not get dies up in extraneous theories and speculations. And it certainly contains a lot of material beyond any content borrowed from Conybeare and Howson. So the preface is no problem.
Edward, you confuse inspiration with literature and information. She never hide her use of good literature both to gather more historical information and find proper phrases and even ideas. But such editorial work, however you choose to call, it does not contradict her divine revelations. You surely cannot prove that she really had visions, even though some people, at the beginning of her life of visionary experiences, wittnessed the whole phenomenon. But the same problem you have also with the Biblical prophets. You must simply believe that they received supernatural revelations. If we emphasize too much her editorial technical work and deny her visionary revelations, we do not destroy her real historical person, but only destroy her image as a special messenger of God to this Church, to me and you. And we only have to suffer the consequences.
She certainly had no broblem with putting words together intelligably when speaking
i’ve just thought on the theme of the Christ child. We accredit to Satan and the one third fallen angels the ability to gain entry to possess and control the minds of people, and so live in them; Likewise is it likely that God, Jesus Christ,
lived in the Earthly jesus, son of Mary & Joseph, and actually suffered death for mankind, but in the Godhead, was resurrected by God the Heavenly Father,the Ancient of Days, and the Earthly jesus, was spirited away to live out his life in safety elsewhere?? Don’t be too critical now. Do you know for a fact that it isn’t possible?? All things are possible with GOD.
I don’t think it wise to enter a deep analysis here with someone who already made his mind, and moreover, who has no personal research to be published on the issue, but only biased and toxic ideas borrowed from chief anti-Adventist authors. If this is your daily food, you will discover its consistent consequences at the right time.
Florin, having a set mind appears to be the condition of yours. Truth withstands all assaults, any deep analysis regardless of the source, doting Adventist defenders or villainous anti-Adventist devils.
But myth elevated to truth finds particular passionate defense by believers for particular reasons. And this may be the source of your angst, your mindset, and the coded threat of doom occurring at the “right time.” I assume you are referring to Ellen. She has been in question almost from the time she got wacked in the face with a stone but has never fallen from the shoulders of her admirers, surviving volley after volley of valid negative analysis. And therein lies the terrifying doomsday scenario that nullifies all facts. Adventism continues only if the myth of her as prophet continues, and that is the primary substance underlying the zeal for maintaining the myth. The Seventh-day Adventist Church really is The Ellen White Adventist Seventh-day Church.
So, deep analysis not required. Survival is the end game. What doesn’t contribute to that is useless. The myth has to live at all costs.
Bugs/Larry Boshell on January 27, 2015 at 9:27 am said: “The Seventh-day Adventist Church really is The Ellen White Adventist Seventh-day Church. ”
It appears to me that the Autumn Council (and probably the 2015 General Conference) of Seventh-day Adventists are slightly moving away from their former stance regarding Ellen White. The scholars who participated in producing Questions on Doctrine in the late 1950s certainly took a softer stance. And many Adventist scholars, professors, and even pastors have personal reservations about the prophetic inspiration of Mrs. White. They emphasize that each doctrine in the Fundamental Beliefs is supported by citations to Bible verses, not EGW quotes.
While other churches may disagree with a few of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs due to different interpretations of the Bible verses (namely, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and the pre-Advent judgment), there are other denominations who hold the same interpretations regarding all of them (except the pre-Advent judgment, and numerous scholars have written Biblical/non-EGW research & analysis on both sides of that issue).
You would be surprised how little most pastors and members ever mention her or read her writings. The reality of the matter is that very few pastors and members ever quote her works or read them.
In sum, the Adventist church can survive just fine without EGW. The GC wouldn’t even have to change Baptismal Vow # 8, which is already generic enough to apply to any prophetic gift in the church as contemplated in I Corinthians.
So I disagree with your assessment that it is the EGW church. Even if it might have seemed that way at one time years ago, most congregations are totally different from that now. They have moved to a much more evangelical stance, which is to be applauded.
“The Sabbath came from Joseph Smith, and then she cemented it through vision.”
What ??? Who told you Edward that the Sabbath came from Joseph Smith? That man, who is known as the first Mormon prophet, did not keep the Sabbath. Nobody accused him of such “heresy”.
Please do not distort the historical truth in your zeal to destroy Ellen White.
This issue seems to me similar to the classic Dilemma of the Omar Caliph (a legendary anecdote). In face of the large Alexandrian library, Omar hesitated, what to do with that pagan institution. And he said: “If this library contains teachings different from the Quran, they are heretical and must be put on fire. If it contains the same teachings like the Holy Quran, it is therefore unnecessary (superfluous). Put fire!”
Actually Ellen White has many original revelations and theological ideas, beyond any Biblical research of our pioneers. But those ideas are not doctrines, they simply help us better understand God and His Word. Moreover, her relationship with our basic doctrines have not been for endorsement only. Not every “new light” was endorsed, some ideas have been utterly rejected. And the doctrines endorsed by her revelations were not simple confirmations, but those truths have been expanded and deepened through her ministry. And finally she did not say she had the last word on those doctrines, but that we all have the privilege to advance in the knowledge of truth.
I have passed through a similar “time of trouble” and disapointment as regards Ellen White, but I now thank God even for that, because it was not a run toward abandon and apostasy, but toward a higher ground of understanding Adventism. My advice is to keep pray God and be wise. Any rush to express our doubts and unbeliefs enhance the bad chance to strongly identify ourselves to our unbelief. Evil angels are ready to take such easy prey.
Very interesting!! Although Joseph Smith and his gift are well known today, how about those gifts of Crosier and Storrs, these have gained great prominence through the republishing of writings of EGW. EGW was inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as all true Christians are. Words, thoughts. ideas may be originally presented by others, however, there is nothing new under the sun, so why not inspiration to reproduce a concept that is needed for the end times of planet Earth, that the secular world is bringing to pass??
Contrary to some comments, EGW, never called herself a prophet or considered herself infallible, to the contrary she cautioned others not to put that label on her. Also most of the prefaces of her books were not of her making.
coping the material of another and not citing the source is a form of deception. It is taking the intellectual work of another and presenting it as yours. Saying that the Holy Spirit inspired her to deceive us makes the HS equal to Satan, the father of lies
Let’s try this again: in the 1850s and 1860s when Ellen White began to write, borrowing was encouraged, so long as you recommended the source. Ironically, contra to the many critics on this thread who have invented the “facts” to fit their opinions, it began in this way:
After 1855 the Whites and the Review prospered in Battle Dreek. The “broom king” JP Kellogg gave them the financial start and soon the Adventist steam press was among the largest in the country. Periodicals vied for readership among the newly-literate American population. And shared with each other in an attempt to reach new readers.
It was fair game and encouraged to borrow ENTIRE ARTICLES from one another with one proviso: that at the top of a republished article the note “FROM THE INDEPENDENT” or some such be noted. This told the readership of say, The Review, that its publishers vslued THE INDEPENDENT and found many things there that were useful.
A later well-known SDA laeder was a youth working the press, and tells us that about 2000 periodicals, magazines, and other material came to the press monthly. It was his job to hand-truck all that enormous written material to the White house, where he said he often observed Mrs. White on the floor of her parlor with piles of religious periodical, speed-reading (as it appeared in his description) through them, selecting material to contribute to her writings.
Large folio sheets were also brought to her, which she sewed together to make huge scrapbooks. There were oriingally at least nine of these, since on of them is labeled “No IX” on the front. The scrapbooks are filled with articles EGW felt would be useful in writing on various topics. They are also filled with notes and comments doubtless from her pen, sometimes seeing something as important, at other times lining through passages as not appropriate. This process is similar to hitting the “SAVE” button on the computer for material you want to keep and maybe use later.
Copyright was hardly observable among 19th century works. Certainly it was not among popular writers, as I can attest, owning a large 19th century library gleaned form old books stores throughout New England.
In other words, EGW was often sifting, for editorial purposes. And, by the way, any hint that she was an uneducated dolt flies out the window on several counts. CONTRA THE FALSE IDEA on this thread, her writing is legible (at least I can read every word, having gotten used to her penmanshipz0 and certainly the stenographers who types thousands of pages into typescript from her handwriting could read also.
And also it is important to note that she initialed every page of typescript once it was complete. And many of THOSE pages (and I mean MANY) are further edited by her, crossing out sections, adding sections between the lines. (In other words, she regularly edited her typescript copies, as you would expect.)
TBC
The US originally had a 14-year highly restrictive copyright/patent regulation. But you had to apply for it and put it on the books. Many books cited as White sources were not in fact, copyrighted, and could be used by virtue of the author choosing not to apply for copyright.
In 1886 most European countries signed the Berne Convention, making copyright extend beyond the borders of the original country of production. THE U.S. DID NOT SIGN.
It was not until 1910, when Ellen White’s literary output had virtually ceased, that the U.S. signed the Buenos Aires Convention, creating a virtual copyright-upon-creation for written works. Later in 1952 the Universal Copyright Convention replaced the Berne Convention for most European countries.
In 1995 all nations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the copyright restrictions mostly found in the Berne Convention. The following year several nations had adopted standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, which dealt with further problems as a result of advancing technology.
Given the de facto methodology of writers in 19th century America, and the much-later and more stringent conceptions of what a copyright is and means — despite early copyright laws from 18th century England largely ignored in America — we should be far more careful than several on this thread about throwing around much later concepts and applying retrograding them into the popular practices in 19th century America.
Again, we can’t manufacture our own “facts” to bolster our own prejudices. Still true, despite DP Moynihan’s departure to Sheol.
I found that many of the tomes used by Ellen White did not, in fact, have a copyright. And, in fact, the authors may not have known much about copyrights, or even cared, as it was not common.
I have many of those books in my library. I know what I’m speaking to here, despite the trenchant (and sometimes angry) comments made on this and other threads on related subjects.
And again, James White, ever sharp to ways to make additional money, became the publisher’s AGENT for many of those same books. (Earning a commission on selling the books to the Review readers is not a good way to hide Mrs. White’s use of those books.)
In fact, as I was working on a thesis on her comments on reading, it was interesting to find the Elder’s advertisement for d’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, that is such a major quoted (or more correctly PARAPHRASED) source in The Great Controversy.
Already in that early period, before 1881, the Elder was saying in print that this set was of great value to him and his wife in their writing and preaching. Such practices completely undermine the claims (made as if they were FACTS!) that Ellen White hid her sources.
Much of the problem has actually risen AFTER her death in 1915 when SDAdventists –in actual contradiction to her own description of how inspiration works found in Selected Messages — became FUNAMENTALISTS with their misconception of the nature of inspiration.
(And yes, as I said above, that extremely important article in Selected Messages is itself a paraphrase of an existing article by a leading churchman who suffered the consequences of departing from his sect’s fundy understanding of inspiration.)
Only in 1911, when a real copyright law, generally known and followed actually existed, did the problem of the 1888 Great Controversy need fixing. The plates had worn out. The book could no longer be printed. Yet it was clear (seems lots of folks knew about it, especially since Dudly Canright’s “Seventh-day Adventism Renounced” had made such a big deal about Mrs. White’s writings as a new Bible etc)… only then did the workers ask Mrs. White what she thought about reprinting The Great Controversy, since it was filled with paraphrased material.
She instructed them to find the sources and inser4t them throughout the book. A few were never found (though the workers identified those paragraphs as paraphrased and not from Mrs. White). That material was dropped.
In 11 cases statements original to Ellen White were changed by her (she initialed each change as having her knowledge and approval.) Some of those changes are editorial, but a couple are changes in interpretation, which should be noted.
The one I found most interesting was this 1888 quote: “Babylon is not the Church of Rome.” Maybe that was not what Mrs. White intended to say in the first place. Anyway, the statement became “Babylon is not the Church of Rome ONLY” which completely reverses the meaning…
Issues of copyright and original sources are a distraction keeping us from paying attention to something far more serious: when we’re debating about Ellen White we’re not paying attention to God. The purpose to which she was called was to direct our attention back to God. So if we’re arguing about her, then her mission has not been accomplished in us and Satan has won a huge victory.
I agree, William! But I know a good deal more about the facts than most people, and when books and articles of this sort come along without the relevant background, don’t you think I should speak to the issue?
In this case, the de facto practice in popular writing in the 19th century AND the actual laws involved completely undermine the vaunted claims we have seen here.
Knowing the answer doesn’t mean you have to spend time debating it. What is your higher priority for your time: participating in endless discussion about something that prevents you from knowing God or creating new believers, or creating new believers?
I think it is funny that you want to make it appear that the two versions, 1888 and 1911 are not complete opposite by asserting that the 1888 one might have really meant to include the “only” part. For that to work you would have to assert that at one time the Roman church was once pure! Something I don’t think I have ever seen an Adventist writer ever say. The fact is that they both can’t be true, but people have not looked at the context very well and since she was thought to be a prophet they were not very critical. The quotes:
Babylon is said to be “the mother of harlots.” By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14 announcing the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries… A Warning Rejected [381-383] http://www.bible-sabbath.com/Sabbath-Sunday/GC88-all.pdf
Babylon is said to be “the mother of harlots.” By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing 383 the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14, announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries.
someone above has also inadvertently given a strong reason to have confidence in Ellen White and her visions. She and husband thought the whole Saturday-is-the-Sabbath was nonsense. In the meanwhile, Captain Bates thought young women who were having visions were not the best outcome of the failed Millerite movement, in which he had invested a fortune.
The vision with the moons was for Bates, who had just read of the discovery of new moons around Saturn. (There were more then Ellen’s vision; if you know about reports of visions among the classical prophets, that makes perfect sense. The vision in that section was for Joseph Bates.)
On the other hand there was a shocker for James and Ellen White. There was this “sanctuary” (nope, just Millerite talk; the heavenly throne is in a “temple” in the New Testament, which also makes sense to THAT time) and there was the ark and within the ark there was the Decalogue and within the Decalogue there was the fourth AND THIS ONE HAD A HALO AROUND IT.
That was for James and Ellen and others they had influenced. When some ex-Millerites adopted a health message (this was, after all, the mid-19th century when ideas were fementing all over America) the Whites thought that was nonsense. James wrote to his followers that they had just slaughtered a pig with enough meat for the winter. No “Judaizing” for them!
Then came a series of heath visions. Once again, the visions REVEERSED their preconceived notions. Perhaps the biggest and most startling result of this process of derying the preconceived notions of Ellen White was the sect’s initial stance as a heretical sect. It was widely believed that Christ was a created being, created by the Father (as if the Nicene bishops had never thought about and accurately explained New Testament Christology.)
By the time of The Desire of Ages, 1898, “in Him [Christ] was life–oriingal, unborrowed, underived” the most basic and stubborn heresy had been reversed. I know of no “false prophet” of whom that can be said.
But then…….. “Everything that can be shaken will be shaken.” Yup.
Regardless of whether EGW was a prophet, I enjoy reading her uplifting devotional thoughts in the Desire of Ages, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, Christ’s Object Lessons, and Steps to Christ. I find those books encouraging and helpful (regardless of whether they were inspired), in much the same way that I enjoy reading C. S. Lewis and J. I. Packer.
To be an Adventist, a person does not have to believe that EGW was an inspired prophet. The SDA baptismal vows are of higher authority than the 28 beliefs. SDA baptismal vow # 8 simply says: “Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and do you believe that the gift of prophecy in the remnant church is one of the identifying marks of that church?” That is quite generic, and leaves room for the biblical gift of prophecy to be manifested in many ways or many believers as contemplated in the New Testament.
Last October, the Annual Council approved some proposed revisions to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (which are NOT a creed), including the one on spiritual gifts. A revision to No. 18, “The Gift of Prophecy” will specifically make it crystal clear, once and for all, that the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White are NOT equal.
The new wording voted by the Annual Council reads: “The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. . . . . They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”
http://www.adventistreview.org/assets/public/news/2014-10/FUNDAMENTAL_BELIEFS_STATEMENT-last_version.pdf
Personally, I enjoy the devotional and educational writings, etc., and I overlook certain statements if I don’t believe they are biblically accurate (such as her stance on adornment). In other words, I enjoy reading some of her books but I follow the process outlined in the revision to belief 18: “all teaching must be tested by the Bible.” But I don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Bugs/Larry Boshell on January 27, 2015 at 9:27 am said: “The Seventh-day Adventist Church really is The Ellen White Adventist Seventh-day Church. ”
It appears to me that the Autumn Council (and probably the 2015 General Conference) of Seventh-day Adventists are slightly moving away from their former stance regarding Ellen White. The scholars who participated in producing Questions on Doctrine in the late 1950s certainly took a softer stance. And many Adventist scholars, professors, and even pastors have personal reservations about the prophetic inspiration of Mrs. White. They emphasize that each doctrine in the Fundamental Beliefs is supported by citations to Bible verses, not EGW quotes.
While other churches may disagree with a few of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs due to different interpretations of the Bible verses (namely, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and the pre-Advent judgment), there are other denominations who hold the same interpretations regarding all of them (except the pre-Advent judgment, and numerous scholars have written Biblical/non-EGW research & analysis on both sides of that issue).
You would be surprised how little most pastors and members ever mention her or read her writings. The reality of the matter is that very few pastors and members ever quote her works or read them.
In sum, the Adventist church can survive just fine without EGW. The GC wouldn’t even have to change Baptismal Vow # 8, which is already generic enough to apply to any prophetic gift in the church as contemplated in I Corinthians.
So I disagree with your assessment that it is the EGW church. Even if it might have seemed that way at one time years ago, most congregations are totally different from that now. They have moved to a much more evangelical stance, which is to be applauded.
My bold assertion may be worthy of challenge, Fred, and because of your statement and some other similar information I have recently received. I confess to my personal experience being a bit ancient (40 years). And from a theoretical point of view, I am aware of a sort of pasteurization process of strict dogma as part of the normal evolutionary process of conservative religious systems. So, Adventism may be moderating and in the process of archiving some of its past to be honored as quaint history, and valued only as a relic of a bygone era. Part of my contention, and reservation to your point is, the Sabbath. I think there is entanglement with Ellen and the Sabbath which will impede her travel to the dustbin.
I respectfully disagree about the entanglement of EGW and the Sabbath. EGW never knew about the Sabbath until a Seventh-day Baptist (Rachel Oakes Preston) brought it to the attention of some Millerites. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Oakes_Preston .
Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Church of God churches never had anything to do with EGW. They flatly rejected her. Yet, they always have observed the seventh-day Sabbath.
In fact, there was a long history of Sabbath observance among the Anabaptists of the German state in the 1500’s; and a book in England mentioned Sabbath keepers in 1607 (“Sabbatary Christians” who believed that the seventh-day Sabbath was established from creation and remained as binding on Christians as Jews).
A lengthy history of Sabbath observance among early puritan Christian groups is available at https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/sun-sab1 . That all predated EGW by at least 200 years, and was based strictly on their interpretation of the Bible.
I respectfully disagree that the Sabbath is entangled with EGW. She was a Methodist observer of Sunday. It was actually a 7th-day Baptist (Rachel Oakes Preseton) who introduced the Sabbath to some Millerites and EGW.
The 7th-day Baptist Church and 7th-day Church of God had nothing to do with EGW. They based their Sabbath observance strictly on the Bible.
In fact, the Anabaptists Christians in the the German states in the 1500s kept the Sabbath 300 years before EGW ever heard of it; and a book in England in 1607 described Sabbath-keeping Christians who observed the seventh-day Sabbath 250 years before EGW. They based their observance strictly on the Bible. So the Sabbath is not entangled with EGW. It comes from the Bible. That nterpretation of the Bible has a long-standing history.
Fred, I know the Sabbath history, Ellen as Methodist, and the Baptist source for Adventism. Also I have reviewed the historical Sabbath string that can be traced back to the first century. But that isn’t my entanglement reference. It has to do with Ellen’s blessing of the creation story as literal (the foundation of Sabbath), now widely viewed as myth. Attached to that is the ten commandments, another entanglement. I’m willing to backtrack on my opinion to a wait and see position since I am clearly out of the current loop except for what I read here. There is usually a wide gap, in religious practice, between theoreticians (theologicrats, I call them) with the former, in practice, largely ignoring the latter.
Many, if not most scholars, pastors, and laity disagree with Ted Wilson’s stance, and view it as an anachronism and anomaly.
In reality, in most congregations, you will *never* hear one word about EGW. I attend church every week in various congregations and can testify that I have never heard any pastor or member quote (or even mention) “the Spirit of Prophecy” in the past 5 years. (There is usually just one short, uplifting quote at the end of each lesson in the Sabbath School quarterly.)
Regardless of what Wilson said (which I have read), I can assure you that EGW is simply NOT the basis for the anything that occurs in the local congregations. I have attended many other denominations’ services as well (as a musician) and I can testify that nowadays, you would barely notice that you are in an SDA church because the service and the topics preached are the same as other denominations; and grace is flowing freely.
I believe that you have simply run into a “bad apple” or gotten a mistaken impression of what the church is really like now, out in the real world of the local congregations.
That’s not what I said (although you’re free to believe whatever you want). I was simply saying that they view it as an anomaly to quote from EGW more than from the Bible; because you won’t ever hear EGW quotes in most Adventist congregations. In other words, the style of Ted Wilson’s speeches do not reflect what you would hear in sermons in the local congregations. In most local pulpits, the sermons are straight from the Bible and are very evangelical in nature, similar to sermons in other denominations or non-denominational churches. The point is, SDA congregations are not “EGW churches”; they are Bible churches.
Fred,
Your sense that Ellen White is rarely if ever quoted in sermons is testimony that your mind would have to be elsewhere during sermons in the churches where I typically attend … my nomadic existence takes me regularly to three different congregations in three different states and in three different conferences in three different union conferences. I experience lay preaching, congregation pastors preaching, and guest preachers. It is rare that a quote from Ellen White is not prominent, if gently and quoted in disguise (‘one of my favorite authors’), and typically more than once in any given sermon and always designed to add authority beyond the testimony of the person preaching.
And I do not recall in several years hearing any comment among many after church decrying the heavy-handed use of Ellen White citations.
I do hear far more about the grace of God than I did six or seven decades ago, though I hear no noticeable reduction of the integration of Ellen White citations in these sermons. And I’m OK with that. And you would be right that sermons today are less strident and demanding than I recall, save for the occasional exception.
Bugs/Larry Boshell would feel pretty much at home in his memory I’m thinking … were we hanging out some Sabbath is any of the church’s I typically attend or you likely attend … and how cold that be anything but good as he seems to hold no grudges.
There may be some regional differences in sermons or you just happened to land in some extremely conservative congregations, but I can assure you I attend four Adventist churches in the Southeast on a weekly rotating basis (and I listen to some other Adventist church services streaming online), and I have never heard an EGW quote, not even indirectly, in the past five years.
These are not even extremely liberal / progressive congregations. One is progressive, but the other three are just “regular” congregations. The church is very different now, compared to how it was when I was a child. It definitely is not “the EGW church” now, if it ever was.
Me neither. I rarely hear an E G White quote.
You must not read the Sabbath School Study guide, or maybe you don’t go to a Sabbath School Class.
I mentioned the SS lesson quarterly in one of my earlier posts. I believe there is an average of one or 2 quotations or one paragraph per 7-day lesson. It’s a very small percentage of the lesson, and in the churches that I attend I have never heard it mentioned or discussed.
I have several friends who exited from the Adventist Church still angry at Ellen after all these years (40). They consider me a nut case for even being on this forum (could be some kindred opinions here, too, so I hear!). I left partly the church because of Ellen, but without anger at her. I came to see her as a troubled woman with some extraordinary gifts, viewed her the light of what would today might be called a savant. I was aware of her limitations, her plagiarism, her editors, but mostly the exaggerations of her role by doting admirers and the misuse of her as a bludgeon.
And I had already concluded that the Superguy god of Adventism for which she was supposedly the “Spirit of Prophecy” was a manmade imposter and left her, in effect a “minister without portfolio.” I found wonderful liberation in understanding God as Love. So, no grudges. And no return candidate, either. My criticism isn’t of her, but the use of her by others. There was a “hard line” in Adventism that for decades found her a convenient stockade loaded with weapons of mass destruction.
I do enjoy the wild defensive gymnastics of her defenders who flip, duck, parry, squirm, rave, panic, screech, retreat, and perform the ostrich defense, at the continuing return fire of revelations of her limitations.
I’m not trying to get you to come back. If you found a place you like and feel blessed, by all means stay there. I’m just saying the God of Love that you found is alive and well now in the Adventist congregations. I too remember how it used to be when I was a kid 40 years ago, but I can assure you it “ain’t like it used to be.” There is a new breed of pastors and members. It has changed for the better.
Awesome!
Bugs: “I was aware of her limitations, her plagiarism, her editors, but mostly the exaggerations of her role by doting admirers and the misuse of her as a bludgeon.”
I am still an Adventist and I totally agree with that statement, especially about the exaggerations. I would think a very large portion of Adventism today would agree. I would think many of the SDA Pioneers still alive at the 1919 Bible Conference would agree.
Awesome #2!
In the latest edition of “Adventist World” Wilson had his usual article in which he quoted EGW six times, and the Bible, perhaps once.
There were two other writers, also, who had several quotations from EGW; many more than Bible quotations by the three writers.
Has TEd Wilson ever given a sermon or written and article which was largely EGW quotes strung together with a few of his own comments? At least they are better when EGW is quoted than his banal opinions.
Edward, you certainly evidence a very limited knowledge of exegesis of the Bible. Many visions (and reports of visions among the prophets were comparatively few and far between) included material that pre-existed or came from the daily life of the prophets.
Miller did not get the 1844 interpretation all on his own, or direct from God. Like most in SDAdventism, you are doubtless unaware of the Powerscourt Conferences, and that, in the main, the 18th century historicism that Adventism still holds was mostly created there, by updating the works of the Blessed Joachim of Fiore, whose AD 1198 commentary on Daniel and Revelation was so influential.
Even Joachim would recognize his teachings in modern Adventism.
In 1831 the Powerscourt Conferences wound up and final reports were made. The new dispensationalists and the updated late historicists could no longer agree and went their separate ways. In 1831 (note the same year?) Miller began to preach publicly, and what he had to say did not come in a vacuum.
You have here implied that much of what the classical prophets wrote was allegedly from visions, which is not the case. It may in fact have been so, but the prophets do not say that. It is hard to follow exactly what your point is in regard to Ellen White.
Reading all the comments above, and being on this site for many years now, it is clear the major demographic is well into their senior years. With that, most of the ex-Adventists largely attack an Adventist Church that largely doesn’t exist except in the most conservative congregations, and hasn’t existed for several decades.
It reminds me of that Japanese soldier who refused to surrender in WW2 and kept on fighting in the jungles of Phillipines for several more decades. That is what I see when I read many of the comments here.
Much of this discussion on Ellen White is the same. As mentioned above, I rarely hear Ellen White quoted from the pulpit. We routinely have non-Adventist visitors and speakers and I doubt they’d ever heard of her from the sermons, and our style of worship and message is pretty Evangelical. We have tried to break from the sort of Adventist liturgical traditions that seem to so annoy many of our ex-Adventist commetariat.
No one in my local Church, or really in any Adventist congregation that I know, justifies SDA doctrine from Ellen White. She’s mostly ignored – whether for good or ill. Instead we use the Bible, as Mrs White herself instructed.
Well said, Steve. For an example of what Adventist churches believe and teach now, here’s an example from an SDA church in Collegedale, TN: http://CollegedaleCommunity.com/beliefs
Both Mr. Jennings and Mr. Ferguson make excellent points. Many of us, myself included, are still fighting “wars” about EGW that only a small minority of church members care about.
Let’s be honest: EGW is a museum piece. We should respect her as a 19th century human who helped found the SDA denomination. She had a number of problems which she herself probably did not recognize. One of the most serious was that she insisted on using the phrase “I was shown” with the clear inference that God or an angel was the source. We now know that in many instances the source turned out to be something she had probably read and forgot about.
She certainly had out-of-body experiences, i.e. visions and she and those around her took these visions very seriously. But this was not an unusual occurrence for very “sensitive” female and male visionaries in the 19th Century American evangelical religious environment into which she was born.
One major remaining problem is that our GC president and certain others continue to insist on using her as a theological authority. As others have commented, she stated she did not want that to happen. Regretfully, she herself sometimes violated her own statements when she insisted on criticizing those who disagreed with some of her pronouncements. All that demonstrates is that she was human.
“One of the most serious was that she insisted on using the phrase “I was shown” with the clear inference that God or an angel was the source. We now know that in many instances the source turned out to be something she had probably read and forgot about.”
Another responder above made this a kind of universal statement also. What is the evidence of this? Making the statement does not make it so. (Yes, I read the highly selective works on this subject, including the books, and spent many hours in the vault looking live at things that proved many of the opinions expressed here — and there — are wildly different from the historical facts.)
Looking forward to specific examples.
So there are no such things as true prophets versus false prophets, only people hysterically having visions in the 19th century? Dumb move on the part of Satan and the millions of super-human beings at his command, then. That is, if the Bible itself is correct in picturing Lucifer/Satan (they ARE most certainly the same referent) as a real mighty being who rebelled against God.
The best way to water down a true prophet would be to make counterfeits so close that only someone who really had a handle on prophecy in the Bible, especially classical prophecy and how it worked, from the 8th to the 6th c. BC, would know the difference. Not much evidence of that here (and I’m trying to be charitable. All that proves is the SDA sect has NOT done much to make sound exegetical study of the Scripture clear to its laity.)
Much has been said here about relying on the Bible. Almost nothing about relying on the Bible to see if Ellen White had the real Biblical Gift of Prophecy, and how someone would know.
Really interested to hear one of the angry SDAs or ex-SDAs talk to this issue. (I know, NONE of you are angry. You just SOUND that way…………)
And no, I’m not looking for proof-texts out of context. I’m looking for what you believe are exegetically correct sound arguments for your negative assessment on Ellen White’s claims.
The current trend doing it’s rounds in various forms and platforms that downplay, or applaud the downplaying and abandonment of EGW writings within our ranks, will surely reap it’s dire consequences sooner or later. In fact much can already be seeing today. Being an active member in the Sabbath School for many years in a traditionally conservative church environment, I can say that the neglect of the writings of Mrs. White has a proportionate effect on the reading and study of the Holy Bible. The higher the neglect of her writings, or the absence of its sphere of influence in the lives of members, the less Adventists are reading and studying Bible, and the less they are growing spiritually. For some reason her writings have an uncanny effect in pointing us back to the Bible and its plain teachings.
In those parts of the world where secularism has got a large hold on society, coupled with the comforts of buying power, we can see how “worldly customs, worldly practices and worldly influences” have crept into the Adventist Church. This trend of downplaying and dismissing her writings may win the favour of many and generate much applause but it is this same neglect and disregard of her work that may very well be the Achilles Heel of the Church. Mrs. White did point out that her writings were a “lesser light” pointing us to the “greater light” – the Holy Bible.
Pastor Ted Wilson is wise in making use of her counsel for the Church and her sphere of influence in pointing us back to the Bible and the course God has purposed for our Church. It is the gross neglect of the testimonies over the last few decades or so that has grinded the Church to a halt in some parts of the world into what I would call a “dark age” of our own – in the context of what I’m saying of course. God had to give us the writings of the spirit of prophecy as wise counsel for the Church in the end times because it is what the Church needs to prepare to meet Christ our Lord. Pastor Ted Wilson’s use of the testimonies to counsel and warn the Church on the course we need to take is not in any way out of line and does not in any way undermine the Bible or its teachings.
Trevor may be correct. Nevertheless, he proves my point, which is to say these ex-Adventists are angry at a type of Adventism which in many respects no longer exists any more.
Battles between Trevor and ex-Adventists over Ellen White largely represent a time capsule of the past. Like Civil War re-enactments by enthusiasts.
Both conservative Adventists and ex-Adventists can continue these largely fictive battles until the cows come home. However, they are largely make believe, because they don’t involve the majority of ‘middle’ Adventists. To most Adventists, such battles are pointless and irrelevant.
1] I hate to be the one to break this to you sir, but because the Adventist left has moved so far to the extreme left, the “middle” has been dragged left too. The spiritual condition of the Church of Laodicea is characteristic of this lukewarm group: rich, increased with goods, and in need of nothing.
2] It should be noted that the Christian’s war is not a war against ‘flesh and blood’ but one that is of a spiritual nature, in which we are engaged in a spiritual battle “against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Eph 6:12]
The Heritage Singers USA Quartet used to sing a song with the opening line: “There’s no need standing up for the right, unless you’re gonna stand up aginst the wrong.” I very much agree with this opening line. The “middle” choir however, will probably sing it like this: “There’s no need standing up for the right, to brag you’re in the middle just be quiet.”
3] If the majority of middle Adventists choose to stick their heads in the ground until the cows come home and make believe that Christian warfare is a fictive exercise then tell me who is foolin’ who here?
I wonder if Mr. Hammond would favor us with his view of who or what exactly represents today “spiritual wickedness in high places?”
This thread is amusing in my view. If EGW wasn’t so influential and provocative we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
The Adventist church’s influence, and the influence of Adventists, apparently aren’t found in circles that impress Bugs among others—surprise, surprise. Would Bugs like to see a list of famous, prominent, and/or influential American Adventists? (Not that such a list would mean anything other than that there is one.)
I would point out, of course, that the vast majority of SDAs aren’t Americans. I would also point out that the vast majority of Adventists are unfortunately not demographically represented on sites such as this.
But as for EGW, there would be no vehement opposition to her writings or her, inside the church or outside it, if they weren’t of powerful, historic/prophetic significance. This site and others like it wouldn’t exist (or would have little/no traffic) otherwise. The fact that there is a cottage industry dedicated to diminishing or denigrating White is a testament to her continuing impact; yet a full century after her demise.
The question is what makes her impactful?
While it is true that the unannounced and unofficial de facto campaign to not cite EGW for anything (other than that which would further the ends of same) has been largely successful in certain circles, those circles aren’t the most influential ones.
This said, EGW would undoubtedly be supportive of any ‘Sola Scriptura’ Protestant/SDA movement that didn’t/doesn’t question the authority of the Bible. Invariably such Adventists already regard EGW favorably.
Thanks a lot, General Irvin! Here a few of us from our bunkers, afflicted with religious war injuries, have been blasting away at each other, skirmish after skirmish, and you say the Ellen war was over quite some time ago? We have further developed our PTSD for no good reason? We should have paid more attention to recent missives from the field hinting at such, I guess. Probably enjoying ourselves too much to notice. So, us old soldiers must shoulder some of the blame since the glory of battle can blind even bright eyes to the winding down for the need for more of it. But the good news, no real casualties. And more good news, we are war hardened and ready for the next volley of conversations on a different field of disagreement! Speaking only for myself, of course!
See, my PTSD raised its ugly head in the misspelling of General Ervin’s name. I would apologize, but war injuries don’t allow for such.
Maybe we should turn our attention to discussing what constitutes true religion: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress. . . .” (James 1:27).
Mother Teresa was a good example of one who followed in Christ’s footsteps. Once, when she was scheduled to speak at a convention on world hunger, she was not at the podium at the appointed hour. A security guard found her on the steps of the auditorium ministering to an elderly, weak, sick, starving homeless man. The guard urged, “Hurry, Mother Teresa, the audience is waiting on you!” She replied, “They want to hear about hunger in India. But this man is starving on their doorstep. Before I tell them about hunger, I want to do something about it.”
She put the theory of Christianity into practice. My goal this year is to keep my eyes open to opportunities to minister to the downtrodden and the “sinners” and show God’s love in practical ways to those who need it most. “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)
Please give me a moment to defend the memory of Ellen White. No need to put her middle initial G. in her name, as most Christian people know her, regardless of whether they accept her renderings as partly prophetical, or not. A prophet is never accepted in their home country. There were what would eventually be possibly 4 MIRACLES that occurred in Christian ranks in the 19th Century. MORMONISM/JOSEPH; CHRISTIAN SCIENCE/MARY BAKER EDDY; JEHOVAH’S WITNESS/???, and Pentecostalism/Parham. All have had phenomenal success, and most supposedly had a prophet. i would suggest that perhaps none of these groups had “PROPHETS”. However, perhaps they did. i am most aware of Ellen White. Before becoming an SDA in 1969, i was conversant with each of the above organizations, but until 1960, i had never talked to, or seen in person, an SDA
member. Having located into Silver Spring, Md. from Calif. we searched for a piano teacher for our 10 year old daughter. We located a Mrs. Allen in Takoma Park, Md. She became not only the piano teacher we were seeking, but also a very good friend. However it wasn’t until nine years later, while living in Oshawa, Ontario, during a physical crisis, that i was given the book, Steps to Christ, by Dr Charles Morgan. It
was the most inspiring account of Jesus Christ, i had read, ever before or since, that spoke of redeeming Grace and Love. i believe God the HOLY SPIRIT guided Ellen White in preparing this precious little book. Now in considering if Ellen White was a prophet, warts and all, as were even the Biblical prophets inclusive in the Bible, i’ll leave to your belief. All of Bible prophecy, as accepted by Christian faith, has come to us through thousands of hands handling the WORD of our LIVING GOD, by MYTH, By retelling verbally, and finally printed on papyrus, and in book form. Were not many retellings fallible, and or contained errors, yet we have the Bible, warts and all, yet God reveals HIMSELF to us. Amazing, wouldn’t you agree?? Now, why can’t we accept the messages of imperfect Ellen White, recognizing the millions her messages have cemented into Jesus Christ. i
believe Ellen White received her messages directly through GOD the HOLY SPIRIT, Just as do you and me, as we are abiding in GOD the HOLY SPIRIT, as HE convicts us of sin, and leads to the saving Grace of JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.
Dr. Taylor says that “EGW is a museum piece.”
I’m reminded of a story: A freshman is nervously filling out some forms on a campus bench and asks an old professor sitting next to him for the correct date. The prof pauses with reading his newspaper, thinks a bit, then looks back eagerly at the paper and replies in disappointment: “Sorry son, I’m not sure what today’s date is – I’ve only got yesterday’s newspaper.”
Moral of the story? Yesterday’s “museum piece” may still tell us a thing or two today.
The US Constitution is 18th century and a real museum piece yet it is very much a part of the US today.
Darwin’s teachings are 19th century yet he is so revered by his followers, many of whom come from the vast majority of modern scientists today. There is even a day set aside in honour of him.
Modern English is 16th/17th century and yet it is still alive and kicking today.
Shakespeare – 16th, Mozart – 18th, Bach – 18th, Pythagoras – 6th BC, and many many more “museum piece[s]” still have a part in our lives today. Why can’t the writings of EGW?
Trevor,
You keep calling the ghost writer works published under Ellen White’s name and for which she took credit “the writings of Ellen White.” But those works are not hers.
There has been so much talk about Ellen White’s plagiarizing, but it is rather unfair to call her a plagiarist. She plagiarized a little, but not too much.
The woman couldn’t even copy a piece of text from a book. Have you seen her writing? On the second page of my document “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop” I show a a handwritten page from what the White Estate calls “The Huss Manuscript.” McAdams examined her writing and was shocked at what he saw. The woman is illiterate. Her English composition skills are, with exaggeration, at the second grade level.
I know what I am talking about, because I taught second grade students and I never saw such horrible scribbles like in Ellen’s “Huss Manuscript.”
At the rate she scribbled it would have taken her one thousand years (hyperbole) to gather the material for the publications credited to her. All the text claimed to be hers is as follows, according to the White Estate:
At the time of her death Ellen White’s literary productions totaled approximately 100,000 pages: 24 books in current circulation; two book manuscripts ready for publication; 5,000 periodical articles in the journals of the church; more than 200 tracts and pamphlets; approximately 35,000 typewritten pages of manuscript documents and letters; 2,000 handwritten letters and diary materials comprising, when copied, another 15,000 typewritten pages. Compilations made after her death from Ellen White’s writings bring the total number of books currently in print to more than 130 (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html).
In my document, “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” I show that we need to move on from the plagiarism charges against Ellen White to the bare truth:
ELLEN WHITE DID NOT PLAGIARIZE, AND DID NOT WRITE. 90 PER CENT OF THE PUBLICATIONS CREDITED TO HER WERE PLAGIARIZED AND COMPILED BY HER GHOST WRITERS. THAT IS WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS, AND THESE ARE THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT ELLEN WHITE AS A WRITER.
Ellen White, as described by the SDA literature and folklore is not a real person. She is the SDA legend. The SDA icon. The SDA saint. Period.
The facts tell the whole story, and it is too late to try to hide the truth.
I do enjoy the wild defensive gymnastics of her defenders who flip, duck, parry, squirm, rave, panic, screech, retreat, and perform the ostrich defense, at the continuing return fire of revelations of her limitations.
Both sides are fighting an unnecessary battle because the war is over: except for a ceremonial recognition by certain church leaders and GC publications, Ellen White is out of the picture. You really don’t hear about her anymore except in some ultra-conservative offshoot groups and self-supporting institutions (and some die-hard leaders like Ted W.). Whatever her limitations were, it isn’t all that relevant anymore. In most church districts, for all practical purposes you would never know that she existed. Both sides are beating a dead horse.
There is the GGG (Glorious Guardians of Good), Ted W. as their Chief Knight, headed for the wingding in San Antonio jousting to go back to the future for the rehabilitation of Ellen and Adam and Eve in July. Since the GGG has announced EGW slogans as it battle cry, it is safe to assume her waning legacy, apparently unnoticed by them, will be central to their quest.
I previously thought they had a significant, if symbolic, crusade, but realize now, after seeing the degree to which Ellen has been minimized in Adventist practice, it is probably a jousting at windmills. To maintain Carlos’s metaphor, let’s drag this poor unfortunate horsey carcass to the nearest field of ambrosia, tip a toast of Napa Valley Spring water in honor, and steal silently away.
That is true, definitely how it is out here on the west coast. Friends say same on east coast and middle America. Sort of like Armstrong WWCG church, how it changed completely in 1990s and now they never talk about Armstrong; they are real evangelical church now. Churches do change. I laugh at the strife on this board; both sides are barking up the wrong tree. Like the runner who fell asleep in midst of the race, and he got up and struggled to win the race, not realizing the event was finished hours before–and the other contestants were already at home resting.
Eduard H. If Ellen White is passé, gone, forgotten, not even quoted currently in SDA churches, why are you promoting your
caustic and very biased opinion of her here in 2015??
How do we know your authority to speak of her is accurate, or that your “borrowed” information is true?? Sez who??
Come on Earl, the messenger of bad news isn’t the problem. Attacking him is a cheap, useless trick. It advances your argument not one bit. Provide your valid sources that contradict his. Problem is, you can’t.
Some staff at the White Estate itself and Dr. Fred Veltman published some analyses of literary borrowing. Now Prof. Hanganu has simply pinned the borrowing upon the editorial assistants as ghostwriters.
Regardless of the literary borrowing, the thoughts that they gathered from other authors were often inspiring, and might have been inspired in the same way that God has obviously inspired ministers like D.L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, Tony Evans, Chuck Swindoll, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Ben Haden, and Bill Hybels, and writers such as Oswald Chambers, Corrie Ten Boom, Phil Yancey, and Elizabeth Elliot.
In any event, as several commentators have pointed out on this board, Prof. Hanganu’s treatise has little practical significance now because the writings are largely ignored and hardly ever mentioned in the churches. His paper is attacking a straw man. Like Carlos L. said, in most congregations you would never know she existed. Most of the ministers preach strictly from the Bible and the topics are similar to what you would hear in churches like Willow Creek or The Potter’s House.
The current president of the G.C. is the “straw man” by infusing EGW quotations very liberally in all his sermons and articles in the official SdA publications.
EGW is an American icon. She is not at all regarded with the same homage in Europe and it is not known how the third world countries and China regards her as many in the third world are not highly literate and can afford her books.
The ghost writers are just like the ghost proof in the accusations levelled at her writings: they are invisible.
Larry, i have to answer your opinion of “a cheap useless trick”. The way of presentation of Eduard
Hanganu, in contesting the question of Ellen White’s general body of work as being a sham, a total work done by others, and delivered to the public as her own. There is no doubt that she was handicapped, and it was not easy for her to overcome the obstacles of the harshness of living in the 19th Century, with a limited education, in a MAN’s world. i find it impossible to believe that the SDA church used her in a diabolical scheme for over 50 years. There is a harmonious quality that threads through her Steps to Christ, and Desire of Ages, as well as other manuscripts, that is discernible, that various assistants (editors) ghost writers could not duplicate. Now as to the “borrowing”, “plagiarizing”, no doubt, a lot occurred as has been discussed by most bloggers here, however, not living in the 19th Century it is difficult to ascertain just how serious a crime it was to borrow something published by another that has relevance to your theme. Would think that the great amount of printing done on the very large printing press in Michigan, would have been culpable by the SDA leadership should “borrowing” have been a big deal in those days. Especially as we are led to believe that Ellen White could hardly write a complete sentence, much less the ability to compose the estimated expansive volume of work that Eduard H.
suggests conspiracy, by the General Body of the SDA Church.
The cheap trick is to state with obvious bias, and in a very negative comportment, much more insidious than what would be expected from a Reviewer, unless he/she had an axe to grind.
It boils down to whose “experts” do you believe?? We have various experts here at Atoday who also have found Eduard H. to be combative to Ellen White, far beyond of how a professional reviewer would be expected to show fairness in the personality involved.
So Larry i find your personal attack of me, under the circumstances, also to be unfair, and without grace, you knowing me now for over a year. And of course we know of your comments of the SDA Sound Chamber. Touche friend.
Earl, I apologize for being a bit caustic. You weren’t personally my intended target, I have always valued your stance and opinion as being heartfelt and straightforward.
Methodology is the question. I am fully aware of the value placed on Ellen’s credited work by a multitude of people. The end result is what matters to the majority, obviously. As I see it, the trip to the end result matters most. I consider Adventism to be built on a mythical foundation of which Ellen is the corner stone. She was ordained with blessings she didn’t deserve at the hands of “helpers” and a used a library of materials created by others for her “work,” and was raised to a throne beyond her importance. She at best, as far as her published works go, was an assistant editor among editors. So, I see it as dishonest for her to be regarded as prophet and to be touted for work that really wasn’t hers. The excuse of plagiarism not being a concept in her day doesn’t matter. The material wasn’t from her “gift” of “prophecy.”
As for her leadership skills, she was very good. Since her literary limits are in plain sight, the motives of her critics don’t concern me, but the information they provided does. That’s why I bristle at attacks on the messengers. In Hanganu’s case, I know nothing about him, haven’t read his 65 page treatise, not sure of his bias, which I’m sure there is, but see nothing in his charge that isn’t revealed, at least in part, elsewhere.
The myth of Adventism was born in its identification of itself as exclusive, the remnant, haloed by the Spirit of Prophecy. And much more. From what I am seeing on this forum, the membership seems to be moving away from isolation of these myths toward an evangelical outlook. The Adventist sound proof chamber I have identified may have a much smaller populace than my earlier estimates allowed! I never figured you had a compartment there, anyway!
I concur with Steve Ferguson (among others) that the published product of a prophetic gifting can and often does include others.
It has been suggested to me that critiquing my fellow AT bloggers isn’t polite. The fact is however that the notion that EGW didn’t write is revisionist claptrap. The case has been made that it is hard to believe that someone with her level of formal education could have written as well as she purportedly did. The case has not been made that her penned writings, from which her published works are based, weren’t penned by her.
Although I’ve only visited the ‘vault’ in Maryland once; one can see some of that which is attributed to her handwriting. Is it not her handwriting we’re shown? When an accusation of fraudulent behavior is leveled, more than conjecture should be offered/required—and surely the suggestion that White didn’t write is an accusation of fraudulent conspiracy.
Again, the reason for the accusation is because of the content of the writings. The content is the reason they’re impactful. It is the content that’s being attacked. (Or perhaps should I say “being critiqued”?)
A. Lots of the content in her books was borrowed (selectively copied or paraphrased) from other books.
B. Whoever did the copying, did it in an intelligent, selective, and thoughtful manner, sometimes improving upon the source material. It apparently was legal at that time.
C. Regardless of who was responsible for most of the writing and paraphrasing, a lot of the final product has been recognized as a good literary product – probably because there was some high-quality source material, combined with some high-quality original writing and editing.
D. Regardless of whether she was “a prophet” in the sense of Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, or John the Revelator, she was a Christian lady who might have qualified as prophet in terms of leadership like Moses or Miriam (i.e., prophets were sometimes more like public-speakers and leaders, than fortune-tellers or mediums). Christian leaders and pastors of all denominations have this type of prophetic gift of leadership and speaking (e.g., Billy Graham, T.D. Jakes, Chuck Swindoll, and Tony Evans).
E. Regardless of whether she had a “prophetic” gift of leadership or public speaking, she was, indeed, reputed to be a powerful speaker and part-time preacher.
F. Regardless of whether anything in the books was inspired in the sense of Micah, Obadiah, John the Revelator, or Daniel, there is some good devotional content (especially in books about Jesus e.g. Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages, Christ’s Object Lessons, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings) that is uplifting to read, much like the works of Chambers, Bruce Wilkinson, Lewis, Yancey, Elliot, Packer, Wesley, Calvin, or Spurgeon.
G. Regardless of whether anything in her books is worth reading, it doesn’t matter because hardly anybody among mainstream Adventism reads them or quotes them or talks about them, anyway. Most Adventists are reading the Bible and Philip Yancey, Max Lacado, Rick Warren, Oswald Chambers, John MacArthur, Morris Vendon, Randy Alcorn, David Jeremiah, Bruce Wilkinson, and whatever their other evangelical neighbors are reading.
Was she a fortune-teller, seer, or medium? No. Was she a talented leader and speaker? Yes. Are her books scripture? No. Are they good devotional material? Some yes. Do SDAs read or quote or talk about them? No, hardly any. As Carlos Lopez said, you would hardly know that she ever existed. Are we beating a dead horse? Yes. Let it rest in peace.
Zhang Lei Chan,
I don’t know from where you are writing or where you in the world you generally attend church, but until and unless you are regularly attending churches in the East-Central Africa Division, or in the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division, or in the South American Division, or in the Southern Asia Division, or in the Inter-American Division, or in the largest urban centers of the North American Division, you have little/no basis for saying with regard to the writings of EGW that “hardly anybody among mainstream Adventism reads them or quotes them or talks about them.”
It wouldn’t be reasonable to suggest what most Adventists do if you are not worshipping, studying, socializing, or working with them.
Stephen, this may eject me into space without a life-saving suit, but is there a more generous view of myth as an acceptable part of religious discourse in the parts of the world you describe?
You are correct, Bugs/Larry Boshell. Thanks.
Stephen, I am not in those parts of the world and cannot speak for them. Despite my name, I was raised on the west coast of the USA and still live on the west coast. I have attended SDA churches in every major region of America and have Adventist friends across the nation, and I discuss church matters with them regularly. I also work, worship, and socialize with Adventists regularly.
I have no doubt that my description of current-day SDA practice in local churches is accurate, and it has been corroborated by several other commentators on this board. We really are beating a dead horse. Let it rest in peace.
Zhang Lei Chan,
By saying that “[you] have attended SDA churches in every major region of America and have Adventist friends across the nation, and [you] discuss church matters with them regularly [and] work, worship, and socialize with Adventists regularly” simply does not address the point I had made.
I listed the parts of the world, including the areas of North America, where the majority of Adventists happen to be. Unless you’re living in and worshipping where the majority of Adventists live and worship, you have no basis for knowing what most Adventists do or what they think.
Perhaps you can understand it this way. Living with or even worshipping with Islamic people in America won’t necessarily give you correct information about what adherents to Islam do or what they think wherever in the world that most of them are.
Your response to Bugs reveals that you likely associate with Adventists who are culturally different than those who reside in the areas of the world that I’ve named (where the majority of Adventists actually are). If so, then you are associating with a cultural and numerical minority of Adventists, and not with the Adventist critical mass.
(I hope that you are joking in suggesting that the comments on these boards corroborate your anecdotal conclusions relative to EGW.)
Stephen, using your own logic, I will say: unless you live in those other parts of the world yourself, you have no basis for knowing what “most” Adventists over there do or what they think.
I am not over there and I won’t try to guess how they feel or speak for them. I can only speak to what I (and my friends, and their friends) observe here all over the U.S.
I’m not the one who claimed to know to what extent EGW is cited, or that she is seldom cited; this is a point that I may not be communicating very well, my friend. What I am basically saying is that the folks with whom you associate clearly do not constitute a representative cross section of Seventh-day Adventists; apparently not even in America. Most Adventists, of course, are from those Divisions that I originally mentioned; and now most North American Adventists have cultural and ancestral roots in those very same Divisions. Unless you are spending time worshipping or associating with a representative cross section of Adventists, you cannot know what you’ve claimed.
To be technically correct, I should include the West-Central Africa Division as one in which North American Adventists have ancestral roots.
Stephen said: “Unless you are spending time worshipping or associating with a representative cross section of Adventists, you cannot know what you’ve claimed.”
But that’s exactly what I do: “spending time worshipping or associating with a representative cross section of Adventists.” I am a life-long Adventist and regularly attend several Adventist churches, one that is a regular American/European congregation, one of mostly African and Islander heritage, one of Latino extraction, and one of mostly Asian heritage; and I often travel throughout the U.S. on business and worship at a cross-section of Adventist churches of every description (mainstream, conservative, liberal, progressive, whatever is geographically closest to my hotel). There is a broad and obvious shift towards a clearly evangelical atmosphere and I never hear about EG White.
I can’t remember the last time I ever heard her mentioned, quoted, or even paraphrased from the pulpit. Sometimes I muse to myself, “The only visible difference between this congregation and the evangelical protestant churches [which I also attend from time to time] is the day on which the service is held.” You may not want to believe it, but Adventism (as actually practiced in local districts, not in Ted Wilson’s speeches) is very different from how you remember it.
Zhang Lei Chan,
Precisely as I expected, but was hesitant to say explicitly, you did not include predominantly African American congregations in your rotation of congregations—unless the “one of mostly African and Islander heritage” is one that would be so considered.
We know that it can be conservatively estimated that over half the Adventists who regularly attend church on Sabbaths in North America are of African or Hispanic descent; with most of these being African Americans. The numerical membership of conferences indicates this. So if Trevor Hammond is correct, and you have somewhere actually estimated that at least “80% of American Adventists don’t quote or even mention Mrs. White in church” without visiting predominantly African American and Hispanic churches half the time, then your anecdotal estimate is not even based on a representative sampling of Adventists in North America—and the Adventists in North America are not a representative sampling of Adventists worldwide, where the African and Hispanic percentages of membership are larger than in North America.
Stephen said: “We know that it can be conservatively estimated that over half the Adventists who regularly attend church on Sabbaths in North America are of African or Hispanic descent; with most of these being African Americans.”
I haven’t seen those statistics, but my description (“African and Islander heritage, one of Latino extraction”) meant the same thing. “African and [Black] Islander heritage” = African American, and “Latino” = Hispanic. And yes, my home church is predominantly African American. It may be that older Hispanic members may be the most likely to refer to EGW from time to time, but the tide is turning in Latino churches too.
I also have anecdotal evidence of observations from my friends in numerous congregations of all backgrounds across the country, and the clear impression is that it’s a different church from what it used to be.
We may be getting close to pay dirt. I could be wrong, and I don’t want to stereotype any Seventh-day Adventists, but I’d bet that the pastor of your home church—which you have identified as predominantly African American—isn’t African American.
(I’d also wager that most of the churches you’ve visited when travelling aren’t ‘Regional;’ and that most of “[your] friends in numerous congregations of all backgrounds across the country” aren’t either black or brown; although the SDA church worldwide is largely so.)
I’m not disputing the church being “different;” I’m saying that you are not necessarily in touch with what a representative/proportional sampling of Seventh-day Adventists everywhere think or do—especially if you are in North America. And that EGW is cited and referenced more often among a representative/proportional sampling of Seventh-day Adventists than you seem to know (since you think she isn’t referenced period.)
I think that among some Seventh-day Adventists, she’d often previously been overused and/or misused; but that those who now ignore her are among those whose regard for Adventism and of the Bible are also dubious. (I believe that such Adventists are among those being shaken out of the church and are/will be among Adventism’s staunchest opponents.)
If at all possible, do yourself a favor Zhang Lei Chan and visit General Conference this summer in San Antonio, TX. It may well be an eye-opening experience. I’d suggest that the attendees there will represent a more accurate sampling of SDAs than you have seen in North America; and that you’ll occasionally hear EGW mentioned.
In my view, the current demographic composition of the church now makes the “persecution” we’ve long heard predicted somewhat more plausible.
You wrote: “Do SDAs read or quote or talk about them? No, hardly any.”
Really? A lot of pastors seem to be regular readers, or at least have developed sets of “favorite quotes” because it seems no matter where I visit it is impossible to hear a sermon that doesn’t quote her at least once even though she told us to not do that. Then there are those folks in Sabbath School classes who are quick to remember statements they think she made that support whatever point of view they’re expressing while they ignore the Bible.
Well, maybe you’re right. People seem most often to quote her when it is convenient and when it gives their view a veneer of credibility. So, maybe they’re not really reading what she wrote after all about the need to study our Bibles.
You’re right: they are not reading her. Sure, once in a blue moon I might hear some elderly person recall during the lesson study something he heard or read (or *thinks* he heard or read) years ago, but I never hear anyone under 60 do that. The younger set are quoting the Bible and contemporary evangelical authors.
On the other hand, there are some nice statements that anyone would like in those books, promoting grace, faith, kindness, and mercy, and love. A few examples:
* “Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.” (1888 Materials, p. 811)
* “If we would humble ourselves and be kind and courteous and tenderhearted and pitiful, there would be one hundred conversions to the truth [of the Gospel] where now there is only one.” (9T:189)
* “It is not earthly rank, nor birth, nor nationality, nor religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity.” (Thoughts From The Mount Of Blessing, p. 75)
* “A kind, courteous Christian is the most powerful argument that can be produced in favor of Christianity. Kind words are as dew and gentle showers to the soul.” (Reflecting Christ, p. 30)
* “Prayer is the opening of the heart to God as to a friend.” (Steps to Christ, p. 93)
* “We need to have far less confidence in what man can do and far more
confidence in what God can do for every believing soul.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 146)
* “Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him.” (Reflecting Christ, p. 23)
* “The Saviour … will never abandon one for whom He has died.” (Desire of Ages, p. 480)
* “If we err, let it be on the side of mercy rather than on the side of condemnation and harsh dealing.” (Letter 16, 1887)
* “Let us love one another… Let us remember how forbearing and patient He was….” (Review and Herald, 27 Aug. 1889, p. 530)
* “I should not want to live unless I could live to do some good to others.”
* “We must not think, ‘Well, we have all the truth… The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light.” (Evangelism, p. 296)
Whether or not she was a prophet, it seems that she was a sincere Christian. Just about anyone might like those statements (at least if he didn’t know they’re from her books).
Anyway, the fact is: for all practical purposes, Ellen White is a relic of the past; the church is different now; she is not read or quoted by 80% of SDA members in the U.S., and there is no sense fighting over her now. It’s like punching a straw man or jabbing swords at windmills.
Folklore, Myth, maybe even “old wives tales” are
the original methods of transmitting actual History forward to what we have today of life and ideas, concepts of origins. Verbal transmission of information is what we have of the earliest mankind on Earth. Is there no truth to the “Mythical Messages” from the past?? Who can say not, with any degree of certainty. No doubt, many myths from the deepest past days of man’s sojourn on Earth are false, but no doubt that many have a theme of authenticity. The problem being that over the years the word “MYTH”
has been assumed to be, phony baloney.
Myth has more than one meaning, only one, as far as I know, is defined as blatantly false. My reference above to a broader allowance of myth in other cultures has to do with a way of thinking, not an embracing in a larger part more than us of falsehood. Myth can and does add richness to life. It is a part of Christian thought. My musing has to do with the possibility of different roots and backgrounds, heritages, and even vestiges of verbal myths, playing a role in the function of Adventism outside of the US and accounting for disparities between us and them.
Bugs/Larry Boshell usually makes very helpful and on-target comments. But the following seems not be to correct: “Myth has more than one meaning, only one, as far as I know, [it] is defined as blatantly false.” That’s not the meaning of “myth” that I’ve read about. “Myth” can certainly be, as he says, “blatantly false.” But in a number of contexts, it refers technically to “stories or narratives, originally mainly orally transmitted, designed to explain, social or cultural practices or characteristics of the physical world in a given society.” That from our Western perspective many or most of these narratives are factually questionable is certainly correct. However, some “myths” may reflect historical events which then become vastly elaborated with the repeated telling. The Genesis narratives are certainly myths. That they do not communicate accurate scientific information about the history of our planet or species is a problem that developed relatively recently. That was not the intention of those who composed or edited them for the obvious reason that science had been been invented at the time of their formulation. Our fundamentalist friends seem to have missed that simple fact.
I think you’re misreading Larry. What he actually said was: “Myth has more than one meaning, [and] only one [of those meanings], as far as I know, is defined as ‘blatantly false’.” He said “myth” usually has a broader meaning, “a broader allowance of myth in other cultures [having] to do with a way of thinking” and “different roots and backgrounds” and “vestiges of verbal myths.” That is similar to what you said: “stories or narratives, originally mainly orally transmitted….”
“All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; to the place from where the rivers come, there they return again,” said the wise man. Eccl. 1:7.
. . .
Very well said, Edward B.
I’ve decided that my faith is based on the Bible, most assuredly not, on anything from Ellen White.
Ervin Taylor: “However, some “myths” may reflect historical events which then become vastly elaborated with the repeated telling.”
Dr Taylor makes some interesting points. Did Columbus actually discover America? No, scientific evidence suggests it was actually the vikings, nothing to say about the Native Americans who ‘discovered’ it first.
But it would equally be wrong to say the idea of Columbus discovering America is “false”. A truer answer would be to say, ‘it’s complicated’, as history usually is.
The important point is the story of Columbus discovering America, although factually ‘complicated’, seered itself into the minds of thousands and inspired millions to travel to the New World. It was a “myth” in the very best sense of the world, as a founding narrative that gave meaning.
Christianity is also a “myth”, meaning a founding story. The gospel in essence is a story. Now both sides of many historical-critical debates of modern theology are wrong, either liberals talking about the Bible being “false” or those performing mental gymnastics trying to get every minor detail of the gospels to matach in every way.
And of course the same principles apply to Ellen White “writing” as “author” her many writings.
Mr/Mrs Zhang Lei Chan says that 80% of American Adventists don’t quote or even mention Mrs. White in church. He also says that in the cross-section of all the churches he regularly visits, he has “never” heard about Ellen White. That would make it 100%. So where does the 80% come from? Has research been done? If so, it would be a huge shift within American Adventism as a whole. It fact it would be shocking news indeed. If 80-100% of Adventists view Mrs. White as a thing of the past and not at all relevant today, then I find it rather unusual for a shortened version of one of her books to be distributed en masse in the recent New York City evangelistic program and then to other cities in America and around the world? Hmm…
That book distribution project was the brainchild of Ted Wilson. As I and others on this board have pointed out, his speeches and projects do not seem to reflect the general views and practices of the “average” Adventist in real life out in the local district churches.
Although it’s 100% for me (because I have never heard a reference to her in recent years), I estimated 80% based on anecdotal evidence and in an attempt to err on the side of caution or be generous to some commentators here who still seem to think the church is how it used to be (and to account for the possibility that, as you assert, there may be different traditions in some other “ethnic” congregations besides the ones that I attend).
In reality, though, what Ted Wilson says or does in the ivory tower of the GC does not reflect actual belief and practice of most Adventists in the U.S. It’s loosely analogous to the Feb. 2014 report on ChristianPost.com, that most Roman Catholics around the world (in a poll commissioned by Univision) disagree with the pope on controversial subjects like “contraception, abortion and gay marriage.” I have a Catholic neighbor who says, “No pope is going to tell my wife not to use the pill.” What the pope says, and what many Roman Catholics actually believe or practice, are different.
Similarly, there is a disconnect between what Ted Wilson says and what most Adventist academics, members, and pastors believe and practice. Rank and file Adventists do not spend their time reading Ted Wilson’s speeches. Many of them spend time watching TV and listening to the radio, hearing evangelical ministers like Chuck Swindoll, Rick Warren, John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, Tony Evans, even liberal ministers like Joel Osteen, Tony Campolo, and Robert Shuller before his retirement. The ones who read SDA books often focus on the grace-centered evangelical authors such as Morris Vendon, Jack Sequeira, David Newman, etc.
Just look at one small example to see the disconnect: Ted Wilson is vehemently against women’s ordination, whereas many individual state conferences and pastors and church members are in favor of it. The same kind of disconnect can be seen in other areas of thought, belief, and practice. A new crop of younger pastors and members is bringing a revitalized evangelical environment to their districts.
Is Mr/Mrs Zhang Lei Chan’s 80% not a fine example of a myth or perhaps an urban[tist] legend?
Maybe a myth in the way I am describing it, as not “false” exactly but rather “it’s complicated” factually, but still powerful as an inner truth.
How Mrs White is quoted or used today isn’t that simple – “it’s complicated”. Long gone (except in the minds of the old-timers who regularly visit this site)are the days of quoting her verbatim as the Adventist haddith or SDA talmud. But she isn’t entirely gone either.
She still lurks under the surface – whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. In the Churches I attend (and that is all over the world), she isn’t quoted from the pulpit as gospel that often – thank goodness. But she still is used at times, and often to support a thematic position, something where the Bible is supportive but not explicitly. A good example that comes to mind recently, was a discussion about life on other worlds.
Here is the simplest, and maybe the best, definition of Myth that I’ve seen. Myth: a story that’s false on the outside, but true on the inside.
Our job is to look beneath the surface meaning. Robert Johnson in his multiple works, does a great job of decoding many of the ancient, better known myths, eg, Fisher King, Tristan & Isolde, etc. Seems they reflect our inner life a lot more than anything else.
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Great quote! Certainly applicable and appropriate here!
‘All the world is mad….. EXCEPT ME… and thee. And sometimes I’m none too sure about thee.’
Thanks for the reminder, Cedric.
Language is an approximation of a mental concept. Myth is an approximation of meaning handicapped by language. Or, perhaps it is communication in its highest form, free of language handicap. Oh well, that humans communicate at all is a wondrous phenomenon!
The !!INTERNET!! has been a game changer in all areas of life, for most all living today, as was the Gutenberg Press, in the 1400’s. i believe most People today don’t read books, unless on Kindle. The SDA Church stands to lose big bucks with loss of revenue from Ellen G White. What a shame that Steps to Christ, and Desire of Ages, and a few other books will not be read by future millions. These mentioned books of inspiration brought untold souls to Jesus.
If EW couldn’t write and most of her books and articles were ghostwritten, were they inspired? It seems to me that if a person wrote a book or article and put EW name on it, it would be forgery. I’ve been told that EW read and approved what these ghostwriters wrote. However, if she couldn’t write could she read? Did she even know what they wrote? We are told that she was a voracious reader, she had 1500 books in her library. However, were these books for EW or for research on the part of the ghostwriters? What kind of dialog occurred between EW and the GW. Did she tell them what to write or were they free to choose their topic. For me this whole thing called divine inspiration is suspect.
It depends on who you read. Mr. Hanganu takes one position in his article. Willie White, Ellen’s son, took a different position. He freely acknowledged and even named the literary assistants in a serious of presentations in 1935, but he described their scope of work differently.
It’s interesting to see both sides of the coin — reminiscent of an accident scene where one driver says the light was red, and the other says it was green. One interesting thing about Willie White’s treatise is that he includes his own eyewitness accounts and testimony from the literary assistants about what they did and did not do:
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/HowEGWbksWCW.html#The%20Work%20of%20Mrs.%20White%27s%20Literary%20Assistants
It’s a curious phenomenon that it is always left to the observer to determine the legitimacy of “inspired” claims. My question is, why wouldn’t the operative (God) behind prophet’s claims, with unlimited power and transcendent perspective, transmit with an unmistakable key or clarity the message to be broadcast? Wouldn’t “he” want his message distinguished from the lies of con artists? Charlatans thrive on this murky area to such a degree there isn’t a dimes difference between all claims of divine epistles. Could it be that there really aren’t any divine messages? There are only listeners eager to interpret them as such?
The problem for us observers is that we are easily duped because we want to believe there is God and that he has something to say to us. And that he does. But we really don’t have any certain way, other than opinion, to measure the validity of the mouthpieces. There is no universal criteria for judgment. What exists is proprietary. Each religious body and spiritual entity claiming to either have divinely connected messengers or are recipients of divine messages have their own yardstick for legitimacy. Most see theirs as exclusively true and the others as fraudulent.
Before I am hauled off to the fields of ambrosia, forced to kneel beside the dead horsey of the Ellen controversy, and stoned, after which there might be more toasting on Napa Valley Spring water, let me say now, I am not alleging Ellen was a fraud, or anyone of evil intent. I’m questioning all of us and where our human hunger for God might blindly lead us.
Amen. Well said.
“Could it be that there really aren’t any divine messages?”
I certainly believe there are divine messages. But I agree it is hard to judge, and how prophecy is derived from God (gods or the divine source) is contentious and problematic. Adventism is in fact one of the least dogmatic groups on this question, with God being ‘with the penmen not the pen’, compared with most other Christian groups.
“My question is, why wouldn’t the operative (God) behind prophet’s claims, with unlimited power and transcendent perspective, transmit with an unmistakable key or clarity the message to be broadcast? Wouldn’t “he” want his message distinguished from the lies of con artists? Charlatans thrive on this murky area to such a degree there isn’t a dimes difference between all claims of divine epistles. Could it be that there really aren’t any divine messages? There are only listeners eager to interpret them as such?”
Well, bugs, wherever you got your theological degree, you need to write them immediately and ask for a tuition refund plus interest! This is Pre-Theology 101. Love is the chief constituent of the Infinite-Personal God. But love cannot be forced. The chief constituent of LOVE is FREE CHOICE and REAL free choice means that someone — indeed, lots of someones — will be making the WRONG choices.
OF COURSE the all-powerful Master of the Universe need not tell us which messengers are “his” because “He” could simply appear in majesty and tell all human beings at once all the truth and that’s that.
(Of course, that would absolutely end free choice and any possibility of love for God based on the choice of the individual. And that means that guess what? THERE WILL ALWAYS BE HOOKS TO HANG DOUBTS ON AS LONG AS TIME LASTS. This is an essential base-point of the gospel.
God could overthrow free choice instantly. But that’s only half of the problem of your latest production, one which explains all the previous ones, btw.
I contacted Andrews U and asked for a refund for my one year sojourn there and they said OK, but it should go back to the Kansas Conference but since it didn’t exist anymore they would send it to Mr. Wilson to support the GGG (Glorious Guardians of Good) in their back to the future venture in San Antonio. The Iliff School of Theology, Methodist Seminary on the Denver University Campus where I earned my M.Div. degree, said they couldn’t issue a refund to me but would deposit an equal amount in their Gay, Lesbian, Peace, Global Weather, God is Sister, and Political Correctness Action Committee Account. And Union College (BA in Religion) emailed back and said, “You are supposed to send us money, dumbbell.”
I’m guessing I missed, somehow, Pre-Theology 101, you enrolled in somewhere. And that is probably why I’m not good at God’s Guessing Game, a Heavenly version of Las Vegas, apparently, where earthlings blindly gamble for their lives. I so hoped you would help me. But no, your defense of guessing based on free will is no help at all. God is an SOB with this defense because good guesses need good information, which He either hides in coded messages, mumbles about to questionable characters, or just refuses to announce. And that is exactly the point of my post. God allows guessing with varieties of contradictory information so we might or might not be able to figure it all out? And for the maintenance of the theory of free will. Eternal life or eternal death, it’s your problem according to your version of this miserable version of God. At least Las Vegas publishes the odds on their games and will even teach you how to play.
There is no guess work in my encounter with the experience of love in my life. God is an experience, not a person, a daily exercise of free will. That is the residence of God. It is that simple. The joy and happiness in my life lifts me every day unencumbered with theological guesses or speculations or the air castles of endless religious defenses of the indefensible. I am happy to eventually meet my demise satisfied I have encountered “God,” and if there isn’t more after the end, I, just like you when your day comes, won’t know the difference. If there is more, the love I have encountered points the way.
I don’t expect you to be like me. Here I stand, I can do no other. (Aw, I think somebody else already said that!)
“The problem for us observers is that we are easily duped because we want to believe there is God and that he has something to say to us. And that he does. But we really don’t have any certain way, other than opinion, to measure the validity of the mouthpieces. There is no universal criteria for judgment.”
I have to say, Bugs, you are piling HUMBUG on humbug here. Who told you that HUMANS can determine truth? Or that humans are capable of accurately assessing any objective reality? Why is the work The Father (representing the Infinite God’s power and majesty) and The Son (representing the Infinite God’s personality) necessary but insufficient? What further king of revelation must be made in order for the sentient beings of the universe (hardly just man!) to assess properly the objective revelation of Father and Son?
PRECISELY BECAUSE ALL OBJECTIVE REVELATION CAN BE SKEWED BY ANY FINITE OBSERVER. What is missing is a subjective revelation, a path to truth that bears witness to what The Father and The Son say, but via the experience, thought processes, and internal abilities of the creature.
Which is to say, you and I need the Holy Spirit to tell us what is true and what is not. Who or what (I have my own idea as to the answer) gave you the concept that individual humans are able to discern truth accurately?
In His departure sermon in the Gospel of John, the Lord Christ made it clear that the Holy Spirit would guide in “all the truth” for those who cared to have that as a result.
(He further set down the principle that much that was revealed beforehand would only be accurately understood when it came to pass, and then — and only then — the result would be an affirmation of what had been accepted on faith.
Non-believers tell me that the claims of guidance and supernatural revelation are only imagination and not objectively true. And for them that is absolutely the case, since the Scripture sets forth three important criteria for divine revelation.
Whoever comes to God must first believe that He exists. My friend Steve will never meet that criterion. Second the one who by faith ALREADY believes that God exists must then DILIGENTLY seek God. Even fewer than those who allegedly “believe” will do that part. And finally, that individual must be convinced that such diligent seeking will be rewarded by God before God actually takes action. Jesus said there would only be a few on that very straight and narrow road that leads to life.
All those requirements are just safeguards to and tests of free choice. Only after all human beings have made a final choice and God says therefore “It is finished!” will God reveal Himself in majesty to a race already having determined its final choices.
John, your statement: “Which is to say, you and I need the Holy Spirit to tell us what is true and what is not.”
Wow, John, and thank you! Are you aware of how powerfully you have unintentionally (I am sure) affirmed my thesis? Which is, there is only opinion to measure the validity of “messengers” and their “messages?” Boswell said that Samuel Johnson pronounced (April 7, 1775) patriotism to be last refuge of a scoundrel. In the same vein, I say (February 1, 2015) that the Holy Spirit is the last refuge of a true believer. Once the Holy Spirt is invoked the sound proof chamber is sealed, the believer is safe inside shielded from “facts,”
fact-flingers diminished to nonbelievers can silently journey on to hell.
Retreating to the self-blessing of the Holy Spirit argument is a desperate evacuation to the nether world, the chamber of holy imagination, the land of hooey! Where personal opinion based on ego gratification is interpreted as visitation and absolution by one third of the Holy Trinity. My critique of “inspired” claims applies to your “Holy Spirt” claims.
My statement, slightly reworded: “But we really don’t have any certain way, other than opinion, to measure the validity of the alleged work of the Holy Spirit. There is no universal criteria for judgment. What exists is a personal application, opinion. Each religious person with a spiritual claim to either be divinely connected or is by his judgment a recipient of special knowledge or insight has his own yardstick for legitimacy. Most see their Holy Spirit refuge as exclusively true and the others as at least, suspect. And each draws from the same encyclopedia, the Bible, which, as an interpreters paradise, and has support for the manufacture of every imagined Holy Spirit affirmation.
Your statement: “Who or what (I have my own idea as to the answer) gave you the concept that individual humans are able to discern truth accurately?” Exactly. They Holy Spirit led me to write this reply!
John, what you really saying is that you are special because you are Holy Spirit guided to the exclusion of those of us who subscribe to humbug. And because of your special inside knowledge, exterior contrary facts, or even consideration of them, have been trumped, nullified. How did you achieve that special position?
One last thing, your statement: “Whoever comes to God must first believe that He exists.” In the light of Christ’s teachings, that is an idiotic statement. The metaphor of the shepherd looking for the lost sheep is an exact opposite of that view.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. But they are not very inviting to this “nonbeliever” humbug stacker!
Larry, I usually find your comments enlightening, but I think you missed the mark when you said: “‘Whoever comes to God must first believe that He exists’ . . . is an idiotic statement.”
Hebrews 11:6 says: “anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists.” And the context seems to imply that it means “must first believe that He exists.”
Viewed together with the analogy to the Good Shepherd, maybe it means the Shepherd finds us and calls us, but we won’t come to Him unless we believe that He is God.
Frank, my choice of the word “idiotic” was probably a bit extreme, and with your prodding I will make a slight adjustment and allow that we may have a distinction without a difference, after all, here (based on definitions favorable to me)!
The sheep doesn’t even have to know there is a shepherd. Or that he is being “searched” for. The Shepherd isn’t the creation of the sheep or its brain. And when located, the shepherd won’t interview the sheep to ascertain his correct belief before he saves him. Correct thinking isn’t part of the salvation equation for animal sheep or human sheep. I don’t believe we are “lost” but that we are “found.”
Or to go the direction you apply drawn for Hebrews 11:6, His existence as the God of Love is never separated from us because the love viewed and experienced as a daily part of life, as I see it, is an irresistible magnet to the Good Shepherd that radiates in kind from us so that we are always “found.” I’m sure that doesn’t quite fit your understanding of “believing” that He exists, but it works for me and hatched my “idiotic” hyperbole!
I know the metaphor in Revelations “I stand at the door and knock” has more than one interpretation, but I like the one that fits my scheme of the Knocker always wanting to sit down for a powwow with me. He just won’t go away. He must like me a lot! Good for Him! And good for me!
Larry, I like the way you see it, and that’s basically how I see it, too. I just felt it was extreme to label as “idiotic” a statement that was virtually a direct quote from Hebrews 11:6. God bless.
Again, until someone meets the three criteria of Scripture for finding truth, they are not going to find it. Period.
I demure. The Bible itself is full of objective criteria to judge when someone is speaking by the Spirit or another spirit.
But God always supports free choice, as you so dramatically and unwittingly illustrate, bugs.
Eventually the wrong choices get God’s fullest approval:
“The coming of the lawless one by the energeia (supernatural power and activity) of Satan will be with all pretended signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO LOVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED.
“Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH BUT HAD PLEASURE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.”
God’s actions are always the objective norm by which some will be saved, others lost, and many on the lost side fully convinced (by God!) that they are absolutely right in their conviction that believers are wrong.
John, you are amazing!
You know the three criteria of Scripture.
You know the Bible is full of criteria for truth speakers of the Spirit
You know God always supports free will (illustrated unwittingly by me?)
You know wrong choices get Gods choices. Sorry, no “fullest” choices.
You know about the coming of the “lawless one” and the doom of truth unlovers
You know that God sends a strong delusion upon the unrighteous
You know that unbelievers have pleasure in unrighteousness
You know that god’s norm is for some to be saved, others saved
You know that many in the lost column will be shocked to find believers were right
You know God’s actions are always the objective norm
And that is revealed just in 8 paragraphs (I helped a little, thanks for the credit).
Are you a prophet?
Rereading my post, is see some syntax and other errors, common for me, but in this case, I blame it on exposure to the bright aura.
Maybe, bugs, but how would you know one way or the other with your lack of objective (Biblical) criteria to evaluate any answer I might give?
I “KNOW” all those things because they are plainly revealed in Scripture. “The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things that are revealed to us and to our children, forever.
Read the Bible with faith and you will know too. It will be amazing!
John, I was preparing an apology for my smarmy sarcasm until I ran across you your concern about my lack of “objectivity” based on the Bible. So it is ready to go, but now on hold. I must first be objective about objectivity. That is, in religious discourse “objective” is a euphuism for “opinion.” Opinions are monopoly money in a gold standard world of objectivity.
So, here is the third rendition of my non-objectivity explanation in religious discourse. My premise is that there is no such thing as “objective” (Biblical) criteria”. We really don’t have any certain way, other than opinion to measure “objective (Biblical) criteria.” There is no valid universal measure for objectivity. What exists are opinions, or collective opinions. Each religious person, or groups, with a claim to spiritual understanding has a yardstick of his own to determine a standard. Most view their selective judgment as true, aided by a majority opinion if one is available, with dissenting views regard as suspect or at worst, the bile of “unbelievers.” And each draws from the same hodgepodge encyclopedia, the Bible, which, is an interpreters paradise, and has endless support for the manufacture of every imagined doctrine.
You are entitled to your opinions masquerading as objective distillations of “plainly revealed Scriptures.” They don’t appear to me to be kind of thing Christ discussed with the “publicans and sinners.” Those theologicrats had lists, too, which he seemed to ignore in his new presentation of a God of Love, and for which they seemed to revile him. Just my opinion, not at all objective.
Every church is the “true” church in its own eyes. Every theologian has the right interpretation in his own eyes. That’s why there are so many denominations and offshoots and splinter groups–each of which is “right” (and therefore, all of which may be wrong). Maybe I should be like L. Ron Hubbard and invent my own religion and get rich. Even better, maybe I’ll just read the Gospels and keep the two commandments that Jesus said are the greatest: Love God and love my neighbor.
PS — these questions about EGW are not, then, accidental. The Spirit said to the last of her immediately predecessors that if he was unwilling to make a laughingstock of himself by claiming the prophetic gift, then it would be given to “the weakest of the weak.”
Ellen White never claimed to be otherwise. Yup, there will be hooks to hang doubts on, even if those arguments are as flimsy as the one that occasioned this thread.
Edward Buhoci: You wrote: “John McCaull on January 27, 2015 at 2:35 pm said:
“’Edward, you certainly evidence a very limited knowledge of exegesis of the Bible. Many visions (and reports of visions among the prophets were comparatively few and far between) included material that pre-existed or came from the daily life of the prophets.’
“No John, you are forced to hold thought inspiration because it was taught by Ellen White and because it was officially endorsed at the 1883 General Conference.”
No Edward, I am not “FORCED” to take any such theological position. Your response suggests to me even more that you have never had a thorough course in classical prophecy. In theology, there are PRESUPPOSITONS (as in the article that started this thread, drawing on secondary sources and obviously incorrect data) and there are POSTSUPPOSITIONS that are arrived at by concluding what the data actually show.
A number of things are interesting in that regard:
1. Virtually all the Bible writers included pre-existing material, much of it of pagan origin. Christ is coming upon the clouds of heaven! So says Scripture hither and yon. (Of course, since Ba’al was the god of the fructifying rains, the thunderstorm, it is no surprise to find in The Ba’al Epic from Ugarit (14th-13th c. BC) that Ba’al was the Rider on the Clouds.
2. While the line of classical prophets presents us with a remarkable unified view of God (justice and mercy, not the absurd picture of the demiurge that someone quoted on here), as time passed, specifics changed. EACH PROPHET VIEWED THE MESSIANIC KINGCDOM AS AT HAND.
In the NT, every writer viewed the Kingdom — coming at Christ’s appearing — as likewise at hand. No prophet ever predicted anything that looked like future ages, but only the action of God within their own time. Since the blessings and curses of the Covenant (Lev 26 and Dt 28) were ALL condiitiional on the “IF” of proper response, this is the only way such prophecies could be given. They would reach fulfillment or fail depending on the response.
3. When conditions had changed sufficiently that no prior prophet’s words could adequately deal with current issues, God sent NEW prophets to draw a line through certain passages in the prior prophets and update at will. Thus Jeremiah-Baruch and Ezekiel-Daniel and later Haggai-Zechariah, keep updating and changing the details of prior prophets.
Ellen White’s position was that the sect of her day had many things wrong, and that “we” would often have to bow down and admit we were wrong. Ironically, when I ask SDAs and disaffected SDAs to give me examples, they are weak on what “present truth” might look like.
Once EGW said that “often” SDAs would find they were wrong, and that they must not stop with their founders as Catholicism did with the early fathers, Lutheranism did with Luther, Calvinism did with Calvin, etc., nevertheless that is what happened.
And so we see…
Dear John:
I tried to look you up on the Web but without success. Are you the “former Atlantic Union College theology instructor John (Wood) McCaull”? If so, your qualification to examine and question my research might be in doubt. I have academic education at the B.A. and M.A. level in linguistics, and this is how I approach Ellen White’s claimed “works.” I have also taught linguistics and English composition in college. The academic education and the direct contact with writers at different development levels in their English language progress , enables me to evaluate and GRADE writing from a rhetorical, compositional, and grammatical perspective, and this is what I have done in the short piece AT published.
I suspect that you have not read the full 65 page document on the same topic that is posted in Academia.edu, otherwise you would be aware that what AT posted is just a small fragment of the research I did on the topic and the evidence I have provided to support my conclusions.
You have stated:
“In theology, there are PRESUPPOSITONS (as in the article that started this thread, drawing on secondary sources and obviously incorrect data) and there are POSTSUPPOSITIONS that are arrived at by concluding what the data actually show.”
Your claim that because I have drawn on “secondary sources” I also have published “obviously incorrect data.” Such affirmation doesn’t speak too much about your scholarship. If you need to know, most research papers written by scholars draw on secondary sources, and this doesn’t mean that the data they have compiled from first hand research is “incorrect.” It means only that they have repeated what the scholars who had access to the primary sources have discovered.
If I understand you well, you claim that you had direct and unlimited(?) access to Ellen White’s manuscripts. Well, you are a fortunate man. From what I know, there have been only a few people who have had unlimited access to the White Estate “cellars” and those who revealed what they found on those “higher shelves” in the “cellars” were either fired or told to shut up under threat. I will mention only three people in this category: Walter Rea, Ronald Graybill, and Donald Mc Adams.
Walter Rea discovered through first hand research that more than 80% of the “Conflict Series” was plagiarized, and when he published his conclusions became the Public Enemy # 1 for the SDA church. Ronald Graybill wrote a dissertation based on first hand data, but the White Estate forbade him to publish it due to the very damaging data the dissertation contained. Donald McAdams did first hand research on the “Huss Manuscript” (plagiarized handwritten text from Ellen White), but he was not allowed to publish his research work and his conclusions.
I tried to do first hand research, too. I wrote to Radisa Antic, the Director of Ellen White Research Centre Europe located at Newbold College and asked him to scan ten Ellen White “autographs” – unedited handwritten letters from Ellen White – and send them to me through eMail. His answer was, I quote: “We do not send any letters. You have to come here and do your research.”
Should I spend 10 thousand dollars and go to Newbold College when he could spend five minutes scanning the “autographs” and sending them to me through eMail? In an age when you can do almost everything through eMail and Skype that would be indeed ridiculous.
The reason the White Estate people refuse to release ALL Ellen White documents, and want researchers to go to the White Estate centers is because they want the researchers to sign NONDISCLOSURE LETTERS for their research in which they need to seek approval from the White Estate for what they want to publish. There are DARK SECRETS in the White Estate “cellars,” and the SDA leaders don’t want those secrets out.
There are people who want them out, though. How many documents were recently hacked from the White Estate recently? Soon, all the Ellen White secrets will be on the Web so that all those interested could see them and be fully convinced that Ellen White was a fraud.
There you go again, as Ronald told Jimmy.
There is no “plagiarism” in 19th century popular writing, and even the time-line I posted of the specific laws were all AFTER this.
In order to understand Ellen White’s comments on writing and reading, on “fiction” and “libraries” I wanted to documents dates, terminology (such as “novels” and “libraries”) and popular writing. And her own wide use of popular writing and large libraries (such as that of the late JN Andrews in Geneva when she lived in his former home in 1885-87, and the library she left in Australia.
I wanted to document the books, and collect as many of them as possible. The 80% plagiarized kaka is not accurate, and 100 ECH’s jumping up and down don’t make it so.
Further, I wanted to discount the sourced paraphrased (mostly) material — such as Daniel March’s “Night Scenes in the Bible” and find out if indeed there was a literary structure unique to Ellen White,, which there most certainly WAS.
Because the nature of the new readership in the newly-literate America changed significantly over the decades, the concept was to take EVERYTHING Ellen White said or did not the subject and compare it time-wise to what was going on in the changing culture.
In other words, to establish exegetically what the comments meant, not in isolation in a compilation book, that often led to false concepts about what she was saying (Message to Young People comes to mind) but what situations she was addressing.
The White Estate board graciously sent the scrapbooks to AU for that reason, and gave me unlimited access. Since John Harvey Kellogg has been a favorite icon of mine since childhood, I requested and got permission to look at every known interaction in writng between them. A 22-page letter began “Dear Dr: While I admire your skill in medicine, God help you when it comes to spiritual things.” It continues the testimony more or less along those lines, and I assure you, Eduard Hanganu, she could express herself in writing very,, very well.
Yes, she complains that she often had trouble actually writing physically and later had arthritic hands. It is also true as W. C. White said very clearly, that her handwriting altered when she was hurried or harried from when she was relaxed. I also found it very interesting that once I got the hang of what her writing was like it was much much easier than looking at the unique handwriting of some Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts and trying to make out what the individual scribe wrote.
In other words, I had no trouble understanding that the thousands of pages of typescript which you referenced were accurate as to what she originally wrote in her own hand. If I could do it, so could people reading her writing every day.
These are things you don’t get from secondary sources.
I never signed a nondisclosure letter. That doesn’t mean I’m denying that they do this; it was not done with me.
I don’t know if I had unlimited access. I only know that there was nothing I asked to see that I was not given with 24 hours if it was ready in the vault at AU, and within a week if it was being sent from Washington.
Your conclusion that Ellen White was a fraud is based on your incorrect and constant repetition of non-factual statements. As you answer, your answers keep clarifying what was implicit in the poorly-researched and poorly-edited article that initiated this discussion.
But at least you have stated clearly what you really should have said up front.
The sources I have used for my “second hand” research documents are impeccable. They are personal testimonies from Ellen White herself, William White, Arthur White, Frances Bolton, and Marian Davis. All of them testify to Ellen’s almost total lack of English Composition skills.
I also REPEATED in my “second hand” research documents the conclusions Ronald Graybill and Donald McAdams have drawn from FIRST HAND research at the White Estate, on documents they saw with their eyes and touched with their hands.
True scholars know that such evidence as I provided in my “second hand” research documents is good and reliable.
You owe me. I have tried to make you famous, although your presence on the Web is almost zero. I took a snapshot of the discussion around the document I wrote and which AT published, and posted it in Academia.edu. Your feeble apologetic arguments and comments are frequent in that discussion, and show clearly how weak a case can the Ellen White “believers” can make in her defense. I am sure that congratulations for your “powerful” defense of Ellen White will come to you from all over the world soon.
Mr. Hanganu, did you review W. C. White’s treatise on this subject? I am not taking any position on this debate, I’m just asking if you reviewed it to see both sides of the coin.
It includes testimony from the literary assistants themselves about the scope of their work–what they did and did not do (and EGW’s writing skills). Their testimony is very different from your conclusions. ( http://www.WhiteEstate.org/issues/HowEGWbksWCW.html#The%20Work%20of%20Mrs.%20White%27s%20Literary%20Assistants )
As an aside, I’m sure you’re frustrated by some arguments posted by Mr. McCaull, but I don’t see how it’s helpful to make remarks like: “I am sure that congratulations for your ‘powerful’ defense of Ellen White will come to you from all over the world soon.” Restraint is an element of scholarship.
All your angry retort does is admit that you are using second-hand sources, and not very well chosen to present the full picture. And given the lack of balancing arguments, your cherry-picking of secondary sources is utterly subjective.
Let’s try again: in popular literature of the second half o the 19th century, the concept of “plagiarism” as a legal issue was virtually nonexistent. I have shown on this thread FROM MY OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH IN THAT SAME MATERIAL that this was so. In writing on Ellen White’s discussion of reading and literature (yup, republished) I reviewed ALL of the material she ever wrote on that subject AND how her methods stacked up against other popular writing at the time.
Further, as a technical term, “plagiarism” does not fit popular 19th century practice and only arrives with wide legal use AFTER the period in question. Look at the actual dates I gave above.
And I have discussed here the notebooks and what they show. And the White’s own discussion of materials that were being used in her writing, including advertising them and acting as agents for the sale of those books.
The Veltman study and many others have correctly categorized occasional similarity, paraphrase, great similarity and direct quote (which is comparatively rare except in the historical sources of GC). You have not. Instead you leveled everything to fit your subjective responses.
BTW you overuse “quote” as if there is something wrong with the term used. You used SECONDHAND sources exclusively, and it showed. There was balancing material that undermines your conclusions. Period.
Angry rssponses don’t change facts.
It would be so refreshing for subscribers to Ellen as Prophet to announce: “We don’t care what facts you present or what dark subterranean secrets are sequestered in the belly of White Estate, if any, and we assume that purveyors of anti-Ellen information, regardless of its quantity or accuracy, are propagandists without honor and we know, without a doubt, she is a prophet of God regardless of what you say!”
As you may have noticed from my earlier comments, I am not a proponent of Ellen White. I’m just concerned about Mr. Hanganu’s tone and apparent bias. It seems that he approached his research with the aim of proving a preconceived notion rather than engaging in an unbiased scholarly consideration of all available evidence on both sides of the issue. Obviously all research may reflect the bias of the scholar (or the scholar’s sponsors) either consciously or unconsciously, but I read portions of his 65-page full-length paper on Academia.edu and portions of some of his other papers there, and I’m surprised at that uncharacteristically inflammatory and dogmatic tone. It’s not what I’m used to seeing in scholarly treatises. (And yes, I’ve had my share of exposure to scholarly treatises, albeit on a subject far-removed from religion.)
I am particularly interested in the dichotomy between Mr. Hanganu’s conclusions and the testimony of the literary assistants themselves about their scope of work and EGW’s writing skills (which are included in W. C. White’s treatise mentioned in my earlier comment). To accept Mr. Hanganu’s conclusions as accurate, one would have to conclude that the literary assistants who testified were all bald-faced liars. Perhaps they were; I don’t know. It just seems a bit drastic to dogmatically take a position about their scope of work that inherently requires deeming them totally untruthful, when those people are no longer alive to be cross-examined.
In any event, as several commentators discussed here last week, the consensus in the modern SDA church seems to be that Ellen White is a non-issue and virtually a non-entity. I attended two church services yesterday and did not hear her mentioned (or even paraphrased), not even once. And it’s that way every week. That’s the way I like it: 100% Bible.
Edward, yes I am familiar with the standards for evaluating credibility of witnesses. Some of the factors you mentioned can come into play. Here, however, the literary assistants were describing the scope of their duties–what they personally did and did not do. They were not giving opinions as to whether EGW was inspired. They were responding to allegations that were ghostwriters.
They specifically stated that they did not ghostwrite; they only edited, revised, and compiled EGW’s own writing. They also testified that her writing was of pretty good quality, sometimes needing only minor editing.
Their statements about their own work are diametrically opposed to Mr. Hanganu’s conclusions as to their scope of work and the quality of EGW’s writing. Thus, for his conclusions to be accurate, the assistants all had to be lying about their own duties–what they had personally done or not done for EGW.
When two witnesses make statements that are diametrically opposed to each other, the trier of fact must determine who is more credible. Several factors are considered when evaluating the credibility of a witness, including the proximity of their first-hand knowledge. These literary assistants were first-hand eyewitnesses of their own duties (as opposed to a third person describing the assistants’ duties). I’m simply suggesting that their first-person statements need to be duly weighed along with Mr. Hanganu’s conclusions.
Mr. Lopez:
If you are familiar with Rhetoric, then you are also familiar with the way logos, ethos,and pathos are combined in discourse so that the writers could obtain the rhetorical effect desired.
The “inflamatory” tone you mention is just an application of those parameters in a written document. I know that you are used to flat and emotionless language in scholarly papers, but the fact that this is the current custom doesn’t mean that such language is right or mandatory.
God doesn’t communicate to us in a flat and emotionless language. He gets angry, He confronts, He insults, and He threatens. Is God wrong for using such language?
Im my document “The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked” posted in Academia.edu I provide evidence that the emotionless and apathetic language scholars use at the present time in their papers is artificial, unnatural, and fake, and, most of all UNBIBLICAL.
The convention of dispassionate academic writing serves a purpose and is an honored tradition. Sometimes the most effective statement is an understatement.
First, don’t put conclusions in my mouth which are your response to material about which you apparently know nothing.
My response is almost “REALLY? YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS” but I know you are. You suggest as a “theory” what every Old Testament scholar knows. And which you could know if you consulted any basic scholarly commentaries. I suggest a simple start with the Anchor Bible Commentary and 5 vol dictionary to get you started on FACTS.
Even in my response to Walter Rea in the Adventist Forum, to his credit he did not deny the reality of the examples I gave that showed the sorts of criticisms he had (which were all the kinds of things fundies think incorrectly about inspiration) were true. Your response is simply to go into denial.
The Bible always cleans up and corrects to Hebrew understanding of the Creator, its use of pagan material. Sometimes the cleanup is nothing more than removing the name “Ba’al” and inserting “Yahweh” as in the case of Psalm 29, the Hymn of the Thunderstorm.
Now of course the Rider on the (Nimbus) Clouds was Ba’al, and it was BA’AL who was manifest in the thunderstorm, bringing the life-giving fructifying rains — according to the Canaanites.
The Psalm is well-written (as opposed to the article on which this thread is based) and is filled with well-chosen words that repeat the L-B and B-L sounds of the name “Ba’al” itself. This pattern is broken only by the fact that the name “YHWH” or Yahweh (perhaps, as no one is absolutely certain how the holy Name of the Creator was pronounced) into the Psalm.
You’ve really never heard of the Ugaritic Texts, or the Ba’al Epic, or its relation to the Bible? That shows how little exegetical understanding there is in SDAdventism, still even more a fundy sect. (Even its angry exes are still fundies, they just don’t think it lives up to their fundy presuppositions, as you show so dramatically!)
In that case you would not know that after Ba’al descends into the underworld and is killed by Mot, the seven-headed dragon, the great Leviathan (Is 27:) he is resurrected on the third day by the command of El, the father of the gods?
And that this death accounts for why there is a long dry season twice a years. And that this resurrection accounts for why there is a season of rains, early and late, each year? As Ba’al approaches the tent-sanctuary of El on the cosmic mountain, his herald announces to the seventy gods (Gen 10 and many other places such as Dt 32 and 33) this unexpected event by crying “Lift up your heads, and be lifted up” but in the Hebrew Psalm it is the posts of gates that are to be lifted up.
That wasn’t a particularly good “fix” for the pagan epic, since there were no gates that “lifted up” in the Ancient Near East. But you get the idea. This SS quarterly never mentions the huge section of Proverbs taken entirely form pre-existing Egyptian wisdom literature. But since you don’t like that idea neither…
In Jeremiah’s vision he sees a basket of rotten figs. It was IN VISION but he also mentions the audacity of people bringing their damaged animals and rotten fruit and veggies as offerings to Yahweh. So which was it, something drawn from his actual day-to-day experiences, or a vision, or BOTH?
Your simplistic view of revelation do not put together the reality of the Word as BOTH DIVINE AND HUMAN. In fact, the central thesis of the unfortunate article that sparked this thread seemed to be that there should be no human element, no hint of things drawn from contemporary culture, in divine inspiration.
This is nonsense.
For instance, the ancients “knew” that the earth was a flat pancake that floated on the primeval waters. This was a scientific “fact” that no one could deny. The proof was that no matter how far down you had to dig (as at Megiddo!) you came to the water under the earth.
Even in the Great Arabian Desert and in the Sahara!
They also “knew” as a scientific certainty that occasionally the great seven-headed serpent, the Leviathan, stirred up the waters under the earth in rage, and that caused the earth to quake and tremble.
The Hebrews “knew” this too. The second commandment clearly warns against making images of anything in the heavens above the earth, on the earth, or THE WATERS UNDERNEATH THE EARTH.
The Psalmist “knew” it too: He writes: “The earth is Yahweh, and the fullness thereof” or, more to the point of the language: “The earth is Yahweh’s to its fullest extent” or in a simpler sense “The earth is Yahweh’s, every bit of it.”
Why did YAHWEH the Hebrew God “own” the whole earth? Because
he is Creator! “He has founded it upon the sea, established it upon the river.” (Here we have technical terms for pagan gods reduced to inanimate parts of nature. But in every reference to the earth (probably, since it has four corners, more of a waffle than a pancake) the same view of the tripartite cosmos is always presented.
Why is this so, Edward Buhoci? BECASUE THE BIBLE WAS FOR COMMUNICTION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. The stars were attached to a revolving crystal firmament, which any fool could see. Can you imagine what would have happened if instead God had said to His spokesmen (mostly): the earth is a big iron ball covered with water mostly that floats on nothing, at east nothing visible.
And folks live all around on all sides, and the folks on the other side are upside down to you, their feet facing your feet, and no, they don’t fall off. And while there is water under the dry land parts in many places, it most certainly is not floating on water.
And no, the stars are not even close by, even though the LOOK LIKE THEY ARE. And there isn’t any dome. And the cosmic mountain where the gods are (or, GOD IS, to the Hebrews) isn’t just behind the North Star, and so the cosmic Jerusalem is not “on the slopes of the North” despite what the Psalmist says.
And now that…
The problem, Edward Buhoci, is that you have a thorough and absolute misunderstanding of the divine and human elements of revelation. YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST.
You seem to be among the myriad tribe on here who think that the Bible either should be accurate in SCIENTIFIC sense and most certainly not be drawing on the culture of its day. But I can give you perhaps 20 or 30 more examples if you want to keep arguing your fundy nonsense in place of the facts.
Facts that are well-known. There is certainly no excuse in the 21st century, with the resurrection of the ancient world (guided by the Holy Spirit) giving us more information about the Bible (and therefore the nature of inspiration) than every before in human history. We know MUCH MORE about the age of Solomon, for instance, than anyone in the time of Christ.
For that matter, given our wide over-view knowledge, we know more about the time of Christ than any individual in the tiem of Christ, even the Roman emperor.
To cling to fundamentalist misconceptions, and jump to the entirely unwarranted conclusion that because the Bible uses pagan materials it contains pagan theology is just nonsense.
And a typical fundy response, I might add. What seems to happen with regularity is that people who have not been told the whole story tend to throw out the truth of inspiration when they find out the facts don’t fit fundamentalist misconceptions.
Alright, all ready to hear more denials.
Edward: “So, the Bible is now having pagan influences and thus its credibility must be lowered even more, just so that you make sure Ellen White stays on top”
Paul used and quoted pagan poetry and philosophy to reach his Athenian audience (Acts 17).
Moses clearly did the same in teaching theology to his audience, who had been in Babylonian captivity for 400 years. His Genesis account is very similar to the pagan creation myths around him, such as Enuma Elish. However, there are key theological differences.
This is exactly what we would expect. That is how divine inspiration works – God being with the penmen and not in the pen.
And as to prophecy being a group exercise and not merely synomous with revelation, consider that the end of the Torah ends with a description of Moses’ own death. Did Moses write that himself? Clearly not.
Why do puny men believe that God needs their defense? Is God so weak and powerless that He needs us to defend his actions, actions that we cannot know?
Nor do God’s prophets need men to defend them. They are either God’s prophets or not and each will have to decide for himself, not by the defenses of others no more Godly or knowledgeable than each of us.
It is such a useless waste of time to try to “prove” one’s beliefs as they are all based on subjective human faith no better nor worse than the Catholic sister who prays with her rosary beads–it is her faith not yours; nor anyone else’s.
If the virgin birth and resurrection could be proved beyond all doubt, it would not require faith. It was the faith of the early Christians who began formulating these doctrines which are now part of all Christianity; never proved, only believed.
Arguing faith is like arguing whose wife is the best or prettiest: all in the eyes and mind of one individual and cannot be made for anyone else.
Eduard Hanganu, Sir, thou doth protest too much.
Never have i known of a reviewer argue their views in rebuttal, so fiercely. Would think it above your status as an expert, finding it necessary to praise your expertize while questioning and belittling others scholarly skills.
John, let’s stop the theatrics. You have made some unkind and outrageous accusations against me accusing me of lack of scholarship and of propagating error in my document.
My response to you – polite, but frank – was that you were not qualified to critique my paper because you have no academic training in the English language and especially in LINGUISTICS, and that, from what I know, as a researcher you have nothing to show. You are just a lurker who has too much time on his hands, rambles, and insults people who have done SOMETHING.
So, unless you have done some serious research on your own, stop accusing me of ineptitude and remember that you are neither qualified nor experienced to evaluate research documents because you have not done research and you have not dared to came into the open in order to expose yourself to criticism.
A degree in linguistics is not necessary to understand or discuss this issue. It is a matter of simple composition and rhetoric.
By the way, you responded to a comment from Earl but addressed it to John. You challenge John to come into the open about his research. Why don’t you come into the open about what made you so angry as to devote so much time and effort to trying to prove the old accusations of ghostwriting? Could it be, as you accused John of having, you had too much time on your hands? Or a serious axe to grind?
Goodness! How ruffled the feathers have become over such a trivial topic! I think you guys heed a topic with real substance.
Right, William. Everyone here could be more civil. We all worship the same Lord and Savior. I hope we don’t lose sight of why we are here, which should be to turn our eyes upon Jesus and experience His mercy, grace, and love.
Whether Ellen White was a fraud or a messenger of God with the true Biblical gift of prophecy is not a trivial topic. To think so is to fail to grasp the implications.
Elizabeth, are you sure we all worship the same Lord and Savior? Even among the disciples that was not true. It was not true for ancient Israel and Judah. It was not true for the hearers of any of the prophets that I have heard of. It was most certainly not true for the hearers of Jesus, all of whom adamantly claimed salvation through descent from Abraham.
It was not true for anyone in Paul’s churches, or that of the other apostles either, judged by their writings.
Jesus Christ was often forced to be blunt with his hearers so that no one misunderstood. Speaking “with tears in His voice” is, it happens, a pickup from one of Mrs White’s sources, and I see NO evidence in the gospels that anyone called a brood of serpents or whitewashed tombs full of rotting bones were anything but “outraged” by His valid critique of their spiritual condition and future.
“Gentle Jesus meek and mild” never existed. The love of God is manifest both in judgment and mercy. We are called upon in this closing period to be just as clear about the truth as were the prophets and apostles.
Lest anyone say “Oh, but that was Jesus! And you are not Jesus” let me quickly say He is our example in all things. Sometimes being loving and patient means being as blunt as is necessary.
While “a bruised reed he will not he will not break,BUT a burning flax HE will not quench. He will bring forth judgment and truth.” The Chief Shepherd bears the rod with the crook to pull back the straying lamb from the precipice, but the other end is a rod of iron with a point to jab the miscreant and stubborn.
BOTH are the work and love of Christ. Getting this wrong, confusing the love of God with political correctness, is one of the key elements of the final deception. If it were so, there would be no practical way to present the truth.
Read about the final prophets in Revelation 11. What is the attitude toward them? They are a “torment” to mankind in general. “They hate him who reproves in the gate” the ancient prophet said.
Do you really think that has changed?
As I said, Eduard, I hold a degree certainly the equal of yours, did much more personal, direct, research by studying the documents themselves. As you have not.
And since my training is in Biblical theology, of which you show virtually no knowledge, and since you keep making sweeping theological statements, I am not going to let you slide.
And I have described in detail time spent in the White Estate vault looking at the original documents. Which you presume to critique without even examining them or understanding what you would have seen. And I described her notebooks, how and why they were created, and what they tell us about Ellen White’s reading and composition skills.
And below I will add some specifics about the typescript intermediate stage also.
You mention, for instance, the thousands of pages of typescript Ellen White left, not a single page of which you have seen. Not one. How, given what I have written so far, did you arrive at the conclusion that I would know less about this subject than you?
Apparently the details I have shared on this thread have passed over your head or, more to the point, you simply ignore the facts because they do not accord with your preconceptions and presuppositions.
There are PRESUPPOSITIONS, which you exhibit, which means the “researcher” bends all the evidence to fit his already-held conclusions, and there are POSTSUPPOSITIONS, which a serious researcher reaches only after considerable investigation of the subject. You have no original research to present, parroting the few opinions of others, as you yourself admit.
That explains your conclusion.
Now back to those thousands of pages of typescript, which I was given absolute free reign to look at with none of the restrictions you say the White Estate imposed on you. Yes, I was in an Estate vault, which you refused to visit. Oh well.
In spending days in the vault, asking to see things that were pulled out for me, there was never a suggestion that I could not or should not go in and take out anything I wanted to look at. And I certainly made the most of that opportunity. The material was absolutely fascinating.
I “lost” much time reading on and on in material off the subject I was there for, but it was not time lost at all. I gained a breadth of insight only long acquaintance with original documents can give.
Ellen White first wrote out material. Then her assistants typed it up in double-spacing. Like me with a few days’ practice, I’m sure they could read her “scribbling” as you so unfortunately put it, as I could. Elegant? No. The typical beautiful penmanship of the Victorian era? No.
Scribbling? No.
The typescript pages were always double-spaced. For a reason. Often (as with any experienced writer) seeing the words on the page and how they flowed caused Mrs. White to edit herself.
Yes, edit herself. Lines were struck out, other material written in between the lines, specific…
None of this is hinted at in your writing, and of course it could not be.
I have made several direct statements about you, none of them unkind or outrageous. I have made a critique of your “acholarly research” and your conclusions, both, and pointed out correctly that the article published her4 looked like an unedited rough draft.
Yes, no formal linguistics course, though I don’t see any evidence of that helping you here to arrive at sound conclusions with your partial knowledge and secondary sources.
Yes, but one year of teaching World Lit and SEVEN sections of Freshman Composition did teach me a few things indeed about the relationship of writing to thought processes.
In addition I would say graduate work in Comparative Semitics and such languages as Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, koine Greek, Latin, French, German gave me a wide understanding of linguistics, thank you.
And working on Dead Sea Scroll sections, etc, and years of intense study in modern Biblical research has given me a wide reading of sound scholarship and what claims to be scholarship and is not.
Earl, I get the same impression, especially after downloading and reading his full 65-page paper, which is in “draft 72” as of January 16 and still has some faulty English grammar even in the Conclusion (e.g., he speaks of “the [sic] Ellen White’s ‘helpers.'”). Overall, the paper comes across as a slanted polemic, invective, or diatribe, rather than objective academic work. Regardless of whether his conclusions may be accurate, a seasoned academic reader is turned off by the immediate impression of caustic propaganda rather than objective scholarship.
He tries to justify his bombastic speech in a separate 64-page paper named “The Passionate God Who Confronts the Wicked,” where he argues that he is “compelled to confront” and is justified in using caustic language and slanted attacks because, he says, God is “harsh,” “ruthless,” and “vengeful” (chapter V). He also appeals to the “bizarre Jesus” who was “ruthless and intolerant” (chapter IV).
While he touts his B.A. and M.A. in linguistics and his adjunct lecturer job, he shows little respect for others in this discussion, who may have doctorates in theology and other fields and are (or have been) full-time professors but don’t feel the need to trumpet their achievements.
This whole discussion could be more civil. Somewhere through the haze of the lengthy debate, I faintly recall that Jesus said to “love your enemies.” As Ellen White herself said, “We would be in a wretched state if God treated us as we are inclined to treat one another.” To paraphrase Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Each of us is responsible for our beliefs, not Ellen white, not the Bible, or the writers of a blog but each of us as individual. Long ago I committed to know truth. The arbitrator of truth is evidence. I was raised in a church that taught that Ellen White was a prophet, a messenger of God. She was the Spirit of Prophecy. She had visions and was divinely inspired. Consequently, what she wrote was from God and infallible. I taught for years in SDA academies where debates were settled with either a Bible text or an EGW quote. The problem with asserting that a person is divinely inspired is that it elevates that person to superhuman states almost God like. We seem to forget that they are actually human. Then came the book The White Lie and busted my infallibility bubble. Looking back on it now, The White Lie was the best thing that happened to me, because believing in the infallibility of any human writing is a form of Idolatry. Only God is infallible and making a human infallible elevates them to be equal with God, hence, the idolatry. In my opinion it is better to not believe in Ellen White as a prophet than to believe her in infallible.
All the copying and ghostwriting aside for a moment, does Ellen White have the Spirit of Prophecy? The Bible defines the Spirit of Prophecy as the testimony of Jesus. Reading the Conflict of the Ages series, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessings, Steps to Christ, Story of Redemption etc., I find that they are all about Christ, they all testify of Christ. Based upon the Biblical definition the evidence in her books says yes, she had the Spirit of Prophecy. Having the spirit of prophecy and being infallible are two different things. Is everything she wrote true? The shut door, the amalgamation statement, the consequence of masturbation just to mention a few shows that not everything she said was true.
In my mind that should force us to take a hard look at this thing called “divine inspiration.” Billy Graham saw the prophets as God’s secretaries. That view sees scripture as infallible. One only has to compare the four gospels to see it is not infallible. The SDA church has taken the position that the prophets are thought inspired. If so then the thoughts of Mathew and Luke should be the same since the same God is inspiring both writers. Compare the story of the death of Judas in Math. 28 with the story in Acts 1 they are not even close. James and Paul were not always in agreement. The idea of thought inspiration just doesn’t work for me. I don’t know what divine inspiration is, but it seems to be much more complex than what we think. Can Ellen White still be inspired and copy and lie about? Can different Bible writers be in disagreement and still be inspired?
The writer of this Blog has made some good points (I’ve read his 65 page document) but so has the other side. Fraud or not, I cannot deny the role EGW played in the formation of the educational and medical systems operated by this church. The 40 or so…
The writer of this Blog has made some good points (I’ve read his 65 page document) but so has the other side. Fraud or not, I cannot deny the role EGW played in the formation of the educational and medical systems operated by this church. The 40 or so books and the numerous articles produced under her name are out there and most of them are inspiring to read. Are we going to throw all away because they are somewhat copied or ghostwritten? If you don’t believe in Ellen White that is OK. If you do believe that is Ok too. Salvation is not dependent on a belief in Ellen White.
I don’t think this controversy about Ellen White will ever be solved. But, I do know that by making each other wrong we all are losers. It results in a loss of friendship and a loss of influence.
In my mind a fundamental element of the Christian experience is inquiry in all its forms. However, be careful with answers because once you think you have an answer the inquiry stops. Apologize and make up.
You make a lot of sense, fatherdoc. I, for one, apologize for posting some harsh comments. The question of Ellen White will never be resolved except in our own minds individually. No matter how they were written, the books uplift Jesus; and many Christians find them inspiring to read.
“We must live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
There’s so much clanging going on here that I’m thinking it’s the cries of perishing souls I’m hearing, not the tongues of angels.
Satan is coming as Christ, as a Messenger of Light, and in a glorious appearance will repeat SOME of what Christ taught, BUT NOT ALL.
His goal to unite humanity under his control will be easily won so long as political correctness masquerades as love. As long, that is, as people mistake softness for love, rather than defense of the truth.
Jesus did not mince words or let falsehood be taught in his presence. READ THE GOSPELS and get rid of this devious idea. The same person who wrote 1 Corinthians 13 illustrated what LOVE meant by every other chapter in 1 Corinthians.
DO I REALLY NEED TO QUOTE FROM EVERY CHAPTER TO MAKE SURE THIS QUOTE OF A SENTENCE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 13 IS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED?
Jesus Christ, who taught the Sermon on the Bread that so outraged the Jews, whose direct standing for the truth caused his “homies” to seek to kill him by throwing him off a cliff, who was constantly angering the religious leaders by speaking the truth, is our guide.
In the days of the Omride dynasty, when Israel was departing from the worship of Yahweh for the more convenient worship of Ba’al, Elijah brought judgment, a loving thing for God to do to save Israel.
And how did King Ahab thank him for the judgment that was calculated to save many in Israel who would otherwise have been lost? “IS IT (REALLY) YOU, YOU TROUBLER OF ISRAEL?” In the minds of king and people alike, the prophet doing God’s will was a troublemaker.
Another prophet wrote correctly, “they hate him who reproves in the gate (the site of correct judgment in the Hebrew cities). Of the last prophets, the Two Witnesses (no, not the Old and New Testaments) have the power to enforce their teachings by managing the Seven Last Plagues, just as Elijah was given the power to shut the heavens in his day.
Eventually, in the midst of the final week after 3 1/2 years of this, they are assassinated, but resurrected the third day as Christ was in the midst of that prior week of years. And what reaction did their deaths bring?
“AND THOSE WHO DWELL ON EARTH WILL REJOICE OVER THEM, AND MAKE MERRY AND EXCHANGE PRESENTS, BECAUSE THESE TWO PROPHETS HAD BEEN A TORMENT TO THOSE WHO DWELL ON EARTH.”
The Two Witnesses will only have been following the love of God as it really exists as the perfect blend of justice/judgment and mercy/forgiveness.
The Lord Christ warned this: “”DO NOT THINK THAT I HAVE COME TO BRING PEACE ON EARTH. I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD.”
Wherever the gospel is preached faithfully IN ITS FULLNESS this will be the result.
OK, how has all this made you effective at spreading the Gospel? How many people have you brought into the church in the last year? In the last ten years? In your lifetime? If you’re not actively winning souls to Jesus, then your topical focus is in the wrong direction and you’re attention is focused in places where Jesus doesn’t want you looking.
Jesus summarized the entire Law in two short thoughts: Love God supremely and your neighbor as yourself. Where is the ministry of God’s love in your words? I can’t find it.
Now William Noel, what do you know about this? How many souls have YOU brought to Christ? That is the only issue you have to concern yourself with. And when did “bringing souls into the church” become the same thing.
Since you addressed this to me, apparently, let me just say my ministry has always been blessed by very responsive people and I am still at it.
Remember, since you are such an advocate of “soul winning” that when Peter asked about John “What will this man do?” the Lord’s answer is mine: WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? YOU FEED THE SHEEP AND I SHALL ALSO.
(Or were you just advocating not speaking to the truth versus falsehood, another witness to a false Christ?)
Edward Buhoci, I’m worried for you. Have a doctor check the amount of blood reaching your brain through your carotid arteries. Something seems to be seriously wrong!
You wrote: “You said John that I have a thorough and absolute misunderstanding of the divine and human elements of revelation. What I can say to that is that you have a very little view of the world and of the way God has worked and is still working. You forget that throughout the ages there were people like Melchisedec, Jethro, Balaam etc. that were not Israelites and represented God wherever they were. In your view, God has abandoned all countries and all religions. In your view, God is only close to certain people that belong to a certain church, while the others Christian churches and people from other religions are all doomed.”
That’s sort of a discussion ender since I did not say — NOR DO I BELIEVE — a single one of those things. In fact, no one who understands the Bible believes a single one of those things. You wouldn’t pose as uncomprehending to get out of addressing the reality that your nonsense about the Bible writers not being influenced by, or using, contemporary writers has fallen utterly flat because of your apparent ignorance of the facts in that area?
Would you?
Having dismissed your devious nonsense above as the deceit it is, let’s talk about the shut door.
What is “the shut door” some may ask? Ellen White and her party believed that after the rejection of the 1844 movement, the door of mercy was shut, that probation had closed. In fact, she had a vision that said that THOSE WHO UNDERSTOOD AND REJCTED MILLELRISM had rejected the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives at that point and they were lost.
The first question for the uncomprehending would be, “What specific time did Ellen White and party believe they were in? Where did that time period come from Biblically? How long did that time period of holding this belief last?
Next, “Why did the Ellen White of much later years never retract the ‘shut door’ statements, and what did she say about it in addressing in detail questions that were raised on this point?
Next, “Why did Ellen White’s explanation of the ‘shut door’ in 1844 not get mentioned or quoted in this thread? Are those who bring it up ignorant of what she said in that discussion or are they avoiding it deliberately?” (Either one is bad bad bad.)
Further: “In her discussion of the ‘shut door’ after 1844, what did Ellen White say were the determining factors? What other periods did she reference in which there was a ‘shut door’ on an entire class of people?
And we can add to that last question, “What other periods can WE add to her list, Biblically?”
Instead of evading these questions, or going into a spasm of denial (as with the vast amount of material in the Bible from the surrounding pagan cultures in BOTH testaments) let’s hear the answers to these question SPECIFICALLY and FULLY.
So, what does all this have to do with bringing souls into the Kingsom of God. It sounds like arguing is very important to you.
The lifeguard club spent weeks studying the theory of swimming, first aid, and drowning rescue techniques. Finally the big day came when they would go to the pool and put their skills into practice. The members got into a heated debate at the shallow end of the pool, regarding some of the esoteric finer points of the techniques. As they shouted their arguments, they did not hear the cries of the child who had fallen into the deep end. Her parents were dismayed to find her lifeless body at the bottom of the pool, while the oblivious team of lifeguards continued their heated argument.
Amen! “Rescue the perishing, care for the dying.
Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save.”
Either truth direct from God was contained in the Great Controversy theme, or a sham was perpetrated. If the first is the case it has EVERYTHING to do with winning souls to the REAL truth, in preparation for the end of the age, “imminent” indeed. If you don’t feel that way then perhaps the question cannot be answered.
It sounds like arguing for the truth and against deception is important in any section of the Bible you care to take seriously.
The idea that love is mercy but not justice is a key to the central deceptions of Satan that all this is about. And guess what? Deceptive and false ideas can be stated in a few words, but explaining the deception often takes more than a few words.
If you don’t believe it, read the gospels.
So, how effective has all this arguing made you at winning souls? I have yet to meet the first soul-winner who argued about such things.
Oh, I never implied, nor would anyone that I have ever read, that thought inspiration removes God from the process. Where did you get such a novel idea? What thought inspiration says is that the Holy Spirit uses the typical thought processes and terminology and experiences of the individual prophets.
Actually, you can’t see much variation between one writer and another in English translation. That’s probably why you don’t see it clearly yourself. It’s even worse if you’re reading something like the King James, where everything is reduced to Elizabethan English, or a modern translation like the NIV where everything is reduced to American English. No variation and no distinguishing characteristics.
That the Bible is the result of its world is absolute. The more you argue that, the more examples I am willing to give you. Since there are examples in every book and on every page, this could be a long long discussion, which I hope does not happen!
So let’s look at some specifics, where your questions (objections) look as if YOU are wandering in the wilderness. I hope that you will find some of the answers both interesting and enlightening. Most of your objections are based on simplistic reasoning and a misunderstanding of what has been said.
You spoke of “the pagan nature of the Bible.” NO SUCH THINGS WAS EVER SAID. What was said (I expect you to TRY to make basic distinctions and TRY to respond to what is actually being said) is that the Bible writers both USE and QUOTE pagan material, sometimes, as in Proverbs, very extensively.
Of course, Egypt was renowned for its wisdom teaching. That Egyptian wisdom was taught in Judah at Tekoa, for instance, is no surprise, nor that the “wise woman of Tekoa” who instructed David or the first writing prophet, Amos, reflected that wisdom tradition. (Amos, you will remember, was from Tekoa in Judah and prophesied against Israel at its apparent zenth but only a few short years before Israel was destroyed, as Amos so bluntly warned.
BUT he warned using very erudite and technical wisdom teaching, all of it familiar from the Egyptian model. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ANYTHING IN AMOS BEARS PAGAN TEACHING? ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY, COMPLETELY NOT! Why you would jump from one factual reality to such a false conclusion is not explainable on any logical basis except that you are trying to find some way to dismiss my point:
Criticism of Ellen White for use of other authors can be leveled with greater force against the Bible. IF REAL INSPIRATION MEANS ORIGINALITY, THEN THE BIBLE IS NOT INSPIRED. You can’t have it both ways.
You concluded falsely ” And this is where you … clearly testify the opposite, by giving examples from the Bible.” Again, despite your denials, you are saying that we are saying that use of pagan material equals pagan teachings in Scripture. NOT!
Now a couple of your silliest examples, given based on complete lack of familiarity, I would guess…..
About your questions, most of them irrelevant to the point being made, let me answer.
God wrote the Decalogue on two tables of stone. BUT NOT the ones you see in your mind or paintings or on synagogues. They were probably square tablets, definitely written on both sides as the narrative says, and BOTH had the full Decalogue.
That is, there were two duplicate copies because this was a SUZERTAINTY TREATY (let the reader understand) where both the OVERLORD/SUZERAIN and the VASSAL/SLAVE received a copy of what was required. Moses didn’t just imagine this, and, by the way, the idea that Moses wrote ALL of the Pentateuch is common among laymen, novel among OT scholars who know much more about the complexity of the Pentateuch.
(What on earth does the Book of the Dead have to do with this? Are you confusing my comment about Proverbs with Exodus? C’mon, pay attention before you object!)
The idea arose apparently from two statements, that Moses wrote down the laws God gave him from above the Ark, and that Moses wrote a copy of the Book of the Law (“this” book as it says, referring to DEUTERONOMY). This was then extended to the whole of the Pentateuch, where many many narratives are FAR older than the time of Moses.
You wrote: “I am not denying some influences as being pagan, but I am completely denying the result as being pagan.” HOORAY! WE AGREE! Not sure why anything I said made you think otherwise! You read into it what I did not say apparently.
Next: “What about the Sanctuary, another SDA doctrine? Has it been shown to Moses on the mountain, or was just something that developed in his mind? Ellen White clearly states that it was God who showed this to Moses.”
I didn’t need Ellen White to tell me what Ex 24 clearly states, that Moses was given a “tabnith” of the Wilderness Sanctuary. Of course, that meant that it was something FAMILIAR TO THE ESCAPED SLAVES ALREADY. The pattern shown on the mount (and the Temple on Zion that replaced the Wilderness Sanctuary) is in close resemblance to many Canaanite and Egyptian shrines, and remnants of similar Midianite tent shrines have recently been found.
How could God teach without beginning with the known and moving to the unknown. Let me further elaborate: The Exodus occurred in 1450 BC according to the Deuteronomic historian’s dating working from what we now know as absolut dates. (See Thiele 3rd edition,still the basis for most scholarly reconstructions.) In other words, the final year of the great emperor Thutmosis III of the 18th Dynasty, according to the Memphite Theology which yields the same date as the Biblical historian.
We know much of the 18th Dynasty’s war methods. The Egyptian army marched IN SQUARE FORMATION, and their tents formed a perfect square around A HUGE OPEN CENTER SQUARE at the center of which were the tent-shrine camp of their god-king, the Pharaoh. Once again, God worked from a pagan background but much significant new…
Nest: “What about the 1844? Maybe it’s built on pagan numerology.”
Nope. While much material especially in material drawn from the pagan culture does indeed operate on numerology, usually missed by lay readers, the 1844 date rests on the idea that “days” always mean “years” in prophecy.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ORIGINATED THAT IDEA? Hint: a Roman Catholic medieval saint who claimed the gift of prophecy and wrote the commentary in Daniel and Revelation published in AD 1198 that is the basis for most historicist interpretations today, the sort of thing found on Amazing Facts.
The result was the SECOND Great Disappointment. (The one after AD 1000 when Christ did not come according to the interpretation of Augustine. The Second was the result of Joachim’s dating of the 1260 days (one-half the 70th Week of Daniel 9:24-27).
Joachim dated those from 1 to AD 1260 when a huge host waited for Christ to come in vain. Can you tell me, E. Buhoci, who changed the dates from then to AD 538 (when the papacy did NOT become a temporal power, nor was there any change in the status of the pope reigning from March AD 537) to AD 1798, when there was no deadly wound to the papacy.
(The college of cardinals met and chose the next pope. French upstart wanted one person, the Hapsburg rulers of the waning Holy Roman Empire another. The cardnals chose the first cousin of the previous pope, who Hapoleon naively thought would do his bidding.
But Pius VII defied Napoleon on every point. The 1801 Gallican Accord gave Catholicism virtual control of France. When Napoleon was exiled Pius VII sent him a priest and demanded lenient treatment for the Bonaparte family. Every nation in Europe, including every Lutheran nation, gave Catholicism equal legal standing under Pius VII, who also organized the dioceses in America. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A MORTAL WOUND????
Anyway, my question was how The Blessed Joachim of Fiore’s dates got changed to AD 538 to AD 1798? What great Protestant meetings were then in session that had a direct influence on William Miller? Why did that great series of Prophetic Conferences make the change, and why did they accept the French boast in 1798 that they had “put an end to the cult of Catholicism?” (Which, hah! they most sure did NOT.)
But I digress.
It isn’t 2,300 DAYS in Daniel 8:14. IT is temple language about the destruction and restoration of the Temple and Jerusalem. If you don’t believe it, just read Daniels response to what is said in Chapter 8 by reading his corporate prayer in Chapter 9!
And, by the way, the Temple language here is “evenings/mornings” (the “and” is supplied) which is a unit for one 24-hour day in the Temple ritual. Daniel did not question the TIMING, he questioned the idea of another pagan overtake and destruction of the Temple. His understanding from Jeremiah 30,31 etc was that in the New Covenant after the Exile, God’s people would triumph. This new final massive…
PERSECUTION WAS VERY BAD NEWS TO HIM.
So, the question is this: since we maintain that the evening and morning sequence in the First Creation Story signals one 24-hour day, does it refer to 2,300 ACTUAL DAYS? If so, what days, when, beginning how, why etc?
Is there anything in Scripture about this that is definite.
Absolutely yes. I leave it to you to answer…..
Next you really wander off from anything ever written by me, but you are addressing me, so here goes:
“You seem to be so well acquainted with the pagan world. Tell me, please, do you think God has completely abandoned the pagans and they did not have any knowledge about good and evil? Why did Moses run away after he killed the Egyptian? Was it not because there was a law in Egypt that condemned murder? Does that make the law of being of pagan origin? Or does it actually make it of being of a higher origin that preceded Egypt?
My addressing was: to what level do you extend your type of thought inspiration in the Bible, and so remove any idea of direct revelation from God? Doesn’t the Bible teach us about writings, dreams, visions, revelations, prophecies?”
It most certainly does. Apparently you weren’t paying as much attention to the threads on ADVENTIST TODAY (or SOME Adeventits Today,or even more likely A FEW Disaffected Adventists Today) because if you had been, you would have noticed my discussion of Romans 2, where Paul says flatly that when the pagans who do not have “THE LAW” act, they are a law unto themselves, “their conflicting thoughts accusing them OR PERHAPS EXCUSING THEM on day when God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”
Without going into all that I said on that thread, it is clear that Ellen White’s claim that many would first heat the gospel explained in the resurrection is certainly true, and exactly what Paul was saying.
I point you now to the SDA BIBLE COMMENTARY VOL 4, the essay “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” especially the Section “How the Plan Would Have Worked.” This discusses what scholars know as THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies, those clear statements in the classical prophets about how the Kingdom would come on earth and grow and encompass the world and divide mankind into two camps: believers and unbelievers.
One of the key elements of that plan was “The Ingathering of the Gentiles” in which all Gentiles of faith in all the world would have joined themselves into Messiah’s fold as they faced the great final onslaught of all the finally-impenitent. You should really read this. It is one of the best things on the Messianic Kingdom prophecies.
And my experience has been you won’t die from learning something from a SDAdvebntist writer!
AND if you do that, you will certainly realize that no Old Testament professor who knows anything about exegesis would ever imply that the pagans were outside the circle of those God intended to save.
Israel was to be a “nation of priests and…
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to “see” the Elephant
Though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
(They conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they touch. They have a heated debate, and the conflict is never resolved.) The poet then observes:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an elephant
Not one of them has seen!
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
for “preacher” and “monk” the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
> Sometimes I think God looks down on our debates and laughs at us, because we do not realize that we are wretched, pitiful, poor, and _blind. (Rev. 3:17) We need to turn our eyes upon Jesus, to get “eye salve to anoint our eyes so that we may see.”
Let’s not forget the extension of that story, the part about the blind man who was feeling his way around the elephant’s hind quarters when something big and warm fell on him with such force that it knocked him to the ground. As he tried to get-up he discovered what a smelly mess he had become and concluded, because it had come from above, that it must have come from heaven. Only he couldn’t figure out why God would give him such a blessing.
That sounds like what happens when people get wrapped-up in Ellen White’s writing the way we’ve seen some commenting here.
Then fix your eyes on Jesus and note how Our Lord stood up for truth. And how many have over the ages, quite correctly. There is a difference (A HUGE DIFFERENCE) between argument for argument’s sake and standing by and illustrating the truth.
All this talk about Christ while advocating an attitude toward truth and error that is foreign to Christ sounds exactly like the “Christ” who is coming to deceive the whole world.
Jesus typically answered those who wanted to argue theology with greater truths than they were considering and with demonstrations of the power of God. He could do that because he was empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit. That is such a contrast with those who are more devoted to arguing about what they think is important instead of doing what God thinks is important.
John what is point in this epistle?
Dear fatherdoc, in the “epistle” you wrote above you say that “She [Mrs. White] was the Spirit of Prophecy.” Show me one instance where Adventists have said or taught this – besides yourself of course. It is her writings (and not her)that has been called the spirit of prophecy, even by herself.
The blog says that “With effort, Mrs. White could write neatly and compose clear sentences.” The same blog says Mrs. White was illiterate. So which is it?
Trevor,
That was a quote from Graybill’s dissertation. It was not my statement or conclusion.
In the same dissertation Graybill stated that Ellen White’s writing skills diminished with time because she depended more and more on her “editorial assistants” to write everything for her.
The blog is a very small part of the 65 page document I wrote on Ellen White and her ghost writer book shop posted in Academia.edu. in which I summarize the evidence for my conclusion that Ellen White’s skills were too poor to enable to publish anything without the “help” of her “editorial assistants,” that is, ghost writers.
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end; then stop.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
John McCaull,
How many souls have I brought into the church? I’ve lost count and am continually amazed by the power of God to work through sinful me.
Jesus told us to go and make disciples, not to argue endlessly about elements of prophecy. He told us to minister His love, not to argue endlessly about the writings of Ellen White. If you want your ministry to be effective, stop arguing about prophecy and focus on the ministry God has given you so you will know more clearly how God is leading you.
Wow, WNoel, you are one arrogant man. Who suggested to you that I needed your advice to ignore the truth of these matters and follow your directions. It was most certainly not the Holy Spirit, so we wonder what spirit you are confusing with the divine.
Jesus never indicated that we should not argue for the truth and against error. He did Himself throughout his ministry and so did the apostles. Jesus Christ chose Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and Paul argues vehemently what is true and what is not true, especially as to claims from detractors about the coming of Christ and events surrounding it.
Apparently the example of Christ and the apostles does not impress you. That is not surprising, given the stance you have taken here so often.
“If you want your ministry to be effective” suggests you, without any idea of what I am accomplishing, need your useless, negative, and unbiblical direction. Thank you, my ministry is very effective. I know very clearly how God is leading me and do not need someone so clearly lacking in insight to tell me how to achieve that.
I hope I am being sufficiently clear on this point, since you feel the need to argue about it, ironically. Perhaps the physician should heal himself.
Measure the results of your approach in the water bill to keep filling the baptistery or the need for additional church services instead of the cost of dusting-off the empty pews. The Adventist church in North America is on a short road to death because people are arguing about truth instead of living it and ministering it as Jesus told us to be doing. If you don’t see God growing the church as a result of your efforts it should be obvious that He is not blessing your arguing and that you are not doing what He wants you to be doing.
It has (frequently) been mentioned previously that everyone doesn’t have the same spiritual gift(s). The defense of truth to which John McCaull has referred is, of course, important. Winning souls and defending truth against error should never be positioned as opposing activities as it relates to the Christian/SDA church. (Unfortunately this is yet another false choice.)
To what exactly are souls being ‘won’? Jesus is claimed/proclaimed by various different denominations. Are all ‘Christian’ beliefs practically and essentially indistinguishable? Should error, untruths, and/or lies go unchallenged? Is there a reason for Adventist Christianity? These are questions for those who believe that defending the truth is fruitless.
Unfortunately the concept of “defending truth” is too often confused with endless arguments about the theologically insignificant and irrelevant while failing to do such simple things as loving each other. The church is dying in North America because so many people are pursuing theological correctness and prefer argument over ministry that is empowered by God.
To the extent that the Adventist church is dying in North America it is because of a rejection or denial of Adventism; due to both our apparent material prosperity and because we we’ve convinced ourselves that we’re now too sophisticated for it. It is a manifestation of being lukewarm.
Believe it or not, some Seventh-day Adventists, believe that Seventh-day Adventists have been given the responsibility of certain specific Biblical truths. When those Adventists respond to an assault on those truths and/or on that concept, they respond aggressively; and even believe that they have an obligation to do so.
This is why I have asked—and ask again—to what exactly do those Adventists who do not subscribe to this concept (that SDA Christians have been given the privilege/responsibility of being entrusted with Biblical truths in addition to those commonly held by Christians of every, or any, denomination) believe they are “winning souls” when they (think they’re) winning people to Adventist Christianity? Why is it important they become Adventists if that for which Adventism stands is not vitally important and worthy of defending?
Why not strongly yet gently recommend them to Jesus and leave it at that? What is the focus or heavy emphasis of growing the Seventh-day Adventist Church about? Why do those who don’t think that Adventist beliefs are worth defending when they are challenged—as on sites like this—think it is important to become/remain Adventist?
And why do those who claim that arguing about the truth is a waste of time, spend their time arguing that? Why is arguing about or defending truth any less worthwhile than arguing about arguing?
The church is dying where people have disconnected from the power of the Holy Spirit and instead been lured into pursuing the illusion of theological correctness.
If you want to see argument for the sake of argument, count the lines you and others have written here discussing a topic of absolutely zero spiritual significance.
What exactly is ‘spiritually significant’ about Adventism as opposed to any other Christian denomination? (This isn’t a difficult question, is it?)
The Gospel is the salvation offered through Jesus Christ alone; nothing added. Adventists have put their entire message on telling others that they must become Adventists to be saved. Nothing in the Bible makes this erroneous claim.
The Great Commission is to spread the Gospel, not to spread Adventism or any denomination. People are converted to Christ, NOT to Adventism, although that is the not-so-subtle reason for all the baptisms: converts are not baptized by accepting Christ–the early Christian church’s practice, but indoctrination and acceptance of all 28 Fundamental Beliefs BEFORE baptism.
Whether you actually believe it or not Elaine, you are right in that salvation is offered through Jesus Christ alone, period. But the point is the Adventist denomination is what William refers to when he laments that the church in North America is dying; and when he talks about winning souls he is talking about growth.
I’m asking why it’s important on the one hand to grow the Adventist church, but viewed by ‘some’ to whom such growth is important as a waste of time and against God’s will to defend it against attack on the other hand.
Dear Mr. Noel, for you to imply that the inspired writings of Mrs. White is comparable to “elephants mess” and that this is what those who accept and value her writings are covered in, only shows how low her detractors have sunk in their attempts to devalue and discredit the testimonies given to her by God for the Church. To further imply that God is the author of this mess makes it even worse.
You regularly say that Adventists are deficient in being led by the Holy Spirit and that [you] are one good example of one who [is] being led by the Holy Spirit, so is it the Holy Spirit that leads [you] to equate Mrs. White’s ministry with that of “elephants mess?”
You missed the comparison. I was illustrating how people misinterpret things.
Trevor, a lot of anger has been expressed in the comments posted in this blog, which should not have occurred. Eduard asserts that EW was illiterate and used ghostwriters and is therefore a fraud. He and Walter Ray make a strong case. The problem with this position, however, it too often leads to the complete rejection of EW’s writing and a denial of divine inspiration for her. I have been there and done that. I got rid of most of her books, after reading The White Lie. Today I regret doing that. The proponents on the other side to the controversy have presented their evidence which is strong. So which is it you ask? Another question which many have asked is “was she divinely inspired?” Each person must answer these questions for themselves.
As a boy I was taught that the SDA church was the remnant church which kept the commandments of God and had the Spirit of Prophecy. The Spirit of Prophecy is defined as the testimony of Jesus. My point was that EW’s books are certainly a testimony of Jesus. They are all about Jesus. Therefore, by definition the Spirit of Prophecy was or is manifested in Ellen White. I have heard this argument presented many times from the pulpit. I’m sure it is also in print. However, I’m not going to spend my time looking it up just to win a discussion. Winning is not my goal.
When we depend on second-hand information to find truth, like reading the ‘White Lie’ or books of that sort we are sure to be disappointed or lead to wrong conclusions unless an effort is made to verify the information. As for me I had never resorted to any of anti Ellen White literature. I simply conducted my own research and arrived at my conclusions. The conclusions are:
1. There was no need for inspiration to get information when all the material was readily available years before she ever started writing.
2. I have documented evidence of her copying extensively from others word for word and claimed inspiration for it.
3. There is nothing original or unique in all her writings. Every subject she had dealt with has a parallel traced to some rare book.
4. She copied from the visionaries Joseph Smith, William Foy, Edward D. Griffin, and Apocrypha besides hundreds of other writers she copied from.
5. She copied heavily from a fiction, by In graham, The Prince of the House of David in the composition of her Desire of Ages.
6. In the end she denied ever copying from any one.
7. This has led me to conclude that she was not inspired and we were all misled as a church.
8. At best her books can be of moral and bevotional value like any other religious literature.
Thus my doubts are settled once and for all.
In this controversy I think that we must separate the message from the messenger. The evidence convinces me that a large portion of her books were copied. Even though she didn’t break any laws, it is never right to take the intellectual property of another and claim it as your own. From the early beginnings of this Church this issue has been a source of controversy. Sketch form the Life of Paul is a case in point. The sources should have been cited. Her helpers and ghostwriters should have seen to that. But why didn’t they? I suggested in an earlier post that it may have been an issue of authority. It could have been that they were in such a rush to get the book out that they just didn’t bother to cite sources since it wasn’t illegal. If David could commit adultery and Beersheba, then having her husband killed to cover it up and still be a servant of God then Ellen white should be allowed her mistakes and still be a messenger of God.
Was she divinely inspired? I believe she was here is why. It took me about two years to write my dissertation, one book. When I think back to the hours spent in library’s doing the literature review, the time spent working out the research method, the actual data collection, the statistics involved in the data analysis then the actual writing involved. The writing and rewriting help from my wife, input form friends, and committee were all part of it. It involved a lot of work and time. She was responsible for 40 books and hundreds of articles add to that her public speaking and work in Australia and Europe. She got off a boat in Tennessee and said this is the place. That action inspired others to build a college and hospital. She stepped off a train in Southern California, and said this is the place as a result others built a university and medical school. Add to that Avondale College and a lot more that I don’t know about. Think about the kind of leadership an influence it takes to get others to follow through and build these instructions. Because of Ellen white most unions have a college; every conference has or had an academy. Think about the thousands of doctors, nurses, and others in the medical profession, the teachers, preachers, and the list can go on and on that are out there because of what Ellen White caused… That are now out there in a large part because of Ellen white. Because of her America changed the way they eat. Was she inspired? PatanJali gives some interesting insights into inspiration. “When you are inspired by some great purpose some extraordinary project, all your thoughts break their bounds: you mind transcends limitations, your consciousness expands in every direction, and you find yourself in a new, great and wonderful world. Dormant forces, faculties and talents become alive, and you discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamed yourself to be. “That is Ellen white but she is even more that. She was that an more for over seventy years of her life.
There is an interesting story in Matthew 16: 15-17 “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona for flesh and Blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” 40 books and hundreds of articles all in some way about Christ, could humanity without divine inspiration produce that? Was she divinely inspired? Each must decide that for themselves. Seek and ye shall find.
i have been truly blessed by Ellen White’s presentation of the love of Jesus Christ, for me, and for all who look for His appearing. i have reread most of the comments re: this thread, and I’m going to bed with a head ache. Is everyone finished??
Some have questioned whether Mr. McCaull is winning souls. The question is not so much “Does he get people to join the church,” as it is: “Does he lead people to love Jesus”? The two are not necessarily the same.
As for Mr. Hanganu, he hasn’t shown any interest in winning souls. They both seem more interested in winning arguments.
I doubt that either Mr. McCaull or Mr. Hanganu have been doing much of leading souls to fall in love with Jesus Christ.
Both have tried to portray Jesus as angry and argumentative, to justify their own strong rhetoric. By contrast, God described Himself as compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving. The Psalmist described Him as “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.”
Which picture of God is more likely to inspire love and adoration? To know Him is to love Him. Really, it’s all about Who you know.
“[Mr. Hanganu] will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did I not cast out false ideas about Ellen White? And then I will declare to him, ‘I never knew you.'” Matt. 7:22-23
“Then [Mr. McCaull] will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did I not cast out false ideas about Ellen White? And then I will declare to him, ‘I never knew you.'” Matt. 7:22-23
Yes, Jesus fought for truth, but it was not for a set of doctrines or the minutia of hermeneutics. The truth that Jesus fought for was a true understanding of God’s love and His eagerness to save the lost. “I have made Your [character] known to them … so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them.” John 17:26. “This is eternal life, that they may know You….” John 17:2-3.
Like Philip, people are out there crying, “Show us the Father.” The answer is to show them the Son: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” I have never seen a person fall in love with Jesus through an argument or debate.
When the Lord sees us spending so much time arguing on this forum, I think He will say, “What doest thou here?” Go “cast thy net on the other side.”
Hang your doubts where all who engage in judgment of others condition and spiritual works and destiny: just where Jesus said such attitudes would end up.
Strange that you would see the Biblical stance of defending truth at all costs as foreign to your thinking. As usual, this sort of judgmental nonsense depends on ignorance of the facts, a willingness to poke at the supposed spec in someone else’s eye while your comments prove you are missing the log in your own eye.
Despite the attribution, I never ever implied that the Lord was angry. He was not angry. Period. He was firm and often found it necessary to be very very blunt. In a manner not sufficient to modern political correctness.
In doing so He was the perfect blend of justice and mercy. The occasion and what was being said, the willingness of the listeners to hear and respond to the truth, were all markers of how He responded.
And in this His actions were in accord with what the holy prophets and apostles did every day. Paul was attacked daily. All who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution Paul said.
I suggest as a good therapy for this modern nonsense would be the minimum requirements for a true follower of Jesus, who is Himself the truth, and whom to know is life eternal. And yes, regardless of your doubts, we have hundreds who can testify against your nonsense in the judgment. Where every idle word will be condemned.
A good reading of “The Cost of Discipleship” might minimize some of the false Christ/false gospel so appropriate to the coming false Christ who will appear and repeat SOME (but absolutely not ALL) of what the Savior taught. We know who that glorious being, as a messenger of light, will be.
Here is the nonsensical statement that undergirds this devious approach: “Yes, Jesus fought for truth, but it was not for a set of doctrines or the minutia of hermeneutics. The truth that Jesus fought for was a true understanding of God’s love and His eagerness to save the lost. “I have made Your [character] known to them.”
That sounds righteous and is not. One cannot separate sound doctrine and the arguments over it that characterized Christ’s entire ministry from the core of the gospel message. That is simply an absurdity, and one not born out. Again, as I have repeated so often READ THE GOSPELS. Doing so would utterly undermine such false claims.
Physician heal thyself.
John McCaull said: “Read the Gospels.” That is exactly what I have done: I have read and re-read the Gospels (along with the Desire of Ages), and that is precisely where I learned the truths in my comment above. Ironically, I used to think, write, and argue just like you until I did so.
I studied the gospels for decades and from that had an intellectual knowledge about God. Then I found myself in a situation where I was challenged to share the Gospel with a sector of society largely scorned and dismissed by Christians as being beyond God’s power to be redeemed. Then God used one of them to teach me about His power to redeem. Yes, it was a redeemed homosexual who taught me God’s love for all who are beset with sin. It was a person redeemed from “the uttermost” who taught this member of “the chosen” how God really works. There was no argument in him about esoteric theology or what is or is not truth. He made no effort to defend certain doctrines. He simply focused on Jesus and let His power defend Himself.
God doesn’t need me to argue in defense of “truth.” Such arguing is the #1 reason why people are leaving the church. God needs me to be a follower who reflects His love and a channel through whom He can show His power so that people will be drawn to Him.
“Ironically, I used to think, write, and argue just like you until I did so.”
The psychological process called “projection” is obvious.
God doesn’t need ANYONE to argue in defense of truth, since “God” is an Infinite Being, and attributing “need” is impossible.
God WANTS fellowship and expects the objects of His love to defend truth, which is a BASIC aspect of love. As the gospels so absolutely show.
Jesus said, “If anyone will not listen to your words, leave that town and shake their dust off your feet.” He did not say, “Keep arguing to the death.”
Mr. Hanganu said he believes he is defending truth, too. I admire your untiring defense of truth; but you need to understand that other people, who are just as smart and sincere as you, see truth differently. You read the Bible and think it means “X.” Mr. Hanganu reads the Bible and he thinks it means “Y.” Maybe you’re both wrong. A hundred people can see a sunset, and they see a hundred different sunsets.
Sorry, Clyde, the Bible isn’t nearly as slippery as your opinion suggests. If you were a trained Biblical scholar you would not have written what you wrote. You do not understand how the process of EXEGESIS when done as scholars do it, is designed to increase objectivity and scientific discipline, and less sectarian subjectivity and personal subjectivity.
Scholars doing Biblical theology including SDAdventist ones, rarely exhibit much interest in sectarian interpretations which are irrelevant to modern insights into Scripture.
Secondly, you are absolutely correct. The Lord DID say to clap the dust off your sandals and move on from a village that doesn’t receive the truth. Of course those villages were extended families that acted more or less corporately.
But the internet throws together people who are in all stages of spiritual development. Has it occurred to you that many who are silent here have real questions when this sort of thing comes along? And that not everyone has the training or experience to answer IN DETAIL the kinds of questions being raised?
If not, then let me say that as long as there are people who have questions about such things as Ellen White and the Shut Door, I am going to give them answers.
That’s why I included so many details and specifics. All of them drawn from looking at the original documents. And yes, there is a huge difference from wide research into the original documents and cherry-picking quotes from secondary sources.
And having taught Ellen White and the Gift of Prophecy on the college level for 18 years in a row, and using as a text (by special permission) a compilation on difficult topics entitled “Notes and Papers Concerning E. G. White and the Gift of Prophecy” that was to be used only for seminary students, I can assure you the picture painted here is not reality.
Truth isn’t always like sunsets, and faulty analogy is still a classical error in logic, and has been ever since 5th century BC Greece. If some things are true, others are not. It isn’t at all as subjective as you would tell us.
John, you don’t know my qualifications. I may be a “trained Bible scholar.” I may know a thing or two about exegesis. But two trained Bible scholars performing exegesis can reach vastly different conclusions. Both will think the other is mistaken.
Personally, my position on the inspiration of Ellen White is undecided. I admire your stand for what you believe to be the truth, and I don’t want you to change your beliefs. But your attitude seems to indicate that you view your exegesis as infallible. I respect your training, research, and teaching experience, but there is a chance that you may not be infallible.
I agree that Mr. Hanganu’s paper is not well researched. I read the full document and got the impression that it is a hodgepodge of material drawn from (perhaps almost plagiarized from) other critics for the purpose of proving his point. It is definitely not objective academic scholarship. I also agree that you have cited some solid points of historical fact, and some others here have too, such as Carlos Lopez. His comments about W. C. White’s treatise and the literary assistants’ testimony have not been answered.
Yet, even though Mr. Hanganu may be misguided and may have produced a low-quality paper, it appears that he is sincere. He is convinced that he is presenting truth. I doubt that he is maliciously presenting something that he actually believes to be error.
You seem to believe that you are the only one in this forum who is interested in defending truth. The point is, everybody here probably has the same zeal for defending truth; but they see the “truth” differently. The Bible is an endless source of material that can be taken more than one way. Even saintly scholars like Calvin and Wesley could reach opposite conclusions from careful, sincere Bible study. Every denomination thinks it is right.
When someone does not see things the same as you, it does little good to keep arguing facts and figures. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Let the Holy Spirit do His work. One of His functions is to lead us into all truth.
You wrote: “Some have questioned whether Mr. McCaull is winning souls. The question is not so much “Does he get people to join the church,” as it is: “Does he lead people to love Jesus”? The two are not necessarily the same.”
I totally agree. Bringing people to Jesus should be the supreme focus of our lives. Bringing them into the church should be the same thing, though often is not. Adding people to the church membership list just gives us an easier measurement.
I’ve always wondered about the function of a “soul winner” and what the calculation is for the destination of those “won” and those not “won.” Is there a difference? Is there a guilt punishment for “soul winners” who fail for negligence or other reasons? If the intended goal of “winning” is to populate heaven, and a spouse doesn’t get there because a “soul winner” failed somehow, and the “soul winner” arrives there, would there be some legitimate guilt suffered on his/her part? And would the injured party be properly angry? And what are “souls,” anyway?
Just wondering.
It’s too bad that the blog’s author has promised not to comment any longer. (Not that I believe this of course.)
Earlier in this thread I observed that it is only the content of what EGW wrote that engenders its vehement opposition. This of course begs the question to the author, who has been an Adventist for a dozen years, why Seventh-day Adventism? Some on this site have claimed to remain Adventists because of family and friends; having been born into Adventism, they’ve remained because they’ve been and remain cultural Adventists.
For an adult to have become Adventist, why do so while opposing White’s ministry? Some things just make absolutely no sense.
The one who said he would not comment again was a reader (Edward Buhoci), not the blog author (Eduard Hanganu). And, based on the context, I think Buhoci intended to say “I have not been” instead of “I have been” an SDA for 12 years. I don’t know whether Hanganu is a member either.
Yes, thank you Bill Flynt; my mistake. I conflated the two, Edward and Eduard.
My apologies to the blog’s author Eduard who may now care to comment as to whether he is a Seventh-day Adventist.
I agree that, based on the context, perhaps Edward meant to say that he hasn’t been an Adventist for twelve years. (I’d be interested in what is true.)
Stephen,
Because the line of comments is so long on this blog,it is no wonder that people attribute to me things I did not state.
I have not promised not to comment anymore on this blog, but I find that my contribution is no more needed. I have accomplished my goal, to share with the readers my examination of Ellen White’s writing skills from a linguistic perspective.
I am a fourth generation SDA, born in the ‘faith.’ I have no ax to graind, but I believe that it is my obligation to share my research about Ellen White’s “book writing skilks” with the SDA church members.
As previously stated I have my own theories as to what your objective is/was; but I have noticed that you’ve inadequately (if at all) addressed John McCaull’s and Carlos Lopez’ challenges of the thoroughness and objectivity of your research regarding the ‘testimonies’ of White’s literary assistants; and that you had also not addressed the previous (obvious) point that she did handwrite things that are available to be viewed and read.
(Please don’t take these as personal criticisms. It’s understandable that you have pride of authorship and that, for whatever reason, you’ve devoted much time to this. Furthermore your credentials for rendering opinions aren’t being challenged.)
Mr Foster, spend time reading the overwhelming mountain of evidence now available on the internet. This is a woman was a bully who slapped her assistants for telling what they were forced to do. One loving testimony declared that all one assistant’s work had “a dead fly” in it.
She said that Jesus came all the way down from heaven in a chariot and shouted down at her that her assistant was her adversary. Earlier He supposedly did the same thing with the same message about her neice. Doesn’t this sound like hysteria to you?
In fact, she reported to the General Conference Committee that Jesus came down personally to visit her “over a hundred times”. This statement is in the transcript, but the red-faced stenographer suppressed it in the published version.
The reason it takes scores of years to issue the Manuscript Releases is that they are being painstakingly sanitized. If you persist in your refusal to read the evidence for yourself, you will never make informed decisions. But you will have lots of company. LOTS of company.
Again Harry, show some documentation to substantiate your claims. Were you there to hear what she said, or to see her “slap” an assistant? You rely to some pages “on the internet.” Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can publish rubbish on the Internet.
Wow. If we’re going to disagree, let’s just make up “facts” as we go along, and then challenge people to counter our “facts.”
Incredible.
“Tell me, if the 1844 message and the Sabbath were of such vital importance, why haven’t they been presented clearly from the beginning to Ellen White through the Holy Spirit? Oh, I bet you could find something similar in the Bible… or can you?”
Yes. My earlier questions about the details of the “Shut Door” vision were exactly to point out that you have to know the answers to those questions to interpret that vision, which Ellen White said decades later in an extensive response was both accurate (no “false” vision requiring revision) and still applicable.
Those leftover Millerites were moving along a path, a basic Biblical image reiterated in White’s first visions.
They were most definitely not in the situation of the mature Ellen White and her party after, say, 1890.
God was leading them slowly, and to the extent that they could perceive and accept the advancing light. (Another common image in Ellen White.) To hear her tell it, they never got to the whole truth, for she writes much later that “we will often have to bow down and admit that we were wrong” and if you look at the whole quote, it is referring to DOCTRINE AND TEACHING, not “oh we were wrong in our actions toward each other.”
A good selection of “we aren’t there, even yet” quotes is found in AT June 2014 under ““Precious Gems from the Pen of Inspiration” which should be constantly kept in mind in evaluating and questioning Ellen White.
It must be borne in mind, therefore, that every EGW statement, like every statement in the Bible, must have the usual EXEGETICAL rules applied. Is this the early Ellen White? Is this specific to a situation?
For instance, “novels” are dime novels and storypapers endemic in the 1880s. “Large libraries” are the collections of HUNDREDS of dime novels one could order, usually listed on the back page of any particular dime novel. It may be Victorian English, but in some ways it is as far from the modern reader as Ugaritic.
As to the “Shut Door” is applied quite narrowly, as she said both at the time and later, to those who had heard and understood the Holy Spirit’s call prior to 1844 and rejected it. In common with much of prophetic interpretation after the confused close of the Powerscourt Conferences, from which both William Miller, and modern SDAdventism drew its prophetic belief system, it was believed that the Great Tribulaton/Time of Trouble, would be seven years long.
In affirming the Shut Door vision that those who had rejected the 1844 movement had rejected something much larger, the White party assumed something the vision itself does not say or imply: that they were in that seven-year period. It is not a coincidence that in 1851, when the supposed seven years were over, the White party was busy evangelizing.
In fact, it was their EXPERIENCE that led them to question their interpretation of the Shut Door. DURING the 7-year apocalyptic period they continued to make converts to…
Since Eduard asked so directly, it is important to answer.
In regard to the huge amount of Biblical material that comes directly from the surrounding cultures, Eduard asks this: “Have they [the SDAdventists] built those doctrines by questioning Bible inspiration and pagan influences?”
The question contains an error of misinterpretation. The Bible does not arrive at DOCTRINE through the medium of pagan influences.
What I actually said was Biblical writers demythologize pagan texts when they use them. No one would guess when reading “Lift up your heads, oh ye gates, that the King of Glory [YAHWEH!!!!] may come in” that this was a line from the Ba’al Epic where Ba’al approaches the heavenly sanctuary after killing Mot, the seven-headed dragon of death, and being resurrected on the third day by Anat, goddess of love and war who wore a belt of skulls around her body. The line is “Lift up your heads [oh ye gods]” since the 70 high gods had been pictured as weeping, their faces on their knees, whey they heard the news of the death of Ba’al. But were surprised at the announcement of his victorious return.
No, as I said, the Hebrew writers (and the Jewish writers of the New Testament) never left a whiff of pagan influence BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT USE AND PARAPHRASE OTHER AUTHORS JUST AS ELLEN WHITE DID. That was the point.
Eduard further wrote: “by using the Bible as a guide, please try to compare Ellen White’s visions with those of the prophets. When a Bible prophet had a direct revelation from God, did he come back to fix it later? Did he contradict not his, but God’s messages he received?”
The answer is “NO” in both cases. Eduard did not give in all his voluminous posts, a single example of Ellen White “fixing” a vision. She never contradicted the sole vision he gave as an example, the razor-sharp “Shut Door” vision. What I pointed out to Eduard was that he knew nothing of the background (we have to do exegesis on Ellen White too!0 to the vision, the dating, the origin of the concept (it was not the vision that originated the concept), or MOST IMPORTANTLY, why Ellen White NEVER retracted, altered, edited, amended, hid, or otherwise “come back to fix it.”
I gathered from his silence in reference to several questions I posed to him that Eduard was completely ignorant of Mrs. White’s discussion of the Shut Door decades later, why she stood by it, and why, in fact she elaborated on it and EXPANDED its meaning rather than retracting it.
This is important to understand and acknowledge.
We should remember that the truth was opened via Mrs.White only gradually and as fast as White and her party and followers could absorb it. No early vision contained all the truth on a subject, which is why they came so often and built on each other of a period of half a century.
Since Eduard asked so directly, it is important to answer.
In regard to the huge amount of Biblical material that comes directly from the surrounding cultures, Eduard asks this: “Have they [the SDAdventists] built those doctrines by questioning Bible inspiration and pagan influences?”
The question contains an error of misinterpretation. The Bible does not arrive at DOCTRINE through the medium of pagan influences.
What I actually said was Biblical writers demythologize pagan texts when they use them. No one would guess when reading “Lift up your heads, oh ye gates, that the King of Glory [YAHWEH!!!!] may come in” that this was a line from the Ba’al Epic where Ba’al approaches the heavenly sanctuary after killing Mot, the seven-headed dragon of death, and being resurrected on the third day by Anat, goddess of love and war who wore a belt of skulls around her body. The line is “Lift up your heads [oh ye gods]” since the 70 high gods had been pictured as weeping, their faces on their knees, whey they heard the news of the death of Ba’al. But were surprised at the announcement of his victorious return.
No, as I said, the Hebrew writers (and the Jewish writers of the New Testament) never left a whiff of pagan influence BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT USE AND PARAPHRASE OTHER AUTHORS JUST AS ELLEN WHITE DID. That was the point.
Eduard further wrote: “by using the Bible as a guide, please try to compare Ellen White’s visions with those of the prophets. When a Bible prophet had a direct revelation from God, did he come back to fix it later? Did he contradict not his, but God’s messages he received?”
The answer is “NO” in both cases. Eduard did not give in all his voluminous posts, a single example of Ellen White “fixing” a vision. She never contradicted the sole vision he gave as an example, the razor-sharp “Shut Door” vision. What I pointed out to Eduard was that he knew nothing of the background (we have to do exegesis on Ellen White too!0 to the vision, the dating, the origin of the concept (it was not the vision that originated the concept), or MOST IMPORTANTLY, why Ellen White NEVER retracted, altered, edited, amended, hid, or otherwise “come back to fix it.”
I gathered from his silence in reference to several questions I posed to him that Eduard was completely ignorant of Mrs. White’s discussion of the Shut Door decades later, why she stood by it, and why, in fact she elaborated on it and EXPANDED its meaning rather than retracting it.
This is important to understand and acknowledge.
We should remember that the truth was opened via Mrs. White only gradually and as fast as White and her party and followers could absorb it. No early vision contained all the truth on a subject, which is why they came so often and built on each other of a period of half a century.
Harry, I would like to see the sources for these assertions.
Especially incredible is his claim to know what she “said” to a committee. Somehow he “knows” that she said something that the “red-faced” stenographer omitted or “suppressed” from the transcript. If it’s not in the transcript how does he know she said it? Was he there to hear what she said? Or is he relying on some second-hand hearsay “on the Internet”? Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can post any kind of nonsense on the Internet. Some people are so gullible.
Stephen,
You wrote: “What exactly is ‘spiritually significant’ about Adventism as opposed to any other Christian denomination? (This isn’t a difficult question, is it?)”
What purpose do you have in your question other than again wanting to show us your greater argumentive skills? A study done recently by the Barna Group showed that the Adventist Church in North America is losing more of its youth than any other denomination and the primary causes are the devotion to theological correctness and continual argument to prove we are right and others are wrong.
If you really want to see what is “spiritually insignificant” about the Adventist Church in North America as compared to other denominations, start with the horrible loss of future membership that is the result of your devotion to theological correctness and argument. A recent study by the Barna Group showed that our church is losing its youth faster than any other denomination. Why? Devotion to theological correctness and argument about theology instead of actually obeying God and doing the ministries God told us to be doing.
Contrast that with two smaller but growing denominations I have encountered in recent years who have multiple prophets actively ministering among each of them and guiding them into greater discoveries of Bible truth in the same way God used Ellen White in the early days of the Adventist Church. Yet we have been without the ministry of a living prophet for more than a century. They respect the ministry of the prophets. No Adventists. We scorn and abuse prophecy, debate it endlessly and make railing accusations against anyone with a different viewpoint. We conveniently ignore the specific instruction of the prophet to not get lost in endless argument and debate, but to instead devote ourselves completely to the service of God. Then we think anybody who reminds us we shouldn’t be doing that must be wrong because we think endless debate and argument is what God wants us to be doing! Loving others? No room for that in a debate about the 2300 days prophecy! Ministering God’s forgiveness? Nice theory! Just don’t ask us to do it because we’re God’s remnant church!
If you want dare to see what is spiritually insignificant about the Adventist Church, just look in the mirror. I had to do that a few years back and it was a painful experience. But God used it redirect me into doing what he wanted and growing the Kingdom of God instead of driving people away.
The lifeguard club spent weeks studying the theory of swimming, first aid, and drowning rescue techniques. Finally the big day came when they would go to the pool and put their skills into practice. The members got into a heated debate at the shallow end of the pool, regarding some of the esoteric finer points of the techniques. As they shouted their arguments, they did not hear the cries of the child who had fallen into the deep end. Her lifeless body was later found at the bottom of the pool, while the oblivious team of lifeguards continued their heated debate.
I attend an Adventist church where we never hear about Mrs. White, and the members probably could not explain the 2,300 days if their life depended on it. But they love God like crazy, and they are delighted to show His love to their neighbors and share the good news of the Gospel.
I think the Adventist Church needs only seven core beliefs:
1. I accept Jesus Christ, by faith, as my personal Savior and Lord. (John 3:16-17; Romans 5:8; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9)
2. I believe that God is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; He loves me, and I want to love God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind. (Exodus 34:6; Luke 10:27)
3. I want to love my neighbor as myself. (Luke 10:27; Matthew 9:11-13; James 1:27; Matthew 10:42; Matthew 25:31-40)
4. I am thankful for God’s grace and mercy, and I want to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 3:18; Romans 2:4)
5. I appreciate God’s gift of the seventh-day Sabbath as a blessing–a time of rest and spiritual refreshing. (Gen. 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27)
6. I look forward to the return of Jesus Christ, the blessed hope. (John 14:1-3; Acts 1:11; Titus 2:13)
7. I am glad that those who have fallen asleep in Jesus will rise from their graves to meet Him in the air when He returns. (John 11:11-14; John 5:28-29; I Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10; Psalm 146:4)
But this short summary should be enough:
1. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
2. I love God with all my heart.
3. I want to love my neighbor as myself.
On this site and others, the SDA Church, its doctrines, its leadership, its founding prophetic voice, are all under persistent attack. EGW is the target of much of the incoming because of what she wrote. Adventism is a target because of doctrine. This is fair, because this is ‘warfare.’ When reduced to its lowest common denominator, I believe this war is about one doctrinal teaching: the mark of the beast.
I don’t think any of Adventism’s other UNIQUE teachings or beliefs matter as much. I could be wrong about this, obviously; but I don’t think that the state of the dead, or the investigative judgment, or anything else is nearly as important. People have lived, died, and will go to heaven not knowing or believing either. The doctrine we have on Revelation 14: 9-12 is FOR those of us living at the very end of the age.
However I believe that everyone who loves/believes Jesus will be saved into His kingdom. It seems very obvious to me that the vast majority of those in heaven will be what some would call ‘non-Adventists.’ Jesus has sheep that haven’t been of this fold and who never will be. So it’s not necessary to become an Adventist to have your soul eternally saved.
So, I defend Adventism because of the importance of the target of the attack. If you don’t think it is important—and for sake of discussion, let’s ‘imagine’ you don’t—then why do you think it is important to grow THIS church? But if you think it is important, and (therefore) that this is clearly the importance of growing the Seventh Adventist Church—as opposed to just introducing people to Jesus and then warmly bidding them farewell, or helping them find ANY Christian denomination—then why do you oppose Adventism’s defense against that which would undermine its purpose? (Unless you think that its purpose and responsibility are indistinguishable from other faith communities’).
In another lifeguard analogy; by reliable accounts, there is a shark in the water. If you believe the accounts, you will whistle all those in the water to get out; and you will simultaneously warn others not to get in the water. You’d certainly never suggest that either whistling or warning is a waste of time.
Have you ever visited Elmshaven, the house where Ellen White lived out her last years?? Here she was housebound and
bedridden for the last 6 months of her life, with painful broken hip. Her bed was a narrow iron contraption that appeared to belong in a torture chamber. The pain she endured must have
been excruciating. The house just down the hill, in ANGWIN, Ca. was non- descript. Far from what one would call anything but common ordinary. She was responsible for bringing millions of $$ into the SDA Church, yet she lived frugally. Hip replacement surgery was not on the medical menu in 1915.
If not called by GOD to prophesy, she was certainly online with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspires and reveals knowledge and wisdom, sometimes revealing “new light”. Obviously, Ellen White abided daily the Holy Spirit. She was so wrapped up in love with God, that it was probably difficult for her to discern the love messages God had for His people, and her very own person imput. God, i feel certain, has a great role for Ellen White to fill in His Eternal Kingdom. Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the beginning.
Thank you, Earl!
Edward Buhoci said: “Is there any PLAGIARISM in the Bible? OF COURSE NOT – and that is because there is only One Author – God.”
This is simply not the case. Matthew, Mark and Luke have bulks of text in common, not just the message or ideas. Two of them, probably Matthew and Luke obviously copy-pasted (with very few modifications) a lot of text from the third one (probably Mark, that is beleved to have written first, based much on the testimony of Peter. And all three have in common a fourth anonymous source they have used in the same copy-paste manner; which theologians call source Q.
When you compare Samuel-Kings with Chronicles, you can also see the same phenomenon. The Chronicler used extensively various sources, especially Samuel-Kings (giving only general references, while he borrowed heavy). Ezra and Nehemia have important similar text in common. Mica 4 and Isaiah 2 is a section copy-pasted from one anothe, or from a third source. Much of Obadia is included in the book of Jeremiah. 2 Peter 2-3 and Judah folllow exactly the same order of the prophetic discource and often the same clauses and expressions. Some of the Proverbs are thought to have been collected by Solomon from Egypt. But he did not disclose the fact. Why can’t we understand, that this pedantry about plagiarism is a modern concern, a cultural ethical issue, but it is not in itself an ethical problem, since religious writers were expected to tell the truth, no premium is put on originality. Ellen White lived much in a similar cultural mentality. While she was not interested usually to mention references, she never hid her litterary practices; even she reccommended in the Review, some of the same historical books which she used, to be read.
Too much noise for nothing. It is like accusing Abraham and Sarah of incest; or Rahav because she has deceived the Jericho FBI hunters; or Jael, because she was not nice with the general Sisera.
When I have read first Ellen White’s writings, her originality was the last thing I was interested. Now after decades, I am alike not so interested in this aspect.
Dear Florin:
You are right. There has been too much talk about Ellen White’s plagiarism. In fact, the “prophet” plagiarized little, and wrote even less. I provide this evidence in my document “Ellen G. White and Her Ghost Writer Book Shop” published on Academia.edu. The wholesale plagiarism and compilation was done by her ghost writers, among whom the most prominent are Francie Bolton and Marian Davis.Ellen White just took credit for the work the ghost writers did, and pocketed the dollars. After years of research, I have reached the following conclusion:
1. There is ample and reliable evidence for the conclusion that the books, articles, pamphlets, letters, and other documents published under Ellen White’s name and credited to her are not her original work, and their content was not received through “divine visions” or through “angelic dictations.” Those printed materials are plagiarized compilations derived from numerous and various published works, and those who have edited and organized the plagiarized sentences, paragraphs, and chapters into “new” books, articles, pamphlets, and letters are the Ellen White’s “helpers,” or “editorial assistants” who were forced to plagiarize together with the “prophet” but did the work Ellen White could not do because she lacked the English composition and editorial skills for such a work—edit, correct, and prepare the documents for the press and for distribution. The “beautiful, or “wonderful,” language that numerous SDA members consider the ultimate evidence that Ellen White’s publications are “inspired” and “divine,” is human and natural, and originates from the “helpers” or “editorial assistants” who ghost wrote her books.
I am in 101% in agreement with you. This is the truth that every Adventist should know. I found this out through my own research.
2. In the SDA “scholarship” and folklore, Ellen White is described as creature larger than life. The SDA Legend. The SDA Icon. The SDA Saint. The facts, though, are far from the sectarian fiction that has captivated the SDA members’ gullible imaginations and has made them claim absolute uniqueness as nonpareil members of an exclusive “remnant” that holds the singular and unadulterated “present truth” among the past, present, and future religious denominations. The sad truth does not match the oversized, unconfirmed, and even bizarre claims that the SDA church has made about Ellen White. The plagiarism accusations that the Ellen White’s foes have made against her are also exaggerated. More recent factual evidence shows that Ellen White plagiarized little and wrote even less because her basic English Composition skills were far below standard or even average. The “prophet” could not write in legible longhand, could not organize text in logical structures, could not edit sentences and paragraphs, could not prepare documents for the press, and could not publish.
3. Those who did all the large scale plagiarism, that is, the massive authorial theft, from countless books and other intellectual under Ellen White’s not so gentle and kind “prophetic guidance” and “encouragement” or rather direct and undisguised coercion, were the more than two dozen “helpers,” “secretaries,” “editorial assistants”—in fact GHOST WRITERS—who sweated in Ellen White’s labor camp. The “editorial assistants” were also those who compiled and organized the stolen material into books, articles, pamphlets, and letters, edited and prepared the documents for the press, and readied them for publication.What Ellen White did was to take undeserved credit for the works published under her name, and to collect the enormous sums that resulted from the slave labor that took place without pause in her book shop. The “prophet,” then made sure to waste her fortune on numerous real estate assets, on excessive and extravagant travel, and on a lavished and pampered life. The ghost writers were never credited, and were never rewarded for their massive and diligent work that made her rich and famous.
4. In the end, the facts indicate that Ellen White was a guilt-free crook who believed that the ends justified the means. Under the false claim that she was “God’s messenger,” Ellen deceived and manipulated people, offended numerous SDA church members with false “personal testimonies,” hated with a passion all those who refused to accept her bogus claims, denounced all those who opposed her claimed “prophetic gift” and her lies, and denigrated, threatened, and often attempted to cause financial ruin to those she considered her enemies.
Ellen White was a fraud.
Eduard, Did anyone record any of Ellen’s sermons verbatim? If so, have you had occasion to study these? I’ve heard that she could speak quite freely and well, and extemporaneously. IF that be the case, why could she not have dictated her writings? Is there any record of her dictating to her secretaries?
Does this change anything, from your point of view?
Serge,
I tried a few times to get at least a few unedited handwritten letters (“autographs”) from the White Estate in order to examine her English skills, but my requests were denied.
The first person I contacted was Dr Radiša Antić who is Principal Lecturer in the Department of Theological Studies at Newbold College of Higher Education, UK and the director of the White Estate branch there. I asked him to scan ten unedited handwritten letters from Ellen White and send them to me. He told me to go to Newbold if I wanted to see the documents!!!!!
I few days ago, I Tim Poirier, the Vice-Director of the White Estate at the SDA headquarters wrote on a Spectrum blog that “Even if a person is unable to visit one of the Centers, current policies permit the White Estate to send out copies of unpublished documents so that persons wishing to read the context for a particular quote may do so.”
I wrote him the following message:
March 17, 2015
Dear Tim:
You stated in a recent post on Spectrum that “Even if a person is unable to visit one of the [White Estate] Centers, current policies permit the White Estate to send out copies of unpublished documents so that persons wishing to read the context for a particular quote may do so.”
Could you, please, send to me in PDF format 20 UNEDITED Ellen G White handwritten letters (“autographs”)as attachments to eMails? I would like to do an analysis of her English composition skills in those letters for a research paper I intend to write.
Thanks a lot!
Eduard
Well, what happened? Nothing. I never hear from him again. There were three people who had unrestricted access to the White Estate at the headquarters: Walter Rea, Ronald Graybill, and Donald McAdams. Rea was fired for disclosing what he discovered there, Graybill wrote a dissertation, but the SDA church forbade him to publish it (it is available – you can read it), and McAdams examined the “Huss Manuscript” but was forbidden to publish it.
Read an expanded version of the document published in Adventist Today. It is entitled “Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” and posted on Academia.edu.
Yes all very interesting Eduard, I am aware that all three of these have/had quite a story to tell of what they saw, but were not allowed to publish.
But you seem to have missed that my question relates to EGWs sermons. How do they ‘read,’ if they are available in written form? Is there a chance that EGW was a better speaker than a writer and that she dictated much of her material?
Serge,
It is quite odd, but there are no recordings of Ellen White’s speeches, although Thomas Edison invented the gramophone in 1877. From then on, voices could be recorded and then reproduced.
Ellen White died in 1915, so we should have thousands of recordings of her speeches, but we have NONE. Why no recordings were made? Ask The White Estate and expect someone to lie about the matter.
If you have read my document, “Ellen White and Her Ghost Writer Book Shop,” you know that quite often Ellen White did not write herself the letters sent to various people. She would just delegate Francie Bolton or Marian Davis to write the letters. Often she was hundreds or thousands of miles away from them, so she could not check what those “assistants” wrote.
As for dictating all “her” books to her “assistants,” James White himself stated numerous times that Ellen White was so busy travelling to different places that she did not have time even to take care of her children, much less to dictate books to her “helpers.”
Serge,
This issue – the fact that no recordings of Ellen White’s speeches are available – is, indeed, a puzzling matter. I did a little more research, and found out that,
“on November 8 1887, Emile Berliner, a German immigrant working in Washington D.C., patented a successful system of sound recording. Berliner was the first inventor to stop recording on cylinders and start recording on flat disks or records.
The first records were made of glass, later zinc, and eventually plastic. A spiral groove with sound information was etched into the flat record. The record was rotated on the gramophone. The “arm” of the gramophone held a needle that read the grooves in the record by vibration and transmitting the information to the gramophone speaker.(See larger view of gramophone).
Berliner’s disks (records) were the first sound recordings that could be mass-produced by creating master recordings from which molds were made. From each mold, hundreds of disks were pressed.”
Ellen White, as I mentioned, died in 1915. This means that for 38 (THIRTY EIGHT)years, recording devices were available, and thousands of records in mass-production could have made of her sermons and speeches.
The fact that NOT ONE RECORDING WAS MADE, is more than strange. It looks like it recording her was avoided. Why? It may be that she wasn’t the speaker we were told that she was, the woman who “could speak quite freely and well, and extemporaneously.” Maybe the claim is also a bedtime story like the one in which it is claimed that she held a very heavy Bible facing the public in her hand and still was able to point to various texts without looking at the pages. She also claimed that an angel was standing behind her and dictating her books.
We will probably never know the truth about her, but the picture is slowly forming: The Ellen White as a prophet extraordinary could be the greatest religious scam in the history of the Universal Church.
The earliest recording of a president was in 1893 and it was recorded long after he was president. The quality is very bad. If such political figures were not recorded, is it reasonable to expect that Ellen White should be recorded? Where Ellen White spoke, no PA systems were even in use. HOWEVER, there are transcriptions of her presentations, recorded by stenographers. (See SERMONS AND TALKS, 2 vols.) Ellen White, according to witnesses, generally spoke extemporaneously unless she had a written testimony, and that she would read. There are noticeable differences in the structure of sentences between her written works and her transcribed sermons. The same CAN be said about my writing as an author compared to my speaking as a homiletician, so I am not surprised.
I believe that the fact that after more than 100 (ONE HUNDRED)years her handwritten documents have not yet been released to the public is clear evidence that something very damaging for her legend is hiding in that cellar. All those who have tried to find out what is hidden there have been either fired, persecuted, or banned forever from the vault. There must be a stink so powerful in those vaults that the White Estate watch dogs cannot allow to come out of them.
Re: “There must be a stink so powerful in those vaults that the White Estate watch dogs cannot allow to come out of them.” Eduard, you picked the wrong year to make such a contention when all the letters and manuscripts will be released.
This is nearly unheard of in literary history. Who publishes all their collections of thoughts and gatherings of notes in unrefined form? I publish my thoughts in books and articles AFTER careful study and refinement of wording. I have kept many of my cryptic jottings for posterity, but I doubt that anyone will ever care to see them. They apparently only get interesting if one is a prophet, and, I predict, having read many of her manuscripts, they will become UNinteresting about as soon as they are released. The letters may retain more of their interest.
As I read all the commence and criticism at various angles, I conclude with a suggestion that, read more of her articles… you will know more the greater light,(The Bible) and your spiritual life will be uplifted and you will be bless.
A comment was posted that “The accusation of plagiarism by the author throws some doubt on what he has written. Stick to facts, sir, if you wish credibility. It has been clearly shown that what some say is plagiarism was a common practice.”
Yes, it apparently was common practice in certain circles. But was certainly not “common practice” among serious writers to insist that “God told me directly what to write.”
Of course, there were exceptions. Other 19th writers who said “God told me what to write” included, for example, Joseph Smith, Jr. who insisted that he obtained all of his Book of Mormon directly from the hand of God.
Ӏ ɑm exttremely impressed alօng witһ your writing skills as smartly ɑs witҺ thhe structure
on your weblog. Is thst tthis ɑ ppaid theme or ԁid you modrify it yoᥙrself?
Anyway stay up tɦe excellent qality writing, іt is uncommon to
peer ɑ gгeat weblog like this oone today..