As I began to read some of Graeme Bradford’s ‘More Than a Prophet’, both he and Bacchiocchi in the foreword mention this workshop.

(Parentheses, bold and italics are mine)

By Bacchiocchi:

What I found most informative (of Bradford’s research) is the analysis of the attempts made by Adventist church leaders and scholars at the 1919 Bible Conference and more recently at the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by the E. G. White Estate, to deal with prevailing misconceptions over the inspiration of Ellen White. At both meetings it was agreed to take steps to inform the church membership about the borrowing of Ellen White and her inaccuracies in the area of history, science, and theology. It was agreed that a correct understanding of her limitations, did not negate her inspiration, but would certainly affect her function and authority. Tragically, no steps were ever taken, because it was felt that Adventist members would be shaken by the new information, which was so different from what they had been taught.

And this from Bradford in his introduction:

Olsen and Graybill were involved in the 1982 “International Prophetic Guidance Workshop” which provided much helpful material. Unfortunately this material was never shared with the Adventist church membership at large. In this respect the 1982 meetings may be compared with the “after-meeting” of the 1919 Bible Conference where denominational leaders and teachers also shared their concerns about the wrong use being made of the gift of prophecy as found in the ministry of Ellen White. At that Conference a few spoke from first hand experience, for they had been involved in producing some of her books. Concerns were raised and valuable material shared. Unfortunately, neither the 1919 nor the 1982 material was ever shared with church membership. At times I will draw upon some of this valuable research and observations.

Before I read on and most likely discover the answers to my questions on this conference, has anybody here heard of this conference and what happened there? I never have!

I will probably share more things with you all as I continue reading this timely and important book.

Posted anonymously by: Randy Gerber

Thank-you Guibox for addressing this question.

Like yourself I have not heard of the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Conference. I am not really surprised though as it seems anything that might disturb the status quo is buried, or swept under the carpet for the next generation to deal with.

Usually these Conferences or Committee meetings are not made public until some of the participants either retire, as is the case now with Bradford and Bacchiocchi, or are next to death, as was the case with Cottrell, and his Sanctuary paper.

If the GC had its way I would assume we would still not know about the 1919 Conference.
For those who want to look at Professor Bradford’s book, it is now online at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/book/bradford/index.htm

As we remember President Paulson’s 2001 statement, the Adventist church continues to hold its current view as described in the Fundamental Beliefs.

Apparently this book, according to the Ellen White Estate’s negative response to it, would indicate to me that it will challenge the long held understanding of Ellen White’s role in the SDA church.

Will this book make her seem more human as it exposes some of her weaknesses. I suspect it will.

Do I think this book will legitimize her role as an “continuing and authoritative source of truth”, I guess I will have to read the book.

My first take, is that I agree with what I see as the reason for the White Estate’s distancing themselves from this book.

Any weakening of the official and current understanding on EGW, will cause a cascading effect downward of the general membership’s belief in the trustworthiness, not only of Ellen White, but the whole SDA church hierarchy in general.
I dont belief they feel they can afford to take that risk.

Guibox, I look forward to your continuing analysis of this book. Although at times we differ on theological understanding, I continue to appreciate your scholarly presentation, and your consideration in dialogue and discussion.

I hope others will chime in on this topic, as I think it will prove interesting.

As to the timeliness and importance of this book, only time will tell.

Your brother in Christ,

Randy

Greg---thanks for keeping the math questions to my level!

Guibox, I too would be very interested in reading your findings.  I have not heard of the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop.  I have read the 1919 Bible Conference transcript and I found it to be a fascinating inside look into the thought processes of the church leaders within three years of Ellen White’s death.  The tragedy, like Randy said, is that the whole topic was buried until over 50 years later.  As I recall, the group planned to meet again to plan a course of action, but they never followed through.  This lack of taking a tough stand gives the appearance that Ellen White’s infallibility is central to the well-being of the Adventist church.

One wonders what the Adventist church would look like if they had submitted to the wise counsel of the apostle Paul: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)

Randy, I’m glad you figured out the math questions–you can rest that part of your brain if you log in before you post!  Let me know if you need help figuring it out.

Greg

Interesting post, Guibox

To quote this paragraph again:

“What I found most informative (of Bradford’s research) is the analysis of the attempts made by Adventist church leaders and scholars at the 1919 Bible Conference and more recently at the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by the E. G. White Estate, to deal with prevailing misconceptions over the inspiration of Ellen White. At both meetings it was agreed to take steps to inform the church membership about the borrowing of Ellen White and her inaccuracies in the area of history, science, and theology. It was agreed that a correct understanding of her limitations, did not negate her inspiration, but would certainly affect her function and authority. Tragically, no steps were ever taken, because it was felt that Adventist members would be shaken by the new information, which was so different from what they had been taught.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly why the White Estate is so fearful. If the above statement is true, then there really can’t be any legitimacy to Ellen White’s special claim to inspiration. Because, then the question is “What did she write that really came from God? Is it for the reader to determine what of her writings are from God, and what are not?

It reminds me so much of what liberal groups are doing with Biblical inspiration. On one liberal SDA forum, you see people trying to explain away the plainest meaning and words of scripture, because it doesn’t fit their preconceived view of what God should be like.

At least the historical SDAs are being more consistent by claiming everything came from God that Ellen wrote.

But if Graham Bradford and Bacchiocchi’s view of Ellen White does win the day, then the logical conclusion that many SDAs would have is that there is no special gift of revelation in EGW.

The most responsible way for the SDA church to deal with Ellen White is to come clean, and admit their mistake of holding up her writings as equal to the Bible.

I like the way Desmond Ford talked about EGW, when I was still an SDA (but I don’t agree with him now), but he used to say that Ellen’s writings should be used like any other good pastor’s writing, or other Christian writers. Take from her writings what agrees with the Bible, and discard those that don’t agree with the Bible.

I am still not sure how Ellen White’s writings are relevant for today. The Testimonies to the church are a real embarrassment. But in all fairness, she was just giving specific advice to specific individuals (of course most of her advice was bad).

I know of many persons who came to a knowledge of Christ through Desire of Ages or Steps to Christ. But there are so many other books that lead people to Christ that aren’t filled with so much theological error.

I also saw first hand how Ellen’s writings kept people away from studying the Bible in any serious way. I think that even she would be upset, if she could see the way her writings have been used and abused since her death.

I have to say that from my own experience growing up in Adventism, I believe Ellen’s writings did more harm than good. I can’t think of any health advice (speaking as a physician) that really is helpful--except her condemnation of smoking and sugar intake. And anyone with common sense could figure out that breathing smoke into the lungs would not be healthy.

I think the Adventist church should make a bold move, and announce to the members, that while Ellen White made important contributions in her time, that her writings now are no longer relevant and that so much of her writings obscured the gospel. They should announce that the Bible is the only continuing and authoritative source for truth.

I would like to hear from both Guibox and Glenn about how Ellen White contributes to their spiritual growth in a way that the Bible or other great Christian writers would/could not. I would also like to hear from any other current Adventists on this topic. Thanks,

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
This is exactly why the White Estate is so fearful. If the above statement is true, then there really can’t be any legitimacy to Ellen White’s special claim to inspiration. Because, then the question is “What did she write that really came from God? Is it for the reader to determine what of her writings are from God, and what are not?

Stan along these lines, the former Secretary of the White Estate, Robert Olson, is on the record as saying it is not up to the Adventist church leadership to decide which parts of Ellen White’s writings are valid for today or not, but it is up to the individual reader.  Olson was the official spokesman for the White Estate during the 1980s when Fred Veltman was conducting his research into Ellen White’s use of sources for The Desire of Ages.

Here is what Olson said in Ministry Magazine, in response to the question of how we are to view the “time-conditioned” elements in Ellen White’s writings:

We recognize such elements in the Bible–for example, Paul’s sending the slave Onesimus back to his owner.  Why not in her writings?  I don’t believe it’s the role of the White Estate to determine what is time-conditioned and what is not.  That’s up to individuals as they apply Ellen White’s counsels to their lives.

First, the major problem here is bringing the Bible down to the level of Ellen White, but second, what is “time-conditioned” about all the things in her writings that were simply never true?  Examples include masturbation causing mental illlness, ingestion of meat arousing the “animal passions,” certain races being the product of “amalgamation between man and animals,” etc.  If we are to believe Robert Olson, these statements were true at one point in time, but may no longer be true.  This is the kind of incredibly flawed logic that must be employed to reconcile an infallible Ellen White with reality.

If the men at the 1919 Bible Conference had done the right thing–the painful thing–they would have admitted all of these problems and begun the process of reconciling Ellen White’s writings with (1) Scripture and (2) reality.  By passing this job off to the next generation, they’ve only compounded the problem and given the appearance that Ellen White’s infallibility is foundational to the Adventist church.  Meanwhile, many Adventists who see this mess for what it is become so disillusioned that they would rather give up Christianity altogether than stay with the “remnant church” that is so entangled with error.

I would also like to hear from some current Adventists about this–Glenn or Guibox?

Greg

When we take a close look at the aftermath of the 1919 conference, we might be more sympathetic to those like A.G. Daniells and W.W. Prescott and why the word didn’t go out to all the people.

Daniells pretty much lost his GC presidency over it due to a slander/persecution campaign by two members who were at the meeting. At the 1922 GC, it basically came to a head and he tearfully stepped down to take a secretarial position (mostly in title). He became so discouraged that he didn’t even circulate the minutes and they got buried.

I would strongly encourage you all to go to RandyG’s link and access Bradford’s book. Chapters 19-22 talk specifically about these issues and the decades struggle after to find perspective on the issue of the Spirit of Prophecy. Conflicts involving both sides with men like Andraeson, Heppenstal and Froom are shown.It also gets the perspective of H.M.S Richards on the matter.

Unfortunately, Bradford doesn’t really specify in detail what went on at the 1982 prophetic guidance workshop except to say that what they discussed and decided there wouldn’t effect EGW’s inspiration (as Bradford views inspiration) but it would her authority, and that all the church should be made aware of it. Considering that the fundamental beliefs say that she is an ‘authoritative source of truth’, one can see so close after Glacier View and Walter Rea’s book, why the church would bury the findings, though that doesn’t make it right.

Having read most of Graeme Bradford’s “More Than a Prophet”, I have come away with a great deal of respect, not in his ultimate conclusions, but rather in his presentation of the enormous problems that the SDA Church finds itself in by continuing on its present course of non disclosure.

The book is too long for a thorough review by me, and I am not qualified to do such, in any case. But I would like to share a few brief observations.

After reading the first several chapters I sensed that Bradford’s goal was to try and legitimize Ellen White’s inspiration and prophetic role by bringing the Biblical prophets down to her level.

In Chapter 4 the role of literary assistance was dealt with, and he noted that the Apostle Paul probably had scribes doing some of his dictation . He also noted that this was probably done in other cases, as well.

In Chapter 6 under borrowing to illustrate Spiritual Truth, he made many references to some of the common themes seen in the Bible, and how Biblical authors referenced those before them, and actually borrowed from non Biblical writers of their time.

I feel that Bradford does not help his cause by this method of analysis. How can depreciating the Biblical authors in anyway legitimize how Ellen White has been used in the SDA Church? I think this lessens his justification of Ellen White’s ministry.

The second half of the book chronicles the Church’s attempts, and lack of progress in dealing with the obvious problems of how Ellen White has been used in Adventism. I honestly think is would make an excellent miniseries for television with all the backroom dramas he has described.

As I read through the history of how this problem has been so ineptly dealt with by every GC administration over the last 90 years, and the amount of backstabbing and name calling among the brethern, it makes the current internet banter between the current SDAs and the “formers” pale in comparison.

I think many points are well taken in this book, among them is that the use of compilations of Ellen White’s writings by the GC and White Estate has been a travesty and a misuse of her writings. That being said I believe that precedent, was set during Ellen White’s life time with the publication of the Testimonies to the Church.

I also agree that the ongoing push by the GC to endorse her writings in inappropriate ways is not in keeping with how I suspect their use was intended.

In Guibox’s initial post on this subject he suggested that this was a timely and important book. In many ways after having read it, I think there is some validity to that statement.

For the Ellen White apologists who have felt that she has been misused and abused by the Church, I think this book vindicates that argument.

For those looking to see how the inner workings of the Adventist Machine works, and deals with challenges, and threats to it’s authority, I think it also sheds a fair bit of light.

For those who no longer believe that Ellen White was a prophet, I think this book will in no way change their minds.

I think for those that feel she taught error, and presented a different Gospel than that found in the Epistles, there is nothing in this book to refute that understanding.

Where this book presents a more human and fallible Ellen White, it also shows how fear and power struggles have dominated the history of the Adventist denomination.

I look forward to further review of this book.

Randy

[quote author="RandyGerber"]
After reading the first several chapters I sensed that Bradford’s goal was to try and legitimize Ellen White’s inspiration and prophetic role by bringing the Biblical prophets down to her level...I feel that Bradford does not help his cause by this method of analysis. How can depreciating the Biblical authors in anyway legitimize how Ellen White has been used in the SDA Church? I think this lessens his justification of Ellen White’s ministry.

I believe that many former-SDAs may be inclined to see it this way when they have flatly turned their back on EGW and formulated their views that she is a ‘false prophet’, but I don’t feel that this is the message Bradford intends to show, nor one that I see. Were this the case, then Bradford would end up agreeing with the conservative element and this would merely be another pro-EGW-ignore the errors-apologetic.

What Bradford’s purpose is, is to clearly show that our current view of EGW (whether accepted or rejected) is not a proper biblical understanding of how the gift was used and viewed in the NT. Rather than an apologetic trying to bring the bible down to excuse EGWs errors, I feel he is showing that perspective on both sides is desperately needed to make a sound judgement on EGWs authority and what inspiration means, regardless of whose side it agrees with.

Chapters 8-10 make a clear case (using many different non-SDA scholars for support) to show that what prophets said in the NT, were taken with a grain of salt, sifted and analyzed, accepted and rejected. He also shows that they were not an authority on theology or history.

By doing so, he shows that inspiration doesn’t mean infallibility or unquestioned authority. By promoting it this way, Bradford disputes the current SDA interpretation by appealing to sound biblical reasoning.

Why do we make higher claims on sister White when it wasn’t even done in the Bible?

[quote author="RandyGerber"]For those who no longer believe that Ellen White was a prophet, I think this book will in no way change their minds.

I think that what Bradford is trying to do is show that our view of what a ‘false prophet’ and ‘true prophet’ might be a bit skewed on both sides. He is trying to show that even though one can view EGW as inspired (and I have to say that I for one, based on what I’ve read and know about EGW, cannot dispute that) that doesn’t make her an infallible authority of truth, put her on par with the scriptures, or allow the church to place her on a pedastal and stall any efforts to further seek new interpretations of the scriptures.

Sometimes I believe that former-SDAs put EGW on a pedastal as well and when they see the obvious infallibility, use that opportunity to justify turning their back on her.

I believe that Bradford is calling both sides to reevaluate what ‘inspiration’ is and what exactly the NT and post-NT role and function of the ‘prophet’ is.

I believe that he has done this with clear logic, biblical examples and alot of non-SDA resources that agree.

[quote author="RandyGerber"]Where this book presents a more human and fallible Ellen White, it also shows how fear and power struggles have dominated the history of the Adventist denomination.

Randy

And isn’t this what should start happening? Bradford makes it quite clear that when this issue should have been dealt with (and was attempted by men such as Daniells, Prescott and Heppenstall) it got swept under the carpet and squashed.

Like all other churches, we need to come clean with our past and stop acting like the Catholic inquisition. If we do not address these issues and treat them logically and truthfully as Bradford has done, how can we honestly expect harmony, contentment and unity with our doctrine?

So far I have read chapters 1-10, 18-22 and I am really enjoying this book. Thank you Dr. Bradford for putting this out.

Guibox,

You are making some interesting points about NT prophecy. But, I am familiar with some quotes of EGW that do claim the office of OT inspiriation on the par with Isaiah and Jeremiah. Other times she would not claim that level of inspiration.

So, it seems that Bradford and yourself are making the point that she fits the guidelines of the NT gift of prophecy.

But here is the NT guideline for the gift of prophecy:

29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."(1 Cor.14:29-31)

So how is it explained that Ellen White as a very UNIQUE prophet for the last day remnant church fit the guidelines for the gift of prophecy as explained by Paul?

What happened when Ellen White was challenged by Albion Ballenger over her clear misuse of scripture. What happened to Ballenger when he only was testing what Ellen had said? EGW said Ballenger was influenced by demons, and he was cast out of the church! Is that how New Testament prophets were to act according to Paul? Also check out 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21.

How does a unique prophetess who wrote stacks of books which are commentaries on what the Bible is saying, fit the description of a New Testament prophet as described in 1 Cor 14:29-31 where it says that two or three prophets should speak?

Maybe Bradford or Guibox can address this for me--thanks,

Stan

Stan,

I can’t speak for EGW and the treatment of Ballenger. Perhaps EGW truly felt that what she was receiving was true blue truth and that such a confrontation could be detrimental to the church. Perhaps she knew more than we know about Ballenger’s motives or where it would end up going. Maybe her accusation of him being used by Satan wasn’t so much what he was saying but the consequences of it, where it might end up going and a spirit of unrest and strife?  She was human and fallible and maybe she just stepped over her boundaries.

As for how the NT prophetic gift was manifest in EGW (I feel that this is more appropriate then to simply call her a ‘prophet’ in the OT biblical sense), I believe that in chapters 11-17 this is brought out. I would highly recommend that you read Bradford’s book, Stan, so that you have a foundation to discuss this. I don’t know when I will be able to go through all of Bradford’s info, but it will still be second hand.

Bradford seems to emphasise that the gift of prophecy, though of some importance, was not treated the same way by the people of the NT as the OT. It was one of the gifts which had its place but was not the ‘be all and end all’ of church foundation. Again, I believe that the SDA church has misused this gift that I believe WAS evident in EGW and put it’s roll and function much higher and in ways that it was not supposed to be from the NT church.

BTW, Stan...don’t you ever answer your e-mails??

Hi Guibox,

It just seems that there is an extensive record of Ellen White going far beyond the directives of a NT prophet in 1 Cor. 14:29-31. This may just be because she got caught up in the power trip at times. Actually it was a professor at La Sierra who I heard recently by the name of Fred Hoyt who also admitted that there were some significant psychological problems to explain how Ellen White acted.

I have been extremely busy lately, so I hope I will have time to go thru Bradford’s book to see if she addressed the Ballenger experience. Somewhere on this site I think we have linked the Ballenger story. The Ballenger story will raise serious questions about Ellen’s credibility. So I hope Bradford addresses the way Ellen attacked those who would question her authority in any way.

Stan

Stan wrote:

“I would like to hear from both Guibox and Glenn about how Ellen White contributes to their spiritual growth in a way that the Bible or other great Christian writers would/could not. I would also like to hear from any other current Adventists on this topic.”

I grew up on a steady diet of Ellen White but in recent years have turned my spiritual attention to other writers.

I think EGW’s greatest contribution was the Conflict of the Ages series. Yes, we now know that these writings were, to put it in to today’s terms, not much more than a cut and paste job. But her contribution was in synthesizing these resources into an accessible product. As a child, it was much easier to read Prophets and Kings than to read the Biblical accounts. And yet reading these books made me want to read the Biblical accounts.  So for me she deserves some credit here in making the Bible come alive. EGW’s writings were at their best when they concerned the Bible and not when they took the form of Testimonies and ruminations about current affairs in phrenology and water therapy.

At the same time, I also now recognize that EGW’s synthesizing of historical resources to produce the Conflict of the Ages series was also an effort of propaganda--to rationalize SDA theology, coloring Biblical accounts in a way that fit the Great Controversy story and sanctuary focus, which SDA’s wished to tell. So there’s a plus and minus here to EGW’s impact.

That being said, I haven’t read anything of hers in a quite a while. Even the Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ seem to me laced with perfectionist passages and implications.  For my spiritual edification, I tend to rely now on Philip Yancey, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton. I also now spend more time directly with the Bible itself, particularly those books I haven’t read carefully before.

As to EGW’s position in the church, if it were up to me I’d dispense with the Fundamental related to her. (Of course I would dispense with any creed or list of fundamentals altogether). I think it was unfortunate that her writings were identified as “authoritative” in the 1980 Statement of Beliefs. This was itself a reaction to the charges of plagiarism that had already emerged in the most recent era beginning I think with Ron Numbers but later coming full blown with The White Lie by Walter Rea.

The statements of officials like Jan Paulsen remind me of Papal statements about birth control: there is a widening disconnect between what the official church body continues to say and what the lay member is actually doing.  I’m afraid this might lead to another point of crisis in the church--but then again, maybe that is what is needed to bring things more out into the open.

I do feel it necessary to affirm one aspect about the church’s EGW apologetic effort, however. I believe it is valid to point out that the Bible writers didn’t always, or even in most cases, write their books directly from the words of God. In some cases they appeared to conduct some form of research. In other cases, it appears they synthesized material from multiple sources. Actually, the fact is that in most cases, we aren’t really sure who the authors for most of the books of the Bible were and when they were written. 

The point of this isn’t to elevate EGW’s writings to those of the Bible. But it is valid to note how the Bible writers actually performed their task.

In what might be a more appropriate topic for another thread, it is also worth exploring what the concepts of Biblical authority, inspiration, and inerrancy mean today.  Some Christians hold that each word in the Bible is to be considered inspired and inerrant (whether the original word or multiple translated words is unclear). Others hold to a “thought-inspiration” model, where the author and thoughts were inspired, but the words those of the author. In terms of authority, it is obvious that Christians today do not hold every saying and commandment of God in the Bible to be authoritative today. But how do we know what is and what isn’t still authoritative? These are all questions that Christians hold a variety of view points on.

So, as we rightly question and judge EGW’s right to authority or inspiration, we might do well to think more carefully about how we use the Bible itself in our daily lives. 

Here is the link to the Bradford book:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm

The link above gave an error message.

Thanks Guibox for providing this link.

I will try to read it when I get a chance.

Stan

Glenn, I think it’s important to recognize that even before Numbers and Rea, Ellen White’s use of sources was well-recognized.  Both John Harvey Kellogg and D.M. Canright knew Ellen White personally and were aware of her literary borrowings.

In fact, when Mrs. White found out about the charges from Kellogg and his associates of plagiarism, she solicited written statements asking for the charges to be clarified.  She wrote this in 1905: “Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people...I was directed by the Lord to request them, and any other whohave perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticism are.  The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and make plain that which seems to be intricate...Let it all be written out, and submitted to those who desire to remove the perplexities. ... They should certainly do this, if they are loyal to the directions God has given.”

A prominent Adventist physician, Dr. Charles E. Stewart, answered this call and wrote a letter (later compiled into an 89-page book) detailing many examples of literary borrowing.

Unfortunately, instead of answering Stewart as was promised, Ellen White had another “vision” in which she was instructed by a “messenger from heaven” not to respond.  “I had a vision, in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings.  I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put in many minds.”

In his private communication with Ellen White, Dr. Stewart also said, “I am informed by a trustworthy person who has had an opportunity to know, that you, in the preparation of your various works, consulted freely from other authors; and that it was sometimes very difficult to arrange the matter for your books in such a way as to prevent the reader from detecting that many of the ideas had been taken from other authors.”

Later, D.M. Canright gave this testimony: “One Advent sister who had been with Mrs. White for ten years told the author personally that she had seen her copying from a book in her lap.  When visitors came in, she would cover the book with her apron until they had gone, then proceed with her copying.  Her works show that the sister told the truth.” (D.M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E.G. White, pg. 120)

Unlike the Biblical authors, Ellen White actively took steps to obfuscate her copying.  Later, she would say that God told her where to look for material that would help her make a “more forcible presentation” of what he was showing her in vision.  Most incredibly, she implicated God in all of this, and failed to take responsibility for her actions.  At the 1919 Bible Conference, it came to light that she pleaded ignorance when confronted with her copying from Coybeare and Howson’s “Sketches from the Life of Paul.”

Then-conference president A.G. Daniells said, “I found it out, and I read it with Brother Palmer when he found it, and we got Conybeare and Howson, and we got Wylie’s ‘History of the Reformation,’ and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them. I supposed it was Sister White’s own work. The poor sister said, ‘Why, I didn’t know about quotations and credits. My secretary should have looked after that, and the publishing house should have looked after it.’” See the whole transcript here.

By the 1990s, the church-sponsored “Life of Christ Research Project” had concluded and Fred Veltman came to the following conclusions about the Desire of Ages: “It is of first importance to note that Ellen White herself, not her literary assistants, composed the basic content of the Desire of Ages text. In doing so she was the one who took literary expressions from the works of other authors without giving them credit as her sources. Second, it should be recognized that Ellen White used the writings of others consciously and intentionally. ... Implicitly or explicitly, Ellen White and others speaking on her behalf did not admit to and even denied literary dependency on her part.” (Ministry, Nov. 1990, pg. 11)

The pattern of literary borrowing (or plagiarism if you like) was established from the earliest years of Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, and in retrospect it is clear that she willfully engaged in this practice, even using messages from God to cover up the mess she was making.  Yet there is no outcry from the Adventist leaders or many current Adventists, again sending the message that Ellen White is fundamentally central to the church and that without her, the church would be significantly damaged or even cease to exist.

By the way, the link to the Ballenger story, which in itself provides a very troubling look into how Ellen White treated those who questioned her, is found here.

Greg

“Glenn, I think it’s important to recognize that even before Numbers and Rea, Ellen White’s use of sources was well-recognized. Both John Harvey Kellogg and D.M. Canright knew Ellen White personally and were aware of her literary borrowings.”

Agreed.

That’s why I conditioned the statement I made below with the “most recent era” phrase.

“I think it was unfortunate that her writings were identified as “authoritative” in the 1980 Statement of Beliefs. This was itself a reaction to the charges of plagiarism that had already emerged in the most recent era beginning I think with Ron Numbers but later coming full blown with The White Lie by Walter Rea.”

The Numbers and Rea allegations are the ones I’m most familiar. I’m less familiar with some of the earlier ones you noted.

But you’re also right that the charges of plagiarism go beyond the simple gathering of sources. The frequent “I saw“‘s lead the reader to believe she is relating what she saw in vision.  And in the Biblical cases, the writers often said things like “aren’t these things written in the Chronicles of King XXXX” demonstrating the author’s reliance or at least familiarity with various sources. And in at least one case Paul says to fellow believers that the instruction he is about to give is his own and is not “from the Lord”. And Luke in the beginning of his Gospel account mentions his research gathering process in crafting the gospel account.

I will read over the 1919 transcript. It sounds like an authoritative account of something and therefore of greater validity than what Canright might have said (although his account could also be perfectly valid as well for all I know).  But the official records of a church conference sound like the best place to start when determing in so far as is possible, the facts of the situation.

[How do I underline things in the text to highlight certain passages?]

[quote author="Stan"]
It reminds me so much of what liberal groups are doing with Biblical inspiration. On one liberal SDA forum, you see people trying to explain away the plainest meaning and words of scripture, because it doesn’t fit their preconceived view of what God should be like.

Since I’m a liberal, I resemble that remark.

Were there some “plainest meaning and words of scripture” you had in mind that liberal groups are disputing?