Okay-do you ever question that Adventism is a bunch of bunk? Leah has been sending me articles on Ellen White and that she pledgerized(?) from her husband and all kinds of stuff...honestly, Sean, you are too smart to not know and to have not questioned what our "prophet" really was...
I haven't been to church in 2 years and don't want to go to an adventist church but feel enormous guilt over going somewhere else...so I wonder...Do YOU question your faith with the church...Is the doctrine right in your mind? Just very curious to know what you think...Leah thinks its all been bull and has tons of information to prove it...Is she going to hell for blasphemy?
Hey Lynette,
-
Interesting questions. I'm glad that Leah (and you) are interested enough in such things to take them seriously and actually spend time looking into them.
-
Let me start by saying that belief in Ellen White as a prophet or messenger from God is not, let me repeat, not a prerequisite for belief in the doctrinal positions or overall message of hope of the SDA Church. Ellen White said that there would be some who would not believe that she was inspired by God who should still be accepted into the SDA Church with open arms. She writes:
Some, I was shown, could receive the published visions, judging of the tree by its fruits. Others are like doubting Thomas; they cannot believe the published Testimonies, nor receive evidence through the testimony of others, but must see and have the evidence for themselves. Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them . . . (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 328).
Personally, I do believe that Ellen White was inspired very directly by God to write what she wrote - and I find her writings to be very helpful and hopeful to me personally and a significant aide in my study of the Bible. Did she borrow the words of others to form many of her books and other writings? Yes. She did. And, she fully and freely admitted this, in her own books and other manuscripts. For example, in the forward to the Great Controversy she writes:
"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" (The Great Controversy, p. xii).
What is most interesting to me regarding the charge of plagiarism is that she was charged with being a false prophet and all kinds of other bad things in her own day, but she was never charged with being a plagiarist - even though it was known in her day that she used the works of others without always referencing these works in her own writings. Why then, if this was known in her day, did her enemies (which were many) not bring charges of plagiarism against her then? They brought so many other charges; why not plagiarism as well?
-
The short answer to this interesting question is that what she was doing in copying passages of others in her own works without detailed credits was a common practice in her day and was not considered plagiaristic at all. In fact, even according to modern concepts of "fair use" of the work of others what Ellen White did does not qualify, legally, as plagiarism. Rather, she used various passages of others in unique ways to make them uniquely part of her own work. This is supported by the fact that only around 2% of her total volume of works was actually borrowed from the words of others. The vast majority of her works was presented in her own words (though heavily edited by her secretaries for grammar and better flow of the English language and various terminologies). Remember, she only had a 3rd grade education and therefore had to rely heavily on the help of others with better language and literary skills to polish up her manuscripts. The overall ideas, however, to include the use of the works of others to enhance the delivery of her ideas, was unique to her.
-
What is also interesting here is that most of the Biblical authors quoted or borrowed from the work of other writers without reference, to include Biblical prophets - the same as Ellen White did. So, if one brings the charge of plagiarism against Ellen White, one must also bring the same charge against many of the Biblical prophets and other authors - - if one is going to be consistent that is.
But, if one wants to get really legalistic about this idea, one has to actually consider a legal definition of plagiarism. Legally speaking, the mere use of another's language does not constitute literary theft according to Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark, and copyright cases. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page
legal opinion in which he concluded:
"Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy."
Ramik points out several factors that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. 1) Her selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use.'" 2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author.
Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 461).
Well, I guess I have gone on long enough for now. One more comment on this topic though. Most of those who bring such charges against Ellen White aren't really that concerned about the vast majority of her work, but are upset because they have been hurt by someone close to them who has quoted Ellen White against then on this or that particular, usually minor, issue.
-
When it comes right down to it, if one actually takes the time and effort to read through any one of Ellen White's main publications, especially books like the Desire of Ages or Steps to Christ, one comes away with the deep impression that her life and her writings are consistent with the Biblical message of hope - - that she bent her whole life to point people's attention toward the Bible, not toward herself, as the only true light. She wanted only to increase interest in reading and considering the Bible and God by using a somewhat novel approach and perspective. In short, she lived what she preached and she preached according to what is found within the Biblical passages. Nothing she says goes contrary to what can already be found in the Bible on any relevant doctrinal issue or path toward salvation.
-
Was she a perfect human being? Certainly not! Not even close. She was strong willed and often hard headed. She made many mistakes in her own personal life and even in regard to her own opinions about religious ideas. Sometimes she was hard to live with - according to her own husband James White. Once James told her to be quiet and stop telling him what to do all the time unless it came as a direct vision from God. Of course, it never did. She was just quite naturally bossy. How could that be? Well, she just so happened to be human like the rest of us. God usually picks weak erring human beings to be his messengers . . . go figure ; )
-
Hope this helps get you started anyway. Let me know if you have any other questions or thoughts on this issue. Again, I think it is great that you and your sister are looking into this. These issues have been around since the Church began and will never be completely resolved. But, it is certainly good to consider these ideas very carefully. After all, religion is only useful as a solid basis for hope in the future - in the "good news" of what God has done and is going to do for us. That means, of course, without a solid basis in one's own mind for one's religion, there really isn't much hope in the future either.
-
Yours,
-
Sean
Was Ellen White A Plagiarist?
Free Mailing List Club!