By the way, Kevin, I did see your remark about the Bible earlier - "the Bible is equally as guilty [of plagiarism]." And I don't disagree. Nor is that its only failing. But for the sake of keeping this thread on topic, I chose to disregard it, for now. Maybe later on, in another thread however ....

Regards,
Norm

Something should probably be said also about another facet of this issue: on the significance of prophets' failings.

Regardless of their high calling, prophets are people, too. Like all of us, they fail at times, sometimes spectacularly. Few would argue that; certainly I don't. Elijah's holiday to the mountain cave comes readily to mind, for example, and there are many others. The failure to meet a high standard however is not the problem. In fact, it turns out that very useful object lessons can be drawn from such incidents. And the failures don't keep them from being prophets. Outside of those failures, God's true prophets are still what God made - prophets.

But that is a very different matter from drawing doctrine and belief systems from any verbal or literary output that may have come in the course of the failure event working itself out. Yet that is precisely what the Adventist church has done in this case with EGW's product.

Someone might say, but not all of her writings are flawed by being the plagiarized words of others, use what you can and ignore the rest. Not a bad idea, except when it comes to the doing. How do you tell which are the words of inspiration and which are the words of man? Worse yet, how can you tell which of the borrowed words are blessed with the imprimatur of appropriately inspired insight and which are not? Then comes the logistical problem:

Today, even in-depth, scholarly research can, at best, show only which is original and which is plagiarized. And the time and effort to do that is far beyond the reach of the ordinary, would-be believer. The church certainly hasn't embarked on a comprehensive plan to that end either. But assume they did, then what? Once the sources have been identified and properly parsed, how can anyone be sure of finding and sifting out the imprimatured material in such a tainted environment? The difficulties are well-nigh insurmountable.

Like I said, no matter how you dance to it, how can you make anything reliable of this tune? Theoretically, the day may come; but it isn't here yet. And given the tortured trail it will have traversed by then to arrive, it is still unlikely to be a suitable basis for doctrine and belief. Something else will probably have supplanted it for that by then, or even been the source of identification revealing the wheat in this chaff. (Which is to say that, despite this problem with EGW, I do have my doubts that the giving of inspiration is a discontinued process.)

Regards,
Norm

Plagiarism is a legal term that is defined by the law in effect at the time of the occurance. By this defination, it is pretty clear that EGW did nto plagiarize.

However it is also clear that EGW did use other published sources for her written materials.

Facts:

1) EGW copied material from others, and she said she did.

2) It is clear that she did more of this than has been recognized in the past.

3) Her written works consist of much more than materials that she specificly saw in vision.

4) Her published works are NOT dictataed to her by God.

5) Her published works are NOT without error, and she did not claim for them to be without error. With this one the question becomes the nature and importance of those errors.

Spome of my conclusions:

1) Veltman's work is the "gold standard" in this field.

2) His research was specific to a small part of her published works, but I think indicative of the rest of her writings to a greater or lessor extent.

3) The major issue, as has been pointed out, is not the extent to which she copied, but whether or not her published writings are authorative, and to what extent.

4) The 2 % statement is an understament of the extent of the amount of her copied materials. It is rebutted by Venden.

The problem is not with the fact that she "plagiarized" , but the fact that some of these derived statements appeared within "I was shown" context.

You can not honestly compare semantic Gospels to writings of E.G.White, which are merely commentaries and should be properly compared to the writings of Paul.

I believe that there is much of E.G. White in the writings, and at times there is more E.G.White's take on things than there is God's. Not to say that just because she inserted her own view of things somehow invalidates her entire body of writings. Yet, unfortunately, many adventist leaders and scholars make it sound so.

She was a human being who made mistakes. Her works were pieced together by editors. Her books contain many of her views, which are not to be mistaken with direct commandments of God.

Many of her statements I find to be merely a commentary. Imagine watching a ball game with no sound, does that make the ball game somehow devoid of meaning that you can't figure out what's up? Sure it's more fun with the sound and pointing out of the obvious, but do we really need it?

That's the way I approach her writings. I don't find them to be as groundbreaking that I value them above some of the Biblical commentators of the past. In fact, some of them you can not differenciate for this reason... she copied the view of other commentators.

Whether she was a prophet or not, I don't think is essential to one's salvation. If it is, then I don't see any evidence of that in the Bible.

If you consider the practices of the time, it's clear that she didn't do anything illegal or immoral. She was not attempting to hide the fact she used other people's writings at times. It's been known ever since at least the 1880s that Ellen White used them. But what was surprising to many in more recent years was the extent to which she used them. She often recommended the very books she was quoting in some of her works. There has been at least one legal opinion given, based on a study of her books, that what she did was not considered "plagiarism" in her day.

It's doesn't bother me that she might sometimes use the expression, "I was shown," when using "derived" material. If a person understand how she worked, that shouldn't be a problem. If she found that someone expressed well what she had learned in vision, she might use it to convey her meaning. However, she usually didn't merely copy the derived material but she would typically make it her own by adding to it or selecting only the parts that she had been shown in vision were true.

These things are fully discussed in quite a few books, including Arthur White's very large biography and also Herbert Douglass' Messenger of the Lord. Both of these books, and more, are available online. They're excellent sources for understanding these kinds of questions.

Of course. She would be the first to say this. The best way to arrive at the knowledge of what she was really like is to read her own autobiographical writings and the biographies.



Her books were put together from her articles and other, earlier books, letters, etc. Nothing was printed without her OK.



Have you read 1 SM 15-45?



She didn't just copy, however. It was similar to what she did in the matters of health. She was divinely led to pick out those things that were true and those which were false.



Let each man be persuaded in his own mind whether she was a true prophet. The best thing is to read and reread, with prayer, everything she wrote.

Is anything absolutely essential to one's salvation? If we think of things in those terms, we will soon decide that nothing is really essential, including the Sabbath, correct theology, even Christ. I'm beginning to hear some Adventists saying this today. People will be saved without Christ and the gospel. So certainly the Spirit of prophecy is not necessary. But are we thinking in terms of the lowest common denominator?

John,

I know you are not serious about the last part. E.G. White is not the source, or even means to salvation. Not even close. If God somehow erases her from pages of history, would the plan of salvation be altered? Not at all! Let's take her for what she is, a Biblical commentator. I conclude for myself that his is the essence of her prophetic gift. Not in the "infallibility" of her writings. She herself wrote :

“Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now.”

Many Churches ignore her own council today. They quote her Biblical observations as though these are Bible. It's ridiculous! Go to the source. She said it herself. In that sense, why do I need an intermediate "infallible" interpreter? BTW, I hope you don't believe that her writings are infallible and contain no error.

I didn't mean to give the impression that Ellen White is the way, the truth, and the life.

Where do I say here that Ellen White is necessary to salvation?

I am saying she can be a means to people learning to trust Christ more and remain in the church and do the will of God.



What part of the above communicates to you that I am saying Ellen White is necessary to salvation? I don't see it. If it is there, I am sorry. Please point it out if you see it. I need to correct it if that's what it's saying.

John,

Forgive me for misinterpreting what you were saying. I have no problem with viewing her as a means of learning more about God. My problem is that she is canonized in Adventist church, and even she did not mean for her writings to be the "way, the truth, and the light".

I know we've had this discussion on numerous occasions. Many of the doctrinal statements that the church have today are based on her writings, so I think we owe it to ourselves to know when God is speaking through her, and when she is merely projecting her opinion on subject. Such distinctions are stigmatized because that would mean she made some erroneous assumptions, and many take it as a slippery slope as far as when to draw the line between the prophesy and personal advice. Personal advice based on Bible is awesome! I love it, but take it too far and legalism will be abound.

We should be honest enough to say that there is much of personal advice in form of a commentary, and that it's reader's personal decision on how to apply it to their lives. Such talk hardly surfaces from the pulpits today.

My favorite E.G. White books are actually the collections of testimonies and advice to various people. Unfortunately, Adventism today is so abound in doctrinal factoids, that it in many cases leaves out some valuable practical advice on every day Christian living. That's where I found E.G. White to be PRICELESS.

For example, our church is Studying "Steps to Christ" book. And the ones who are attending, are strong Christians IMO. I think they already got trough that stage, and should get more meat, instead they are coming back to the square #1 and remaining there. The growth is transformation of mind that is reflected in every day living. Yet today we separate things into "spiritual" and "secular" worlds, and we lable the things outside of church grasp to be "secular"... while in fact everything in some sort of war draws us closer or parts us from God... be it our jobs, marriages, education.... I can't believe that Christian Adventist parents would give up their children to public schools!!! It's outrageously incompetent, especially for children that don't yet learned to think for themselves.


So, in effect I'M NOT... against E.G. Whites in our churches. WE NEED MORE OF THEM. What I'm against is canonization of prior cultural views and commentary in our culture today. I.e.

You should be teaching your children. You should be instructing them how to shun the vices and corruption's of this age. Instead of this, many are studying how to get something good to eat. You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat and then your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children. How high do your prayers go?" (Testimonies, Vol. 2, p. 362, 1870)

Let me just say that Steps to Christ is far more deeper than you could imagine. I just finished reading it for the ____ time. And I get more and more out of it each time. I would recommend anyone reading it AGAIN.

EGW said to spend a thoughtful hour each day on the life of Christ. I think we can never have enough of some topics.

If EGW plagarized who are these writers that she copied, and how many books have they published and sold?

DB