Adventist Idol

(Tim Teichman) #82

That’s different:

It was 2000 years ago. Different standards, and in any case all of the Gospels are anonymous. We have no idea who wrote them, and they were never “published” for profit.

Also, nowhere in them do the authors claim to be prophets, or even claim to be writing inspired works / scripture. They were not scripture for centuries after they were written.

Actually that’s not right. While they did borrow, and also seem to have used other common earlier sources such as Q, Mark was the first Gospel, Matthew and Luke were later by decades, and John the last by another decade or two. It is likely that Matthew and Luke both had Mark, but didn’t know each other and were not familiar with each others works.

(dale) #83

I don’t revere Ellen White. I revere God who spoke through her. Attacking the messenger is really an attack on the one who sent the message.

(dale) #84

The point is literary borrowing cannot be something to negate inspiration.

(Tim Teichman) #85

Only if you’re attacking the message of the messenger. Telling a prophet he’s a hermit and a stinky desert rat is not attacking God.

(Tim Teichman) #86

Perhaps, but if she used the text of others, and indicated it was authoritative, then it seems they were inspired too.

In any case, it is still appropriate to challenge writings that were stolen from others, and also to question her motives for doing such a thing that she knew full well to be illegal and immoral. A moral person does not steal the works of others and pass them off as their own. Plagiarism in the age of copyrights and intellectual property is stealing.

(dale) #87

The attack on the messenger is an attempt to destroy the message. If someone can throw someone’s credibility into question then they can then say disregard what that person said. Let’s be real Ellen White is under attack because of the messages that she brings. If she wasn’t a prophet in the seventh Day Adventist Church no one would care. Shakespeare stole writings and passed them as his own and his books are still in schools. Edgar Allan Poe plagiarized and he is still a well respected author. So yes this attack on her is an attempt to destroy the message, and to try to discredit the Adventist Church.

(Steve Mga) #88

I believe all that is being said here is this.
It would have been Much Better if our Spiritual Fathers and Mothers in the 1800’s
had acknowledged certain information was from other writers,
Had given them Credit. And then shown that Ellen had stated those were Truth to
pass on to SDA church members to believe.
And NOT have to discover all of this toward the END of the 1900’s. Almost 100 years
[Of course the Life of Paul fiasco was discovered soon after it happened. I heard about
this in 1962 at Madison. Actually, Madison Library had a Coneybear and Housen book.]


Why are her writings referred to from the pulpit as from “the pen of inspiration”?


There is a school of belief and dissertations written that Shakespeare’s writings were actually those of his wife, Anne Hathaway.


Copyright law from the beginning has been to protect the creativity and work of those who have created original works. To choose not to give credit to the actual originators is a violation of law AND ethics. This is an issue of both law and ethics. It is troubling that EGW chose not to credit her sources, either for their verbatim choice of words or even for their ideas, which also are to be credited.

The argument that there was no copyright law when she wrote is perpetuated by those who are not up on copyright.

Also, for the church to hire a law firm to give a “last word” that there would be no copyright case against her writings is not a completely unbiased study. It was paid for by an organization with an agenda. Like oil companies paying for gasoline studies or coffee companies paying for studies on the effects of coffee drinking. It just doesn’t smack of transparency or true authenticity.

For honest church members, this is troubling. God directed her NOT to credit the originators of her writings? Would He truly ask a prophet to steal and copy others’ works?

(George Tichy) #92

Wishing some spies from the KGC that come here often will read this and get you a promotion. I mean, a job. :laughing:

(George Tichy) #93

One reason why Kevin likes Norman Clair Wilson is that he did not denounce Kevin’s baby, the LGT (aka perfectionism heresy). As long as Ted stays quiet, Kevin will support him no matter what. Also hoping to get a job, any job again… :wink:

I hope we get another Prez soon, one who will expel this heresy from being preached in SDA churches.

(Cfowler) #94

You are right! Apologies…

Not every word…but,
In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne."

None of her opinions…just God’s.

Here are some links to some examples of plagiarism…these are very clear, IMO.


And a few others I pulled up for examples:

“Sketches from the Life of Paul” By Mrs. E.G. White, 1883
“The judges sat in the open air, upon seats hewn out in the rock, on a platform which was ascended by a flight of stone steps from the valley below” (p. 93)

“Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul” By Conybeare and Howson, 1855, 3rd ed.
“The judges sat in the open air, upon seats hewn out in the rock, on a platform which was ascended by a flight of stone steps immediately from the Agora” (p. 308).

Had his oration been a direct attack upon their gods, and the great men of the city who where before him, he would have been in danger of meeting the fate of Socrates" (p. 97)
(From EGW’s book)

"Had he begun by attacking the national gods in the midst of their sanctuaries, and with the Areopagites on the seats near him, he would have been in almost as great danger as Socrates before him" (p. 310)
(From Conybeare and Howson)

“An extensive and profitable business had grown up at Ephesus from the manufacture and sale of these shrines and images” (p. 142) (EGW)

“From the expressions used by Luke, it is evident that an extensive and lucrative trade grew up at Ephesus from the manufacture and sale of these shrines” (p. 432) (Conybeare and Howson

“Only their reverence for the temple saved the apostle from being torn in pieces on the spot. With violent blows and shouts of vindictive triumph, they dragged him from the sacred enclosu**re” (p. 216) (EGW)

“It was only their reverence for the Holy Place which preserved him from being torn to pieces on the spot. They hurried him out of the sacred enclosure and assailed him with violent blows” (p. 547) (Coneybeare and Howson)

These are a few from the these two books…there are several others.


No, they aren’t word for word, that would be a pretty dumb thing to do. Plagiarism isn’t limited to word for word copying.

(Frankmer7) #95

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The bible writers lived in collective cultures relying on oral transmission of stories and narratives that belonged to the community. They had no concept of private intellectual property in the way that we do, and in the way that the America of Ellen White’s time did. You can’t compare how their output was derived to hers.

However, the fact that she plagiarized other sources isn’t the ultimate problem. It’s that she kept up the appearance that she didn’t. It is the continual denial by her, and those around her, with the exception of the forward to the Great Controversy. It’s the continual portrayal of her messages coming through vision, or direct communication with God, or through angel guides, sans pre existing literary sources. It was the spinning of what was essentially a false narrative regarding the way a great portion of her output came into being. If plagiarism was no problem, why was their a consistent effort to hide it in regards to her writings? It’s this type of misrepresentation that in the end is the greatest problem.

This is the ethical quandary that Fred Veltmann saw. This is what was so central to the discussions at the 1919 bible conference. The participants felt that it was so explosive for the church at large, that they decided to hide the minutes away from public view. Well, those minutes ended up being discovered 55 years later at Andrews, in 1974, and it was the catalyst for the top nearly being blown off of the denomination.

What leadership has decided to do since then is downplay the issue, defend and deflect, and reframe the narrative… kind of the way you have been doing. It’s a form of denial and self preservation. But, it’s not dealing honestly and squarely with the issues.

How can God continue to bless that?



(Frankmer7) #96

Which is why her volume was pulled from publication. If nothing had been done wrongly, why did that happen?? Just reading a bit of the links you posted… the direct and indirect plagiarism is staggering. This is what her apologists never confront, and never answer!



(George Tichy) #97

You can always save your precious time and refer people to Walter Rea’s book, THE WHITE LIE.

(George Tichy) #98

Yes, discovered by accident by our good friend, the late Aage Rendalen. Miss him interacting with us here. He was a great friend.

I don’t think the Church’s high echelon was much happy with Aage. He kind of messed up with the pot, … I mean, the plot…

Some people mess up with the pot and end up spilling information that the Church does not want into the public arena. Best example, Des Ford @gford1 daring to expose the truth about the 1844.IJ pot. I wonder how people felt when they realized that they have been lied to by their beloved Church, that info has been deliberately withdrawn and hidden from them. My unique word for what I felt like when I first learned about the 1844/IJ fairy tale is “betrayed.” But that was 38 years ago… :wink:

(Frankmer7) #99

I miss Aage, too, George.



(George Tichy) #100

Oh, come on Frank…those liars, I mean, … those lawyers the Church hired said that there was no plagiarism at that time… Didn’t they exonerate the Church in full already?.. :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:

(Tim Teichman) #101

No, attack on the messenger’s message is an attempt to destroy the message. If the message is found to be stolen from another source, used without acknowledgement or permission, regardless of how that happened (could have been an editor or publisher), then we need to consider the actual source of the message and not pretend Ellen wrote it.