By Sydney Cleveland

The Seventh-day Adventist Church may be preparing the faithful for an extensive rewriting of Ellen White’s Testimonies. In fact, according to Paul A. Gordon, current Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, the process of changing, abridging, and/or simplifying her writings was begun during her lifetime. Long considered to be a Divinely inspired prophet, Seventh-day Adventists have carefully treasured each word Ellen White wrote. Reading her materials is a significant undertaking considering that she wrote some 100,000 pages of handwritten manuscripts containing an estimated 15-20 million words. While the church claims it does not subscribe to the verbal inspiration of either the Bible or Ellen White, it sees no inconsistency in carefully preserving Ellen White’s verbage. The Ellen G. White Estate, a subsidiary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, has historically cared for and published her writings. As a safety factor, microfilm duplicates of her manuscripts have been established in various locations around the world.

Almost from the moment Ellen White’s visions were published, her claims to Divine inspiration were challenged. As early as 1847, her husband James White published a tract titled A Word to the "Little Flock," and included the following excerpts from a letter he received: "I cannot endorse sister Ellen’s visions as being of Divine inspiration, as you and she think them to be; yet I do not suspect the least shade of dishonesty in either of you in this matter . . . . I think that what she and you regard as visions from the Lord, are only religious reveries, in which her imagination runs without control upon themes in which she is most deeply interested. While so absorbed in these reveries, she is lost to everything around her . . . . In either case, the sentiments, in the main, are obtained from previous teaching, or study."[James White, A Word to the Little Flock," (1847), p. 22. This facsimile reproduction of the original was published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association and is available through local Adventist Book Centers.]

Seizing the opportunity to affirm the Divine inspiration of his wife’s visions, James White wrote: "However true this extract may be in relation to reveries, it is not true in regard to the visions: for the author (Ellen White) does not ‘obtain the sentiments’ of her visions ‘from previous teaching or study’." [Ibid., p. 22.]

James’ statement was consistent with the position taken by Ellen White: the sources of her writings were Divinely inspired visions and not the result of copying or plagiarizing other authors. In 1880 he wrote: "Mrs. White has written and spoken a hundred things, as truthful as they are beautiful and harmonious, which cannot be found in the writings of others, they are new to the most intelligent readers and hearers. And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. White find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thought." [James White, Life Sketches, (1880 edition), pp. 328, 329, published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association.]

Being one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen White was early revered by the faithful as "the Imitation of Christ," and later as "the Lord’s Messenger." As both organization and doctrinal beliefs were developed the church found its mission and identity in the "Remnant Church" concept. By linking Revelation 12:17 to Revelation 19:10, Adventists claimed their identity as "the Remnant Church" on the basis that they alone kept the Sabbath and had a living prophet. The faithful gave credence to this concept by referring to Ellen White and her writings as "The Spirit of Prophecy." This link between Ellen White and the Remnant Church is the cornerstone of Seventh-day Adventism — so much so that the following statement appeared in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 14, 1883: "Our position on the Testimonies is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out, and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of this message are gone. . . . Nothing is surer than this, that this message and the visions belong together and stand or fall together."

As "the Spirit of Prophecy," Ellen White herself repeatedly claimed that not only were her visions Divinely inspired, but that she also required Divine inspiration in writing out the messages she had received: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that He is pleased to have me relate or write them." [Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, (1860), vol. 2, p. 293.]

Ellen White’s claim to Divine inspiration not only included the written version of her visions, but also the writing of all her books and letters (commonly referred to as "Testimonies"). The following quotations are indicative of her claims: "The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of His people. Painful though it has been to me, I have faithfully set before the offenders their faults and the means of remedying them, according to the dictates of the Spirit of God."[Ellen White, Testimonies, (1876) vol. 4, p.14.]

"In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a ‘thus saith the Lord.’ The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind." [Ellen White, Letter 90, 1906, quoted in Ellen G. White, vol. 4, p. 393, by Arthur L.White.]

"I arose at three o’clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this . . . was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. 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." [Ellen White, Testimonies, (1882), vol. 5, p. 67]

"I am only an instrument in the Lord’s hands to do the work He has set for me to do. The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart." [Ibid., p. 691.]

"I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation." [Ellen White, Selected Messages, (1906), vol. 1, p. 35.]

The evidence is clear that Ellen White openly taught that she was Divinely inspired and that her visions were the source of the information she communicated through her letters, books, articles, and verbal Testimonies. But during her lifetime, and over the succeeding years, information has repeatedly surfaced indicating Ellen White was not honest about her sources. Long before her death in 1915, Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders were becoming more and more aware that Ellen White had voraciously copied the works of others.

In the 1880s Ellen White published her book Spirit of Prophecy, volume 3. The book was later republished under the name Sketches From the Life of Paul. Curiously, the book was dropped from print for nearly 100 years before it was republished in facsimile form by the Review and Herald in 1974. Thumbing through a few pages inside the front cover you will see a section titled "Preface to Facsimile Edition." There you will discover this unusual explanation: "The much-loved Ellen G. White book, Sketches From the Life of Paul, was issued by the Seventh-day Adventist church’s two publishing houses, the Review and Herald, and Pacific Press, early in the summer of 1883. . . . The book ran through two printings at each house and was being considered as a book to be sold by literature evangelists, but it dropped out of print. The reason for its demise is easy to understand in view of the historical context." [Note by the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate placed in the facsimile edition of Sketches From the Life of Paul. "Preface to Facsimile Edition."]

What was the "historical context" which caused Ellen White’s book to "drop out of print?" The answer is given by Arthur G. Daniells, then General Conference President and long-time associate of Ellen White. Speaking to some fifty top leaders, theologians, teachers, and writers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on August 1, 1919, Daniells said: "Now you know something about that little book, (Sketches From) the Life of Paul. You know the difficulty we got into about that. We could never claim inspiration in the whole thought and make up of the book, because it has been thrown aside because it was badly put together. Credits were not given to the proper authorities, and some of that crept into The Great Controversy. . . . I suppose you all know about it and knew what claims were put up against her, charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors of the book, Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into (Sketches From) the Life of Paul without any credit or quotation marks . . . . 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!" [Taken from the official transcription of the August 1, 1919 Bible Conference minutes, published in Spectrum, vol. 10, number 1, pp. 5l, 52.]

According to Daniell’s explanation it is evident Ellen White had copied so much from Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of Saint Paul (written 30 years prior to Ellen White’s Sketches From the Life of Paul), that its authors threatened to make trouble for the denomination! Since their book had not been copyrighted they probably would not have won a lawsuit, but they could have publicly exposed Ellen White’s fallacious claim to Divine inspiration. Therefore it was in the Church’s interest to immediately drop Ellen White’s plagiarized book from publication.

During this same Bible Conference, the Church’s leadership wrestled with questions concerning Ellen White’s claims to Divine inspiration and mounting evidence to the contrary. Eleven times they were asked for a definitive answer, and eleven times they avoided an official decision. The flavor of their discussion and concerns is brought out in the following quotations:

"F.M. Wilcox (Editor of the Review and Herald): ‘I think we have to deal with a very delicate question, and I would hate terribly to see an influence sweep over the field and into any of our schools that the Testimonies were discounted. There is great danger of a reaction, and I do feel concerned. I have heard questions raised here that have left the impression on my mind that if the same questions are raised in our classes when we get back to our schools, we are going to have serious difficulty. I believe there are a great many questions that we should hold back and not discuss . . . . I think if we destroy faith in them (Ellen White’s Testimonies), we are going to destroy faith in the very foundation of our work. . . . . And unless these questions can be dealt with most diplomatically, I think we are going to have serious trouble.’. . .

"C.L. Benson: "If there are such uncertainties with reference to our historical position, and if the Testimonies are not to be relied on . . . and if the same is true with reference to our theological interpretation of texts, then how can we consistently place implicit confidence in the direction that is given (by Ellen White) with reference to our educational problems, and our medical school, and even our denominational organization?’. . .

"J.N. Anderson (Bible teacher at Washington Foreign Mission Seminary): ‘Can we hold those things back and be true to ourselves? And furthermore, are we safe in doing it? Is it well to let our people in general go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies? When we do that, aren’t we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?". . .

"C.L Taylor (Head of the Bible Department at Canadian Junior College): ‘I think we have made a great big mountain of difficulty to go out and fight against. . . . If we must lay aside what Sister White has said interpreting history . . . as unreliable, and also lay aside as unreliable (her) expositions of Scripture, the only natural conclusion for me, and probably a great many others, would be that the same authorship is unreliable regarding organization, regarding pantheism, and every other subject that she ever treated on — that she may have told the truth, but we had better get all the historical data we can to see whether she told the truth or not.’. . .

"M.E. Kern (President of Foreign Mission Seminary): ‘The question is . . . how can we feel, and believe and know that there is an inconsistency there, — something that is not right, and yet believe that the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White) is inspired? . . . The question is how to present these matters to the people.’"[Ibid., pp. 45-48.]

Those were questions that the highest Seventh-day Adventist leadership wrestled with back in 1919: how do we admit Ellen White was not verbally inspired; how do we admit her writings are untrustworthy in every area — yet still keep people’s faith in the Church, its organization, and its doctrines? On the other hand, how do we as leaders who know these things about Ellen White maintain our own integrity by continuing to teach myths? And if we do teach the myths about Ellen White, aren’t we just setting up the church for a future crisis when the truth does come out? What was their verdict? In Part 2 we will examine the historic decision of Seventh-day Adventist leadership, the results, and current trends as the Church continues to refine its views of Ellen G. White.

As presented in Part l, Ellen White openly and repeatedly claimed to be Divinely inspired. However, four years after her death, the highest leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church wrestled with the accumulating evidence contradicting Ellen White’s claims. Unofficially agreeing that she was not verbally inspired and that her writings were untrustworthy in every area, they wondered how they could present their findings and still keep people’s faith in the Church, its organization, and its doctrines. On the other hand, as leaders who knew these things about Ellen White, how could they maintain their own integrity if they continued to teach the myths? And if they did teach the myths about Ellen White, weren’t they just setting up the Church for a future crisis when the truth did come out? What was to be their verdict?

It became evident to the leaders that Ellen White’s influence was too great and the alternatives too risky for any official statement to be made denying her Divine inspiration. As a result, Arthur Daniells, the General Conference President, requested the official minutes of their discussions at the 1919 Bible Conference be sealed for the next fifty years. His wish was carried out and the documents were not discovered until December of 1974, when Dr. F. Donald Yost found them wrapped in paper in a vault at General Conference headquarters.

None of the evidence in the newly discovered minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference came as a surprise to now former Seventh-day Adventist Pastor and teacher, Walter Rea. As a one-time believer in the Divine inspiration of Ellen White, Rea had already stumbled onto evidence that she had copied the writings of other authors. As a result, Walter Rea spent years cataloging and verifying Ellen White’s sources. His research, later published in his book The White Lie, extensively verifies Ellen White’s copying.

In January, 1980, Walter Rea presented Church leaders with evidence demonstrating Ellen White had copied so much from other authors that one could hardly find an original thought or statement in any of her books. This was a bitter pill to swallow, and resulted in the Church sponsoring its own in-depth study of the evidence.

The official Adventist research was conducted by Dr. Fred Veltman, then Chairman of Pacific Union College’s Department of Religion. Choosing to focus on what was thought to be the most authentic of Ellen White’s books, The Desire of Ages, Veltman spent eight years verifying Walter Rea’s evidence. After the initial Veltman report was presented to church leaders in 1988, summaries were published in the October and December, 1990, issues of the official Ministry magazine for Seventh-day Adventist clergy.

The official Veltman report plainly concluded Ellen White had not only voraciously copied the work of other writers, but both she and her co-workers had deliberately lied by claiming her writings were Divinely inspired originals. The Church’s official Veltman report concluded:

"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 (copied) 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 (copying) on her part." [Ministry, "The Desire of Ages Project: the Conclusions," November, 1990, p. 11.]

When Dr. Veltman was pointedly questioned about the fact that Ellen White had apparently lied in stating she only wrote what the Lord had shown her in vision, and lied about her copying from the works of other authors, Dr. Veltman replied: "I must admit at the start that in my judgment this is the most serious problem to be faced in connection with Ellen White’s literary dependency (copying). It strikes at the heart of her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness." [Ibid., p. 14.]

In addressing the question of how widespread Ellen White’s copying was, the Veltman report stated: "The content of Ellen White’s commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived (copied) rather than original. . . . In practical terms, this conclusion declares that one is not able to recognize in Ellen Whites’s writings on the life of Christ any general category of content or catalog of ideas that is unique to her." [Ibid., p. 12.]

With such a great mountain of evidence against the Divine inspiration of Ellen White coming from, and available to, the church’s own leadership one might assume that Ellen White would have been quietly buried as an historical oddity long before now. Not so. The faithful are currently being tugged in two directions as leadership continues to reaffirm the Divine inspiration of Ellen White while it hints at a rewriting of her materials, possibly to simplify and/or eliminate her embarrassing errors and contradictions.

Seventh-day Adventist leadership continues to reaffirm the Divine inspiration of Ellen White by officially linking her with Biblical and extra-Biblical prophets. For example the cover of the June 4, 1992, Adventist Review pictured a montage of Ellen White, Moses, John the Baptist, and Deborah. In case readers missed the point, page 9 specifically compared Ellen White’s prophetic role to that of Miriam, Aaron, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus! This linking is done even though Scripture is clear that no true prophet of God ever lied about the source of his/her message — and even though the Church’s own official researcher, Dr. Fred Veltman stated that her denial of copying "strikes at the heart of her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness."

In the November 19, 1992 issue of the Adventist Review, the faithful were given notice of the legitimacy of rewriting Ellen White. On page 8, Paul A. Gordon, secretary of the White Estate asked: "Is it legitimate to change, abridge, or simplify Ellen White’s writing? The answer is yes. We can change, abridge, or simplify the words, but we do not have license to change the intended message. Here’s why: Seventh-day Adventists do not hold to verbal inspiration. That means we do not believe that God dictated the words for Ellen White to use."

After pointing out that Ellen White herself simplified and corrected her writings, Gordon reassured the faithful with: "In the years since Mrs. White’s death in 1915, more than 50 new compilations or editions of Ellen White’s books have been prepared by the E. G. White Estate. In every case — including editions that have been abridged, condensed, or simplified — the intended message has never been lost; only the wording has been changed." [Adventist Review, "Ellen G. White’s Writings — 2," by Paul A. Gordon, November 19, 1992, p. 10.]

Perhaps that is the greatest proof Ellen White was not Divinely inspired. The Word of God states: "I the LORD do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Applying brother Gordon’s logic to the prophet Moses could yield a fascinating fourth commandment: "Remember to keep one day holy." Who among uninspired mortals is wise enough to correct what God specifically had written for the admonition of His people? And who among inspired mortals would correct it?!

EARLY EDITS FROM EARLY WRITINGS

Sabbath of the Lord thy God. But I saw that it read the same as when written on the tables of stone by the finger of God, and delivered to Moses in Sinai, "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." (k) I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question, to unite the hearts of God’s dear waiting saints. And if one believed, and kept the Sabbath, and received the blessing attending it, and then gave it up, and broke the holy commandment, they would shut the gates of the Holy City against themselves, as sure as there was a God that rules in heaven above. I saw that God had children, who do not see and keep the Sabbath. They had not rejected the light on it. And at the commencement of the time of trouble, we were filled with the Holy Ghost as we went forth (l) and proclaimed the Sabbath more fully. This enraged the church, and nominal Adventists, as they could not refute the Sabbath truth. And at this time, God’s chosen, all saw clearly that we had the truth, and they came out and endured the persecution with us. And I saw the sword, famine, pestilence, and great confusion in the land. (m) The wicked thought that we had brought the judgments down on them. They rose up and took counsel to rid the earth of us, thinking that then the evil would be stayed. (n)

In the time of trouble, we all fled from the cities and villages, (q) but were pursued by the wicked, who entered the houses of the saints with the sword. They raised the sword to kill us, but it broke, and fell, as powerless as a straw. Then we all cried day and night for deliverance, and the cry came up before God. (r) The sun came up, and the moon stood still. (s) The streams ceased to flow. (t) Dark heavy clouds came up, and clashed against each other. (u) But there was one clear place of settled glory, from whence came the voice of God like many waters, which shook the heavens, and the earth. (v) The sky opened and shut, and was in commotion. (w)

(k) Ex. 20:l0. (l) Hosea 6:2,3. (m) Eze. 7:l0-19. 2 Esdras 15:5-27. (n) 2 Esdras 16:68-74. (o) Rev. 13:15-17. (p) Rev. 13:18. (q) Eze. 7:15,

16. Luke 17:30-36. See Campbell’s Translation. (r) Luke 18:7, 8. (s) Hab. 3:11. (t) 2 Esdras 6:24. (u) 2 Esdras 15:34, 35. (v) Joel 3:16. Heb 12:25-27. (w) Rev. 6:14. Mat. 24:29.

________________________________

A Word to the "Little Flock" is significant as the first primary source of literature published by James White and pertains directly to the visions of Ellen White. Deletions occur eleven times in subsequent editions as the text takes on the form of the "Spirit of Prophecy." The red letter portions as reproduced here from page 19 are omitted from identical passages on pages 33 and 34 of Early Writings.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES OF TWO KEY PHRASES IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM

"Our position on the testimonies (writings of Ellen White) is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out, and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message (Seventh-day Adventism) are gone. . . . Nothing is surer than this, that this message and the visions belong together and stand or fall together."

— James White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 14, 1883

— L.H. Christian, "Deflections From the Faith — Professing the Sabbath but Opposing God’s Message," Review and Herald, page 6, Dec. 8, 1949

— Jay P. Green, Sr., Isaiah 8:16, 19, 20, 22. A Literal Translation of the Bible, The Interlinear Bible, 1985, 1986

— Jesus, Matt. 5:17, 18; 24:36, A Literal Translation of the Bible, The Interlinear Bible, Jay P. Greene, Sr., 1985, 1986

— Peter, 2 Peter 1:16, 19-21, Acts and Letters of the Apostles, Richard Lattimore, 1982

— Spiros Zodhiates, "Lexical Aids to the New Testament," The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1984, page 1726

— John, Revelation 12:17; 19:20; 20:4, The Four Gospels and the Revelation, Richard Lattimore, 1979

— "Of the defenseless Christians who suffered and were put to death for the testimony of Jesus, their Saviour, from the time of Christ, until the year A.D. 1660," The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs Mirror, 1837 edition, page 96

— William Thorp, A Practical Guide to the Prophecies, Edward Bickersteth, 1841, pages 27, 40, 72

NOTE: This article is taken from the July and August, 1993, issues of The Sabbath Sentinel.