ELLEN G. WHITE'S PLAGIARISM: STEALING FROM OTHERS!

One of the biggest controversies among Adventists presently concerns Ellen White’s literary borrowing. The Adventist authorities and apologists have been scrambling to explain what she did. More and more evidence has been coming to light as to the extent of her borrowing. She would not only borrow paragraphs and whole pages from other authors but would paraphrase from them and follow the same order of composition in producing her own works. This is true of her letters; sermons, diaries, articles, books, and even her "visions.” These facts were known to a limited extent in the early days of the movement. There was some trouble over it then. There were several prominent Ad­ Adventists who "fell away” because of their loss of faith in Ellen White. Ronald Numbers, in his book Prophetess of Health, touched off the modern explosion with revelations of her depend­ ence on the health reformers of her day. The second shock, and the most serious, has been the work of Walter Rea. During his thirty-three years as an Adventist Minister, Rea had probably put in more time and effort in studying Ellen White’s writings and publishing the fruit of such labors, than any other Adventist ever had. Here is a case where deep familiarity with her works brought a loss of faith in her inspiration; his familiarity with her led him to recognize the extent of her borrowing. His book, The White Lie, gives ample details, and a second book is in process on the subject.

The extent of her borrowing is more and more coming to light. For many years the Adventist authorities dismissed the sub­ject as of no consequence. They insisted that the borrowing amounted to nothing more than a few simple historical facts, and perhaps a word or two here and there. Walter Rea has challenged them to find even 20% of her work that was strictly original. And the evidence keeps mounting.

This charge, of "plagiarism,” has been made against her since the last century. The Adventists have denied she did any such thing. The current dictionary defines "plagiarism" as: "copying, or imitating the language, ideas, and thoughts of another author and passing off the same as one's original work." Even in the last century, when she was so actively taking from other works, Webster defined the word as: "the act of purloining another man's literary works or introducing passages from another man's writings and putting them off as one's own." Ellen White did just that! She never gave credit, nor used quotation marks, until the criticism made her practice so public that something had to be done. Even then it was at the end of her life that quotation marks were used in some of the borrowed passages. Even then a section set off with quotation marks will be followed by an equally borrowed section left untouched. And then there were the paraphrases, slight changes of wording, or borrowed sequences of events that were likewise lifted from others but without notice made of where they came from. In an article in the Adventist Review of September 17* 1981, the Adventist powers printed an interview with a Washington copyright lawyer, who was not an Adventist himself, they said. The lawyer stated that Ellen White was not a plagiarist, legally. What they deal with is the absence, or paucity, of copyright laws of her day; he insisted she did not violate any law. However, that is completely beside the point, having no bearing on the issue. The dictionary definition tags her as a plagiarist She took "passages from another man’s writings and put them off as her own.” Actually, she took a lot of passages from others.

Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and Herald at the time, and James White, President of the company, were certainly aware of what the word "plagiarism” meant. They also knew of the immorality of such a practice. In a short editorial piece on September 6,1864, the following appeared:

“Plagiarism — this word is a word that is used to signify ‘literary theft’ or the taking of the productions of another and passing them off as one’s own. > . 1 In the World’s Crisis of August 23, 1864, we find a piece of poetry, duly headed, ‘For the World’s Crisis/ and signed ‘Luthera B. Weaver.' What was our surprise, therefore, to find this piece our familiar hymn,

‘Long upon the mountain weary

Have the scattered flock been torn.’

This piece was written by Annie R. Smith and was first published in the Review. Vol. iii, No. 8, December 1851, and has been in our hymn book ever since the first edition thereafter issued. But worst of all the piece is mutilated, the second and most significant verse being suppressed. . . . But perhaps this would too clearly have revealed its origin, as scarcely any class of people at the present day, except Seventh-day Adventists, have anything to say about ALL the command­ments of God. We are perfectly willing that pieces from the Review, or any of our books should be published to any extent, and all we ask is, that simple justice be done us, by due credit being given.”

Of course, it seemed to be right for Ellen White to do it, but they didn’t want anyone else doing it to them. We must con­clude from even her own husband that Ellen White did not practice simple justice but rather "literary theft” Further, according to her son, Willie, she knew what was proper and insisted on due credit being given when it came to quoting her. Willie said:

"Mother instructs me to say to you that you may be free to select from her writings short articles ... in each case giving the proper credit.” Letter of W. C. White to Dr. David Paulson, February 15, 1905. 

But, plagiarism seemed to run in the family. James White himself did not hesitate to plagiarize and thus came under his own condemnation. Later Ellen copied from him and formed a basis for her own book The Great Controversy. Walter Rea com­ments on this thusly:

’’One of the unwritten stories in Adventist history is the influence that James White had in forming the ideas and sentences that came out under Ellen’s name and pen. Although not noted as a literary writer or as a theologian, James did produce four published books. Two of these . . . were almost totally copied from others. The one on William Miller was taken from Sylvester Bliss (who in 1853 had written Memoirs of William Miller). The theology of Life Incidents was copied substan­tially from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews. Neither of these books was ever printed again under the name of James White as far as is known ... But they were indeed printed under another name, that of Ellen G. White, his wife, a few years after his death in 1881 — but under the title of The Great Controversy (1884 ). .. Comparison shows that words, sentences, quotations, thoughts, ideas, structures, paragraphs, and even total pages were taken from James White's book to Ellen’s book under a new title — with no blush or shame, no mention of her hus­ band, no thanks to Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews, for the hard work and theological insights of anyone.” The White Lie, pp. 222-223.

I encourage the reader to obtain a copy of The White Lie to see the full extent of the borrowing in the exhibits he presents. Strangely enough, constant denials have been made about Ellen White’s borrowing. In 1867 she wrote the following dis­ claimer. It referred specifically to health reform but is representative of far more than that, as we shall see. Note:

‘‘That which 1 have written in regard to health was not taken from books and papers ... My views were written independent of books or the opinions of others.” Manuscript 7-1867, or see Review and Herald, May 21,1959, p. 8.

A year before his death in 1881, James White published Life Sketches . . . of Elder James White and his wife, Mrs. Ellen G. White. The following quotation does not appear in any later publications. It is taken from that first edition, pages 328-329:

"Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testi­ monies has been learned from others? We inquire. What time has she had to learn all these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman, if she gives her ear to gossip, and then writes it out as a vision from God? In her published works there are many things set forth which cannot be found in other books, and yet they are so clear and beautiful that the unprejudiced mind grasps them at once as truth. . .. . If commentators and theological writers generally had seen these gems of thought which strike the mind so forcibly, and had they been brought out in print, all the ministers in the land could have read them. These men gather thoughts from books, and as Mrs. W. 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. W. find them? From what source has she re­ ceived 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 thoughts. And, certainly,  she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one. It evidently requires a hundred times the cre­ dulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others, and has palmed them off as visions from God, than it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her. ”

These statements cannot be misunderstood* Such a claim by James White was far, far from the truth. And, it strains credulity to accept that James White was ignorant of his wife’s extensive borrowing. The next quotation is from a letter written by Ellen White, and is most pointed:

“I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write.” Letter 37-1887, written to Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887, from Basel, Switzerland (White Estate).

And if that was not enough, we notice in the next quotation another disclaimer in 1904. So, from 1867 to 1904 denials were made that she had borrowed from any human source. Notice that she says it is "light that God has given me.” It is a claim that everything she wrote was of divine origin:

"I am glad that you are having success in selling my books; for thus you are giving to the world the light that God has given me. These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated. The instruction they contain is not of human pro­ duction.” Letter 339-1904, White Estate.

There is no doubt that they wanted to leave the impression that there was no borrowing at all being done on any subject. But such literary borrowing was done from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, Ellen White’s very first vision, that of De­cember, 1844, borrowed extensively from another Adventist, William E. Foy. Foy had two "visions” in 1842 and another in 1844. In 1845, shortly before his death,  he published and copy­ righted an account of his visions titled, "The Christian Exper­ence of William E. Foy.” 

Compare that title with Ellen White’s later publication in 1851, The Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White. Even the titles are similar. The SDA En­ cyclopedia, page 475, says that Ellen Harmon "heard Foy speak in Beethoven Hall in her home city, Portland, Maine, when she was but a girl.” Another interesting item is that Foy’s tract was printed in Portland, Maine, by J. and C. H. Pearson, two brothers. Their father, John Pearson, Sr., is mentioned by Ellen White in Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 64, so she was acquainted with the publishers of Foy’s visions as well. Of the father,  she says: "Father Pearson . . . Like a tender father he tried to encourage and com­ fort me, bidding me believe I was not forsaken by the friend of sinners.” I will take the space to show just a couple of instances of the extensive borrowing by Ellen White from William Foy:

“My guide now informed me what I must do, saying, ‘thy spirit must return to yonder world, and thou must reveal those things which thou has seen.’... I then answered him saying, ‘How can I return to yonder world?" . . . My guide then spread his wings, and brought my spirit gently to the earth ... William Foy, pp. 20-21. Emphasis supplied.

“And he (Jesus) said, ‘You must go back to the earth again and re­ late to others what I have revealed to you." Then an angel bore me gently down to this dark world. I begged my attending angel to let me remain in that place. I could not bear the thought of coming back to this dark world again. Then the angel said, ‘You must go back ... ' ” Ellen White, Early Writings, first edition, pp. 15 and 33, emphasis supplied.

*7 then beheld, countless millions of shining ones coming with cards in their hands. These shining ones became our guides. The cards they bore shone above the brightness of the sun, and they placed them in our hands, but the names of them I could not read . . . ” Foy, pp. 10-11, emphasis supplied.

"I saw four angels winging their way to the gate of the city. They were just presenting the golden card to the angel at the gate. ... I asked my attending angel for an explanation of what I saw. He told me I could see no more than... All the angels that are commissioned to visit the earth hold a golden card, which they present to the angel at the gates of the city as they pass in and out . . . ’’ Ellen White, Early Writings, first edition, pp. 30 and 32, emphasis supplied.

These are but samples of the extensive likenesses between the two which is easily seen by comparing their visions. A similar like­nesses can be made between Ellen White and Joseph Smith of Mormonism. She also borrowed from Mormon standard works. Joseph Smith was killed in the Summer of 1844, bringing him more national attention right at the height of Millerite expectations. One researcher points out that Ellen White especially liked the book of Alma in the Book of Mormon.

Francis D. Nichol, in his defense of Ellen White, says of The Great Controversy:

“We think that the unprejudiced reader of The Great Controversy, for example, will have no difficulty in concluding that the book gives evidence of a grand design that was not copied from human writings and that the limited borrowings from other authors do not dim the con­viction as to that grand design. Or, to change the figure: There is a pulsing life in that book that cannot be found in secular or church histories, certainly not in the histories from which Mrs. White borrowed some of her descriptions. We believe the life that pulses in that book is God-breathed — inspired of God.” Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 463.

We have already seen up to this point the lack of truth in that claim. But there’s more evidence to come.

The Great Controversy story goes back to a claimed vision in 1858. Therein Ellen White was instructed to write out the story for publication. That same year Volume I of Spiritual Gifts ap­ appeared with the title The Great Controversy. This volume of 219 very small pages was later expanded into the four-volume series, Spirit of Prophecy, in 1870-1884, comprising 1,696 pages. This in turn was further expanded into the five-volume Conflict of the Ages series, comprising 3,507 pages. It seems revelation needed to be expanded and revised periodically. However, at the time of the "vision” in 1858,  an interesting event occurred. In the Supplement of Volume 4 of the Spirit of Prophecy series, Arthur White, her grandson, wrote:

“Mrs. White never sought to avoid being influenced by others. Shortly after the Great Controversy vision of March 14, 1858, at meetings in Battle Creek held over a weekend, she told the high points of what had been shown her in that vision. Elder J. N. Andrews, who at the time was in Battle Creek, was much interested. After one of the meetings, he told her some of the things she had said were much like a book he had read. Then he asked if she had read Paradise Lost. She replied in the negative. He told her that he thought she would be interested in reading it... ”

He goes on to say that a short time later Andrews brought her a copy of Milton’s Paradise Lost, which she determined not to read at the moment, but placed on a high shelf in the kitchen. She then finished writing her account. Arthur White says — "It is apparent that she did later read at least portions of Paradise Lost, for there is one phrase quoted in Education." All of this could hardly be entirely truthful. Not only did Andrews see a similarity between Paradise Lost in her 1858 account of the Great Controversy, but it became even more interesting. Volume 1 of the Conflict of the Ages series is called Patriarchs and Prophets. Following is an interesting presentation from A Com­parative Study of the Fall of Man as Treated by John Milton and Ellen G. White. This was a master's thesis prepared by Adventist Ruth Elizabeth Burgeson at Pacific Union College. On page 73 she says:

“Referring to the preceding chapters of this thesis, one is impressed by the similarity of factual content in Paradise Lost and in Patriarchs and Prophets. In fact, the writer of this thesis found no disagreement between the two authors in stating significant facts. There were fre­ quent differences in the manner of a statement, in the amount of detail, in the emphasis given, or even in the exact order of a series of events, but none in facts pertinent to the Biblical story.

Of unusual significance is the correlation found in a number of instances where both authors depict with some detail an experience which is not found in the Bible. Among such events are the following:

1. The scene in heaven before and during the rebellion with the loyal angels trying to win the disaffected ones back to alleg­iance to God.

2. The warnings issued to Eve to stay by her husband’s side; her subsequent straying.

3. The elaborate setting for the actual temptation with Satan’s analyzed point by point.

4. The detailed picture of the immediate results of sin on Adam and Eve and on the animal and vegetable world about them.

5. The explanation of the basic reason for Adam’s fall: uxoriousness.

6. The angel’s chronicling of future events to Adam.

7. The feelings of both Adam and Even as they left the garden. These likenesses in the narrative on points where the Scriptures are silent intensify the question: Why are these two authors, living two hundred years apart, so much in agreement on major facts?”

The answer to that is, of course, that Ellen White depended on Milton for much of her material. Yet, her grandson claims she "sought to avoid being influenced by others.” And remember what Nichol said about there being a grand design "that was not copied from human writings.”

But, admissions continue to come in. Adventist Earl Amundson said at the Glacier View "Trial” of Desmond Ford:

“The time has come to be critical of our own method. We as Seventh-day Adventists have felt secure in that we have got the revealed truth; and no matter what others may say against us, we have God on our side and the prophet, Ellen G. White. Now we are discovering that much of what she wrote in Desire of the Ages and Great Controversy was copied from others. How do we really know what we claim to know? We are forced to ask questions on matters of interpretation ...” Authority and Conflict — Consensus and Unity, p. 12.

Donald McAdams, President of Southwestern Adventist College, said of the results of his own studies of Ellen White’s sources:

“ ... the historical portions of The Great Controversy that I have examined are selective abridgments and adaptions of historians. Ellen White was not just borrowing paragraphs here and there that she ran across in her reading, but in fact, following historians page after page, leaving out much material, but using their sequence, some of their Ideas, and often their words. In the examples I have examined, I have found no historical fact in her text that is not in their text. The hand­ written manuscript on John Huss follows the historian so closely that it does not even seem to have gone through an intermediary stage, but  rather  from  the  historian's  page  to  Mrs.  White's  manuscript,  in­ including historical  errors  and  moral  exhortations.”  Spectrum,  Vol.  10, No. 4, p. 34.

The rest of McAdam’s article on Shifting Views of Inspiration is an interesting insight into the controversy and findings up to that point, the Spring of 1980. One more point is important to look at from his article. He quotes Ron Graybill, an assistant secretary of the White Estate, who had presented some of his own findings on the subject. Graybill says:

“There does not appear to be any objective historical fact in Mrs. White’s account that she could not have gained from the literary sources on which she was drawing except in one detail. The overall impression gained from this study by this researcher is that it sustains McAdam’s main point — that the objective and mundane historical narrative was based on the work of historians, not on visions.” ibid., p. 35.

But, of course, this is the rule with Ellen White, not the exception. The old claims that have been made about Ellen White are becoming increasingly hard for Adventists to swallow.

One of the most recurring phrases used by Ellen White was "I saw,” or "I was shown.” This indicated that she was re­lating an "inspired vision” from God. We have seen some of the statements about her historical portions in her books, along with doctrinal ones as well, but what about the evident statements of what was revealed to her from God? Was there any copying there? We have noted that she relied on William Foy in her first few visions. But, such copying was being denied as recently as the Spring of 1981. Ron Graybill said, under the heading of "No clear example thus far”:

“It Is possible that we will yet discover some clear instance where Mrs. White says ‘I saw,’ referring to a specific vision, and then proceeds to describe that vision using words borrowed from other writers. This would not necessarily be difficult to harmonize with our belief that such material is still fully inspired. Thus far, however, we have no clear example of this. We know that after Mrs. White visited Zurich in 1887 she returned home and the next day described what she had seen with her physical eyes by using words borrowed from James Wylie’s History of Protestantism. Wylie had given a beautiful description of the striking scenery around Zurich, and Mrs. White used his words to describe what she had just seen herself. So it would not be surprising if she used the words of others to describe what she had seen in a vision.” Adventist Review, April 2,1981, p. 7.

It appears that she couldn’t even describe something she had seen on a trip without extensive borrowing from someone else. But, Graybill changed his tune shortly. In the Adventist Review of July 29,1982, he said:

“Since our last report on this topic (‘Did Mrs. White ‘Borrow’ in Reporting a Vision?’ Adventist Review. April 2, 1981, and Letters to the Editor, April 30>, research has located several further instances in which Ellen White used the language of other authors to report what had been revealed to her. Two examples will suffice ...” p. 3.

Notice that it went, within one year, from "no clear example” to "several.” Graybill went on to detail the source of the two examples. Among the attempts to justify what she did from Bible passages, he says:

“It could be that in some instances that Mrs. White, after experiencing a vision, Just happened to find words to describe it in a book she was reading. But in my opinion, it is more like that she sometimes read a passage in a book, was impressed by it, and later, in a vision, the same concepts, being true, were impressed upon her mind again.” Ibid., p. 5,

My, how convenient. With this admission in mind, let’s look at her Testimonies, Vol. 5. The authority of those "testimonies” has been dealt with in previous chapters. But, to keep the context in mind, notice on page 64 she says

"Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby in­ insulted the Spirit of God." 

Or, on page 66: 

"If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves if you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." 

Or, again, on page 67: 

"Weak and trembling. I arose at three o'clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication 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 — the precious rays of light shining from the throne. ” 

Now, that should be clear enough. So, we find the following on the very next page, 68:

“What voice will you acknowledge as the voice of God? What power has the Lord in reserve to correct your errors and show you your course as it is? What power to work in the church? If you refuse to believe until every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of doubt Is removed you will never believe. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith. Faith rests upon evidence, not demonstration. The Lord requires us to obey the voice of duty when there are other voices all around us to pursue an opposite course. It requires earnest attention from us to distinguish the voice which speaks from God.”

But, these statements were not original with Ellen White, but certainly didn’t come from God either! Notice the similarity with the following:

“We must not defer our obedience till every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of mistake is removed. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith, for faith rests upon prob­ ability, not demonstration. ... We must obey the voice of duty when there are many other voices crying against it, and it requires earnest heed to distinguish the one which speaks for God.” Daniel March, Night Scenes in the Bible, 1868, p. 131 (facsimile reprint from Kregel Publishing Co., 1979).

It is obvious where she got her material for her "testimony.” It was "borrowed” from Daniel March. In Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 141, is found the following statements of "I was shown”:

”1 was shown that one great cause of the existing deplorable state of things is that parents do not feel under obligation to bring up their children to conform to physical law. Mothers love their children with an idolatrous love and indulge their appetite when they know that it will injure their health and thereby bring upon them disease and unhap­piness. This cruel kindness is manifested to a great extent in the present generation. . . . Mothers who are doing this work will reap with bitterness the fruit of the seed they have sown. They have sinned against Heaven and against their children, and God will hold them accountable. The managers and teachers of schools ...”

When we compare this with another writer we find out where Ellen White got her "I was shown”:

“Parents are also under obligation to teach and oblige their children to conform to physical law for their own sake. The mother who suffers her children to eat irregularly, or violates the laws of their systems in any other way commits a crime against her offspring, against human­ity, and against Heaven, for which God will hold her responsible. How strange and unaccountable, that mothers should love their children so tenderly as to indulge them in what they have occasion to know may injure their constitutions and impair their happiness for life! May many children be delivered from such mothers, and from such cruel kind­ ness! . . . The managers and teachers of schools . . . ” L. B. Coles, Philosophy of Health, 1851, pp. 144-145.

She was heavily dependent on Coles in writing out her health reform ideas, which she passed off as coming from God, obed­ience being necessary to salvation. Remember that in 1867 she was claiming: 

"That which I have written in regard to health was not taken from books and papers . . . My views were written inde­ pendent of books or of the opinions of others.” (see p. 29). 

If we accepted that statement as factual, which we don’t, at least it is noted that by 1872 she was liberally borrowing from Coles and others.

In this chapter,  we have just barely touched the tip of the ice­ berg of Ellen White’s plagiarism, for that indeed is what it is. She was guilty of ’"copying or imitating the language, ideas,  and thoughts of another and passing off the same as one’s original work.” Whether we use the modern definition or the definition from her own day, it is the same. She stands convicted by her own pen.