56 Questions that critics are afraid to answer.

[djconklin]

1. Did Ellen G. White plagiarise?
2. Did Ellen G. White plagiarize by paraphrasing?
3. Was she was a millionaire?
4. Did she accumulate property while telling everyone else not to?
5. Did Fannie Bolton write Steps to Christ?
6. Did she engage in "wholesale plagiarism" of Conybeare and Howson?
7. Was she threatened with a lawsuit over her alleged plagiarism?
8. Did she take a dozen servants with her to Australia?
9. Did she plagiarize 80-90%("and possibly more" according to some web sites)?
10. Did she predict the San Francisco earthquake after it happened?
11. Did she say that only vegetarians will be saved?
12. Did she say that only sabbatarians will be saved?
13. Did the Library of Congress not allow her book The Great Controversy into the library because of the plagiarisms involved?
14. Was an entire chapter of Sketches from the Life of Paul was “taken entirely” from a sermon by Melvill?$5 will get you a ebook that answers the question for you.
15. Is it true that “there is no point in the entire chapter that had not already come to Mevill before her”?
16. Did she say that she saw people on Jupiter?
17. Did she made repeated claims that Jesus was coming in specific years?
18. Did she asked Washburn and Crisler to undertake a research of the Life of Christ and then appropriated it and published it as Desire of Ages?
19. Did she contradict Scripture (53, or 75, or "much more than 75") times?
20. Did she contradict herself?
21. Did she predict that England would enter into the American Civil War?
22. Did she copy her first vision from Foy?
23. Did she predicted that someone would be healed (and yet he died)?
24. Do SDA’s “worship” Ellen G. White?
25. Did Dr. Veltman prove that Ellen G. White plagiarized?
26. Were Ellen G. White’s visions were the result of a head injury during childhood?

Some can be answered in as little as 5 minutes. I have yet to meet one critic who spends that much time finding the truth on anything and never on the above.

When they err on such simple things as these, why should you believe anything they have to say about more complex questions, like what the Bible says or means?

[OldDad]

#1 and #2 are pretty much slam dunks - and since they are true, the other questions don't really matter...

Here's a link to an article from 1889 that shows EGW plagiarized... Is Mrs. E.G. White a Plagiarist?

And this site has some fascinating information from Walter Rea and others: Ellen White Exposed

[djconklin]

In order to prove, or disprove, if someone is a plagiarist in a given timeframe one must compare and contrast how other writers of the same genre handled the borrowing of material.  Since, to the best of my knowledge, I am the first and only one to have done that for this timeframe I can safely say that Ellen G. White was not a plagiarist.  The study has been published in a scholarly, refereed journal (http://www.plagiary.org/papers_and_perspectives2008.htm; "Analyzing Alleged Plagiarism in Nineteenth-Century Literature: A Case Study of Ellen G. White’s The Desire of Ages," by David J. Conklin, Jerry Moon, and Kevin Morgan.  Plagiary 2008 3(5): 1-29 (25 July 2008)).¹

One should also read Robert Macfarlane's Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199296507.do).

The sources you have linked to don't know what constitutes plagiarism,² they don't know what were the acceptable literary practices of the time, they don't know that paraphrasing is a legitimate literary activity (point #2 in my list) and worst of all they manipulate and distort the evidence³ (to the point of inserting material from Ellen G. White into her alleged source!).

NOTES:

1. The study looked at 47 authors; I have expanded on it and now have 98 in the study.

2. In Walter Rea's book he shows some 13 examples where Ellen G. White DOES put her sourced material in quotes and gives the source.

3. Evidence of the manipulation and distorting can be ssen by looking at the red highlighted material at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- this is older work and hasn't been updated (not my site!); for example, the current bibliography has ab't 625 items in it.

[OldDad]

So - "plagiarism was rampant at the time" is supposed to be a defense?  I thought all her stuff came to her in visions.  So the admission is, yes she did plagiarize, but so did everybody else back then?

Wow.

[djconklin]

So - "plagiarism was rampant at the time" is supposed to be a defense?

Plagiarism back then was taking the whole.  If you borrowed bits and pieces, polished them and put them in new settings then it wasn't considered plagiarism.  See Macfarlane's book for more detail.

I thought all her stuff came to her in visions.

That shows a "verbal inspiration" assumption.  She never taught that and her assistants certainly never practiced it--if they had they wouldn't have edited her writings and would have saved her original manuscripts.

So the admission is, yes she did plagiarize,

No, she did NOT plagiarize; the claimants are lying through their teeth and are selling you a pig in a poke.

but so did everybody else back then?

It was not a common practice.  There were cases of actual plagiarism.  The plagiarists were sued and lost in court (Dana is one example that I recall; one Thomas D. Shuplee was accused by another author and her publisher.  In that case, the Presbyterian Board of Directors took the unsold copies and pulped them and destroyed the plates.)  Note that Ellen G. White was never threatened with a lawsuit over her alleged plagiarisms--why not?

Note also that while the New York Times ran over 1,000 articles on plagiarism during her lifetime, none of the artciles refer to Ellen G. White.  The best the critics can do is to point to a newspaper with a circulation of about 200 at best.

[OldDad]

So basically you have to re-define "plagiarism," "vision," etc., and crack wise about the circulation size of a source...

There is mountain of evidence for EGW's plagiarism out there folks - simply google "ellen g. white plagiarism" and read some of them for yourself...

Highly recommended:

Asmund Kaspersen's book - "Ellen G. White -- The Myth and the Truth" - free online (chapter 10 is applicable here) CLICK HERE

Walter T. Rea's book - "The White Lie" - 9 chapters are available online - CLICK HERE

[djconklin]

So basically you have to re-define "plagiarism,"

You define terms by how they were used at the time.  As a different example, I am told that about 200 years ago the terms "liberal" and "conservative" meant the opposite of what they mean today.  Or, in older English the word "prevent" meant "let" or vice-versa (I forget--see the KJV)

That's why I have referred you to Macfarlane's book.

"vision,"

I didn't re-define that word in any shape, manner, or form.

crack wise about the circulation size of a source...

I made a statement of fact.  If that is considered to be a "crack" by some I can't help it.

There is mountain of evidence for EGW's plagiarism out there folks - simply google "ellen g. white plagiarism" and read some of them for yourself

There's lot of claims of "evidence," but given the fact that it has been manipulated and distorted you cannot trust anything that they say.  I have already searched the web (my bibliography shows that I've gone above and beyond that)--started about 6 years ago.  Note the red highlighting in the examples at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html and you'll see how the "evidence" you are given has been manipulated and distorted--i.e., they lied to you, they stole the truth from you.

Asmund Kaspersen's book - "Ellen G. White -- The Myth and the Truth" - free online (chapter 10 is applicable here) CLICK HERE

No evidence is presented. Also, if you get ahold of Donald R. McAdams "Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: A Study of the Treatment of John Huss in Great Controversy, Chapter Six, "Huss and Jerome"," the Appendix deals with Chapter 14, "Later English Reformers," (Ellen G. White Estate, 1977). you'll find a number of facts that contradict claims that are made by Kasperson.  This claim: "SDA historian Donald McAdams (Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians, 1974) points out that Hastings' book "The Great Controversy" and Ellen White's book "The Great Controversy"are remarkably similar" for instance, is flat-out false.

BTW, chapter 10 is found here: http://www.innsyn.com/english/egw_engelsk_htm/egw_eng10.htm: (point #6 in my list)

He claims: "In 1883 the Adventist denomination published a book entitled Sketches from the Life of Paul, by Ellen G. White. Problems arose almost from the start, when the striking similarities between Ellen's new book and the book The Life and Epistles of St. Paul by the British authors W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson (1852) were being discovered. In fact, the similarities were so striking that Conybeare and Howson threatened the Adventist denomination with lawsuit if the book was not withdrawn."

The average amount of literary similarity is a bit over 3%.  If C&H had threatened a lawsuit then how come their publisher is completely unaware of it?

He asks: "Who is the real author of Steps to Christ?" (point #5 in my list)

If Fannie Bolton wrote Steps to Christ, then how does one explain that some of it appeared under Ellen G. White's name before FB was even conceived?  And other portions (I'm working on a display to be published) were written by EGW before FB ever came to work for EGW?

He claims: "Research has been showing that the great proportion of material in Desire of Ages was borrowed from other authors, such as William Hanna, Daniel March, John Harris, and Alfred Edersheim. This has been fully documented."

Note that he doesn't tell where it has been documented.  That's your clue that you are being lied to.  Look at the evidence shown at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- does it show that the "greater proportion" of DA "was borrowed from other authors"?  Nope.  In fact, what it shows is that the "evidence" the critics show you has been manipulated and distorted.

[djconklin]

An example of the duplicity of the critics:

We were told:

are told:

"... for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself....

Ellen White, The Spirit of Prophecy Volume Four, p 277"

But, when you look on that page there's no such quote. The reality is:

"When the papal bull reached Luther, he said: "I despise it, and resist it, as impious and false. It is Christ himself who is condemned therein." "I glory in the prospect of suffering for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty; for I know now that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. Four (1884), page 117, paragraph 3

So, the critic made it out like Ellen G. White said what, in fact, was said by Martin Luther!

This is yet another example of why you cannot trust the critics of either Ellen G. White or the SDA church to tell you the truth. I will.

[zoonance]

Here are my own thoughts on the subject.  So - "plagiarism was rampant at the time" is supposed to be a defense?  I thought all her stuff came to her in visions.  So the admission is, yes she did plagiarize, but so did everybody else back then?

Wow.

[djconklin]

Hmm, repeat post, different poster!

>So - "plagiarism was rampant at the time" is supposed to be a defense?

It wasn't "rampant" at the time.  And the way you know what is, or is not, plagiarism at that time is to compare what they did in actual practice.  See Macfarlane's book.

>I thought all her stuff came to her in visions.

That's verbal inspiration; the Bible shows that it diodn't work that way, Ellen G. White didn't teach it, she taught plenary (thought) inspiration and her assistants didn't practice it ether (otherwise they wouldn't have edited her mss and would have saved them).

>So the admission is, yes she did plagiarize

She did NOT plagiarize.

>so did everybody else back then?

They did not.

[OldDad]

By today's definition and understanding of the word, EGW plagiarized.

[Amo]

As far as I know, the courts have never shut down, and are still open for business today.  For all the accusations, no one has had faith enough to try and prove the plagiarism charges in court.  Why do you suppose that is?  I can think of one good reason.

[djconklin]

>By today's definition and understanding of the word, EGW plagiarized.

By that standard (which is inappropriate) Matthew, Mark and Luke plagiarzed from each other (ab't 90% of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke), Shakespeare and Milton were plagiarists, etc..

Paull, H. M. Literary Ethics: A Study in the Growth of the Literary Conscience. (E. P. Dutton & Co., 1929).

"It is commonplace in ethics that practices once deemed innocent become gradually to be regarded as crimes as civilisation advances... The standard of morality changes with the ages. In no branch of human activity is the change more marked than in that of literature, which is, after all, a reflection of life." (page 13).

Pappas, Theodore Plagiarism and the Culture War; The Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Other Prominent Americans. (Hallberg Pub., 1998): 49.

"Tennyson was appalled by the "prosaic set growing up among us -- editors of booklets, bookworms, index-hunters, or men of great memories... [that] will not allow one to say, "Ring the bell" without finding that we have taken it from Sir P. Sidney, or even to use such a simple expression as the ocean 'roars' without finding the precise verse in Homer or Horace from which we have plagiarized it." This "prosaic set" that Tennyson, Pope, and others railed against was the new breed of scholar -- the "pendants without insight, intellectuals without love" -- who trivialized literature, distorted aesthetics, and sought prestige and honor not through originality but by impugning the originality of writers of proven talent."

[djconklin]

As far as I know, the courts have never shut down, and are still open for business today.  For all the accusations, no one has had faith enough to try and prove the plagiarism charges in court.  Why do you suppose that is?  I can think of one good reason.

Yeah, that's the point I keep bringing up.  Why didn't the critics of Ellen G. White who accussed her of plagiarism while she was alive let the alleged victims know about this?  Could it be because they knew they'd lose?  Why didn't they, at least, bring it to the attention of the major newspapers of the day?

[OldDad]

As far as I know, the courts have never shut down, and are still open for business today.  For all the accusations, no one has had faith enough to try and prove the plagiarism charges in court.  Why do you suppose that is?  I can think of one good reason.

Because the works she stole from are no longer protected by copyright?  You're right, that is a good reason...