Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Exact quotes requested

The section on Ellen White states what I think is a big misrepresentation: "The Ellen White Estate maintains that Ellen White's literary dependence is no different from other authors of the day, and that the success of her writing is an indication of her inspiration. " That characterization is misleading and overly simplistic. The real response given by the church [1] encompasses far more than the ignorant summary that is given in the Wikipedia article. --Perspicacious 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Ansell 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference attached to the current statement is an excellent reference, which backs up the current statement (see the section on Plagiarism on that reference). The link supplied above to the BRI is of little relevance regarding plagiarism. Another link of interest is [[2]].-Fermion 07:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The excellent reference came from me. The ignorant summary is someone else's doing. --Perspicacious 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From the selections quoted below (The Plagiarism Charge and The "Copying" Charge), what justifies the statement, "the success of her writing is an indication of her inspiration"? --Perspicacious 13:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the statement decried as an "ignorant summary", I would like to say that the statement was put up as a good faith attempt to move forward. Labelling it as ignorant suggests an unwillingness to collaborate towards a more nuanced statement. I still fail to see the relevance of the BRI quote. My statement would be better intepreted as saying, inspite of the fact that Ellen White borrowed from other sources, her work was still inspired, indeed she may have been inspired to borrow certain material. I think the statement on the Estate's page can be understood to encompass this view.

What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 461). -Fermion 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Plagiarism Charge

Was Ellen White a plagiarist?

Ellen White often made use of literary sources in communicating her messages. In the Introduction to one of her most popular books she wrote:

In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works" (The Great Controversy, p. xii).

Ellen White's use of other authors was not limited to historical or geographical material, but included other subject areas as well. Research has found that she enriched her writings with choice expressions from her reading more extensively than had been known, although the amount that has been documented thus far is a small percentage (less than 2 percent) when measured against her total literary output.

In 1980 Dr. Fred Veltman, at that time the chairman of the Religion Department of Pacific Union College, undertook a detailed analysis of Ellen White's use of literary sources in her book The Desire of Ages, a study which took eight years to complete. Copies of the full 2,561-page report were distributed to Seventh-day Adventist college and university libraries throughout the world. The complete report, including its 100-page summary, is also available online at the General Conference Archives web site. Look for "Life of Christ Research Project" under "Categories" at http://archives.gc.adventist.org/ast/archives/.

Because she included such selections from other authors in her writings, critics have charged Ellen White with plagiarism. But the mere use of another's language does not constitute literary theft, as noted by Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark, and copyright cases. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page legal opinion in which he concluded "Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy." Ramik points out several factors that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. 1) Her selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use.'" 2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author.

Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 461). --Perspicacious 12:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I block-quoted your Great Controversy paragraph. I think it makes it easier to read. Ken 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Copying" Charge

The biblical writers copied from one another without attribution of source, and apparently felt no compunctions about such practice:

Micah (4:1-3) borrowed from Isaiah (2:2-4). The scribe who compiled 2 Kings (18-20) also borrowed from Isaiah (36-39). Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark as well as from another common source. None of these ever acknowledged their borrowing. (See The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 178, 179.)[60]

In fact, many scholars openly acknowledge that some 91 percent of the Gospel of Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke when they wrote their respective Gospels!

Of perhaps greater interest, however, is the fact that the writers of the Bible would from time to time copy (or "borrow") the literary productions of noninspired authors, including pagan writers. For example, about 600 B.C. Epimenides wrote:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one-The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest for ever; For in thee we live and move and have our being.[61]

Sound vaguely familiar? Well, the Apostle Paul twice used some of these words, once in Titus 1:12 ("One of themselves, even a prophet of their own said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies") and again in his sermon on Mars Hill in Athens, in Acts 17:28 ("For in him we live, and move, and have our being").

Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12. A generation earlier Rabbi Hillel had already written: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof."

The thoughts-and even some of the words-of the Lord's Prayer may be found in earlier ritual prayers known as the Ha-Kaddish.[62]

Substantial chunks of John's Apocalypse-the Book of Revelation-are lifted bodily from the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraphical work known to have been circulated some 150 years before John wrote the last book of the Bible; and even Jude borrowed a line ("Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints") from the same source.[63]

Indeed, some 15 apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books are cited in our New Testament-generally without attribution of their source.

Doctor Luke tells us that he did a substantial amount of research and investigation in sources then available to him before he wrote the Gospel that bears his name:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, . . . it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1, 3, 4, NASB).[64]

In commenting on this passage, Robert W. Olson perceptively remarks:

Luke did not acquire his information through visions or dreams but through his own research. Yet while material in the gospel of Luke was not given by direct revelation it was nonetheless written under divine inspiration. He did not write to tell his readers something new, but to assure them of what was true-"that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." What Luke wrote was not original, but it was dependable. God led Luke to use the right sources. (See The SDA Bible Commentary, vol 5, p. 669). --Perspicacious 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I have 4 reactions. First, thanks for putting this on the talk page so everyone can contribute to it. My second reaction is: to what is this a response? Having addressed issue of plagiarism, what is this a response to? Does this critism exist? Where are the sources for it, and the sources for the section? My third reaction is: Is this original research? Someone else, ie, not you, has to make the argument and you have to cite it.

My 4th and least important reaction is, I think before any such section goes live, it should be re-worded to be more matter-of-fact. For example, you wouldn't open up a Britannica and read paragraphs leading with "Of perhaps greater interest, however," or "Sound vaguely familiar? Well," -- that can of course be fixed pretty easily, so the first 3 points are far more important. I'll let someone with a greater knowledge of the topic comment on the content itself. Ken 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See the section called The "Copying" Charge at http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Inspiration-Revelation.htm :: Perspicacious 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks to me like a particular institution's response to the issue of plagiarism. It's curious they selected the word copying, but just because they did, doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an entire section on it. We'd need a source for the accusation, not just the response. Ken 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that what you seem to be asking for has already been supplied. The paragraph above the church's respone provides references to three very significant sources. The first, Canright, was an early critic of Ellen White, he is frequently hailed by anti-Church groups. Ronald Number's book has a reputation as being very carefully written, in part due to the long process of review that the book was subjected to by the White Estate prior to publication. Walter Rea's book, to my understanding, raises nothing new to previous accusations. However, his acrid writing style had a damaging effect on the church at a sensitive time in the early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermion (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, but I think it should really be under the plagiarism section. Ken 05:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken, you are very generous. My comments follow exactly what User:Emyth said [[3]]. User:Perspicacious seems to be engaged in an apologetic exercise rather than writing an encyclopedia. Much of the above "work" of Perspicacious is taken directly from [[4]] and, as such, is original research. -Fermion 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The registered owner of adventistbiblicalresearch.org is the General Conference of SDA. --Perspicacious 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My purpose in quoting adventistbiblicalresearch.org on this talk page was to protest an "ignorant summary" and to try to get you to stop inserting your personal POV. An encyclopedia should summarize the Church's actual response. Recall this request: From the selections quoted below (The Plagiarism Charge and The "Copying" Charge), what justifies the statement, "the success of her writing is an indication of her inspiration"? --Perspicacious 06:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The requested response was supplied [5]. One could turn the tables and ask how the phrase "the World's redeemer" can be construed as NPOV. -Fermion 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church is entitled to fair representation. The sentence you don't like states: "The Adventist Church responds by saying that Ellen White's use of sources is similar to the practice of the Bible writers, prophets, and the world's Redeemer." The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that Jesus Christ is the world's Redeemer. It's clear that the Church's answer to the plagiarism charge includes Jesus' use of uncredited material from contemporary authors. Read the reference at http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Inspiration-Revelation.htm --Perspicacious 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues at stake here. The first is that although you and I know and accept the Adventist position that Jesus Christ is the world's Redeemer, referring to Him as such in the article is not the best writing.

The second issue is who is saying what. I am not happy with the phrase "The Adventist Church" as the references are from the BRI and Ellen White Estate. You will recall that my suggestion had the Ellen White Estate, rather than Adventist Church in general. I think the distinction is necessary for a number of reasons. First, although the BRI and the Ellen White Estate are official church organisations and thus represent the theological position of the church, they may be at odds with sentiment in the churches among "rank and file" (or indeed, their positions may be unknown and largely irrelevant to many new converts in growing world fields such as Africa and South America). Second, the Ellen White Estate deliberately takes a more cautious approach to Ellen White than many Adventist scholars. The reason for this is pastoral concern to those members who still view Ellen White higher than perhaps they should. For this reason the fact that the Ellen White Estate even acknowledges literary dependence is significant and is worthy of noting in the article, hence my choice of phrasing.

On a personal note, I hope you can see from the above that labelling my suggestion as "ignorant" may have been premature. -Fermion 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus must be included in the response and I'm willing for all the editors to vote on the best way to include Him. I believe that "The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists responds by saying..." is better so let's go with that for the time being. --Perspicacious 07:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, I reverted your edit stating that your response was the official SDA church response. Just because an institution is sponsored by another, does not make the former institution the same as the latter. I think all the editors agree on this. Ken 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find in the supplied references the section on Jesus using other sources, could somebody point it out to me please. I once had the privilege of asking Dr Allan Lindsay for his response to The White Lie, he pointed out that the book of Revelation can be shown to draw a large amount of material from, from memory, the book of Enoch (obviously not part of the canon). I would appreciate if someone could find a church document that says as much. -Fermion 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Coma

I'm having trouble with this statement:

It is frequently interpreted from various speculations on the incident that Ellen White spent three weeks in a coma and that a brain trauma might explain her visions.

The interpretation is not that White was in a coma -- every biography or source you can find says she was in a coma for three weeks. Even her own estate says as much. The interpretion is regarding the attribution of her visions to that incident. The fact that White was in a coma is a matter of settled fact. Ken 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not settled fact. See this White Estate page: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/visions.html --Perspicacious 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which fact is not settled? Every account I have found says that White experienced a coma. The statement possibly needs to read:

...as a result, White was placed in a comatose state for three weeks. It is speculated that this may have been the cause of her reported visions.

Try to separate event facts from opinion facts and reference them separately, above I have; 1) White experienced a coma. 2) This may have caused her visions. MyNameIsNotBob 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to call you up and read the cited White Estate page to you? Or must I copy and paste http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/visions.html here? --Perspicacious 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that from a physiological point of view there is a difference between a coma and a state of "amnesia". The latter is merely a lack of coordinated brain activity caused by a Traumatic Brain Injury, the former is a lack of brain to body communication totally. I see this as a disputable point. Ansell 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From the WhiteEstate website[6]:

During her childhood Ellen assisted about the home and helped her father in the manufacture of hats. At the age of nine, while returning home from school one afternoon, she was severely injured in the face by a stone thrown by a classmate. For three weeks she was unconscious, and in the years that followed she suffered greatly as a result of the serious injury to her nose.

And the definition of coma, from my Oxford American College dictionary:

coma n. a state of deep unconsciousness that lasts for a prolonged or indefinite period, caused sp. by a sever injury or illness.

The site you linked calls it a "stupor". Here's the definition of stupor, from the same dictionary:

a state of near-unconciousness or insensibility. a drunken stupor

My thinking is, when people get drunk and are about to pass out, it's a stupor. When people get hit with a rock and fall unconcious for three weeks, it's a coma. Ken 04:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a reference where it says that she was unconscious, and simply not totally coherent during those three weeks? The current quote points to something which is not coma. Sorry! I didn't notice, have to check out that quote first! Ansell 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we reconcile the quote above with the following quote:

"Couperus says that “after a brief interval of consciousness she became unconscious again,” then adds: “For a head injury to produce a coma or unconsciousness lasting three weeks is not common and usually suggests severe brain insult."[7] Ansell 04:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main Ellen G. White article says coma, but isn't cited. I would say the more difficult quotes to reconcile would be both from the White Estate:

Couperus alleges that Ellen was in a coma or unconscious state for three weeks due to the direct effects of her head injury. This interpretation is not correct.[8]

...

At the age of nine, while returning home from school one afternoon, she was severely injured in the face by a stone thrown by a classmate. For three weeks she was unconscious, and in the years that followed she suffered greatly as a result of the serious injury to her nose.[9]

It sure seems like to me that the almost universally accepted truth is that she was unconcious. The leap from unconcious to coma seems very short to me, and the other Wikipedia article makes it. Perhaps it should read, she was unconcious for three weeks, which is widely considered to be a coma? I'm not entirely happy with that, because almost by definition, that is a coma. Ken 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes from her books, "Gifts, vol. 2, p. 8." and "Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 10" should be investigated. They are the sources for the non-coma state according to Couperus. The bio on the otherhand lacks this verifiability. Ansell 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Those present were not aware that I was so seriously injured. I had walked but a few rods when I grew dizzy and faint. My twin sister and my schoolmate carried me home. I have no recollection of anything for some time after the accident. My mother says that I noticed nothing, but lay in a stupid state for three weeks. No one thought I would live except my mother. For some reason she felt that I would not die. A kind neighbor, who had interested herself much in my behalf, at one time thought me to be dying, and wished to purchase a robe for me. Mother said to her, "Not yet;" for something told her that I would not die."

"As I aroused to consciousness, it seemed to me that I had been asleep. I was not aware of the accident, and knew not the cause of my sickness. Friends often visited my parents, and looked upon me with pity, and advised them to prosecute the parents of the child who had, as they said, ruined me. But mother was for peace. She said that if it could bring me back health and natural looks again, then there would be something gained, but as it was, she would only make herself enemies by following their advice." Spiritual Gifts vol 2 pg 8. Ansell 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, please note that my edits regarding Ellen White are not vandalism under Wikipedia's definition, and as such, your revert is not appropriate. Please refer to the talk page regarding disputes over NPOV. Ken 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacing an accurate statement with a false statement is vandalism. --Perspicacious 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Ansell 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, as Ansell notes, no it isn't.

Secondly, some things are unclear regarding your edit. Other things need improvement. The phrase reveal many sources used is POV. The term Bible writers doesn't read well. The phrase in which McMahon points to the accuracy of the health principles espoused by White. is also POV.

Finally, a third party's response is not an "official" response by any standard. Institutions that derive funding from each other, share board members, and are otherwise affiliated are still separate institutions. This is true especially of larger institutions. For example, Catholic Charities and its subsidiaries often have divergent views from the Catholic Church. NASA statements are not official United States statements, even though NASA derives funding from the US government. Likewise the White Estate and your other sources certainly have ties to the SDA Church, but their opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the church, and by no means are they official church responses. I see nothing on the White Estate's website, or adventistbiblicalresearch.org, to indicate that they are acting as a proxy for the SDA church, or that their statements constitute official church statements. Am I missing something? (Pending your review of my statement, I've added the citation-required template to your statements in question.) Ken 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Straight reverts are making it difficult to track changes on this page. I like where the section on plagiarism is going. There are a few improvements that I am waiting for comment on though. 1. What is the signficanc of the BRI quote, and 2. Where if anywhere in the supplied references can I see comment on the Golden rule? I am not disputing its accuracy, rather I would like it properly referenced.-Fermion 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the answers to my questions. The document from the BRI is quite long and I had missed the section on "copying". -Fermion 04:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)