“I must admit at the start that in my judgment this is the most serious problem to be faced…. It strikes at the heart of her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness.” —Dr. F. Veltman, “The Desire of Ages Project: the Conclusions,” in Ministry magazine, November, 1990, p. 11.
Seventh-day Adventists have long considered Ellen White to be a divinely-inspired prophet just like the prophets of the Bible. However, unlike Bible prophets, Ellen White was a prolific writer—producing an estimated 100,000 handwritten pages of manuscripts, for a total of 15 to 20 million words. Even though the Church’s leaders claim they do not believe in verbal inspiration, they have carefully treasured every word Ellen White wrote. To safeguard her words microfilm duplicates of her manuscripts have been established in various locations around the world. The Ellen G. White Estate, a subsidiary of the General Conference of SDA, supervises her manuscripts, revises her books and publishes new compilations of her writings.
At first glance, Ellen White’s literary accomplishments were far above average—especially when one considers she dropped out of school in the third grade. Seventh-day Adventists frequently compare her lack of education with her beautifully written books and conclude she had to be divinely-inspired to write them. But SDAs forget that what she wrote by hand was subsequently copied and edited by her secretaries (Davis, Robinson, White, Bolton), then further revised, enlarged and improved by copy editors and book committees at the Church’s publishing houses. All grammatical improvements made during her lifetime were subject to her approval.
Ellen White was also privileged to own a personal library containing nearly 2,000 books and thus was widely read. These facts are clearly stated by Ellen White, her secretaries, her book editors, the White Estate, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and even by those who firmly believe in Ellen White’s divine inspiration.
But was Ellen White inspired by God as Seventh-day Adventists claim? Were her writings inspired by God in the same way Bible writers were inspired? Did she write out what she directly received from God through dreams and visions? Or did she copy the writings of other authors? And if she copied, did she admit she copied? In her books did she give credit to those authors as her sources? Or did she deny she copied from others? Specifically, we must discover the truth about the source of her writings and teachings.
In the following quotations Ellen White is very specific as to the source of her letters, articles, books, and teachings:
“Some are ready to inquire: Who told Sister White these things? They have even put the question to me: Did anyone tell you these things? I could answer them: Yes; yes, the angel of God has spoken to me. … But … for the future, I shall not belittle the testimonies that God has given me, to make explanations to try to satisfy such narrow minds, but shall treat all such questions as an insult to the Spirit of God.” — Testimonies, vol. 3, pp. 314-315, written in 1873.
“The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of His people. … I have faithfully set before the offenders their faults and the means of remedying them, according to the dictates of the Spirit of God. … Thus has the Spirit of God pronounced warnings and judgments …” — Testimonies,vol. 4, page 14, written in 1876.
“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.” — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 293, written in 1860.
“Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.” —Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867, quoted in Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.
“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.” — Letter 90, 1906, quoted in Ellen G. White, by Arthur L. White, vol. 4, p. 393.
“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.” —Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67, written in 1882.
“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.” —Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691, written in 1889.
“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.” —Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 35, written in 1906.
The evidence is plain that Ellen White herself believed she was divinely inspired. She consistently taught that her visions were the source for the information she wrote in her letters, books, articles, and testimonies. Her husband, James White, strongly defended her claims:
“(Ellen White) does not ‘obtain the sentiments’ of her visions ‘from previous teaching or study.’“ — James White, in A Word to the “Little Flock,” p. 22, written in 1847.
But during her lifetime and over the succeeding years, information has repeatedly surfaced indicating Ellen White was not honest about the source of her information. Especially in the past three decades have researchers uncovered such a mountain of evidence proving Ellen White’s plagiarism that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was compelled to undertake its own investigation.
In January, 1980, Walter Rea (then an SDA pastor and college Bible teacher) presented to Church leaders the evidence he had discovered. Rea demonstrated Ellen White had copied so much from other authors that there is hardly an original thought in any of her books.
This was a terrible shock to Seventh-day Adventism. So the General Conference sponsored the Church’s own eight-year investigation of The Desire of Ages (then thought to be the most authentic of her many books) to determine if Ellen White really copied from other authors. Their research team was led by their own Dr. Fred Veltman, (then Chair of Pacific Union College’s Religion Department).
After Dr. Veltman’s initial presentation, a summary was published in the October and December, 1990, issues of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official Ministry magazine for clergy. Today, most SDAs pastors and lay people have no idea the Veltman report exists even though the full text is available through Pacific Union College.
The official Veltman report frankly concluded that not only had Ellen White voraciously copied the works of other writers, but both she and her co-workers had deliberately lied to cover up the truth of her copying. Here are two of the conclusions of the Veltman report:
“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 (plagiarism). 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.” —“The Desire of Ages Project: The Conclusions,” Ministry, November, 1990, p. 11.
When Dr. Veltman was questioned about Ellen White’s repeated claims that she only wrote what the Lord had shown her in vision and had not copied the works of other authors, he 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, herintegrity, and therefore her trustworthiness.” — Ibid., p. 14.
The official report of the Seventh-day Adventist Church concluded Ellen White consciously and deliberately copied from other writers, and that both she and her associates did not admit and even denied she copied! The myth that Ellen White wrote under the direct inspiration of God simply does not square with the facts the Church’s own official investigation has uncovered. And yet this information is rarely brought forward by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when they discuss the topic of Ellen White’s inspiration.
How wide-spread was Ellen White’s copying? Dr. Veltman concluded she had copied so much from other writers that:
“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 White’s writings on the life of Christ any general category of content or catalog of ideas that is unique to her.” —Ibid., p. 12.
Remember, this was not what Ellen White’s opponents were saying about her; this was the conclusion of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s own carefully chosen, official research team!
When Robert Olson (then secretary of the White Estate) was asked by David Jarnes (then associate editor of Ministry magazine) if he was satisfied with the validity of the Veltman study, Olson replied:
“I am totally satisfied with this study. No one could have done a better job—no one. He (Veltman)did it as a neutral person would have and not as one who is an apologist.” —“Olson Discusses the Veltman Study,” Ministry, December, 1990, p. 16.
Seventh-day Adventist lay people seldom stop to think that virtually everything they read about Ellen White is written by those who are “apologists”—those who are biased in favor of Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, and who have a vested interest in promoting the concept that she was divinely inspired. But notice, in commenting on the Veltman study, Robert Olson suggested this time the Church had produced a neutral, non-biased evaluation of Ellen White.
When Veltman researched Ellen White from what his Church considered a neutral perspective, the evidence led him to conclude there are serious doubts about “her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness.” During that interview, the then head of the Ellen White Estate, Robert Olson, went on to make some startling personal admissions about Ellen White. As you read these admissions remember they come from the man Seventh-day Adventists had commissioned to lead their defense of Ellen White and her divinely-inspired ministry. Here are Robert Olson’s admissions:
1. Ellen White contradicted herself.
“There are instances in her writings in which she differed with (contradicted) herself. I have to say I just don’t have an explanation for that kind of thing.” —Ibid., p. 17.
2. Ellen White copied Samuel Andrews’ chronology of Christ’s life when writing The Desire of Ages, thus her chronology can no longer be considered as inspired.
“You asked about changes in chronology—differences in the chronology of the life of Christ as presented in the pre-Desire of Ages and Desire of Ages texts owing to influence of sources (copying). We know exactly why she used the chronology that she did, because Marian Davis (Ellen White’ssecretary) tells us. Marian says, ‘In the order of chapters we followed Samuel Andrews’ harmony as given in his life of Christ.’ That’s why any changes were made that were made. No inspiration connected with such changes. I should say, no divine directive from the Lord telling her ‘This is the chronology.’ When I taught “Life and Teachings” at Pacific Union College I used The Desire of Ages to establish the sequence, the way it all happened. I wouldn’t do that today. Now I know that they were following (copying) Samuel Andrews.” —Ibid., p. 17.
3. Ellen White’s writings and theology changed over the years as she revised her mistakes.
“I consider the later writings to be more precise—more accurate—than some of her earlier ones…. I don’t like to talk about mistakes in inspired writings…. But to answer your question, there are some discrepancies (mistakes) there.” —Ibid., p. 17.
4. It is not up to the White Estate to decide which of Ellen White’s writings are Divinely inspired and which are not.
“I don’t believe it’s the role of the White Estate to determine what is time-conditioned and what is not. That’s up to individuals as they apply Ellen White’s counsels to their lives.” —Ibid., p. 18.
The Veltman study in 1988 did not present anything that the highest leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not known for generations. Problems over Ellen White’s copying had surfaced and had been admitted one hundred years earlier when she published her plagiarized book Sketches From the Life of Paul. Originally the book was published under the title of Spirit of Prophecy, volume 3. Later, the book was republished under the new name: Sketches From the Life of Paul.
However, the book suddenly dropped from print for nearly 100 years before it was reissued by theChurch’s Review and Herald Publishing Association in 1974. Just inside the front cover you will see a section titled “Preface to Facsimile Edition.” There you will discover this brief, but very unusual explanation as to why the book was discontinued:
“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 thesummer 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.” —Sketches From the Life of Paul, “Preface to Facsimile Edition,” 1974.
What was the “historical context” which caused Ellen White’s book to drop out of print? Arthur Daniells, General Conference president in Ellen White’s day, gave the answer. He said that while writing Sketches From the Life of Paul in 1878, Ellen White had copied so much from Life and Epistles of Saint Paul (written 30 years earlier), that its authors, Conybeare and Howson, threatened to make trouble for the denomination on account of her plagiarism. Since Conybeare and Howson’s book had not been copyrighted they may not have won a lawsuit, but they could have done something far worse: publicly exposed Ellen White as a plagiarist and liar. Thus it was in the Church’s best interest to immediately drop Ellen White’s plagiarized book, Sketches From the Life of Paul from publication (see page 18 for President Daniells’ testimony on this incident).
In 1919, four years after Ellen White’s death, the Seventh-day Adventist Church assembled its top leadership, theologians, editors, and scholars in an attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable decision about the validity of Ellen White’s ministry. They met at Church headquarters in Takoma Park/Washington, D.C., during a Bible Conference which was to last most of July and on in to August.
More than fifty people attended those meetings including:
- Arthur G. Daniells, President of the General Conference
- G. B. Thompson, Field Secretary of the General Conference
- W. W. Prescott, Field Secretary of the General Conference
- C. S. Longacre, Secretary of the Religious Liberty Association
- F. M. Wilcox, Editor of the Review and Herald
- L. L. Caviness, Associate Editor of the Review and Herald
- W. E. Howell, Editor of the Christian Educator
- O. A. Tate, Editor of the Signs of the Times
- M. C. Wilcox, Book Editor for the Pacific Press
- T. M. French, Head of the School of Theology at Emmanuel Missionary College (now Andrews University)
- W. H. Wakeham, Bible Teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College (now Andrews University)
- C. M. Sorenson, History Teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College (now Andrews University)
- M. E. Kern, President of Foreign Mission Seminary (now Columbia Union College)
- H. C. Lacey, Religion Teacher at Foreign Mission Seminary
- C. L. Taylor, Head of the Bible Department of Canadian Junior College
- J. N. Anderson, Bible Teacher at Washington Foreign Mission Seminary
- W. G. Wirth, Religion Teacher at Pacific Union College.
On July 30 and August 1 the meetings focused especially on Ellen White as the “Spirit of Prophecy.” According to the official minutes, eleven times during those two days the highest officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were asked for an authoritative decision on her inspiration — and eleven times the leaders avoided that decision. The flavor of their discussions is savored through the following brief excerpts:
“F. M. Wilcox: ‘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 (Ellen White’s) 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 cannot conceive that it is necessary for us to answer every question that is put to us. … I think if we destroy faith in them (the 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.’“
“J. N. Anderson: ‘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 someday?’“
“C. L. Taylor: ‘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.’“
“A. G. Daniells: ‘I think more mischief can be done with the Testimonies by claiming their verbal inspiration than can with the Bible.’“
“M. E. Kern: ‘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.’”
Those were the questions that the highest Seventh-day Adventist leadership wrestled with at that Bible Conference back in 1919 just four years after Ellen White’s death. They clearly recognized their dilemma: how do we admit Ellen White was not verbally inspired—how do we admit she was unreliable in every area of her teaching—and yet retain the membership’s faith in the Church, its organization, and its doctrines?
On the other hand, how do we as leaders who know the truth about Ellen White, maintain our own integrity by continuing to teach the old Seventh-day Adventist myths? And if we do teach the old myths about Ellen White, aren’t we just setting up the Church for a future crisis when this truth does come out? By keeping quiet won’t we be misguiding the membership? What was their verdict?
It became very evident to the leaders that, even after her death, Ellen White’s influence on the membership of the Church was too great, and the consequences too risky for any official statement to be made repudiating her ministry. In the end they quietly let the myths continue while they hoped future developments would not destroy the Church. It is helpful, however, to look at what those top leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church unofficially agreed on back there at the 1919 Bible Conference concerning Ellen White.They did agree on eleven critical issues regarding Ellen White and her ministry:
1. Ellen White was not verbally inspired.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘I take the position that the Testimonies are not verbally inspired, and that they have been worked up by the secretaries and put in proper grammatical shape. … It is no kind of use for anybody to stand up and talk about the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, because everybody who has ever seen the work done knows better, and we might as well dismiss it!’“
“F. M. Wilcox: ‘I have known for long years the way in which Sister White’s works were brought together and her books compiled. I have never believed in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies.’“
“G. B. Thompson: ‘They are not verbally inspired,—we know that,—and what is the use of teaching that they are?’“
2. Ellen White was not infallible as a person.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘Now on infallibility. … When you take the position that she was not infallible, and that her writings were not verbally inspired, isn’t there a chance for the manifestation of the human? … And should we be surprised when we know that the instrument was fallible, and that the general truths, as she says, were revealed, then aren’t we prepared to see mistakes?’“
3. Ellen White was not infallible in her exegesis of Bible texts.
“C. L. Taylor: ‘I would like to ask you to discuss for us the exegetical value of the Testimonies. … May we accept the explanations of Scripture that she gives? Are those dependable?’
“A. G. Daniells: ‘It may be that in some very critical matters there may be some difficulties.’“
4. Ellen White is not an authority on which translation of the Bible to use.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘I do not think Sister White meant at all to establish the certainty of a translation. I do not think she had that in mind, or had anything to do with putting her seal of approval on the Authorized Version or on the Revised Version when she quoted that.’“
5. Ellen White is not accurate on world history nor is she accurate on the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘I have never gone to her writings, and taken the history that I found (there), as the positive statement of history regarding the fulfillment of prophecy. We were warned against using Sister White as a historian. She never claimed to be that. We were warned against setting up statements found in her writings against the various history that there is on a fact….’“
“H. C. Lacey: ‘… Isn’t the final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual value rather than its historical accuracy?’“
“A. G. Daniells: ‘Yes, I think so.’“
6. Ellen White is not to be used to settle controversies arising from different interpretations of Scripture.
“W. W. Prescott: ‘Some of the brethren here remember very well a serious controversy over the interpretation of the 8th chapter of Daniel, and there were some of the brethren who ranged themselves against what was called the new view, and they took her writings to uphold their position. She wrote to those brethren and instructed them not to use her writings to settle that controversy.’“
“J. N. Anderson: ‘How far would you take that word from Sister White to be a general statement about her writings?’“
“A. G. Daniells: ‘I think it was especially on the case then, but I think we have to use the same judgment about using her writings in other cases.’“
7. Ellen White’s “health messages” are not blanket regulations for everyone.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘Take this question of health reform. It is well known from the writings themselves and from personal contact with Sister White, and from common sense, that in traveling and in knowledge of different parts of the world, that the instruction set forth in the Testimonies was never intended to be one great wholesale blanket regulation for peoples’ eating and drinking.’“
8. Ellen White repeatedly copied from other authors without giving credit to them, and while claiming to be inspired of God.
“A. G. Daniells: ‘Now you know something about that little book, (Sketches From) the Life of Paul (originally published in 1883). 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! … There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings. Of course I could have said this, and I did say it, that I wished a different course had been taken in the compilation of the books. If proper care had been exercised, it would have saved a lot of people from being thrown off the track. …’“
“W. W. Prescott: ‘I do not want to charge anybody. But I do think great mistakes were made in that way. … When I talked with W. C. White about it … he told me frankly that when they got out Great Controversy, if they did not find in her writings anything on certain chapters to make the historical connections, they took other books, … and used portions of them. …’“
9. Ellen White’s Divine inspiration is questionable.
“F. M. Wilcox: ‘I would like to ask, Brother Daniells, if it could be accepted as a sort of rule that Sister White might be mistaken in details, but in the general policy and instruction she was an authority. … It seems to me I would have to accept what she says on some of those general policies or I would have to sweep away the whole thing. Either the Lord has spoken through her or He has not spoken through her; and if it is a matter of deciding in my own judgment whether He has or has not, then I regard her books the same as every other book published. I think it is one thing for a man to stultify his conscience, and it is another thing to stultify his judgment. It is one thing for me to lay aside my conscience, and it is another thing for me to change my judgment over some views that I hold.’“
“A. G. Daniells: ‘We did not create that difficulty, did we? We General Conference men did not create it, for we did not make the revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it. It was all done under her supervision. If there is a difficulty there, she created it, did she not?’“
10. If humans have to correct Ellen White’s writings, then how can anyone claim her work was divinely-inspired?
“W. W. Prescott: ‘Here is my difficulty. I have gone over this (The Great Controversy) and suggested changes that ought to be made in order to correct statements. These changes have been accepted. My personal difficulty will be to retain faith on those things that I cannot deal with on that basis. … If we correct it here and correct it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other places?’“
11. If the Church had told the truth about Ellen White it would not be in the difficulty it is in now.
“G. B. Thompson: ‘I think we are in this fix because of a wrong education that our people have had. If we had always taught the truth on this question, we would not have any trouble or shock in the denomination now. But the shock is because we have not taught the truth!’“
After addressing each of these issues and coming to unofficial agreement on them, General Conference President A. G. Daniells requested that the official minutes of their discussions be locked up for the next fifty years. The best opportunity for the Church’s leadership to communicate “the truth” about Ellen White had passed.
The official records of the 1919 Bible Conference were filed away until December of 1974, when Dr. F. Donald Yost discovered them wrapped in paper in a vault at General Conference headquarters. The packages contained some 2,400 typewritten pages transcribed from the official stenographic notes taken at the meetings.
Subsequently, pertinent excerpts were printed in Spectrum, Volume 10, Number 1.
So who really wrote those “divinely-inspired” books?
The facts are that Ellen White copied from hundreds of books. Her manuscripts were refined by her secretaries and book editors to include information compiled from still other authors. Church leaders, such as W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniells suggested revisions in crucial areas, and some of those suggestions were incorporated. Finally, the end product combining the talents of scores of individuals was published under the name of Ellen White and given the stamp of divine inspiration. In this, Ellen White’s writings are totally different from the writings of Bible prophets: none of them needed so much assistance!
But there is more. Over the years since Ellen White’s death the White Estate continues to revise her writings. In 1992 Seventh-day Adventist readers of the Review and Herald were informed about this process by Paul A. Gordon, then Secretary of the White Estate:
“Is it legitimate to change, abridge, or simplify Ellen White’s writings? 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. … 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.” — Paul A. Gordon in “Ellen G. White’s Writings – 2,”Adventist Review, Nov. 19, 1992, pp. 8-9.
More important than the need to correct the errors in Ellen White’s writings is the need to officially recognize the myth of her divine inspiration, and to admit Ellen White was a plagiarist.
The official report of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s own Veltman study concluded Ellen White and her associates copied from the books of others while claiming originality through divine inspiration. Their research showed nothing she wrote in The Desire of Ages was new or original to her.
Robert Olson, then head of the Ellen White Estate, admitted the veracity of the Veltman report, and stated he also had questions for which he had no answers.
Looking over the records of the 1919 Bible Conference, you saw Ellen White’s copying not only affected the writing of The Desire of Ages, but also The Great Controversy, Sketches From the Life of Paul, and now the many compilations that the White Estate has produced after Ellen White’s death.
The truth about Ellen White’s writings has been officially known by the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s leaders at the highest levels for more than a century, but they have failed to communicate it effectively to either the ministry or the laity.
As a result the Seventh-day Adventist Church is losing members who have seen their leaders ignore Ellen White’s explicit counsel. They cannot understand why their leaders do not follow her “inspired” messages. Still other members are leaving the Church because they are personally convinced Ellen White lacked divine inspiration, but their Church continues to officially teach and require them to affirm her “divinely-inspired” prophetic ministry.
Current estimates indicate that somewhere between two million and five million Seventh-day Adventists have left the Church in North America. That means over the years for every new convert to Seventh-day Adventism in North America, approximately three members have left the Church.
As G. B. Thompson said back in 1919:
“We are in this fix because of a wrong education that our people have had. If we had always taught the truth on this question, we would not have any trouble or shock in the denomination now. But the shock is because we have not taught the truth!”
However, the greatest debacle for the Seventh-day Adventist Church still lies ahead. Currently ninety percent of the Church’s membership is located overseas, primarily in what are called “third world”countries. In the past five years, with the advent of wide-spread access to the Internet, an immense amount of factual information regarding Ellen White is being rapidly disseminated around the world. Despite the Church’s threats and attempts to intimidate, numerous web sites are currently publishing this information in all the major languages of the world.
News commentator, Paul Harvey, has often said: “You can run but you can’t hide” from the truth. Perhaps he had read Jesus’ statement: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The ultimate question for Seventh-day Adventist leaders is this: What will be the shock to the Church when nine million Seventh-day Adventist members in overseas countries become fully aware that their Church’s leaders “have not taught the truth” about their “prophetess?”
White Washed. Copyright © 2011 by Sydney Cleveland. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2011. Revised and enlarged 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2011. All Scripture quotations—except where otherwise noted—are from Holy Bible, New International Version, © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved. Life Assurance Ministries, Inc.
White Washed is a comprehensive look at Ellen White’s prophecies, practices and publications. Sydney Cleveland examines her claims of inspiration, her dreams and visions, the doctrines she endorsed, her personal practices which opposed her teachings, and the effects of her claims on the Seventh-day Adventist church. This book is a well-documented overview of the little-known reality about Ellen White and her long service to Adventism.
- White Washed - July 1, 2021
- 13. A Word to Aspiring Prophets - October 8, 2020
- Appendix B – SDA Jewelry and Dress - October 8, 2020