The Plagiarism Claim

[djconklin]

I recently created an analysis and table that analyzed:

John Fleetwood, Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
William Hanna, The Life of Christ
Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord *
Daniel March, Walks and Homes of Jesus
Lyman Abbott, A Life of Christ *
Frederick Farrar, Life of Christ
Alfred Edersheim The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ

* Neither of these books were in Ellen G. White's library.

Back in 1988 when his report came out Dr. Veltman stated that in order to understand if Ellen G. White was a plagiarist or not we needed to compare how her alleged sources interacted with each other. To the best of my knowledge no one has done this till now.

I found that:

1) Hanna has only one phrase "from" Fleetwood (how many phrases could be traced to other sources is unknown at this time);

2) Seven phrases in Trench can be "traced" to Fleetwood and Hanna.

3) March has 8 phrases that are similar what what his predecessors wrote.

4) In Abbott we find 3 phrases.

5) Farrar has 11 phrases.

6) Geikie has 10 phrases.

7) Edersheim has 14 phrases.

8) Ellen G. White has 3 phrases, plus one "from" Abbott (which she didn't have in her library).

If you want more details email me at djconklin@aemail4u.com (djconklin@aemail4u.com) and I'll send you the whole study.

[seangoh]

wow that's a new way of backing ellen white against plagiarism accusations. i agree it's highly necessary to understand the culture in those days in order to understand the person being studied.

[djconklin]

wow that's a new way of backing ellen white against plagiarism accusations. i agree it's highly necessary to understand the culture in those days in order to understand the person being studied.
The kicker is that Dr. Veltman pointed to the need for this kind of study back in 1988 and no one has ever done it. Of course, having just "finished" (as far as I can!) analyzing chapter 77 which compares 17 potential sources with EGW (some of which EGW didn't have in her library, and yet! we find about 19 snippets that are similar to those books!) and then with each other. This involved 17+16+15+14+13+12+ ... etc. comparisons--it is no wonder none of the critics have ever done the necessary work!

If you want more details email me at djconklin@aemail4u.com (djconklin@aemail4u.com) and I'll send you the study.

[seangoh]

Thanks for the offer djconklin, i'm sure what you have would be a resource for study. Now i know who to look for if i want to study more into this issue. :)

[seangoh]

hey djconklin, not sure whether you know, but do check out Ellen White Summit 2005. I've heard all the mp3s there and it has helped me tremendously in understanding Ellen White better and how to deal with critics. It also addresses the issue of plagiarism too. Click here (http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/)

[djconklin]

Continueing the same study mentioned above I now have 36 sources that I have compared with each other. One source copies virtually 95-99% of his source.

I'm currently working on getting some of this published (possibly three journal articles).

Thanx Seangoh for the link!

The talk by Jud Lake was especially interesting. I can add to his "research model" by noting that we have no evidence that other writers weren't inspired. The critics simply assume it.

[seangoh]

oh now they have videos! Thanks!

[djconklin]

Ingraham, page 81

He stopped, and turned upon them a look so pale, and marred with sadness and anguish, that they both stood still and gazed on Him with amazement at such a change.

Ingraham, skipping down to page 92

"He turned his pale countenance full upon me, and extended toward me his emaciated hands, while he smiled faintly, and blessed me and said:

skipping down _21_ lines

Worn to a skeleton by long abstinence, weak through suffering, He looked but a shadow of himself.

As compared with EGW (DA, 147):

There were in the throng some who at Christ's baptism had beheld the divine glory, and had heard the voice of God. But since that time the Saviour's appearance had greatly changed. At His baptism they had seen His countenance transfigured in the light of heaven; now, pale, worn, and emaciated, He had been recognized only by the prophet John.

Does anyone believe that EGW copied the underlined words?

[djconklin]

Ingraham, page 402

Here Rabbi Amos could speak no more to Him, for the crowd dragged Him off the court of Gabbatha, and so down the steep street, in the direction of the gate of the kings, that leads out to Cavalry, the public place of execution, where the Romans, since they have been masters of Jerusalem, have executed criminals by their cruel mode of crucifying. At the gate, a Roman Centurion took Him into custody under arms, and escorted Him, followed by the vast multitude.

Rabbi Amos accompanied the multitude, keeping as nigh to Jesus as the Roman soldiers, who marched on each side of Him, would let him. On the way, as they crossed the open space where once stood the palace and the statue of Antiochus Seleucus, the eyes of the Rabbi were attracted by the cries and pointed fingers of many of the people, to the body of a man lying dead at the foot of a withered fig-tree. Upon drawing nearer, he

Page 403

recognized the features of the man Judas, who had so basely betrayed his Master! The spectacle which he exhibited was revolting, and horrid to look upon! About his neck was wound a fragment of his girdle, the other half being still secured to a limb of the tree, showing how he had met his fate. The cord had broken by his weight, and being a fleshy man, he had, most dreadful to relate, in the fall burst asunder, and the hungry dogs that infest the suburbs, were feeding upon his bowels. With cries of horror, several of the mob drove them away; but the Roman Centurion, whom Pilate had ordered to crucify Jesus for the Jews, directed four of his soldiers to convey the hideous corpse from sight, and see that it was either burned or buried.

"If," said Rabbi Amos to John, who now rejoined him, "if the accuses of Jesus are to be punished like this man, this will be a fearful day for the men of Jerusalem. Judas, the betrayer, dies before his victim dies, and by his own hand. This looks like Divine retribution, and, as if Jesus were, in truth, the favored Prophet of the Highest."

Ellen G. White (DA, page 722):

Later that same day, on the road from Pilate's hall to Calvary, there came an interruption to the shouts and jeers of the wicked throng who were leading Jesus to the place of crucifixion. As they passed a retired spot, they saw at the foot of a lifeless tree, the body of Judas.It was a most revolting sight. His weight had broken the cord by which he had hanged himself to the tree. In falling, his body had been horribly mangled, and dogs were now devouring it.His remains were immediately buried out of sight; but there was less mockery among the throng, and many a pale face revealed the thoughts within. Retribution seemed already visiting those who were guilty of the blood of Jesus.

Is it really likely that Ellen White who didn't have Ingraham's book in her library copied the underlined words?

[djconklin]

What's the use of posting evidence when they don't look at it?

[tall73]

here is the information that I mentioned in another thread that relates to changing historical references on the evidence of review of the current sources:

I don't recall seeing that yet--can you show me what you found (over on the "orphaned" plagiarism thread)??

Check out this article from the White Estate. It chronicles the suggestions of Prescott in the 1911 revision (for lack of a better term) of the Great Controversy. It shows his interactions with Mrs. White and the estate on various points.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/gc-prescott.html

Here is an example that relates rather closely to what we are discussing. It is a small matter, of which there are a number of similar ones in the article:

Prescott:

8. Page 50: It is declared that "the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope.' " The definite reference for this ought surely to be given, if such instance can be found: if no such instance can be found, it does not seem proper to make this assertion. In all my reading I have not found one such instance, although I have found instances where others have applied this term to the pope.Mrs. White and the Estate's response
Response: Criticism accepted. The suggestion led to a careful investigation by the staff at Elmshaven and an extended outreach. While there were published works making this assertion, no statement was found in authoritative Catholic sources. Wording changed for accuracy of expression: Comparison of the two versions

1888 book read: "It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ, invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. More than this, the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope,' assumes infallibility, and demands that all men pay him homage."
1911 book reads: "More than this, the pope has been given the very titles of Deity. He has been styled 'Lord God the Pope,' and and has been declared infallible. He demands the homage of all men." An Appendix note was added giving Roman Catholic sources on the title of the pope.

[tall73]

As I understand from your pm, you read the article previously. I picked the particular example because it showed a change of a claim, based on information not present when compared to sources.

[djconklin]

Check out this article from the White Estate. It chronicles the suggestions of Prescott in the 1911 revision (for lack of a better term) of the Great Controversy. It shows his interactions with Mrs. White and the estate on various points.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/gc-prescott.html (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/gc-prescott.html)

This is an excellant article; I enjoyed reading it very much! Thanks for reminding me. I printed it off and dl'd it.

I'll have to go through the 63 suggestions he made to see if there was any change in sources (that's what I was aiming it--since I'm studying the plagiarism issue that's something I need to know.). In glancing through it it seems to me that in some cases Prescott was being too "picky" on the wording (#2 & 5 for example). In a few cases, I forget which I agreed with Prescott and not the White Estate!

[tall73]

Well doubtless there were times where they may have not made the right call. But the point was at least they were making every effort to correct mistakes.

EGW's goal was always to get it out to the people quickly. If it were perfect it would be too late!

But then she endorsed cleaning up mistakes later. A good approach really.

If I see any that specifically switch sources I will let you know.

[djconklin]

Good grief! In my latest study (which we hope to get published) I have a footnote that is two pages long!#

I am currently working on preparing a paper (maybe two) to be published in a scholarly refereed journal on the subject.

#Recently, I discovered what we would call blatant plagiarism (a good 95%!) that has not been known for the past 240 years. So, we're re-doing it to have two articles.

The critics are well aware of how damaging this work is: it shows that their analysis on this subject was superficial at best (one scholar in the field stated that most who make the claim* are "tyros" who are "ignorant of law and literature." *Other scholars have estimated that 90% of the claims are false.) and guided by false presuppositions. This calls into question all of the other claims against Ellen G. White.

[djconklin]

For those who wish to dl'd Dr. Veltman's study from the GC archive web site (goto: http://www.adventistarchives.org/documents.asp?CatID=13&SortBy=1&ShowDateOrder=True and click on "Life of Christ Research Project" on the left hand side) but are running Linux go to: http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins

[djconklin]

I just ran across a web page yeterday that said that (Martin Eldon "Ellen's Plagiarisms," Babylon Forsaken Ministries; found online at http://www.babylonforsaken.com/borrowing.htm) claims that pages 317-450 of Great Controversy contain "a great deal of material [that] is borrowed from Ellen's late husband's book "Life Incidents". Now, they fail to point out that James White's book wasn't copyrighted and most importantly that she does cite her sources (one of which was the biography of William Miller by Sylvester Bliss) on pages: 319, 321, 323, 324, 325, 329, 330 (twice), 331, 333 (twice), 334 (twice), 335, 336, 337, (nothing in chapter 19), 357, 358, 359, 360 (twice), 361 (twice), 362 (twice) 363, 365, 375, 377 (twice), 384 (three times), 385 (twice), 386 (twice), 387 (twice), 388, 389, 397 (three times), 401 (twice), 406, 407 (from James White's "Life of Wm. Miller"), (nothing in chapters 23 or 24), 440, 441, 447 (twice), 448 (twice).

Now if they really were interested in the subject what they should do is compare what quotes Ellen and James have from Sylvester Bliss with each other and then with the oldest copy of Bliss's work they can get. As I recall all three were different!

[icedragon101]

TThe talk by Jud Lake was especially interesting. I can add to his "research model" by noting that we have no evidence that other writers weren't inspired. The critics simply assume it. could you define what you are saying. I am uncertian about this.


Oh an by the way nice to see someone from singapore

[djconklin]

The talk by Jud Lake was especially interesting. I can add to his "research model" by noting that we have no evidence that other writers weren't inspired. The critics simply assume it.
could you define what you are saying. I am uncertian [sic] about this.

It's fairly simply: the critics claim that EGW "copied" from uninspired writers. They have no proof that these other writers were uninspired--the critics simply assume it.

BTW, I'm not from Singapore.

[djconklin]

Dale Ratzlaff recently wrote ("Open Letter to Jud Lake," http://www.ratzlaf.com/JudLake2Long.pdf (Nov. 13, 2006): footnote 13) that "Rea has found sources for almost every page of The Great Controversy, sometimes, every paragraph." Well, if this was true then why is it that Rea skips entire chapters: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41? Secondly, for more than just a few of the chapters the coverage he gives is very short, 1-4 pages in length. This certainly isn't anywhere near enough to prove the assertion.

[Sophia7]

It's fairly simply: the critics claim that EGW "copied" from uninspired writers. They have no proof that these other writers were uninspired--the critics simply assume it.

BTW, I'm not from Singapore.

Dale Ratzlaff recently wrote ("Open Letter to Jud Lake," http://www.ratzlaf.com/JudLake2Long.pdf (Nov. 13, 2006): footnote 13) that "Rea has found sources for almost every page of The Great Controversy, sometimes, every paragraph." Well, if this was true then why is it that Rea skips entire chapters: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41? Secondly, for more than just a few of the chapters the coverage he gives is very short, 1-4 pages in length. This certainly isn't anywhere near enough to prove the assertion.

EGW acknowledged that she copied from other writers in The Great Controversy and that she didn't always give them specific credit, nor did she view them as inspired or authoritative; she just thought that they were well-spoken, so she used their words: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. {GC xi.4}

[djconklin]

That kind of "disclaimer" was typical for the time. Second, we should note that most people don't want to see footnotes (which they still didn't do in the 1911 edition of Great Controversy); so much so, that a modern writer of history (Ambrose) got chewed out for not noting his sources -- and part of his defense was the beginning part of this sentence. Third, some of what is claimed to be copy-work could, and should, be written off as cryptomnesia -- about 99.9% of the claims of this, that, or the other was copied can't be proven and should be disregarded. Finally, we should note when people say Ellen White "copied" the question we should ask is "How much was copied? Does it support the 80-90% claim, or not?". It's like dealing with the Bible critics who claim that the Bible "is filled with errors and contradictions." How many of the alleged errors and contradictions do I have to prove wrong to eliminate the "filled" claim? And when I show that multiple claims can be dismissed because of a lack of research, what does that say about the rest of their "work"? The same thing happens with Ellen White--how can one be a millionaire if you're $20K in the hole? If the critics can explain that then I know all sorts of people who'd like to talk with them!

What is more interesting in regard to EGW's writings is that

1) W. W. Prescott felt that credit should be given and some of the wording changed. This lead to the 1911 edition.
2) There was an edition in 1907 in which this didn't take place. So, that means that sometime between 1907 and 1911 literary consciousness changed so as to expect credit to be given.
3) This consciousness did not spread to other genres of literature that EGW wrote.

The critics who are eager to attack Ellen White never note this kind of phenomena.

"nor did she view them as inspired or authoritative"

1) the quote in the preface says nothing about the writer being inspired.
2) the preface says: "since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority" not that they were authoritative, but rather, they weren't be cited as authorities.

[Sophia7]

It's fairly simply: the critics claim that EGW "copied" from uninspired writers. They have no proof that these other writers were uninspired--the critics simply assume it.

Are you saying that they were inspired? What difference does it make in terms of the plagiarism claim if they were or not?

[djconklin]

Are you saying that they were inspired? What difference does it make in terms of the plagiarism claim if they were or not?

What I am saying is that we have no idea if any of them were inspired. So, to claim that they weren't assumes evidence that we don't have.

Let's say that they are inspired: where did the words and ideas come from? Aren't we really trying to tell God who and how He can inspire people?
---
Just read this article: McCabe, David P., Anderson D. Smith, and Colleen M. Parks "Inadvertent Plagiarism in Young and Older Adults: The Role of Working memory Capacity in Reducing Memory Errors," found online at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~dmccabe/McCabeSmithParks.pdf (no date given).

B. F. Skinner once remarked "... one of the most disheartening experiences of old age is discovering that a point you have just made -- so significant, so beautifully expressed -- was made by you in something you published a long time ago". The authors then note that this means "plagiarism does not have to be intentional, and can occur without conscious awareness." Cites as an example in which Mark Twain "inadvertently plagiarized nearly an entire book dedication from Oliver Wendell Holmes." Twain responded with: "substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and [are] daily used by the garner with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them" {citing Braddy, N. Anne Sullivan Macy: The Story Behind Helen Keller. (Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1933): pg. 162.}

[Sophia7]

What I am saying is that we have no idea if any of them were inspired. So, to claim that they weren't assumes evidence that we don't have.

I agree. I was just wondering why it matters to either the critics or the supporters. Whether these other writers were inspired or not doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on whether EGW was inspired.

[djconklin]

It does not matter to me if the other writers were inspired or not. I simply pointed out another one of the many flaws in the "thinking" by the critics on this issue.

On the other hand, have you ever looked back at an episode and now you see how God was working with you at that time (whether you learned the lesson or not at that time is yet another issue) and yet you didn't know at the time that God was working with you?

[djconklin]

From a recent podcast:

1. Was Ellen White a plagiarist according to the laws of her day?

First off, we should note that one cannot be charged with plagiarism in a court of law. You would be charged with copyright infringement. However, it is better to use the legal standards because they are made explicit vs. the subjective "I'll know it when I see it" syndrome. It has been noted that defining plagiarism is like defining pornography and art. What you call pornography, I might call art, and vice-versa. What you might call plagiarism, I might call it great literature (like the plays of Shakespeare). But, if we follow the standards that the courts have laid down, then we can be more objective when analyzing the evidence. We only have two problems then: one, is the bad habit of applying today's standards to that of the past, and the second is that we need to differentiate the scope of the plagiarism. It isn't fair to the accused to use the same word for a minor offense when the same word is used for those who plagiarize whole paragraphs.

Back to your question "Was Ellen White a plagiarist according to the laws of her day?" The short answer is no. Now for the why: The Copyright Act of 1790 provided protection for a term of 14 years (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher5/copyright.htm). So, any "source" for which that term has expired is now in the public domain and is free to be used. Likewise, any work which was not copyrighted is free to be used. Secondly, and even more importantly, is the fact that the court would look at the tone and tenor of the respective works to see if the latter work was an independent creation or not. For example, in 1845 there was a court case EMERSON v. DAVIES which stated that "The question is not, whether the materials which are used are entirely new, and have never been used before; or even that they have never been used before for the same purpose. The true question is, whether the same plan, arrangement and combination of materials have been used before for the same purpose or for any other purpose. If they have not, then the plaintiff is entitled to a copy-right, although he may have gathered hints for his plan and arrangement, or parts of his plan and arrangement, from existing and known sources. He may have borrowed much of his materials from others, but if they are combined in a different manner from what was in use before, and ... if his plan and arrangement are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copy-right in the book embodying such improvement. ... In truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which, in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." (Emphasis added)

Using the last two points we can note that one scholar in the field (Gladwell, Malcolm "Something Borrowed," The New Yorker (11/22/2004); found online at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/041122fa_fact?041122fa_fact.) said that "The final dishonesty of the plagiarism fundamentalists is to encourage us to pretend that these chains of influence and evolution do not exist, and that a writer's words have a virgin birth and an eternal life." Studies in the field of literature have shown that this is NOT the case.

[freeindeed2]

From a recent podcast:

1. Was Ellen White a plagiarist according to the laws of her day?

It doesn't matter what the law of her day was. It doesn't matter what the laws of our day are. She copied the works of others and claimed them to be the voice of God through the messenger (herself).

[djconklin]

>It doesn't matter what the law of her day was.

The law reflects the milieu in which she wrote. She was NOT a plagiarist by the laws and custom of her day and age.

>She copied the works of others

The hard part lies in proving it--most critics can't do this because they have never looked at the original sources.

From what I have learned recently (copied means 16 words or more, or 100 character strings) it looks like about 99.9% of the so-called evidence has to thrown out.

[djconklin]

2. Was Ellen White a plagiarist according to the laws of our day?

Again, the answer is no. The same legal standards that existed in Ellen White’s day exist today as well. This is why the critics can’t afford to have anyone look at this issue in the courts. I have been on online forums and noted that Ellen White was not a plagiarist according to the law and they very quickly claim that this isn’t a legal issue, but an ethical one – to which the correct response is, how ethical is it to claim that someone violated an ethical standard that cannot be proven in a court of law? What the critics are really saying is that the law is wrong and only the critics know which way is really "up" – are we really supposed to believe that? The real reason why the critics can’t afford to take this claim to court is because in a court of law they’d have to actually prove their claim and they can’t do it! This is why Ramik, an attorney who looked at this issue, said he’d love to defend Ellen White on this issue. He'd like to do it because he wouldn't have to do much. The accusers would get up and do all their hand-waving and show what they call "evidence." And then Ramik could get up and ask the judge to dismiss the charge on the basis that the accusers hadn't proved their case and the judge would have to agree!

One writer in the field said that the claim of plagiarism is only true in 1 in a 100 cases -- he also noted "most claimants ... are honest ... but thoroughly mistaken. Many of them can also be termed fanatics ...." A playwright noted that the reason many of the claims of plagiarism fail they are brought up by "tyros" who are "ignorant of law and literature." There are a lot of people who make claims ab't plagiarism who have no idea of what they are talking about. They don't even know that they don't know. They are thinking in a very simplistic and wooden manner and assume that a dictionary definition says it all -- if it did, then why is Ellen White being accused of plagiarism even when she does give her source(s)? I know of about a dozen cases where that takes place (see Walter Rea's book, pgs. 226-248). A web site claims that pages 317-450 contain "a great deal of material" from Her husnbands book Life Incidents. In fact, not once does she use that book. She does cite Sylvester Bliss's biography of Wm. Miller and once her husband's work on William Miller. Counting all the citations together I came up with 54 sources being duly noted (out of 7 chapters, 3 chapters had nothing in them).

Secondly, we can ask how logical is it for her to be accused of copying from a book that had not been printed yet? Her book The Great Controversy was first published in 1888, but she is accused of copying from an edition of John Nevin Andrew's book History of the Sabbath that didn't come out till 1912 -- and the 1912 book is a heavily revised edition by Conradi which adds materials not found in previous editions of Andrew's book and yet Ellen White is accused of copying that additional material! In another case, Ellen White is accused of copying from a book she didn't even have in her library! [I]If she did copy material from either, or both, of these books, then the critics have just supplied irrefutable proof that Ellen White was a prophet! This is yet another example of how the critics have not thought things through.

Now we can ask, why did Conradi add the extra material? It turns out that in that day and age they were very flexible ab't what could be done with a pre-existing text. I have found the same kind of thing happening with Fleetwood's Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

There is one more consideration we need to be aware of: what if, we did a systematic and comprehensive examination of every single sentence Ellen White ever wrote and that in all of her writings we happen to find only a handful of sentences that are exactly the same. To put it another way: how dirty do you have to be to be called dirty? If someone came up to you and said some guy was dirty and you go and check and you find that there's a smidgen of dirt under one fingernail; should you consider the source that called him dirty credible? Remember what I said about defining plagiarism is like defining pornography and art? In a previous era, for a woman to show a bit of ankle was considered risque. In a recent case on plagiarism they talked about "instances" of alleged plagiarism present in the accused author's work -- how long is an "instance"? Is it one word, two words, a short phrase, a long phrase, a paragraph, what? Were all these alleged "instances" of the same length? Hearing someone called a plagiarist doesn't tell you anything.

[djconklin]

3. What books have you analyzed?

I have looked at a couple of chapters in each of Great Controversy and Steps to Christ. I have examined in a lot more detail something like 60+ chapters in Desire of Ages and I have looked at all 32 chapters in Sketches on the Life of Paul. The total amounts to ab’t 100 chapters overall. To the best of knowledge no one has done this much work.

4. What was the procedure you followed in this analysis?

First, what I did was to get ahold of the alleged sources through interlibrary loan and in ab’t a dozen cases actually bought copies of these alleged sources – to date I have yet to see a single online critic having done this. They simply assume that they are being told the truth. They are completely unaware of how badly the evidence has been manipulated and distorted.
Now that I have the alleged source(s) I then create a double column in which I tried (as much as possible) to show entire paragraphs and pages of the alleged source(s) in one column and Ellen White's book in the second.
A short side-bar here: while using a double-column analysis is the usual way of presenting the evidence it is fraught with difficulties. A NYC lawyer, named Alexander Lindey, who specialized in these type of cases noted (short version here) that the problem is that the critics, because they have an axe to grind, typically only present what is similar and either ignore completely, or disregard, any and all of the differences in the texts. He went on to note that this is the reason why courts do not like to see this type of analysis. I'm assuming that by showing entire paragraphs and pages that I am over-coming that difficulty.

Then what I did in the table is that where there are words that were exact I applied a specific color to those words. Where the words were similar (like synonyms), I applied a different color -- one online critic claimed I had ignored synonyms -- this tells me he hadn't even looked at the evidence I presented. Then I compared what Walter Rea had in his book and Dr. Veltman had in his study with that of what I had. I found that there are cases where Rea clipped sentences from the alleged source(s) at the beginning, or the middle, or the end of the sentence (in one case he did it with Ellen White's book as well) without telling the reader that he had done so. Those words I colored in red. In some cases, he clips the sentence at the beginning and capitalized the next word to make it look like that was the first word of the sentence. I colored the mis-capitalized letter in yet another color. Material from the paragraphs that was ellipsed I colored in yet another color. Material from the paragraphs that was ignored without telling the reader that it has been ignored I colored in yet another color.

What we see in the resulting tables is that in order to claim Ellen White copied material from other authors she would have had to been flip-flopping back and forth through her alleged sources -- doing that with one source is bad enough, but several? Is that really believable and reasonable?

[djconklin]

5. We are told that Ellen White borrowed tons of concepts and words from her contemporaries, does your analysis bear this out?

This seemingly simple question has multiple parts. First, did Ellen White borrow words from her contemporaries? The short answer is yes and her contemporaries did the same thing with each other. They saw nothing wrong with this and no court would have convicted them of infringing on the rights of others for the reasons given above.

Hidden within the question "Did Ellen White borrow words from her contemporaries?" is yet another question: how much did she borrow from others? The answer is very little, and in most cases, decidedly inconsequential as compared with her whole work -- and, by the way, her contemporaries did the same thing.

In one case, on Sketches, we find that in one chapter there is nothing for page after page, paragraph after paragraph that is similar to Conybeare and Howson's book on the life and work of Paul. Then in one paragraph there's about two sentences that have a great deal of literary similarity. And then, page after page, paragraph after paragraph for the rest of the chapter there is nothing. I went back and looked at the similarity I did find. There wasn't enough to prove that she actually copied it directly out of Conybeare and Howson, but it is obvious that she knew the words. Let's assume, however, that she did copy those words; if I could I'd ask her "Why did you bother? You wrote better than they did!"

There is yet another question that is hidden within these questions: how do you know, or prove, that the words were borrowed? It could simply be a case of cryptomnesia. In one psychological study on this I found an example that was right on par with what we tend to see in Ellen White. This phenomenon in which people forget that they had previously read the material has tripped up such figures as Neitzsche, Freud, and Hellen Keller. (Brown, Alan S. & Dana R. Murphy "Cryptomnesia: Delineating Inadvertant Plagiarism," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15/3 (1989): 432-442; Brown, Alan S. & Hildy E. Halliday "Cryptomnesia and Source Memory Difficulties," American Journal of Psychology 104/4 (Winter 1991): 475-99; Swan, Jim "Touching Words: Hellen Keller, Plagiarism and Authorship," The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Edited by Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi (Duke University Press, 1994): 57-100; Taylor, F. Kraupl "Cryptomnesia and Plagiarism," British Journal of Psychiatry 111 (1965): 1111-8). B. F. Skinner once did it to himself! (Brown and Murphy (1989); McCabe, David P., Anderson D. Smith, and Colleen M. Parks "Inadvertent Plagiarism in Young and Older Adults: The Role of Working memory Capacity in Reducing Memory Errors," found online at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~dmccabe/McCabeSmithParks.pdf (no date given). Mark Twain was once accused of plagiarizing "nearly an entire book dedication from Oliver Wendell Holmes." Twain responded with: "substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and [are] daily used by the garner with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them." {Ibid., citing Braddy, N. Anne Sullivan Macy: The Story Behind Helen Keller. (Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1933): pg. 162.}But, the online critics, because they have not researched the subject at all,and because they are in a rush to condemn, are completely unaware of this.

So, how do we prove if material was copied? There are a couple of ways we can do this. Back in 1988, Dr. Veltman noted in his study that in order to answer the question of plagiarism one needs to compare and contrast how other writers in the same genre and day and age of Ellen White handled the borrowing of material. Here we are almost 20 years later and I am the first and only one to have done this! In doing these studies, I learned that according to probability calculus the odds of any two authors using the same six words by chance is about a trillion to one. But, in doing this study I have also found some 2 dozen cases where two authors have the same six words but they are used in completely different contexts! This suggests that words are completely interchangeable units that can be used in any number of a variety of contexts without having been directly copied.

Now, I recently ran across an article on "A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature" where the author applied the same technique to the issue of plagiarism (Trotten, J. "A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design In Nature," (1999); found online at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html). He states that one needs a string of letters and spaces of 100 or more long, to say with certainty that it was copied. This confirms another study that was done on the Synoptic Gospels which said if you have a string of words 16 or more long and it isn't poetry, a song, or a saying then it was copied (McIver, Robert K. and Marie Carroll, "Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem," Journal of Biblical Literature 121/4 (2002): 667-87).

This also suggests that we should follow the advice of a recognized expert in plagiarism, Dr. Keith R. St. Onge, who suggested that we should go no lower than the level of the sentence ("The Threshold of Plagiarism," Perspectives on the Professions 13/1 (1993); found online at http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/perspective/pers13_1july93_2.html) -- the combined effect of all these observations is that ab't 99.9% of the alleged evidence against Ellen White should be thrown out -- I only know of one case which is 44 words long and if I remember correctly I was the one who found it.

The second part of your original question would be about Ellen White borrowing concepts from others. This is a very interesting subject. First of all, ideas and concepts are expressed in specific words. Thanks to the work of Dr. Fortin on this subject we now know of a case in which there is a great deal of similarity of wording between Ellen White and Dr. Calvin Stowe (Fortin, Denis "Ellen G. White as a Writer: Case Studies in the Issue of Literary Borrowing," Available online at http://www.andrews.edu/~fortind/EGWWhite-Conybeare.htm). But, if we actually read what both authors are saying we see that Ellen White did NOT borrow his ideas!

Secondly, the claim is disingenuous. The critics are playing a game with our head. They cannot prove, and have not proven, that Ellen White plagiarized 80-90% of her material as is claimed, they can't prove that she plagiarized by paraphrasing (we were told to do that in high school!); but, all of a sudden, they can prove (but, in fact, they never do) that she plagiarized ideas. When one deals with the online critics one repeatedly see's this down-ward spiral in which they can't prove claim A, so they shift to claim B, when they can't prove it, they change to claim C, etc., etc..
Most people who are inclined to condemn Ellen White and the SDA church never ask to see the evidence for the claims that are made -- they simply assume that it is true; I check, and so far, the critics have repeatedly failed to prove their claims. So, how many times do we have to check their claims and find them to be false before we realize that these people can't be trusted to tell us the truth? Ellen White once wrote that "the truth can lose nothing by close investigation" (1888 Materials, (Aug. 5, 1888): 38). My examination of the evidence has proven that to be the case over and over again. It is always the claims of the critics which fail the test.

[djconklin]

I'm currently reading Marjorie Plant's The English Book Trade: An Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books. (George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1939) and I found this:

The author quotes one, George Knight, who said that during his childhood in the early 1800's "not many of the working people could then read the newspapers." (page 54)

So, part of what we need to look at is audience abilities and expectations -- would the audience expect to see and would they understand what is going on when they run across quote marks, footnotes and a bibliography?

Note also the timeframe that is mentioned.

[djconklin]

6. If I wanted to find more information on your research what should I do?

Once this Q&A is posted on the web you'll have the web link that will take you directly to some, but not all, of my work.

The easiest way to answer this is for you to do a search in a search engine looking for the phrase: "An Analysis of the Literary Dependency of Ellen White" (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html) -- in Google and Yahoo the web page that has some of my work is the first item listed. In MSN, 5 web pages are listed and mine is the last one -- look for the word "INDEX" in the description of the site.
I would also recommend that one search for the "General Conference Archives," (http://ast.gc.adventist.org/) then click on "Adventist Archives" and then click on "Life of Christ Research Project (http://www.christianforums.com/documents.asp?CatID=13&SortBy=1&ShowDateOrder=True)" there you will find all of Dr. Veltman's study that you can download and read. As you can see it is readily available to anyone (vs. the critic's claim that it isn't).

[djconklin]

I just read Canright's "A Great Plagiarist," Chapter 10 The Life of Ellen White. found online at http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/can10.htm; printed on 2/24/2007

Canright repeatedly presents hearsay as evidence. Makes claims of extensive copying without offering supporting evidence. And, with his linking the claim with a statement about "divine revelation" he reveals that he assumes "verbal inspiration." Claims that Ellen White "copied a large part of her book" on the life of Paul from Conybeare and Howson's book. I have analyzed the whole of both books and found that the average amount of literary similarity is 1.8833% -- is this "large"? Repeats the claim that the publishers of Conybeare and Howson's book threatened a lawsuit -- without offering any sort of corroborating evidence to support it. Notes that the "writers of the Bible frequently quote one from each other, but with due credit" without informing the reader that this isn't all the case. Note a similarity of phrasing between Ellen White's Great Controversy with Robert Pollok's Course of Time without informing the reader that Ellen White did not have that book in her library. Claims that Ellen White copied from her husband's work on the Life of Wm. Miller without offering any proof and claims that her husband's work was "itself a copied book" again, without offering any proof. He alleges that in any "standard or reputable work" that the authors would in "the preface or introduction" acknowledge "the assistance they have received from the productions or labors of others." Again, he fails to offer any proof that this is so and he fails to note that when they did do that that would be the only recognition that they would get. No quote marks or footnotes would be given. Edersheim's 1883-6 work on the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah has a list of the authorities that he "chiefly used in writing this book" (which means that there are others that aren't even mentioned) and while he gives sidenotes the material in his book is not placed in quotes.

[djconklin]

7. What are your qualifications to do this research?

My research (in many ways) simply re-presents the work of Dr. Veltman and Walter Rea. So, if my work is "sloppy" as one critic claimed, then that also applies to Walter Rea and Dr. Veltman.

The only basic thing I did different than them was to put the text in color. Beyond that I tried to show entire paragraphs where Rea, for the most part, only presents snippets -- that, in general, are distorted in some shape, manner, or form. Beyond that I am (as I noted previously) the first one in almost 20 years to have followed through on Dr. Veltman suggestion. This work only really required 3 basic skills: one, how to find and collect the alleged sources (this is where all the online critics other than Rea have failed); two, how to read the text as it is; three, an ability to count.

Think of this as a CSI with words without having to use the fancy equipment and technology like they do on the TV shows, or real life. The critics have claimed that a crime took place; so CSI would go in and collect the evidence, examine it, and analyze it. We can do the same thing on this issue. Collect the evidence (most online critics don't do that), examine the evidence (again, most online critics don't do that) and then let the evidence speak for itself (on this, the online critics start with an agenda and they don't let the evidence speak at all!). It's all rather straight forward and the evidence shows that the critics are wrong.

What is interesting about this question is that while the critics ask it of me (this is their last resort after they've lost all the other arguments) they never ask it of Walter Rea. What were his qualifications to do this work? Nor, do they realize that this question should also apply to them -- what qualifications do they have to make this claim? In reality, most, if not all of the online critics, are simply repeating what they have been told or found on the web, without actually looking at the evidence for themselves. This would require actual work. It is much easier to just make a lot of noise and hope people will think that there's a fire where they are blowing smoke.

Now to get back to your question ab't qualifications, we should note that none of the critics have yet to suggest what qualifications are necessary to do this work. So, it is fairly obvious that they are just trying to "score" a quick point in the debate. Anything, but actually look at the evidence. That would be too much work for them. I don't blame them in one sense; I followed through on Dr. Veltmans suggestion to compare other writers in the same genre and I found that when I had 36 authors to compare with each other, it involved making 630 comparisons!

[djconklin]

8. What kind of things have you learned that were interesting in doing this research?

There's actually a number of things that were interesting. Before I started this study I never knew that the experts in the field disagreed on what should be called plagiarism. I did not know that the experts noted that the word "plagiarism" had about as much meaning as the words "pornography" and "art." I did not know that the typical dictionary definition is flawed (see Lieberman, Trudy "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize, ... only be sure to always call it research," Columbia Journalism Review (July/August 1995): 21-5).

I have seen lots of wild, unsubstantiated claims that take on the characteristic of blowing smoke and yelling "Fire." Two examples: Dale Ratzlaff recently wrote ("Open Letter to Jud Lake," http://www.ratzlaf.com/JudLake2Long.pdf (Nov. 13, 2006): footnote 13) that "Rea has found sources for almost every page of The Great Controversy, sometimes, every paragraph." Well, if this was true then why is it that Rea skips entire chapters: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41? Secondly, for more than just a few of the chapters the coverage he gives is very short, 1-4 pages in length. This certainly isn't anywhere near enough to prove the assertion. I just ran across a web page a couple of days ago (Martin Eldon "Ellen's Plagiarisms," Babylon Forsaken Ministries; found online at http://www.babylonforsaken.com/borrowing.htm) that claims that pages 317-450 of Great Controversy contain "a great deal of material [that] is borrowed from Ellen's late husband's book Life Incidents. Now, what they fail to point out is that James White's book wasn't even copyrighted and most importantly that she does cite her sources (one of which was the biography of William Miller by Sylvester Bliss, not her husband's book) on pages: 319, 321, 323, 324, 325, 329, 330 (twice), 331, 333 (twice), 334 (twice), 335, 336, 337, (nothing in chapter 19), 357, 358, 359, 360 (twice), 361 (twice), 362 (twice) 363, 365, 375, 377 (twice), 384 (three times), 385 (twice), 386 (twice), 387 (twice), 388, 389, 397 (three times), 401 (twice), 406, 407 (from James White's "Life of Wm. Miller"), (nothing in chapters 23 or 24), 440, 441, 447 (twice), 448 (twice). Ellen White, is the only one I know of, who is accused of plagiarism even when she DOES give her sources!

I learned fairly quickly that dealing with these critics of EGW is much like dealing with the Bible critics I ran into about 10 years ago. They have these long lists of the alleged errors and contradictions that are to be found in the Bible. I learned that I don't have to dealing with each and every single one of them. All I have to do is show that their reading skills, research skills, and analytical skills are way too low. For example, they claim that the Bible writers believe that unicorns exist. The critics didn't even look up the Hebrew word in a lexicon to find out what it meant. The same people who say that the fundamentalists read the Bible in a simplistic and wooden manner did it themselves! So, if they can't think or read straight on simple examples why should I trust them on the more complex? The same thing happens with the critics of Ellen White and the SDA church. The very simplest example was the claim that Ellen White was a millionaire. When she died she was $20 grand in the hole. It took awhile for the royalties from the sale of her books to balance things out. If the critics can show how one can go from being $20 grand in the hole into being a millionaire I know some high-powered executives and financiers who would like to talk with them.

Here's the latest thing I learned: the various printers back in the 1800's didn't treat an author's book as if it was set it stone! They took liberties with the text and changed it (for whatever reason!). For instance, today I was looking at Samueal James Andrews's book
The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth Considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Relations. I had one copy from 1891 and I found one onlie from 1863. Comparing the two I found that at one small point in the text one says: "but Luke speaks only of those that held Jesus." while the other has: "but Luke confines it to those that held Jesus." The question then becomes which did Andrews write and why was it changed?

9. Why are there differences between the numbers you come up with vs. that reported by the Ellen G. White Estate?

Good question! There are two important things to remember here: one, I can show you my studies, while we have never seen their's. Secondly, they tell you that if they found even one word the same between Ellen White and any concievable source then they counted the whole sentence as copied -- so they used a quite liberal standard and they still couldn't come up with the 80-90% claimed by the critics. My count is based on words that were found by searching for 3-6 word strings (and this, only points to a degree of probability). Now, based on what I have recently learned, I plan on re-doing all my counts based on using 16 word strings which can be said without any uncertainty that it was copied.

10. What are your plans for the future...in this analysis.

I'd like to cover all the chapters in DA doing the kind of study Dr. Veltman suggested -- but, that would take a long, long time!

More likely I'll continue with my analysis of the whole of DA as compared with William Hanna's book on the life of Christ and to continue adding sources to the 3 chapters I have analyzed as Dr. Veltman suggested. The more sources we can have, the better the picture we can get, as to what is going on.

[djconklin]

I wouldn't say that the article is getting to be a monster but right now I figure it will be over 100 pages!

[icedragon101]

Oh an by the way nice to see someone from singapore i was refereing to the other person

[icedragon101]

post edit, see next post

[icedragon101]

>It doesn't matter what the law of her day was.

The law reflects the milieu in which she wrote. She was NOT a plagiarist by the laws and custom of her day and age.

>She copied the works of others

The hard part lies in proving it--most critics can't do this because they have never looked at the original sources.

From what I have learned recently (copied means 16 rds or more, or 100 character strings) it looks like about 99.9% of the so-called evidence has to thrown out.


healdsburg newspaper on plagiarism late 1800's see editors note
http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw77.htm

[djconklin]

"What is plagiarism? Among all the questions connected with literary criticism there is, perhaps, none to which it is more difficult to give a satisfactory answer."

Chambers’ a Journal "What is Plagiarism?" letter to the New York Times (Oct. 1, 1882): page 12. (email me if you'd like to read the article (it's quite short))

Isn't it interesting that Canright made the claim of plagiarism while Ellen White was alive and yet saw fit to not inform any of the alleged victims? Perhaps that is because he knew that he would get laughed out of court and there would go his influence?

Isn't it interesting that Ellen White wasn't charged in a court of law with plagiarism while she was alive and yet we know by searching the newspapers of the day that others were?

Isn't it interesting that the critics sure seem to know what plagiarism is (citing a dictionary definition) while experts in the field today show you how overly simplistic it is (Lieberman, Trudy "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize, ... only be sure to always call it research," Columbia Journalism Review (July/August 1995): 21-5.) and others tell you "I'm enough of an expert to know that there are no living experts." (Dr. Keith R. St. Onge)?

Channing Pollock ("The Plagiarism Racket," American Mercury 60 (1945): 613-9) noted that most people who make the claim of plagiarism are "tyros" who are "ignorant of law and literature" (page 615).

Perhaps the above explains why 90% of the plagiarism claims are false.

[djconklin]

I see my point (most critics can't do this because they have never looked at the original sources) still stands.

[icedragon101]

This is why I posted it.

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the Healdsburg California newspaper in 1889. It is remarkable not so much for proving Ellen White to be a plagiarist, but for the fact that even back in the 1880s, when some would lead us believe plagiarism was more accepted, we find Mrs. White condemned in a public forum for plagiarism. Also remarkable is Adventist leader Healey's comments about Mrs. White not reading widely and receiving her quotes from her visions. Enjoy...

the orgin of it is not in question the content is.

[djconklin]

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the Healdsburg California newspaper in 1889. It is remarkable not so much for proving Ellen White to be a plagiarist, but for the fact that even back in the 1880s, when some would lead us believe plagiarism was more accepted, we find Mrs. White condemned in a public forum for plagiarism. Also remarkable is Adventist leader Healey's comments about Mrs. White not reading widely and receiving her quotes from her visions.

1) In 1884 Healdsburg had a population of 2,500, by 1914 it had grown to 3,500. So, this is not a major newspaper and there is no evidence that the story was ever picked up by a major newspaper in a major metropolitan area. I would suggest that the reason why they covered it was because of the attack on the SDA church by the local religious groups -- you have to have the actual paper to see it for yourself.

2) Whoever said that plagiarism was accepted back then didn't know what they are talking about. They did have different standards back then and the amount of literary borrowing one could do without giving references was different than what we do today. On the other hand, we do have the problem of determining what was borrowed and no one has offered any sort of definitive proof as to where the "borrowed" material came from. In my forthcoming paper I will show that the best evidence to date indicates that we need to look for 16 consecutive words before we can speak with certainty.

3) In regards to Ellen White's reading and quotes we are not presented with any evidence that Healy ever said such a thing nor are we presented with any evidence as to why we should believe anything he says and why he is an "authority." This is at the level of hearsay and gossip-mongering.

4) We still have not seen any evidence that anyone has examined the alleged sources to make sure that they actually says what it is alleged that they said. We have already seen abundant evidence (see the link below) that the alleged sources have been manipulated and distorted in a variety of ways.

My co-author has noted that an independent scholar has looked at the evidence at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html and has concluded that Ellen White was NOT a plagiarist.

[djconklin]

Flaw #1

d'Aubigne wrote: "The feelings of all were excited; many were reminded of Annas and Caiaphas going to Pilate’s judgment-seat and calling for the death of this fellow who perverted the nation."

We were told: "Many were reminded of Annas and Caiaphas going to Pilate’s judgment-seat and calling for the death of "this fellow who perverted the nation.""

Flaw #2:

We are told that on page 28 d'Aubigne wrote "This bull invited all Catholics to take up the cross against the heretics: ..."

And yet when we trun to page 28 we can't find the quote! See, http://www.lgmarshall.org/Daubigne/daubigne_refhistory01_06.html which covers pages 28-34. So, apparently Ellen White is being accused of copying quotes that don't even exist.

Took less than 15 minutes of work to discover this.

[djconklin]

Flaw #3:

They saw that Wylie wrote:

"It was an old law among them that all who took orders in their church should, before being eligible for a home charge, serve three years in a mission field. The youth on whose head the assembled barbes laid their hands saw the prospect not of rich beneficence but possible martyrdom. The ocean they did not cross. Their mission field was [unreadable] that lay outspread at the foot of their own mountains. They went forth two and two concealing their real character under guise of a secular profession, most commonly that of merchants or peddlers. They carried silks, jewelry, and other articles at that time not easily purchasable save at distant markets, and they were welcomed as merchants where they would have been spurned as missionaries. They took care to carry with them concealed among their wares or about their persons portions of the Word of God, their own translations. [unreadable] commonly, and to this they would draw the attention of the inmates. When they saw a desire to possess it they would freely make a gift of it where the means of purchase were absent."

When in fact, he wrote (see http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/ch02.htm):

"To maintain the truth in their own mountains was not the only object of this people. They felt their relations to the rest of Christendom. The sought to drive back the darkness, and re-conquer the kingdom which Rome had overwhelmed. They were an evangelistic as well as an evangelical Church. It was an old law among them that all who took orders in their Church should, before being eligible to a home charge, serve three years in the mission field. The youth on whose head the assembled barbes laid their hands saw in prospect not a rich benefice, but a possible martyrdom. The ocean they did not cross. Their mission field was the realms that lay outspread at the foot of their own mountains. They went forth two and two, concealing their real character under the guise of a secular profession, most commonly that of merchants or pedlars. They carried silks, jewellery, and other articles, at that time not easily purchasable save at distant mart, and they were welcomed as merchants where they would have been spurned as missionaries. The door of the cottage and the portal of the baron’s castle stood equally open to them. But their address was mainly shown in selling, without money and without price, rarer and more valuable merchandise than the gems and silks which had procured them entrance. They took care to carry with them, concealed among their wares or about their persons, portions of the Word of God, their own transcription commonly, and to this they would draw the attention of the inmates. When they saw a desire to possess it, they would freely make a gift of it where the means of purchase were absent."

Note the changes in the wording, spelling and punctuation and that two whole sentences (all shown in red) were dropped without the reader being told that they did so!

Never, ever, trust the critics!

[icedragon101]

FANNIE'S FOLLY

Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis by Alice Elizabeth Gregg
Adventist Currents, October 1983


Esta pagina in Español (http://www.ellenwhite.org/espanol/fannie1.htm)
http://www.ellenwhite.org/images/fannie.jpg Had Ellen White been prescient, she would never have employed Fannie Bolton or Marian Davis as her editors. Nor would she have written the letters to Fannie and Marian that appeared in "The Fannie Bolton Story: A Collection of Source Documents" released by the Ellen G. White Estate in 1982. But she did not know the end from the beginning; and as a result, the struggle over the dark secret they shared was to belong irrevocably to the annals of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The barrage of words hurled from typewriter to typewriter, as can be read in that collection, barely gives a clue that much of the drama took place in the harsh and beautiful continent of Australia - land of the outback, the billabongs, the coolabah trees, and the koalas. The names of Cooranbong, Melbourne, and Adelaide, dropped occasionally in the letters, are only incidental to the conflict between the antagonists in the story.

The Story, a quasi biography of Frances Eugenia Bolton, cites her birthday as August 1, 1859. Her death certificate indicates that her birthplace was Chicago, Illinois. (1) Her father was a Methodist minister, and she had at least two brothers. Her picture on the title page of The Story shows an attractive brunette with the small, chiseled features that might please a cosmetologist.

Fannie was a June 18, 1883, graduate of the Preparatory School (high school) of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois; and she delivered one of the commencement orations, "The Flight of the Gods." (2) The Story indicates that she attended "Lady's Seminary" and/or "Evanston College." Whether she went beyond the preparatory school at that time has not yet been substantiated. What is known is that after her schooling she found work as a correspondent with the [Chicago] Daily Inter-Ocean, one of the predecessors of the Chicago Tribune.

She was converted to Seventh-day Adventism in 1885 by George B. Starr, a minister at the Chicago Mission. Fannie first met Ellen Gould White, Seventh-day Adventism's messenger, at the Springfield, Illinois, campmeeting in 1887 when she was reporting for the paper. She was then twenty-eight years old. Because of her background it was natural that she be asked to edit Ellen's sermons. According to Fannie's account to a friend, Ellen was pleased with the way she made the sermons over for the press, and she wished to employ her. (3)

Ellen had recently returned from Europe filled with ideas for writing books and articles. The Great Controversy was finished. The Desire of Ages was a dream, and the Adventist periodicals were constantly clamoring for articles. Marian Davis had been working for Ellen since 1879 and editing for her since the death of James White, her husband, in 1881. But with the numbers of requests for articles, tracts, books, and letters, Marian was staggering under the load. Ellen had to have more help, and Fannie was a likely candidate.

William C. White, Ellen's son, and Dores E. Robinson, her grandson-in-law, recalled many years later that Fannie "was recommended to her as a young woman of rare talents, of good education, and an earnest Christian." The arrangement for employment was beneficial for both Ellen and Fannie, they wrote, and Fannie "proved to be brilliant and entertaining, and, although somewhat erratic at times, was loved by the other members of the family." (4)

When Ellen left the campmeeting circuit to return to her home in California, she arranged for Fannie to meet her and her party at the Chicago depot so that they could travel together. Ellen was "not with her party, so Elder Starr hunted around till he found her behind a screen in the restaurant very gratified in eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper and salt," Fannie wrote; and on the same trip Willie White brought into the car a "thick piece of bloody beefsteak" for Sara McEnterfer, one of Ellen's valued employees, to cook on a small oil stove. These incidents were shocking to Fannie, who had "lived up to the testimonies with all faithfulness discarding meat, butter, fish, fowl and the supper meal, believing that as the 'Testimonies' say, 'no meat-eater will be translated.'" (5)

When the party arrived in California, Fannie was given specific instructions regarding her assignment. She was told at the outset that she was to work under the direction of Marian in preparing letters, or "testimonies," as they were usually referred to, and in editing articles for publication. She was told also, according to White and Robinson, that the "matters revealed to Mrs. White in vision, were not a word for word narration of events with their lessons, but that they were generally flash-light or panoramic views of various scenes in the experiences of men, sometimes in the past, and sometimes in the future, together with the lessons connected with these experiences."

Likewise she was told about Ellen's tendency to make errors of mechanic (spelling, capitalization, punctuation) and of syntax, to be repetitious, and to fall short of organizing her material well - all of which the editors should correct, modify, or rearrange for clarity and effectiveness. (6)

Fannie enjoyed working on articles for publication, according to White and Robinson, but "she found the copying of letters of reproof to be distasteful and revolting to her. She was heard to say that she wished there were no such word as 'don't' in the English language." (7)

The first year of working with Fannie seemed a happy experience for Ellen. She wrote on February 13, 1888: "Fannie Bolton is a treasure to me. We are all harmonious, all working unitedly and in love." (8)

Fannie, however, was finding some aspects of her work appalling. Early during her employment she showed Marian some material she was working on, and to her surprise Marian asked if she had compared the chronology with Eidersheim or another standard religious writer. When Fannie told her that the Lord was a correct historian, Marian replied that Ellen was not. In recounting the story for his paper, The Gathering Call, Edward S. Ballenger later wrote that Fannie, on comparing, was "shocked and astonished to face a paragraph exactly like the one in the articles she was copying, although there was no sign in the articles of its being a quotation, and on turning a page found a whole page which in the articles was only changed enough to prevent its being an exact quotation." Ballenger went on to explain that Marian tried to reassure Fannie by saying that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." But Fannie was not satisfied. (9)

In the days that followed, Fannie found that many authors' works were used without credit. Nor was credit given to Fannie or to Marian for their original work incorporated in articles going out over Ellen's name and, moreover, represented as inspired of God. Thus Fannie found herself involved in something she believed to be dishonest. Conscience-stricken and disillusioned, she brought the matter up with Ellen, in the conviction that she ought to uphold the "principle of ordinary justice and literary honesty [and be] a martyr for truth's sake." (10) There were golden rules for writing that were not being followed, she told Ellen. What Ellen said at that time is not known or included in The Story, but evidently she was intractable, inasmuch as Fannie retired to the typewriter and to doing the work assigned to her.

After the 1888 General Conference meeting in Minneapolis, Ellen went to live in Battle Creek; and in December Fannie and Marian were called from California. White and Robinson recollected that "on the way to Battle Creek, Miss Bolton spent a week in Chicago. There she met many of her former acquaintances, and found many things to remind her of old time experiences and ambitions. Soon after this she made it known to her fellow-workers that she was not satisfied to spend all her life in handling the thoughts and writings of another person. She had thoughts and ideas of her own, and longed to give expression to them." (11)

Although Fannie went on working for Ellen, the situation continued to deteriorate. At last, not yet two years after Fannie began working, White wrote to Charles H. Jones of the Pacific Health Journal on June 23, 1889, suggesting that it would be profitable for him to employ Fannie. "I believe that Sister Bolton is much better qualified for work on a journal like the Pacific Health Journal," he wrote, "for in this she would have more occasion for original work, and it would not demand the accuracy which our work on the Signs must have." (12)

Since Jones obviously, for whatever reason, did not employ her, Fannie continued working for Ellen, trying to "harmonize what seemed to [her] an inconsistency in the work with a worldly literary maxim that requires an author to acknowledge his editors and give credit to all works from which he quotes" and holding to "the position in [her] mind that Sister White should acknowledge her editors and every source from which she obtained suggestion or expression." (13)

Fannie must have kept the subject of crediting authors and editors fresh before Ellen during those months, for by the autumn of 1890 she was fired. Having found some courses that she wanted to take at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Fannie eased herself out of her job, with the exception of a few of Ellen's manuscripts that she took with her to edit. About this, Ellen wrote that Fannie "asked for some articles of mine to take with her to Ann Arbor, saying she loved the work. But I now think that she wished to use the pretext that she was employed by me in order to gain the confidence of others because I trusted her as my agent to prepare copy for my books. I see my folly now." (14)

Writing an apology to Ellen, Fannie said "I can not help writing to you because God has helped me so much since I last saw you. I did feel so sad about being severed from your work when I had just become so reconciled, so anxious to do it; but I cast all my perplexity on God." (15)

A year later, in the autumn of 1891, the General Conference asked Ellen White to go to Australia. When Sara McEnterfer unfortunately became ill with malaria, Ellen, to the surprise of others in the inner circle, invited Fannie to go with her as a replacement for Sara. Ellen acknowledged later that "Fannie pleaded hard and with tears to come with me [to Australia] to engage with me in the work of preparing articles for the papers. She declared she had met with a great change, and was not at all the person she was when she told me she desired to write herself and could not consent that her talent would be buried up in the work of preparing my articles for the papers and books. She felt she was full of the matter and had talent she must put to use in writing which she could not do connected with me." (16)

Once in Australia, Fannie settled into the work with her usual speed and efficiency. In a letter of October 7, 1892, she wrote that she had copied forty-two pages of the mail, had sent off seven articles for the Review and six for the Signs, and had prepared four articles more since the mail had gone. (17) On May 4, 1893, she wrote that she had rushed down town the day before and mailed eleven articles to Ellen - seven or eight for the Youth's Instructor, one for the Signs, and one for the Review. (18)

When campmeeting time came in 1894 (January 5-28), Fannie was ready for a vacation. Campmeetings were times for refreshing and exchanging experiences and views; and Fannie, a workaholic by nature, looked forward to them. While she was there, it is likely that friends told Fannie how wonderful it must be to work for such an inspired and brilliant writer as Ellen; and Fannie would have thought it was important to put the record straight. "She talked much to friends and acquaintances in Melbourne about the difficulties attending her work, and the faulty way in which some of the manuscripts were written," recalled White and Robinson of the occasion. "Her estimate of the great improvements made by the editors was dwelt upon, and the work of Mrs. White was belittled. Again she expressed her decided conviction that the talents of the copyists and their work should receive public recognition." (19)

At the same time she told Merritt G. Kellogg, half-brother of John Harvey Kellogg and William K. Kellogg, that she was "writing all the time for Sister White." Furthermore, she said that most of what she wrote was "published in the Review and Herald...as having been written by Sister White under inspiration of God...I am greatly distressed over this matter, for I feel that I am acting a deceptive part. The people are being deceived about the inspiration of what I write. I feel that it is a great wrong that anything which I write should go out under Sister White's name as an article specially inspired of God. What I write should go out over my own signature[;] then credit would be given where credit belongs." (20)

The essence of her complaints, as Fannie would express it to Ellen later when she looked back, was: "I thought as I have always thought before, that you did not see my perplexity, or comprehend my trouble, that IT WAS YOUR WITHHOLDING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR WRITINGS in not acknowledging your editorial help, that was at the bottom of all the perplexity, and that your work was not as you say the work of God ought to be, 'AS OPEN AS SUNLIGHT'" [emphasis added]. (21).........

[icedragon101]

When Ellen found out that Fannie was revealing her working methods, she had a vision, according to what she told George B. Starr: "There appeared a chariot of gold and horses of silver above me, and Jesus, in royal majesty, was seated in the chariot.... Then there came the words rolling down over the clouds from the chariot from the lips of Jesus, 'Fannie Bolton is your adversary! Fanny Bolton is your adversary!' repeated three times." (22) Ellen wrote Marian also that she was "warned" that Fannie was her adversary. (23)

On February 6, 1894, Ellen wrote Fannie: "Now, my sister, I do not want you to be any longer connected with me in my work. I mean now, for your good, that you should never have another opportunity to do as you have done in the past." (24)

The only reference Ellen made in that letter to the matter of her "copying" from other authors was: "SHOULD I ATTEMPT TO VINDICATE MY COURSE TO THOSE WHO DO NOT APPRECIATE THE SPIRITUAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK WHICH IS LAID UPON ME, IT WOULD ONLY EXPOSE MYSELF AND THE WORK TO MISCONCEPTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. To present the matter before other minds would be useless, for there are but few who are really so connected with God [who] see beneath the surface appearance as to understand it. This work is one that I cannot explain." (25)

Since she could not explain the copying - because to do so would disclose it - Ellen wrote ad hominem on Fannie's character, about which she could say much: "You are not a safe and capable worker. Your mind is subject to changes; first it is elated, then depressed. The impression made by this frequent change is startling. Self-control is not brought into your life. You choose a life of change, crowded with different interests and occupations, therefore you cannot possibly put your life, as you suppose you have done, into this work; you are most wonderfully deceived in thinking you do this.... All you engage in tastes so strongly of the dish that it is not acceptable to God." (26)

On the same day Ellen wrote to her son Willie: "Her love of ambition, her love of praise, and her idea of her own ability and talent was the open door Satan had entered to not only ruin her soul, but to imperil the work given me of God.... I am in a very grave perplexity and when I see how Satan works to take the very ones who ought to be intelligent and sharp as steel to understand their position before God, and their privileges and honor to have a part in the work, become disloyal, surmising, and whispering evil and putting the same into other minds, it is time decisive measures are taken that will correct the disaffection before it shall spread farther." (27)

Ellen spared no rhetoric in her invective during this period. She wrote to O.A. Olsen, the General Conference president: "Her ardent love for praise and ambition was very similar to that presented to me in regard to the workings of Satan in the heavenly courts to bring disaffection among the angels." (28)

To Marian, she wrote: "She becomes at times as verily possessed be demons as were human beings in the days of Christ. And when these paroxysms are upon her, many think she is inspired of God. She is fluent, her words come thick and fast, and she is under the control of demons." (29)

"If she were converted," she wrote to George A. Irwin, soon to become the General Conference president, "she would have a clear understanding of the influence of her past misrepresentations of the work she has done for me, and would confess some of her misstatements regarding it, which have been used by the enemy to unsettle and undermine the faith of many, in the testimonies of the Spirit of God." (30)

To Willie, Ellen likened Fannie to Aaron and Miriam: "Aaron had been mouth-piece for Moses, and Miriam was a teacher of the women. But now come whisperings between the brother and sister in murmurings and jealousies against Moses, and they were guilty of disloyalty, not only to their Leader appointed of God but God Himself.... Those who give place to Satan's suggestions in their desperate efforts in panting for recognition of talents they flatter themselves that they possess, will be so blinded by the enemy that they will not discern sacred things in distinction from the common." In the same letter to Willie, she said that Fannie was like Eve: "Again the warning came, 'Fannie is your adversary, and is misleading minds by entertaining the suggestions of Satan as did Eve in Eden.'" (31)

To Fannie on the same day she wrote, in the third person singular, about Fannie's likeness to Saul: "My prayer is that God will convert the poor child [Fannie], that she may understand the leadings of His Holy Spirit. The character of Saul is a marked one. There was strength and weakness combined. Gifts of talent were bestowed upon him, and had he consecrated these gifts wholly to God, he would not have dishonored himself by his own transgression." (32)

Impaling Fannie thus on her sharp pen, Ellen was able to divert attention from the copying problem to Fannie's character. Nowhere in the record does Ellen say to Fannie, "Let's give credit where credit is due. Let's do the right thing." The red herring assault on Fannie's personality was the perfect tactic.

Fannie was remorseful, to say the least, having just lost her job, and she wrote to Ellen: "I can see just how Satan has come and has always found something in me whereby he could work to harass and distress those with whom I was associated. Self has never died fully and therefore a door was left for the entrance of the enemy. The bottom of all my trouble has been self, and that is Satanic.... In doing the work, I have looked at what was perplexing, and handling it day after day, have lost the real sense of its sacredness, and began to look upon it from a literary standpoint alone. I don't know that it is quite just to put it in that way either; for I have had a sense of what it was to me, and to all, above that of a mere literary matter.... My faith in the testimonies is stronger today than ever, and I feel that I want to put my whole influence on the side of upbuilding the faith of God's people in this great and sacred work." (33)

Ellen wrote back to Fannie the next day, on February 10, 1894: "I received and read your letter, and assure you that my heart is deeply touched by its contents. I accept your confession. As far as yourself and your connection with me personally is concerned, I have and do freely forgive you." (34) Fannie was rehired on the spot.

Whether this was startling to Ellen's cadre is not known. They knew that Fannie was good help, and Ellen needed her help. Willie's letter to Edson, his brother, on October 25, 1895, confirmed that: "She [Fannie] has remarkable talent and handles mother's matters very intelligently and rapidly, turning off more than twice as much work in a given time as any other editor mother has ever employed." (35)

But not all was well with Fannie. She was in the process of forming a near-adulterous relationship with a married man. Ellen had hired a youngish man by the name of W.F. Caldwell in 1893 to help Fannie with the typing. He had been separated from his wide and two children for three years. Caldwell took to the cloistered life and showed "a fondness for the society of young girls and [was] full of gaiety, conducting himself like a boy," as Ellen later wrote pejoratively to I.N. Williams, president of Caldwell's home conference. (36) Although Caldwell's wife later divorced him, this had not been done before Fannie and he had formed "the attachment and love and had been pledged to one another, Fannie to Caldwell, and Caldwell to Fannie." Ellen reported to John Harvey Kellogg. (37)

As meliorist, Ellen pointed out to Fannie the less-than-heroic character of Caldwell: "The Lord has a controversy with Brother Caldwell. His love of self, his love of self-gratification, and his determination to have his own way, have made him unreasonable, overbearing, dictatorial. His practice of over-eating has taxed his digestive organs, distended his stomach, and taxed his nature to endure a burden that has reacted upon the brain, and his memory is weakened." (38)

Fannie denied at first that there was any affection between them. "She stood before me in my tent," Ellen wrote to her friends the Tenneys, "and declared that there was nothing to the reports. For one year after this, she was good for nothing to me, only a dead, heavy load." Fannie finally admitted that she loved Caldwell with all her heart and the "three times has this cup of bliss [engagement] been presented to me, and then been snatched away." (39)

Although Ellen was able to nip the romance in the bud, she continued over a period of two years to write to various people about the unseemly liaison: "It is not the work connected with me that has prostrated her [Fannie's] nervous system," Ellen wrote to Willard A. Colcord. "It is practicing a course of secrecy and deception and wrong-doing. It is not the requirements made upon her, but it is kindling a fire and walking in the sparks of her own kindling in connection with her wonderful desire for another woman's husband; lovesick sentimentalism." (40)

Rummaging in the past, Ellen brought out Fannie's dead second romance to couple with this third incident. In Ann Arbor Fannie had met a Californian named Blakley (first name not given) and had fallen in love with him. (41) When she went to Australia, Ellen told Colcord, "she expected he [Blakley] would write her, renewing his attentions to her, but no letter was received, and she almost blasphemed God because of His providence." (42) Ellen wrote to John Harvey Kellogg also about the Blakley matter, saying that Fannie "acted at times as if possessed of an evil spirit, and she set in to make us all miserable... [and] was sometimes impudent and accusing." (43)

When campmeeting time rolled around in 1895 (October 17 to November 11), Fannie was there to meet her Waterloo. Again she told her secret. Ellen wrote that she stood "like a sheep bleating about the fold." (44) The bleating and the romantic entanglement were too much for Ellen. Kellogg wrote Ballenger of Fannie's report that she and Marian Davis had to go over the material copied from the books of other writers "and transpose sentences and change paragraphs and otherwise endeavor to hide the piracy," and as a result of Fannie's objections, Ellen not only dismissed her but slapped her face. (45)

Finally, on November 12, 1895, Ellen wrote to Marian: "I have given nothing into Fannie's hands, and never expect to give her another chance to seek to betray me and turn traitor. I have had enough of 'talent' and 'ability' to last me a lifetime." Again on November 29 she wrote to Marian, "I have served my time with Fannie Bolton." (46)

This was to have been the end of Fannie's term of service. Off and on, for a period of seven and a half years, Fannie had worked for Ellen. Now, the once "Christlike," "brilliant," "entertaining," "talented," "educated," and "productive" Fannie had degenerated, according to Ellen's recriminations, into a "poor, shallow soul," a "flashing meteor," a "practicer of deception," a "lovesick sentimentalist," a "pretentious actor," a "poor, deluded, misshapen character," and a "farce," and said she had become "trying," "provoking," "one-sided," "impulsive," "fickle," "unbalanced," depressed," "vacillating," and "unself-controlled." (47)

Incredible as it may seem, Fannie was invited to work for Ellen a fourth time. As Fannie quoted Ellen's words back to her later, Ellen said that she had been told by an "unseen presence on March 20, 1895," that Fannie was to be taken back into the work: "If she [Fannie] separates now from you,' said the spirit, 'Satan's net is prepared for her feet. She is not in a condition to be left to herself now to be consumed of herself. She feels regret and remorse. I am her Redeemer, I will restore her if she will not exalt and honor and glorify herself. If she goes from you now, there is a chain of circumstances which will bring her into difficulties which will be her ruin.'" (48)

In 1900 Ellen wrote to Irwin giving the reason for asking Fannie back a fourth time: "I now see why I was directed to give Fannie another trial. There are those who misunderstood me because of Fannie's misrepresentations. These were watching to see what course I would take in regard to her. They would have represented that I had abused poor Fannie Bolton. In following the directions to take her back, I took away all occasion for criticism from those who were ready to condemn me." (49)

But Fannie was broken in body and in spirit. The years of overwork and stress had taken their toll of her less than robust physical and emotional health, leaving Fannie in no condition to work, and she decided to return to America. Her ship sailed on May 10, 1896.

The conflict might have died there, but Fannie talked again and again, wavering between loyalty to her literary maxims and to Ellen and her work. In 1897 Ellen was still smarting from the reports when she wrote to Fannie in April: "I will cut off the influence of your tongue in every way I can," (50) and to the Tenneys in July: "Her imagination is very strong, and she makes such exaggerated statements that her words are not trustworthy." (51)

Fannie had given the reason for her conflict in 1894. "I felt that you were the servant of God," she wrote to Ellen, "and that I should be with you, there would be more hope of my salvation, than if I remained in any other branch of work. I thought that were I editing your writings, I should be found in the time of judgment giving meat in due season." (52)

[icedragon101]

Finally, in 1901, to the great relief of Ellen's supporters, Fannie wrote what they considered to be her true confession: "I thank God that He has kept Sister White from following my supposed superior wisdom and righteousness, and has kept her from acknowledging editors or authors; but has given to the people the unadulterated expression of God's mind. Had she done as I wished her to do, the gift would have been degraded to a common authorship, its importance lost, its authority undermined, and its blessing lost to the world." (53)

The last letter Ellen wrote to or about Fannie, according to The Story, was the one to Irwin in 1900. She was nearing age seventy-three, and Fannie was in her forty-first year. Perhaps Willie took over the controversy at that time. He wrote to Stephen N. Haskell: "It is no doubt a relief to you to write a few lines in each letter about Sister Bolton [to Ellen], but unless there is some obvious good to be accomplished, something definite to be done in response to what you write, it would be much pleasanter for Mother and greatly for the advancement of her work if such unpleasant things were not mentioned. The loss of two or three night's sleep over such a matter may deprive Mother of the strength which might have been used in bringing out some very important general matter for the instruction of the churches." (54)

In 1911, when Fannie was fifty-two years of age, her emotional health broke, and she was admitted to the Kalamazoo State Hospital. She was released after thirteen months (February 20, 1911, to March 18, 1912). Less than two years before she died, she was admitted again for three months (October 9, 1924, to January 21, 1925). To Fannie's detractors, this was an indication that divine retribution was being meted out in the here and now, and positive proof that she had been unbalanced all along.

Fannie was heard from off and on during the years following her employment with Ellen. As late as 1914 she wrote: "I was with Mrs. White for seven and a half years like a soul on a rock, because of all kinds of inconsistencies, injustices and chicaneries." (55)

Three songs for which she had composed the music, one with words, were published in Christ in Song. (56) In her possession when she died, according to Hattie L. Porter, "were a lot of poems, some finished, and some not. She had thought to get them out in book form, but was too near the end of life to finish the work. Some of these poems were worthy of a place in our papers, and some showed her physical powers had weakened, and her mentality could not operate. These she knew were incomplete, and she called them 'Junk.'" (57)

There was an Adventist man, Hattie wrote, who had wanted to marry Fannie; "but she could not see light in such a course with her health gone, but he visited her often, paid for her room and board and care, and funeral expenses, together with the sustentation check sent." (58) (Whether the man was Blakley or Caldwell or someone else is not known.)

Fannie died in 1926 at Battle Creek, according to the Review, on June 28. She was not yet sixty-seven years of age. Her friend Hattie wrote the obituary for the Review: "The peaceful expression on her face told us she felt ready to meet her Master." One of Fannie's own compositions was sung - "Not I but Christ." She was buried at Eureka, Michigan. (59)

Ironically, her death certificate gives her occupation as "letter writer," the part of her work for Ellen that she disliked the very most.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Calhoun Country, Michigan, death certificate (213-3126) filed 1 July 1926 for Frances E. Bolton, 36 Manchester Street, Battle Creek, notes that the informant for the "personal and historical particulars" was Josephine Huffman, of 68 Oaklawn Street.

2. Fannie's attendance years, graduation date, and the commencement oration title were provided 12 May 1983 by Northwestern University Library archivist, Patrick M. Quinn, who noted in passing that June 1983 was the hundredth anniversary of her graduation. The registrar's office at the University of Michigan certified in a letter of 26 May 1983 that Fannie was a full-time student in the liberal arts school there at Ann Arbor for the term September 1890 to June 1891, eight years after leaving Northwestern.

3. Ellen G. White Estate, comp., The Fannie Bolton Story: A Collection of Source Documents (Washington, D.C.: General Conference of SDA, 1982), Fannie Bolton to Mrs. E.C. Slawson, 30 December 1914; p. 108. (This compilation is hereafter referred to as The Story. Mrs. White is referred to as EGW. Unless another source is stated, the quotations in this Part 1 article are from The Story. The numbers shown for letters written by EGW refer to the file numbers at the White Estate. The page numbers are those in The Story collection.)

4. William C. White and Dores E. Robinson, The Work of Mrs. E.G. White's Editors (St. Helena, CA: Elmshaven Office, 30 August 1933), p. 3. (Hereafter referred to as The Work; Mr. White hereafter referred to as White or Willie.)

5. Bolton to Slawson, 30 December 1914; pp. 108-9.

6. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 3.

7. Ibid., p. 4.

8. EGW to Stephen N. Haskell and Mr. And Mrs. William Ings, 13 February 1888 (Letter 25); p. 1.

9. Edward S. Ballenger, ed., The Gathering Call, February 1932, pp. 16-22. Quoted in The Story, pp. 113-16.

10. Fannie Bolton, "A Confession Concerning the Testimony of Jesus," ca. April 1901; p. 102.

11. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 5.

12. White to Charles H. Jones, 23 June 1889; p. 2.

13. Bolton, "A Confession," ca. April 1901; p. 102.

14. EGW to Marian Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 44.

15. Bolton to EGW, 30 April 1891; pp. 2-3.

16. EGW to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 28-29.

17. Bolton to EGW, May Lacey, and Emily Campbell, 7 October 1892; p. 8.

18. Bolton to EGW, 4 May 1893; p. 12.

19. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 12.

20. Merritt G. Kellogg statement [March 1908], The Story, p. 107.

21. Bolton to EGW, 5 July 1897; p. 81.

22. George B. Starr, "The Watchcare of Jesus over the Writings Connected with the Testimony of Jesus," 2 June 1915, The Story, p. 110.

23. EGW to Marian Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 42.

24. EGW to Bolton, 6 February 1894 (Letter 7); pp. 20-21.

25. Ibid., p. 27.

26. Ibid., p. 21.

27. EGW to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 29, 32.

28. EGW to Ole A. Olsen, 5 February 1894 (Letter 59); pp. 19-20.

29. EGW to Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 44.

30. EGW to George A. Irwin, 23 April 1900 (Letter 61; revision of 61-a; pp. 92-4); p. 95.

31. EGW to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 31, 29.

32. EGW to Bolton, 6 February 1894 (Letter 7); pp. 20, 27-28.

33. Bolton to EGW, 9 February 1894; pp. 32-33.

34. EGW to Bolton, 10 February 1894 (Letter 6); p. 34.

35. William C. White to J. Edson White, 25 October 1895; p. 41.

36. EGW to I.N. Williams, 12 April 1896 (Letter 104); p. 70.

37. EGW to John Harvey Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106); p. 60.

38. EGW to Bolton, 26 November 1895 (Letter 115); pp. 52-53.

39. EGW to Mr. And Mrs. George C. Tenney, 1 July 1897 (Letter 114); pp. 79-80.

40. EGW to Willard A. Colcord, 7 January 1896 (Letter 21); p. 62.

41. EGW to Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106); p. 60.

42. EGW to Colcord, 7 January 1896 (Letter 21); p. 62.

43. EGW to Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106); p. 60.

44. EGW Manuscript 12-d 19[20?] March 1896; p. 64.

45. John Harvey Kellogg to Edward S. Ballenger, 9 January 1936. Quoted in The Story, p. 120.

46. EGW to Davis, 12 November 1895 (Letter 103); 29 November 1895 (Letter 22-a); p. 49 and pp. 53-54.

47. The Story, passim.

48. Bolton to EGW, 5 July 1897, quoting from EGW Manuscript 12-c (1 April 1896; 20 March dateline [see p. 65]); p. 85.

49. EGW to Irwin, 23 April 1900 (Letter 61; revision of 61-a, pp. 92-94); pp. 95-96.

50. EGW to Bolton, 11 April 1897 (Letter 25); p. 74.

51. EGW to Tenney, 5 July 1897 (Letter 115); p. 80.

52. Bolton to EGW, 9 February 1894; pp. 32-33.

53. Bolton, "A Confession," ca. April 1901; p. 106.

54. White to Stephen N. Haskell, 13 July 1900; p. 101.

55. Bolton to Slawson, 30 December 1914; pp. 108-9.

56. The hymnal Christ in Song (first published by the Review and Herald in 1908) contained three songs copyrighted by Fannie: No. 197, "Come Out in the Sunshine," words and tune; No. 209, "The Dove of Peace," tune only (words by S. H. Bolton, perhaps her father?); No. 230, "Not I, but Christ" (words adapted from Galatians 2:20).

57. Hattie L. Porter to William A. Spicer, 25 July 1933; p. 117.

58. Ibid., p. 118.

59. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 103:41 (5 August 1926), p. 22.

[djconklin]

There's a new movie coming out called "The Hoax" starring Richard Gere about Clifford Irving's fictional autobiography of Howard Hughes. Gere comments about the film: "Like kids caught in a lie, you have to come up with an even bigger lie to cover the small lie." Seems quite appropo to what the anti-SDA's are trying to do about Ellen White and the SDA church.

[djconklin]

Almost done with getting the article ready--man, is it a lot of work! But, it's also been a great learning experience and when you read and read and read about what Christ went through in the trials and crucifixion for us it is a real blessing and makes one very appreciative.

[icedragon101]

the plagerism isser is a secondary issue.

[djconklin]

the plagerism isser is a secondary issue.

Yes and no. On the one hand, eEverything is secondary to Christ. But, how people treat others is indicative of their relationship to Christ. So, when you have people saying things about others that aren't so then you know those people do not have a saving relationship with the Lord. And if they misled you on one topic you can quarentee that they'll do it to you on others as well. In fact, we now know that the critics who claimed EGW was a millionaire were wrong there too. They were wrong when they claimed she predicted that England would enter the American Civil war, they were wrong when they claimed she was accumulating property while telling others not to, they were wrong about her contradicting Scripture over 50 times -- so now we're up to about 55 errors. Now if your stock broker had that many errors in judgment would you continue doing business with him?

Also, it turns out its a great learning experience.One thing I learned is I can't say that the people who made the claim of plagiarism lied. Because in order for them to have lied it implies that they knew what the truth was. In this case, it is more likely that they didn't a single clue as to what was going on but they figured that if they made a lot of noise, lots of hand-waving, blowing smoke all the while they could convince people there really was a fire--one scholar noted that in these type of cases one should be surprised that there's a brisk trade in smudge-pots!

My work shows how one can determine if EGW was a plagiarist or not. The critics seem not to care what the truth was, they just rushed to condemn when they didn't know what they were talking about. You shouldn't trust people with that kind of attitude to tell you the truth on anything. So, now I can tell fairly quickly who is telling it like it is and who is not.

And as I noted the most important benefit of doing this work is "when you read and read and read about what Christ went through in the trials and crucifixion for us it is a real blessing and makes one very appreciative."

[djconklin]

An interesting thing I have learned in doing this work is that some people claim that they have actually looked at it and yet they disagree with unbiased outside scholars as to what the results are!

Several years ago one critic claimed my work was "sloppy;" he has yet to produce even one example to support his claim.

Some claim my work is "over rated"--by what standard and by whom? If you look closely at what I have done you'll find that all I really did was take Dr. Veltman's work (apply it to other chapters) and present his work in double-columns and color. So, how exactly is my work "over rated"? Aren't they really casting an aspersion on Dr. Veltman's work? BTW, my work has been shown to Dr. Veltman and he liked it.

I don't know how to set up a poll; but, let's take one here: how many people have actually read Dr. Veltman's work (not literally all 2,200+ pages, we'll leave out the appendixes.)? Did you know you can dl'd it from the GC conference web site?

[icedragon101]

if you can prove egw not to be a prophet these issues are a moot point.

[djconklin]

Since I have proven that the critics lied about the plagiarism claim the rest of the claims are equally suspect.

[icedragon101]

Since I have proven that the critics lied about the plagiarism claim the rest of the claims are equally suspect.
i don't think you have proven a thing. you have just stated that you have and crow about your work. your work is bias and full of assumptions.

[djconklin]

i don't think you have proven a thing. you have just stated that you have and crow about your work. your work is bias and full of assumptions.
1) An outside scholar has already seen it (Dr. Veltman's work colored and in double-columns by me) and said that EGW was not a plagiarist.
2) I have followed through on Dr. Veltman's suggestion as to what work is needed to be done to prove or disprove if EGW is a plagiarist (she isn't).
3) I don't "crow" I state fact.
4) You haven't proven, and never will prove, that my work is "bias and full of assumptions."

[icedragon101]

1) An outside scholar has already seen it (Dr. Veltman's work colored and in double-columns by me) and said that EGW was not a plagiarist.
2) I have followed through on Dr. Veltman's suggestion as to what work is needed to be done to prove or disprove if EGW is a plagiarist (she isn't).
3) I don't "crow" I state fact.
4) You haven't proven, and never will prove, that my work is "bias and full of assumptions." no, you crow and bosast, boast of veltmans support and some other guy to back you up. That is your claim to fame is that some one else said something about you that we cannot verify. we have to take a second had statment from you as to what veltman said. Veltmant does not come one here promoting you. as far as your quoting veltman I read veltmans report to Ministery magazine and you are not reporting accurately what he said.

As far as a bias, you start with assumption that EGW is a prophet or she is inspiered or a messenger of the Lord. you have not established that to be a fact. That is your bias. Every one has a bias you would know that if you had taken a research class. that is the first thing they teach you is to own you bias and point of view.

[djconklin]

Telling you a statement of fact is not boasting. You are projecting your own attitudes and perspectives onto me.

as far as your quoting veltman I read veltmans report to Ministery magazine and you are not reporting accurately what he said.


1) I read the report Veltman wrote--the 2,200 page one and the report in the Ministry magazine.
2) Again, you made a claim against me and have failed to provide the proof.

As far as a bias, you start with assumption that EGW is a prophet or she is inspiered or a messenger of the Lord.

Since I didn't make that assumption and you can't prove that I did you are wrong yet again.

that is the first thing they teach you is to own you bias and point of view.

What we were taught how to overcome and counter bias. In science we examine the facts and let them speak from themselves. I went by the facts.

[Sophia7]

This is a reminder to everyone to avoid personal comments about other posters. Please stick to the issues.

[djconklin]

Just finished reading another interesting source:

Bink, Martin L. Richard L. Marsh, Jason L. Hicks, and Jesse D. Howard "The Credibility of a Source Influences the Rate of Unconscious Plagiarism," 7/3 Memory (1999): 293-308; found online at www.uga.edu/psychology/hcpl/pub_pdf/21.pdf (http://www.uga.edu/psychology/hcpl/pub_pdf/21.pdf)

[djconklin]

I just ran across a web page a couple of days ago (Martin Eldon "Ellen's Plagiarisms," Babylon Forsaken Ministries; found online at http://www.babylonforsaken.com/borrowing.htm) that claims that pages 317-450 of Great Controversy contain "a great deal of material [that] is borrowed from Ellen's late husband's book Life Incidents. Now, what they fail to point out is that James White's book wasn't even copyrighted and most importantly that she does cite her sources (one of which was the biography of William Miller by Sylvester Bliss, not her husband's book) on pages: 319, 321, 323, 324, 325, 329, 330 (twice), 331, 333 (twice), 334 (twice), 335, 336, 337, (nothing in chapter 19), 357, 358, 359, 360 (twice), 361 (twice), 362 (twice) 363, 365, 375, 377 (twice), 384 (three times), 385 (twice), 386 (twice), 387 (twice), 388, 389, 397 (three times), 401 (twice), 406, 407 (from James White's "Life of Wm. Miller"), (nothing in chapters 23 or 24), 440, 441, 447 (twice), 448 (twice). Ellen White, is the only one I know of, who is accused of plagiarism even when she DOES give her sources!

I exchanged some email with Martin Eldon ab't this issue and he took the whole web page down.

[djconklin]

I was able to dl'd the entire copy of Hanna's book on the Life of Christ from http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AGA2387.0001.001 (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AGA2387.0001.001)

As compared with all other works EGW "used" his the most (or, if you will as much as all the rest combined). So far, I have compared Hanna and EGW as far as the Transfiguration. If someone would care to start at the end and work your way forward that would be a great help! The program I use is WCopyfind (a couple of key strokes and the comparing is done! Then comes the dreaded analysis!); it can be found at http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html

Just finished two more chapters from DA (47 & 48) -- nothing found.

Have you ever noticed that out of the literally dozens of critics who make the plagiarism claim, only one (Rea) has ever done any work on the subject?

It just hit me: if I'm second-rate on this (or so I've been told) and there's no one in first place then aren't I first?

[djconklin]

On page 12 of his study Dr. Veltman classes the sentence "The Messenger of the covenant must speak." as being a loose pararphrase ass compared with Harris, Great Teacher, page 52 (see http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_3_rea.html). But, a friend pointed out to me that the phrase "the Messenger of the covenant" is from Malachi 3:1.

[djconklin]

When comparing William Hanna's book on the life of Christ with all of DA in chapter 48 of DA we have a rather interesting phenomena that I have recently noted in writings of the era.

Italicized word is similar; bold is exact.

"They disputed among themselves which should be accounted greatest in the kingdom." page 432

See Matthew 18:1; note that neither Hanna nor Ellen White put the material in quotes, nor did they tell you that it was from Matthew. This was rather typical of that era.

[Loveaboveall]

DJ,

I appreciate all the hardwork you have put into this. It has been a very interesting read and I have just browsed through it. I will have to take some time later to read it all through. Isn't it amazing how the devil works to bring down God's people and His messengers.

[djconklin]

It has been a lot of work that has "paid off" in many ways. I have learned something new virtually every day.

I figure that I'll be done comparing William Hanna with DA by the end of the month--knocked off a couple more chapters today--and then I'll see about getting AU to print it.

[djconklin]

Would you believe that if you compare what Hanna and EGW have on the Good Samaritan and the raising of Lazarus that you won't find any literary similarities? I did find one 6 word string in Hanna and EGW on Lazarus used in different contexts, but ....

[Ptilinopus]

Hi DJ, many thanks for your careful work. It is a fine contribution to the debate, which has dragged on for too long (though likely to drag on till the Lord comes - the devil is unlikely to abandon a weapon that will reach some, however poor it is).

It strikes me that both extremes of the spectrum in this matter share the same error on inspiration - the idea of verbal inspiration. Those who deny EGW's inspiration base it on the idea that her inspiration, to be valid, must be word for word unique, inspired (verbally) by God - else her inspiration is denied. And the ultra-conservatives insist on every word being verbally inspired, hence their ultra-rigid applications.

Given the understanding that the prophet, not the exact words, are inspired, the entire plagiarism debate becomes a non-event. The Holy Spirit can lead a prophet to non-inspired sources if necessary to express a point or as source material. It happened in the Scriptures (Luke in his Gospel and in Acts; and in the Synoptics from the putative proto-gospel they are supposed to have quoted; not to mention Ezra's compilations of the Kings and Chronicles). The wonder is that the significant errors in the sources used were not carried over too -