SDA Founder Ellen White is a Plagiarist

She did use sources. You can read this in the intro to the Great Controversy. These were often not attributed, and she discusses why.

By modern standards this would be plagarism. By standards at the time it could be debated. The bigger question is whether she claimed a particular thing to be inspired while essentially lifting it from somewhere else.

The Great Controversy

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.

One consequence of her borrowings/plagiarism is self-contradiction. Having read the "Great Controversy" and the other four books that fill out the series, I realized that she often took an annihilationist bent, but at other times, wrote of sinners being sent to Hell.

Lazarus Short said:

I realized that she often took an annihilationist bent, but at other times, wrote of sinners being sent to Hell.

Click to expand...

Adventists hold to the view that the soul is not immortal, but still hold to the notion of the wicked being sent to fiery judgment. The Adventists teach that the wicked are destroyed in the fire, resulting in the 2nd death, which is permanent.

On the other hand some other annihilationists hold more to the notion that the dead are not punished but just cease to exist.

Dale said:

Also, she claims that the points she is quoting are noncontroversial, and this is not true. They have proved to be extremely controversial.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. For instance, Prescott's suggestions for editing in the 1911 edition certainly took issue with some of the historical particulars. In some cases they did change the reading, and in others they did not.

Dale said:

When I say that Ellen White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist church, has been accused of plagiarism, you might jump to the conclusion that this comes from some hack writer. You might think it comes from an unauthorized biography.

The claim that decisive evidence of plagiarism has been found actually comes from Ron Graybill, Associate Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate. His conclusions were presented at a General Conference of the SDA Church between November 15, 1981 and November 19, 1981.

To summarize Graybill's conclusions, the often repeated claim that Ellen White only had a third grade education is bogus. It was intended to reinforce the impression that her knowledge came from Divine revelation. She did read commentaries on the Bible and theological works. Theologians are often hesitant to make assertions that are difficult to prove. In many cases, E. White's contribution is to turn the "speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact." She turned the suggestions of theologians into sweeping claims that her followers assumed to be absolute.

Borrowings appear in her prophetic writing and in specific visions, her Divine revelations . None of her writing can be said to be free from unacknowledged borrowings. This includes claims about God, Satan, and angels. One consequence of borrowing from diverse sources is that "literary beauty" cannot be evidence of "divine inspiration." She also made use of "literary assistants," putting her stamp of approval on the finished product. "Close paraphrasing" of E. White's sources are common.

Adventists need to not only read the Bible but compare Ellen White's doctrines to the Bible.



Link:
E.G. White’s Literary Work: An Update

Click to expand...

Agreed and she was even more than that. Ellen G. White was a false prophetess.

Her promotion of Sabbath-keeping as a primary doctrine in the church goes against the clear teaching of the New Testament on the matter.

Her “revelation” that hell is not eternal contradicts Jesus’ words concerning “eternal punishment” in
Matt. 25:46.

Her teaching that the sins of believers will be placed on Satan, the “scapegoat” (The Great Controversy, p. 422, 485), is the opposite of what the Bible says about who bore our sins (1 Peter 2:24).

Her identification of Jesus as Michael the archangel (Jude 1:9, Clear Word Bible, published by Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1994) is a denial of the true nature of Christ.

Her repudiation of the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 21 Manuscript 24, 1886) is at variance with passages such as 2 Tim. 3:16 & Psalms 12:5.

I am always amazed at those today who continue to praise her and follow her teachings in light of the Word of God available to them.

Mrs. White is not a plagiarist. In her lifetime, as has been demonstrated, she was an unabashed plagiarist, but she is not one now. She is dead, although her false prophecies and teachings live on,

I went through much of The Great Controversy, and either White was horribly sloppy and didn't double-check her sources, OR she was willfully, actively lying. She quoted a supposed Catholic encyclical which she said something about how it advocated using force on people, yet when I looked it up, it said no such thing.

LovesOurLord said:

I went through much of The Great Controversy, and either White was horribly sloppy and didn't double-check her sources, OR she was willfully, actively lying. She quoted a supposed Catholic encyclical which she said something about how it advocated using force on people, yet when I looked it up, it said no such thing.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, she, at best, is a huge embarrassment and I commend many in the SDA who are seriously attempting to distance themselves from her.

tall73 said:

She did use sources. You can read this in the intro to the Great Controversy. These were often not attributed, and she discusses why.

By modern standards this would be plagarism. By standards at the time it could be debated. The bigger question is whether she claimed a particular thing to be inspired while essentially lifting it from somewhere else.

The Great Controversy

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.

Click to expand...

The above paragraph does not fit the standards of the 1880's.
Copyright Act of 1790 | U.S. Copyright Office

Rethinking Pauline Hopkins: Plagiarism, Appropriation, and African American Cultural Production
Rethinking Pauline Hopkins: Plagiarism, Appropriation, and African American Cultural Production
Published: 17 October 2018

Mrs White's works can be compared to Pauline Hopkins to see that both did in fact Plagiarize in the 1800's.

Our modern standards of what is plagiarism goes back to the Copyright Act of 1790.
Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States - Association of Research Libraries

The doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the atonement(1871) see page 25
The doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the atonement
The doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the atonement : Crawford, Thomas Jackson, 1812-1875 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The above book written, published in 1871 demonstrates that proper citation as it is today, existed back before Ellen White Published her books.

One need only look at theology related books published in the 1800's to see that She did not live up to the standards of giving proper citations, credit to other authors.


The atonement : in its relations to the covenant, the priesthood, the intercession of our Lord see page 16

The doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the atonement : Crawford, Thomas Jackson, 1812-1875 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive see page 25

The doctrine of the atonement as taught by Christ Himself; or, The sayings of Jesus exegetically expounded and classified page ix

The doctrine of the atonement : as taught by the Apostles ... see page 25

The Great Controversy Over Plagiary: The Last Interview of Walter Rea

1880's proper way to cite a book - Google Search

Walter Rea writings on Ellen White

Great Controversy Research by Walter Rea

When it comes to the word of God the message being spoken is more important than who brought it. If she quoted from other sources on purpose to prove a point then I see nothing wrong with that. The message still got out to those who had not heard it before, she acknowledged that some of what was written was taken from other works but it is not the authority of the writer she was quoting but the summation and explanation given for a certain subject, so there is no need for a citation. What matters is that most of what she wrote IS true such as the Sabbath day worship, the Mark of the Beast being the Abominable Sunday Law, and the Majority/Much of her prophesy on the End.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

When it comes to the word of God the message being spoken is more important than who brought it. If she quoted from other sources on purpose to prove a point then I see nothing wrong with that. The message still got out to those who had not heard it before, she acknowledged that some of what was written was taken from other works but it is not the authority of the writer she was quoting but the summation and explanation given for a certain subject, so there is no need for a citation. What matters is that most of what she wrote IS true such as the Sabbath day worship, the Mark of the Beast being the Abominable Sunday Law, and the Majority/Much of her prophesy on the End.

Click to expand...

Problem is in all her writings which are many she passed the words of others off as hers. She did not give proper quotation of the era which is the same as today. That in short is stealing.

Ellen White (1827-1915): “She then said, ‘The inhabitants [of Saturn] are a tall, majestic people, so unlike the inhabitants of earth. Sin has never entered here’” (From the letter of Mrs. M. C. Truesdail, January 27, 1891).

Library | Ellen G. White Estate

Ellen White (1827-1915): “The Lord has given me a view of other worlds….Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat….Then my attending angel said to me, “None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree….” (EW, pp. 39-40, 1882).

“…when Jesus brought along the crowns and with His own right hand placed them on our heads” (Word to The Little Flock, p. 15, 1847).

“Then I saw very great number of angels bring from the city glorious crowns- a crown for every saint, with his name written thereon. As Jesus called for the crowns, the angels presented it to Him, and with His own hand, the lovely Jesus placed the crowns on the heads of the saints” (Early Writings, p. 288, 1882).

Thirty five years later:

“I have never seen any persons crowned in the kingdom of God, only on conditions that if they were faithful they would receive the crown of immortal life in the kingdom of glory” (8 MR, p. 239, 1990).

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world.--Ellen G. White Ms. 4, 1883; Selected Messages, book 1, p. 63.

At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry I had given it up in the past and thought it future, as also most of the band had.--Ellen G. White Letter 3, 1847, written July 13, 1847 to Joseph Bates.

When she received her first vision, Dec. 1844, she and all the band in Portland, Maine, (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight-cry, and shut door, as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision, the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision to the band, and about sixty confessed their error, and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God.--James White, A Word to the Little Flock, p. 22.

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.--Selected Messages, book 1, p. 63.

"
The "7th month experience," or "midnight cry," was the proclamation that Christ would return on the 10th day of the 7th Jewish month, which in 1844 fell on October 22. In her first vision Ellen Harmon was shown that the seventh month movement was "the work of God." In other words, the Millerite calculations based on Daniel 8:14 were not to be discarded as an unfortunate blunder.

This vision substantiated the validity of the October 22 date. However, since Christ had not returned on that date, the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 must have been fulfilled by some other event. James White indicates that, on the basis of what she was shown in her first vision, Ellen Harmon reverted to her earlier view that the door was shut on October 22. She apparently now believed that the door of mercy was closed."
Ellen G. White® Estate: The "Shut Door" Documents

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.--Selected Messages, book 1, p. 63.

In 1891 Uriah Smith wrote:

In the midst of this evolution of new views, a few weeks after the passing of the time, and while many were making shipwreck of faith, Sister White had her first vision. In it she was shown that "the midnight cry," which they had just passed through, was a great light set up behind them, and was not to be rejected; that if kept in view, it would shed light on the pathway clear through to the end; but if rashly denied, darkness and ruin to such souls would follow. Now says the objector, "The visions taught the shut door, because the shut-door view was connected with that of the midnight cry; and the vision taught that the midnight cry was not to be given up." The conclusion does not follow. It is a false charge. The vision said nothing about the shut door. But the midnight cry was a vital pillar of truth, and was not to be surrendered, though some errors had been connected with it. To give up the midnight cry was to give up the whole work, and make utter shipwreck of faith. And any candid reader can judge whether it were better to give up that truth on account of an error which men had attached to it, and so wholly apostatize, rather than hold fast to the truth, and wait patiently till the Lord should remove the error which men had connected with it. Everyone will say the latter. And this they did; and the explanation and correction came in due time.--Review and Herald, January 6, 1891, p. 8.

[p. 7]

Ellen White's explanation of the true meaning of her first vision ("the true position") is as follows:

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.

I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents.

There was a shut door in Noah's day. There was at that time a withdrawal of the Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the waters of the Flood. God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah:

"My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years" (Gen. 6:3).

There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two daughters, were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven.

There was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation, "Your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt. 23:38).

Looking down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite power proclaimed through John:

"These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" (Rev. 3:7).

I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and rejected that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.

Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan. These two classes are brought to view in the vision--those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejection.--Ms. 4, 1883; Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 63-64.

Ellen G. White® Estate: The "Shut Door" Documents

The Scapegoat (Christ/Satan)
“It was seen, also, that while the sin-offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scape-goat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin-offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scape-goat. When Christ, by virtue of his own blood, removes the sins of his people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of his ministration, he will place them upon Satan” (4SP, pp. 266, 267, 1884).

“Satan not only bore the weight and punishment of his sins, but the sins of all the redeemed host had been placed upon him…” (1SG, p. 217, 1858; EW, pp. 294, 295, 1882).

Note: She believed the scapegoat to be Satan as taught by Crosier in 1847. In 1858 Ellen White said that Satan will have to bear the sins of the redeemed as well as his own and in 1884 she identified the scapegoat as Satan.

Fifty years later:

“Some apply the solemn type, the scape goat, to Satan. This is not correct. He cannot bear his own sins. At the choosing of Barabbas, Pilate washed his hands. He cannot be represented as the scape goat…Christ was the scape goat, which the type represents. He alone can be represented by the goat borne into the wilderness. He alone, over whom death had no power, was able to bear our sins” (The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White, Alberto R. Timm, Ellen White Estate, [Accessed from internet on Oct 26, 2013]; Manuscript 112, 1897).

Note: I presume that this quotation was deliberately suppressed from being used as it contradicts and destroys the sanctuary doctrine, and sensing this serious threat to our church, Ellen White refrained from further use of this statement.

His visage was so marred more than any man” (2T, p. 207, 1871).

Twenty seven years later:

“Saviour’s visage was not marred before his enemies” (DA, p. 735, 1898)

“Christ was the spirit of truth. The world will not listen to His pleadings. They would not accept Him as their guide. They could not discern unseen things; spiritual things were unknown to them” (The Southern Review, October 25, 1898).

Note: In John 15: 26 and 16: 13, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth. He never referred to Himself as the spirit of truth. But he called Himself the truth.

Perfection required:

“We must bear the perfect image Christ…” (RH, May 30, 1882).

“When Christ shall come our vile bodies are to be changed unto like his glorious body, but the vile character will not be made holy then. The transformation of character must take place before his coming. Our natures must be pure and holy” (RH, September 1, 1885).

“When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in his people, then he will come to claim them as his own” (COL, p. 69, 1900).

“Everyone who by faith obeys the commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression” (ST, July 23, 1902; Mar, August 4, p. 224).

“When the Lords people reach the mark of perfection (perfection of Jesus’ character), they will be sealed in their foreheads… and the recording angel will declare, “it is finished” (RH, June 10, 1902).

“Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ… Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation.. But Christ declared of Himself: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.” John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father’s commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble” (GC, p. 623, 1911).

Perfection not possible:

“There is not a case recorded in the Bible, of prophet or apostle claiming, as to the “holiness” people of today, to be without sin” (RH, March 15, 1887).

“We cannot say, I am sinless, till this vile body is changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body” (ST, March 23, 1888; 3SM, 355).

“So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last , there will be no stopping place , no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained” (AA, pp. 560, 561, 1911).

“There is no end to the warfare this side of eternity” (Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 20, 1913).

15. I cannot say I am saved
“Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading” (COL, p. 155, 1900).

One year later:

“Each one of you may know for yourself that you have a living Saviour, that he is your helper and your God. You need not stand where you say, ‘I do not know whether I am saved.’ Do you believe in Christ as your personal Saviour? If you do, then rejoice.”” (General Conference Bulletin, April 10, 1901).

Ellen White: “The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement” (PP, p. 357, 1890).

Ten years later:

“Do not disappoint Him who so loved you that He gave His own life to cancel your sins” (COL, p. 332, 1900).

Can keeping of the law save us?
Yes:

“[I saw] that we had a perfect right in the city for we had kept the commandments of God, and heaven, sweet heaven, is our home for we have kept the commandments of God” (6 MR, p. 316; Letter 3, 1851, pp. 1, 2. (To Sister Harriet, August 11, 1851) December 2, 1974).

“It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross” (DA, p. 763, 1898).

No:

“The law cannot save those whom it condemns; it cannot rescue the perishing” (The Signs of the Times, November 10, 1890).

Keith Augustus Burton (author, Sabbath school lessons, 2nd quarter: Christ and His Law, 2014): “After all, if obedience to the law could save us, Jesus would not have had to die in our place” (Wednesday, May 7, 2014).

When did Jesus enter the Most Holy place?
“This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark…” (EW, p. 42, 1882 [This vision was given in 1849]).

“I was then shown what did take place in heaven as the prophetic periods ended in 1844. I saw that as the ministration of Jesus in the Holy place ended, and he closed the door of that apartment…As the priests in the earthly Sanctuary entered the Most Holy once a year to cleanse the Sanctuary, Jesus entered the Most Holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by his mediation, and to cleanse the Sanctuary (Great Controversy, Chapter 27, 1858; 1SG, pp. 158, 162, 1858).

“In 1844 our great High Priest entered the Most Holy place of the heavenly Sanctuary, to begin the work of investigative judgment” (RH, March 22, 1887).

The Bible (NIV): “He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12).

“This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no.” I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received” (Historical Sketches of the Foreign Missions of the Seventh-day Adventists, p. 234, 1866).

“Men who pass on indifferently in regard to the especial claims of God’s holy law, and who turn from and reject the light given upon the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and seek to ease their consciences by following traditions and customs, will be held responsible by God, and in a greater degree” (Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, May 6, 1875).

“I pity the Sabbath breaker who has soon to meet God over his broken law. No excuse will avail the transgressor then, for with the Bible and the almanac, every person of common abilities can tell just what day God sanctified and commanded him to observe, and when that day comes…Will God take to heaven, and into his own glorious presence, those who are living in open violation of one of the plainest precepts of the decalogue? No, no… You may plead that you cannot keep the Sabbath because your friends do not keep it. Such an excuse you will not dare to plead before Him who suffered so much to redeem you” (Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, September 16, 1862).

Note: It is crystal clear from the above statements that those who refuse to keep the Bible Sabbath, after they have come to the knowledge of it, will not be excused by God. Strangely enough, Ellen White excludes William Miller from this lot. We may include Martin Luther, and many other Adventists of her time.

“Once Satan was in co-partnership with God, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels. He was highly exalted in heaven, and was radiant in light and glory that came to him from the Father and the Son; but he became disloyal, and lost his high and holy position as covering cherub” (RH April 14, 1896).

The disciples were not willing to accept the decision of the council
“The Jewish Christians living within sight of the temple naturally allowed their minds to revert to the peculiar privileges of the Jews as a nation. When they saw the Christian church departing from the ceremonies and traditions of Judaism, and perceived that the peculiar sacredness with which the Jewish customs had been invested would soon be lost sight of in the light of the new faith, many grew indignant with Paul as the one who had, in a large measure, caused this change. Even the disciples were not all prepared to accept willingly the decision of the council. Some were zealous for the ceremonial law, and they regarded Paul with disfavor because they thought that his principles in regard to the obligations of the Jewish law were lax” (AA, p. 197, 1911).

What the Bible says: Acts 15: 22 – Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church…

Verse 25 – It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord…

Verse 28 – For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.

Note: According to the Bible, the decision, being influenced by the Holy Spirit, was, unanimously accepted by both the church leaders as well as the church. Whereas, Ellen White contradicted this plain truth, “Thus saith the Scripture”, with her speculation. How could her writings be considered to be in harmony with the Bible? How could she be thought of as one leading people to the Bible?

Contradictions – Ellen White Truth

Parallels from The Desire of Ages – Ellen White Truth
The Unfallen Worlds – 2 – Ellen White Truth
Plagiarised material from other books and magazines of Ellen White
While this site mainly covers the books The Story of redemption and The Desire of Ages, plagiarised material can be traced in all of her writings.

This section presents the “borrowed” ideas of Ellen White that have been used in other books.

“Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.”

Following is a topical index of the “borrowed” work by Ellen White.

The Doctrine of Christ
Childhood and Ministry of Jesus
Plan Of Salvation
Trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection
The Ascension of Christ
Intercession of Christ
The Unfallen Worlds – 2
Ministry of Angels
Lucifer’s Rebellion
Adam & Eve and the Fall of Man
God’s Purpose for Man
More Parallels from Daniel Defoe
Ellen White and Joseph Smith
William Foy and Ellen White
Ellen White and Phoebe palmer
Ellen White and Joanna Southcott
John Harris’ “The great teacher”
Parallels from Daniel March’s Works
More parallels from John Ross MacDuff
Parallels from William A. Alcott
Parallels from J. W. Nevin
Fairy Tales and Myths
Other Examples of Strange Visions
The Scapegoat
The Seventh day Sabbath
Rash Oaths
Responsibility of Parents
Christian Education
Christian Perfection
Thoughts on Prayer
The Inspiration of the Bible
The Mystery of Iniquity
Borrowed Gems from Apocrypha
Unfallen Worlds – 3
Noah and the Ark
Heaven: Reward of the Redeemed
The Tower of Babel
Methodist Legacy of Ellen White
Freemason symbol at Adventist Head quarters
Miscellaneous Topics – Part 1
Miscellaneous Topics – Part 2
Miscellaneous Topics – Part 3
Counsels on Health and Temperance
Principles of Diet
Mother’s Influence Upon Her Children
Self-abuse
Counsels on Flesh-Food
Counsels on Alcohol, Tea, Coffee and Tobacco
Plagiarised Material – Ellen White Truth

Ellen G. White (EGW) wrote:

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." —Testimonies, Vol. 5 p. 67.

Ellen G. White is saying:

She is presenting what the Lord told her.
She does not write her own ideas.
She receives her material from visions.
The material is "precious rays of light from the throne."
After you read the documentation, see if Ellen G. White's statements are true or a myth. If you find they are a myth ask yourself, why do you support the cultic beliefs of Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

E. G. White has written two statements on amalgamation that has caused much embarrassment through the years in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because they are not Biblical or biologically true. Several Adventist apologists have written books and articles in a vain attempt to explain Ellen's nonsense.

"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." —Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864.

"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men." —Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

Ellen G. White is saying in first quote:

Amalgamation was the sin above all other sins that caused the flood and the destruction of the race.
The amalgamation of man and beast defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere.
In the second quote Ellen is saying:

Every species that God created were preserved in the ark.
The confused species that were the result of amalgamation were not allowed on the ark and were destroyed by the flood.
Since the flood there have been amalgamation of man and beast and may be seen today in species of animals and certain races of men. We are asked to believe that there are part human and part beast creatures about us today as there was before the flood.
Why was this "precious light from the throne" left out of E. G. White's later published books such as Patriarchs and Prophets? Her son, Willie C. White gives us the answer:

"Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason they were left out of the later books, and the question as to who took the responsibility of leaving them out, I can speak with perfect clearness and assurance. They were left out by Ellen G. White. No one connected with her work had any authority over such a question, and I never heard of anyone offering to her counsel regarding this matter. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that Sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books."—Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 452.

Does a prophet have a right to add and delete God's "precious rays of light from the throne"?



UriahSmithphotoUriah Smith Comes to Ellen's Defense in 1868

Ellen's first amalgamation statement was published in 1864; it created such questions as to whether the Negro race was human. Four years later in 1868 Uriah Smith wrote to defend Ellen's visions covering fifty-two objections in his book, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture.



Objection 39—The Negro Race Not Human

VisionsofEGW "The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: " Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But, says the objector, Paul says that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and then they add, " Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?" You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul's language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists, in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressor's veins! From any view which leads, to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused.

But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it ? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness, and to what a degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort. We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the improvement of their mental, moral and physical condition. Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not. Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people, unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being a Christian, or even a gentleman." —Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868.

Amalgamation

Geoscience Research Institute
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 9235O
Affiliated with: Loma Linda University and Andrews University
April 15, 1991
Mr. Rex DeGolyer
19 Sunshine Lane
Avon Park, FL 33825

Dear Mr. DeGolyer:

I am sorry that you were not at the afternoon meetings where this topic was discussed in some detail.

Concerning the amalgamation of man with beast I believe this was how the Image of God was confused, and as Sr. White points out, was the ultimate cause of the flood. It would have been impossible to ascertain whether this living form was man or beast thereby confusing the Image of God in which man was originally created.

I personally believe that the evidence seen today for such amalgamation is what science calls the "ape-man". such species as the austrailio Pithicus, a. Africanus, a. Robustus, and others would fit into this category. Neanderthal man on the other hand would not be classified as an ape-man, but rather a degenerate homo Sapiens sapiens.

Not being sure of what you were seeking for as an answer, I trust that these few comments have met your needs.

Sincerely,

Clyde L. Webster Jr., Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
cc: Pastor Emil Moldrik