who wrote the Desire of Ages-

[Adventist Dissident]

originally posted, in fromer adventist fellowship, i thought it was really good. this was posted by Colleen Tinker.\

I received a letter this week from a Proclamation! reader/supporter. This person, whose identity I will protect, has a familial connection with Elder Washburn, one of the pioneer Adventist preachers of whom some of you no doubt remember hearing.

This person said that several years ago, an elder family member gave this person a box of letters to read. They had been written by Elder Washburn. I will quote the last two paragraphs of this person's letter:

"In the letters he wrote about [the] 1888 meeting when Jones and Waggoner taught, and SDA pastors rejected Righteousness by Faith—but he and Mrs. White did not. Also, he told about Mrs. White asking him and an Elder Crisler to write research papers on the life of Christ. They did and footnoted all the books they used. He said to his surprise, that big research paper was published, had Mrs White's name on it, and was called, The Desire of Ages.

"The letters were later burned by [another family member] so no one would know what they said. But I had read them all."

I find this letter fascinating—I thought you all might, also.
Colleen


​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

so there you have it the source of the "Desire of Ages" it is actually a really good book, but not inspired. that explains all the problems. hum, make me wonder who else wrote the other books? any clue

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well that is rather like the dog ate my homework. May or may not be true. But not much in the way of evidence, unless the word of one person carries much weight, in which case we are constantly being invaded by outer space aliens who are intent on preforming anal probes.

 

[moicherie]

Well maybe she was inspired to use the research papers. An inspired singer does not have to compose the song they sing....

 

[mva1985]

Check out the book cover or title page for the answer - its there.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

RC either one believe EGW was inspired and recieved the DOA or she was not. If she was not then there must be an explination. This explaniation cover all the necessary problems. Someone else wrote it and she took credit for it. while you may object to the certianity of the infromation it is a good hypothesis and a good starting point for discusson. It is worthy of research

Well that is rather like the dog ate my homework. May or may not be true. But not much in the way of evidence, unless the word of one person carries much weight, in which case we are constantly being invaded by outer space aliens who are intent on preforming anal probes.

​

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Evidence exists to show she borrowed extensively from source materials at the time. Whether she did this with a 20th-21st century mentality with regard to plagiarism or not bes the question. Moriah thinks she did not. Moriah thinks she probably did not consider doing this to be wrong or in any way deceitful. She had but a meager education; she used the tools at hand to convey the messages she felt on her heart to convey. Unless it bes mistaken, research into the existing laws of her day indicate this kind of free borrowing bes not considered illegal and therefore might not have had the immoral stigma attached to doing so like it does today.

The problem with having been elevated to "prophetic sainthood" so to speak bes that the flipside of this bes reviling and vilification. Some seem to think it bes necessary to completely villianize everything wrong or inconstant that EGW ever did in her life, in order to get out from under the yoke of believing her inspired by God in an "authoritative for doctrine" sense. But EGW bes a human being like all the rest, for crying out loud, and no one bes perfect or even perfectly consistent. When she wore a fancy brooch she did not bes thinking nyah hah hah i sure hoodwinked all them sucker sheep about this bwahahahaha *rubbing hands in evil glee* -- NO. Like any other woman of her day she bes most likely just trying to choose something attractive and tasteful to wear that day.

Remember her face bes marred horribly as a child, no doubt she struggled with feeling unattractive not just sexually but in a regular everyday sense of being someone "hard on the eyes". Maybe she even worried it would stand between her and the work she wanted to do for God. Maybe she thought a pretty pin would help make her easier to look at. WHO KNOWS what she thought -- Moriah sure does not -- this all bes conjecture. But one thing it believes bes that she did not set out to be a shameless hypocrite just because she had inconsistencies. WE ALL HAVE THEM does that mean WE intend to be shameless hypocrites? Of course not. It means we bes human and we have blind spots and foibles and flaws, that bes the human condition. To err bes human ... not evil.

The perfection into which Christ longs to bring us does NOT involve taking us OUT of that world but KEEPING us from the evil in it. It involves so saturating us, spirit, soul, heart, mind, in His Love and His forgiveness that we become fountains of love and forgiveness ourselves. What does Love do? It covers a multitude of sins and it always bears up and believes ALL (good) things ... it puts everything in the BEST light possible and shines that graciousness on all without respect of persons. THAT bes the perfection He wants to bring, not whether we ever end up eating shrimp after we have pontificated about the ideal diet for health, or whether we ever put on a piece of jewelry after conversing with someone else about how God wants us not to be vain. Hey one can be proud of humility you know, and vain about how "plain" they bes. One can be proud and vain in a zillion ways, who knew but that wearing a brooch might have been EGW's way of avoiding that trap. We don't know. The point being neither do we need to villianize her in order to de-mythologize her. Yeah?

Just to clarify -- what it writes here comes from stuff it has read on various debunking websites, etc. It does not reflect any perception of Icedragon or his OP here -- sometimes Moriah gets tangential about a subject and that should not be regarded as meant personally toward anyone else.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC either one believe EGW was inspired and recieved the DOA or she was not. If she was not then there must be an explination. This explaniation cover all the necessary problems. Someone else wrote it and she took credit for it. while you may object to the certianity of the infromation it is a good hypothesis and a good starting point for discusson. It is worthy of research

​

Well it is actually a weak hypothesis which begins with the idea that the evidence for the hypothesis has been destroyed. Second there have been many books on the life of Christ. There is nothing in the fact that someone wrote a book about Christ that means that their work was inspired by God. And lastly it ignores the fact that she leaned heavily on her literary assistants to compose many of her more famous books such as Desire of Ages.

If the DOA was actually based upon some research project it was certainly done as a poor research project because much of the book is sheer speculation which as we all know does not take much to research.

 

[StormyOne]

I don't understand the big deal.... inspiration does not mean that God dictated and the person wrote everything down.... Was M. Scott Peck "inspired" to write the book "The Road Less Traveled?" I would say yes....

Whether or not EGW was inspired only becomes an issue if you accept the premise that she was the "prophet" for the sda church making it "the remnant." The premise is flawed, likewise egw is dead and gone..... believing in her won't save anyone....

 

[Adventist Dissident]

she claim to be a prophet and recieve messages from god. Now that is either true or not true. I don't know what the problem is with people in accepting that.

 

[StormyOne]

she claim to be a prophet and recieve messages from god. Now that is either true or not true. I don't know what the problem is with people in accepting that.

Did she say that or did people say she said that? Do you believe everything you read? Do you believe everything someone tells you? Do you think its wise to do so?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

she claim to be a prophet and recieve messages from god. Now that is either true or not true. I don't know what the problem is with people in accepting that.

The problem bes the application of binary thinking (on/off yes/no black/white either/or) to a multi-dimensional issue.

But if you insist on binarizing it? It votes NO then.

That does not mean, mind you, that God cannot use the writings of EGW to speak to someone's heart and spirit.

See? Multi-dimensional ....

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The problem bes the application of binary thinking (on/off yes/no black/white either/or) to a multi-dimensional issue.

But if you insist on binarizing it? It votes NO then.

That does not mean, mind you, that God cannot use the writings of EGW to speak to someone's heart and spirit.

See? Multi-dimensional ....

this is a non issuse. the issues is weather she should be used as a souce of authority as the scripture is. The answer is no, devotional value is a legitimate use of her writings, like CS lewis, Max lucado, John Aldrehich, Philip Yancy, fine, but not prophetic value.

 

[BGMCFAR]

STORMY ONE I agree with you what does believeing EGW or not have to do with our salvation . I belive our relationship with Jesus Christ is far more important than weather I believe the things EGW wrote

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am going to ask you to get back on topic. this is not about your views of salvation or weather egw is necessary for salvation. it is about who wrote the DOA. Ok. stick to the subject

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

this is a non issuse. the issues is weather she should be used as a souce of authority as the scripture is. The answer is no, devotional value is a legitimate use of her writings, like CS lewis, Max lucado, John Aldrehich, Philip Yancy, fine, but not prophetic value.

Actually it bes not a non-issue. But yes it agrees with your statements above.

 

[djconklin]

originally posted, in fromer adventist fellowship, i thought it was really good. this was posted by Colleen Tinker.\

I received a letter this week from a Proclamation! reader/supporter. This person, whose identity I will protect, has a familial connection with Elder Washburn, one of the pioneer Adventist preachers of whom some of you no doubt remember hearing.

This person said that several years ago, an elder family member gave this person a box of letters to read. They had been written by Elder Washburn. I will quote the last two paragraphs of this person's letter:

"In the letters he wrote about [the] 1888 meeting when Jones and Waggoner taught, and SDA pastors rejected Righteousness by Faith—but he and Mrs. White did not. Also, he told about Mrs. White asking him and an Elder Crisler to write research papers on the life of Christ. They did and footnoted all the books they used. He said to his surprise, that big research paper was published, had Mrs White's name on it, and was called, The Desire of Ages.

"The letters were later burned by [another family member] so no one would know what they said. But I had read them all."

I find this letter fascinating—I thought you all might, also.
Colleen
​

That's called hearsay; the Bible says we should only listen out of the mouths of two or three witnesses. Since DA can be traced back to older works by EGW (see Dr. Veltman's study) the above does not seem to be true.
​

 

[djconklin]

>Evidence exists to show she borrowed extensively from source materials at the time.

Actually the evidence shows that she borrowed very little and her literary practices were well within the accepted bounds of the time. Secondly, there isn't any problem with borrowing per se. It is the amount and scope of the borrowing that matters. If you borrowed some material and transformed it making it your own then there was no problem. For instance:

Andrews, The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. (1862) pg. 483 has:

"Much earlier the Jews at Jerusalem had sought to slay Him as a Sabbath breaker and blasphemer, (John v. 16-18; ) the Pharisees and Herodians in Galilee had taken counsel how they might destroy Him, (Mark iii. 6; ) the Sanhedrim had agreed to excommunicate any one who should confess that He was Christ, (John ix. 22; ) on one occasion officers had been sent to arrest Him, (John vii. 32; ) and there was a general impression that His enemies would not rest till He was removed out of the way, (John vii. 25.) But it does not appear that to this time there had been a determination of the Sanhedrim, in formal session, that He should die. The miracle at Bethany, and its great popular effect, brought the matter to a crisis."

Deems, The Light of the Nations. (1884) pg. 505 has:

"Early in his public career the Jews of Jerusalem had sought to kill Jesus as a Sabbath-breaker (John v. 16, 18). Subsequently, in Galilee, the Pharisees had conspired with the Herodians to destroy him (Mark iii. 6). The Sanhedrim had gone so far as to decree excommunication of any one who should confess Jesus as the Messiah (John ix. 22). Officers had once been sent to arrest him (John vii. 25), and the people generally believed that the party in power would never rest until Jesus should be put out of the way. Nevertheless the Sanhedrim had never formally decreed his death. But this raising of Lazarus brought matters to a head.

Note that it is quite obvious that Deems borrowed wording and sequence from Andrews. And yet in his entire chapter this is the only partial paragraph in which this kind of borrowing occurred. So, as Justice Story ruled:

"the author 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 a fortiori ["for a still stronger reason"], if his plan and arrangements are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copy-right in the book embodying such improvement" (Emerson v. Davies (1845), paragraph 2).

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Maybe you forgot and maybe you don't realize it, but we are coming from the stand point that she is not inspired. since that is our premise we must find another explination for her writings. As much as some don't like it and don't want to admit it borrowing is the most likely source. If the premise of the OP is accurate, then it would explain the source of Her writings. I personally do not believe she is divenly inspired and so no matter what one posts trying to expline or defend her postion it will not help in any way. borrowing is the only other option if she is not inspired.

 

[k4c]

this is a non issuse. the issues is weather she should be used as a souce of authority as the scripture is. The answer is no, devotional value is a legitimate use of her writings, like CS lewis, Max lucado, John Aldrehich, Philip Yancy, fine, but not prophetic value.

Amen and Amen!!!

This statement is worth its weight in gold...