who wrote the Desire of Ages-

[Byfaithalone1]

There's no problem with borrowing per se.

The editors of The Review, who were writing during Ellen G. White's lifetime, clearly view this subject differently. In 1864, the following appeared unsigned on the editorial page:

PLAGIARISM
​

• This is a word that is used to signify "literary theft", or taking the productions of another and passing them off as one's own.
  In the "World's Crisis" of Aug 23, 1864, we find a piece of poetry duly headed, "For the World's Crisis," and signed "Luthera B. Weaver". What was our surprise, therefore to find in this piece our familiar hymn, "Long upon the mountain weary have the scattered flock been torn." This piece was written by Annie R. Smith, and was first published in the Review, vol ii, no. 8, Dec 9, 1851 and has been in our hymn book ever since the first edition thereafter issued.... We are perfectly willing that pieces from the Review, or any of our books should be published to any extent, and all we ask is, that simple justice be done us, by due credit being given. ["Review" 24 (6 September 1864): 120]

The issue here is not that material was borrowed. The issue is that credit was not given.

The questions you need to ask are: How much?

An irrelevant question. If someone is guilty of murder, would we need to ask "How much?"

See Macfarlane's book

See Dr. Fred Veltman's report.

They also didn't have any standards for how to cite one's sources.

According to The Review, circa 1864, the standard included giving credit when material is borrowed. Is it your claim that Ellen G. White consistently met this standard?

BFA

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin

There's no problem with borrowing per se.
​

The editors of The Review, who were writing during Ellen G. White's lifetime, clearly view this subject differently. In 1864, the following appeared unsigned on the editorial page:

PLAGIARISM
​

• 
  This is a word that is used to signify "literary theft", or taking the productions of another and passing them off as one's own.
  In the "World's Crisis" of Aug 23, 1864, we find a piece of poetry duly headed, "For the World's Crisis," and signed "Luthera B. Weaver". What was our surprise, therefore to find in this piece our familiar hymn,
  
  "Long upon the mountain weary
  have the scattered flock been torn."
  
  This piece was written by Annie R. Smith, and was first published in the Review, vol ii, no. 8, Dec 9, 1851 and has been in our hymn book ever since the first edition thereafter issued.
  
  ...
  
  We are perfectly willing that pieces from the Review, or any of our books should be published to any extent, and all we ask is, that simple justice be done us, by due credit being given. ["Review" 24 (6 September 1864): 120]
  
  {DJC: emphasis added and re-formatted to match the original}

The issue here is not that material was borrowed. The issue is that credit was not given.

Worse than that. What had happened was someone had taken an entire poem, suppressed one line ruining it, and signed their name to the whole. So, the "borrowing" in that case was near verbatim and ruining what was borrowed--that would be called be plagiarism back then. For more details on what was considered acceptable and what was not, read Robert Macfarlane's study Original Copy of Victorian writers who struggled with "Plagiarism and Originality in the Nineteenth-Century" (subtitle to the book).

For those who'd like to see the Review and Herald article for yourself goto http://ast.gc.adventist.org/ and click on Adventist Archives, then on the left-hand side, under "Resources" click on "Review and Herald" then under "Next (501-1000)" then scroll down to vol 24, no. 15. The article is on page 120 (as was noted), in the first column, with the context being given. It is interesting that the first phrase that was ellipsed was "But worst of all the piece is mutilated ..."--note that for them the worst was the mutilation, not the borrowing. This is precisely the point of Macfarlane's book.
---
Yesterday I found examples between Geikie and Crabtre which showed, among other comparisons, that if we applied today's standards (which is what is typically done to EGW) to them then they would be considered plagiarists--and they did give a source (no title, no page, no quote marks ...)!

The questions you need to ask are: How much?

An irrelevant question.

Is someone a plagiarist for using one word? The experts in the field recognize that it is a legitimate question:

Lieberman, Trudy "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize, ... only be sure to always call it research," Columbia Journalism Review (July/August 1995): 21-5.

Cites a typical dictionary definition of plagiarism and then notes that it "stretches around a mountain of sins. Is plagiarism the theft of an idea, one word, two words, three words, four sentences, five paragraphs, long passages, or simply the research of others boiled down to yours?"

If someone is guilty of murder, would we need to ask "How much?"

When you kill someone then the questions become: was it accidently or on purpose, and was your response appropriate to their actions? Shooting someone who threatens you with even a knife is allowed; killing someone for egging your car is not. Since plagiarism is considered a form of theft then the courts would ask "how much" was stolen. The "theft" of a penny wouldn't warrant the same punishment as an armed hold-up of a bank. See Macfarlane's study where Victorian writers did ask 'how much" and what was done with what was borrowed.

See Macfarlane's book

See Dr. Fred Veltman's report.

Printed, put in binders (6*3"), and read all 2,222 pages--and you? For those who haven't seen it: goto http://ast.gc.adventist.org/ and click on Adventist Archives, then on the left-hand side, under "Resources" click on "Life of Christ Research Project" 4th item down.

My bibliography on this subject should be up on the web by the end of the week--it has 568 sources cited, some annotated. Such as:

Mazzeo, Tilar J. Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Prtess, 2007).

THIS IS A MUST READ BOOK! The book "historicizes the discussion of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century plagiarism and demonstrates that it had little in common with our current understanding of the term" (jacket cover). The books seeks to "answer what turns out to be a deceptively simple question: What constituted plagiarism in Britain during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries?" (page ix). [The typical critic assumes that they meant the same thing as we mean today. See St. Onge's 2002 and web article.] Mazzeo writes of the early nineteenth century: ". . . writers who did not acknowledge their borrowings, even implicitly . . . were not considered plagiarists, no matter how extensive the correspondences, if they had improved upon their borrowed material" (page 2).

&

Keanie, Andrew "No Cold Embrace: Literary Tensions in the Romantic Epoch," book review of Tilar J. Mazzeo's Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. 3 Plagiary (2008): forthcoming--maybe by the end of this week.

"Tilar J. Mazzeo’s Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period is a wide-ranging reassessment of the allegations that a number of the writers of the Romantic era were plagiarists. Handling the numerous and various materials with wonderful assurance, Mazzeo unpicks many modern assumptions: plagiarism – as gnarled university examiners tend to understand the term now – did not exist. Writers in the Romantic era were normally accused by reviewers on aesthetic grounds; that is, for not having improved on passages lifted. The legal fears we are now familiar with did not then exist. Hence, in accordance with Mazzeo’s authentic 19th century thinking, Thomas De Quincey was right to blame Coleridge for lifting (without improving on) passages from Schelling for the Biographia Literaria (1817), but wrong to blame him for lifting (and improving on) lines from Friederike Brun for the poem, "Hymn Before Sunrise" (1802)." "Mazzeo draws liberally on the critics who have contextualized plagiarism properly. McFarland’s book, Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition (1969), has been a guiding light: "[T]he concept of ‘plagiarism’ cannot stand the stress of historical examination. We encounter the term so rarely that we are perhaps not so critical of it as we should be. It applies mainly to the stricken efforts of undergraduates to meet demands far beyond either their abilities or their interests. But [the term "plagiarism"] has no proper applicability to the activities, however unconventional, of a powerful, learned, and deeply committed mind." "The problem [of plagiarism] was an aesthetic one."

They also didn't have any standards for how to cite one's sources.

According to The Review, circa 1864, the standard included giving credit when material is borrowed. Is it your claim that Ellen G. White consistently met this standard?

As I found out yesterday: one only gives credit when one is quoting entire sentences. If you borrow a portion you don't have to. My point was what is the standard; they would borrow entire sentences and only tell you the author in a passing manner ("as Geikie said" etc.). This is done as an appeal to a recognized authority figure in the field. Where they wrote for their peers in the field, EGW's works aren't written for the academic community.

Now, if you read Rea's book EGW is called a plagiarist (in his examples) even when she does give her source! The examples start on page 226 and following--some 13 cases.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

For those who'd like to see the Review and Herald article for yourself goto http://ast.gc.adventist.org/ and click on Adventist Archives, then on the left-hand side, under "Resources" click on "Review and Herald" then under "Next (501-1000)" then scroll down to vol 24, no. 15. The article is on page 120 (as was noted), in the first column, with the context being given. It is interesting that the first phrase that was ellipsed was "But worst of all the piece is mutilated ..."--note that for them the worst was the mutilation, not the borrowing. This is precisely the point of Macfarlane's book.

In order for there to be a worst offense, there must be lesser offenses that also are not to be viewed positively. Please articulate for us what those lesser offenses were. When you do, you will find it impossible to ignore the fact that the editors of The Review, who were alive and working during the life of Ellen G. White, realized that it was not appropriate to borrow intellectual property without offering the appropriate credit.

Is someone a plagiarist for using one word?

If it can be demonstrated that the one word was borrowed and that the appropriate credit for such borrowing was not offered, then yes I believe so. For example, if an author were to coin a new word used to describe a certain disorder, and if the use of the new word were unique to that author, the word could be considered intellectual property.

Much ado has been made regarding the quantity of the borrowing. This is a moot point. If it can indeed be shown that an author borrowed the intellectual property of another, and that the author offered no credit for such borrowing, then the extent of the borrowing does not alter the fact that the author borrowed, offered no credit and has committed an unethical (and possibly illegal) act.

When you kill someone then the questions become: was it accidently or on purpose, and was your response appropriate to their actions?

But the question is not "How many people did you murder?" Once you establish that a murder has taken place, you also establish that a crime has taken place. The questions you've set out above are designed to understand which crime has taken place, not whether a crime has taken place.

The same can also be said of borrowing material. Once you establish that material has in fact been borrowed (and in this case everyone is in agreement that it has) and that no credit for the material has been provided, then you establish that the action is not appropriate. Even the editors of The Review understood that this was true during their day.

Shooting someone who threatens you with even a knife is allowed

Actually this is not entirely true. A person who murders someone has available defenses, but this is hardly the same thing as suggesting that "shooting someone is allowed."

As I found out yesterday: one only gives credit when one is quoting entire sentences.

This is not true. One gives credit not only for the quoting verbatim entire sentences, but also when one uses the ideas of another without quoting anything verbatim. It is for this reason that credit can be offered in a number of different ways (i.e. through footnotes, through attributions made during the body of the text, through references cited at the end of the work, etc.).

If you borrow a portion you don't have to.

This is not factual. Perhaps you need to take a class in intellectual property law. It might open your eyes a great deal.

The OED Online defines plagiarism as the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another.

Duke University defines plaigiarism as follows:

Plagiarism occurs when a student, with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for proper scholarly procedures, presents any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were his/her own and/or does not give appropriate credit to the original source. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source.
​

My point was what is the standard; they would borrow entire sentences and only tell you the author in a passing manner. This is done as an appeal to a recognized authority figure in the field. Where they wrote for their peers in the field, EGW's works aren't written for the academic community.

In the case of Ellen G. White, she frequently failed to provide the name of the source of her ideas even in a passing manner.

BFA

 

[djconklin]

Tilar J. Mazzeo writes (Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period, pp. xiii, xiv):

Most recently, the mythology of Romantic authorship has been at the heart of critical investigations into the rise of plagiarism in the academy. It is a contemporary truism that plagiarism has reached epidemic proportions in classrooms across America and that this crisis is connected to Internet technologies and to the disruption in print-culture ownership that they represent. In recent years, composition specialists have focused with particular intensity on deconstructing the myth of the singular, autonomous author, and the foundational works in this criticism have identified this myth as an authentically Romantic one. In an important early essay, for example, James Porter argued for two "poles" of authorship, one intertextual and collaborative and the other autonomous and "Romantic," and advocated for the displacement of Romantic models in pedagogical theory. Rebecca Moore Howard advances a similar argument in her influential study Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators, proposing that "by the dawn of the Romantic era, it was no longer acceptable to stand on the shoulders of predecessors" and that, "in the nineteenth century, originality gains the textual prominence that we know today, and with its emergence comes the notion of morality as an attribute of true authorship."[5] While this is a conventional view of Romanticism, historical evidence does not support this characterization of plagiarism in the early nineteenth century. During the Romantic period, plagiarism was primarily concerned neither with textual parallels nor with moral failure. In fact, writers of the period were as concerned with strategies of collaboration and assimilation as they were with the category of originality--values that were not seen as mutually exclusive in the nineteenth century.
​

5. James E. Porter, "Intertextuality and the Discourse of Community," Rhetoric Review 5 (1986): 34-47; Rebecca Moore Howard, Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators (Stamford, Conn.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1999), 67, 76.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Tilar J. Mazzeo writes (Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period, pp. xiii, xiv)

Who is closer to the subject at hand? The editors of The Review, or Tilar J. Mazzeo?

Many points remain unaddressed.

BFA

 

[djconklin]

For those who'd like to see the Review and Herald article for yourself goto http://ast.gc.adventist.org/ and click on Adventist Archives, then on the left-hand side, under "Resources" click on "Review and Herald" then under "Next (501-1000)" then scroll down to vol 24, no. 15. The article is on page 120 (as was noted), in the first column, with the context being given. It is interesting that the first phrase that was ellipsed was "But worst of all the piece is mutilated ..."--note that for them the worst was the mutilation, not the borrowing. This is precisely the point of Macfarlane's book.

In order for there to be a worst offense, there must be lesser offenses that also are not to be viewed positively. Please articulate for us what those lesser offenses were.

One case would be the one just shown above. Other than that, I have consulted the experts in the field. I have referred you to them. If you do not wish to read and enlighten yourself, that's not my problem. I'm not about to do your homework for you. You have yet to produce one expert in the field who agrees with what you have been saying.

Davenport Adams, W. H. "Imitators and Plagiarists" Part I. The Gentleman's Magazine (May 1892): 502-516.

_______ "Imitators and Plagiarists" Part II. The Gentleman's Magazine (June 1892): 613-628

Part 1 opens with the line: "Accusations of plagiarism are more easily made than refuted." He observes that the cry "Stop thief!" is "often raised in the world of letters by the hangers-on of literature, simply to gratify feelings of vindictiveness and spite; a cry which usually originates in the consciousness of inferiority, and is sustained by the malignancy of envy." (pg. 502) "Voltaire goes so far as to affirm that a good imitation is the most perfect originality; and in our own literature, Pope, Gray, and Tennyson might be quoted to prove the truth of the maxim." (pg. 503) Donat, a grammarian of the 4th century, once said "May they perish who said our good things before us!" (pg. 510) Cites the example of Racan who as a youth wrote a quatrain and was shown that it came from Matthieu. Racan asserts that he had not read Matthieu. "Racan must have heard or read the quatrain, and had afterwards, as often happens, lost for a while all recollection of it." (pg. 512) (This is called cryptomnesia.) "A great idea is of slow growth, nor does it attain to its full development until it has passed through many minds. Then, at last, it finds the necessary expression, and is made over to the ages as the possession of mankind." (pg. 512)

In part 2 he recounts incidences of plagiarism (virtually wholesale theft) in the past. Closes with the quote "becomes him much more than the original owner" (applied to Tennyson for his borrowings, originally applied to Virgil). {DJC: emphasis added}

When you do, you will find it impossible to ignore the fact that the editors of The Review, who were alive and working during the life of Ellen G. White, realized that it was not appropriate to borrow intellectual property without offering the appropriate credit.

They were, as I noted, talking about verbatim copying, wholesale borroing and worst of all, mutilating what was borrowed! Macfarlane also looked at what authors in that day were writing about borrowing and giving credit.

Is someone a plagiarist for using one word?

If it can be demonstrated that the one word was borrowed and that the appropriate credit for such borrowing was not offered, then yes I believe so.

Therein lies the rub--it can't be demonstrated. It isn't till you have strings of 16 words, or 100 letters and spaces that you can be sure. Below that you can only degrees of confidence, or probability. Most of the examples shown to be alleged copying by EGW are at 6 words and less. That's the first problem. The second is proving that credit had to be given. If we use today's standards, which is what most are doing, then most scholars in EGW's lifetime (and at least one beyond) would be called plagiarists. I can show examples (in a forthcoming e-book) from a writer in 1917 who had two doctorates, one in law and the other in literature, who borrowed material from Conybeare and Howson and from Farrar with no quote marks, no footnotes.

For example, if an author were to coin a new word used to describe a certain disorder, and if the use of the new word were unique to that author, the word could be considered intellectual property.

--Once it has passed into the common lexicon, it cannot.

Much ado has been made regarding the quantity of the borrowing. This is a moot point. If it can indeed be shown that an author borrowed the intellectual property of another, and that the author offered no credit for such borrowing, then the extent of the borrowing does not alter the fact that the author borrowed, offered no credit and has committed an unethical (and possibly illegal) act.

See previous remark above about 16 words etc.. If what EGW did was illegal why wasn't she sued for it? Other writers were successfully sued in courts of law.

When you kill someone then the questions become: was it accidently or on purpose, and was your response appropriate to their actions?

But the question is not "How many people did you murder?"

I didn't say that it was. Why the twist?

Once you establish that a murder has taken place, you also establish that a crime has taken place. The questions you've set out above are designed to understand which crime has taken place, not whether a crime has taken place.

On the contrary, the questions pertain to whether or not a crime/murder has taken place at all.

The same can also be said of borrowing material. Once you establish that material has in fact been borrowed (and in this case everyone is in agreement that it has) and that no credit for the material has been provided, then you establish that the action is not appropriate. Even the editors of The Review understood that this was true during their day.

Since it hasn't been established we cannot say that EGW was a plagiarist. The question we should be asking is: Did she plagiarize? To answer this we need to do the very kind of study that Dr. Veltman recommended in his study 20 years ago. To the best of my knowledge I am not only the first, I and the only person who has done that kind of study. None of the critics have done it because they apparently haven't even read Dr. Veltman's study.

Shooting someone who threatens you with even a knife is allowed

Actually this is not entirely true. A person who murders someone has available defenses, but this is hardly the same thing as suggesting that "shooting someone is allowed."

I note the lack of proof. One is allowed, by law, to take reasonable measures to defend one's self. You can learn this by watching the news reports about crime and by simply watching TV shows like Law & Order.

As I found out yesterday: one only gives credit when one is quoting entire sentences.

This is not true. One gives credit not only for the quoting verbatim entire sentences, but also when one uses the ideas of another without quoting anything verbatim.

And the proof is where? I have yet to see any author from the time frame do that.

It is for this reason that credit can be offered in a number of different ways (i.e. through footnotes, through attributions made during the body of the text, through references cited at the end of the work, etc.).

Very rarely did writers of the era use footnotes. As for doing so within the text this is even more unlikely to occur. And yesterday I found that while going through Alexander Darre Crabtre's book "The Journeys of Jesus"--you can dl'd a copy throiugh Google book search--he lists at the beginning of the book (pgs 15-8) the authors he cites within the work. But, on page 492 he "cites" "McClellan, 486" without having listed him in the previous mentioned list. Then on page 496, he has a paragraph followed by the name "Winer"--with no page, nor is he listed in the aforementioned list and on the same paragraph the material comes heavily from Geikie (w/ no quote marks around the borrwed material; and he had 4 sources listed--among which was Winer).

If you borrow a portion you don't have to.

This is not factual.

I don't know who told you otherwise, but they don't know what they are talking about.

Perhaps you need to take a class in intellectual property law. It might open your eyes a great deal.

1) I was talking about commonly accepted literary practices of the day.

2) As for law I have actually looked at, copied and printed several relevant cases. Here's one case (note the date):

EMERSON v. DAVIES et al., Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 8 F. Cas. 615 (No. 4436); 1845 U.S. App. LEXIS 373; 4 W.L.J. 261; 8 Law Rep. 270 (May, 1845).

"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 a fortiori, 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. No man creates a new language for himself, at least if he be a wise man, in writing a book. He contents himself with the use of language already known and used and understood by others. No man writes exclusively from his own thoughts, unaided and uninstructed by the thoughts of others. The thoughts of every man are, more or less, a combination of what other men have thought and expressed, although they may be modified, exalted, or improved by his own genius or reflection. ... where the differences between different works are of such a nature, that one is somewhat at a loss to say, whether the differences are formal or substantial; whether they indicate a resort to the same common sources to compile and compose them, or one is (as it were) uno flatu borrowed from the other, without the employment of any research or skill, with the disguised but still apparent intention to appropriate to one what in truth belongs exclusively to the other, and with no other labor than that of mere transcription, with such omissions or additions as may serve merely to veil the piracy. ... It is not sufficient to show, that it may have been suggested by Emerson's, or that some parts and pages of it have resemblances, in method and details and illustrations, to Emerson's. It must be further shown, that the resemblances in those parts and pages are so close, so full, so uniform, so striking, as fairly to lead to the conclusion that the one is a substantial copy of the other, or mainly borrowed from it. In short, that there is substantial identity between them. A copy is one thing, an imitation or resemblance another. There are many imitations of Homer in the Aeneid; but no one would say that the one was a copy from the other."

Shows us the law cases the support your claim.

In the case of Ellen G. White, she frequently failed to provide the name of the source of her ideas even in a passing manner.

Of course not, she didn't get her ideas from anyone else.

 

[djconklin]

Tilar J. Mazzeo writes (Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period, pp. xiii, xiv)

Who is closer to the subject at hand? The editors of The Review, or Tilar J. Mazzeo?

1) I have already shown that the writer in the Review was talking about verbatim copying, this was recognized as plagiarism. Secondly, they were more concerned about the mutilation of what was borrowed--this is what Macfarlane's book shows as well. 2) Mazzeo is a literary expert in the Romanitc period. Others from that time frame:

anon., "The Rights of Plagiarism," The New Statesman (April 17, 1920): 38-9.

[Notice the date and the title of the article.] "Now, it is undoubtedly true that great authors are great borrowers, and that it is difficult to draw the line at the point at which borrowing becomes illegitimate ... Nor was he [Shakespeare] the only writer of his time who took the view that all literary goods should be held in common" (pg 38). "An author is entitled to use the language of his predecessors and his peers, if he can do so with a new emotion and a new grace" (pg 39).
--
anon., "Alleged Plagiarisms of Rev. Dr. Scott," New York Times (Aug. 23, 1854): 2.

Case of alleged plagiarism reported from the New Orleans Creole "transferred to his own pages entire sentences of description, explanation, illustration, argument and appeal"
--
anon., "The Philosophy of Plagiarism," Hood's Magazine 5/3 (May 1845): 465-69.

"Plagiarism is the noblest exercise of humanity. Such being the fact, we listen, with curiously uplifted eyebrows, to the indignation of critics, when they detect any one in the lawful act pf stealing ideas. We say lawful act; should we not rather say, inevitable act? ... Skilful appropriateion of that which lies at hand: this--this is the primum mobile. ... Facts and ideas are the materials constantly assimilated by the mind. ... there is a distinction recognized by the moral law ... between Honest Theft and Dishonest Theft. ... there are two kinds of mental appropriation. In the one case it is called Erudition, Information, Imitation: in the other case it is called Plagiarism" (page 465). "Originality is not to be sought in the material, but in the form: not in the facts or ideas, but in the fashioning of them" (page 469).
--
anon., "Plagiarism," The United States Magazine, and Democratic Review 16 (1845): 413-5.

"... on the subject of plagiarism. While it is necessary that something should be said on this point, there is also great danger that the thing be carried too far. Therre is no literary question which requires more discrimination, greater nicety of apprehension and occasionally more courage" (page 413). -- Unless one is attacking a dead woman; then an innuendo is sufficient for a conviction and execution.

 

[Avonia]

Who is closer to the subject at hand? The editors of The Review, or Tilar J. Mazzeo?

Many points remain unaddressed.

BFA

The larger error here is the "for" and "against" polarities. Although DJ is highly dedicated - and I honor that - he is working counter to his own cause.

This thread always saddens me. I have much respect and love for Ellen White. And I recognize she had great insight about some things (truth) and very limited insight about others (error).

The problem isn't Ellen White, it's our relationship to her work.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The problem isn't Ellen White, it's our relationship to her work.

We agree on this point. Mrs. White has been dead for decades. I have no personal issue with Mrs. White. I never knew her and know absolutely nothing about her motivation. My concerns center on the fact that a large group of people continue to view her body of work as a continuing and authoritative source of truth and seem to be incapable of acknowledging (as you have) the errors that exist in some of her writings--errors that lead to another gospel. The plagiarism issue is quite trivial compared to such problems.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Of course not, she didn't get her ideas from anyone else.

Let each person consider the research of the SDA scholars whose credentials demonstrate the requisite amount of experience needed to evaluate such a claim. In doing so, many will not reach the same conclusion that you have reached. Verbatim copying is not the only allegation that has been made and documented.

BFA

 

[djconklin]

The larger error here is the "for" and "against" polarities.

That is correct. In fact, on the question of plagiarism it has been observed that the more interesting aspect is where is the dividing line between good and bad borrowing.

he is working counter to his own cause.

That depends on what you think is my cause. I expose error in thinking. What did you think it was?

This thread always saddens me. I have much respect and love for Ellen White. And I recognize she had great insight about some things (truth) and very limited insight about others (error).

The problem isn't Ellen White, it's our relationship to her work.

That's my POV too.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I expose error in thinking.

Which of your own errors have you exposed? Or are you immune to error?

BFA

 

[djconklin]

The plagiarism issue is quite trivial compared to such problems.

See the second line in my tag.
---

Let each person consider the research of the SDA scholars whose credentials demonstrate the requisite amount of experience needed to evaluate such a claim.

Ah! The ol' "credentials" claim*--guess how they got them--by doing the hard work and research that I am doing. And what is the "requiste amount of experience"? How about 6 years? And when experts in the field applaud my work what do you say then? The reviewers complimented my study by noting its "high quality and cogent tone."

*Another critic asked if I had an English degree. I asked: did Canright? How about Rea? How about Peterson (who agrees that EGW was not a plagiarist)? Now Mazzeo and Macfarlane do have English degrees, majoring in literature--and by their studies one can see that EGW was no plagiarist. And yet you quibbled over Mazzeo's findings--so which is it? Do we listen to the experts in the field, or do we not?

 

[djconklin]

I expose error in thinking.

Which of your own errors have you exposed?

I can't count that high--how about you?

Of course, it helps when doing an in depth study of any sort if one doesn't start with any presuppositions of how you want the results to come out to be, or with any bias one way or another.

Or are you immune to error?

Of course not. And you? I have yet to see any critic admit that any of the list of 68 items I have so far about claims made about EGW (see http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7324779) is, in fact, an error.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I can't count that high--how about you?

Can you provide a link so I can read the posts for myself? I've yet to read a post from you in which you articulate an error that you once believed that you have since rejected. However, I certainly have not read all of your posts.

Of course, it helps when doing an in depth study of any sort if one doesn't start with any presuppositions of how you want the results to come out to be, or with any bias one way or another.

A great objective, but one that all of us will fall short of (in varying degrees).

Of course not. And you?

I have made any number of errors and I have publicly acknowledged them in this forum (and in others). For example, for over 3 decades, I erroniously believed that:

(1) We are sealed with the sabbath (rather than the Holy Spirit);
(2) Non-sabbatarians will one day receive the mark of the beast;
(3) The Bible teaches that a Sunday law is coming;
(4) The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve observed the sabbath;
(5) In order to maintain my salvation, I must work toward sinless perfection;
(6) Prior to Christ's second coming, there will come a point in time when I will no longer have a mediator;
(7) Salvation is by grace through faith and works;
(8) The Bible is not the only authoritative source of truth;
(9) The remnant is chosen according to their belief system (as opposed to "by faith"); and
(10) It is acceptable for a denomination to become the conscience of its membership on matters that are not directly addressed in Scripture.
​

I am quite certain that this is not a comprehensive list, but it should serve as a starting point.

I have yet to see any critic admit that any of the list of 68 items I have so far about claims made about EGW (see http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7324779) is, in fact, an error.

If you consider where this list was posted, you might better understand why you received no response from non-SDAs. If you were to conduct a search of the claims that I have made while posting on Christian Forums, CARM, FAF, revivalsermons.org and other websites, one will never find any claim from me that relates to:

1) EGW's (or her estate's) wealth or holdings;

2) the salvation of only vegetarians;

3) the quantity of EGW's plagiarism;

4) Fanny Bolton;

5) the San Francisco earthquake; or

6) tall people on Jupiter.
​

4) That EGW said "only sabbatarians will be saved."

I would like to speak to this one. Ellen G. White clearly indicates that, in the days immediately prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ, non-sabbatarians will receive the mark of the beast. Tell my, my friend, do those who receive the mark enter Heaven?

EGW contradicts the Bible.

Indeed she does. For example, she teaches the following:

· Obedience is the condition of gaining eternal life.
· Jesus does not change the character at His coming.
· Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified.
· Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them.
· It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement.
· The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin
· Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.

· If we regard iniquity in our hearts, if we cling to any known sin, the Lord will not hear us.
· Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient.
· Redemption in Christ means to cease the transgression of the law of God and to be free from every sin.
· In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning.
​

I have no doubt that you see these statements as representing Biblical truth. However, one would be hard pressed to reconcile such statements with Scripture.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

See the second line in my tag.
---
Ah! The ol' "credentials" claim*--guess how they got them--by doing the hard work and research that I am doing. And what is the "requiste amount of experience"? How about 6 years? And when experts in the field applaud my work what do you say then? The reviewers complimented my study by noting its "high quality and cogent tone."

*Another critic asked if I had an English degree. I asked: did Canright? How about Rea? How about Peterson (who agrees that EGW was not a plagiarist)? Now Mazzeo and Macfarlane do have English degrees, majoring in literature--and by their studies one can see that EGW was no plagiarist. And yet you quibbled over Mazzeo's findings--so which is it? Do we listen to the experts in the field, or do we not?

I've offered you countless opportunities to discuss your education, and you have repeatedly declined. If you'd like to do so now, feel free. Once you've done so, then we can compare your credentials with Veltman's. I was unaware that Mazzeo and Macfarlane had specifically researched the writings of Ellen G. White. Can you send me a link to their findings?

[BTW--I do have an English degree, a literature major.]

BFA

 

[djconklin]

Can you provide a link so I can read the posts for myself? I've yet to read a post from you in which you articulate an error that you once believed that you have since rejected.

You have assumed that I have posted them. It is not required that one do so.

I've offered you countless opportunities to discuss your education, and you have repeatedly declined.

What is necessary? Can you read English? I can and I consulted the experts in the field. I have repeatedly pointed you towards their work and yet you have declined to follow through. Why is that?

If you'd like to do so now, feel free.

I've already told you that i've spent 6 years working on this subject. I've pointed you to and out-dated biliography (the current one has almost 570 items in it). I told you that the reviewers of my article commented on its "high quality and cogent tone." What more do you really need?

Once you've done so, then we can compare your credentials with Veltman's.

And what were his credentials? What were Rea's? What were Canright's? What were Peterson's (who admits that EGW was not a plagiarist)? Why are you worried about mine?

[BTW--I do have an English degree, a literature major.]

And yet you quibbled about Mazzeo's findings?!? Are you in the habit of questioning the pro's when you have no foundation to do so? Which school gave you an english degree?

 

[djconklin]

For example, for over 3 decades, I erroniously believed that:

(1) We are sealed with the sabbath (rather than the Holy Spirit);​

Who told you that anyone was sealed by the sabbath?
​

(2) Non-sabbatarians will one day receive the mark of the beast;

Since it hasn't happened yet how do you know that it is an error?

(3) The Bible teaches that a Sunday law is coming;

Who told you that it does?

(4) The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve observed the sabbath;

Again, who told you that it does? Where is the evidence that they did not?

(5) In order to maintain my salvation, I must work toward sinless perfection;

Again who told you that? What did Jesus mean by "Be ye as perfect as your father in Heaven"?

The Bible says:
Ezekiel 33:14-15 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die

(6) Prior to Christ's second coming, there will come a point in time when I will no longer have a mediator;

Define "point". Are you saying that you can't sin for even a minute?

(7) Salvation is by grace through faith and works;

Define "through". Since it hasn't happened yet, how do you know that it is an error?

(8) The Bible is not the only authoritative source of truth;

Truth about what? Do you use the Bible in a math test? A chemistry experiment?

(9) The remnant is chosen according to their belief system (as opposed to "by faith"); and

If someone has faith that is their belief system. Only those who truly believe in Christ will be saved.

(10) It is acceptable for a denomination to become the conscience of its membership on matters that are not directly addressed in Scripture.

Which denomination does that? it certainly isn't SDA teaching.

If you were to conduct a search of the claims that I have made while posting on Christian Forums, CARM, FAF, revivalsermons.org and other websites, one will never find any claim from me that relates to:

1) EGW's (or her estate's) wealth or holdings;

2) the salvation of only vegetarians;

3) the quantity of EGW's plagiarism; {It's not the quantity, it is was she a plagiarist or not?}

4) Fanny Bolton; {it's that she wrote Steps to Christ}

5) the San Francisco earthquake; or

6) tall people on Jupiter.​

I didn't say that you claimed those to be true; nor, did I say where the claims were made. I explicitly said: "I have yet to see any critic admit that any of the list of 68 items I have so far about claims made about EGW (see http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7324779) is, in fact, an error." Now if anyone can't tell that I wasn't saying who said them or where, what does that say about their reading abilities (esp. for someone who has an English major in literature)? And you still haven't denounced any of them as being in error.
​

Ellen G. White clearly indicates that, in the days immediately prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ, non-sabbatarians will receive the mark of the beast.

Where does she say that?

For example, she teaches the following:

And no source for any of the claims that shows she actually said them. See the above question about reading abilities.
​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Who told you that anyone was sealed by the sabbath?

I didn't say "by the sabbath." I said "with the sabbath."

Since it hasn't happened yet how do you know that it is an error?

According to the book of Revelation, the mark of the beast relates to WHO a man worships and not WHEN a man worships. God is not ambiguous about the manner in which one avoids the mark. I have no need to wait until it happens to understand what it is and what it isn't.

Who told you that it does?

My local SDA church.

Again, who told you that it does?

Most of the SDA posters on Christian Forums and CARM.

Where is the evidence that they did not?

Should we build a belief system that directly impacts one's salvation on an argument from silence? My point was that I used to believe that the Bible taught that Adam and Eve kept a sabbath and now I realize that the Bible does not speak to this subject at all.

Again who told you that?

Margaret Davis, author of What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life, who provided a weekend presentation in my local SDA church. Her thesis was well supported by the writings of Ellen G. White. If you'd like to consider her thesis and how she supports it, you can probably view an online copy of her book (I know that it used to be available online).

What did Jesus mean by "Be ye as perfect as your father in Heaven"?

Your question seems to confirm that you believe that man must be perfect prior to Christ's second coming. Please confirm in concrete terms whether you or not you believe this to be true.

Now, with respect to Matthew 5:48, I note the following:

εσεσθε (future tense verb meaning "to be") ουν (adverb meaning "accordingly") υμεις (personal pronoun similar to "you") τελειοι adjective meaning "complete") ωσπερ (adverb meaning "just as") ο (definite article)ho (the definite article such as the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.) πατηρ (nominative meaning "father") υμων (personal pronoun meaning "your") ο (definite article)εν (preposition meaning "in") ouranos (noun meaning heaven as the home of God) τελειος adjective (noun meaning "complete")

In reviewing the context, I note that Jesus does not claim that man is perfect. Rather, He notes that man is evil:

"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
​

Similarly, I also note that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, that there is no one righteous, that human righteousness is as filthy rags and that there is only One who is good. These passages confirm the translation of "complete" (rather than perfect) in Matthew 5:48.

Are you saying that you can't sin for even a minute?

If there is a day when Christ ceases to mediate on my behalf, that is a day during which I'd better not be sinning.

Since it hasn't happened yet, how do you know that it is an error?

Because the Bible teaches that I can know today that I have salvation (see 1 John 5:13). I have believed and I have already crossed from death to life (see John 5:24). The Spirit has already guaranteed what it is to come (see Ephesians 4:30 and 2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

Truth about what? Do you use the Bible in a math test? A chemistry experiment?

We're talking about authority here. Math texts can be wrong. Chemistry expiraments can lead to faulty conclusions. I am unaware of any authoritative text other than the Bible. I have repeatedly asked you whether there are other texts--other than the Bible--that are authoritative, and you have repeatedly dodged the question. That's rather telling, isn't it?

If someone has faith that is their belief system.

That is not what I once believed. I once believed that the remnant were characterized by the specific things they believed. At that time, I believed in a concept known as "present truth." I'm sure you've heard of it.

Which denomination does that? it certainly isn't SDA teaching.

Is it your claim that the SDA denomination does not print a number of materials (i.e. periodicals, books, etc.) that address subjects such as dancing, contemporary music and alcohol consumption?

I didn't say that you claimed those to be true

Then why even bring it up? It isn't relevant to our discussion.

nor, did I say where the claims were made.

Yeah, I noticed that. Since I've not made any of the claims you're discussing, I would encourage you to discuss such claims with the person who made them. Only he (or she) can discuss intelligently what was meant by the comments that offended you. I am here to discuss the claims that I have made.

Where does she say that?

Please see (1) The Great Controversy, 1950, p. 605, and (2) Early Writings, 1963, pp. 32,33

See also (1) Seventh-day Adventists Believe (2nd ed). Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 2005. pp. 196, and (2) Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.

You have assumed that I have posted them. It is not required that one do so.

Then I am correct in noting that you have never publicly acknowledged any of your errors. One might wonder whether you really accept the possibility that you could be wrong about anything.

Can you read English? I can and I consulted the experts in the field.

But you are not--yourself--an expert in the field. That is the relevant point.

I have repeatedly pointed you towards their work and yet you ahve declined to follow through. Why is that?

Untrue. I have read Veltman's report.

And what were his credentials?

He had a doctoral degree and served as a pastor and as the chairman of the Religion Department at Pacificul Union College. He had a strong background and training in the language, text, interpretation, and theology of the New Testament. Do you have credentials that would cause us to view your abilities more favorably than Veltman's and--by extension--credentials that would cause us to view your conclusions more favorably than Veltman's?

And yet you quibbled about Mazzeo's findings?!?

No, I asked to read Mazzeo's findings with respect to Ellen G. White's writings. You've yet to provide a link.

Are you in the habit of questioning the pro's when you have no foundation to do so?

Are you suggesting that you are a pro? Upon what basis do you make such a claim?

Which school gave you an english degree?

I graduated from Northern Kentucky University in 1995. It is a matter of public record. If you doubt my honesty, then please feel free to research it for yourself. I'll be looking forward to your future post in which you confirm that I have told the truth.

I have asked a number of questions in this post. I understand that some of them may take you some time to answer. I am happy to be patient. However, I will assume that you will not reply to this post until you're ready to answer my questions.

BFA

 

[djconklin]

Who told you that anyone was sealed by the sabbath?

I didn't say "by the sabbath." I said "with the sabbath."

Same diff. Semantics.

Since it hasn't happened yet how do you know that it is an error?

According to the book of Revelation, the mark of the beast relates to WHO a man worships and not WHEN a man worships. God is not ambiguous about the manner in which one avoids the mark. I have no need to wait until it happens to understand what it is and what it isn't.

Since people have trouble reading English, I highly doubt that anyone has the ability to read the future. Secondly, no biblical support was given to verify this new claim.

Who told you that it does?

My local SDA church.

I highly doubt that everyone in the church teaches it. Secondly, even if some nitwit at your church teaches it that doesn't mean that it is official teaching of the whole. Thirdly, no evidence is presented to substantiate the claim.

Again, who told you that it does?

Most of the SDA posters on Christian Forums and CARM.

Again no proof.

Where is the evidence that they did not?

Should we build a belief system that directly impacts one's salvation on an argument from silence? My point was that I used to believe that the Bible taught that Adam and Eve kept a sabbath and now I realize that the Bible does not speak to this subject at all.

1) I asked for evidence; you failed to produce any. 2) The Bible speaks loud and clear to me.

Again who told you that?

Margaret Davis, author of What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life, who provided a weekend presentation in my local SDA church. Her thesis was well supported by the writings of Ellen G. White. If you'd like to consider her thesis and how she supports it, you can probably view an online copy of her book (I know that it used to be available online).

Unverifiable; you'll have to scan it so we can see it for ourselves. Secondly, what makes her an authority on the subject? Since you only have one person claiming it; it sounds like it isn't an official teaching, so why bring it up? Third, What are her credentials?!? Fourth, why did you believe her? Sounds cultish to me. Are you sure this was an orthodox SDA church and not one of the cultic off-shoots?

What did Jesus mean by "Be ye as perfect as your father in Heaven"?

Your question seems to confirm that you believe that man must be perfect prior to Christ's second coming. Please confirm in concrete terms whether you or not you believe this to be true.

Hmm, couldn't answer the question, eh? Try being concrete in your answer.

εσεσθε (future tense verb meaning "to be") [future indicative: "ye shall be"] ουν (adverb meaning "accordingly" [or "therefore"]) υμεις (personal pronoun similar to "you") τελειοι adjective meaning "complete" [or "perfect" as in "wanting nothing necessary to completeness" ]) ωσπερ (adverb meaning "just as" [or "even as"]) ο (definite article)ho (the definite article such as the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.) πατηρ (nominative meaning "father") υμων (personal pronoun meaning "your") ο (definite article)εν (preposition meaning "in") ouranos (noun meaning heaven as the home of God) τελειος adjective (noun meaning "complete")

Took a bit of time to cut-and-paste that. Parsing the verbs and declining the nouns is good for grammar, but it doesn't answer the question.

I note that Jesus does not claim that man is perfect.

I didn't say that He did. The tangent is irrelevant.

Rather, He notes that man is evil:

"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"​

The reason you didn't give the source for that verse is because it comes later in Matthew 7:11, versus the context of Matthew 5:48 which is verses 43-8.
​

Are you saying that you can't sin for even a minute?

If there is a day when Christ ceases to mediate on my behalf, that is a day during which I'd better not be sinning.

Why would you want to sin now--knowing that you sins killed Christ? BTW, you din't answer my question.

Truth about what? Do you use the Bible in a math test? A chemistry experiment?

We're talking about authority here. Math texts can be wrong. Chemistry expiraments can lead to faulty conclusions. I am unaware of any authoritative text other than the Bible. I have repeatedly asked you whether there are other texts--other than the Bible--that are authoritative, and you have repeatedly dodged the question. That's rather telling, isn't it?

1) I didn't say that the math books were without any error. When you are doing math you don't consult the Bible. 2) No evidence is presented that either math books "can be wrong" or that chemistry experiments "can lead to faulty conclusions." 3) No evidence is presented that Bible is authoritative in either case--which is the point under consideration here. 4) I'm not dodging the inadequately thought out question; I'm showing you that the thinking behind it is highly flawed.

If someone has faith that is their belief system.

That is not what I once believed.

I can't help that.

Which denomination does that? it certainly isn't SDA teaching.

Is it your claim that the SDA denomination does not print a number of materials (i.e. periodicals, books, etc.) that address subjects such as dancing, contemporary music and alcohol consumption?

Not relevant to the claim you made about the church being the conscience.

I didn't say that you claimed those to be true

Then why even bring it up? It isn't relevant to our discussion.

Since you clipped what I was responding to this makes it difficult to answer. However, as I recall I was responding to your claim that I had said that you said them.

Since I've not made any of the claims you're discussing, I would encourage you to discuss such claims with the person who made them. Only he (or she) can discuss intelligently what was meant by the comments that offended you. I am here to discuss the claims that I have made.

Nice ploy. My point is that none of the critics will disown any of the lies that other critics have made.

Where does she say that?

Please see (1) The Great Controversy, 1950, p. 605, and (2) Early Writings, 1963, pp. 32,33

See also (1) Seventh-day Adventists Believe (2nd ed). Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 2005. pp. 196, and (2) Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.

Thank God Almighty! Praise Him! She gave actual sources! Now if she hadn't clipped what I was responding to we'd know what it was all about!

You have assumed that I have posted them. It is not required that one do so.

Then I am correct in noting that you have never publicly acknowledged any of your errors.

No, you are not correct. I explicitly stated: "It is not required that one do so."

Can you read English? I can and I consulted the experts in the field.

But you are not--yourself--an expert in the field. That is the relevant point.

1) There's no proof of that. 2) There's no proof that it is a requirement. How about Dr. Specht and Cottrell when their work on DA agrees with mine--were they English majors? Actually, in their work Dr. Specht notes exactly what prepared him and Cottrel to do their work: they had studied the Synoptic Problem. I had spent three years doing nothing but studying that subject prior to studying the plagiarism question. 3) If you can read English and are willing to do the research you can do this work. Just start with an open mind and be willing to do the work. The latter factor may have more of an influence on the critics than anything else.

I have repeatedly pointed you towards their work and yet you ahve declined to follow through. Why is that?

Untrue. I have read Veltman's report.

You brought up Veltman. I was referring to Macfarlane and Mazzeo.

What did Dr. Veltman say on page 48, contrary to web reports?