The Most Significant Article that Spectrum Has Published—So Far
image:
Introductions by Bonnie Dwyer and Molleurus Couperus
Moving through the early volumes of Spectrum for this anniversary web series, we have noted the controversial nature of the Spectrum reviews of the book Prophetess of Health. In the late 1970s, Ellen G. White was a hot topic in Adventist circles. So when Dr. Molleurus Couperus read the lost minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference describing the controversy that swirled about her and her writings in the years right after her death, he knew he had to find a way to share them.
Thirty-one pages of unedited transcript were published in the May 1979 (Volume Ten, Number One) Spectrum.
“The record of the 1919 Bible Conference was lost until December 1974,” Couperus reported, “when Dr. F. Donald Yost found two packages wrapped in paper at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Takoma Park.”
Inside the packages were 2,400 pages of typewritten material, transcribed from stenographic notes taken at the conference.
Today, ninety years after the conference, the questions and exchanges among the participants seem as fresh as ever. Take this exchange between W.W. Prescott, one-time editor of the Review and then a field secretary for the General Conference, with the then editor of the Review F. M. Wilcox:
“W.W. Prescott: Can you explain how it is that two brethren can disagree on the inspiration of the Bible, one holding to the verbal inspiration and the other opposed to it, and yet no disturbance be created in the denomination whatever. That situation is right here before us. But if two brethren take the same attitude on the spirit of prophecy, one holding to verbal inspiration and the other discrediting it, he that does not hold to the verbal inspiration is discredited.
“F.M. Wilcox: Do you believe that a man who doesn’t believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible believes the Bible?
“Prescott: I do not have any trouble over it at all. I have a different view myself. If a man does not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, he is still in good standing; but if he says he does not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, he is discounted right away. I think it is an unhealthful situation. It puts the spirit of prophecy above the Bible.”
General Conference President A.G. Daniells participated in the conference. He was the main speaker, but rather than present a talk, he simply invited questions from the Biblical professors in attendance, so the conference unfolds as a conversation among the early leaders of the church. The Bible teachers speak of their unease in dealing with issues surrounding Ellen White’s inspiration. And Daniells admits that there are church members who question whether the leaders at the General Conference hold Mrs. White’s writings in the proper light. The frank discussion that ensures makes our history come to life.
Here, in this section of the web site, we share Dr. Couperus’ introduction to the 1919 Bible Conference and invite your comments. In the Archives you will find the entire transcript (links provided at the end).
The Bible Conference of 1919 - Introduction
From (1979) Vol. 10, No. 1
MOLLEURUS COUPERUS
Molleurus Couperus, recently retired chairman of the department of dermatology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, was editor of SPECTRUM during its first six volumes.
Nearly all Protestant 1 churches have had at least one outstanding leader whose dedication to what he considered his divinely ordained work and message was apparent to all. In spite of the fact that these men made mistakes and erred, their grateful and admiring followers awarded them a place of unusual authority in their church, particularly in matters of Biblical interpretation and doctrine. This was especially true of Luther and Calvin. Martin Luther, for instance, was called "an instrument of God," "a prophet of the Almighty" and an "apostle of freedom." Luther also applied the title of prophet to himself occasionally. His prophecies were gathered together by Johannes Lapaus and published by him in 1578 under the title True Prophecies of the Dear Prophet and Holy Man of God Dr. Martini Luther. This book was republished in 1846. Hans Preuss in 1933 wrote a scholarly volume entitled Martin Luther the Prophet, in which he lists the prominent theologians who called Luther a prophet, both before and after the Enlightenment. During the last century, Luther was more often called apostle or reformer. As time went on after Luther's death and scholars were able to study and compare the astounding size of Luther's writings (his published works fill more than 60 volumes), a critical evaluation was possible of the nature and extent of his contribution to the Christian church. In all this, he has remained the Reformer, the great Man of God.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been blessed by the great devotion and leadership of many individuals, both during its early history and its later development. Among these none has had a greater influence on this church than Ellen G. White, from shortly after the Disappointment of 1844 until the present, long after her death on July 16, 1915.
In spite of her limited formal education, Ellen (Harmon) White developed into a person of profound insight and spiritual stature, a wise counselor and leader, a deep Bible student and commentator. All of these characteristics are reflected in the voluminous written material that came from her pen, which has continued to extend her influence and authority in her church until the present. As early as December 1844, when she was only 17 years of age, she had a vision in which she saw the Advent people on their journey to the Holy City. This was the first of many visions, dreams and messages which she communicated to the church, nearly all of which were related to the beliefs, work and organization of her church, while others were for counsel to individual members. As Ellen White matured, she saw herself increasingly active in preaching, and traveled widely, including to Australia and Europe, to aid in the development of her church. She also became more involved in writing articles for various church periodicals and in publishing large books, even sets of books such as the five-volume Conflict of the Ages series. To aid her in this demanding part of her work, she was able to secure the help of a number of very capable literary assistants and secretaries, one of whom, Marian Davis, worked with her for some 25 years.
Soon after her visions first appeared and were publicized, questions naturally arose concerning the nature of these visions, their authority, and a little later, their relationship to the Bible. This latter question has remained a subject for discussion and even controversy in the church ever since. Ellen's husband, James, became fully aware of this problem soon after her first visions, and discussed it at some length as early as April 21, 1851, in the Review and Herald. He stated:
Every Christian is, therefore, in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The Word should be in front, and the eye of the church should be placed upon it, as the rule to walk by, and the fountain of wisdom, from which to learn duty in "all good works." But if a portion of the church err from the truths of the Bible, and become weak, and sickly, and the flock become scattered, so that it seems necessary for God to employ the gifts of the Spirit to correct, revive and heal the erring, we should let him work.
In a second article in the same issue, James White wrote: "God's Word is an everlasting rock. On that we can stand with confidence at all times. Though the Lord gives dreams, designed generally for the individuals who have them, to comfort, correct, or to instruct in extreme trials or dangers, yet to suppose that he designs to guide in general duties by dreams, is unscriptural, and very dangerous. The Word and Spirit are given to guide us." Four years later, on Oct. 16, 1855, he wrote again in the Review and Herald on the same subject:
There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the view of Mrs. White a Test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. – What has the Review to do with Mrs. W.'s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been, "The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty."
As the years passed by, some in the church claimed verbal inspiration for the writings of Ellen White, a position rejected by James White and officially by the church. Others claimed infallibility, and many called her a prophet. Both of these she denied, but felt that her work was more than that of a prophet, calling herself a messenger. On infallibility, she stated: "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible" (Selected Messages I: p. 37). In spite of these statements, from time to time some authors in the church have claimed various degrees of infallibility for her writings. Roderick Owen, in a reprint article in the Review and Herald of June 3, 1971, assigned infallible interpretation of Scripture to her. The official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has always been that our beliefs are solely based on Scripture, and that by Scripture all claims for religious truth must ultimately be tested. Believing that Ellen White was used by God to help guide the infant church as a spiritual leader does not imply that one can ascribe to her infallibility in her work, words or writings. Her son, W. C. White, who worked closely with his mother for many years, and for the Ellen G. White Estate after her death, wrote regarding her statements on history: "Mother has never claimed to be authority on history" (W. C. White, in The Great Controversy, 1911 Edition, p. 4; quoted by Arthur L. White in The Ellen G. White Writings, 1973). "Regarding Mother's writings and their use as an authority on points of history and chronology Mother has never wished our brethren to treat them as authority regarding details of history or historical dates. . . . When Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as authority on historical dates or use it to settle controversy regarding details of history, and she does not now feel that it should be used in that way" (Letter from W. C. 25 White to W. W. Eastman, Nov. 4, 1912; quoted in The Ellen G. White Writings, by Arthur L. White, p. 33, 34).
By what standards then should the writings of Ellen G. White be judged? First of all, according to her own words and those of James White: by Scripture. All other statements, historical, medical, scientific, like the statements of any other mortal, must be able to pass historical or scientific research the test of truth, as I believe Ellen White would have it. Then her message, so greatly confined to her own church by the unwarranted attitude of those who advocated infallibility for her writings, would become acceptable also for devotional and Biblical study outside her own church, which has been accused for so many years of having "an addition to or above Scripture."
The struggle that has been present in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to come to an acceptable and honest decision about the place which the writings of Ellen White should have for our church and those in other churches is illustrated by the discussions which took place at the Bible Conference in Takoma Park, from July 1-21, 1919, and which was followed immediately by a three-weeks long meeting of the Bible and History Teachers Council. In the Review and Herald of Aug. 14, 1919, W. E. Howell lists 22 delegates from our colleges attending the Bible and History Teachers Council, and other evidence indicates that the total number attending the Bible Conference was over 50. The president of the General Conference at that time, Arthur G. Daniells, reported on the Bible Conference in the Review and Herald of Aug. 21, 1919, and informs us that the meeting was attended "by editors, Bible and history teachers from our colleges and seminaries, and members of the General Conference Committee." Among those present at the Bible Conference, besides A. G. Daniells, were G. B. Thompson, field secretary of the General Conference; F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald; M. E. Kern, formerly president of the Foreign Mission Seminary (now Columbia Union College); W. W. Prescott, formerly editor of the Review and Herald and then a field secretary of the General Conference (who had a major part in the revision of the book The Great Controversy in 1911); H. C. Lacey, religion teacher at the Foreign Mission Seminary; W. E. Howell, editor of the Christian Educator; W. G. Wirth, a religion teacher at Pacific Union College, and later at the College of Medical Evangelists; M. C. Wilcox, book editor for the Pacific Press; A. O. Tait, editor of the Signs of the Times; C. M. Sorenson, history teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College; C. S. Longacre, secretary of the Religious Liberty Association; W. H. Wakeham, Bible teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College; J. N. Anderson, Bible teacher at the Washington Foreign Mission Seminary; C. L. Taylor, head of the Bible Department, Canadian Junior College; L. L. Caviness, associate editor of the Review and Herald; and T. M. French, head of the school of theology at Emmanual Missionary College.
In his report of the Bible Conference, Elder Daniells emphasized the importance of continued and deeper study of the Scriptures by our church. He stated, "The one great object of this conference is to unite in a definite, practical, spiritual study of the Word of God." He then quotes at length from Ellen G. White where she counsels the church to a diligent study of the Scriptures, and includes the following: "The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. V, pp. 706, 707).
Elder Daniells also reported the actions that were taken at the conference, and from this we quote: "We therefore express our appreciation of the following definite features which have marked the sessions of this Bible Conference:
5. For the incentive to more earnest Bible Study which the conference has aroused. .... We recognise, however, that there are still many mines of truth in the Holy Scriptures, and that these will yield their treasure to the earnest, prayerful, humble seeker after right. …
6. We believe that the blessings and benefits which result from Bible conferences such as we have enjoyed, should be perpetuated in the future. . . . We therefore earnestly request the General Conference Committee to arrange for another conference of this character in 1920. . . .
Such a conference, however, was not held.
The record of the 1919 Bible Conference was lost until December 1974, when Dr. F. Donald Yost found two packages wrapped in paper at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Takoma Park. The packages contained some 2,400 pages of typewritten material, transcribed from stenographic notes taken at the Conference. It seems a tragedy that this material was not made available to Adventist teachers and ministers after the Bible Conference, and that the message which the participants in that Conference wanted to share with the church membership never was transmitted.
Following, we present the transcribed record of the meetings of the Bible Conference of 1919 on July 30 and Aug. 1, which dealt especially with the Spirit of Prophecy. The discussions were open and frank, but reflect great sensitivity. There were other meetings in which this subject was discussed, but the meetings here reported were the longest and most comprehensive. In them, a number of individuals participated who had worked personally with Ellen White for many years. Because of their great historical significance, the transcripts are published complete and unedited, so that the participants of the two meetings may speak for themselves.
Links to the 1919 Bible Conference, in the Spectrum Archives:
Search
- Carolyn Sweeny on A Short History of Healthcare
- Donna Haerich on Soulforce Equality Riders to Visit Oakwood and Union
- Dick Larsen on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Bill Sorensen on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- john alfke on Divining the Voice in My Head
- pat travis on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Sirje Walkowiak on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- pat travis on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- pat travis on Receiving the Living Word
- C. Ray on Soulforce Equality Riders to Visit Oakwood and Union
Comments
Where did the 2400 pages go? The links you provide only point to about 30 pages. What happened to the other 2350?
This material, when it first appeared, had a huge impact on me. It made me realize just how unwilling to tell the laity the truth the GC officers, SDA Educators, and the EGW Estate personal are.
/Bevin
Bevin
Church leadership always had and still retains a Caiaphas mentality: "It is better that one man die than a whole nation perish!" The General Conference Session following the 1919 Bible Conference was historic. Elder Spicer campaigned and won the Presidency over A.G. Ganiells because he alleged that Baniells was "weak" on the Spirit of Prophecy." That has been the third rail ever since--Question Ellen and your on a dead end track to oblivion within the Church Structure. I diagree with you on origins but not on human nature. We are something else to be sure. Tom
Bevin: those 2,300 pages would make quite a "pdf" file!
Spectrum deserves our appreciation for publishing what the SDA church administrators covered up back in 1919. The question arises why didn't the Adventist Review publish those minutes when they were first discovered?
Covering up minutes back in 1919 reminds me of the tapes, minutes, and supporting letters in favor of Desmond Ford that were not even read at the Glacier View meetings in 1980 (a double burial) that were put under a "lock and key" by the church's administrators. But, unlike 1919, one of the participants in the meetings used his short-hand note taking skills to write down word for word of much that was said by the different participants. Dr. Cottrell had the courage to publish this in Spectrum. Again, Spectrum deserves our thanks for publishing something that was not popular at the time to publish.
Will the church ever learn that openness and honesty is the best policy to follow, rather than covering up?
I think that it is good that Spectrum is willing to publish both sides and leave it with the readers to make up their own minds on some of these controverial issues.
I would like to see the supporting documentation that the records of the 1919 conference were purposely "covered up".
Certainly a bad effort since they were found in 1974.
How much simpler would have it been to simply burn them and non of you would have ever known the difference?
I would like to suggest Michael that the SDA church as a general rule is still covering up about the truth about Ellen White. The involvement of Ellen White's secretaries as detailed by the 1919 Bible Conference minutes still is not reaching the average member in the pew, especially outside the readers of Spectrum.
Her statement "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible" is curious. Did she ever say, or write, 'nothing I have said or written is infallible'?
The Qur'an (as I understand) is a source of infallible truth to the Muslim as given by the Prophet.
Are there any prophets alive now who claim any measure of infallibility?
"Believing that Ellen White was used by God to help guide the infant church as a spiritual leader does not imply that one can ascribe to her infallibility in her work, words or writings."
Amen.
A "prophet" does not need to be correct in his/her views about everything, but the important things.
The more I learn about the context of Ellen White's ministry, the more I appreciate her contribution to keeping Adventist theology in continuity with the greater, historic Christian tradition on matters of importance, i.e. her view of God and Jesus.
Eschatology and how one treats their bodies, IMO, in the grand scheme of things, are matters of "adiaphora"; there are better and worse interpretations, but these are not worth fighting over and there should be a wide latitude of diversity allowed in the church in the belief and practices in regards to these matters.
Zane,
What a wise comment. Thank you for your distinctions on what is important.
That the church and the White Estate have been conflicted over how to treat Ellen and her writings becomes abundantly clear in these papers and the fact that it was Spectrum that published them five years after they were found. But I don't think we should hold grudges against Ellen, because she was not always well served by those who were trying to protect her. That is not her fault. And it is high time for us to be forgiving of the brethren, too. We all need to move on from the bickering. That can only happen when we forgive.
Thank you Mike for your affirmation of what Spectrum does. Yes, as a church family we deserve to be told the truth of what takes place at the General Conference and its meetings. Sunshine rules about committee meetings and actions would certainly bless the church. After all, those meetings are essentially being held in our name. The church is the people. And the organization is intended to serve the church--the people, and not the other way around. I do think the church has come a long way in that regard even though there are still times when officials become overly protective of information.
The involvement of Ellen White's secretaries as detailed by the 1919 Bible Conference minutes still is not reaching the average member in the pew, especially outside the readers of Spectrum.
Posted by: Mike MacLennan (not verified) | 11 May 2009 at 5:14
If we gloss over the fact that your statement is a subjective opinion, what does the average member in the pew stand to gain or lose by having no interest, some interest or extreme interest in the 1919 minutes?
Michael,
I take it you are very young, so I'll give you a pass. Back a couple of decades ago, we heard that Walter Rae was going to publish a book about EGW's use of sources. So here at Forest Lake Church we organized a series of Sabbath afternoon studies on the nature of inspiration and the development of the Biblical Cannon.
The Spectrum materials (including the 1919 conference) Dr. Jack Provansha's lectures on how inspiration works - and Dr. Richard Nies "How readest thou" were among the sources used. As well as Froom's works and Ron Number's studies.
We spend the first six weeks on the Bible - how it was written down, transmitted, translated - using books like Goodspeed's book, You can Trust the Bible and other sources available on how the English Bible came to be - the various editions of the KJV, etc.
The we used Ellen White's own materials - such as the quotes found in the SDA Bible Commentary on Inspiration. Our own SDA doctrinal position on thought vs verbal inspiration.
When Rae's book came out - those who read it and had attended our series said, "so what." They had been inoculated and were not concerned about the "copying issues"
If one respects Ellen White's writings and believes she still has an important role in our church then a correct understanding of her spiritual gift is critical. Too much misinformation and misunderstanding about her exists - The recent pitiful Sabbath School Lesson Guide is a prime example. The 1919 Bible conference is an important key piece in this educational process.
Isn't it liberating to understand the correct role of Ellen G. White? But itsn't it equally sad, that the fundamentalists still dominate theological thought and discussion. The check-list orientation persists. We would spend more time on "sin" than on Salvation.
To have a staff of re-write editors and proof readers is standard practice. What is not standard practice is to "hid" it or deny it. Certainly as underhanded as hiding sources.
I recall my good mentor and friend, Harry Tippett. He has one small devotional book to his credit. However, the jangled prose of countless "Executive Types" are in print because of Prof. Tippett's diligent editing and re-writing without even an acknowledgement.
Now, because of 1919 and Spectrum we can read E.G.White as we read John R.W.Stott. or Philip Yancey or even Cliff Goldstein.
Dr. F. Don Yost is a near neighbor and close friend. He insisted that he "found" the package and alerted the White Estate. The distribution was not of his doing. He has no trouble with the subsequent distribution--he wants neither credit or abuse for his discovery and his professional handling of the material.
The source of our redemption remains, Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Those who witness to that reality are His servants. Tom
"it is high time for us to be forgiving of the brethren, too. We all need to move on from the bickering. That can only happen when we forgive."
One cannot forgive unless there is first admission and reporting conclusions of such an event: a conference paid for by the church members, not those in attendance.
To coverup and obfuscate something so essential to Adventist belief allows the continuation of Ellen White's infallibility to still be taught--as seen in the SS lessons and weekly reprints of her articles in the Review.
Just as the torture memos of the last presidential administration became publicized, the "forgiveness" motto surfaces. Unless and until all such chicanery and wrong-doing is given the sunlight, what is to prevent the same occurrences in the future? Not advocating punishment is not the same as revealing all those higher-ups involved and "letting the chips fall." The Justice Department can make the decision of further action, if warranted.
The 1919 Bible Conference is the perfect example of such an attempt. Sunlight should be welcome and when not allowed, the results are much worse when delayed. This is something most of us learned when young children. My mother had a saying when it was discovered that one of her brood had disobeyed: "A little bird told me." Only when there is collusion and secrecy demanded, should all of us be worried.
Donna, you presented the ideal situation when Rea and similar discoveries were made. However, few churches are so welcoming of such efforts, and many members lost their membership and churches were split because openness to such information was punished. Your church and the setting is exemplary, but also unusual.
Donna,
I was asking Mike to provide his understanding of my question, but thank you for giving your experience with at least one aspect of my query.
That would be the relevant issues surrounding, "those who read it and had attended our series said, "so what." They had been inoculated and were not concerned about the "copying issues".
To date no one has offered a perspective on the other 2 aspects of my question.
Assuming I am young has no bearing anything related to my question to Mike. Also it is factually incorrect.
So, what did happen to the other 2350 pages?
/Bevin
Bevin,
I don't know what happened to the other 2350 pages, but I would assume that they are still at the General Conference.
However, I also do not know how many pages of the typed document equals a page of type in the journal. Obviously, Spectrum did not print every single word. But we did print enough to give a good sense of the conversation that took place.
Ellen White's secretaries:
Michael it is clearly shown in the 1919 Bible Conference minutes that James White, and I quote from those minutes: “knew that the secretaries…. used words that Sister White did not herself write in her original copy. He saw that, and yet he saw some brethren who did not know this, and who had great confidence in the Testimonies, just believing and teaching that these words were given to Sister White as well as the thought. And he tried to correct that idea.”
What Elder Daniells recounts about what he saw in Australia about the writing of “The Desire of Ages” continues in the context of this discussion:
“A.G. Daniells: In Australia I saw “The Desire of Ages” being made up, and I saw the rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over and over again. I saw that, and when I talked with Sister Davis about it, I tell you I had to square up to this thing and begin to settle things about the spirit of prophecy. If these false positions had never been taken, the thing would be much plainer than it is today. What was charged as plagiarism would all have been simplified, and I believe men would have been saved to the cause from the start we had understood this thing as it should have been. With those false views held, we face difficulties in straightening up. We will not meet those difficulties by resorting to a false claim. We could meet them just for today by saying, “Brethren, I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies; I believe in the infallibility of the one through whom they came, and everything that is written there I will take and I will stand on that against all comers.”
Another quote from Elder Daniells:
“A.G. Daniells: Yes; and now take that “Life of Paul,” – I suppose you all know about it and knew what claims were put up against her, charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors of the book, Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into “The Life of Paul” without any credit or quotation marks. Some people of strict logic might fly the track on that ground, but I am not built that way. I found it out, and I read it with Brother Palmer when he found it, and we got Conybeare and Howson, and we got Wylie’s “History of the Reformation,” and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them. I supposed it was Sister White’s own work. The poor sister said, “Why, I didn’t know about quotations and credits. My secretary should have looked after that, and the publishing house should have looked after it.”
She did not claim that that was all revealed to her and written word for word under the inspiration of the Lord. There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings. Of course I could have said this, and I did say it, that I wished a different course had been taken in the compilation of the books. If proper care had been exercised, it would have saved a lot of people from being thrown off the track.
Mrs. Williams: The secretary would know that she ought not to quote a thing without using quotation marks.
A.G. Daniells: You would think so. I do not know who the secretary was. The book was set aside, and I have never learned who had a hand in fixing that up. It may be that, some do know.
B.L. House: May I ask one question about that book? Did Sister White write any of it?
A.G. Daniells: O, yes!
E.L. House: But there are some things that are not in the new book, either. Why are those striking statements not embodied in the new book?
A.G. Daniells: I cannot tell you. But if her writings were verbally inspired, why should she revise them?
B.L. House: My difficulty is not with the verbal inspiration. My difficulty is here: You take the nine volumes of the Testimonies, and as I understand it, Sister White wrote the original matter from which they were made up, except that they were correct so far as grammar, capitalization and punctuation are concerned. But such books as “Sketches of the Life of Paul,” “Desire of Ages,” and “Great Controversy,” were composed differently, it seems to me, even by her secretaries than the nine volumes of the Testimonies. Is there not a difference? I have felt that the Testimonies were not produced like those other books.” End of quoting from 1919 Bible Conference Minutes.
Let the above words speak for themselves!
By the way, Michael, the above example shows also that plagiarism was an issue in the times of Ellen White as the SDA church in the 1980s vigorously tried to deny, even to the point of hiring a lawyer to pass judgment about what happened back then. Ellen White blamed it on her secretaries and the publishing house, back in a time when the SDA church said plagiarism wasn’t an issue. Don’t you think it’s about time that the E.G. White estate starts quoting and giving credit to the books that were copied in the writing of the “Desire of Ages”?
I am familiar with the quotes you mention but the direct quotes do not answer my question: what does the average member in the pew stand to gain or lose by having no interest, some interest or extreme interest in the 1919 minutes?
You seem to think that it is imperative in this quote:"The involvement of Ellen White's secretaries as detailed by the 1919 Bible Conference minutes still is not reaching the average member in the pew.."
I believe it is reaching the average pew member... if they have any interest in the subject. What do you suggest be done to those who dont care such as those who Donna mentioned?
Can you answer the question; "what does the average member in the pew stand to gain or lose by having no interest, some interest or extreme interest in the 1919 minutes?" by any other means than just the quotes you posted?
On another note,
You provide the quotes where people witnessed these secretaries editing the text.
Are you suggesting that EGW never checked their edits prior to publishing or even after it had been published?
Certainly if she picked up a copy and read a portion and found the meaning substantially changed or incorrect she would have been quite unhappy no?
Much talk has been made here in Spectrum about how she brow beat general conference officials. Certainly she wouldn't have been quiet about secretaries changing her books without her consent prior to publishing?
On another note,
You provide the quotes where people witnessed these secretaries editing the text.
Are you suggesting that EGW never checked their edits prior to publishing or even after it had been published?
Certainly if she picked up a copy and read a portion and found the meaning substantially changed or incorrect she would have been quite unhappy no?
Much talk has been made here in Spectrum about how she brow beat general conference officials. Certainly she wouldn't have been quiet about secretaries changing her books without her consent prior to publishing?
Posted by: Michael | 12 May 2009 at 4:47
One thing I know Michael is that Ellen White was a very practical and pragmatic woman. We know from the research of Dr. Samuele Bachiocci that she requested help in correcting some of the historical errors in the Great Controversy - a work that was never completed. Also she never placed a lot of importance to the words that she had written and even published in her books, as the following example shows: at Healdsburg Sanitarium she insisted on kids 5 to 6 years old starting school with her son Willy making all kinds of protests that it was a violation of the Spirit of Prophecy, because of page so & so of the book Education, it is plainly stated that children should not start school at such an early age! She uses about 10 arguments in the book to support a late age start. But she responded to him: "Look Willy! Use your common sense! The parents of those children are working in the Sanitarium and if those children are not in school they would get up to mischief." (that is as I remember of the words from an article that Dr. Arthur Patrick made available when he was in charge of the Ellen White Research Centre at Avondale College, Australia.) It seems that poor Willy was fixated on this verbal inspiration idea of Ellen White writings. You will see or have seen from the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes how Daniells ate butter and eggs right at the White's own table! She had written condemning their use, but Daniells was relaxed and knew that she was not going to get on his case about it.
So to answer your question: may be she didn't care whether a secretary or the publishing house or her husband as Editor made the changes.
I think there is a lot of merit in Elder B.L. House's remarks about the E.G. White team writing the major works and Ellen White exclusively writing the Testimonies.
So the question about whether or not the church should communicate details like this to the members: I think the examples Donna gave show that "yes" it did and will save members. Unfortunately the witch-hunting that Elaine experienced is also a part of the history of the 1980s.
Tom
"Now, because of 1919 and Spectrum we can read E.G.White as we read John R.W.Stott. or Philip Yancey or even Cliff Goldstein."
As someone who also loves reading Philip Yancey, it is very hard for me to read her in that light, after being led in my early years to believe she was THE Spirit of Prophecy and states that "she was shown" these things. However, I would agree that is how she should be viewed--inspired as many others have and continue to be.
Reading the portion of the text of the 1919 conference listed above was helpful to see the church leaders perspective at that time. The Adventist church has suffered by those who viewed and used her differently and forced people like Daniels out of power. I also remember listening to Elder Don Neufield discuss inspiration and basically stating the obvious from a biblical perspective--inspiration is not a one time event in a single individual in the modern world. Even though for many that is an obvious statement, a lot Adventists I grew up with have difficulty with it.
"Dr. F. Don Yost is a near neighbor and close friend.... his professional handling of the material..." I would totally agree with this statement knowing Dr. Yost as well as I do--he would be totally professional in all his actions as the GC archivist just as he is in all aspects of his personal life--an example of a God filled life.
Bonnie,
Perhaps the great attempts some makes to "protect" Mrs. White's from scrutiny writings, and the offense some feel from a lack of transparency, also comes from a misunderstanding of their importance in the overall scheme of things.
From what I understand, assenting to her prophetic gift is not a "test of membership"--in other words "adiaphora." So, technically, it should matters less that one's take on drinking alcoholic beverages.
I just received a letter with an enclosure from Dr. Julius Nam of LLU regarding the up coming Ellen White Book and Conference project. It included a list of proposed contributors. Sounds like a comprehensive effort--hopefully "Fair and Balanceed". The participants include several knowledgable critics and well as some well reasoned apologists.
I do not have a negative feeling toward E.G.White to the extent of such feelings toward those who abuse her advice--particularly in their dealings with young hearts and minds.
I do believe, that she retained an end-time exclusiveness that is unChristian.
As long as one reads her as urging to become more Christ-like--great. But when it become--"more like me!" Forget it!!!!!
Tom
It will be as "fair and balanced" as the Faith and Science Conferences were, and the Des Ford fiasco was. No matter what goes on behind the locked doors, the administrators and the EGW estate will issue their own self-serving whitewash statement after it, and point to the conference as backing the nonsense.
/Bevin
Does anyone believe that a "fair and balanced" report can be reported on this hot button issue? Should we take a vote? I vote "No" it will not happen.
No, it won't be fair and balanced. I think we can pretty much predict what the bottom line will be regarding EGW. The outcome is already determined. Just gotta figure out, one more time, how to make it all sound credible in 2009 or 2010, (whenever it comes out) and deal with all the information that is available these days at the touch of a fingertip.
Guys, I think otherwise. I think it will come out a very suble measured suggestion that E.G. White was a child of her time, that she attached an eschatologic signifiance to the Reformational view of Martin Luther/Armenius and the discipleship that it implies.
It might, though I doubt it, go so far as to suggest in a kindly way that She was been misused, and blatantly abused for personal gain, for career advancement, and institutional positioning.
Finally, it will suggest, in measured voice, that her readings and impressions became so fixed in her mind as to take on divine promptings.
The bottom-line will be a that she was a vital influence in the Awakening with a distinct message of healthful living as stewards of a Creator/Redeemer God. The Andreason/Review/Douglass view will be down played if broached at all.
Tom
Consider the problems of presenting a fair appraisal when both the Review, the many SDA writers (Cliff Goldstein, et al) continue to uphold her as THE commentator on a weekly basis. Not to mention the continuing sales and promotions of all EGW books. Not a chance!
Well, Tom...
I think that is what we all thought the bottom line would be. So what is the point of the book? Not fair and balanced, in any way, in my honest opinion. Seems like a real waste of time and money. But, when the survival of the church depends on Ellen, I guess in the minds of the powers that be, it is, money well spent.
C fowler
I guess I was too suble. I used "fair and balanced" in the context of Fox News. My belief is that the book will "kill" E.G.White with faint praise. A "Brutus is an honorable man:" kind of apology. Her historic role will be highlighted, her wisdom in rebuking Holy Flesh, her early acceptance of the advances of medical knowledge highlighted, her challenge of the brethren in 1888 will cap the story line. Her rescue of the Millerite Movement will listed as providential, with the imput from New York farmers muted and the Sabbath contributed by Joseph Bates blurred.
Her use of sources will be explained away.
The salient point will be the focus on RBF in an end-time environment congruent with the days of Noah.
Never-the-less, the bottom-line will be that Seventh-day Adventism is not an off shoot but a natural God guided extension of the Reformation of 15th and 16th centuries and relighted by the Awakenings in America--not the hysteria of Americans.
The scholars want their day, 4 decades after Glacier View.
The book will have the sub-liminal intent of a eulogy.
It will be written to be read at three levels. 1. The GC. 2.the Pew warmer, 3. The academic world.
It will take all the cunning and skill of the colaborators and then some. Tom
Tom,
They should save their money. Your "report" is just how it will read. With all your experience, your prescience is demonstrated.
Knowing how the brethren operate, you've captured the report. Shall we take wagers that yours is the closest to the one that will be given?
So the SDA academics will continue their tradition of supporting the status quo, the administration, and the EGW estate by writing materials that appear to the laity, to support those organizations.
But in the back room, those in the know can pretend that they have done their bit to correct the matter without endangering their career.
The 1919 Bible Conference minutes got hidden in a closet. The modern equivalent gets hidden under a layer of apparent consent.
/Bevin
The proplem with EGW is that she claimed too much for herself, I wish she had taken a more humble view of her ministry.
"If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abiram." (Testimonies, Volume 5, p.66).
"No matter what goes on behind the locked doors, the administrators and the EGW estate will issue their own self-serving whitewash statement after it..."
You got that right Bevin. The EGW Estate is about as useless as teats on a bull with these matters. They have one agenda only, and that is to preserve the air-brushed, pristine image of EGW as an infallible prophetess. That's it. They exist for nothing else. It matters not to them one whit that by continually pushing this idealized version of her onto the next generation of Adventists, they are only risking creating more Sydney Cleaveland's and Walter Rea's. Once these young impressionable SDA's discover the wonders of internet research and realize there are serious problems with that unrealistic, ridiculous perception of verbal inspiration, some will feel rightly betrayed and turn on EGW as her worst enemies. The Estate will have essentially shot themselves in the foot by promoting their propaganda. Instead of creating devotees of EGW, they will have contributed to formulating her most savage opponents. How's that for irony?
One only has to see how Graeme Bradford is being crucified amongst the right wing right now for his book More Than A Prophet (a balanced and fair book on EGW if I have ever read one!) The Estate has issued an official statement which basically charges him with 'underming' her prophetic authourity and warns the church of the 'dangers' of his book. This is the reception that awaits anyone in the church who attempts a sane, reasonable approach to her.
Yes, the way of the EGW Estate is a dangerous one. The road ends with EGW wearing pontifical robes and a mitre speaking ex-cathedra. And the sad thing is that they either don't see that or they don't care.
>Where did the 2400 pages go? The links you provide only point to about 30 pages. What happened to the other 2350?
They are readily and easily available on the GC web site under archives: http://www.adventistarchives.org/documents.asp?CatID=19
Post new comment