Talk:Inspiration of Ellen G. White

Recent material
Link removed from page: Please justify why the individuals behind this site are notable enough to be included. Colin MacLaurin 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ellen-White.com  Examining the allegations since 2000

Earlier material
Some of the basic points are helpful, but there is far too much information which is simply not relevant to the topic. Some of it might belong on other pages such as Victor Houteff. Please summarise it drastically. The material does not appear to abide by a neutral point of view.

The site www.gilead.net is linked to several times for the text of White's writings. The site is not a good choice, as it is not highly notable and also appears to represent the POV of Historic Adventism. Please link instead to the Ellen G. White Estate homepage, which is not only far more notable and more representative of mainstream Adventism, but is also the official Ellen White website. Colin MacLaurin 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following section was moved from the article. As requested above, please summarise it drastically to a concise, encyclopedic style. Most of the detail is not relevant to this article, but pertinent shorter remarks could fit it well. It appears to represent a critical POV, whereas Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all major viewpoints be represented. Colin MacLaurin 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Navbox generic | name = ************* | title = Material removed from article. Click "Show" to expand | state = collapsed | list1 =

A Prophetess Within the Adventist Church?
Much debate remains as to the relevance, authenticity of Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift.” The existence of a “spirit of prophecy,” has remained a delicate and somewhat awkward subject to many Adventist theologians since Mrs. White’s death, an open and much disputed question which D.M. Canfield, was quick to take advantage of, in his hostile book, The Life of Ellen G. White.


 * "From the beginning of their history, Seventh-day Adventists have claimed that they were the remnant church of Rev. 12:17, because they had a prophet among them; namely, Mrs. E.G. White. They have always insisted that they had the "spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). When those opposed to their views have contended that we have the "spirit of prophecy" in the writings of the prophets as recorded in the Holy Scriptures, they have denied it, and have, in the most dogmatic fashion, contended that to have the spirit of prophecy there must be a living prophet in the church. But now their prophet is dead. Where is their "spirit of prophecy" now? According to the long-used argument, they now have no spirit of prophecy, and therefore can not be the remnant church of Rev. 12:17. The death of Mrs. White killed their argument.


 * If they now say that they have the spirit of prophecy in her writings, they admit what they have always denied; namely, that the writings of the prophets contain the spirit of prophecy. If they have the spirit of prophecy in the writings left by their prophet, then we have always had the spirit of prophecy in the writings left by the prophets of the Bible. All who have the Bible, and believe in that, have the spirit of prophecy contained in its writings. Therefore, the claim made by Seventh-day Adventists that they are the only body of Christians who have the spirit of prophecy is proven false by their own admission. Their former theory of the spirit of prophecy would compel them to bring forth immediately another living prophet, or surrender their argument in defense of the "spirit of prophecy" as represented in Mrs. White. This would destroy their whole theory on this subject.


 * For a period of seventy years they have claimed to be the remnant church of Rev. 12:17, because they had a living prophet in the church. But now their prophet is dead, and they have none any longer, whereby to prolong the "spirit of prophecy." They are now in the same condition as the other churches, and, according to their own argument, can not now be the remnant church. Upon the Scripture, "Where there is no vision, the people perish," their stock argument has been that, in order that the people shall be safe and surely guided, so that they shall not perish, there must be visions, and these the visions of a living prophet. Now the person is dead in whom alone they centered all true or proper visions. And now to them where are the visions without which the people perish?


 * The author is indebted to Elder A.T. Jones, who was formerly the editor of their church paper, the Review and Herald, for the logical line or argument here presented. He rejected their narrow view on this subject, and was set aside without trial or hearing.


 * Up to the very last they were constantly appealing to Mrs. White for the settlement of new issues which kept arising among them. To the very close of her life, doctrinal disputes which were dividing the sympathies and allegiance of their leading men were all referred to her. As time goes on, who will now settle the new issues and questions constantly arising in their work? They will have to be settled by their uninspired, erring men, the same as in other churches. Hence they are just as liable to go wrong as are other churches."

After Mrs. White’s death, it was generally assumed that the “gift of prophecy” would abide within the SDA church, manifesting itself, as God saw fit. That this was the universal impression of most Adventists and non-Adventists at the 20th century’s commencement, is evidenced by an obituary of Mrs. White, in the New York Independent, entitled American Prophetess, and quoted favorably in the Church’s approved biography of her. “Of course, these teachings were based on the strictest doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures. Seventh-day Adventism could be got in no other way. And the gift of prophecy was to     be expected as promised to the "remnant church," who had held fast to the truth. This faith gave great purity of life and incessant zeal. No body of Christians excels them in moral character and religious earnestness.” {6BIO 444.1} Ellen G. White Volume 6 The Later Elmshaven Years.

Within one year of Mrs. White’s passing, Margaret Rowen, a resident of Los Angeles, California, claimed to be her spiritual successor. According to Herbert E. Douglass, in his book, the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White:
 * “Her early “testimonies” had a superficial likeness to Mrs. White’s testimonies. In addition to these “messages,” the physical manifestations accompanying her visions were remarkably similar to those of Ellen White.”

Writes R.W. Schwarz in his book, Light Bearers to the Remnant
 * “Both her followers, including several medical doctors, and skeptics agreed that these visions were supernaturally inspired. The question in dispute was: With which supernatural power did they originate?”

To substantiate her avowal of being Mrs. White’s spiritual heiress, Mrs. Rowen and her followers engaged in a bizarre scheme to plant a letter in the deceased woman’s vault. This letter purported to be an endorsement of Mrs. Rowen as Mrs. White’s designated successor. The scheme failed, as did Mrs. Rowens prophecies. When Christ’s Second Coming failed to materialize, on the date which she had set; February 6, 1925, Mrs. Rowen’s supporters melted away, and she  was eventually convicted of attempting to murder to Dr. Bert Fullmer, one of her leading adherents and defenders, as documented by Larry White, in his book, “Margaret W. Rowen, Prophetess of Reform and Doom,” and Martin Gardner, in his essay“The Incredible Flimflams of Margaret Rowen.” After serving her sentence at San Quentin Penitentiary, she vanished into obscurity. Though Margaret Rowen is today but a footnote in the history of the Adventist Church, her influence upon its psyche is indelible. Since the 1920s, the Adventist Church has been reluctant to accept the very idea of a Living Prophet, within the Church, and overtly hostile to anyone who claims to be possessed with the Spirit of Prophecy. While conservative Seventh Day Adventists defend Mrs. White’s reputation as a prophetess, and the authority of her books on doctrinal and theological questions, they must also clarify her claims that a successor would follow her, contrasted with their own, that Mrs. White was the last prophet to the SDA Church.


 * '''"Prophecy must be fulfilled. The Lord says: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Somebody is to come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and when he appears, men may say: "You are too earnest, you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to teach your message."


 * There are many who cannot distinguish between the work of God and that of man. I shall tell the truth as God gives it to me, and I say now, If you continue to find fault, to have a spirit of variance, you will never know the truth. Jesus said to His disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Testimonies to Ministers, page 475.

In 1930, Victor T. Houteff, a Bulgarian immigrant and businessman used this quote from Mrs. White’s book as a catalyst to begin his own movement within the Adventist Church. He published a book entitled, The Shepherd's Rod which caused great dissensionin the Adventist Church, far more extensive and significant than Mrs. Rowen’s opportunistic pretensions could muster.

In the preface of his book, Houteff wrote,


 * “It is the intention of this book to reveal the truth of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7 but the chief object of this publication is to bring about a reformation among God's people. The truth herein contained is divided into seven sections, giving proof from seven different angles, to prevent any doubt or confusion.  This subject is made clear by the use of the Bible and the writings given by the Spirit of Prophecy.The truth revealed here is of great importance to the church just now because of the foretold danger which God's people are soon to meet.  It calls for decided action on the part of the believers to separate themselves from all worldlings and worldliness; to anchor themselves on the Solid Rock by obedience to all the truth known to this denomination, if we must escape the great ruin.  "The Lord's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: Hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it." Micah 6:9.”

By “the writings given by the Spirit of Prophecy,” Houteff perceptibly meant those of Mrs. White, for he quoted liberally from her “Testimonies” and other books. In his Introduction, he declares:


 * “THIS publication contains only one main subject with a double lesson; namely, the 144,000, and a call for reformation. The object in view is to prepare God's people for the impending doom of Ezekiel's prophecy, chapter 9.  There is no new doctrine taught, neither does it condemn the ones we have.  The wonderful light between its pages shines upon a large number of scriptures which we have had no understanding of heretofore.  The interpretation of these scriptures is supported entirely by the writings of Sr. E.G. White, that is termed the Spirit of Prophecy.This publication does not advocate a new movement, and it absolutely opposes such moves.  It brings out a positive proof which cannot be contradicted that the Seventh-day Adventist church had been used by God to carry on His work since 1844.”

Though Houteff was careful to avoid any direct comparison or claim to Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift,” it is quite clear that his followers believed him to be a prophet in the mold of Ellen G. White.

In 1934, the Seventh Day Adventist Church’s Pacific Union Conference Committee gave Houteff a hearing. They rejected his doctrines out of hand, after his initial presentation, releasing a pamphlet entitled A Reply to The Shepherd's Rod which demonstrated several errors in Houteff’s book, that appeared to contradict the writings of Mrs. White, whom he claimed to support.

The Shepherd's Rod


 * "The exile of Pope Pius VI, in 1798, and his death at Valence, France, Aug. 19, 1799, is not [italics author's] the receiving of the wound, no more than the death of any other pope before or after."-The Shepherd's Rod, Vol. 1, page 215.

The Spirit of Prophecy


 * "I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798."-The Great Controversy, page 653 (new edition).

In rebuttal, Houteff complained that his written statements had been taken out of context. Shortly after this, he and many of his followers, including two ex-Conference presidents, were disfellowshipped from the Adventist Church. Houteff then began his own movement within a movement; the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Houteff considered his group to be part of the Adventist Church and not a separate denomination. Consequently, his followers were to proselytize exclusively within the SDA Church, teaching their doctrine, which is known as The Shepherd's Rod Message. Houteff purported to answer many open, doctrinal questions in the Church, some of which, had been partially addressed by Mrs. White, such as the subject of the 144,000 of Revelation 7, the Judgment of the Living, and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary. The foundation of Houteff and his follower’s belief that a “prophetic gift” would always exist, so long as the world lasted. While they believed in the progression of “new light,” that God would inspire certain “prophets” with original and innovative views on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy; that the “prophet’s” “inspired” interpretations of Biblical prophecy and symbolism would precede end of times and should be heeded by the Adventist Church leadership.

They elevated the importance of Mrs. White’s writings, believing that it was impossible for individuals to independently interpret scripture with any degree of success. The Davidians based their beliefs on a verse from 2 Peter.
 * “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”— 2 Peter 1:20.

Houteff’s followers base their belief on the fact that “private interpretation” of the Bible by church theologians and the laity, alike, would lead to conflicting views on nearly every point at hand—and would therefore lead to a divisive and divided church. Rather, Davidians believe, the “prophetic gift” bestowed first to Mrs. White, and later to Mr. Houteff, must alone determine Scriptural prophecies and doctrine, in order to preserve harmony and a common structural doctrinal belief within the Church. In support of their position, they quote extensively from Mrs.’s White’s writings: particularly her book, Testimonies to Ministers.


 * “No one should claim that he has all the light there is for God's people. The Lord will not tolerate this. He has said, 'I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.' Even if all our leading men should refuse light and truth, that door will still remain open.  The Lord will raise up men who will give the people the message for this time.”Testimonies to Ministers, page 107.


 * “I said further: As the word of God is walled in with these books and pamphlets, so has God walled you in with reproofs, counsel, warnings, and encouragements. Here you are crying before God, in the anguish of your souls, for more light. I am authorized from God to tell you that not another ray of light through the Testimonies will shine upon your pathway until you make a practical use of the light already given. The Lord has walled you about with light; but you have not appreciated the light; you have trampled upon it. While some have despised the light, others have neglected it, or followed it but indifferently. A few have set their hearts to obey the light which God has been pleased to give them.”-Testimonies to the Church Volume 2 606.1

“These words,” wrote Mr. Houteff, in Volume 1 of his book, the Shepherd’s Rod,  “suggest that there is more light to shine, and light is truth.” Combined with Houteff’s later, oral defense of his movement within the Adventist Church, it is a virtual summation of his position


 * ''“We…have not pulled away from the Denomination, but have been cast out of our respective churches and forced to go by another name, Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, -- and all this for no other reason than for

embracing the additional Heaven-born Truth which gives power and force to the Advent message (Early Writings, pg. 277), and which makes us better Seventh-day Adventists than we have been or could otherwise be. Now, if we be "offshoots" for walking in the light which heaven sends from time to time to lead God's people in the way of Truth and Righteousness, then I should like to know what our brethren think they themselves are, for by the same token of logic the Mother Denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist, is itself an offshoot from another denomination. Moreover, this is also true of all the Protestant denominations, for they are the offshoots of the Catholic; and the Apostolic is an offshoot of the Jewish. Who, then, outside of the Jews is not an offshoot? In fact, if we go as far back as Abraham's time, we will find that even the Jews were an offshoot of something before their time. If offshoots are therefore to be shunned, hated, and abhorred, then why are there any Christians at all? And if this is an eye-opener to those who think themselves something other than an offshoot, they should now without delay apply for admission to the Synagogue, or else begin to behave like God's men.”''-Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 43.

The history of Victor Houteff and that of his followers is a long and tenuous one. Though residual, fragmented portions of his movement remain, all of whom still revere both Mr. Houteff and Mrs. White, but loathe one another and remain at odds with the Adventist Church; at least one faction of the Davidians met a much more poignant, sordid, and better publicized end than even those followers of Margaret Rowen. David Koresh, a former Adventist turned Davidian, developed his own, highly unique and bizarre adaptation of Mr. Houteff’s doctrine, a doctrine which brought him followers, notoriety and an eventually infamous end.

Few have claimed the prophetic gift of Mrs. White, in the past fifty years. Mrs. Jeanine Sautron, may claim to be the exception to the rule. An elderly woman of African descent, and a long-time resident Saint-Julien, France, she has many years distributed her “messages” from the Holy Spirit within the Adventist Church., heralding the imminent return of Jesus Christ.


 * “In a dream, me he was shown that if Mrs. White lived at our time, brothers and sisters of the Adventista Church of the Seventh official Day would hesitate in believing in the messages that it would disclose to them for our time.” (P. 308)

The question of whether Mrs. White’s “gift of prophecy,” was inheritable is, of course, controversial, when aligned by the debatable point of whether it in fact existed at all.

But the church fully realizes that a rejection of Mrs. White, means an entire reevaluation of it’s every doctrinal stance, from the Three Angel’s Message to the End Times, a renovation of its Fundamental Beliefs, and sure division over points of Scriptural prophecy and doctrine, previously closed from debate, by Mrs. White’s interpretations,  which were sacrosanct from criticism or censure within the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Adventist Church has suffered heavily from its position, upholding and defending both the writings of Mrs. White, and her claim to a “prophetic gift.” The claims of her would-be  successors over the past century, have created a great controversy within the church, leading to bad press and mass defections by church ministers and members alike.

Many, like Dale Ratzlaff justify their defection by declaring their complete lack of faith in the validity of Mrs. White’s writings. Ratzlaff writes,


 * “One cannot understand the Bible correctly when continuing to read the writings of Ellen White,”

But admits,
 * “Where the Bible is clear we can and should be certain. Where the Bible is unclear or honestly open to several interpretations we must be tentative,”

thus illuminating the great divide the great separation between Evangelical Christians; namely those who stake their entire basis of belief upon 2d Peter 1:20-21,
 * “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost,”

and those who are skeptical of professed prophets and prophetesses, and also of the existence of a “prophetic gift,” of the variety which Mrs. White claimed to possess. These Christians, many of them now former-Adventists believe that an individual and independent interpretation of the scriptures is all that is necessary to ensure their salvation and understanding of Biblical prophecies. They also base their position upon Holy Writ:


 * “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”—2d Timothy 3:15-17.

}}

Section mergers with Ellen White
This page is about the nature of the inspiration of Ellen White and her writings. This is a much more specific topic than the general page Ellen White, but this is the particular point controverted. Two reasons for this page:
 * 1) There is a lot of material for this page
 * 2) This is the controverted point regarding her. Her existence, her life etc. are not disputed. But her writings/inspiration is what is disputed. Many articles and sections support or dispute her prophetic gift specifically. The existence of this page allows a natural wikilink to be created from these other articles. However a wikilink to the Ellen White page would be off topic. Again, this page would go in the Category:Seventh-day Adventist theology, because it describes a theological belief of the church. But the Ellen White page would not belong in this category. A related concept is the "Spirit of prophecy".

The main page would be left to describe her biography, family life, leadership influence upon the church, role in the 1888 meeting, and even a list of her writings and the major themes within. Colin MacLaurin 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the theology category link. I can't quite think of why but I see this page as separate from a discussion of the churches theology.
 * Apart from that, this page is valid according to the comments I made earlier about it. NPOV can easily hold under the title as is. The title does not stop evidence against the gift from being presented so it is not a POV fork. Ans e ll  12:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that any person should get two entries, and if you must keep them seperate, than I would say move this to Ellen White : The Prophetic Gift or something like that. It is almost like you are advertising for her by putting it under prophecy Mattbman 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually many people described in Wikipedia have several articles. Consider William Shakespeare for instance. There is a lot of content for Ellen G. White, and in fact the debate as to whether or not her prophetic gift was genuine is the most contentious issue regarding her. An article name change could be justified, but other articles on George W. Bush also use this style - Early life of George W. Bush and Professional life of George W. Bush. One policy stated, "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles". The policy Summary style is relevant to this discussion. Colin MacLaurin 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Title
What is the best title for this article? Some have suggested it is currently POV, which is certainly not intended. As pointed out by anothers, article titles such as Papal infallibility could also sound POV. "Prophetic gift of Ellen White" is a little clumsy. How about a rename to Inspiration of Ellen White (which currently redirects here), which is a slightly less specific title, and shorter? The word "inspiration" could have a spiritual connotation to a religious person and/or supporter of White, or the entirely humanistic connotation of "creativity" to a critic. Another option would be to merge it into Spirit of Prophecy (Adventist), however I strongly disagree with this, as many Adventists themselves criticise the use of this term. Colin MacLaurin 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. The proposed title is far more neutral. The current title assumes she had a prophetic gift, which may be contentious to some. MyNam e IsNotBob  10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. -- Fyslee/talk 08:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the input. I am hoping for more editorial attention to this page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move
Was there any discussion of the move from Inspiration of Ellen White to Inspiration of Ellen G. White before it happened? That name change was not indisputable, and should have been discussed first. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I now agree with the change, because the Adventist News Network Glossary recommends White's name be written "Ellen G. White". Please discuss debateable changes like this in future, and at least give a reason for the change. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Additions
If I might direct your attention to the title of this page, which have somehow escaped your consideration. This page, was therefore devoted history of Mrs. White’s “gift,” and I have striven to create a balance perspective of same, with strong historical overtones. Should one wish to seriously evaluate Mrs. White’s “Prophetic Gift,” in the context of a Wikipedia article, then he must certainly create a balanced portrayal of the history of this “Prophetic gift,” which Mrs. White claimed to possess. Perhaps you, as an Adventist, were incapable of writing a disinterested account of Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift;” previous to my editing of this article, I noticed that it was meandering, overburdened with excessive references to redundant and frequently unknown sources. Your summation of the intrinsic differences between Mrs. Whites partisans and enemies left a great deal to be desired, as well. If the quotations which I used in substantiation of my case are accurate, then I see no reason to alter the references to them. Might I further remind you that Wikipedia is largely patronized by users who are non-Adventists, and therefore the use of accepted Adventist sources is superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luciuscrassus (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The Prophetic Gift of Ellen White.


 * Regarding the title, please see my above earlier comment under the section "Title". If you have a recommendation, please supply it. I request that you show me the benefit of the doubt per the assume good faith policy. In my edits I have attempted to give a balanced portrayal. In particular, I have mentioned many critics and linked to their online books, if available. What could have more detail is specific reasons critics give to doubt White's inspiration. Perhaps you could contribute here. I disagree that the sources I have cited are "redundant and frequently unknown" - this could perhaps be argued for a couple but the majority are highly prominent. Regarding your last comment, Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that all major viewpoints be presented. One such major viewpoint is that of critics, one is that of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in this case (both nuanced viewpoints themselves). For the Adventist POV, of course references will be from Adventist sources. Colin MacLaurin 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream" Adventst Scholars
I added a "citation needed for the following, but I believe that is not sufficient. This section needs to be re-worked. As the article already states, there is a diversity of views about EGW's inspiration among SDAs - including among scholars. Who are the "mainstream" scholars, who made the judgement they were mainstream, and what criteria were used? I think this section should be deleted until it can be presented in more careful detail, but I will simply make that suggestion for now and see what others think.

"Typical mainstream Adventist scholars today believe : Gogh 02:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * she was inspired by God... yet she was not infallible (without error)
 * her writings are important to and relevant to the Adventist church today... yet must not form the basis for doctrine
 * her writings are inferior to the Bible and non-canonical... yet superior to ordinary Christian literature
 * she was culturally conditioned to some degree... yet she was not limited to the culture of her day only, but transcended it to some degree
 * she borrowed from other authors... yet was not without discrimination in her inspired usage"


 * Many of the applicable references can be found on the rest of the page. See WP:LEAD for what a lead section is all about. In general the lead section is a condensed version of the rest of the page, so if the citations appear in the body then it is sufficient. If you want to copy references so that they appear in both places then feel free, but as such I do not think the statements are totally unfounded. Ans e ll  23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see the many applicable references later in the page that you suggest should be there. I do see summaries of various positions, but for the most part I do not see substantiation for categorizing some positions as, for example "mainstream". I think you are in danger here of creating more of a theological article than an encycclopedic article. I think you are better off summarizin what the official church documents say on this subject, and then indicating - briefly - what the range of views within the church might be. If you are going to go into the fine distinctions, and describe some as mainstream or majority, then you better find some pretty good support for these claims.Gogh 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Samples" :
 * Samples, Kenneth (2007). "Evangelical Reflections on Seventh-day Adventism: Yesterday and Today". Questions on Doctrine 50th anniversary conference


 * Fixed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk merged from Adventist studies

 * The following comments were merged here from Adventist studies, as this article and Progressive Adventism received the biggest chunks of the merge. My best guess for a redirect target was, however, List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. JJB 05:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Graybill
Why does this page redirect from Ronald Graybill for no apparent reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.83.137 (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You will notice that Ronald Graybill redirects to the section "Ellen White studies" of this article. He was a prominent scholar in this field. The redirect is a "redirect with possibilities", which means it is "possible" he will have or deserves his own article sometime in the future. For now, some barebones details and references are provided here. If two people have the same name, a disambiguation page or a disambiguation link will be needed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree it was unclear. I have made a subsection just for him, with a view to expanding this at some point. An equivalent option would be to place him on the Ellen G. White Estate article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete
Since a heavy chunk is already slated for merge, my first impression of the article is that the entire item and talk should be merged and deleted. Targets: Inspiration of Ellen White (main and talk catchall), Progressive Adventism, and Avondale College. Very little beyond those 3 topics indicates any AfD notability. Not bothering with additional templates because of little traffic. JJB 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I am ok with you merging the rest if you desire. A lot of the links were broken in the references (every spectrum link i checked) and I have recently removed them. Some statements seemed a little slanted as well. I agree with all your points. Thanks for your help in this matter. P.S. I would wait a few days to see if anyone disagrees with my statements or edits before wiping this article. Willfults (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

needs some rewriting
This is too wordy. I'll be seeing what I can do from time to time. CedricElijahHenry (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inspiration of Ellen G. White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214221522/http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html to http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214221522/http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html to http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031119080712/http://whiteestate.org/ to http://www.whiteestate.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inspiration of Ellen G. White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721212151/http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1009&page=22 to http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1009&page=22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19981205024026/http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm to http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism
She entered a guilty plea. Afterwards Ramik, the lawyer employed by the SDA, cleared her of breaking the law (but not of plagiarism in the academic sense). Essential is that she confessed. She was innocent juridically, but she plagiarized in the academic sense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have rephrased. McArthur does say it's a commonplace, nothing controversial, even SDA publishing houses have admitted it and offer footnotes to the works she copied from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That still has the same problem. "Well-informed" is loaded, as is "naive thesis of plenary inspiration"  That is most definitely a personal interpretation, and isn't found anywhere in the source.  I'm disappointed.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Educated" is found in the source, so the first time I got it right (whether you like it or not):

"But liberal scholarship prevailed in one arena: it permanently revised our understanding of Ellen White's historical writings. For decades, a type of verbal inspiration dominated popular Adventism, shaping the church culture to a degree that today's generation of Adventist youth could hardly imagine. Within at least the educated mainstream church, that is no longer the case. Discussions proceed about historical and theological issues less encumbered by appeals to discussion-ending Red Book quotations. This matters because American Adventism now stands poised at what appears to be a new age of dialogue, driven by a sense of urgency about revitalizing the North American Church."

- McArthur


 * Full quotation from its first page is:

"If acceptance of her literary borrowing is now a commonplace, it is only so because of some excellent research accomplished by Adventist scholars in the 1970s and 1980s. Their conclusions need no retelling here. Suffice it to say, we have learned that inspiration is more complex and more subject to human elements than our naive, earlier view held.'"

- Ibidem


 * So, of course "naive thesis of plenary inspiration" is a paraphrase of the leitmotif of the paper: 100% verbal inspiration of EGW vs. creative copy/pasting. Hint: US SDA publishing houses quietly acknowledged the later. Another quote:

"Indeed, virtually none of its history came from visions, but instead from earlier historians. The inspired passages were limited to descriptions of supernatural activities of Christ and Satan."

- Ibidem


 * Also if the Ramik quote with "conclusively unplagiaristic" is supposed to pull the wool upon our eyes, that is a WP:NPOV violation. Why would a lawyer write a report upon literary property rights according to the law of the land and time if he only has to deal with plagiarism in an academic sense? That makes no sense. He cleared her juridically, not academically. She is still guilty of creative copy/paste, academically speaking. And the fact that her own admission of guilt follows that specific quote from Ramik's report is proper to the theater of the absurd, not of a serious secular encyclopedia. Think of this dialogue, Judge: "The verdict: the jury unanimously finds you not guilty." Suspect: "Your honor, I did murder Mr. Smith!" Facepalm. As for Richard W. Schwarz, "Professor, I did not plagiarize my paper, but I was supernaturally inspired in more or less the same words as someone else." Would any reputable university accept that argument against the verdict of the plagiarism scanner? That's why I think that Schwarz's argument sounds like something from the Looney Tunes. Are we supposed to WP:GEVAL to the historical method and Looney Tunes? Schwarz's argument has no historical value, and the worst part is that he knew that since he wrote it down. Contrary to what you might think, I don't have an axe to grind, I want nothing but the facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"White did not have a 'formal' education beyond the 3rd grade or so, however she became self-educated, like many in her day, through being widely read. She had a large library. She wrote some 50,000 pages of manuscript in her own hand writing; Hundreds of magazine articles; hundreds of letters; and several dozen books. She was a renown orator in great demand, who spoke to thousands and thousands of people through out the US, Australia and Europe. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about because she did. In her later life, some believers accredited everything she wrote as coming directly from the mouth of God. In her early carrier, no one who knew her ever claimed such nonsense because they knew better. White never made any such claim or intimation.  It was to dispel such silly notions that she wrote about her sources in the forward to the 1911 Great Controversy jshortly before her death. However, that claim that everything she wrote came directly from the mouth of God remained an urban legend in the SDA community and grew exponentially after her death in 1915, which is why Ray was so shocked when he discovered that it wasn't so. And why Numbers is so viciously anti White. Yes, she used other sources, just like everybody else. And like most in her day, those sources were not always noted. but her use was not for her gain or self aggrandizement. She was looking for the best ways to express what she believed that God had impressed upon her mind. She was not a mindless dictation machine. She claimed that she was shown things in vision and then she told or wrote down what she had seen and heard. Since her death, the White estate has gone to great lengths to add footnotes to her republished works giving credit to sources where known. Contrary to the claims of Ray and other critics, most of what White wrote is enough different from her sources to not constitute cut and past copyright plagiarism. It is important to note that her statement in 1911 occurred long before charges of plagiarism ever came up so I'm adding that back in. Back in her day, there were plenty of critics, but none ever charged plagiarism. Plagiarism is a distinctly mid-20th century concern. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)"


 * That is a quote from someone who does believe in EGW's inspiration, albeit not naively. So, the cause of all that rage and bitterness was an urban legend, which is now debunked. So, yes, as McArthur stated, "at least the educated mainstream church" (SDA) have acknowledged that the myth was busted and have revised their views accordingly. Everyone except Kool Aid drinkers has accepted that the myth was busted. This is an objective fact. Wikipedia is biased for objective facts. So my take does not violate WP:NPOV. A bias for the objective reality isn't a sinister cabal, see WP:GOODBIAS. The NPOV view (agreed by the secular academia, liberal and moderate Adventists) is that the myth is stubborn and has done a lot of damage to the SDA church. Wikipedia has to render that some are right and some are wrong on this matter and that far-fetched, objectively seen ridiculous explanations are not the way wherein conservative Adventists could save face. Schwarz's argument is far-fetched and ridiculous, and he should have known better. Unwillingly, he gave his students a perfect example of what to avoid like the pest in a scholarly paper: "Hey, if you want to pass your exam in any bona fide faculty don't do like me!" Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've struck through a post by another of Allenroyboy's socks. Doug Weller  talk 09:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't research why he got indeffed, but I don't think that he was lying like a dog in the above post. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe not, but Allenroyboy is not entitled to edit and attempts need to be discouraged. Doug Weller  talk 10:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing to do with lying... I had no idea that quotes would also get stricken but it makes sense for scrutiny, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV missing
This article is written apologetically and is promotional of White. Wikipedia articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View. NewBluePencil (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did not quote Schwartz because I would believe what he stated, but because his point of view is so ridiculous that even bona fide Adventists who studied history at an university will admit that it is completely ridiculous, and that it betrays his desperation to deny objective facts in favor of theological dogma (ideology vs. reality conflict). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Renomination for deletion
As an Adventist religious studies scholar with a PhD (Chicago) in biblical studies, I highly recommend that this article be deleted as completely inappropriate for a general, user-generated encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It is an unabashedly apologetic piece that is certainly more suited for a denominational publication or some kind of SDA evangelistic document. As if this were not enough, the published page includes a very significant, two-fold set of technical problems with the article that Wiki editors identified in 2013 as follows:

'''This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)''' '''This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)'''

This technical problem is noted six times in the article! In my opinion, this "Inspiration" article would never be approved if submitted today (nor should it be) not only because of its inappropriate content but also for its serious technical problems. How the editors have let this slip for nine years is beyond me.

If it is deemed necessary to mention "inspiration" with reference to EGW (which I don't), a sentence identifying this as the position of "many" Adventist could be added to the main bio article. Wctrenchard (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Point about WP:OR granted. But prod is not the way. You may submit a formal deletion request if you want. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I assumed that the PROD would not work, given that it had been tried before, but my little essay didn't work either or even garner a reply until now. Nevertheless, I really want this article deleted for the stated reasons. How do I "submit a formal deletion request"?Wctrenchard (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I submitted it for discussion, noting that I don't agree with you. See Articles for deletion/Inspiration of Ellen G. White. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: As the main original author of this article, I am disappointed that plenty of good material (IMO) has been removed. For example the text "Approximately 81% of Adventists believe `The writings of Ellen White are an authority for the Adventist Church today', according to estimates made by local church leaders of their congregations, in a 2002 worldwide survey." (For the citation, search for the text "19%" in older versions of the article.) That is valuable sociological information. Also Ronald Numbers' book deserves more coverage again; he later became a leading authority on the history of science and religion. Personally at least, I miss the references to Clark Pinnock, a well-known theologian; even if his comments were somewhat incidental, non-Adventist POVs on this topic are less common. I could go on. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed stuff with too much WP:OR. If it gets WP:CITED, then I have nothing against it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I think my comments refer to quite a few years ago. I recall there were editors who added (way too many) block quotations of primary source material, particularly of White herself, while blanking good material. Often others removed this added text, but did not restore the blanked material. (By the way, my comment was not intended for you nor Wctrenchard specifically, but as a general comment on the deletion discussion, which is now archived.) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, saw it at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inspiration_of_Ellen_G._White&type=revision&diff=1098712858&oldid=373974540&diffmode=source . However, that is very much an WP:IN-UNIVERSE view, with too few mainstream WP:RS, and I mean both defenders and opponents or Mrs. White are often published in non-mainstream outlets. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)