Understanding Ellen White

Historical summary

1887-1907

The genesis of the plagiarism charge has been credited to former Adventist minister D. M. Canright, ¹ although there is evidence of earlier questioning of Ellen White’s use of sources. ² The first known published criticism of her copy-ing is Canright’s article in the October 8, 1887, issue of the Michigan Christian Advocate: UEGW 145.3

She often copies, without credit or sign of quotation, whole sentences and even paragraphs, almost word for word, from other authors. (Compare “Great Controversy,” page 96, with “History of the Reformation,” by D’Aubigne, page 41.) This she does page after page. Was D’Aubigne also inspired? ³ UEGW 146.1

The next year this brief accusation was expanded to include the specific charge of “plagiary” in Canright’s first edition of Seventh-day Adventism Re-nounced: UEGW 146.2

Indeed, her last book, “Great Controversy,” which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is merely a compilation from Andrew’s [sic] History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books. I have compared many pages from all these and find that she has taken from these word for word and page after page. She gives no credit to these authors but claims it all as a revelation from God! She is a literary thief. Webster says: “Plagiary:-A thief in literature; one who purloins another’s writings and offers them to the public as their own.” Exactly what she does. ⁴ UEGW 146.3

How did Ellen White’s contemporaries respond to these allegations? At public debates in Healdsburg, Califorinia, Elders W. M. Healey and J. N. Loughborough offered five lines of defense: (1) That Canright had overstated the amount of copying. This was supported by publishing White’s writings in parallel columns with her alleged sources, which demonstrated greater selectivity in her borrowing than Canright had claimed. (2) When writing on matters of historical record, “if each party told the truth in the case there must of necessity be similarity in the facts stated.” (3) The copying dealt with “matters of fact, and not in any sense a copying of ideas or reasoning.” (4) Believers have recognized copying among the Bible writers “without [their] being subject to the charge of being plagiarists.” (5) In contrast to White’s borrowing of “facts,” a plagiarist will quote “ideas and arguments” without giving any acknowledgment to the “real author” of what is claimed as one’s own. ⁵ UEGW 146.4