Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Appendix E: That Typographical Change in J. N. Loughborough’s Book

Canright, whose words we have used for the text of the charge in chapter 7, refers to a footnote in Loughborough’s book: EGWC 585.1

“By the time Elder Loughborough had written his book, ‘Rise and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists,’ another moon [of Saturn] had been discovered, and the publishers had the audacity to change her words to read, ‘I see eight moons.’ (See page 126 of that work.) This was in 1892. When Elder Loughborough revised this book in 1905, and issued it under another title [The Great Second Advent Movement], still more moons had been discovered to this planet, hence his admission.” EGWC 585.2

Loughborough’s “admission” in his footnote on page 258 of his 1905 book, The Great Second Advent Movement, which is in comment on the phrase, “I see seven moons,” states in part: “More moons to both Jupiter and Saturn have since been discovered.” EGWC 585.3

Canright charges that the “publishers” made the change from “seven” to “eight” moons for Saturn, in Loughborough’s 1892 book. A later critic makes the charge more personal by declaring: When Loughborough wrote his book [Rise and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists, 1892] an eighth moon had been discovered, so he deliberately doctored the vision to fit the new discovery. EGWC 585.4

Strictly speaking, we are not concerned with the deeds or the declarations of anyone except Mrs. White. But we think it not out of place to devote at least a few paragraphs to defending the good name of a man now unable to defend himself. EGWC 585.5

Remember that Rise and Progress, published in 1892, says “eight moons“: The Great Second Advent Movement, published in 1905, says “seven moons“: and that there is no other source for these figures in the vision except Loughborough’s words in these books. The critic who says that Loughborough “doctored the vision” had no way of knowing which was the number of “moons” Mrs. White mentioned except as he read it in Loughborough. Nor could he know that the total should be “seven” instead of “eight” except as he read the footnote on page 258 of the 1905 edition. That footnote reads in full as follows: EGWC 585.6

“In ‘Rise and Progress,’ it says she saw eight moons to Saturn. This change was made after the proofs went out of my hands. More moons to both Jupiter and Saturn have since been discovered.” EGWC 585.7

If Loughborough had wished to be dishonest, he need not have made the change from “eight” to “seven”—he need not have written the footnote. No one would have known the difference. But he had a desire to keep the record straight, hence the footnote. Canright clearly saw that the responsibility rested with the “publishers.” But the present-day critic seeks to intensify the charge by attacking the narrator of early Adventist history, and hence accuses Loughborough himself of doctoring the vision. EGWC 585.8

Now what of the “audacity” of the publishers of the 1892 edition? Even though Canright is right in placing responsibility upon the publishers, he is sure, also, that the change reflects deliberate, evil intent. It could not possibly be a typographical error. True, Loughborough says the “change was made after the proofs went out of” his hands. An author would need to make that clear in defense of himself. But he does not thereby impute evil intent to the publishers. The change could be made by mistake as easily as by intent. With that statement, and with the further statement that changes and typographical blunders constantly and embarrassingly appear in printed books, every book publisher will agree. EGWC 586.1

Indeed, we do not have to go beyond Canright’s book from which we quoted in opening chapter 7 in order to find a choice exhibit. He states that he is quoting the astronomy vision story as “told by Loughborough on page 258 of his book,” The Great Second Advent Movement. But Canright’s quotation uses the words, “eight moons,” whereas page 258 of that book says “seven moons.” Did Canright’s publishers have the “audacity” to make this change? We bring no charge against either the publishers or Canright. We give them the same decent benefit of the doubt that all fair-minded people give to authors and publishers, and attribute the “eight” simply to an error of copyists or typesetters. EGWC 586.2