Ellen G. White and Her Critics

The “Protest” of “Leading Brethren”

Apparently the critics did not think of this when they made the charge: “As soon as this book [The Great Controversy, 1884 edition] was read by some of the leading brethren, they discovered that it was largely taken from other publications,” and accordingly “they very earnestly protested to Mrs. White.” If this charge were true, it would prove too much; namely, that Mrs. White’s borrowings were so evident that it was impossible to believe that she had any thought of deceiving her readers when she borrowed literary passages. Let that point be clear at the outset. Whether the “brethren” did or did not protest to Mrs. White, would not affect that point. Incidentally, if “leading brethren” could discover Mrs. White’s literary borrowings, why could not intelligent laymen discover them also? If the charge were true, we should really expect a general protest to rise from the church membership at large. And that would certainly be something large enough and grave enough to leave an indelible mark on the documentary records of the denomination. EGWC 415.1

But what are the facts? A search of the correspondence of those times that is available at the office of the Ellen G. White Publications—and it is plentiful—reveals not even a suggestion of any protest against this literary borrowing for The Great Controversy. Strange indeed! The matter should have saturated the correspondence in 1884 and 1885. Nor is there anything in the Review and Herald, the church paper, that gives a hint of such uprising, though the paper certainly took note of numerous controversial matters, directly and pungently, in the style of those times. EGWC 415.2

Even more incredible is this further part of the charge: EGWC 416.1

“Protest against using the thought of others without credit continued to be presented to Mrs. White so that in 1892 [correct date, 1888] a new and enlarged edition was published in which a few of the plagiarized portions were enclosed in quotation marks, but without credit.” In the preface to this edition she “admits that she had taken some of her information from other authors.” EGWC 416.2

Here is a singular situation. To meet the criticism she encloses “a few,” but only a few, of the quotations in quotation marks! Do we not have here an added deception? She appears to give full credit but does not. We should expect the protest to increase to deafening volume. But incredible as it seems, the protests, we are permitted to believe, died right out with the publication of this 1888 edition! The critics do not even suggest that there was any protest beyond that date! ^* EGWC 416.3