1970-2012

Research into Ellen White’s use of sources from the late 1960s to the 1980s moved the discussion beyond the mere documentation of copying to an analysis of the sources used, the class of material in which borrowing occurred, the nature of inspiration, and Ellen White’s apparent denials of borrowing.UEGW 150.4

William Peterson challenged the reliability of the Protestant historians Ellen White cited and the belief that her reading merely “filled in the gaps” of her visions; ^{22William S. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen G. White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum (Autumn 1970): 57-69.} Donald McAdams’s research further pressed the question of how much history was actually shown Ellen White in vision; ^{23Donald R. McAdams, “Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians” (unpublished paper, Keene, TX: Southwestern Adventist College, 1977).} Ronald Numbers disputed Ellen White’s originality and accuracy in her health writings; ^{24Numbers, Prophetess of Health.} and Walter Rea questioned Ellen White’s originality in virtually all areas of her writing—discounting any need for a “divine source” for her writings. ^{25Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M & R Publications, 1982). Rea’s publication became the apex for the modern plagiarism charge against Ellen White.}UEGW 150.5

Suddenly, F. D. Nichol and his predecessors’ answers came up short. No one had previously questioned the biases of the historians Ellen White quoted, nor had the extent of her borrowing been understood to reach beyond The Great Controversy, Sketches From the Life of Paul, and, to a lesser extent, The Desire of Ages, with sparse examples in two or three other titles. Then, in 1981, evidence came from White Estate researchers that Ellen White had used sources on occasion when reporting the message of a vision. ^{26See Ron Graybill, “Did Mrs. White ‘Borrow’ in Reporting a Vision?” Adventist Review, April 2, 1981, 7; Ron Graybill, “Author Writes,” Adventist Review, April 30, 1981, 2; and Ron Graybill, “The ‘I Saw’ Parallels in Ellen White’s Writings,” Adventist Review, July 29, 1982, 4-6.} UEGW 151.1

The church responded to the findings of this new generation of questions through articles published in denominational papers, symposiums, workshops, and commissioned reports. ^{27Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (1973); Raymond F. Cottrell and Walter F. Specht, “Literary Relationship Between The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White, and The Life of Christ, by William Hanna” (1975); E. G. White Estate, Critique of “Prophetess of Health” (1976); appendices A, B, C, in EGW, Selected Messages, bk. 3 (1980); Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions (1981); W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, “Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of Ellen G. White,” reprint insert in Adventist Review, June 4, 1981; special issue of Adventist Review, “Was Ellen G. White a Plagiarist?” (September 17, 1981); John J. Robertson, The White Truth (1981); Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, “The Ramik Report” (1981); Ron Graybill, “E. G. White’s Literary Work: An Update” (1981); E. G. White Estate and Biblical Research Institute, The Truth About the White Lie (1982); special issue of Ministry, “Ellen White: Prophet or Plagiarist?” (June 1982); Ron Graybill, Warren H. Johns, and Tim Poirier, “Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationship” (1982); International Prophetic Guidance Workshop, sponsored by the E. G. White Estate (1982); George E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? (1983); Fred Veltman, Full Report of the Life of Christ Research Project (1988); Roger W. Coon, “Issues and Answers: Ellen G. White and ‘Plagiarism’ ” (1994); Don S. McMahon, Acquired or Inspired? (2005); Leonard Brand and Don S. McMahon, The Prophet and Her Critics (2005). This list does not include works that discuss the broader ministry of Ellen White or other apologetic works in which the literary borrowing question is not their particular focus, nor does it include works that were not published by Seventh-day Adventist publishing houses.} Their conclusions are summarized in the next section.UEGW 151.2