Did Church Leaders and Scholars Interfere?

To allay any suspicion that General Conference leaders or editors, as A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, or M. C. Wilcox, influenced the work done at Elmshaven, W. C. White declared:6BIO 334.1

Our brethren at Washington and at Mountain View have done only that which we requested them to do. As stated in the beginning, we took counsel with the men of the Publishing Department, with State canvassing agents, and with members of the publishing committees, not only in Washington, but in California, and I asked them to kindly call our attention to any passages that needed to be considered in connection with the resetting of the book.6BIO 334.2

When it was pointed out that some of the historical data were questioned and challenged, we asked them to give us a written statement that would help us in our research. They did as we requested and nothing more. All decisions as to what should be changed, and what should be printed word for word as in the old edition, were made in Mother's office, by persons in her employ and working under her direction. Therefore, there is no occasion for anyone to say a word against the General Conference Committee men or the literary men at Washington, or against the book, because of anything done by the brethren in Washington or elsewhere in connection with this work.—Ibid. (see also Ibid., 3:439, 440). (Italics supplied.)6BIO 334.3

He also stated:6BIO 334.4

If you hear reports that some of the work done on this latest edition was done contrary to Mother's wish or without her knowledge, you can be sure that such reports are false, and unworthy of consideration.—Ibid. (see also Ibid., 3:436).

The people working at Elmshaven—Ellen White and her staff—were grateful for the suggestions that at their request came to them. These, as they related to the handling of quotations, the including of wording that would not offend, and the bringing about of more precision in statement, were welcomed and helped to make the new edition of The Great Controversy a more attractive and useful book. The few suggestions that questioned prophetic dates, prophetic applications, and doctrine were turned down. Ellen White was adamant on points of this character.6BIO 334.5

“In a few places where ambiguous or misleading terms have been used, Mother has authorized a changed reading,” wrote W. C. White, “but she protests against any change in the argument or subject matter of the book.”—DF 83b, WCW to AGD, June 20, 1910.6BIO 335.1