Did Mrs. White feel that it was permissible for her to paraphrase the language of others?

Yes, in fact, in a letter to her secretary, Fannie Bolton, she once gave an enlightening illustration of her concept of the ownership of truth. Fannie, from time to time, felt that Mrs. White had not given her proper credit for the work she had done in editing Mrs. White’s material in the process of preparing it for publication.TAWL 4.2

In vision, Ellen White “was shown Fannie gathering the fruit, some ripe, the best, some unripe. She put it in her apron and said, ‘This is mine. It is mine.’ I said, ‘Fannie, you are certainly claiming that which is not yours. That fruit belongs to that tree. Anyone may pluck and enjoy it, but it belongs to that tree.’” ^{28Letter 7, 1894.} This concept of the tree of truth suggests that God is the author and owner of all truth, just as the tree is the author and owner of its fruit. God provides truth unstintingly to all who will receive it and use it.TAWL 4.3

Mrs. White explained Christ’s use of familiar concepts in much the same way:TAWL 4.4

He was the originator of all the ancient gems of truth. Through the work of the enemy, these truths had been displaced.... Christ rescued them from the rubbish of error, gave them a new, vital force, and commanded them to shine as jewels, and stand fast forever.

Christ Himself could use any of these old truths without borrowing the smallest particle, for He had originated them all. ^{29Manuscript 25, 1890.}

In the later years of her life, when she became aware that questions were being raised about whether her copying from other writers was an infringement on their rights, she asked “Who has been injured?” ^{30“Brief Statements,” p. 8.} Significantly, this question was the very one asked by the courts of her day to determine whether borrowing was proper. ^{31See Vincent L. Ramik, “Memorandum of Law: Literary Property Rights, 1790-1915,” pp. 5-7. In Greene v. Bishop (1858) the decision of the court stated that all the authorities ... affirm the doctrine, that if so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly and materially diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that such taking or appropriation is sufficient in point of law to maintain the suit. Ramik’s full report is available from the Ellen G. White Estate.} If she were writing today, her approach might be different, but she must be judged by the concepts of literary property and legality current in her own day.TAWL 4.5