What about the statements where Mrs. White appears to claim an exclusive divine source for what she wrote? ^{32The White Lie, pp. 50, 70, 115.}

The question is a pertinent and important one. In 1867 Mrs. White wrote: “My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others.” ^{33Manuscript 7, 1867, see also Ellen G. White, “Questions and Answers,” The Review and Herald, 30 (October 8, 1867), p. 260.} But when the statement is put in proper context, as it can be found in the Review and Herald of October 8, 1867, one discovers she was speaking of her earliest health writings. After her initial writing on health, she tells us in this very same article that she read the books of various reformers and then proceeded to publish excerpts from them in Health: or, How to Live. Why? She says it was to show how the things shown her in vision had also been brought out by other able writers on the subject.TAWL 4.6

It was also in the context of those early health writings that she said:TAWL 4.7

Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own.... ^34Ibid.

Here she is clearly drawing a distinction between words she has to provide and divinely dictated words. Since she described her vision of the proper length for women’s dresses in different language on different occasions, some women questioned her vision. She had to explain that except in rare instances, the visions did not provide the exact words in which to describe what she was seeing.TAWL 4.8

Elsewhere, Mrs. White wrote:TAWL 4.9

I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne. ^{35Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church 5:67.}

This statement was made in a long article responding to charges from Battle Creek that her reproofs of the church there were merely her own opinions based on gossip she had heard. This charge Mrs. White honestly and forthrightly denied. She affirmed her deep conviction that the messages she bore were messages from heaven. This would not rule out the fact that they might occasionally contain concepts or words gleaned from her reading; but even in such cases it was the Holy Spirit that convicted her of the truth and value of what she was reading.TAWL 4.10

On yet another occasion, Mrs. White wrote:TAWL 4.11

I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone’s ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man’s theories should have any connection with that which I write. ^{36Letter 37, 1887.}

Once again, the context is essential to understanding. This letter was written at a time when G. I. Butler and E. J. Waggoner were locked in heated debate over the meaning of the “law” in Galatians. At this crucial juncture, when she had to counsel both men, she avoided reading doctrinal articles in the paper [The Signs of the Times] in order that her counsel would not bear the mold of either Waggoner’s or Butler’s theories.TAWL 4.12

Mrs. White’s statements about the source of her writings refer consistently to the ultimate authority by which she spoke, not to the “divers manners” in which the Lord communicated to her, nor to the aid she received in expressing God’s truth. Why did she not say more about her use of sources? Perhaps because she had seen how prone people were to see the human elements in her writings as proof that they were merely her own opinion, not divine messages. The White Lie is eloquent testimony to the continuing difficulty many people have in recognizing a union of both human and divine elements in inspired writings.TAWL 4.13