THE PLAGIARISM CHARGE
Ellen White did NOT Plagiarize— Here are the Facts to Prove it! Did
Ellen White plagiarize? No, she did not. We will prove it in this online
book. This book is the most comprehensive overview of the subject
that you can find anywhere. Step by step, it will discuss the charges and
give you the answers you have been looking for. It will also unveil new evidence, which we did not have back in the early 1980s, when Walter Rea issued his charges. This is a book you will want to read. It will strengthen your faith, and place it on a sure foundation. Table
of Contents
Intro
—Read this First 1-
The Ramik Report 1 2-
The Ramik Report 2 3-
Volume Nullifies Copying 4-
The Desire of Ages Project 1 5-
The Desire of Ages Project 2 6-
How a Prophet Writes 7-
How the Bible Writers Wrote 8-
Canright and Rea -The
men who attack
Introduction-
Read This First
Did
Ellen White plagiarize? No,
she did not. We will prove it in the following pages. Why
then did Walter Rea say she did? First.
he became disgruntled with church leaders, and he wanted to get back at
them. So he used an attack on the Spirit
of Prophecy to do
it. Friends of his, who have personally known him over the years (both in
Florida and California), told me this. Second. Walter Rea wanted to make
money. And he did. He really pulled it in for a time. He was reported to
have been paid between $7.000 and $10.000 each weekend, for lectures,
which he gave at community halls near major Adventist centers throughout
North America on a major tour of the continent in the winter of 1981-1982.
Afterward, he continued giving lectures throughout the early and
mid-1980s. But
he said she plagiarized most of what she wrote? Look
at the facts: When pinned down, he said the book she plagiarized more than
any other was Great Controversy. But when you push for data, he admits he
only means the historical quotations she included in the book! Yet, in
her introduction to that book, she said she freely said she had included
such historical statements (GC 13:2-14:0). But
what about Desire of Ages? That
is the book, which Walter Rea specializes in. Others go to it to find God,
for it has helped millions; Walter goes to it in an effort to destroy the
influence of the book. He maintains that it is brimful of passages pulled
directly out of other books. Because
Rea had excited so much interest in this, a. special group was set up to
check out the facts. Called the Desire of Ages Project, they spent six
years comparing that book with other contemporary books of her time,
dealing with the life of Christ. It is the only real analysis of her
writings that has ever been made. But
were there not many made before that? And what about Walter Rea's
findings? Everything
before the Desire of Ages Project was only talk, inference, and
supposition, little more. Only the Desire of Ages Project did the careful
research which was needed. Yes,
but whatever conclusion the project might come to would be tainted, since
it was a church—appointed group. Not
so. We were all surprised when one of the most liberal Bible teachers in
our ranks—Fred Veltman, head of the Religion Department at Pacific Union
College—was appointed by the General Conference to be the sole manager
of the entire project. Keep in mind that, to this day, Desmond Ford
remains an honored member of the Pacific Union College Church. In regard
to the New Theology, PUC has, since the 1970s, been one of our most
liberal colleges. And Veltman was head of its religion department, when
appointed to this new assignment. If the data could be slanted in favor of
Walter Rea, Veltman would be in a position to do it. He had full control
of the project. Maybe
he secretly was a conservative and believed in the Spirit of Prophecy. Frankly.
we were shocked when he was appointed to direct the whole project,
micro-manage its discoveries, and write up all its conclusions. About the
year 1982, Veltman, by that
time head of the Desire of Ages Project, spoke at a ministerial retreat at
PUC and at an Adventist Forum in San Francisco. His sentiments were very
liberal, indicating his disbelief in the Spirit of Prophecy. More on
this later. What
were his conclusions? Six
full years later, Veltman issued his report. We will provide you with an
overview of his findings later in this book. But, in brief, he discovered
that there was almost nothing in Desire of Ages that he could find which
could be attributed to even partial literary borrowing! What
was Walter Rea's charge? In
October 1980, Walter Rea, pastor of the Long Beach, California, Church,
went public with his charges that Ellen White was a book thief. He
declared that she had copied large quantities out of other books.
Indeed, he said she had copied so much that most of her writings were
taken from other books! In addition, he said this plagiarism ran through
all her books. The
story, initially released through the Los Angeles Times, on October 23-24,
1980, was carried by wire service and news syndicate and appeared in
dozens of newspapers across the United States. Did
Rea prove his point? No,
he did not prove his point at the time, and the Desire of Ages Project
totally devastated his claims later. Yet anyone can prove the matter for
himself: Just pick up any other book printed in the 19th century—and see
if it reads like a Spirit of Prophecy book on your shelf! It
is of special interest that the two books which Rea really talked much
about were Great Controversy and Desire of Ages. He said Great Controversy
was "borrowed" because she referred to historical sources and
quoted historians. Later in this book, we will examine that charge—and
find it is not significant. He
said Desire of Ages was heavily borrowed; but, on that score, Veltman's
research proves quite the opposite. Well,
I’m ready now. Tell me the truth about the plagiarism charge against
Ellen White.
Did
Plagiarism Actually Occur? THE
RAMIK REPORT — 1
There
are two kinds of plagiarism. The first is copyright infringement. This
is courtroom plagiarism. The second is excessive literary borrowing. This
is regular plagiarism. Both were analyzed in the Ramik Report. Did
Ellen White illegally plagiarize in any way? No,
she did not. As
part of his initial charge in 1980, Walter Rea said that Ellen White had
plagiarized so badly, she could have been sued for copyright infringement
by other authors in her day. But
a research study found that this claim was also untrue. Yes, but hardly anything was copyrighted back then. If it had been, she could have been sued. That
is not true. The Ramik study revealed that only a third of the books Ellen
White could possibly have referred to, were copyrighted. Yet, even if they
all had been, no valid copyright infringement lawsuit could have been
brought against her. She was not guilty of copyright infringement. What was this Ramik study? Give me the details. The
office of the chief counsel of the General Conference, under the direction
of Warren L. Johns, decided to get to the bottom of the legal aspects of
this matter. So on April 21, 1981, six months after Rea issued his
plagiarism charges, that office retained the services of a highly
reputable firm specializing in patent, trademark, and copyright law. As
you might imagine, the best of those legal firms are in Washington, D.C.,
since that is where U.S. government applications are made and defended. Since
it was felt that a specialist in copyright law was needed, Vincent L.
Ramik, senior partner in the law firm of Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd.,
was retained to personally carry out the work. Was
Ramik an Adventist or otherwise favorable to our message? Our
leaders had done no work with that firm since the turn of the century.
Ramik, himself, was a Roman Catholic. This is stated three times in the
final report of the research study, which was printed in the September 17,
1981, issue of the Adventist Review (Ramik said so twice, the editor said
it once). Later, Victor Cooper, a General Conference officer, also said
so in the October 15, 1981, issue of the Mid-America Adventist Outlook.
It should be noted that, as part of his task, Ramik read Great
Controversy. He said that, in the course of his research, he read the
entire book. Over
a period of four months (April 21 to late August 1981), Ramik spent more
than 300 hours researching about 1,000 relevant cases in American legal
history. What
were his findings? Here
are some of what was discovered: "Based
upon our review of the facts and legal precedents. . Ellen White was not a
plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright
infringement/piracy." —Vincent Ramik, 27—page Report, quoted in
Adventist Review, September 17,1981, p. 3. "The
charges about plagiarism, literary piracy, copyright infringement, and
so on, are shown to be entirely without foundation in
law."—Warren Johns, quoted in of. clt., p. 7. "The
charges made against her simply do not hold water. She did not operate in
an underhanded, devious, unethical manner as charged. She was an honest,
honorable Christian woman, and author."—Editor, quoted in of. clt.,
p. 7. "Ellen
G. White emphatically would not have been convicted of copyright
infringement." —Vincent Ramik, quoted in of. clt., p. 3. "In
other words, the words themselves have been there for years and years. The
crucial issue is how you put them together, and the effect you wish to
produce from those words." —Ramik, of. clt., p. 6. "Nowhere
have we found the books of Ellen G. White to be virtually the 'same plan
and character throughout' as those of her predecessors. Nor have we found,
or have the critics made reference to, any intention of Ellen White to
supersede. . [other authors) in the market with the same class of
readers and purchasers." —Ramik, of. clt., p. 3. "Now
let's take Walter Rea. He reads Ellen White and says: 'I found a certain
phrase here, a certain paragraph there, and it came from this
predecessor.' Well, that's not proof; that's assumption."—Ramik,
of. clt., p. 5. After
reading a number of her books, and comparing them with the purported books
she is supposed to have copied, Vincent Ramik said this: "Considering
all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is
submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively
unplagiaristic."—Ramik, of. cit., p. 3. "If
I had to be involved in such a legal case, I would much rather appear as
defense counsel than for the prosecution. There simply is no case!"
—Ramik, of. clt.. p. 6. Did
he come to the study favorable to Ellen White? Having
already read about Walter Rea's charges in the Washington Post, Vincent
Ramik came to this case somewhat prejudiced against Ellen White. He
explained what happened when he first read statements by her critics and
defenders—and then opened and read her books and compared them With
other books: "Somehow, as I read one particular Adventist-authorized
defense of Mrs. White, it left me with the feeling that she was not, in
fact, very well defended. "I
came back thinking that Mrs. White was, if I may use the expression that
has been used by others, a literary 'borrower: And that she had borrowed a
lot and that she had borrowed with something less than candor and honesty!
In other words—and this was before I had delved into her works
themselves—I became actually biased against her in the sense that I
thought she was what some people, such as her latest critic, Walter Rea,
had alleged—guilty of plagiarism. . "[After
beginning to read her books] I gradually turned 180 degrees in the other
direction. I found that the charges simply were not true. But I had to get
that from her writings; I did not get that from either the people who said
she was a plagiarist or the people who said she was not. I simply had to
read her writings and then rid my mind of the bias I had already built
into it —prejudice. And, in the end, she came out quite favorably. But
it took more than 300 hours of reading—including case law histories,
of course." —Ramik, OF. clt.. p. 4. Ramik,
a Roman Catholic, was astounded by the content of her writings, and could
not see how anyone would want to criticize a person who wrote such
breathtaking, heavenly portrayals of Christ and the plan of salvation. As
part of his assignment, Ramik compared her writings with other
contemporary religious books of her time—including those Rea spoke of. "I
believe that the critics have missed the boat badly by focusing upon
Mrs. White's writings, instead of focusing upon the messages in Mrs.
White's writings. "Mrs.
White moved me! In all candor, she moved me. I am a Roman Catholic; but,
Catholic, Protestant, whatever—she moved me. And I think her writings
should move anyone, unless he is permanently biased and is
unswayable."—Ramik, Opt clt., p. 4. What
did he find? He
was amazed at the spiritual depth in those writings, which were lacking in
the other books of her time. "I have been asked whether I thought
Ellen White was 'inspired: Well,
inspiration is a theological word, not a legal word; and I am more at home
with legal words than I am with theological words. "I don't know
whether she was inspired, in the theological sense. I
do believe that she was highly motivated. And if it wasn't God who
motivated her, then I don't know who it could have been. . "The
bottom line is: What really counts is the message of Mrs. White, not
merely the mechanical writings —words, clauses, sentences —of Mrs.
White."—Ramik. op. clt., p. 6. "Most
certainly, the nature and content of her writings had but one hope and
intent, namely, the furthering of mankind's under standing of the word
of God."—Ramik. op. clt, p. 3. Ramik
contended that, not only Ellen White's message but also her obvious
sincerity of purpose were significant. "One
certainly perceives from Mrs. White's writings that she was motivated by
'the influence of the Holy Ghost' which itself belies wrongful intent.. "It
is impossible to imagine that the intention of Ellen G. White, as
reflected in her writings and the unquestionably prodigious efforts
involved therein, was anything other than a sincerely motivated and
unselfish effort to place the understanding of Biblical truths in a
coherent form for all to see and comprehend. Most certainly, the nature
and content of her writings had but one hope and intent, namely, the
furthering of mankind's understanding of the word of God. "—Ramik.
27 —page Report. Ramik
concluded that, in a legal sense, Ellen White was not guilty of
plagiarism. But let us pursue this matter further. Let us now turn our
attention more closely to this matter of "borrowings."
It
was too original to have been copied- THE
RAMIK REPORT - 2
Preliminary
examination, such as done by Walter Rea, indicated that there could
possibly be some "borrowings," by Ellen White, of words and
phrases from other authors. If
there were such borrowings, how extensive were they? Walter
Rea assumed that there must be lots of them; but, as we will find later in
this book, there is actually very little of that nature to be found. In any borrowings that Ellen White might have made, was there actual copying or Just rearrangements into a better form? First,
whatever so-called "borrowings" were made, were done so
effectively that they result in a totally different book, which is a vast
improvement on anything in contemporary literature. Second, as we shall
learn later,—aside from a specifically stated use of historians'
statements In Great Controversy, we can hardly find any real borrowings!
But more on that later. By the way, other people have read through many
19th century books and have not been able to find hardly anything worth
calling a similarity between her writings and those of others. Try It
yourself; you will probably come up with zeros also. There is more
hocus—pocus in Walter's accusations than may at first appear. What
are the legal aspects of plagiarism? It should be kept in mind that to take an idea of someone else and vastly improve on it is not plagiarism. But, of course, that presupposes that Ellen White borrowed ideas from others. An
important copyright judge said that, when dealing with any given topic,
many of the words a person uses will be like those which others would use
In describing the same topic. That is perfectly normal. And it is an
important principle! It does not indicate collusion or copying. Ramik
speaking again: "In
the middle of the nineteenth century—just when Ellen White was beginning
to write for print, 1845—in the legal case of Emerson v. Davies,
Massachusetts Circuit Justice Story in effect exonerates a writer who has
used other men's words and ideas and woven them into his own composition. "In
effect, Judge Story says, Only fools attempt to do that which has been
done better in the past; no one really ever builds a language
exclusively his own. "In
other words, the words themselves have been there for years and years. The
crucial issue is how you put them together, and the effect you wish to
produce from those words." —Ramik, Adventist Review, September
17,1981,p. 6. An
editorial in the same issue of the Review made this comment: "Mr.
Ramik's 27-page opinion quotes heavily from court cases dealing with
copyright infringement and plagiarism. We have spent considerable time
reading and studying these cases. In the case of Emerson v. Davies et aI.,
Justice Story, who, according to Mr. Ramik, 'is recognized as the most
influential judge in the area of copyright law in the era in question:
concluded that 'the question is not, whether the materials which are used
are entirely new, and have never been used before or even that they have
never been used before for the same purpose. The true question is, whether
the same plan, arrangement and combination of material have been used
before for the same purpose or for any other purpose. . [The author] may
have gathered hints for his plan and arrangement, or parts of his plan and
arrangement, from existing and known sources. He may have borrowed much
of his material from others, but if they are combined in a different
manner from what was in use before; and afortiori [more conclusively], if
his plan and arrangement are real improvements upon the existing modes,
he is entitled to a copyright in the book embodying such improvement.'
"—Editorial, Adventist Review, September 17, 1981,p. 13. From what I read, Ellen White's writings do not seem to be like other books. It
was clear to Vincent Ramik, and it is clear to any objective reader—that
Ellen White produced original works. If there were borrowings, they ought
to be easy to find. But the truth is that her works are different than
others—yet borrowing would have rendered them similar to other books!
Second, such "borrowings" hardly exist, although a few
possibilities have been found. It takes considerable Imagination to read through any book written at her time—and come up with much that appears to be the same as what she wrote! The present author has tried to do it, without success. Ellen
White's writings have a magnificence above all others. They are in a class
by themselves. That is all there is to it. The complainers can quibble all
they want, but the Spirit of Prophecy stands apart from other books,
before her time or since. Only the Bible writings compare with her
statements. For
this reason, in order to understand how she wrote her books, we must turn
back to the Bible. More on this later. What
is an original book? Judge
Story defines what an original production is like. He says that, In an
"original production," "the resemblances are either
accidental or arising from the nature of the subject." That
definition fits the Spirit of Prophecy writings very well. "He
[Ramik] quotes from Justice Story in the decision of Emerson vs. Davies et
al.: "
'I think it may be laid down as the clear result of the authorities in
cases of this nature, that the true test of piracy (infringement of
copyright), or not, is to ascertain whether the defendant has, in fact,
used the plan, arrangements and illustrations of the plaintiff, as the
model of his own book, with colorable alterations and variations only to
disguise the use thereof; or whether his work is the result of his own
labor, skill, and use of common materials and common sources of knowledge,
open to all men, and the resemblances are either accidental or arising
from the nature of the subject. In other words, whether the defendant's
book is, quoad hoc [in this respect], a servile or evasive imitation of
the plaintiff's work or a bona fide original compilation from other common
or independent sources: .. —Editorial, Adventist Review, September 17,
1981, p. 13. But what about the volume of Ellen White's writing? Since there is so much of it. surely she must have copied much of it from others? Actually,
there are very simple reasons why the large quantity of Ellen White's
literary output—all by itself—proves that she did not copy from
others! Below
will be found samples of Ellen White's handwriting. You will notice that she wrote steadily and directly. She did not write and rewrite, trying to figure out what she wanted to say or try to piece together what others said.
|
