In his latest response Jud Lake appears to operate from the presupposition that most things Canright says are out of Canright’s miss-apprehension that EGW was verbally inspired. As we see when Jud writes:
Jud writes:
One other point regarding Canright. In SDAR, page 141, he refers to the 1885 republishing of her “testimonies” in four volumes, reflecting numerous word changes, but fails to mention the 1883 General Conference vote to embrace thought inspiration instead of verbal inspiration. Surely, he was not ignorant of this significant vote, which resulted in the 1885 republishing of the Testimonies? He remained in the SDA church until 1887. Is this not concealing evidence? What about the significant 1886 statement representing Ellen White's doctrinal understanding of inspiration? He may not have known about this document, but nonetheless could have accessed it though honest research. Both of these documents were certainly contrary evidence to his interpretation. This is one example, among others, of concealed evidence in Canright.
From Canright’s book SDA renounced he sets out why he questions the divine inspiration of Ellen White. Notice that again here he is not referring to verbal dictation, just the general inspiration, of course words are the method of communication. Here is the section from Canright’s book:
She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired; for -
1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it very differently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?
2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch out her own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?
3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their words inspired, too?
4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books.
This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven. It is not something she has heard or read or studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the Holy Ghost. Stubborn facts show that her claim is utterly false and her book a deception the same as the Book of Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding.
The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal., investigated the matter and published many examples out of hundreds where she had copied her matter directly from other authors without anything to show it was copied. They went through several works and scores of pages finding the same thing all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing her ideas and matter from other authors and putting them off on her followers as a revelation from God!
5. Passages Suppressed. Several important passages in the first edition of her visions have been suppressed in all later ones as they contradict what Adventists now believe. For thirty years they have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have denied it, made light of it; and finally the pressure was so hard that in 1882, they republished her first visions, claiming to give them all and word for word. They say: "No changes from the original work have been made." Preface to Early Writings, page 4. They also say the work was printed "under the authors own eye and with her full approval." Page 4. They denounce it as a wicked slander to say that anything has been suppressed.
But I have before me the original work entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by Jas. White, 1847; also "The Present Truth," August, 1849, containing her original visions. Comparing the present edition with the original, I find seven different places where from FIVE to THIRTY lines in a place have been cut right out with no sign of omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to her inspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. It teaches what they now deny, viz., that no one could be converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets.
“As Originally Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849.
As Now Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Page 37, edition of 1882.
Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these suppressed passages, why don't they? They know very well what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the book is republished "under her own eye" and all these passages left out when it is states that "no changes from the original work have been made." I have both books before me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do they; yet they keep right on sending it out.
6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor. Opening hap-hazard to four different pages in Vol. I., I read and compared them with the original publication which I have. I found an average TWENTY-FOUR CHANGES OF THE WORDS ON EACH PAGE! Her words were thrown out and other words put in and other changes made, in some cases so many that it was difficult to read the two together. At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes.
Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, by her copyist, by her son, by her editors, and those copied from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenth to one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! The common reader knows nothing about these damaging facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been where I saw it myself.
I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for all of her books are full of them. I will select but a few.
When we read this in context Canright is explaining why Ellen White is literally not dependent upon the Holy Spirit for her writing. She uses other authors, her husband, and her assistants. She equated her dependence on the Holy Spirit for her writing just as much as for her visions. Which may raise the issue of whether her visions were equally dependent upon the help of other authors, her husband, or her literary assistants. Regarding points 5 and 6 above we see Canright’s contention that if Holy Spirit inspired her writing why are certain statements removed and why are other statements radically changed? Which version of her writing was she meaning were inspired with the very words as inspired as the visions? If there were not so many deletions and if the language were merely changed it might be acceptable to assume that Canright was really only concerned with the exact words and some sort of verbal dictation. But he is clearly indicating there is suppression of sections of her writing in the new publications.
So why does Canright not address the General Conference permission given to republish and modify Ellen White's works? Probably because the General Conference is not part of the equation given by EGW. “She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Whether the publisher agrees or disagrees is not the main subject in this portion of Canright’s book, here he is talking about Ellen Whites inspiration or lack of inspiration. He does however question the publisher's honesty because of the deletions and suppression of previous elements in her writing while they claim that no changes have been made to content. To insinuate that he is concealing evidence is hardly a responsible or accurate position.
Here is the 1883 General Conference Resolution:
Selected Messages Vol. 3 p.96Ellen White’s statement of Holy Spirit dependence:
Editing the Published Testimonies in 1884.-- Dear Brother Smith: I have today mailed you a letter, but information has been received from Battle Creek that the work upon Testimonies is not accepted. [REFERENCE IS TO THE WORK BEING DONE IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 16, WHICH READS:
"32. WHEREAS, SOME OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF THE TESTIMONIES TO THE CHURCH, ARE OUT OF PRINT, SO THAT FULL SETS CANNOT BE OBTAINED AT THE OFFICE; AND,
"WHEREAS, THERE IS A CONSTANT AND URGENT CALL FOR THE REPRINTING OF THESE VOLUMES; THEREFORE,
"RESOLVED, THAT WE RECOMMEND THEIR REPUBLICATION IN SUCH A FORM AS TO MAKE FOUR VOLUMES OF SEVEN OR EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES EACH.
"33. WHEREAS, MANY OF THESE TESTIMONIES WERE WRITTEN UNDER THE MOST UNFAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRITER BEING TOO HEAVILY PRESSED WITH ANXIETY AND LABOR TO DEVOTE CRITICAL THOUGHT TO THE GRAMMATICAL PERFECTION OF THE WRITINGS, AND THEY WERE PRINTED IN SUCH HASTE AS TO ALLOW THESE IMPERFECTIONS TO PASS UNCORRECTED; AND,
"WHEREAS, WE BELIEVE THE LIGHT GIVEN BY GOD TO HIS SERVANTS IS BY THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE MIND, THUS IMPARTING THE THOUGHTS, AND NOT (EXCEPT IN RARE CASES) THE VERY WORDS IN WHICH THE IDEAS SHOULD BE EXPRESSED; THEREFORE,
"RESOLVED, THAT IN THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES, SUCH VERBAL CHANGES BE MADE AS TO REMOVE THE ABOVE-NAMED IMPERFECTIONS, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT IN ANY MEASURE CHANGING THE THOUGHT; AND FURTHER,
"34. RESOLVED, THAT THIS BODY APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF FIVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE PREAMBLES AND RESOLUTIONS."--REVIEW AND HERALD, NOV. 27, 1883.
Spiritual Gifts Vol. 2 p 293
At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call them to mind until I am brought [293] before a company where that vision applies, then the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that he is pleased to have me relate or write them. {2SG 292.2}
No comments:
Post a Comment