tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post5983996283499097344..comments2024-01-30T03:40:00.558-08:00Comments on Adventist Media Response and Conversation: Ellen White's view of Inspiration contrasted to StoweRon Corsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-41277711625978870582009-01-13T02:54:00.000-08:002009-01-13T02:54:00.000-08:00For a side-by-comparison of EGW with Calvin Stowe ...For a side-by-comparison of EGW with Calvin Stowe see http://www.andrews.edu/%7Efortind/EGWWhite-Conybeare.htm (near the bottom of the page). Since David Neff did a "line by line and word by word" analysis of the two quotes I see no reason to question his conclusion.<BR/><BR/>For those who are still bothered by the literary similarity I suggest reading David Neff's study which is obtainable from the White Estate. And from an outside, scholarly POV to the literary practices in nineteenth century literaure see Robert Macfarlane's 2007 study <I>Original Copy</I> in which he looks at plagiarism and originality through the works of six authors of the time.djconklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01344738124804031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-90091152239729583582009-01-11T10:34:00.000-08:002009-01-11T10:34:00.000-08:00I don't know about that, considering she never pub...I don't know about that, considering she never published the essay. Written nearly 20 years before she died yet not published though she had plenty of things published during that time, but not this leads me to think that she did not think it near as important as those who frequently quote it.<BR/><BR/>So when it comes to comparing what she published with what she did not publish I give higher importance to the material published. Particularly things she had a hand in publishing over compilations made well after her death. In this case about 40 years after her death.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-75426552138827618832009-01-11T09:48:00.000-08:002009-01-11T09:48:00.000-08:00I have no doubt that one can amass a substantial n...I have no doubt that one can amass a substantial number of EGW statements that state or at least imply a verbal sounding process of inspiration. That was (and is) a prevalent understanding outside of the centers of critical thought. EGW would be expected to casually appropriate that understanding. The vital point here is that when she actually sat down to seriously consider the matter, late in her career, she actively chose to follow a more liberal line (but only so far). One serious essay intended to address the subject at hand is more revealing of an author’s carefully considered opinion then scores of incidental (if not careless) references elsewhere in their work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-31341653055174122022009-01-11T09:28:00.000-08:002009-01-11T09:28:00.000-08:00RLF said:--You are, I believe, clinging to a concl...RLF said:<BR/>--<BR/>You are, I believe, clinging to a conclusion reached a priori - that EGW could not possibly have done something creative and thus remain blind to that which any common reading of the material would see.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>No this has nothing to do with her creativity. If you read the first chapters of Patriarchs and Prophets you realize she is very capable of taking Christian tradition and running away with it.<BR/><BR/>Probably in my next post I will examine her statements a little farther as it seems this particular one which gives her a more liberal view of inspiration is contradicted by others which take a far more inerrant and maybe even verbalist view. Statements about none of the writing being her opinions and it being either all from God or all from the devil. So yes in those cases she is definitely taking the more objective position of inspiration. Probably to the determent of herself and to the Bible.<BR/><BR/>9:24 AMRon Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-29182349853643795312009-01-11T08:44:00.000-08:002009-01-11T08:44:00.000-08:00You are, I believe, clinging to a conclusion reach...You are, I believe, clinging to a conclusion reached a priori - that EGW could not possibly have done something creative and thus remain blind to that which any common reading of the material would see.<BR/><BR/>Stowe's "conceive" refers to the action of the MANs mind conceiving - it is an active process of the HUMAN mind. EGWs "imbued" is a passive process of receiving content from outside. Stowe's "impulse", so as NOT to contradict the clear intent of his passage is here meaning only to "prod" to "initiate" to "stimulate" the thought process of the MAN -- again, NOT to supply those thoughts. EGW only brings in mans active role when he must put GOD's thoughts into words, idioms and speech patterns of his day. One can reasonably add world view to that list, though not necessarily addressed.<BR/><BR/>Even her partial following of Stowe is substantial progress over the fundamentalists and the inerrantists that would soon hold sway in conservative Christianity. <BR/><BR/>I believe on the basis of her active editing of Snow's words using them as her toolbox to build what SHE wanted - and only what she wanted - (still, an ethically suspect activity - but that is a different subject) lends weight to the assessment that she actually did carefully adopt a theological stance on inspiration MORE liberal then many of her contemporaries.<BR/><BR/>I believe she would have laughed at a much later Harold Lindsel (a predecessor to Neff as editor of Christianity Today) fabricating SIX denials of Peter so as to accommodate the different numbering and timing of the cock's crowing between the gospel narratives ("Battle for the Bible"). <BR/><BR/>And while she very much wanted her church and various individuals to take HER words very seriously, she would similarly have scolded those who build whole eschatological, theological, or behavioral constructs on a snippet here and a snippet there of her own corpus. <BR/><BR/>She WAS flawed. Humans tend to be. But, let her have SOME credit, and SOME utility in the formation of our Church, and in this case protection of that church from the idolization of the Bible (at the expense of their representation of God) so prevalent in some evangelical circles. <BR/><BR/>PS: Thank you David Neff for sharing your paper, that diligent googling does not bring up unaided. I suspect it will in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-17974096808041541222009-01-11T06:24:00.000-08:002009-01-11T06:24:00.000-08:00Just to clarify the facts for curious minds: No, I...Just to clarify the facts for curious minds: No, I am not today a Seventh-day Adventist, nor have I been since 1981. Those who want to read my paper comparing Calvin Stowe and Ellen White on inspiration can do so at http://www.box.net/shared/qjdpj0kqx0.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-59336131285736959352009-01-10T23:44:00.000-08:002009-01-10T23:44:00.000-08:00There are a number of problems with RLF’s objectio...There are a number of problems with RLF’s objections:<BR/><BR/>First RLF says:<BR/>--<BR/>He clearly is ruling OUT (in most cases) thought (as well as word level) content and specifically claiming mostly ONLY a subjective experience. EGW clearly by her choice of what to omit insists on objective content at the thought level. She supplies her own words “imbued with” for thought level content, and omits Stowe’s “not on man’s thoughts.” <BR/>--<BR/><BR/>A person does not rule out something merely by omitting content. At best all it does is leave the content the same as quoted from the original (in this case Stowe) and leave the reader to surmise what they want from the material left. Which is why I said her statement is more vague than Stowe’s statement. Her statement does not deny something of the original it simply omits them. That would not be a denial it would be an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Second RLF says:<BR/>--<BR/>It is very clear that while she is borrowing Stowe’s language she chose not to follow him all the way theologically, stopping short of denying for the most part objective thought level content as specifically insisting on “imbued” (a whole lot more objective then Stowe’s “impulse”) thoughts expressed in the recipients own words. <BR/>--<BR/><BR/>What is clear is that she did not quote all of Stowe, that does not affirm or deny agreement with his quote. “under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts.” As for imbued let’s compare it to Stowe:<BR/><BR/>"Inspiration acts not on the man’s words, not on the man’s thoughts, but on the man himself; so that he, by his own spontaneity, under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, conceives certain thoughts and give utterance to them in certain words, both the words and the thoughts receiving the peculiar impress of the mind which conceived and uttered them..."<BR/><BR/>In other words the thoughts are not the product of the man himself. The first line is used to show that the man is acted upon by God and that the thoughts are not simply a product of the man. If he meant that the man’s thoughts were not subject to inspiration then he would not have continued by saying “under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, conceives certain thoughts…” If he did his statement would contradict itself in the one sentence. EGW’s use of imbued is merely a repetition of Stowe’s word “conceive” because that is the meaning of imbued, “To inspire or influence thoroughly, to saturate or impregnate with” something. So either admit that Stowe believed in conceived (imbued) thoughts or that Ellen White denied imbued (conceived) thoughts. You can’t really have it both ways.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-80202184904848515302009-01-10T17:43:00.000-08:002009-01-10T17:43:00.000-08:00I believe you are mis-reading Stowe. He clearly i...I believe you are mis-reading Stowe. <BR/><BR/>He clearly is ruling OUT (in most cases) thought (as well as word level) content and specifically claiming mostly ONLY a subjective experience. <BR/><BR/>EGW clearly by her choice of what to omit insists on objective content at the thought level. She supplies her own words “imbued with” for thought level content, and omits Stowe’s “not on man’s thoughts.” <BR/><BR/>It is very clear that while she is borrowing Stowe’s language she chose not to follow him all the way theologically, stopping short of denying for the most part objective thought level content and specifically insisting on “imbued” (a whole lot more objective then Stowe’s “impulse”) thoughts expressed in the recipients own words. <BR/><BR/>This is a critical difference and while the passage does demonstrate unequivocal plagiarism of Stowe’s words at the same time it demonstes her actively rejecting the full extent of his conclusions. Scold her for the first, but do not deny her credit for the latter. Got to be fair.<BR/><BR/><BR/>PS: Did you realize that Stowe was the husband (after 1st wife died) of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lincoln’s "little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!” with her “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com