For decades friends and critics alike have discussed Ellen White's use of literary sources in her writings. Critics have charged that her “borrowing” amounted to plagiarism and copyright infringement. Friends have said No, her “borrowing” should be classified as “fair use.” So intense was the debate three decades ago that F. D. Nichol in his book Ellen G. White and Her Critics devoted 64 pages (pages 403-467) to a discussion of the various issues involved.

Until 1981, however, no thoroughly researched opinion was available from the legal profession. All parties in the debate had been, in one sense, laymen—ministers, educators, physicians. Now, however, for the first time a top-flight attorney has spent about 300 hours reviewing the copyright scene from 1790 to 1915, has studied carefully the definitions of plagiarism, has examined Ellen White’s use of sources, and has rendered his opinion: “Ellen G. White was not a plagiarist and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy.”*

We are not so naive as to think that this extraordinarily frank and unequivocal statement will end the discussion. Another attorney with equally respectable credentials might study the question and come to a less firm conclusion or to a different one. Even when arguing from identical data, attorneys often differ. If this were not so there would be no need for courts and judges. Of course, judges also differ sometimes, even the Justices who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. At times not only a majority decision is rendered but also a minority decision. The supreme law of the land rarely is what all nine Justices say it is; often it is what only five of them say it is.

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 al., 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 materials 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 a fortiori, if his plan and arrangement are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copyright in the book embodying such improvement.’”

In the case of Lawrence v. Dana et al., Justice Storrow acknowledged: “‘Few judges have devised safer rules upon the subject than Judge Story. He held that. . . if so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially, to an injurious extent, appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute infringement; that, in deciding questions of this sort, courts must “look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work.”’”

Attorney Ramik comments: “The manner of taking, the extent of the taking, the intent involved, and the damage done are all factors from which might be determined the existence or nonexistence of plagiarism.”

He quotes from Justice Story in the decision of Emerson v. Davies etal.: “‘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, a servile or evasive imitation of the plaintiff's work, or a bona fide original compilation from other common or independent sources.’”

We have included these statements to point up the fact that even those who are laymen, so far as the legal profession is concerned, by comparing legal standards with the way Ellen White used sources are virtually certain to arrive at identical conclusions with those of Attorney Ramik.

Question of inspiration not addressed

For the editors of the REVIEW, previous or contemporary efforts to label Mrs. White as a plagiarist or copyright infringer have never seemed impressive. Most have grown out of a false or inadequate understanding of the revelation-inspiration process. It is important in this connection to recognize that Mr. Ramik’s study does not address the question of Mrs. White’s inspiration. Though we may consider settled the question as to whether Mrs. White was a plagiarist or copyright infringer, we still must determine for ourselves whether we believe she was fully inspired of God as were the ancient prophets and apostles.

Was she inspired? We answer Yes, based on the weight of evidence.

1. We have applied the various Biblical tests of a genuine prophet to Ellen White and we feel that she meets them more than adequately.

2. We have individually and collectively proved the worth of her counsels in our respective ministries on many continents around the world. We have tried them and they work. Mrs. White and her writings pass the test of pragmatism.

3. Her writings feed our own souls as do no others save Scripture itself.

In addition, her writings agree with the Bible; they lift up Jesus Christ as our Saviour, our substitute and example; they are accompanied by a supernatural power to change lives; they contain a self-authenticating quality; and they have been overwhelmingly accepted throughout the decades by the Seventh-day Adventist community.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary, and for those who choose not to, no proof is possible.

In our view there is no way a person can take a neutral position in regard to Mrs. White and her writings. Either one accepts her as being sent of God or he rejects her as being an emissary of Satan. Mrs. White herself took this view. For example, she wrote: “If you are thoroughly convinced that God has not spoken by us, why not act in accordance with your faith and have no more to do with a people who are under so great a deception as this people are? If you have been moving according to the dictates of the Spirit of God you are right and we are wrong. God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter.” —Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 230.

In writing to “Brother G,” Mrs. White said: “If we surrender to God we shall choose the light and reject the darkness. If we desire to maintain the independence of the natural heart, and refuse the correction of God, we shall, as did the Jews, stubbornly carry out our purposes and our ideas in the face of the plainest evidence, and shall be in danger of as great deception as came upon them; and in our blind infatuation we may go to as great lengths as they did, and yet flatter ourselves that we are doing work for God.

“Brother G, you will not long stand where you now are. The path you have started upon is diverging from the true path and separating you from the people whom God is testing in order to purify them for the final victory. You will either come into union with this body, and labor earnestly to answer the prayer of Christ, or you will become more and more unbelieving. You will question point after point of the established faith of the body, become more self-willed in your opinion, and grow darker and darker in regard to the work of God for this time, until you set light for darkness and darkness for light.”—Ibid., p. 231.

In the days of Jesus people rejected God’s own dear Son primarily because they stifled the convictions brought to them by the Holy Spirit and looked around to see what the leaders thought of Him. When the Temple policemen were sent to arrest Jesus they returned empty-handed, explaining their failure by saying, “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). They felt deeply convicted that He was no ordinary person. But when the ecclesiastical leaders scornfully asked, “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (verse 48) they rejected the evidence of reason and their own senses. The test they applied was simply that of source credibility. They seemed to take the position that if a matter is true it will be accepted by the majority, or, at least, by leading people— rulers, priests, scholars, or others. But Mrs. White offers this trenchant observation:

“Those to whom the message of truth is spoken seldom ask, ‘Is it true?’ but, ‘By whom is it advocated?’ Multitudes estimate it by the numbers who accept it; and the question is still asked, ‘Have any of the learned men or religious leaders believed?’ . . . It is not an argument against the truth, that large numbers are not ready to accept it, or that it is not received by the world’s great men, or even by the religious leaders.”—The Desire of Ages, pp. 459, 460.

We think again of the personal testimony of Attorney Ramik, a Roman Catholic layman, who declared that he felt the problem of the critics of Ellen White is that they focus upon the writings while missing or neglecting the message of Ellen White. Liberal scholars have long been more concerned with the text of the Bible, the methodology of the prophets, historical and cultural backgrounds, and other factors associated with God’s communication to mankind than they have with approaching the Word with awe, listening for God’s voice in His Word, and then obeying His commands. Apparently many critics of Ellen White are following this same well-beaten path that has led multitudes ultimately to become skeptics.

The fact that the chief counsel of the General Conference Office of General Counsel asked the firm of Diller, Ramik & Wight to research the legal question as to whether Mrs. White was a plagiarist or a copyright infringer provides further evidence that the church wants truth and will continue to seek it whatever the risks. But let us never forget that faith always will be an essential element for the Christian, whether dealing with the writings of the Bible or those of Ellen White. As Attorney Johns said, “For those who choose to believe, no proof is necessary; and for those who choose to disbelieve, no proof is possible.” And how one relates to God’s attempt to reach his soul through God's modern messenger may well determine his eternal destiny. K. H. W.