A Response to the Response of Jud Lake (Ellen White Summit 2005)

By Ron Corson

Recently I was informed that Jud Lake posted a response to my blog article on his Ellen White 2005 Summit presentation. My original blog article is found at: http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/02/ellen-white-and-canright.html The Audio of the Summit found at: http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/ Jud Lake’s Response is found at: http://personal.southern.edu/~jslake/Ron%20Corson%201.htm

I am grateful for his response because the purpose of this blog is to discuss various elements expressed in SDA news, events and media. Too often articles or events are produced and no one really has a chance to discuss the contents except for occasional short letters to editors or conversations with friends. However with the Internet technology it is now possible to examine information in depth far easier then ever before. However there is still a lack of involvement from the leadership in the SDA church dealing with the regular membership. So though what follows is probably not going to make Jud Lake too happy, I do appreciate his desire to discuss the issues even though he chooses to respond on his own web site rather then comment on the article on this blog. To make things easier I am going to place my original article first except for the quotes from Canright’s book, which will be placed later in response to his response. This may sound confusing but they will be color-coded. This way it will not be necessary to go back and forth between my original post and his response. He makes several charges against my statements and it is necessary to refute them. For instance he claims that I criticize his logical fallacies without giving any examples of such fallacies, he also asserts that though I said there was false material in his presentation he can not see where I showed anything to be false. So I will show in more detail what I meant in my original post.

The Original Post excluding Canright quotes section:

Ellen White and Canright

The Ellen White Summit indeed has some interesting material. But there is a good deal of false information in there also. As time allows I will deal with some of the problems that come up.

The first is from one of the lesser presenters at the summit. I don't think I could possibly find time to deal with all the logical fallacies he uses in his presentation on "Ellen White and her Critics" Jud Lake tried to point out the logical fallacies of the critics but really mainly points out his own fallacies. A big one he uses is the A priori fallacy he says that the critics use because they begin with the assumption that she is not a prophet. Yet for some reason his own fallacy and that of all the presenters that EGW is a prophet is not considered to be A priori fallacies.

But here is what Jud says at about 34 minutes into his presentation on Ellen White and Inspiration (part 4):

"Ellen White experienced numerous times the Prophetic model, dreams and visions. But some have taken this to an extreme, a number of the people in her day took this to an extreme and this is where the critics have made a big mistake. They’ve taken....pushed this envelope I should say of this model. And gotten into what we discussed already, verbal dictation. Listen to Canright, remember who Canright is famed critic he wrote in his critical book on Ellen White I shared with you in my last presentation. Listen, every line she wrote he believed whether in articles letters testimonies or books she claimed and this is my bold she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost and hence must be infallible. This I think contributed to his great fall or some say he more took the position when he turned against the Adventist church but either way this is what he is saying here, he saying she claimed this well I think it is already very clear she did not claim this. Dr. Newborn touched on this’"

-- Jud Lake Professor of Preaching and Adventist Studies at he School of Religion, Southern Adventist University. "Ellen White and Inspiration" 2005 Ellen White Summit Gladstone Oregon

Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at: http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm

Jud Lake’s response in red:  A Response to Ron Corson

Ron Corson, founder of the blog, "Adventist media response and conversation," has made several critical comments about my presentations at the "Ellen White Summit" sponsored by the Oregon Conference (Gladstone Park Conference Center, Oregon, November 11, 12, 2005). At the outset I should say that I had no idea these presentations would be put on the worldwide web. I am comfortable with the presentation, "Ellen White and Inspiration" (#4), being on the web, but "Ellen White and Her Critics" (#3), was only an introduction to the issues. As such, it suggested sources to study but did not provide specific and detailed responses to the critics. Below is my response to Corson’s comments. To read Corson’s comments in context see his blog: cafesda.blogspot.com.

In his post, "Ellen White and Canright," he believes there was "some interesting material" presented at the summit. "But," he says, "there is a good deal of false information in there also." So far, he has not demonstrated any false information yet. I’ll be watching to see if he can.

My response:

Ok, so I am a lesser presenter. I yield to my distinguished colleagues who are obviously well known and respected scholars in the SDA church. But this ad hominem remark does not help Corson’s argument. The onus, of course, is on him to address the logical fallacies in my presentation, which he does not do. To simply say that a person commits fallacies without demonstrating it is the "that’s a fallacy" fallacy! Corson, of course, will argue that I did the same thing to the critics in my presentation. Admittedly, my presentation is open to this charge because of its nature’s it was only an introduction to the issue of Ellen White’s critics. I only mentioned a few fallacies in passing with an illustration or two. I was not attempting to seriously address the many logical fallacies in the critics of Ellen White. My purpose was only to make the listeners aware of the criticisms of Ellen White by identifying the historical roots of the critics, setting forth some of their main characteristics, directing listeners to sources that address the critics in some detail, briefly exposing some of their tactics, suggesting coping strategies, and briefly revealing some of the research on the charge of plagiarism, all in less than an hour (hardly time to deal with these issues in any depth). As such, "Ellen White and Her Critics," is intended only as an overview of the issues. Had I known this would be put on the worldwide web, I would have made some changes, such as more depth and evidence.

Corson:

"A big one he uses is the A priori fallacy he says that the critics use because they begin with the assumption that she is not a prophet. Yet for some reason his own fallacy and that of all the presentors that EGW is a prophet are not considered to be A priori fallacies."

I have found that when people begin by accusing someone of Ad Hominem remarks that they are most likely arguing from a weak position. In this case the supposed Ad Hominem is "lesser presenters" which is my view of his presentation. An Ad Hominem attacks the person; clearly my article was a critique of the material in the presentation. Being a "lessor Presentor" says nothing about the person as a person it is a reference to the presentation. A typical Ad Hominem is something said about the person rather then about what the argument of the person. For instance: "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)"

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem

 Jud Lake continues with a somewhat strange response saying: "The onus, of course, is on him to address the logical fallacies in my presentation, which he does not do." Yet his next paragraph addresses my contention that he uses A Priori fallacy. He then proceeds to explain that he did not use the word A Priori but Apriorism.

 My Response:

He is referring to one place in the presentation where mentioned this particular fallacy. The careful listener of my presentation will notice that the precise word I used was not "a priori" but "apriorism." A priori is a type of reasoning that begins with general principles and moves to particulars, often called deductive reasoning. For example, the starting point for Ellen White critics is that she was a false prophet; the starting point for Ellen White supporters is that she possessed the prophetic gift. Beginning an argument with a specific premise in mind is not necessarily a fallacy. It is what happens later in the argument that determines whether or not a fallacy is occurring. This is where apriorism becomes relevant. Apriorism is a logical fallacy in which a person starts with a "conclusion" and stays with it, ignoring all contrary evidence. What I said in my presentation, which Corson failed to acknowledge, was that the critics start with the conclusion that Ellen White was a false prophet and read this into everything she says without ever examining the context or any contrary evidence. This is apriorism and supporters of Ellen White can be guilty of it as well. Any argument pro or con about Ellen White must be examined in its entirety to detect this fallacy.

So he does a little dance about apriorism which merely means that one is using the A Priori principle http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apriorism

A Priori:-

More fancy Latin words, literally meaning, "from that which comes before." In argument it is where a person, in an effort to prove a further point assumes the validity of some other point. This other point, it is asked, should be accepted as one that may yet be proven, or which the propounder advances as axiomatic. In other words, one is asked to accept something as knowledge without the benefit of any prior experience (empirical evidence), this knowledge, it is said, comes about a priori. This approach is often the only way to begin any argument, but should not be resorted to during the course of argument; further, one should always bear in mind, that the resolution to any argument, must, of necessity, be dependent on the "beginning assumptions." While there are some things in this world that simply must be accepted without proof as being axiomatic, an assumption or assumptions always weaken one's argument and should be eschewed as a bad practice.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Argument.htm#Priori

You can see how relevant this fallacy is in the issue of dealing with the critics of Ellen White. He notes how they are using their conclusion that from their research she is not a prophet and they then offer their evidence for their position. This to Jud Lake is a fallacy because he thinks they are not examining context or contrary evidence. While I don’t think in the main that is true I do see in his presentations the same fallacy only with the presumption that Ellen White is a prophet and then he and other summit presenters will quote her as an authority. She is an authority upon what she says but that does not mean she is an authority on prophets or inspiration. In the argument with critics that is the basic question. Jud Lake gives an example of such Bible writers as Luke using witnesses in the creation of the book of Luke and then concludes that Ellen White did the same thing by gathering information from other Christian writers. Of course every Christian writer takes information from other Christian writers but that does not make them prophets. When the presentation at the summit use these and other examples they fall back upon their opening premise which is that Ellen White is a prophet. They have not really supported their premise, as their opening premise is their conclusion and the area that should be evidence only applies to Ellen White if the opening premise is assumed to be correct hence it is an A Priori fallacy.

To repeat from Jud Lake above:  "What I said in my presentation, which Corson failed to acknowledge, was that the critics start with the conclusion that Ellen White was a false prophet and read this into everything she says without ever examining the context or any contrary evidence."

If that was what they do then by the same principle it would be just as fallacious to take Ellen White as a prophet and read that into everything she says. However it is not the case that the critics begin with the conclusion that EGW is a false prophet. As we will look at below D.M. Canright used to believe in the inspiration of Ellen White. The same is true for the operator (now contributor) of EllenWhite.org; Dirk Anderson who has said that he began the site as a supporter of Ellen White. Dirk Anderson writes:

"In 1996 I discovered material on the Internet attacking Mrs. White as a prophet. I was outraged! I was indignant that anyone would criticize God's prophet. For years I had been telling SDA's how they should obey Ellen White. I had become adept at identifying which of Ellen White's rules a person was not following, and I was eager to criticize them for being lax in not following her standards. Now I took on the new mission of defending her on the Internet. I set up a web page and concocted arguments to try and explain away some of her unusual statements, such as amalgamation. I forced myself to do all types of "mental gymnastics" in order to explain things, and I began to wonder if I was pushing the boundaries of honesty." http://www.ellenwhite.org/archive/testimony.htm

Jud Lake even began his presentation on dealing with the critics by acknowledging that they are former SDA’s. So it is not really true to say that these people begin with the conclusion that she is a false prophet and do not examine the context or contrary evidence. In most cases these people came from the perspective of believers in her inspiration who after examining the evidence no longer hold to that belief and present the reasons why they no longer accept her as a prophet.

Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Martin began their investigation of the SDA denomination with the same type of healthy skepticism, which is common among most Christians, when they examine someone who makes prophetic claims. As Christians they have been instructed through the Bible to test the Spirits and provided with tests to use in deciding if a person is a prophet or not. In fact most SDA’s begin with the same type of skepticism when they deal with other so called prophets like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or current ones like Paul Cain etc. However in the SDA denomination it is very rare for the members to question Ellen White, they have been trained to begin with a different tradition then is common to other Christians. Even the Christians who believe in modern prophets do not hold that those prophets are qualitatively inspired the same as the Bible prophets as is taught to SDA’s and as Jud Lake presented in his program.

The Presenters all began with the A Priori fallacy the beginning and ending point were that Ellen White is a prophet. None of the presentations dealt with the first question that should be dealt with, that is: why do they believe Ellen White is a prophet. What is the evidence for such a claim?

As you may recall Jud Lake said: "The onus, of course, is on him to address the logical fallacies in my presentation, which he does not do. To simply say that a person commits fallacies without demonstrating it is the "that’s a fallacy" fallacy! Corson, of course, will argue that I did the same thing to the critics in my presentation. Admittedly, my presentation is open to this charge because of its nature it was only an introduction to the issue of Ellen White’s critics. I only mentioned a few fallacies in passing with an illustration or two."

So far, Jud Lake as recognized in his own writing two fallacies in his presentation; the "that is a fallacy" fallacy and A priori Fallacy (which he refers to as Apriorism). So we can see that when he says I did not address logical fallacies in his presentation he is not accurate at all. Later we will see his fallacious argument regarding Canright but now I want to show just how he used the "that is a fallacy" fallacy many times in his presentation to try and discredit the critics without offering any evidence. He does acknowledge that he is open to this criticism and that he should have given examples to support his accusations had he know of a wider audience. But that is what makes a fallacy, when nothing supports the asserted point it becomes a fallacious argument and it does not matter if the argument is given to your supporters or some other group the argument is still unsupported.

Minute 38-40 in his lecture dealing with the critics.

And their beginning point is that Ellen White is a false prophet. And they read that into everything they study in her writings. That’s just how notorious critics of the Bible operate. They come to the Bible and they nit-pick, and you can find a lot in the Bible to criticize. Well they can find a lot in Ellen White to criticize and they exploit that. And that is a fallacy that’s not looking at the material in its original context. Let me summarize the fundamental errors of the critics they operate under a wrong view of inspiration. And that evidently is a wrong view of inspiration they got while they were Seventh-day Adventists based on the anchor presentation by Dr. Newborn this morning. They consistently ignore the literary and historical context of Ellen White’s writings she wrote in the 19 century and in some of the 19 century language it sounds quite weird compared to our culture and they will capitalize on those statements and of course ignore that there’s a timeless principle there and they will make her look really bad to 21^st century readers. But they ignore the context. The repeat the same fallacies in their arguments as I said they repeat the concealed evidence and the ad hominem argument against attack on the character, straw man and many others. They ignore the books that uplift Christ you won’t ever hear them say much about Desire of Ages, Christ Object Lessons or Steps to Christ except in passing it’s usually a sarcastic term, well the Desire of Ages is copied and Ellen White didn’t write steps to Christ…

We see Jud Lake using a straw man argument as he talks about the critics of Ellen White by quickly associating them with critics of the Bible. In general the critics of Ellen White are not critics of the Bible. This is a fallacious argument meant to equate the critics of the Bible with critics of Ellen White. They are two separate issues if he wanted to talk of related issues he might note that such critics of Ellen White are also critics of Joseph Smith. You can see how unrelated this language is by substituting another book in place of the Bible: --That’s just how notorious critics of the Darwin's Origin of the Species operate. They come to the Origin of the Species and they nit-pick, and you can find a lot in the Origin of the Species to criticize.  Only now for Christians aside from the derogatory word notorious the critics look good.

He does not give any examples of the critics taking something out of its original context. He assumes that they operate under the wrong view of inspiration while not acknowledging that most of them don’t believe in verbal dictation even though that is something the SDA church over the latter part of the 1800’s and most of the 1900’s operated by. The critics as he is aware began as critics in the time of Ellen White so it is not merely taking 19^th century language and making it appear weird to today’s culture as the criticism were all there way back then. He then repeats that they ignore context which is something that Jud Lake does also and all the other fallacies; straw man, ad hominem (in a general way lumping critics as deceptive), concealed evidence all were present in Jud Lakes presentation. He also assumes that the critics are sarcastic when they question or accuse Ellen White of heavily relying on her literary assistants in such books as Steps to Christ and that they ignore the good things she like most Christians writers may have said. What he ignores is that critic just as the media news focuses on the problems not where there may be agreement. As in all of these fallacies he suggests without giving any evidence, he offers nothing to support his position one could very easily accuse him of concealed evidence by his omitting what the critics really do say. As I suspect is the case in his PowerPoint slide of the Canright quote which follows.

Jud Lake continues:  Corson cites me in my second presentation, "Ellen White and Inspiration," and endeavors to show that I misquoted Canright. Here he gets it wrong again. He cites me at the point I am quoting from Canright on verbal dictation and then retreats to the ellenwhite.org site for an online version of the book I was citing: Life of Mrs E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted, (Salt Lake City: Grant Shurtliff, Sterling Press, 1998), D.M. Canright. I will not cite the entire statement from Canright or respond to it at this time. I plan on writing a critique of the entire book. As to the above statement from my presentation, I was actually citing the "Preface" found on page 1 (page 9 in the original 1919 edition) of my hard copy. Corson did not see the DVD and thus did not have the advantage of seeing the Powerpoint slide which referenced the paging. Here is the quote with the inserted comments I made at the Summit presentation in brackets: "Every line she wrote [he believed], whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed [and this is my bold-a reference to the Powerpoint slide] was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible" (p. 1). So I was not misquoting Canright.

Corson seems to have focused in on my inserted comment "he believed," for he says after citing Canright: "It is not Canright who said that Ellen White’s words must be infallible it was his response to the followers of Ellen White who saw her as infallible . . ." My point was, if one listened carefully to my comments, that Canright believed Ellen White claimed every line was dictated to her by the Holy Spirit. My comments following this quote from Canright provide evidence that Ellen White and the early pioneers never claimed verbal dictation (listen to the presentation as well as to Craig Newborn’s presentation: "The Path to Disengagement").

Here are the Canright quotes from my original article. You will notice I did not say that Jud Lake misquoted Canright since I was not sure where he got his quote so I used a section from Canright’s book to show what Canright’s position was.

Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at: http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm

 "Her Writings All Inspired by the Holy Ghost

Now read what Mrs. White claims for her writings. Defining her position, she says:

"In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661).

Here she places herself on a level with all the Bible writers, both prophets and apostles. (See Heb. 1:1,2.) Any one who rejects or opposes her writings is branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus she says:

"If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 66).

Here she classes herself in authority with Moses. From this it will be seen that her followers have made no greater claims for her than she made for herself.

She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God - "the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (same book, p. 67). Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken" (Testimonies, Vol. III., p. 257). She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those. . . who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, but against God" (p. 260).

Again she says:

When I went to Colorado, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting. . . God was speaking through clay. You might say this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, . . . I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. 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" (Testimonies, Vol. V., pp. 63-67).

Notice that she claims to be simply the mouthpiece for God. They are not her words, but God's words, the same as the Bible - God speaking through clay. All through her writings designed especially for her own people may be found expressions of this kind. In her books prepared for the public, however, all these expressions are carefully omitted.

It is not Canright who said that Ellen White’s words must be infallible it was his response to the followers of Ellen White who saw her as infallible and he gives examples:

Canright writes also in chapter 3:

Now read this from G.A. Irwin, many years president of their General Conference. On page 1 of a tract entitled "The Mark of the Beast", he says:

"It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings] that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is Christ through this agency giving the real meaning of his words."

It is possible that by the term "Spirit of Prophecy" Irwin means the Holy Spirit in which case his statement would be accurate but considering the common SDA usage of the term Spirit of Prophecy to refer to Ellen White’s writings we are left to take it whatever way we may prefer.

In all this however we know that Canright did not have some wooden literal view of Ellen White being verbally inspired. As he wrote in chapter 9:

Mrs. White's visions ceased about the time of the change of life common to women. While she still had visions, she claimed that much that she "saw" went entirely from her mind at the time. Months, even years later, when she met a brother or a church that needed a "testimony," the part relating to these all came vividly to her mind, she said. She would then write out this portion of the forgotten "vision."

This worked very well till years after her visions ceased. Finally this could not be stretched further. Then her revelations had to come in a different way; by a voice, by dreams, by "impressions," by some one on "authority" speaking, and the like. The following expressions, taken from the last volume of her "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IX., published in 1909, are examples of this. Page 13: "I was instructed." Page 82: "Instruction has been given me." Page 65: "In the night of March 2, 1907, many things were revealed to me." The room, she said, was very light. Page 66: "Then a voice spoke to me." Page 95: "The angel stood by my side." But she had no vision as formerly. Page 98: "Instruction has been given me." Page 101: "In the night season I was awakened from a deep sleep and given a view." Page 137: "In the night season matters have been presented to me." Page 195: "At one time I seemed to be in a council meeting." The expression, "I have been instructed," occurs over and over in these later alleged revelations, just as the expression, "I saw," does in her earlier writings

As we look back at what Jud Lake says we discover that when he quoted from the Preface of Canright's book Canright was not writing about verbal dictation. Here is what Jud Lake said:

He cites me at the point I am quoting from Canright on verbal dictation and then retreats to the ellenwhite.org site for an online version of the book I was citing: Life of Mrs E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted, (Salt Lake City: Grant Shurtliff, Sterling Press, 1998),

As we will see shortly the subject is not verbal dictation. I would also not call going to a readily available web site as retreating to the EllenWhite.org site. If SDA’s were willing to post such material I would be happy to use them. Most SDA’s are not close to a college with access to these historical books. I appreciate those both SDA and non-SDA who take the time and effort to make these works available.

D.M. Canright. I will not cite the entire statement from Canright or respond to it at this time. I plan on writing a critique of the entire book. As to the above statement from my presentation, I was actually citing the "Preface" found on page 1 (page 9 in the original 1919 edition) of my hard copy. Corson did not see the DVD and thus did not have the advantage of seeing the Powerpoint slide which referenced the paging. Here is the quote with the inserted comments I made at the Summit presentation in brackets: "Every line she wrote [he believed], whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed [and this is my bold-a reference to the Powerpoint slide] was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible" (p. 1). So I was not misquoting Canright.

Though I did not in my previous article say that Jud Lake was misquoting Canright after reading his response I can’t really see any way to look at it except as misquoting. First Jud Lake claims that Canright is writing about verbal dictation, which is contextually completely wrong. Canright says in the Preface:

The Life of Ellen White by D.M. Canright

Preface

Mrs. E.G. White, the prophetess, leader, and chief founder of the Seventh-day Adventists Church, claimed to be divinely inspired by God the same as were the prophets of the Bible. Defining her position, she says: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit" ("Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661; No. 88, p. 189) that is, by her through her writings.

Every line she wrote, whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible.

Her people accept and defend these claims strongly. Her writings are read in their churches, taught in their schools, and preached by their ministers the same as the Holy Scriptures. Their church stands or falls with her claims. This they freely admit. She stands related to her people the same as Mohammed to the Mohammedans, Joseph Smith to the Mormons, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Mrs. Eddy to the Christian Scientists.

Hence these high claims are a subject for fair investigation, to which her followers, who have freely criticized other claimants to divine inspiration, can not reasonably object. They have published several books bearing on her life and work, in which they have gathered together and construed everything possible in her favor. From reading these books one would never know that she ever made a mistake, plagiarized, practiced deception, or wrote alleged inspired writings which had to be suppressed. In narrating the lives of inspired men God does not thus cover up their failures and pass by their mistakes and shortcomings.

The public, therefore, has a right to know the other side of the life of Mrs. White

http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/canp.htm

So we see from the context of the preface the subject is the introduction of Ellen White as a SDA prophet. He nowhere says his belief is verbal inspiration Jud Lake interprets verbal inspiration apparently from the statement "claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost". However this is his reading into the statement what he wants to see rather then either using the context or the vernacular of the time. As Ellen White herself makes numerous statements about dictated by the Holy Ghost. If it is justifiable to conclude that such statements meant verbal dictation to Canright it should be equally justifiable to assert that that is what Ellen White meant also. Of course to do that one has to ignore context, which Jud Lake has already done. A couple examples of Ellen White:

God gives more than money to His stewards. Your talent of imparting is a gift. What are you communicating of the gifts of God, in your words, in your tender sympathy? . . . The knowledge of truth is a talent. There are many souls in darkness that might be enlightened by true, faithful words from you. There are hearts that are hungering for sympathy, perishing away from God. Your sympathy may help them. The Lord has need of your words, dictated by His Holy Spirit. . . . {TMK 327.2}

He who is the father of lies, blinds and deceives the world by sending his angels forth to speak for the apostles, and make it appear that they contradict what they wrote when on earth, which was dictated by the Holy Ghost. {1SG 176.1}

You may not be able to speak eloquently to those you desire to help; but if you speak modestly, hiding self in Christ, your words will be dictated by the Holy Spirit, and Christ, with whom you are co-operating, will impress the heart. {SW, May 29, 1902 par. 5}

Simply put dictated does not in the English language indicate verbal dictation, as any Dictionary will attest.

v. dic·tat·ed, dic·tat·ing, dic·tates
v. tr.

1. To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.
1. To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
2. To control or command: "Foreign leaders were... dictated by their own circumstances, bound by the universal imperatives of politics" (Doris Kearns Goodwin).
   v. intr.

1. To say or read aloud material to be recorded or written by another: dictated for an hour before leaving for the day.
2. To issue orders or commands.

n. (dktt)

1. A directive; a command.
2. A guiding principle: followed the dictates of my conscience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictated

Jud Lake continues: My Response:

It can easily be demonstrated that Canright evaluated Ellen White from the standpoint of a dictational model of inspiration. In his 1889 book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, he objected even to her personal corrections in the handwritten originals. "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" (p. 138)? But what was most scandalous in Canright’s eyes is found on page 141: "In 1885 all her ‘testimonies’ were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor." By sampling the number of changes on four pages chosen at random, he attempted to estimate what percentage of the total number of words in her writings might have been affected by the editorial process: "At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes" (ibid.). He concluded: "Fine inspiration that is" (ibid.)!

 His objection is based upon Ellen White’s own comments, he does not say that she was verbally inspired, he says:

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.

http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/SDAism-RENOUNCED-by-D-M-Canright.html#Chapter8

 Clearly his objections are made upon more then a misguided belief that she was verbally inspired, Jud Lake has shown nothing to indicate that verbal inspiration is Canright's view of her inspiration. As a scholar Jud Lake should seek to show that Canright during the time he did believe her to be inspired thought that it was through verbal inspiration. As a professor at an SDA school he is in the position to do real research rather then reading whatever meaning he wants to from the writings of someone who is trying to tell people that she is not a prophet. Going back to the Preface mentioned above when Canright explains his former perspective he writes.

Over forty years ago, in my early ministry and while yet a firm believer in all the Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, I wrote a strong defense of Mrs. White. During all the years since, nothing so forcible has been produced by any of her defenders. This is proved by the fact that it has been copied by them in her defense, but omitting my name. Also in their writings against me they quote this as contradicting what I now say. I do not blame them; but my answer is this: "A wise man changes his mind seldom, a fool never."

Jud Lake continues: Ellen White repeatedly rejected this view of inspiration (see Newborn’s "The Path to Disengagement"). From her point of view, Canright’s attempt to measure inspiration in terms of numbers of words was a futile exercise that missed the real issue. Her concern was simple: she wanted her thoughts accurately represented and in the best language possible. For Ellen White’s own words on this issue, see Selected Messages, vol. 1, pages 24-26.

As with much of Ellen White she represents different ideas at different times. What bothers me is how people like A.T. Jones and many others who were her contemporaries could hold to the idea of verbal inspiration if Ellen White was so clearly against it. But that is not an issue to the article and response we are dealing with here.

Jud Lake continues:  Obviously, Canright did not believe she was inspired in any way during the writing of his books against her. But it is quite clear from the above evidence in Seventh-day Adventism Renounced that his approach to inspiration was verbal dictation. He writes in his 1919 Life of Mrs. E.G. White . . . Her False Claims Refuted, that he "once accepted Mrs. White’s claim to inspiration . . ." (p. 2). Thus, at one time he embraced Ellen White’s inspiration, but from a dictational point of view. While he gave up believing in her inspiration, he evaluated her from this view of inspiration that many would describe as wooden, literal, and non-biblical.

In conclusion, Corson shows on this post, "Ellen White and Canright," a superficial engagement with my material. His comments appear to be more reactionary than serious engagement. I will engage with his other posts on the summit as time allows.

Jud Lake, Th.D., D.Min.

As I have shown Jud Lake inserts the interpretation of verbal dictation into Canright's meaning not because of context or even word meaning. Canright in the section I originally quoted in my article shows that he was not under the impression that she was verbally dictated to. However Ellen White did have the tendency to hold contradictory positions. You can see from the following quote by Ellen White a message whose principle could easily be interpreted to mean that the Bible writers were verbally dictated too.

"The lives recorded in the Bible are authentic histories of actual individuals. From Adam down through successive generations to the time of the apostles, we have a plain, unvarnished account of what actually occurred, and the genuine experience of real characters. It is a subject of wonder to many, that inspired history should narrate facts in the lives of good men that tarnish their moral characters. Infidels seize upon these sins with great satisfaction, and hold their perpetrators up to ridicule. The inspired writers did not testify to falsehoods, through fear that the pages of Sacred History would be clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves. They penned the literal truth, and stern, forbidding facts are revealed, for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend. It is one of the best evidences of the authenticity of the Scriptures, that the truth is not glossed over, nor the sins of its chief characters suppressed. "{RH, January 22, 1880 par. 1}

Unfortunately for us Seventh-day Adventists it is our own leadership whose engagement with the issues is superficial. I appreciate that they are trying to take the Traditional/Historic SDA’s away from the idea that either the Bible or Ellen White were verbally inspired. I would submit that this is one of the benefits brought about by the critics of Ellen White. That these issues were swept under the rug by SDA leadership for so long is tragic, but it is going to take a far more honest and objective effort by the denomination to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves. How much less disaffection there would have been if Ellen White’s role were seen as pastoral rather then as Prophet we will never know. I however feel it would have been much better for the SDA church and Christianity in general.