Dirk Anderson
Dirk was an Adventist of a conservative bent. Wanting to defend Ellen
White
against criticism he felt to be unjust, he registered the domain
ellenwhite.org. Then, after doing some research and becoming convinced
that
the critics had a case, he turned his apologetic web site into one
critical
of Ellen G. White. Today his site is one of the more prominent ones on the
internet.
Dialogue #1: Same Dress, Slightly Modified
Our first occasion to contact Dirk was on May 4, 2002. We had discovered a
discrepancy in a book that can be downloaded from his web site, and wanted
to alert him to the problem. In that book Dudley Canright, who turned
against Ellen White in the 1880's, criticized Ellen White for advocating
the
"same dress" "slightly modified" in 1864 that she had condemned the year
before. Yet the very sources Dudley quoted from said that the dress
condemned reached "about halfway from the hip to the knee," while the
dress
advocated went to "about nine inches from the floor." How anyone could
honestly say that two such dresses were "the same," "slightly modified" is
beyond us.
Thus we wrote Dirk, pointing out that a note should be added to that web
page informing his readers as to exactly what Dudley meant by "slightly
modified." That way the readers could determine for themselves whether or
not Dudley was prevaricating.
On May 5, Dirk responded:
Canright was there, saw what was going on, was familiar with all the
issues, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Besides, Canright did say it was slightly modified.
We replied that there really wasn't anything to give Canright the benefit
of
the doubt about. A week later we got this reply:
You are assuming that when Canright said "about halfway to the
knees"
he meant halfway between the ankle and knee. He could just as well have
meant halfway between the hip and knee, which is exactly what EGW said.
Can
you prove that Canright meant halfway between the ankles and knees?
Dirk missed half our point. Dudley said that the dress condemned came
"halfway to the knees." If by those words he meant that it came halfway
between the knees and ankles, then he was lying about its length. On the
other hand, if he meant that it came halfway between the hips and knees,
then he was lying about this dress being "the same," "slightly modified,"
as
the dress that was later advocated. Either way, Dudley was lying, and
Dirk's
reader****p have a right to know that.
We received one more reply from Dirk:
I've already discussed with you that the evidence you presented
regarding Canright being less than truthful was not convincing. I see no
reason to rehash it.
Oh well.
Dialogue #2: Stolen Pictures
On another issue we had much better success. On August 24, 2003, we
notified
Dirk that Walter Rea's accusation that Ellen White stole pictures and
changed the artist's signature was totally false. (See "Plagiarized
Pictures?") We received a reply on September 7:
Thanks for the info. I'll trust your word on this one and
immediately remove the web pages.
We feel it would probably be best to go one step further than just
removing
pages. Newspapers and magazines that print information contrary to facts
will often print corrections in later issues. Should Christian web sites
dedicated to destroying someone's reputation do less if the information
they
are disseminating proves to be false?
Dialogue #3: The Heavy Bible
On September 7, 2003, we wrote Dirk about the problems with his "Lofted a
Heavy Bible" page. (See " 'Top 7 Myths: #4. Lofted a Heavy Bible.' ") We
pointed out that his page's alleged four contradictions were false, and
questioned who had tampered with the quotation from Loughborough that his
page cited. On the 13th he responded:
I will check into that. It has been so long ago that I cannot
remember
where the quote came from...could have been taken from Spectrum Magazine.
I
believe Loughborough's book is available somewhere on the web now, perhaps
the James White Memorial Library on the Words of the Pioneers CD. I'll
check
into it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
(ellipsis his)
Thus it appears that at least some of the material Dirk has on his site
was
"plagiarized" from other sources without giving the credit considered
proper
in this day and age. It therefore seems strange that his site would accuse
Ellen White of "plagiarizing" and not giving proper credit, especially
since
"proper credit" meant something quite different in her day than it means
today.
We also find it peculiar that Dirk would abandon the faith he once held
dear, simply because someone else said certain things were so. It is
apparent from his reply that he had never previously confirmed that the
quote from Loughborough was accurate.
On the 16th we received a second reply. Dirk acknowledged that the quote
as
given on his page had been tampered with. After also acknowledging that
Mrs.
Lunt could have meant that Ellen White's palm was at a 45 degree angle
rather than her arm, he wrote:
I guess we all read into it what we want to believe.
And of course this is true. Both critics and apologists tend to see things
that sup****t their side, things that may not really be there. Thus, those
who wish to be objective must use extra caution lest their bias distort
the
truth.
Dirk added:
I'll look at the web page again and see whether or not it
needs
revising.
It appears that the page has been revised as of late January 2004.
Dialogue #4: Hastings' Great Controversy
On October 28, 2003, we wrote Dirk asking him if he had any evidence
whatsoever that Hastings' book had reached Battle Creek before James and
Ellen White left for Ohio. (See " 'Top 7 Myths: #7: Received the Great
Controversy in Vision.' ") He replied on November 1 that he thought it
sounded "logical" to "infer" that it had, but didn't "know of any way to
know for certain," and could not "prove it."
On the 2nd we sent Dirk some follow up questions:
It seems to me like it would be better to only post information that
is solid, not inference. I mean, what if you're wrong on this one? Does
God
approve of our using misinformation when trying to expose someone we
believe
to be a false prophet? . . .
How do you manage to keep the authority of the Bible intact, since
it
is readily apparent that Luke copied a lot of his material from either
Matthew or Mark? I once asked Walter Rea if the same weapons used against
Ellen White could be used against the Bible, for I know that liberal
theologians out there do that very thing, attack the Bible with these kind
of arguments. He replied to me that he doesn't take the Bible literally,
doesn't believe in a worldwide flood, doesn't believe that God told
Abraham
to offer up Isaac, and doesn't believe that God told the Israelites to
kill
the Canaanites. How do you justify criticizing Ellen White for copying
wording, but not the Bible writers? . . .
It seems to me that if these kind of arguments plant seeds in
people's
heads that later bear the fruit of rejecting the Bible as the infallible
Word of God, then in all the effort of trying to discredit Ellen White,
critics are actually proving her right. She did say that those who give up
faith in her writings eventually throw the Bible out too. I therefore wish
that if she must be discredited, that she would only be discredited with
arguments that do not undermine confidence in the authoritativeness of the
Bible.
What do you think? Or are you in the same camp as Walter Rea, who no
longer believes what the Bible says, or at least didn't about 4 years ago?
On the 15th he responded:
I don't believe this to be misinformation at all. I believe it to be
the most likely scenario. I cannot prove everything on the web site beyond
all shadow of a doubt. I can present the facts and the most probable
scenarios and let people decide for themselves.
I agree "great controversy" may have been used by other authors, but
Hastings had it in the title of his book, and the timing was coincidental
to
Mrs. White's own book.
Does this evade the issue? It matters little when Mrs. White's book was
published. What matters is when she had her vision at Lovett's Grove. Did
Hastings' book inspire that vision or did it not? Did the White's have it
in
their hands before they left Battle Creek the last week of February or did
they not?
If Dirk is really interested in his readers having all the facts and
intelligently deciding for themselves, we anticipate that his web page
will
soon be corrected. His readers have a right to know that James White had
already been out of town for three weeks or more before Uriah Smith
printed
that review of Hastings' book.
Much more im****tant are Dirk's comments regarding the authoritativeness of
Scripture:
As for Luke, he admits getting his material from others. His gospel
is
basically a second-hand account. I think the biggest problem with Ellen
White is not necessarily her plagiarism, but her denial of such.
We are unacquainted with where Luke said that he copied material from
others. As far as Ellen White goes, one is hard pressed to prove that
"plagiarism" is the correct word to use in describing what she did.
Nevertheless, why did she "deny" that she borrowed wording from others, as
in the following quote???
In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to
afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized
details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but except in
a
few instances no specific credit has been given, since they are not quoted
for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his
statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject.
(Ellen White, Great Controversy, 1888 edition, p. h of preface)
But regardless of whether Ellen White was a true prophet or not, it is
Dirk's next statements to which we take great exception. But at his
request,
we are substituting an excerpt from what he has called an "official
statement" of his views about the Bible for the quotation we originally
had
below. (Those who wish to read his entire statement, may click here.)
It is a fact that many of the authors of the Bible never claimed
their
writings were inspired, so I will make no higher claims for their writings
than the authors themselves made. It is well known that many of the
stories
are second-hand accounts, sometimes written hundreds or thousands of years
after the event. While I have no doubt the events occurred, it is possible
that some of the clarity of the story was lost over time.
What percentage of the Bible writers said that their writings were
inspired?
Would the Gospels be inspired, according to this rule? Does loss of
"clarity" mean that the stories are inaccurate as written by the Bible
writer? (For an example of loss of "clarity," see here.)
Certainly when he was an Adventist, this could not have been Dirk's
belief.
The Adventist denomination requires all who wish to become members of
their
churches to vow that:
I believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that it
constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.
And the apostle Paul said:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
(2
Timothy 3:16)
Dirk may not be overly concerned if people give up their faith in the
inspiration of the entire Bible through his attacks on Ellen White, since
he
apparently no longer believes that himself (more).
|
