Editions of Great Controversy--

THE WRITING OF THE BOOK

'THE GREAT CONTROVERSY'

 Vance Ferrell

14 — THE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE 1888 EDITION

To historic Adventists looking back on it, the 1888 General Conference Session presented the possibility of an incredible breakthrough. But, to liberals living through it, Minneapolis was instead considered a most terrible insult to their positions of office. Ellen White and two young men from the West seemed to be challenging their authority.

One way they got back was to oppose the release of Great Controversy. When men cherish pride of position in their hearts, they are an easy mark for Satan. Soon they are but polished instruments in his hand, to work his will.

“The Lord designed that the messages of warning and instruction given through the Spirit to His people should go everywhere. But the influence that grew out of the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis tended to make of no effect the light God had given to His people through the testimonies. Great Controversy. . has not had the circulation that it should have had, because some of those who occupy responsible positions were leavened with the spirit that prevailed at Minneapolis, a spirit that clouded the discernment of the people of God . . The dullness of some and the opposition of others have confined our strength and means largely among those who know the truth, but do not practice its principles.

"If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind. What account will be rendered to God for thus retarding the work?" —Manuscript 1, 1893 (see also 1893 General Conference Bulletin, pp. 419-420).

What those men did not know was that they were merely pawns used by Satan to carry on his work. The same devil who tried to kill Ellen when she initially received that lengthy Lovett's Grove vision in 1858, and who encouraged men to spread lies about her integrity in 1882, determined to prohibit the circulation of the book in 1888.

Today the devil is still at work, attacking her integrity and the 1888 Great Controversy. He knows that, by so doing, he is effectively eliminating the 1911 edition as well. In one brief paragraph in the six-volume biography of Ellen White, we are given a brief glimpse of the problem: "At the time, the newly issued Bible Readings was being pressed as the denomination's leading colporteur book. The Great Controversy was allowed to wait, neglected, but eventually it became a leading book distributed to the general public."—AL White, The Lonely Years, p.443.

Years later, Arthur l. White, grandson of Ellen White, related the story of this experience at the Field Missionary Secretary's Council, meeting at the sanitarium, in California on September 30, 1938. A handwritten copy of that paper was sent to the present writer in 1961. Astounded by what he read, he began broadcasting Great Controversy, which went into 16 states before the project ended in the 1960s, He typed out and printed that A. L. White report. A couple years later, Inspiration Books reprinted it and circulated it widely. In the early 1980s, we reprinted it again under its original title (Circulation of Great Con­troversy ICE-3D]). In this present section we will quote from that 1938 paper extensively. (The complete A. L. White paper is reprinted on this Web Site.)

"When the new, enlarged edition of Great Controversy came from the press in 1888, there was every hope that the book would have a wide sale and accomplish much good. Certain conditions in our publishing work, however, thwarted these hopes, for the management of the Review and Herald had passed from the hands of men who had long experience in the work, to the hands of business­men—a banker, a title lawyer, and later a sea captain.

 "A strong effort was made to have Mrs. White release all royalties on Great Controversy. The banker-manager, being a good financier, objected to paying royalties on books that he supposed would have only limited circulation. Mrs. White stated positively that she had been instructed otherwise and could not relinquish the royalty.

"When she returned from Europe, it was found that the manager and some of his associates were determined to bring but books that were free from royalty. Bible Readings was brought out by a variety of authors who donated their work so the book could be put on the market without royalty. This book was a great success.

"When the enlarged editions of Great Controversy and Patriarchs and Prophets came out, the canvassing business was in the hands of men who were advocating, 'One book; everybody on one book; all agents on one book.' Bible Readings was pushed to the front and Great Controversy and Patriarchs and Prophets lay idle on the shelves and had only a limited sale.

"When Mrs. White protested against this, she was promised that after running Bible Readings a year, they would take up Great Controversy and concentrate on it. When the year was done, those in charge of the publishing and canvassing work did not fulfill their promise and Bible Readings was majored for several years, to the neglect of other books. Then in later years, when the book passed to other hands in the canvassing work, Great Controversy and Patriarchs and Prophets were brought to the front and had a good sale."—AL. White, Circulation of Great Controversy, para. 13—37.

Here are several statements by Ellen White bearing on this matter. In the following references, "CGC" refers to the A.L. White research paper, The Circulation of Great Controversy.

"About this time when the new edition of Volume Four {Great Controversy] came from the press, the new book, Bible Readings, was introduced. This book had a great sale, and has been permitted to swallow up every other interest. Canvassers found it an easy book to handle, and Volume Four was kept out of the field. I felt that this was not right. I knew that it was not right, because it was not in harmony with the light which God had given me."­ Undated latter, 1890 (Circulation of Great Controversy [CGC], para. 19).

"As soon as Great Controversy came from the press it should have been pushed forward above every other book. I have been shown this. Had it been circulated at the time it was lying idle, there would have been a very different order of things among our workers. The impressions made would have brought decided changes. But instead of this the book was suppressed, although the promise was made to me that it should go forward if I would take the lowest royalty. The book that should have gone did not go; and the men who should have worked to carry it forward, discouraged the canvassers from handling it. Thus saith the Lord, 'I will judge for this false, dishonest work.' "—Letter 39, 1899 (CGC, para. 20).

It is an astonishing fact that there are those today who believe the lie that, although Ellen White wrote the1884 edition, Uriah Smith wrote the 1888 edition! In the present writer's opinion, Smith could not have produced any of her books. He surely was not able to present her exact concepts, yet the 1888 edition exactly mirrors the positions found in the 1884 one! In the 1888, we find nothing odd, nothing different, just the same solid material—only enlarged somewhat.

But the most astounding part of this fiction is that Smith is supposed to have written the very book, which he refused to send out to the field! The facts of history put to shame this lying report, invented in the 1960s by a woodcutter in British Columbia.

Uriah Smith was the most powerful man in the Review during the 1880s and 1890s, yet he and his publishing committee refused to circulate the 1888 edition of Great Controversy. That is a historical fact. This refusal continued on for two years; and, then, in 1890, he refused to distribute Patriarchs and Prophets also.

"Just at this point his satanic majesty was in the management of books published at the Review and Herald Office. Those at the head of the publishing work there would handle neither Great Controversy nor Patriarchs and Prophets, the books God has specified the people must have at once. They promised me faithfully that after certain months they would handle these books, but they failed to keep their word. When the Great Controversy should have been circulated everywhere, it was lying dead in the Review and Herald Office and the Pacific Press."—Letter 35, 1899 (CGC, para. 21).

Uriah decided to send out Bible Readings instead. We all recognize that to be a very good book, but it could not compare with Great Controversy.

"My mind has been so fully occupied with the burden upon me of getting before the people the light having especial reference to these last days, and the crisis before us. The world is to be warned, and I have felt so deeply over Volume Four [Great Controversy] standing still as it has done..

"I do not demerit Bible Readings. It is a book which will do a great amount of good, but it can never take the place the Lord designed that Volume Four should have in the world and among our people. I have spread before them the light given me of heaven in that book. It is a duty we owe to our people and to God to send every ray of light given me of God demanded at this time by every tongue and nation."—Letter 25a, 1889 (CGC, para. 22-23 & 46).

The colporteurs were told that they were to sell only one book, and that it was to be Bible Readings, not Great Controversy.

"This sale of Bible Readings, had it been preceded by the sale of Great Controversy, would have had far more weight than it had in going first. The Lord knew all about this. He knew that principles were violated. He knew the falsehoods told and reiterated, that the books bearing the vital truth to the people would not sell. He knew that ministers and presidents were advised to recommend that all handle the one book; and that the keeping of Great Controversy from the field has done a work that men will have to answer for in the judgment."—Manuscript 64, 1894 (CGC, para. 24).

“This book has to a great degree been misplaced by another book, which has kept from the world the light God has given."—Manuscript 24, 1891 (CGC, para. 25).

When the colporteurs asked why they could not sell Great Controversy, they were told that people would not like it and it was too hard to sell.

"I know that the statement made that these books cannot be sold, is not true. I know; for the Lord has instructed me that this is said because human devising has blocked the way for their sale. It cannot be denied that these works were not the product of any human mind, they are the voice of God speaking to the people, and they will have an influence upon minds that other books do not have." ­Manuscript 3, 1890 (Colporteur Ministry, p. 129:2; CGC, para. 26).

By 1890, two years had nearly elapsed while the most important book of all sat on the Review shelves. Satan rejoiced at how well his agents were doing. It was now time for Patriarchs and Prophets to be printed, and the Review managers were graciously considering releasing Patriarchs and Prophets to the world while still withholding Great Controversy.

"For nearly two years the book containing warnings and instructions from the Lord, given especially for this time, has been lying in our publishing houses, and no one feels the necessity or importance of bringing it before the people. Brethren, how long am I to wait for you to get the burden? Now Volume One, or Patriarchs and Prophets, is ready for circulation, but even for this book I would not allow Volume Four to remain longer as a light under a bushel. I am in sore distress of mind, but who of my brethren cares for this?"—Letter 1, 1890 (CGC, para. 27).

A committee of stubborn men had determined that Great Controversy was not to go to the world. They had the authority to enforce their decision, and they controlled the church paper.

"Has the Lord moved upon my mind to prepare this work to be sent everywhere, and is He moving upon my brethren to devise plans which shall bar the way so that the light which He has given me shall be hid in our publishing houses instead of shining forth to all who will receive it?"—Letter 1, 1890 (CGG, para. 28).

In order to keep the canvassers pacified, they were given a larger profit on Bible Readings than they could make on Great Controversy.

"It is now urged that only one book at a time shall have a place in the field—that all the canvassers shall work for the same book. I do not see the force or propriety of this. If the Lord has light for His people, who shall venture to put up barriers so that the light shall not reach them? One book is published at little expense, and it is therefore sold cheaply; other books that present truths essential at this time have involved greater expense. Shall they therefore be kept from the people? Bible Readings is a good book to occupy its own place, but should not be permitted to crowd out other important works which the people need. The presidents of our conferences have a duty to do; our board of directors should have something to say in this matter, that the different branches of God's work may re­ceive equal attention.

"If our canvassers are controlled by the prospect of financial gain; if they circulate books on which they can make the most money, to the neglect of others that the people need, I ask, in what sense is theirs a missionary work? Where is the missionary spirit?—the spirit of self-sacrifice?

"The work of the intelligent, God-fearing canvasser has been represented as equal to that of the gospel ministry. Then should the canvasser, any more than the minister, feel at liberty to act from selfish motives? Should he turn his back on all the principles of missionary work, and handle the books—placed before him, shall I say, as a temptation—on which he can make the most money? Should he have no interest to circulate any book but that which brings him the greatest financial gain? How is the missionary spirit revealed here? Has not the canvassing work ceased to be what it ought to be? How is it that no voice is raised to correct this state of things?

"I speak to you who are engaged in the canvassing work. Have you read Volume Four? Do you know what it contains? Have you any appreciation for the subject matter? Do you not see that the people need the light therein given? If you have not already done so, I entreat you to read carefully these solemn warnings and appeals. I am sure that the Lord would have this work carried into all the highways and byways where there are souls to be warned of the dangers so soon to come." —Letter 1, 1890 (CGC, para. 29—32; Colporteur Ministry, p. 127).

Several years passed before the blockade was lifted. The present writer suspects that lost sales had something to do with it. For, you see, because the brethren refused to send out Great Controversy, Ellen published Steps to Christ through a non-Adventist publishing house (Fleming H. Revell and Company, of Chicago, Illinois). In April 1892, it came off the press, and immediately became an out­standing seller. Three print-runs were made within two weeks after it was initially printed.

Shortly after that, the Bible Echo, our Australian publishing house, requested permission by Ellen White to also print it. She was living in Australia by that time, and let them do it. But, so far, she had not let our U.S. Adventist publishing houses have it. Bible Echo had never tried to stop any of her books from being circulated. The worst part of the blockade continued for two years (1888-1890), but the publishing managers did not fully give in until 1894. In 1894 she was finally able to report that the Review had capitulated and was sending out Great Controversy:

"When there came a change of attitude toward her books, Mrs. White recognized it and rejoiced over their wide circulation, for thus the words of truth which had been given her were passed on to the people. A recognition of this change is noted in the two following extracts, written in 1894 and 1907 respectively:

"Light was in that book which came from Heaven; but what account will those men have to give to God for the little faith and confidence manifested in that book that the warnings should not come to the people when they should have had them. I am so glad the people can have them now. The delay was Satan's devising. He was working diligently and had brought about a condition of things that the work cannot go as it would have gone."—Letter 55, 1894 (CGC, para. 34).

In 1907, she made this comment:

"Years ago when I was in Battle Creek I was much distressed that Great Controversy should lie idle on the shelf. For two years it was held back that Bible Readings might have more attention. All that I could say did not change the course of those who had control of the canvassing work . . There is not now a studied, determined effort to hold back those books that are of the most importance. We are planning to bring out many books." —Letter 70, 1907 (CGC para. 35).

In 1899 she recalled the events of those several years, beginning in 1888:

"The rights of brethren are to be respected; there should not be a multiplication of books, when it is well understood one will interfere with the sale of the one just preceding it. This was the way with Great Controversy. This book was not left to have a fair chance in being handled with Bible Readings. The Bible Readings was brought in before the books of great importance.

"Through the instruction to the canvassing agents, Great Controversy had little opportunity to be circulated, and was nearly eclipsed. There is danger that the same course will be followed, therefore it is necessary to refer to the light given on this subject. It was presented to me that one book was crossing the track on another. This is not righteous judgment. I have now to say, that selfishness be uprooted. Let the precious plants of God's own garden of the heart live and flourish."—Letter 91, 1899 (CGC, para. 37).

We earlier noted that the 1884 edition, when it was released, went through ten editions and sold 50,000 copies in but a few years. Yet, when the 1888 edition was printed, the publishing house refused to let the canvassers have it. Why? Simply because, after Ellen White had written the third (1888) edition, she had journeyed to Minneapolis, snubbed their authority at the 1888 Conference Session, and went against their decisions. Then, after the session was over, she traveled around the countryside with Jones and Wagner, supporting their views—positions which leadership had rejected. In rejecting her book, they intended to show her who was boss in the church!  All the while Satan, who had suggested this plan to their minds, laughed.

Let no one tell you that "men in Battle Creek" wrote the 1888 edition of Great Controversy. Ellen White wrote it; that is why the "men in Battle Creek" refused to circulate it! If Uriah had written the book, he would have printed the book.

They used as an excuse that she refused to relinquish the royalties from the book, yet she refused because she was told to do so. The royalties provided one of several means by which she could support missionary projects, which the leaders refused to finance. (In the 1905 Watson Letter, she told of another means, revealed to her by Heaven, by which the work could be done which the leaders refused to do.)

But that did not put an end to the attacks of Satan on that book. They have continued on down to the present day. He still works in various ways to keep the faithful from distributing it. He is still trying to blockade, shelve, discredit, or destroy that book. Mark it; he has not stopped.

We must be as vigilant as ever. "Vigilant to do what?" you may ask. Vigilant to read, recommend, defend, and circulate it is the answer given over and over again in her comments regarding that book. There can be no folding of the hands when it comes to Great Controversy. We must be up and about our work, for Satan is ever busy about his. We will conclude this section with a quotation from Elder M.L. Andreasen's private autobiographical papers, re­printed in Steinweg's book, Without Fear or Favor:

"With the establishment of Union College and also the Nebraska Sanitarium at College View, the place became a kind of center for various activities, and a convenient location for ministers to have their meetings and councils. It was only a matter of eight years since the famous 1888 Conference in Minneapolis, and the conference was frequently the subject of discussion.

"Old Elder J.H. Morrison, father of Prof. H.A. Morrison, lived in Lincoln. He had taken a prominent role in the discussions at Minneapolis and had written a book on the subject.

"It was largely through the kindness of old Brother Morrison that I was permitted to attend the discussions. Of course, I was there to listen and not to talk. And I did not talk. But I learned much. In fact, it was a wonderful school. I only wish that I had notes.

"In retrospect, I doubt that the meetings I attended when the older ministers met were the best for a young convert hardly an Adventist yet. I would call it rather strong meat. They paid little attention to me, but plunged right into a subject of which I knew nothing. But I soon caught on, and was astonished at the freedom with which they discussed personalities. Most of the older men who had known Elder White were not endeared to him, it appeared. In their opinion, he was too strong headed to work well with others. "Sister White's position was not an easy one. As the wife of the president of the denomination, she gave support to him in his work. But at times word would come from the Lord that made it necessary for her to bear messages of reproof to him. And Elder White sometimes questioned in his own mind if she spoke to him as from the Lord. On some occasions this brought on tension.

"This was at times the case when it became her duty to counsel others. While many to whom testimonies were written accepted them with gratitude, others turned against her. No wonder that she said that if she had her choice of having a vision or dying, she would choose the grave. "A few of the leaders were waiting for the day when there would be a change in the way the church was run. They thought that at the Minneapolis meeting such a change might be made.

"I have heard many versions of what took place at Minneapolis. Someday, if I ever get time, I would like to tell the story as I heard it recounted at the meetings held in College View by the men who were the leaders in oppo­sition to Sister White. They did not consider the message of Jones and Waggoner to be the real issue. The real issue, according to my informers, was whether Sister White was to be permitted to overrule the men who carried the responsibility of the work. It was an attempt to overthrow the position of the Spirit of Prophecy. And it seemed the men in opposition carried the day. Eventually she left for Australia, where she stayed nine years. It was there that a plan of organization which called for union conferences was tried that received her blessing and that in 1901 was implemented on the General Conference level. As inter­preted by some, the Minneapolis conference was a revolt against Sister White. If that is so, it throws some light on the omega apostasy."—M.L. Andreasen, quoted in Vir­ginia Steinweg, Without Fear or Favor, pp. 42-44.

The Minneapolis General Conference Session was not simply a rejection of the message of Righteousness by Faith, important though that may be. It was a rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy by many men of prominence in our denomination.

There were men in the 1890s and 1900s who only sub­mitted to Ellen's authority because it was clear that a majority of the church members supported her. There are men today who may praise her and her books, but who present false teachings and support and encourage those who, with craft, ridicule the prophet and the prophet's writings.

The rebellion that marked Minneapolis continues today.

15 – POST 1888: THE NEED FOR A REVISION

 The first edition of Great Controversy came off the press in 1858. Twice after that, enlarged editions were published. This was the second edition in 1884, and the third edition was in 1888. But another edition, which was not enlarged, was to be produced. The 1911 was the fourth edition, yet it was not an expansion of the text.

The obvious question is this: Why was the book revised if it was not enlarged?

Books do not have to be enlarged in order to be revised. The potential problem is, instead, this: If the 1888 edition was revised, (1) what was changed? and (2) did those changes affect the meaning of what she had written in the 1884 and 1888 editions? Here are the answers:

In the year 1985, the present writer spent several weeks closely comparing the 1888 and 1911 editions. He jotted notes on everything he discovered. Here are the key dif­ferences between the 1888 and 1911 editions:

(1) The scripture references were taken out of the foot­notes (where they had been in the 1884 and 1888 editions), and placed in the body of the text. This means that Revelation 5:13, the last reference in the book (p. 678), was in a footnote on the bottom of the last page in the book in the 1888 edition, but it is in the text itself in the 1911 edition (p. 678). The same is true of all the other Bible references in the book.

(2) In the 1884 and 1888 editions, personal pronouns, referring to the Godhead were placed in lower case ("he," "him," "his"); whereas, in the 1911, they are in initial caps ("He," "Him," "His")—the same excellent style found in Desire of Ages.

(3) In the earlier editions, "heaven" was frequently capitalized, but in the 1911 it was not, unless it was clearly used as a synonym for God. (See item 5, below.)

(4) Some typographic errors were corrected. For example, the numerals in two or three Bible references were incorrect.

(5) A few other changes were made in the text. Example: "All see that their exclusion from Heaven is just. By their lives they have declared, 'We will not have this Jesus to reign over us' "(1888 edition, p. 668). In the 1911 edition, it is written: "All see that their exclusion from heaven is just. By their lives they have declared, 'We will not have this Man [Jesus) to reign over us' " (1911 edition, p. 668). Note that "Heaven" lost its capital h, since it was not a synonym for God, and, because the Bible passage was in quote marks, it was rendered exactly as in the Authorized (King James) Version, and the word "Jesus" was placed in brackets. In addition, "man" was capped because it referred to a member of the Godhead (in accordance with point 2, above).

(6) The appendix was changed. The 1884 and 1888 appendices had few notes, most of which were longer. The original 1911 appendix (and the 1956 and 1979 revisions of it) had nearly three times as many notes, although many of them were not lengthy.

(7) The title, Author's Preface in the 1888 edition, was changed to Introduction in the 1911 edition. (The 1884 edition had no introductory statement by the author.)

(8) Certain time expressions needed to be changed. In preparation for the 1884 and 1888 editions, she had several times said "Forty years ago," or something similar, when referring to events in and around 1844. Some of those expressions were in the 1888 edition, and really needed to be changed later on (1911 was NOT 40 years after 1844!). Such changes would make the book correct whatever year it might later be read. Such changes would keep the book chronologically correct, which is what she wanted. An analysis of the five "forty-year" passages clearly shows her concern for chronological accuracy. (Those five passages will be discussed later in this present study.)

(9) Recognizing that many Catholics would read it, certain terms were softened: "popery" became "papacy;" "Romish" became "Roman" or "Roman Catholic." Ellen White's concern was that conscientious Roman Catholics would thereby more easily read and accept the truths in the book without being offended and turning away. Yet the truth about Rome and its corruptions was still given; it is clearly found in all three editions.

"In several places, forms of expression have been changed to avoid giving unnecessary offense. An example of this will be found in the change of the word 'Romish' to 'Roman' or 'Roman Catholic.' "—W. C. White, Letter, July 24, 1911 (see also 3 Selected Messages, p. 435).

"On pages 50, 563, 564, 580, 581, and in a few other places where there were statements regarding the Papacy which are strongly disputed by Roman Catholics, and which are difficult to prove from accessible histories, the wording in the new edition has been so changed that the statement falls easily within the range of evidence that is readily obtainable.

"Regarding these and similar passages, which might stir up bitter and unprofitable controversies, Mother has often said: 'What I have written regarding the arrogance and the assumption of the Papacy is true. Much historical evidence regarding these matters has been designedly destroyed; nevertheless, that the book may be of the greatest benefit to Catholics and others, and that needless controversies may be avoided, it is better to have all statements regarding the assumptions of the pope and the claims of the Papacy stated so moderately as to be easily and clearly proved from accepted histories that are within the reach of our ministers and students. II—W. C. White Letter, July 24, 1911 (see also 3 Selected Messages, p. 436).

(10) A powerful evidence that the text of the 1911 edition is practically the same as that of the 1888 edition is to be found in the fact that the paging of the 42 chapters in both books is identical. Turn to any page in those chapters and you will find essentially the same paragraphs. Thus, page 678 is the same in both books, yet it is the last page of the text, as noted in point 1, above.

(11) Is nothing really different about the two editions? Yes, there is one MAJOR difference! It is the historical quotations. Ellen wrote the text, and that is essentially unchanged. She also quoted from the Bible, and that is basically the same. But she also quoted from historians, and here we find very definite changes. Just what were these changes, and why were they made?

Ellen was concerned with presenting facts and principles. But the way of the world is to use name-dropping to convince the reader; a writer will tell you that a fact or principle is important because a great man said so. In contrast, for Ellen, the power of a fact or principle was in its inherent rightness, not because a certain historian said so. Because of this, when she quoted historians in the 1888 edition, she did not give their names; she did not consider it important to do so.

She was not hiding anything; in the 1888 Author's Preface, she had carefully explained what she had done:

"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 in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject."—Great Controversy, 1888 edition (see 1911 edition, p. xii).

"In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works."—Great Controversy, 1888 edition (see 1911 edition, p. xii).

But, by the turn of the century, giving references to sources was considered very important. So, when the plates for the 1888 edition were beginning to wear out, friends of Ellen suggested that all references be moved from foot­notes into the text; that several typographical errors be corrected; that the "he," "him," "his," and "heaven," in Great Controversy, be written the same way as in Desire of Ages; and that references be inserted for all the historical quotations.

Here is how W. C. White described it:

"Much of the research for historical statements used in the new European and American editions of Great Controversy was done in Basel [Switzerland], where we had access to Elder Andrew's large library, and where the translators had access to the university libraries.

"When we carne to go over this matter for the purpose of giving historical references [in the 1911 edition], there were some quotations which we could not find. In some cases there were found other statements making the same point, from other historians. These were in books accessible in many public libraries. When we brought to Mother's attention a quotation that we could not find, and showed her that there was another quotation that we had found, which made the same point, she said, 'Use the one you can give reference to, so that the reader of the book, if he wishes to go to the source and find it, can do so.'

In that way some historical data have been substituted." ­W. C. White, statement presented to the General Conference Session, October 30, 1911.

Although the quotations from historians had been placed within quotation marks—showing that they were, indeed, quotations from some other writer—the names of their authors and their books were not given.

It would seem to be a rather simple matter to add references to the quotations, but two major hurdles quickly emerged:

(1) Many of the 1888 quotations could not be found, so others had to be substituted; yet an objective was that the replacement quotations should fill the same amount of space as the one removed, so that each page in the 1911 edition would be the same as in the 1888. Probably the most extensive example of this is to be found in chapter 17 of Great Controversy (1888, pp. 306:1-308:1; 1911, pp. 306:2-308:1).

(2) J.A. Wylie (The History of Protestantism) and J.H. Merle D' Aubigne (History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century) were the two most-quoted historians in the entire book. A problem arose over D' Aubigne's quota­tions. He wrote his large history in French. Several English translations were later made; and, for the 1888 edition, Ellen quoted from more than one of them. But, later, D' Aubigne personally examined one of those English translations and declared it to be the only approved English translation of his history. (The others may have been just as good, but he had not examined them, nor was he receiving royalties on those translations.) So, in preparation for the 1911 edition, Ellen's helpers had to change many of the D' Aubigne quotations from one English edition of History to another. For this reason, many of D'Aubigne quotations in the 1888 edition are worded a little differently in the 1911.

Was that an important change in Great Controversy? No, and none of the other changes were important either. None of them changed principles, doctrines, or standards in Great Controversy. None of them changed our beliefs. In fact, the only big changes in the 1911 editions were the changes in quotations—and they were not changes in the text of what Ellen White wrote at all! They were only changes in quotations from historians.  

CONTINUE                       TOP                INDEX