Critic #1: Dirk Anderson

Notice: This is only a section of a study called "Why you need to do your own research." Please read the introduction first.


Context, context, context!


Although we are impressed with the amount of research Mr. Dirk Anderson has done on his website, we are saddened at the many errors that are found therein. Mr. Anderson, in a document he wrote titled “Excuses, excuses, excuses” wrote the following under the section, If Ellen White is read in context, all the difficulties vanish:


“This response seeks to sweep all the dirt under the rug with one all-encompassing statement. This response implies that if one spent the time and energy to examine every statement ever made by Ellen White upon a particular subject, it would be seen that she was in perfect harmony with the Bible. The hidden purpose of this response is to stifle investigation. Few people have the time or energy to thoroughly examine all of Mrs. White’s writings. It is far easier to trust in a pastor or church leader than it is to go and dig through all of Mrs. White’s writings. Sadly, some people will make this response and make no further investigation into the evidence.”

Would Dirk Anderson therefore prefer we simply take “his” words above investigation? While it really is a “good idea” to take the time to examine “every statement” she made on a particular subject, we simply ask that people at least read the statement in question in it’s full “context.” Like when she makes a unusual statement in a letter saying that God hates “wicked children,” one should at least read the entire letter (its only about two pages more or less) to get the full context. If that is done, you’ll learn that this was simply a mothers stern but gentle rebuke to her 6 year old son, who couldn’t possibly have understood her if she would have spoken to him in theological terms as she did to adults.

We are more concerned however, with the statement, “The hidden purpose of this response is to stifle investigation.” Is this true? By telling people to read her in context, and to consider the rest of what she has to say on the matter… are we with this trying to “stifle investigation?” With these statements of his in mind, please consider some of what we have found which shows our critic, while claiming that our urge to read in context has a hidden agenda, has not at times considered the context himself.






Comments Anderson took out of context


In a document he wrote titled, “7 more contradictions” we did a little research on his claim that Mrs. White calls slavery a sin while the bible encouraged it. This was the quote he gave:

“God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery. He has the destiny of the nation in his hands. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery... At the Roosevelt conference, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting and prayer, Sabbath, Aug. 3, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision, and shown the sin of slavery.” -Review and Herald, Aug. 27, 1861

He then compares this to Leviticus 25:44-46 and claims there is a contradiction here. Our research has revealed that the bible actually speaks of two types of slavery, fair and unfair slavery, and that Mrs. White was speaking about… you guessed it, unfair slavery. Perhaps our critic was not aware of these, but our hunch is that he did, since as a Christian he must have most certainly been aware of the unfair slavery heaped upon the Israelites while under bondage in Egypt. Yet… if only he would have read her statements in “context,” he would have probably not spent his time adding this one to his list of allegations. Notice what Mrs. White actually said in context:

“At the Conference at Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting, and prayer, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision and shown the sin of slavery, which has so long been a curse to this nation. The fugitive slave law was calculated to crush out of man every noble, generous feeling of sympathy that should arise in his heart for the oppressed and suffering slave. It was in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ.” -1Testimonies 264.2

Oppressed and suffering slave? In the bible, the masters were to treat their slaves “justly and fairly” –Colossians 4:1. If you keep reading down, you’ll learn she compares the slavery of her days to the unfair slavery the Israelites went through in Egypt (paragraph 4). Do you see why we Adventists urge our readers to read “in context?” Here is another one taken out of context… this time it was the bible:

“God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to eat till their gluttony produced a plague.” -Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 148

Mr. Anderson then compares this with Numbers 11:33, and claims they were destroyed for “lust” and not gluttony. Yet, when you move back a little and read verses 18-20, you’ll see that gluttony certainly was one of the sins for which they were destroyed. Shouldn’t at least the bible have been read in context? Yet… we have a hidden agenda.

At another point, in trying to refute our understanding of the little horn power of Daniel 8, Mr. Anderson tries to prove that Antiochus IV Epiphanies is the little horn power because he waxed exceeding great towards the South, the East, and the Pleasent Land. But, while trying to prove that Antiochus waxed great towards the East, he takes 1 Maccabees chapter 6 grossly out of context, quoting only verses 1 through 2. However, if the next two verses were read, they'd prove the exact opposite... that Antiochus did not wax exceeding great towards the East because it was in the East that he was defeated!

1 Maccabees 6:3-4
(3) Wherefore he came and sought to take the city, and to spoil it; but he was not able, because they of the city, having had warning thereof,
(4) Rose up against him in battle: so he fled, and departed thence with great heaviness, and returned to Babylon.

Could it be that Anderson himself is the one trying to "stifle investigation?" We think so.





Could the “real” plagiarist please stand up?


Dirk Anderson is famous for accusing Mrs. White of Plagiarism. His website is full of articles and research which are supposed to prove she was a plagiarist. We were surprised when we learned that he himself is now suspected of being a plagiarist. The following is the research conducted by www.ellengwhite.info. Compare Mr. Anderson’s statement in “red” with a statement from David Gilberts “Dansville’s castle on the Hill,” also in red:

-Dirk Anderson, "Mrs. White's Health Visions: Was it God? Or Dr. Jackson?"

Dr. James Caleb Jackson was born in 1811. Early in his life he worked as a lecturer and publisher of abolitionist newspaper; but he was hampered by extremely poor health. In fact, he was at death’s door when he visited a water cure, and his near-miraculous recovery made Jackson a life-long advocate of hydropathy. Later, he obtained a medical degree, and in October of 1858 he moved to Dansville, New York, to open a water-cure clinic.

-David Gilbert, "Dansville's 'Castle on the Hill' " (c. 1997)

Dr. James Caleb Jackson was born in Onondaga County in 1811. Early in his life he worked as a lecturer and publisher of abolitionist newspaper; but he was hampered by extremely poor health. In fact, he was at death’s door when he visited a water cure, and his near-miraculous recovery made Jackson a life-long advocate of hydropathy. He obtained a medical degree, and operated a water cure in Cortland County before relocating to Dansville.

Top critic, famous for supposedly “proving” Ellen White was a plagiarist… is caught plagiarizing? Apparently, Mr. Anderson was also caught plagiarizing photos. Here is the full research: Top critic nixes plagiarism charge . And here is another case where Mr. Anderson is caught plagiarizing:

-"Mrs. White's Health Visions: Was it God? Or Dr. Jackson?"

We’re not making this up friends, read it for yourselves.

Mr. Anderson isn’t the only one doing this. We found another anti-SDA website who plagiarized… guess who? Dirk Anderson! The website is called “CULTure Shock Solution Ministries.” They took portions from Mr. Andersons study called, “Solitary Vice [Masturbation]” and never gave him credit. Notice one of the stolen paragraphs and compare it to the one from Mr. Anderson’s original document (again, compare the red text):

-From Dirk Anderson’s website:

Is masturbation an "Abomination?" (click HERE)

Mrs. White calls self-abuse an "abomination" and warns of its "exceeding sinfulness." While the Bible warns against impure thoughts and sexual immorality in general, it is silent on masturbation. In the list of sexual abominations found in Leviticus 18, adultery, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are condemned, but there is no mention of masturbation. If masturbation were indeed "an abomination," then one would expect the Bible to list it along with the other sexual abominations!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

-From CULTure Shock’s website:

Is masturbation an "Abomination?" (click HERE)

Mrs. White calls self-abuse an "abomination" and warns of its "exceeding sinfulness." While the Bible warns against sexual immorality in general, it is silent on masturbation. In the list of sexual abominations found in Leviticus 18, Adultery, Homosexuality, Incest, and Bestiality are mentioned, but there is no mention of masturbation. If masturbation were indeed such a horrific sin, then one would expect the Bible to plainly warn against it!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Note: To enlare this screen shot to better read its words, hold down the ctrl button and click the plus (+) sign until you reach the desired size. Good thing we caught this screen shot, because we found out on September of 2009 that this website has recently been deleted.

While there is a link to Mr. Anderson’s website (not to this specific page) at a “different” web page on CULTure’s site (in the Ministry Links page)… there is not one link, nor any reference at all that this information belongs to Mr. Anderson!

Mr. Anderson’s document says pretty clearly right under the title at the top of his page:

“By D. Anderson.”

Did CULTure Shock “accidentally” miss that part? Go to their website, you won’t find one hint that this information is Dirk Anderson’s. Not a hair of credit was given him. Not even were quotation marks added to at least show the reader that this belongs to someone else. Rather… you’ll see clearly how they plagiarized his work, and tried to conceal it by slightly changing some words and punctuations here and there. Even the four Ellen White quotes are in the same order from top to bottom as in Mr. Anderson’s page!

Are you also shaking your head? Well don’t shake to much, read what our next critic did:

-Critic #2: J. Mark Martin