From the pen of Ellen White

Brakelite · Feb 28, 2026

Big Boy Johnson said:
Too bad there is false doctrine in her writing which makes her a false teacher.

But you aren't man enough to actually quote that false doctrine.

shepherdsword · Feb 28, 2026

Brakelite said:
But you aren't man enough to actually quote that false doctrine.

Ellen White teaches that Jesus was “made” by the Father at some point before creation. This is a holdout of her arianism.

“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” EGW, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, “The Duty of the Minister and the People,” Par. 14
“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” EGW, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” EGW, Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129

Adventageous · Mar 2, 2026

shepherdsword said:
Ellen White teaches that Jesus was “made” by the Father at some point before creation. This is a holdout of her arianism.

No, she (sister White) does not (and did not ever) teach that "Jesus was "made" by the Father at some point before creation" (by either of the two citations in the original context), and she never adhered to "arianism" once in her life (she began Methodist, and her material on Jesus' eternality is plethora in Desire of Ages, &c., as a Seventh-day Adventist).

For the context of those two quotes see:

Quote #1, "tore from his bosom" (which does not mean that the Father (for if that were true (perish the thought) that the Son was created / birthed into existence at some point in eternity past, this automtically means that the Father now could not have been a Father beforehand, which would destroy an eternal attribute, "Father" of the Father, and eternal attribute "Son" of the Son) physically divided like a cell would in 'mitosis' and out popped the Son, but means that the Father could hardly let go of the eternal Son in their eternal embrace (think of the Son in the everlasting arms / embrace of the Father ('in his bosom', iow., being held close, cherished) as a mental picture; which means it was a struggle for the Father to let the Son go. The Father gave in sacrifice. It cost the Father, as well as the Son, and Holy Ghost in the plan of redemption / salvation.). The portion "which was made in the express image" refers (in context) to the timing of after the Father had let the Son go to the earth and be born as a child in the nature of the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh).

Here is the original article in scanned periodical - https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18950709-V72-28.pdf

See Page 306, #139, from (RH July 9, 1895, par. 13; and also, EGWVRWSDA 21.5 [R.W.C.] 2018; citing (RH July 9, 1895)) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"... Please NOTE: This citation, abused by some, does not teach that the Son was “made” in eternity past, but refers to the sending of the Eternal Son (Deity) to be God manifest in the flesh of humanity, “sent ... down to earth”, and so was “made” in “the express image of his person”. See passages in scripture (KJB) as Luk. 20:13; Jhn. 1:1-18, 3:16-17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:3, 10:5; 1 Jhn. 4:9-15 KJB; &c. ..."

See also Pages 544-545; part of answer to question "22" out of 50 so called hard questions on an obscure apostate website, citing (partially) from (RH July 9, 1895, par. 13) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive & Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"... These citations (among others), abused and wrested (Psa. 56:5; 2 Pet. 3:16 KJB) by some, do not teach that the Son was “made” or ‘birthed’ in eternity past by the Father, but refers to the sending of the Eternal Son (Deity) to be God manifest in the flesh of humanity, “sent ... down to earth”, and so was “made” in “the express image of his person”. See passages in scripture (KJB) as Luk. 20:13; Jhn. 1:1-18, 3:16-17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:3, 10:5; 1 Jhn. 4:9-15 KJB; &c. ..."

... to be continued ...

Adventageous · Mar 2, 2026

shepherdsword said:
Ellen White teaches that Jesus was “made” by the Father at some point before creation. This is a holdout of her arianism.

Quote #2, "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty", is indeed from Letter 32, 1899 (May 10, 1899) (or also in Ms 140, 1903; September 27, 1903; par. 28) ( Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 18 (1903) ), as re-cited in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5 (1956), page 1129.7 ( EGW SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5 ), but always taken out of context by detractors of, despiser of, and apostates from, the faith (Seventh-day Adventist), which is why the surrounding is conveniently lopped of by ellipses ("..."). I know of another, given in scripture, who only quoted part of the Holy Ghost's inspiration to give a false meaning (see Mat. 4:6; Luk. 4:11 and especially Psa. 91:11-12 KJB). In other words, the devil himself, basically leaves out (by ellipses so to speak, by silence of not speaking them, "... to keep thee in all thy ways. ...") the important context of Psa. 91:11 in relation to Psa. 91:12 KJB, which would alter the meaning.

See the response #4 (answered ad nausem, ad infinitum for years) here for a more full explanation in context- 15 (so Called) Bible Contradictions From Ellen G. White SDA : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

In short:

The author of the online video (repeated on many websites), which also does such ellipses and cites the portion out of its context, has grossly misrepresented the citation (or plagiarized, without checking, thus inheriting another's blatant errors), by taking it out of context and not giving the ellipses, neither comparing one portion with the other, for, when sister White says, “... The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. ...”, she is contrasting the differing persons of “the man Christ Jesus”, “Christ” with “the Lord God Almighty”, “the Father”.

It is in a special parallelism or chiasm, see:

[A1] The man Christ Jesus

[B1] was not

[C1] the Lord God Almighty

[B2] yet

[A2] Christ

[C2] and the Father are one

In other words, she is simply saying, using differing terms, to say that Christ Jesus as man, was not the Father's person, who was called "the Lord God Almighty" in contrast. It was simply to delineate the two Persons for the particular context.

If anyone faults her for that, then they will have to fault Daniel (and the angel Gabriel no less and Holy Ghost), who specifies the differing Persons of the Father and the Son, by saying “the Ancient of Days” (Father; Daniel 7:9,13,22 KJB) and “the Son of man” (Christ Jesus; Daniel 7:13 KJB).

Sister White elsewhere when speaking of Jesus only, says “Almighty”. See:

"... We need a deep insight into the nature of Christ and into the mystery of His love “that passeth knowledge.” [Ephesians 3:19.] We are to live in the warm, genial rays of the Sun of righteousness. Nothing but His loving compassion, His divine grace, His almighty power can enable us to baffle the relentless foe and subdue the opposition of the human heart. What is our strength?—The joy of the Lord. ..." - Manuscript 89, August 12, 1903, par 16. - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 18 (1903)

"... This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, “I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect.” Genesis 17:1. ..." - Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 370.3 - Patriarchs and Prophets

See also:

"... While as a member of the human family He was mortal, as God He was the fountain of life for the world. ..." - The Desire of Ages (1898), page 484.1 - The Desire of Ages

Adventageous · Mar 2, 2026

shepherdsword said:
Ellen White teaches that Jesus was “made” by the Father at some point before creation. This is a holdout of her arianism.

20LtMs, Ms 22, march 7, 1904 (1905); pars. 4, 7:

“... [par. 4] Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be the Son of God. From all eternity He has sustained this relation to Jehovah ...”

“... [par. 13] From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature, He was still one with God. ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 20 (1905)

Signs of the Times August 29, 1900, par. 15:

“... [par. 15] In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him. ...” - The Signs of the Times

4LtMs, Lt 108, Oct. 23, 1886, par. 17:

“... [par. 17] Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the high and holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. ... Jesus there presides; ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 4 (1883 - 1886)

25LtMs, Ms 20 September 27, 1913, par. 10:

“... [par. 10] Christ is from everlasting to everlasting ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 25 (1910 - 1915)

Signs of the Times May 3, 1899, par. 4:

“... [par. 4] Christ ... His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures ...” - The Signs of the Times (in other words, it is only given in a 'measurement' of 'eternity', 'everlasting', 'infinite', &c.)

Review and Herald April 5, 1906, par. 8:

“... [par. 8] There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. ...” - The Review and Herald

ST June 27, 1895, par. 4

“The mightiest created intelligence cannot grasp divinity. The principalities and powers of heaven are overwhelmed with the vastness of the theme of Christ’s character and the mystery of the union of divinity and humanity. The most eloquent notes of cherubim and seraphim fail to describe him; but the angels of God delight to be in his presence. They rejoice in beholding his face, and hasten to obey his command, to fulfill their commission of love to those for whom Christ died.” - The Signs of the Times

ST June 27, 1895, par. 3

“But who that is not infinite can understand the infinite? Christ declares, “No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him.” It is recorded of Epictetus that when his hearers said to him, “You have uttered many excellent things of God; but we cannot as yet understand what he is,” he truly and nobly replied, “Were I able fully to set forth God, I should either be a god myself, or God himself would cease to be what he is.” The greatness of God cannot be measured or comprehended. And that doctrine that denies the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, denies also the Godhead of the Father; for no man knoweth the Son but the Father.” - The Signs of the Times

Hopefully those are crystal clear enough for anyone who wants to know the truth of the matter.

shepherdsword · Mar 2, 2026

Adventageous said:
20LtMs, Ms 22, march 7, 1904 (1905); pars. 4, 7:

“... [par. 4] Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be the Son of God. From all eternity He has sustained this relation to Jehovah ...”

“... [par. 13] From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature, He was still one with God. ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 20 (1905)

Signs of the Times August 29, 1900, par. 15:

“... [par. 15] In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him. ...” - The Signs of the Times

4LtMs, Lt 108, Oct. 23, 1886, par. 17:

“... [par. 17] Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the high and holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. ... Jesus there presides; ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 4 (1883 - 1886)

25LtMs, Ms 20 September 27, 1913, par. 10:

“... [par. 10] Christ is from everlasting to everlasting ...” - Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 25 (1910 - 1915)

Signs of the Times May 3, 1899, par. 4:

“... [par. 4] Christ ... His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures ...” - The Signs of the Times (in other words, it is only given in a 'measurement' of 'eternity', 'everlasting', 'infinite', &c.)

Review and Herald April 5, 1906, par. 8:

“... [par. 8] There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. ...” - The Review and Herald

ST June 27, 1895, par. 4

“The mightiest created intelligence cannot grasp divinity. The principalities and powers of heaven are overwhelmed with the vastness of the theme of Christ’s character and the mystery of the union of divinity and humanity. The most eloquent notes of cherubim and seraphim fail to describe him; but the angels of God delight to be in his presence. They rejoice in beholding his face, and hasten to obey his command, to fulfill their commission of love to those for whom Christ died.” - The Signs of the Times

ST June 27, 1895, par. 3

“But who that is not infinite can understand the infinite? Christ declares, “No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him.” It is recorded of Epictetus that when his hearers said to him, “You have uttered many excellent things of God; but we cannot as yet understand what he is,” he truly and nobly replied, “Were I able fully to set forth God, I should either be a god myself, or God himself would cease to be what he is.” The greatness of God cannot be measured or comprehended. And that doctrine that denies the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, denies also the Godhead of the Father; for no man knoweth the Son but the Father.” - The Signs of the Times

Hopefully those are crystal clear enough for anyone who wants to know the truth of the matter.

Then why this statement?

“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” EGW, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, “The Duty of the Minister and the People,” Par. 14
“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” EGW, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” EGW, Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129

Adventageous · Mar 2, 2026

shepherdsword said:
Then why this statement?
...

Read my replies, as they answer your question:
- From the pen of Ellen White
- From the pen of Ellen White
- From the pen of Ellen White

shepherdsword · Mar 2, 2026

Adventageous said:
Quote #2, "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty", is indeed from Letter 32, 1899 (May 10, 1899) (or also in Ms 140, 1903; September 27, 1903; par. 28) ( Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 18 (1903) ), as re-cited in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5 (1956), page 1129.7 ( EGW SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5 ), but always taken out of context by detractors of, despiser of, and apostates from, the faith (Seventh-day Adventist)

Is this saying that anyone who does not follow Seventh-day Adventists is an apostate from the faith? Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is YHVH?

Ronald Nolette · Mar 2, 2026

Button said:
Christianity's origin is as a 1st century Jewish sect that later morphed into a separatist cult,by the definition, a social group characterized by high-intensity devotion to a particular person, object, or belief system.

Yeah, Christianity started as all Jew, but became firmly entrenched in the Gentile world as well, when people saw the reality of jesus death and resurrection and His enthroned above

Adventageous · Mar 2, 2026

shepherdsword said:
Is this saying that anyone who does not follow Seventh-day Adventists is an apostate from the faith? Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is YHVH?

Please re-read my statement, carefully. I was speaking about, "... but always taken out of context by detractors of, despisers of, and apostates from, the faith (Seventh-day Adventist) ...", and so that the words "the faith" were not misunderstood, I even included in brackets the clarifying words "Seventh-day Adventist" to specifiy which specific "the faith" I was referring to in the context of speaking about sister Ellen White's materials. In other words, I am not speaking about Christianity in the general sense by the words "the faith', but only "the faith" (beliefs / practices) of the Seventh-day Adventist which has "detractors of", "despisers of", and "apostates from" it/them. Therefore, to clearly answer your question, even moreso that just stated, I am not "saying that anyone who does not follow Seventh-day Adventists is an apostate from the faith", for to be an "apostate" from such as the Seventh-day Adventist faith, one would first have to have belonged to it, and general Christianity does not belong to it, though there are those who are counted among the Seventh-day Adventists as brethren, that are not yet in this faith (though who will come to be).

As for the second question, it depends on what you mean by the terms in asking the question and the theology behind them. This is not to dodge the question, but to simply ask for clarification upon your part, but I will do my best to answer in several ways, to try to get ahead of your own actual meanings.

1. The Son (aka "Jesus"; &c.) is called by many titles and names in scripture (for instance "Immanuel", "Son of David", "Priest", "that Prophet", "David", "Israel", "Lamb of God", "God", "Lord", "LORD" [JEHOVAH], "Michael" (though I would suspect you disagree on that one, read this - Michael The Archangel Who Is Like Unto God The Highest Messenger (BOOK) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive for further details about it, I do not intend to argue it here, unless you want to speak about the OP topic of what sister White wrote on the subject in comparison to scripture, then I might, but do not desire to turn this thread into a Jesus is Michael, Jesus is not Michael back and forth too much, as that is not the purpose of this thread), &c.

2. The Son is more than just a "king" as "Lord", more than "Governor" (though He is also that), or "Ruler", as often the NT is drawing from OT texts in which the koine Greek renders a "κυριου", "kyriou", for the OT, "יהוה", "JHVH", "JEHOVAH" (for more on this word, see - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ), as for instance, in Heb. 1:10, citing Psa. 102,12,24-27; and sometimes as a ruler, taken from the OT "לאדני", "ladoniy", as seen in NT Mat. 22:44; Mar. 12:36.

3. Is the Son ever directly called "JHVH", "JEHOVAH" in the OT? Yes, see:

Gen 19:24 KJB - Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Gen 19:24 HOT - ויהוה המטיר על־סדם ועל־עמרה גפרית ואשׁ מאת יהוה מן־השׁמים׃

There are other examples, but see the previous links given for more details. Yet notice that in Gen. 19:24 there are two Persons / Beings called "JEHOVAH" in the text, just as in Jhn. 1:1 there are two Persons / Beings called "God" ("θεος", "theos" the Son, and "τον θεον", "ton theon", the Father) in it. A JEHOVAH juxtaposed to another JEHOVAH. God juxtaposed to the God with Him.

1. "the LORD" which "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimestone and fire", while standing on the earth; Gen. 18:1-33 context, and (this is the Son, standing on earth)

2. "the LORD" (this is the Father standing in Heaven above) which sent that brimstone and fire from "out of heaven" down to the earth where the other "the LORD" was standing.

Both are called by the same name, "JEHOVAH", since "JEHOVAH" is the Father's name, and the Son is called after His Father's name also, like a Sr. JEHOVAH (not in age, just aspect of Fatherhood) and Jr. JEHOVAH (not in age, just aspect of Sonship), what would you call the Son whose name is the same as His Father's name?, as for instance my own earthly Father (F.E.E.Jr.) is named after his earthly Father (F.E.E.Sr.). You can see that here:

Exo_23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Joh_5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

4. Is the Son therefore called "JEHOVAH"? Yes. Does this mean that He is the same Person / Being as the JEHOVAH the Father? No. They are not the same Person / Being. Even in "essence" (as some put it) there is at least one slight difference, in that the Son is in the "express image" ("χαρακτηρ", "charakter") of the Father's Person / Being, but the Father is not in the Son's "express image". The Father is always the Father, having higher authority "in the throne" (of eternal Deity) than that of the Son, and the Son always honours His Father (Exo. 20:12, &c.) and is always in submission to the will of His Father. The Father's nature is specifically stated to be "τον μονον αληθινον θεον", "ton monon alethinon theon", "the only true God" (which means that the Father's nature is not derived (word "alethinon" means true, original, underived) from anything and is His own nature and does not owe to the Son for that nature), but the Son is never called this in scripture (see links for details), but is always called "τον μονογενη", "ton monogene", "the only-begotten" (which had nothing to do with time, or chronology, or coming into existence, but simply addresses the eternal nature only in relation of the Son to that of the Father's nature, which is why the Son is the Son, and the Father is the Father. In other words, the Son is the (ton) only one (mono) of the nature of the Father (gene), and in that single aspect they are differing in their natures.

5. So is The Son, "the LORD God Almighty"? Yes (Gen. 17-18; Exo. 3) and No (Rev. 21:22) depending on the contextual surroundings.

Hopefully that answers you in some detail.

Brakelite · Mar 3, 2026

Ronald Nolette said:
Man was made immortal in body, soul and spirit! When Adam sinned , th ebody began to die. but not teh soul and spirit. Otherwise you consider Paul an idiot when He asked God to bless us body, soul and spirit!

I don't know if @Ronald Nolette d is still around, but I have a note regarding his comment above. While it is true that Adam sinned, and while it is true that most of the Christian Church believes in the immortality of the soul, I would ask that if the wages of sin is death, then the death that Adam suffered was solely due to his sin right? Because he didn't die that day, I imagine the reason was because Jesus stepped up and said something like, "Father, let Him live a while longer to give him an opportunity to repent". The sentence of hard labor and thorns and etc wasn't to punish, but to assist in healing and forming character, leading to repentance.
Back back to my main point. Was it just the body that sinned, that Roland thinks eventually died? Or did the whole person sin, and was therefore subject to death? After all, isn't it the whole person that needs to repent? Or just the body? Or just the spirit, seeing some believe only the spirit died. What sinned? Only a party of Adam or did it take all of Adam to choose to disobey?

Adventageous · Mar 4, 2026

shepherdsword said:
“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” EGW, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37

This quotation should be self-evident in the context itself:

"... [page 37.1] Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. He worked with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealed his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God. He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.

[page 37.2] There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions. ..." - Patriarchs and Prophets

In other words, the context addresses the minds of the created angelic hosts, in the light of Lucifer's sudden "envy" and "misrepresentation". The Son was always, in all eternity, "equal with the Father", but because in eternity (past), the created angelic hosts came to exist by the will of the Father, and Lucifer at some point, after some 'ages' (unspecified length of time), begins to make misrepresentations among the created hosts, the Father took measures and clarified the matter before all the created angelic hosts by demonstrating that the Son was the only One who had the right to be seated on the right hand of the Majesty on High (the Father), so that there would be no further confusion among the created angelic hosts, as brought about by Lucifer's recent (then) misgivings. As the Son represented the character of the Father to the created hosts, Lucifer, which had been created, and placed in the covering cherub position next to the throne of Deity, had a somewhat similar function, and in the light of that, had at some point began to think what difference between his own installed position, and in that of the Son's position. While the Son is a messenger for the Father, He is not created, but infinite, eternal and everlasting. Lucifer was also a messenger for the Father, but was created, finite, and soon to come to his utter and complete end. The 'distance' or 'gap' between seated at the right hand of the Father, as the Son, and being on the side of the throne, as a covering cherub is an infinite 'distance', or 'gap', of which there is no closing the distance to (just as there is the same 'distance' and difference between what is in the Ark, and what is on the side of the Ark). Creator, is never the created.

I hope that helps. Please, just as a kindly advice, whenever a quotation from sister White is given, always read from the beginning, and always read the context, and if possible, read other similar statements she makes in various other places on the same subject to get the fullness of the 'picture', or truth of the matter. Line upon line.

rockytopva · Mar 4, 2026

I have no interest in the writings of Ellen White...

Dan Clarkston · Mar 4, 2026

rockytopva said:
I have no interest in the writings of Ellen White...

Good for you man, I don't sit under false doctrine either

rockytopva · Mar 4, 2026

Dan Clarkston said:
Good for you man, I don't sit under false doctrine either View attachment 80813

Lets see... A quick Google search... In 1846, Ellen G. White, a prominent figure in the early Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) movement, reportedly experienced a “vision” in which she saw the solar system and its inhabitants. Several others, including Mrs. Truesdail, a committed member of the SDA church, witnessed this vision. According to Mrs. Truesdail, White described “a tall, majestic people” residing on either Jupiter or Saturn: - Ellen White, Astronomy, and ‘Divine’ Manipulation - The Thinking Cup

Enough for me! I have no desire to explore any further into the Adventist.

Dan Clarkston · Mar 4, 2026

rockytopva said:
reportedly experienced a “vision”

In the 60s and 70s they called that dropping acid

Adventageous · Mar 5, 2026

rockytopva said:
Lets see... A quick Google search... In 1846, Ellen G. White, a prominent figure in the early Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) movement, reportedly experienced a “vision” in which she saw the solar system and its inhabitants. Several others, including Mrs. Truesdail, a committed member of the SDA church, witnessed this vision. According to Mrs. Truesdail, White described “a tall, majestic people” residing on either Jupiter or Saturn: - Ellen White, Astronomy, and ‘Divine’ Manipulation - The Thinking Cup

Enough for me! I have no desire to explore any further into the Adventist.

This was answered already, in my replies ( From the pen of Ellen White ; see "7 (so Called) False Predictions From Ellen G. White – SDA" therein, or below, #7 therein), by the links provided (you did not read them, in Christian charity why? (Pro. 18:13,17 KJB)

Please see #7, which addresses the incorrect (mixed up) claims from your "quick Google search," and sets the matter straight from the original source materials (by citing them in their contexts), which websites like you presented in link are confusing two differing visions, at two differing times, about differing locations in the heavens, about differing peoples, places, worlds and even differing galactic systems - 7 (so Called) False Predictions From Ellen G. White – SDA : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

You do not believe Enoch to have been taken up into the 3rd Heaven, by God, so long ago now, and so had been residing there since then? (I do, since that is what scripture says (Gen. 5:21-24; Heb. 11:5 KJB), but whether or not you do, I leave with you and your prerogatives, but just some word of caution; Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11 KJB).

You believe a "quick Google search" over the original materials / events themselves? If so, why? Please explain.

Why is "a quick Google search" "enough for [you]" rather than the original source materials and events? What if I did that to you (just dismissed you because of what someone else wrote about you in mistaken biased a priori)?

If someone presents a claim, such as sister White, I (we all ought to) go to the original sources / records, not what someone says about those sources, per se (at least not at first, as certain second-hand insight can sometimes help point out a thing or two in the original sources that a first reading might overlook). Even if you do not read my response in the link provided, you really ought to compare the differing visions and their years and timings, and the context of those things yourself, and can do so here - English — Ellen G. White Writings

The Bible commands us to 'test the spirits', not ignore the spirits / minds of people, and it means for such testing to be done by their original source materials, and so if a person comes with a message from God, that very message is to be tested by scripture (not "A quick Google search", of which I may assure you, is filled with all manner of contradictory errors, see my own links that demonstrate this in specificity):

1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1Co_14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1Jn_4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The texts of scripture never indicate that all messengers are automatically false, but rather that there are many false among the few true that God does send along. I even list some in the Godhead book, here, Chapter 14, pages 241-259 - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

So, if a person like an 'Abu al Qasim', or 'Joseph Smith', or 'Mary Baker Eddy', or 'Charles Taze Russell', 'WTS' or a system like Roman Catholicism (or even 'orthodoxy') with all its claims, etc. (whom I have all personally read, studied from their own source materials, and some of which I actually have physical copies of on my shelf of what is left of my library, and only kept to show others what is therein when they ask), comes along, and claims to have a message from God / Heaven, I go to them (their writings, their records, their personal testimonies, and testimonies by those who directly knew them, their websites (later by their followers / adherants)) read their materials, compare their sayings to scripture, and then judge the matter by scripture.

I would even assume that AI, if correctly asked, would demonstrate the matter of confusion of your own link also, but I am not here to do your homework fo you (I did that enough as a child), and what I have presented in the linked material is plenty enough already.

So, when have you actually "explore[d]" any of Sister White's materials firsthand without the interference of others before hand as scriptures command you do? This whole notion of 'armchair' 'study' and 'second / third hand copraphagy' (ie. digesting what someone else already chewed through and excreted as their waste product) isn't worth much when it comes to testing messengers sent by God.

Why do you believe hearsay and faultfinding, instead of going to the original messeger and their claims? Should I instead believe what the Pharisees and Sadducees say about Jesus, instead of going to Jesus's words, actions?

Adventageous · Mar 5, 2026

rockytopva said:
Enough for me! I have no desire to explore any further into the Adventist.

I do not think you explored anything actually Seventh-day Adventist in your most recent jaunty-jaunt into the 'quick Google search". What I do see, is you looking for what you wanted to find, and simply posted a link to a mistaken non-Seventh-day Adventist website. Where in your reply was the search among actual Adventist materials? I do not see any indication there that you ever did so. This is not to be harsh, but I would like this general hypocrisy to cease, and let us treat each other fairly, and as unbiased as possible.

Adventageous · Mar 5, 2026

rockytopva said:
reportedly experienced a “vision”

Do you also doubt the visions of Patrick of Ireland? What about Jan Hus? Frederick the Duke, and Elector (for Emperor), of Saxony? Are you a cessationist? if so, please let me know. I provide those "visions" in the linked materials (see Godhead book refs.) also. Should all "visions" just be thrown aside, or should we at least consider them in the light of scripture first?

Peter had visions in the NT, and they were not found in the written OT, should Acts 10-11 just be thrown aside?

Paul had visions in the NT, and they were not found written in the OT either, should those just be thrown aside?

John on the Isle of Patmos had visions in the NT, and though much was borrowed from out of the OT, should those just be thrown aside, and just only go with what is in the OT, and if so, why do the OT timeframe prophets get a pass, but not NT timeframe ones?

Should we be like the Sadducees who only trusted in 'Moses' and not the other messengers who came long after? Should we, like the Pharisees, only trust in OT prophets, and not in NT ones (they even (for the most part) rejected John the Baptist), If so, why so?

rockytopva · Mar 5, 2026

Ellen White...

You can claim her as a prophet
You can claim her as a crazy nut

Doesn't matter to me. I am just not into SDA teachings.... Not interested!

From the pen of Ellen White

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mod

Well-Known Member

Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mod

Similar threads