Tammy, thank you for posting these quotes, but none of them seem to have any inkling whatsoever of what you seem to be concerned with, which are their theological positions. That is, the quotes you presented spoke to Jones' self-confidence and poor judgment. There is not a peep about any theological error.

Regarding your reasoning here:



It seems similar to what she warned against here:



Regarding what she said in 1888, I think you may have misunderstood her intent. She said E.J. Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she could, that the Lord has given him special light on that question of righteousness by faith, that she had been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when Waggoner brought it out at Minneapolis, she recognized it.

She wasn't saying in the quote you presented that Waggoner was presenting the same thing she had been presenting, but was presenting what she had been wanting, or trying, to present. As soon as she saw the light, she recognized it, and identified it. But she wasn't saying, "You don't need this; you have my writings." She never said that!

Here's something from the 1888 session:



If we trust God, I see no reason that we should question His judgment in sending the message He did, nor the messengers He chose. Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner over a thousand times during the years of 1888 and 1896. Surely their writings would be "safe" during this time. The idea that God would send us light that was flawed, that we need to worry about, because it might be unsafe and lead us astray, seems to me to speak very poorly of God. If there were something to worry about in the message, wouldn't God have told us? Instead, God predicted the future, and advised that even if Jones and Waggoner fell away that this wouldn't mean that they didn't have a message from Him, but that this would be a "fatal delusion" that some who were not in tune with the Spirit of God would fall into.

Tammy, regarding the criticisms of Jones in his 1895 sermons, it seems to me both Jones and Ellen White's ideas involved Christ's taking our sinful nature, bearing our sins, and confronting our temptation in that condition. It appears as if you are looking for some flaw to pick in what Jones wrote, as opposed to seeing the message he presented as Ellen White did, as light from heaven, as a message from God.

Shortly after Jones' sermons at the 1895 GC session, she wrote:

Tammy, what seems to be missing in your theology is a way to life up fallen man. The SOP writes:





In order to bring us up where we are, Jesus had to come to us. He "humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe" to bring us up "from the degradation in which sin had plunged us."

The problem with the idea that Christ did not come all the way down to where we are, but just most of the way, is how do we get from where are to where Christ stopped?

This is a bit off topic in regards to the subject of this particular post, but since I quoted the Jacob's ladder statement, and since the following has bearing on our discussion as a whole, I'll mention it here.

Regarding the second quote, btw, Haskell wrote:



That is, Haskell read out loud what I quoted above, and then comment as cited, which was published in The Review and Herald. So there can be no doubt how Ellen White's words were understood by her contemporaries, nor of the fact that she herself was aware of how her words were understood by others. If she were being misunderstood on such a vital point, she would have corrected the misunderstanding. The Baker letter is proof of this.

Tammy, the context of those quotes was that Jones had decided to go work under John Kellogg and Ellen White was urgently trying to change his mind and pull him away from the man that was picking up pantheism and drifting away from the truth and taking others with him. Ellen White saw what Kellogg was doing in using charm and praise to sway others, and what was going to happen to Jones and did everything she could to keep him from falling under Kelloggs spell, to no avail..

Everybody I know has been tempted at least once or twice in their lifetime to do the very things you named - "to murder someone, to rape someone, or [any of] the many other horrendous things people do." But please bear in mind, it is not a sin to be tempted to do any of the "horrendous things" you named. No one is contaminated because they were tempted.

For example, I know a guy who, when he was a boy, the school bully beat his little brother to a pulp. He was on life support for nearly a year. He died several times and had to be revived. Although he was raised as a Christian, he was tempted to kill the bully. Visions of what he was capable of doing flashed across his mind. But he dismissed them as evil and unChristlike.

I hear you saying he was guilty of sinning. Is that what you believe?

Another example. I guy shared this with me recently. When he was a boy there was a girl in school who was very beautiful and shapely, and, unfortunately, less than virtuous. One day a terrible scene played itself out in his mind. It portrayed him forcing himself on her. He was shocked and disgusted, and rejected it as evil and unChristlike.

Again, I hear you saying he was guilty of sinning. Is that what you believe?

We have the same appetites and passions they did. They had to use reason and conscience, just like we do, not to indulge their appetites and passions in an unhealthy or unholy way. Feeling hungry is a normal part of the digestion system. There is nothing evil or sinful about it. Listen:

Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord. (14 MR 294)

You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. (3T 84)

Christ came to bring to man moral power that he may be victorious in overcoming temptations on the point of appetite, and break the chain of the slavery of habit and indulgence of perverted appetite and stand forth in moral power as a man, and the record of heaven accredits him in its books as a man in the sight of God. (TE 264)

Tom, I'm afraid your words here could be misconstrued to mean the reason it was hard for Jesus to be tempted like we are is because He found them enticing or alluring. I know you don't believe this, but someone could take it that way.

You and I agree that Jesus' fallen flesh craved and clamored for sinful expression, and that these sinful cravings and clamorings were repulsive and disgusting to Him. Not for one moment did He ever waver between iniquity and righteousness. He resolutely resisted expressing the unholy thoughts and feelings that tempted Him from within. It is in this sense that Jesus "suffered being tempted" (Heb 2:18). And so it may be with born again believers. Listen:

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

Yes, the hunger was a legitimate hungry, however, the temptation to turn stones into bread wasn't, which is why Christ rejected the temptation to do so.

I was trying to see what words you were talking about. It seemed to me it must be these:



Is this what you were speaking of?

In regards to temptation being alluring for Christ, Ellen White said that. It's not present in what I wrote, although I agree with what she said. She also said that one is tempted when one experiences a powerful influence to do a wrong action, which is the ordeal that Christ passed through. I think we do our soul's a wrong if we make Christ afar from us, as opposed to One close at hand, who experienced our sorrows and temptations, yet overcame by faith. Do you agree?

completely agreed!

could you elaborate on what you are thinking?