Well, wherever you found these points & questions, what do you think of them, Richard?

Misquotes from beginning to end, of that piece, so without a clear Bible statement the deity of Jesus' Sonship is missing...

"In the form of God", since he's God's own begotten Son soon is in the form of God, etc.

Jn 8:58, isn't it, about Abraham? What a mess of interpretation, there is here!! Get his story straight and the person who wrote this may have a better chance of finding Jesus' truly divine Sonship revealed as Jesus himself said it is.

Quite right, Thomas, since there are non-trinitarians and non-trinitarians: some deny Christ's deity altogether - mormons and JWs most notably, while others uphold it independent of the trinity doctrine, like our own church's pioneers. Statements to the contrary in the Sabbath School lesson this year, when saying Ellen White revealed trinitarianism to us from God to help us away from believing Christ wasn't divine, are misinformed or malicious.

Right, it is possible to be wrong without being a heretical.

Yes, it is - as the other side see it.

Yet, to publish analysis that our pioneers didn't believe Christ to be fully divine is only not character assassination because legally one can't defame the dead: misleading and misreprentative it is nevertheless.

these parts of two separate paragraphs from 30 pages apart apply to those who, first paragraph:

and spiritualism
these two paragraphs do not apply to anti-trinitarians, and in all good conscience, for the love of God and our fellowman, we should not attempt to make it appear as if it does.

(im assuming the op was from antritrinitarians and not those who deny the divinity/deity of Christ.)

i had thought about the real meaning of those paragraphs but had been busy and forgot to point out what they were referring to. thanks for reminding me colin, and my sincerest apologies.

we seem to get somewhat gung-ho on defending "truth" and forget to be scrupulously honest in all our dealings with our fellowman, as was/is Jesus.

i would quote: Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

the various pioneers had different beliefs regarding Christ, for one thing, but were unanimous that Christ was divinity/deity.

a lack of researching for oneself and trusting to the arm of man leads to, well....

Yes, there was unanimity on Christ's deity.

At least till Elder White's death. The view of the church was unchanged, thereafter, till - well - has it really changed yet for the majority of members in favour of the trinity doctrine?

Leaders change their positions, and scholars 'hold sway' with their writings today, but has the anti-trinitarian uproar over QOD completely gone away by now? A minority at least is left behind, rejecting this doctrine in favour of Bible statements, but some of today's detractors from this doctrine haven't a balance of the Bible and SOP teachings...: don't let them obscure those teachings.

Incidentally, that 1891 article in the Review by Samuel Spear, the non-SDA Doctor of Divinity, on the "Biblical trinity" actually rejected this doctrine, and relied on Scripture alone; hence that is a non-trinity-doctrinal article, not a breaking away from established church teachings after the 1888 'revival' - revival of gospel faith with unique elements, not clarifying confusion over God.

There's a new school of thought today - that's all: does it respect the SOP writings, let alone that of EGW's contemporaries, or the defenders of that faith since her death? Appears not, as they don't let her speak for herself - leaving out half of what she wrote on the subject, and typically dismissing the others almost totally, at least in the last 30 years till today. Yes, it's a different faith......., differing on the nature of God himself, Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Can't have a plurality of thought on that can we, like we officially entertain for Jesus' humanity - not ultimately, but we aren't in the kingdom yet.

The new school of thought reigns, and now Jesus' divine, "begotten Sonship" "from the days of eternity", makes him less than God his Father, so it's not good enough for Jesus to be God's Son begotten in eternity past: he's a semi-god, this way. Well, it was good enough for our church living in the presence of the messenger of the Lord, and after she died, too: moreover, Jesus said so himself - if we can take him at his word and not interpret his words into figurative speculations.

Researching the full story of our church's earliest writings on the Godhead is necessary, for Movement of Destiny was sincerely embarrassed by its content, giving a largely false impression of it, and we haven't recovered from that biased research yet.

where we disagree is when it comes to "eternal, self-existent".

I went to a forum where they actually were debating the State of the Dead and getting it right, which kind of amazed me. But then I came across this debate and saw how some people are either confused or preaching a denial of Christ. As He is God, the great I AM, Jehovah, the Creator and Lord of the Sabbath, and to reject that is in my mind, is evil at work or worse.

Is not the part quoted above also a case of misrepresentation?