So, it cannot be said that in the specific paragraph quoted earlier Mrs. White intended to especially emphasize those words which were in all-caps, as this seems to have been merely convention for any reference to the deity. (i.e. Caps were for respect, not for emphasis.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't believe that the law was something which the angels knew nothing about, but something which the angels knew but didn't give much thought to, as obedience to them was natural.

"But in heaven, service is not rendered in the spirit of legality. When Satan rebelled against the law of Jehovah, the thought that there was a law came to the angels almost as an awakening to something unthought of. In their ministry the angels are not as servants, but as sons. There is perfect unity between them and their Creator. Obedience is to them no drudgery. Love for God makes their service a joy." {MB 109.2}

Au contraire Green. It can well be said:

Mrs. White was clear to delineate and identify CHRIST as the SON of GOD prior to creation, as distinct from the FATHER.


"After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the FATHER and SON carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now GOD says to his SON, "Let us make man in our image."


- Spiritual Gifts vol.lll, 33-34. 1864. (Caps in original)
____

What difference does it make depending on what view we hold? That is, there are two positions being suggested:

1.The Great Controversy is primarily about the law. God's character is also involved.

2.The Great Controversy is primarily about God (or "God's character"). The law is also an issue.


What's the advantage of 1 or 2? Or vice versa?

I don't think that defending one position or the other has any advantage. A person just defends what he/she believes is true. Under my perspective, if there is any advantage in one strategy over another, it is for Satan, for by attacking the law he is at the same time bringing discredit upon the law and upon its Author - in Ellen White's words, he is proving “the law of God faulty, and the Lawgiver fallible.” Instead of killing one bird, he is killing two birds with one stone. Which, for him, is obviously an advantage.
Besides, from the beginning his attacks were directed to God as a Ruler, not as a Father. Is there a better way of undermining God's government than by undermining the legitimacy/integrity/authority of His law?

There's "good" rulers and "bad" rulers. Satan was saying God was a "bad" ruler, so therefore wasn't the issue really about God's character? Doesn't Laws depends on how the ruler(or individual who read them) interpret them and applies them?

Tom, the first one above is the truth - and it matters because it is the truth that sets us free.

MM- That's the problem...which is truth? What should we believe? According to you Rosangela's emphasis(Law) is true, but what happen's if Tom's emphasis(God's Character) is?

Elle, there are many truths - one of them being that the law is the primary focus of the GC.

Mike, the center of the issue is Love, the fulfilling of the Law. (Romans 13:10)

The law is only a letter, a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. (Galations 3:24)

The law is dry like the hills of Gilboa if not fulfilled. Dry, Dry, Dried bones.

If we have only the law and not Christ, we will be lost.

God's Love is being challenged by Satan. This love is in Christ.
________