Pastor Johann, I have the utmost respect and admiration for men like you, who have dedicated their whole lives to the service of God. But, as I said, we do not all see eye to eye, so please forgive me if I at some moment disagree with something you say. Having worked for some time at a White Estate branch, and having verified the differing views of our pioneers and of Ellen White on some subjects, my view is that, when what they say diffes from what she says, I stay with what she says.

I'm not following you, kland. In the Bible, both in the OT and in the NT, the meaning of the word translated as "angel" is "messenger." So Jesus Christ is the Chief Messenger. Why does He have to be a created being?

"When Jesus, as he hung upon the cross, cried out, It is finished, the rocks rent, the earth shook, and some of the graves where shaken open; for when Jesus arose from the dead,... many of the righteous dead came forth as witnesses that he had risen. Those favored, resurrected saints came forth glorified. They were a few chosen and holy ones who had lived in every age from creation, even down to the days of Christ.
" Those who were resurrected were of different stature and form....Some of those raised were more noble in appearance and form than others. I was informed that those who lived in the days of Noah and Abraham were more like the angels in form, in comeliness and strength." {Spiritual Gifts Vol. 1 pages 69-70}

Kland's rather "tongue in check" comments stirs the thought that --
Christ is called an Archangel, but He is NOT one of created heavenly angels.
The elder is called a strong angel -- a strong messenger? or one of the heavenly angels?

Any wonder that Ellen White could call that elder an engel?

Can we therefore safely discard those novel ideas of Stephen Bohr?

Are these two comments not in opposition?

In my estimation they support each other. You may have missed the point where EGW stated that some of the elders who had lived on earth at the time of the patriarchs had the appearance like angels.