Yes, but notice what you are contending:
Passover – fulfilled in the order and timing of the type
Wavesheaf – fulfilled in the order and timing of the type
Pentecost – fulfilled in the order and timing of the type
Atonement – fulfilled out of the order and timing of the type

As I asked you before, do you believe that the fulfillment of Pentecost lasted one day, or that it began at a specific day? I believe in a Pentecostal era. Supernatural miracles and manifestations of the Spirit lasted several decades – in fact, seven decades if we consider the death of the apostle John as the end of this period. So, the duration of the antitypes is not restricted to a single day – either in the Spring feasts or in the Fall feasts.

As I see it, Paul’s comparison/contrast with the Day of Atonement in v. 24 is not in the ACT OF ENTERING, but in THE PLACE ACCESSED, that is, the presence of God. Paul says Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by humans, but entered into the direct presence of God. Paul’s comparison/contrast with the Day of Atonement in vv. 25, 26 is, again, not in the ACT OF ENTERING, but in the OFFERING PRESENTED. While offerings had to be presented every year by earthly high priests, Christ offered Himself once for all and His blood is efficacious for ever.

There are many aspects involved here. The order of the feasts is just one of them. I see a punctiliar Day-of-Atonement antitype at Christ’s ascension as impossible, since the sins of God’s children in the Christian era hadn’t yet been committed and, therefore, could not have been blotted out.

Besides, no scapegoat was banished to the wilderness in AD 31 (unless you believe the scapegoat is Christ, which I think is a view which presents more problems than advantages); neither do I see as a solution the placing of a lapse of 2000 years between the fulfillment of the first part of the type and the fulfillment of the scapegoat.

She says in a symbolic vision, as you quoted, that Jesus passed from one compartment to the other in 1844.

I’m not sure what you mean, but of course repentance is an attitude of the human heart, and only repentance can be a type of repentance.

At His ascension? I apply these words of Paul to the cross.

The essence of the Day of Atonement was not just entering into God's presence. It was entering God's presence in order to cleanse the sanctuary. Evidently, if Christ had left the presence of God to come to earth, He would come back to the presence of God at His ascension, sanctuary or no sanctuary. The question is, Did Christ enter into the presence of God at His ascension in order to cleanse the sanctuary?

Is it accomplishing its purpose?

The little horn was the cause of the defilement. The cleansing would be dealing with that defilement. The 2300 days was to bring an end to its work. The Adventist view simply does not qualify. Instead of showing how the little horn power came to an end and the defilement it caused was cleansed it reads in the day of atonement which dealt not with external defilement of the sanctuary but cleansing from the sins of all of God's people.

It sounds like you see no connection with the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus. Is that correct? That is, you don't see Daniel 8:14 as having anything to do with the Day of Atonement?

I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel
8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing
comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As
a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended
our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers.
As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible,
what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it
hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.35
In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing
plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it
where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of
Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful
to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but
again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the
Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every
college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department
in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine.
Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual
basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.36
When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the
General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret
Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member.
Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers
relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die,
unable to reach a consensus.37
The Commentary experience with Daniel already mentioned led me into an
unhurried, in-depth, spare-time, comprehensive study of Daniel 7 to 12
that continued without interruption for seventeen years (1955-1972), in
quest of a conclusive solution to the sanctuary problem. My objective was to
be fully prepared with definitive, objective, biblical information the next
time the question should arise during the course of my ministry for the
church.
Among other things I memorized, in Hebrew, all relevant portions of Daniel 8
to 12 for instant recall and comparison (60 verses), conducted exhaustive
word studies38 of more than 150 relevant Hebrew words Daniel uses,
throughout the Old Testament, studied the Hebrew grammar and syntax in
detail, made a minute analysis of contextual data,39 compared ancient Greek
and Latin translations of Daniel,40 investigated relevant apocryphal and New
Testament passages,41 traced Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel
from ancient to modern times,42 and made an exhaustive study of the
formation, development, and subsequent Adventist experience with the
traditional sanctuary doctrine.43 Eventually I incorporated the results of
this investigation into an 1100 page manuscript which I later reduced to 725
pages but decided not release for publication until an appropriate time.
The above considerations conclusively demonstrate that our traditional
interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment
as set forth in Article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs does not accurately
reflect the teaching of Scripture with respect to the ministry of Christ on
our behalf since His return to heaven.44 Accordingly, it is appropriate (1)
to note wherein Article 23 is thus defective,45 (2) to revise the article so
as to reflect Bible teaching on this aspect of His ministry accurately, and
(3) to suggest a process designed to protect the church from this and
similar traumatic experiences in the future.46
Some of the concepts associated with the investigative judgment are, indeed,
biblical, but the Bible itself nowhere associates them with an investigative
judgment, for which there is no sola Scriptura basis whatever.47
Upon ascending to heaven Jesus assured His disciples "I am with you always,
to the end of the age" (Matthew 18:20). The Book of Hebrews is our primary
source of information about His ministry in heaven on their (and our) behalf
since that time, I suggest that the following composite summary of His
ministry as presented in Hebrews provides an appropriate basis for a revised
article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs, should such a statement eventually be
desired. The author of Hebrews presents Christ's ministry in heaven, on our
behalf, by analogy with the role of the high priest in the ancient sanctuary
ritual:
On the cross Jesus offered Himself as a single sacrifice for all time that
atoned for the sins of those who draw near to God through Him.48 That one
sacrifice qualified Him to serve as our great High Priest in heaven,
perpetually.49 Having made that sacrifice, Christ entered the Most Holy
Place--"heaven itself"--to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.50 He
invites us to come boldly to Him, by faith, to find mercy and grace to help
us in our time of need.51 He will soon appear, a second time, "to bring
salvation to those who are waiting for him."52

The purpose of prophecy is not to establish that God knows the end from the beginning, but that He will do what He says He will do. We have all sorts of prophecies which we have seen fulfilled, so we have every reason to believe that God is trustworthy. Since we know God is trustworthy, based on what we've seen in many other prophecies, which *can* be verified, we can trust that in the 2300 day prophecy that He would do what He said He would here as well.

Your reasoning seems to be that God can not prophecy about anything that He is doing in heaven, because we have know way of verifying that prophecy. But again, His purpose in the prophecy could simply be to tell us what He is going to do. It doesn't have to be verifiable, as, if this were a necessary condition, God could never prophecy about anything He is doing in heaven.

Regarding your point about the 2300 day prophecy need not be interpreted as SDA's interpret it, but historicism could still be the correct framework for prophecy, I agree with this point. Usually people who make the arguments you are making in regards to Hebrews are futurists, but I have no reason to believe that logically this need be the case. So I agree with you that, given your understanding of Hebrews, your suggested alternative interpretation regarding the little horn is a viable possibility.

She also speaks of open and shut doors.

What I mean is that you pick and choose when you want to type to apply in order. In the type the affliction went on DURING the day of atonement. But you now seem to admit that all have affliction of repentance during their lifetime.

You do? Let's look at the verse again that I was quoting, though there are several that have the same theme:

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

When did Jesus sit down? After the cross or after going into God's presence to present His sacrifice?

Verse 23 directly references the cleansing of the sanctuary and verse 24-25 are describing that cleansing in day of atonement language.