What do you considered "incontrovertible evidence that [my] theory is wrong"? I've already admitted that polygamy is a sin.

Your theory is that none of the last 6 commandments can be broken in ignorance. Polygamy is a sin which looks to counteract your theory. Do you think that anyone who has ever practiced polygamy has thought it was wrong?

TE: Polygamy is a sin which looks to counteract your theory.

MM: Thank you. "Looks" is better than "incontrovertible".

TE: Do you think that anyone who has ever practiced polygamy has thought it was wrong?

MM: Nowadays? Probably. But only because it is commonly believed to be wrong. It isn't obviously wrong in the Bible, though, is it?

PS - I'll address the rest of your post later on.

Incontrovertible seems ok to me. Polygamy is a sin. Not everyone knows it is wrong. There you have it.

If it were obviously wrong in the Bible, it wouldn't make for a good counter-example to your theory. I'd have to choose a different example.

By the way, what about the law that required a brother to marry his brother's widow? It leads to polygamy, right?

Teach, not understand. Okay. But this isn't true for me. He isn't nearly as easy to understand as she is.


That doesn't apply to me today. That light is now available in the SOP. So, you haven't proven I cannot find it in the SOP, that I can only find it in J&W. Do you see my point?


Do you find it strange that I am looking for an example that includes a point she endorsed? I know that J&W believed many things she didn't endorse, things that she clearly did not believe, things she plainly condemned.


"... they presented [a point] that she didn't." That is the point, Tom. In fact, the evidence is clear that not only did she not present it, she presented the exact opposite point.


By "rhetorical" I take it you agree with me - We do not need J&W to interpret the SOP. Do you also agree everything we need to know about RBF, everything J&W taught about it that is correct, is available to us in the SOP?


No, I'm not disagreeing with her. She is entitled to her opinion, too. But as for me and my house we prefer to read it in the SOP, we find it much easier to understand. She did not say J&W is easier to understand for everyone.


Okay. But I find it much easier to read the same message, the same insights, in the SOP. I'm glad she didn't co-author books with them. I prefer SC.


Sister White quoted Smith, Haskel, and Andrews. Also, she didn't actually borrow ideas from J&W. She got them from the same biblical source. She wrote about them before J&W did.


Why use the word "grace" when you can say "Jesus" instead? For example, why say we need "grace" in our hearts when you can say we need "Jesus" in our hearts? Why say "grace" empowers us to obey when you can say "Jesus" empowers us to obey? Et cetera.

Regarding the understanding of it, in general, if one can teach a subject more clearly than another, one understands it better, although there can be exceptions to this. In the case of Waggoner, it is clearly simply from reading what he wrote that he had a much broader understanding of the subject than EGW had. For example, Waggoner wrote, "The Everlasting Covenant" which has nearly 400 pages in it, all on how the Gospel is present in the first 5 books of Scripture. Ellen White could not have written a book like that.

Here is some evidence that Ellen White is correct on this point, that Waggoner did teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she.

1.No one has any question that Waggoner taught the Christ took our sinful human nature. However, there are those who read Ellen White's writings, and some come to the conclusion that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, and some come to the conclusion that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall.

2.No one has any question that Waggoner taught that God was not the author of the Old Covenant. However, there are those who read Ellen White's writings, and some come to the conclusion that God was the author of the Old Covenant (as Smith taught), and some come to the conclusion that God was not the author of the Old Covenant.

3.No one has any question that Waggoner taught the justification is is by faith, not faith and works, but faith which works. However, there are those who read Ellen White's writings, and some come to the conclusion that justification is by faith, a faith which works (and not faith and works) whereas others come to the conclusion that justification is by faith and works.

4.No one has any question that Waggoner taught that the law in Galatians was the moral law. However, there are those who read Ellen White's writings, and some come to the conclusion that she was supporting Butler's claim that Paul was referring to the ceremonial law, whereas others conclude that she was affirming Waggoner's view, that the law in Galatians is the moral law.

Ellen White had a much broader work than Waggoner did. Waggoner preached and wrote about righteousness by faith. Ellen White identified this as a very important work, but notice that it was she, and not Jones or Waggoner, who identified what they (J&W) wrote as the beginning of the loud cry and the latter rain. Why? Because she had different responsibilities than they.

When she said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she, the person she said it to expressed surprise, and she responded, "Yes, the Lord has given him special light on that question. I have been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but I could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when he brought it out at Minneapolis, I recognized it."

The thing to do is to take advantage of all the light God has sent us. We should be well familiar with both the light from the Spirit of Prophecy, and light from Jones and Waggoner.

Likewise, is it not so that we do not need Ellen to interpret the bible? That everything Ellen taught about it that is correct is available to us in the bible?

She never claimed to have the light that God sent us through J&W. As I pointed out in the previous post, when questioned regarding how Waggoner could teach rbf more clearly than she, she responded that God had given him special light on that subject.



I gave you a point she endorsed.



Then you know something that isn't true, because what you state is not the case. I don't know what you consider to be "many," but in all my reading of J&W I've only come up with 1 point, during the time period when she was endorsing them, from 1888 to 1896. I'd be surprised if you could come up with any.

Have you read her endorsements of their message? Did you know she endorsed their message over 1,000 times? If what you asserted were true, there's simply no way she could have written what she did regarding their message.



What?? You asked me to produce a point that you couldn't find in her writings. So I did what you asked. Then you say "that's the point"? Then what did you ask me for? Why didn't you just produce the point yourself?



So she was confused? She said that Smith was wasting his time to produce a view contrary to Waggoner's, and then she presented the same view as Smith? She said that Waggoner's view was "truth," and then presented the exact opposite point? Wouldn't that make what she presented "error"?

Did she get "Smith" and "Waggoner" mixed up?



You're still not addressing my point, although this is the third time I'm bringing it up. I wrote this:



You responded:



So I wrote:



What do you think?

Regarding your question regarding rbf, Ellen White said that their message was a message from God, which we should heed. She never claimed to be presenting their message herself. Over 1,000 times she endorsed their message. She said that we should heed the messages God was sending us through J&W. You've somehow gotten the idea that all you need is her, but that's an idea you've derived on your own, not on the basis of anything she herself said. She never wrote, "You don't need to pay attention to Jones and Waggoner, because you have me."




Sure sounds like it. She said, "E.J. Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith more clearly than I can." You said "Nothing teaches RBF more clearly to me than SC." If you are thinking of yourself as just an odd exception, then you're not necessarily disagreeing with here. However, if you extend the "to me" to include others in general, then you would be.



I pointed out to you that she said when she heard Waggoner preach, she heard truths she had never heard publicly. You said that after hearing Waggoner, she started presenting the same truths.

If she had not heard the truths publicly presented that she heard Waggoner present, obviously she could not have written about them before Waggoner did. Based on your own statements, what you are asserting here "She wrote about them before J&W did." can't possibly be true.



You mean like, why say, "By grace are you saved through faith, and that is not of yourself, but the give of God" when you can say, "By Jesus are you saved through faith, ..."? I suppose because Paul was wishing to convey a different thought than what would have been conveyed had he used "Jesus" instead of "grace."



Why not use "Jesus" instead of "light" or "truth" as well? Or "love"? Or a thousand other things?

Regarding the above, I note the following.