TE: By "prove it," I assume you mean to prove that polygamy is a sin. I'm surprised you would dispute such a thing.

MM: Have you “proved” it? If it was a sin, why did God wink at it? Where in the Bible does it say it was a sin?

TE: Regarding your question, you're simply reposting what I said was not clear to me what you were asking, not surprisingly, did not help. If you repost it again, that won't help either. Perhaps you could rephrase what you are trying to get at.

MM: I did rephrase it. What don’t you understand? Does God wink at the specific types of sinful behaviors in the specific types of people I’ve described?

1. In cases involving these specific types of people, does God wink at sinful behaviors which offend people, which cause them to conclude Christianity is a joke, which cause them to despise the Gospel? If so, why?

2. In cases involving these specific types of people, are they ignorant of the fact that their behavior offends people around them, that it causes them to conclude Christianity is a joke, that it causes them to despise the Gospel? If so, why?

TE: Regarding the fact that Jones and Waggoner brought us truth that she did not bring, she wrote that they brought light that we would not otherwise have had unless God had sent someone else to bring that light.

MM: You’ll have to do better than that, Tom.

I need specific examples where J&W wrote something needful to us today that does not appear anywhere in the SOP. I am very confident I can find anything pertinent for me today in J&W in the SOP.

This message has not had the influence that it should have had upon the mind and heart of the believers. The true state of the church is to be presented before men, and they are to receive the word of God not as something originating with men, but as the word of God. Many have treated the message to the Laodiceans as it has come to them, as the word of man. Both message and messenger have been held in doubt by those who should have been the first to discern and act upon it as the word of God. Had they received the word of God sent to them, they would not now be in darkness. (1888 Mat. 1051)

The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth.(1SM 362)

Sister White says that we have been in the time of the latter rain since the Minneapolis meeting.

Can every believer have grace enough to keep him free from sinning? Yes. Indeed, everybody in the world can have enough to keep him from sinning. Enough is given, and it is given for this purpose. If anyone does not have it, it is not because enough has not been given, but because he does not take that which has been given. For "unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Eph. 4:7. The measure of the gift of Christ is Himself wholly, and that is the meas ure of "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." To the fullness of the Godhead there is, indeed, no measure; it is boundless. It is simply the infinity of God. Yet that is the only measure of the grace that is given to every one of us. The boundless m easure of the fullness of the Godhead is the only thing that can express the proportion of grace that is given to every one who is in this world. For "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." This grace is given in order that "as sin hath reigne d unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," and in order that sin shall not have dominion over you, because you are under grace.

It is given also "for the perfecting of the saints." The object of it is to bring each one to perfection in Christ Jesus--to the perfection too, that is fully up to God's standard, for it is given for the building up of the body of Christ, "till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." It is given to "every one of us," "till we all come" to perfection, even by the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Again, this grace is given to every one where sin abounds and it brings salvation to every one to whom it is given. Bringing salvation in itself, the measure of the salvation which it brings to every one is only the measure of its own fullness, which is nothing less than the measure of the fullness of the Godhead.

As boundless grace is given to every one bringing salvation to the extent of its own full measure, then if any one does not have boundless salvation, why is it? Plainly it can be only because he will not take that which is given.

As boundless grace is given to every one in order that it shall reign in him against all the power of sin, as certainly as ever sin reigned and in order that sin shall not have dominion, then if sin still reigns in anyone, if sin yet has dominion over anyone, where lies the fault? Clearly, it lies only in this, that he will not allow the grace to do for him and in him that which it is given to do. By unbelief he frustrates the grace of God. So far as he is concerned, the grace has been given in vain.

But every believer, by his very profession, says that he has received the grace of God. Then if in the believer grace does not reign instead of sin, if grace does not have dominion instead of sin, it is plain enough that he is receiving the grace of God in vain. If grace is not bringing the believer onward toward a perfect man in the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, then he is receiving the grace of God in vain. Therefore the exhortation of the Scripture is, "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." 2 Cor. 6:1.

The grace of God is fully able to accomplish that for which it is given, if only it is allowed to work. We have seen that grace being altogether from God, the power of grace is nothing but the power of God. It is plain enough therefore that the power of God is abundantly able to accomplish all for which it is given--the salvation of the soul, deliverance from sin and from the power of it, the reign of righteousness in the life, and the perfecting of the believer unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ--if only it can have place in the heart and in the life to work according to the will of God. But the power of God is "unto salvation to every one that believeth." Unbelief frustrates the grace of god. Many believe and receive the grace of God for the salvation from sins that are past but are content with that and do not give it the same place in the soul to reign against the power of sin, that they did to save from sins of the past. This, too, is but another phase of unbelief. So as to the one great final object of grace--the perfection of the life in the likeness of Christ-- they do practically receive the grace of God in vain.

"We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succored thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) Giving no offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed." Nor does this word "ministry" refer simply to the ordained ministry of the pulpit. It includes every one who receives the grace of God or that has named the name of Christ. For "as every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Therefore he does not want anyone to receive the grace of God in vain, lest that grace and its blessed working be misrepresented to the world and so men be further hindered from yielding to it. He does not want His grace to be received in vain, because when it is, offense is given in many things, and the ministry of grace itself is blamed. Yet when the grace of God is not received in vain but is given the place that belongs to it, "no offense" will be given "in anything," and the ministry will not only be not blamed but will be blest.

And now to show how complete and all-pervading the reign of grace will be in the life where it is not received in vain, the Lord has set down the following list, embracing "all thing," and in which we shall approve ourselves unto God. Read it carefully:

In all things approving ourselves unto God,
In much patience,
In afflictions,
In necessities,
In distresses,
In stripes,
In imprisonments,
In tumults,
In labors,
In watchings,
In fastings;
By pureness,
By knowledge,
By longsuffering,
By kindness,
By the Holy Ghost,
By love unfeigned,
By the word of truth,
By the power of God,
By the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
By honor and dishonor,
By evil report and good report;
As deceivers, and yet true;
As unknown, and yet well known;
As dying, and, behold, we live;
As chastened, and not killed;
As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing;
As poor, yet making many rich;
As having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

This list covers all the experiences that can ever enter into the life of any believer in this world. It shows that where the grace of God is not received in vain, that grace will so take possession and control of the life, that every experience that enters into the life will be taken by grace and turned to making us approved unto God and building us up in perfection unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." (RH Sept. 22, 1896)

TE: You have a theory that the last 6 commandments cannot be broken in ignorance. Polygamy disproves your theory, right? If not, why not?

MM: The fact God winked at the sin of polygamy in the past is relevant. I'm not as ready as you seem to be to dismiss it. I also believe polygamy violates the law. But I am not as sure as you are that it violates one of the last 6 commandments. I am convinced it violates one of the first 4 commandments. Otherwise, it would have been obvious to giants of faith and righteousness like Abraham and Jacob and David. They would have shunned it.

But I am not as sure as you are that it violates one of the last 6 commandments. I am convinced it violates one of the first 4 commandments.

MM: True, it hadn't been publicly published at the time; but she certainly articulated it publicly afterwards.

Which is what we have available today. So, you still haven't proved to me J&W published truths I need to know today that I cannot find in the SOP.

1. In cases involving these specific types of people, does God wink at sinful behaviors which offend people, which cause them to conclude Christianity is a joke, which cause them to despise the Gospel? If so, why?

2. In cases involving these specific types of people, are they ignorant of the fact that their behavior offends people around them, that it causes them to conclude Christianity is a joke, that it causes them to despise the Gospel? If so, why?

TE: This looks like you're just reasoning in a circle. You have a theory, that the last 6 commandments can't be broken in ignorance, and when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that your theory is wrong ...

MM: It is incontrovertible to you, but not to me. You still haven't quoted an inspired statement that confirms your view. Have you given up?

TE: Years after 1888, she still said that Waggoner taught it more clearly than she.

MM: More clearly to who?

You? Yes. Me? No. The way she describes it in SC makes more sense to me. And, yes, I have read much of what J&W wrote, but I prefer the way it is presented in the SOP.

MM: So, you still haven't proved to me J&W published truths I need to know today that I cannot find in the SOP.

TE: I did prove it.

MM: No you haven't. You cannot name one point they made that cannot be found in the SOP.

TE: Here's additional evidence that she was correct that Waggoner taught rbf more clearly than she. Consider Christ's human nature. There are people who read the SOP and think that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam. Nobody reads Waggoner and thinks that.

MM: Peter said something similar about Paul's epistles. That is, people twisted his writings to serve sin. They also twisted the meaning of Jesus' words. This doesn't prove a thing. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Do we need J&W in order to correctly interpret the SOP? God forbid!

TE: Not everyone responds to truth immediately.

MM: I know of very few people, you probably being the only one, who believe J&W are easier to understand than the SOP.

TE: If Paul had written, "where sin abounds, Christ does much more abound", then Jones' message probably would have fallen along the lines you suggest.

MM: I'm sure this is true.

TE: That polygamy is sin? No, I already presented that several times now.

MM: Look again. That's not what I was talking about.

TE: Than "she." The "she" was herself. In her quote she said than "I".

MM: Are saying she believed J&W understood it better than she did?

TE: You're doing a bait and switch here.

MM: All along I've been asking to prove J&W presented truths we need today that cannot be found in the SOP today.

TE: Regarding a point that they made being found in the SOP, how about the point that the OC was not authored by God.

MM: On the contrary, Tom. The she never endorsed this point in her writings is evidence against it.

As you know, others besides myself on MSDAOL have provided evidence to the contrary, that is, she believed God established the OC to help the COI to appreciate the NC.

MM: Do we need J&W in order to correctly interpret the SOP? God forbid!

TE: Well, Rosangela is one who believes this way. Do you think it's right and fair to characterize her as "twisting" Ellen White's writings?

MM: You're missing the mark here, Tom. Stay on topic. Thank you. Again, as you see it, do we need J&W in order to correctly interpret the SOP?

TE: Here's additional evidence that she was correct that Waggoner taught rbf more clearly than she. Consider Christ's human nature. There are people who read the SOP and think that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam. Nobody reads Waggoner and thinks that.

MM: Peter said something similar about Paul's epistles. That is, people twisted his writings to serve sin. They also twisted the meaning of Jesus' words. This doesn't prove a thing. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

TE: Well, Rosangela is one who believes this way. Do you think it's right and fair to characterize her as "twisting" Ellen White's writings?

TE: She didn't say that they (actually Waggoner) was easier to understand than she, but that he taught rbf more clearly than she.

MM: Nothing teaches RBF more clearly to me than SC.

If she felt that way about J&W, why didn't she co-author a book with them?

Or, why didn't she quote them extensively in one her publicly published books? Or, why didn't she borrow their ideas and publish them?

TE: Well, it's hard to find fault with Jones because he followed Paul's lead.

MM: I wonder if Paul had written as prolifically as J&W if he would have used the word "grace" more often than the word "Jesus"?