Ellen White & Eastern Orthodoxy

[Humble Disciple]

Ellen White wrote extensively on the errors of the papacy, but did she ever mention Eastern Orthodoxy, which has never accepted the papacy? Was she even aware of Eastern Orthodoxy, given her primitive education? 

[Hanseng]

EGW was raised and converted to Jesus as a Methodist. Here is an article about orthodox influence on Wesley.

C:\Documents and Settings\Randy Maddox\My Documents\Text Documents\Wesley\Archive\Published Version - pdf\preparatory\Wesley & (duke.edu)

[Humble Disciple]

Here is the thread I started on Christian Forums on the same topic. It has some good replies:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/eastern-orthodoxy-adventism.8278092/#post-77269257

Evidently, not only was Ellen White aware of Eastern Orthodoxy, but she disagreed with their Sunday worship, as well as their unbelief in the soon return of Jesus Christ.

[Gustave]

Ellen was influenced by Western Christianity, original sin, etc. She would have been ignorant of the Eastern Orthodox Church and would have probably thought it to be some form of underdeveloped Catholicism. The early SDA's didn't understand early Church History or the Biblical languages and developed doctrines on what they thought they knew as opposed to what they actually knew. 

[Humble Disciple]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Ellen was influenced by Western Christianity, original sin, etc. She would have been ignorant of the Eastern Orthodox Church and would have probably thought it to be some form of underdeveloped Catholicism. The early SDA's didn't understand early Church History or the Biblical languages and developed doctrines on what they thought they knew as opposed to what they actually knew. 

I think that Ellen White would have consider their Sunday worship and their unbelief in the soon return of Jesus Christ a deal breaker, as shown by her mentions of Eastern Orthodoxy in her writings. 

[Gustave]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:04 AM, Humble Disciple said:

I think that Ellen White would have consider their Sunday worship and their unbelief in the soon return of Jesus Christ a deal breaker, as shown by her mentions of Eastern Orthodoxy in her writings. 

Ellen White condemned any group that denied that the Father was a 'single Being' that possessed a hominid flesh body complete with all the organs and parts of a perfect man. Any Creed that denied that God had a body and was made up of parts "spiritualized away", God. The other thing they were absolute about was that the Trinity Doctrine WAS PANTHEISM. 

In early Adventism one would be catechized in the SDA Personality Of God Doctrine (God was the Father alone & had a flesh body with organs and parts). After the individual accepted this 'truth' the Bible would convict the individual of the Sabath truth. 

So, yes, I concur with you that Ellen would not have viewed the Eastern Orthodox in a favorable light given they (the Eastern Orthodox Church) subscribed and still subscribes to the Nicene Creed. The same charges SDA's leveled against the Lutheran's, Methodists and Baptists would have been applied to the Orthodox. 

[Humble Disciple]

On 6/30/2023 at 6:53 PM, Gustave said:

Ellen White condemned any group that denied that the Father was a 'single Being' that possessed a hominid flesh body complete with all the organs and parts of a perfect man. Any Creed that denied that God had a body and was made up of parts "spiritualized away", God. The other thing they were absolute about was that the Trinity Doctrine WAS PANTHEISM. 

In early Adventism one would be catechized in the SDA Personality Of God Doctrine (God was the Father alone & had a flesh body with organs and parts). After the individual accepted this 'truth' the Bible would convict the individual of the Sabath truth. 

So, yes, I concur with you that Ellen would not have viewed the Eastern Orthodox in a favorable light given they (the Eastern Orthodox Church) subscribed and still subscribes to the Nicene Creed. The same charges SDA's leveled against the Lutheran's, Methodists and Baptists would have been applied to the Orthodox. 

Please provide evidence. 

[Gustave]

 

Quote

Humble Disciple said: Please provide evidence

I had a typo there Humble Disciple, what I meant to say was that Ellen White denied that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) was a single Spiritual "Being" and took part in rebuking the Methodist, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist & Presbyterian Church Creeds for affirming God was one Being. 

 

Ellen White / Sabbath Herald, August 29th 1878, ‘The personality of God’

“And then the Bible never uses the phrases, "trinity,” "triune God," "three in one," " the holy three,” “God the Holy Ghost," etc.  But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one  person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and  all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible.”

&

"The scribe said, " There is one God, and there is none other but he." To this declaration Jesus assented. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17 : 3. Jesus says his Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the gospel as Elder Roe, surely the latter would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Saviour in this text." "There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many); but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him".

 

[Humble Disciple]

37 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

I had a typo there Humble Disciple, what I meant to say was that Ellen White denied that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) was a single Spiritual "Being" and took part in rebuking the Methodist, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist & Presbyterian Church Creeds for affirming God was one Being. 

 

Ellen White / Sabbath Herald, August 29th 1878, ‘The personality of God’

“And then the Bible never uses the phrases, "trinity,” "triune God," "three in one," " the holy three,” “God the Holy Ghost," etc.  But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one  person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and  all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible.”

&

"The scribe said, " There is one God, and there is none other but he." To this declaration Jesus assented. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17 : 3. Jesus says his Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the gospel as Elder Roe, surely the latter would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Saviour in this text." "There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many); but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him".

 

Are you quoting from her later, obviously Trinitarian writings? 

[Hanseng]

5 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

Are you quoting from her later, obviously Trinitarian writings? 

The article he referred to "The Personality of God" from R&H 08/29/1878 was written by D.M.Canright, not Ellen G White. Gustave assigns it to EGW but that is either a lie or very sloppy research on his part. Canright is plainly listed as the author.

If you want to get some real insight to the controversy over the Godhead in early Adventism, read Movement of Destiny.  It's a lot of pages but well worth your time. Froom explains how the controversy over the Godhead contributed  to Waggoner's messages on the righteousness of Christ.

[Hanseng, one of the rules of this forum is that we engage in civil discussions.  As such, one might say that statement was false.  It is not civil discussion to imply on any level that one has lied.  Why?  Because such alleges that a false statement was made with the intent to deceive another.  Gustave has informed us of changes that he has made in his view of Adventism.  Such would never be made by someone who  intended to deceive us.  Feel free to tell us that Gustave is wrong.  I   consider him to be wrong at times.  But, do not imply that he may be a liar--Gregory Matthews.}

[Gustave]

Quote

Humble Disciple said: 

The article he referred to "The Personality of God" from R&H 08/29/1878 was written by D.M.Canright, not Ellen G White. Gustave assigns it to EGW but that is either a lie or very sloppy research on his part. Canright is plainly listed as the author.

And Canright's article appears the way it did because Ellen White revised / edited that very article. SEE, Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878 Volume 52 No. 9 

According to the Sabbath Herald Canright spent many seasons in the mountains and at Ellen's own altar prostrated in worship. 

"MRS. WRITE had-an appointment to speak in the Colorado Tent at Boulder City, on the evening of the 11th, so in the morning we took Elder Canright to the place with us, where we parted with him the morning of the 12th, he to take
the cars for Battle Creek, to be with his wife, who is reported to be rapidly failing. We parted with this dear brother with feelings of deep: regret that he leaves us before our return, and. yet we could not hold him a day from his faithful
wife, who deserves his sympathy and care in her last hours. On our journey to this State, and for the first few weeks after our,arrival, we, needed his assistance, and he has acted the part of a true Christian brother. Wehave had many
precious seasons of prayer together at the family altar, and when bowed together in the evergreen groves of the mountains. Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,- Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form ; while he has assisted us on some important works. We have now :been together six weeks, and every day from the, first our union has grown stronger and more dear. May the blessing of God go -with him."

That Personality of God Article in the Sabbath Herald was exactly as Ellen and James White wanted it. 

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

"According to the Sabbath Herald Canright spent many seasons in the mountains and at Ellen's own altar prostrated in worship. "

That doesn't mean she wrote the article.
 

And Canright's article appears the way it did because Ellen White revised / edited that very article."
SEE, Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878 Volume 52 No. 9 

 "And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,- Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form ; while he has assisted us on some important works."

The point is that even though you were well aware that EGW didn't write the article you assigned to her, you still falsely stated that she wrote the article.

You might have said that EGW was involved in the revising of articles by Canright attacking the trinity. That's true. To say she wrote the article is not true.

EGW and JW assisted Canright in revising an article to be published in pamphlet form. That's what we know. What revisions were made, we don't know. One thing is certain, she did not write the article you falsely assigned to her, she helped revise it.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: 

That doesn't mean she wrote the article.

 

It means the article went through Ellen's theological inspection and revision prior to being published. Unless you have come up with a new & novel definition of what it means to revise a written work? Is that what you're attempting to do here? 

Revise: re-examine and make alterations to (written or printed matter):

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

21 minutes ago, Gustave said:

It means the article went through Ellen's theological inspection and revision prior to being published.

Actually, you don't know what it means beyond your dictionary definition. One thing it certainly means is that EGW did not write the article, as you well knew. She and JW revised the article. When EGW writes an article, it is assigned to her. James White was the editor in those days. Since what was initially prepared as a series of articles was going to be printed in pamphlet form, it could have been revised for the new format. Since you don't know what content revisions were made, if any, you've got nothing.

If you must resort to either falsehood or distortion to make your case, you don't have much of a case.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: 

Actually, you don't know what it means beyond your dictionary definition. One thing it certainly means is that EGW did not write the article, as you well knew. She and JW revised the article. When EGW writes an article, it is assigned to her. James White was the editor in those days. Since what was initially prepared as a series of articles was going to be printed in pamphlet form, it could have been revised for the new format. Since you don't know what content revisions were made, if any, you've got nothing.

If you must resort to either falsehood or distortion to make your case, you don't have much of a case.

Only if words are meaningless and have subjective definitions - which, forgive me, appears to be where you are pushing this. 

I'm asked for "evidence" of my claims and I provide what's likely one of the most anti-Trinitarian articles to ever be printed in the Sabbath Herald. Due to my own research I discover that THAT very article was revised by Ellen and James White. I produce that hard evidence and you claim we can't really know what the word revise REALLY means. 

What you need to come to terms with is that what Canright is saying in that article is nothing new from what James was hawking in the 1850's, it literally OLD HAT, same old song and dance. But I can appreciate why you would want to depreciate it by suggesting definitions are only definitions and can mean anything - LOL! 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

Relevant to this discussion, "revise" means that EGW and JW did not write the article contra to what you said. It should be clear to anyone who pays attention to what they are reading. They revised an article written by Canright. It is signed by Canright. It is not signed to either JW or EGW. You knew that; nevertheless, you falsely assigned EGW authorship to an article she did not write. Come clean and admit it. I admit that the Review published articles contra the trinity. No article on this topic by any SDA author I know of has ever provided a single EGW statement attacking the trinity. On the contrary, they aver that she did not write any such articles. You have never produced any EGW statement attacking the trinity or, that I recall, promoting Arian or Semi-Arianism. You have not produced articles in which EGW attacked the trinity or averred any form of Arianism; instead, you falsely assign to her articles which she did not write. 

Again, the issue is not what "revise" means. The issue is you falsely attributing to EGW sentiments that she did not herself express in the source you cite.

[Gustave]

17 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Relevant to this discussion, "revise" means that EGW and JW did not write the article contra to what you said. It should be clear to anyone who pays attention to what they are reading. They revised an article written by Canright. It is signed by Canright. It is not signed to either JW or EGW. You knew that; nevertheless, you falsely assigned EGW authorship to an article she did not write. Come clean and admit it. I admit that the Review published articles contra the trinity. No article on this topic by any SDA author I know of has ever provided a single EGW statement attacking the trinity. On the contrary, they aver that she did not write any such articles. You have never produced any EGW statement attacking the trinity or, that I recall, promoting Arian or Semi-Arianism. You have not produced articles in which EGW attacked the trinity or averred any form of Arianism; instead, you falsely assign to her articles which she did not write. 

Again, the issue is not what "revise" means. The issue is you falsely attributing to EGW sentiments that she did not herself express in the source you cite.

Revise means what it means, you either accept what the actual definition of the word is or run away from it and pretend it's something it's not. 

Ellen & James REVISED an article written by a man, who, they essentially raised in the SDA faith tradition, this guy goes on to write some of the most, if not the most anti-Trinitarian articles ever to be published by the SDA Church and Ellen & James are the ones to revise his articles. You may choose to assign zero evidentiary value to this and I can appreciate why you would want to see it like as a nothing burger deal. 

Here, the following may help you understand a little better.

Revising

• deals with the paper as a whole, considering strengths and weaknesses, arguments, focus and organization, support, and voice, as well as mechanical issues.
• is dialogue-based. The purpose or revision is to ask questions, expanding ideas and challenging arguments which require discussion between the writer and the reader.
• is non-hierarchical. Offering questions and making observations allow the writer and reader to hold separate and valid opinions. The purpose of discussion is to expand and clarify ideas rather than "correct" them.
• focuses on the writer in the process of writing and increasing the writer's understanding of the paper's strengths and weaknesses.
• clarifies and focuses the writer's arguments by defining terms, making concessions and counter-arguments, and using evidence. This may involve moving or removing entire paragraphs, extending or narrowing ideas, rewriting vague or confusing text, and adding to existing paragraphs.

Editing vs. Revision | Student Learning Center (berkeley.edu)

If one is willing to admit what Ellen said her charism was - it becomes apparent she indeed approved of this article and threw her weight behind making it more effective as a teaching tool. 

Ellen White
"God has set me as a reprover of His people; and just so surely as He has laid upon me the heavy burden, He will make those to whom this message is given responsible for the manner in which they treat it. God will not be trifled with, and those who despise His work will receive according to their deeds." (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 679)

James White
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

Ellen made many statements that are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine - of this I'm sure you are aware. 

[Hanseng]

49 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

EGW wrote in the 1800s. The word "revise," at that time, meant: 

a : to look over again in order to correct or improve

2 a : to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of

 

See the 1828 edition of Webster

Again, as relevant to this discussion, the meaning of the word indicates that EGW and JW did not write the article. The article was written by D.M. Canright. JW was the editor of the Review. It was his job to look over material he published. In the case of Canright's articles, they were going to go into pamphlet form in addition to the magazine. There's no problem with an editor doing his job. There is a problem with falsely attributing an article to a person or persons who didn't write it. 

[Gustave]

You're not getting it, IT MEANS Ellen read it and insured it met with her and her husband's Doctrinal approval prior to the article being released - this assigns direct responsibility to Ellen in  this matter. To be technical Ellen actually wrote very little of what was attributed to her - it was someone else's intellectual property she passed off as coming from God. 

You answered your own question with the meaning the word "revise" had in the 19th century. 

 

[Hanseng]

On 7/5/2023 at 7:16 AM, Gustave said:

Ellen made many statements that are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine - of this I'm sure you are aware.

Should be easy to provide one. Please do it.

[Kevin H]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:16 PM, Gustave said:

You're not getting it, IT MEANS Ellen read it and insured it met with her and her husband's Doctrinal approval prior to the article being released - this assigns direct responsibility to Ellen in  this matter. To be technical Ellen actually wrote very little of what was attributed to her - it was someone else's intellectual property she passed off as coming from God. 

You answered your own question with the meaning the word "revise" had in the 19th century. 

 

Mrs. White's writings, while looking like they are wide ranging, did follow some specifics. First, came what we now know was a mistake, but at the time seemed like the best choice. When she started writing the copyright laws were different, and there were two types of writing, including religious writing: The scholarly, which was carefully footnoted and the popular which had only limited footnotes and could have the same amount of copying that has been pointed out in Mrs. White's writings. The Review belonged to a coalition of several hundred religious journals who all sent the others in that coalition a free copy of their journal. The purpose of this was to give the writers the chance to copy and edit the articles they read so that the journals would not run out of ideas. By the time the copywrite laws changed Mrs. White had already written and remembered so much as taken from the old style. 

Second: Besides her ongoing job of writing testimonies, Mrs. White's writings fit different themes as needed. The first theme was that God was indeed with their Millerite experience and that it should not be discarded as God not having worked with their hearts and the changes that their experience made in their lives. Everything she wrote over the first part of her ministry was to meet this theme. Then came the development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, followed by the publishing, health and educational work, next came the issues of the Great Controversy. And she would build and study and learn more about these as time went by. She would use these in dealing with different battles in the church, most she won, some she lost, including her last great battle trying to teach about how inspiration works. As she went through these themes, she would quote anything and everything that she thought would bring about the basic PRINCIPLE of these general themes. One reason why she and James choose to use the popular style of writing was that there were some books and authors where Mrs. White finds something said that the thought would be useful, but generally speaking did not like the overall message and did not want to present them as good sources. The specific theme that she was reaching for did not always make the quote good for other ideas. Frequently, these would be looking at the issue of the oneness of justice and mercy. Some of the quotes would lean too much to one side but she would try to balance it with statements for the other side. 

Third: In her collections such as the conflict of the ages series, she would have sections where she wanted to make applications and principles, but between these her staff would look for things that would maintain an ongoing narrative. 

In addition Mrs. White also had to deal with where the members were at the time and to grow with them. Mrs. White's focus on the trinity in her ministry (not withstanding her personal views) was not focused upon until after 1888, when she started to realize how both the 1888 message and great controversy fit together and improved in how she developed the great controversy vision into a philosophy that starts out with the three jobs of the trinity (which happens to sound more like one of the Eastern Orthodox views of the trinity than the traditional western view). The three deceptions of Satan which is an attack on each member of the trinity, and how many of the "threes" we find in the Bible fit this. While many members were ready for this new emphases, there were others who even today have a hard time with this; which of course lead to the focus on how inspiration works and what visions did and did not do for her.  Sadly, this also had to deal with members who had accepted Fundamentalism.   

[Hanseng]

Gustave continues to promote 2 falsehoods in his posts. The first is attributing an ant-trinity article which D.M. Canright wrote to EGW.

The second is his claim that to accept the doctrine of the trinity was tantamount to being a pantheist. These are both gross distortions.

[Kevin H]

I think there is a thread for trinity posts, thus I hope that it is ok for me to post this here. Maybe what would help is if I share how I understand the Bible and Mrs. White's view of the trinity, followed by two imperfect but useful illustrations. One given at Atlantic Union College to describe Mrs. White's view, the second by Dr. Jim Fleming to describe an Eastern Orthodox understanding which he believes also explains what the Bible teaches and how the trinity was understood by second temple Judaism (and you will notice the similarity to Mrs. White's view). 

We start out with an infinite God. A God who is outside of time and space. A God who created time and space and who transcends time and space. God is love and out of love created beings to have a relationship with. Life is totally borrowed and depends upon choosing a life giving relationship with this infinite God. 

If the infinite God simply created life; the infinite God is too big for the creature to comprehend. Thus the creature would naturally be an atheist, unable to have that life giving relationship with this being too big for him to ever comprehend, and thus life and death would be sudden, like popcorn popping, being popping into life and falling immediately in death. The infinite God needs to reveal God's self to the creature. Thus God, besides being infinite, also needed to step inside of time and space so that creatures can see that God is real to have the chance of the lifegiving relationship with God.  

Now, creatures need to know that we are creatures and that God is God. We are finite, God transcends into this great unknown infinite realm. God is all power, all greatness, completely awesome. The aspects that we call God the Father. Now if this was the only revelation of God, again to creatures life and death will be sudden like popcorn popping because they will wake up to life, see this overwhelmingly great being and quite literally be scared to death. The revelation of God that we call God the Father is necessary, but not sufficient. 

Creatures must also know that God is relatable and our deepest and dearest friend. God as one of us. What we call "God the Son". Now as God creates life, they see God as their friend and relatable. Now if this was the only revelation of God, life and death would not be sudden like popping popcorn, however, eventually a free will creature would think about doing something that God understands to be dangerous. As "God the Son" tries to warn the creature, eventually a response would be "You're a dear friend, but what makes your idea any better than mine" and the creature would choose to do something that would end up killing themselves. Thus God the Son is necessary but not sufficient.

To be able to live creatures need to hold a tension between God the Father and God the Son. That this dear friend is this great one sitting on the throne, and this great awesome being sitting on the throne is also our dear precious friend.  

But even these two revelations of the infinite God, while both being necessary, they alone are not sufficient. God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations. God is both objective and subjective, and God made us both objective and subjective. Thus the infinite God also needs to reveal God's self to beings through their subjective existential experience. Thus we have "God the Holy Spirit". If we did not have this revelation of God, our subjective experience can lead us in different directions. It is already hard enough with us having the Holy Spirit as seen in say meetings where someone says they believe God is leading them one way and another a different way and there is friction. Now if the infinite God only revealed himself as the Holy Spirit, people would depend on their subjective existential experience as the final source of truth. 

Each of these revelations are necessary, but only one or two are insufficient. However, the three of them held in tension are both necessary and sufficient. Notice I did not say complete. God is infinite and if the infinite God wanted to he could reveal himself through so many ways that he could drive the mind of a Hindu crazy. But God reveals himself in the minimum to be not only necessary, but also sufficient. 

These illustrations are of course not perfect, but at least gives the idea:

1. Picture a glass of water which represents the finite world, the world of time and space, and you have a being outside of the glass but who puts three fingers into the glass to communicate with life in the glass. 

2. Picture a huge mountain who's top is covered by a cloud. What is above the cloud cannot be seen, and while we are use to mountains leading into a little peak, this mountain above the cloud is greater and infinite. Now this mountain has three slopes. We are able to be aware of the mountain and relate to the mountain through our experience with these three slopes. 

I hope you find these useful!!! 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave continues to promote 2 falsehoods in his posts. The first is attributing an ant-trinity article which D.M. Canright wrote to EGW

1st,

Correction, D.M. Canright wrote an article that was, PRIOR TO IT'S PUBLICATION, revised / edited by Ellen White and her husband James. 

2nd,

SDA belief at the time of Ellen White affirmed that God was a real PERSON with flesh, bones, organs and members. The SDA's rejected that God was "spirit" and claimed any theory which SPIRITUALIZED AWAY God's body was a doctrine created by Lucifer. 

God was understood to be a BEING, a hominid with every member and part of a perfect man. 

Michael and Lucifer were understood to be BEINGS, hominids with every member and part of a perfect man. 

I've already posted where SDA articles and Ellen White spoke as to the necessity of The Personality of God and that a denial of the Personality of God WAS PANTHEISM. 

Since you are having difficulty in accepting this fact from me perhaps you'd have an easier time eating it from someone from the same faith Tradition as you. See if you can follow along and read Ellen's statements about the personality of God in the following. 

 

Kevin H made some statements worthy of response but unfortunately  right now I'm simply to busy with work. I'll just say that Ellen was accused of using other people's material and passing them off as her own and this was strongly denied in the Church papers. I have them saved and will post them when I have time. 

[Hanseng]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'll just say that Ellen was accused of using other people's material and passing them off as her own and this was strongly denied in the Church papers.

Both EGW and her husband were forthright about her use of historical and contemporary writers. EGW employed an editorial team that turned out her books. There were as many as a dozen people who worked on her books. 

Note the following: 

"In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events
as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has
summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been
quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since
the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as
authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible
presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of
those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar
use has been made of their published works." GC 1911, pp xi,xii

[Similar statement in the 1888 edition]

"And after I had written my six articles for How to Live, I then
searched the various works on hygiene and was surprised to find
them so nearly in harmony with what the Lord had revealed to me.
And to show this harmony, and to set before my brethren and sisters
the subject as brought out by able writers, I determined to publish
How to Live, in which I largely extracted from the works referred to."
3SM,247 [Quoted from the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 10/08/1867].

As early as 1867, EGW acknowledged the use of other writers in her work. Her use of sources has been studied extensively. I took a class from Fred Veltman at the time he was doing his research on sources employed in the Desire of Ages ~ 1987. You seem to be picking through a bag of old bones that has already been sorted.