1888 the real issue that is not being discussed

[Adventist Dissident]

Now we have to establisht what J.H. Waggoner actually Taught.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Here is the message that was opposed by God through Ellen

statements from J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments (1854), .

Regarding the circumstances under which the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians,

"His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with judaizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ 'without the law.' Rom. iii, 19-23. This is also shown in Gal. iv, 21; v, 1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected" (p. 74).

On Galatians 3:2-5:

"It might be inferred from Gal. iii, 2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law" (p. 76).

On Galatians 3:24:

"When we inquire into the nature and office of the law that was added, there will be no difficulty in viewing it as the same that was transgressed. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith: justification by the law being impossible by reason of transgression. Here it is evident that he refers to the moral law; for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law; for 'by the law is the knowledge of sin.' So 'the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;' perfect as a standard of right, convincing of sin, and thus bringing us to Christ, the way of salvation. Such conversion is genuine and complete. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Gal. iii, 19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin" (p. 51).

On the phrase, "under the law":

"All will admit that the Galatians had been affected with Judaizing notions of self-righteousness; yet we trust it has been made plain that other errors were obtaining among them, having no reference to the customs of the Jews. If they 'turned back' to their former practices they would again become heathen idolaters; but if under the influence of other teachers they resorted to circumcision, and looked to the law for justification, they were also under condemnation, being proved sinners by their own rule of justification, and this is the signification of the phrase, 'under the law,' as used in the letters to the Romans and Galatians.... This, we think, plainly shows that the Apostle was convincing them of sin by the moral law" (p. 86).
Only the moral law is a rule of justification:

"Was any one, under any circumstances, justified by the law of Moses, or was justification ever coupled with that law? We think not. Nothing but a moral law can be a rule of justification; and the law of Moses consisted only in shadows, which were remembrancers of sin, but could never take away sin. They were not instituted as a means of acceptance with God, [see Ps. xl, 6-8; 1, 8-12; Isa. ii, 10-20; Jer. vi, 20; Amos v, 21-24; 1 Sam. xv, 21, 22; Heb. viii, 5; ix, 9; x, 1-4,] and were not included in man's whole duty to him; [Jer. vii, 22, 23; Eccl. xii, 13;]" (p. 111).

 

[Adventist Dissident]

This was the message by J.H. Waggoner in 1856 was opposed by God through Ellen white. Lets review what J.H. says

a. who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ 'without the law.'
b. justification cannot be obtained by a law
c. and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law"
d. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith:
e.for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour.
f. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law
g. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Gal. iii, 19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin" (p. 51).
h. This, we think, plainly shows that the Apostle was convincing them of sin by the moral law" (p. 86).
i. The law of Moses consisted only in shadows, which were remembrancers of sin, but could never take away sin. They were not instituted as a means of acceptance with God,
k. and were not included in man's whole duty to him


This is what Ellen Opposed 1856. this is also the Righteousness by Faith Doctrine. The bible says the "spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets" ellen white is not subject to the prophets. and contradicts the scripture. therefore I must conclude she is not a prophet. To the law and to the testimony if they sepeak not according to this, there is no light in them. There was no light in EGW in 1856 and could not have been a prophet

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Is That enough Evidence for you or do you need more?

 

[tall73]

I think what we need is a link to the letter to Waggoner in 1887 where she said that it was unimportant and divisive.Or at least we need a direct quote. We are looking for such at the moment.

The 1887 letter does seem pretty clear that she opposed Waggoner Sr.'s teaching.

The direct quotes from Waggoner Sr.'s views seem clear enough.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Did ellen white know the Righteous by Faith Doctrine before 1888.
February 18, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, written from Basel, Switzerland,
" Mrs. White said the dispute over the law in Galatians was an unimportant side issue which should not disturb the unity of the church". But when she actually heard Waggoner on this disputed matter in 1888, she thought it was "worth risking a denominational revolution."

a. the Law in galatains is an "unimportant side isse"
b. unity of the chruch is more important.
c. Upon hearing it she risks denominatioanl reveloution

questions:
1. Why did the prophet not know the impotance of Law in glataians.
2. why did she think the fundmental teaching in Christianity was not worth risking demnamational unity at first and then change her mind???
3. The fact that she had to change her mind shows that she did not know RBF to begin with.

 

[Sophia7]

Here are a few quotes from EGW on the 1888 controversy:

MR No. 731 - The Law in Galatians
​

The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}

I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}

Cautions Regarding Differences of Opinion on the Law in Galatians.--

-216- {9MR 215.3}

I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}(To G. I. Butler and Uriah Smith, April 5, 1887.) {9MR 216.3}

Ellen White's Position on the Law in Galatians Unchanged.--I have not changed my views in reference to the law in Galatians, but I hope that I shall never be left to entertain the spirit that was brought into the General Conference. I have not the least hesitancy in saying it was not the Spirit of God. If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth, will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let it fall, the sooner the better. The spirit that would close the door to investigation of points of truth in a Christlike manner is not the Spirit from above. . . .

-217- {9MR 216.4}

A. T. Jones and Dr. Waggoner hold views upon some doctrinal points, which all admit are not vital questions, different from those which some of the leading ones of our people have held. But it is a vital question whether we are Christians, whether we have a Christian spirit, and are true, open, and frank with one another. . . . {9MR 217.1}

My cry has been, Investigate the Scriptures for yourselves, and know for yourselves what saith the Lord. No man is to be authority for us. If he has received his light from the Bible, so may we also go to the same source for light and proof to substantiate the doctrines which we believe. The Scriptures teach that we should give a reason of the hope that is within us with meekness and fear. . . . {9MR 217.2}
I have not [now?] told you that my views are not changed in regard to the law in Galatians. [THE FIRST "NOT" IN THIS SENTENCE MAKES THE STATEMENT CONTRADICT THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THIS RELEASE. IT WOULD APPEAR THEREFORE THAT THE "NOT" IN THE SENTENCE IN QUESTION IS A MISTYPE FOR "NOW," OR IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE WORD SLIPPED INTO THE TEXT INADVERTENTLY THROUGH A TYPISTS' ERROR.] But if we have had the truth upon this subject, our brethren have failed to be sanctified through it; the fruits are not after Christ's order, but bitter as gall.--Letter 7, 1888, pp. 1-4. (To W. M. Healey, December 9, 1888.) {9MR 217.3}

Neither Side Has All the Light on the Law in Galatians.--You speak of the affliction that came upon you because of the "way this matter [the question of the law in Galatians] has been pushed and urged by responsible men in the cause, and by your seeming attitude which has brought me to my present condition more than any other one thing." I have no knowledge of taking any position in

-218-

this matter. I had not with me the light God had given me on this subject, and which had been written, and I dared not make any rash statement in relation to it till I could see what I had written upon it.

The Galatians Question Not Vital.--Questions were asked at that time: "Sister White, do you think that the Lord has any new and increased light for us as a people?" I answered, "Most assuredly. I do not only think so, but can speak understandingly. I know that there is precious truth to be unfolded to us, if we are the people that are to stand in the day of God's preparation." {9MR 218.2}

Then the question was asked whether I thought the matter better drop where it was, after Brother Waggoner had stated his views of the law in Galatians. I said, "By no means. We want all on both sides of the question." But I stated that the spirit I had seen manifested at the meeting was unreasonable. I should insist that there be a right spirit, a Christlike spirit, manifested, such as Elder E. J. Waggoner had shown all through the presentation of his views; and that this matter should not be handled in a

-219-

debating style. The reason I should urge that this matter should be handled in a Christlike spirit was that there should be no thrust made against their brethren differing with them. As Elder E. J. Waggoner had conducted himself like a Christian gentleman, they should do the same, giving the arguments on their side of the question in a straightforward manner. . . . {9MR 218.3}

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated, and for this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas--we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is un-Christlike, and which we

-220-

should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed. . . ." {9MR 219.2}

I returned to my room questioning what was the best course for me to pursue. Many hours that night were spent in prayer in regard to the law in Galatians. This was a mere mote. Whichever way was in accordance with a "Thus saith the Lord," my soul would say, Amen, and Amen. But the spirit that was controlling our brethren was so unlike the spirit of Jesus, so

-223-

contrary to the spirit that should be exercised toward each other, it filled my soul with anguish. . . . {9MR 222.4}--Manuscript 24, 1888, pp. 16-21, 24, 25. ("Looking Back at Minneapolis," cir. November or December, 1888.)

"Now brethren, I have nothing to say, no burden in regard to the law in Galatians. This matter looks to me of minor consequence in comparison with the spirit you have brought into your faith. It is exactly of the same piece that was manifested by the Jews in reference to the work and mission of Jesus Christ. The most convincing testimony that we can bear to others that we have the truth is the spirit which attends the advocacy of that truth. If it sanctifies the heart of the receiver, if it makes him gentle, kind, forbearing, true and Christlike, then he will give some evidence of the fact that he has the genuine truth. But if he acts as did the Jews when their opinions and ideas were crossed, then we certainly cannot receive such testimony, for it does not produce the fruits of righteousness." [See Philippians 1:11]--Letter 83, 1890, pp. 5-6. (To Willie and Mary White, March 13, 1890.)​

I have sent copies of letters written to Brethren Waggoner and Jones to Elder Butler in reference to introducing and keeping in the front and making prominent subjects on which there are differences of opinion. I sent these not that you should make them weapons to use against the brethren mentioned, but that the very same cautions and carefulness be exercised by you to preserve harmony as you would have these brethren exercise. My attitude therefore could not be helped. I had not read Dr. Waggoner's articles in the Signs, and I did not know what his views were. . . . {9MR 217.4}--Letter 21, 1888, pp. 6,7. (To G. I. Butler, October 14, 1888.) {9MR 218.1}​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

So what did EJ Waggoner teach 32 years after his father? we shall see.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}(To G. I. Butler and Uriah Smith, April 5, 1887.) {9MR 216.3}

Now why would the very method established by Christ cause disunion if properly taught????That is crazy!!!!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth, will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let it fall, the sooner the better. The spirit that would close the door to investigation of points of truth in a Christlike manner is not the Spirit from above. . . .

-217- {9MR 216.4}

Right on. Practice what the "prophet" preached.

 

[freeindeed2]

If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth, will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let it fall, the sooner the better. The spirit that would close the door to investigation of points of truth in a Christlike manner is not the Spirit from above. . . .

-217- {9MR 216.4}

Right on. Practice what the "prophet" preached.

 

[OntheDL]

I read the following:

The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant. {3BIO 387.1}

This was not a new subject of interest to Seventh-day Adventists. J. H. Waggoner, in his book The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, published at the Review office in 1854, took the position that the "added law" of verse 19 and the "schoolmaster" of verse 24 was the moral and not the ceremonial law. He took the controversial stance that "not a single declaration" in Galatians "referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law" (page 24). {3BIO 387.2}

According to Uriah Smith, "Sister White . . . had a vision in which this law question was shown her, and she immediately wrote J. H. Waggoner that his position on the law was wrong," and the book was taken off the market (Uriah Smith to W. A. McCutchen, Aug. 6, 1901). This settled the matter for a number of years. Then the question was raised as to whether the counsel given to Waggoner referred to the doctrinal positions in the book or to the matter of publishing conflicting views. {3BIO 387.3}

It's important to note the law in Galatians 3 is the law of Moses that was added 430years after. It contained both moral and ceremonial laws.

From the above quotes, I do not see a direct/obvious contradiction.

I'll look into her personal quotes on this later.

 

[OntheDL]

let me simplify this for you.

In order to teach the sabbath the agreed in 1856 that the Law in Galataions was the Cermonial Law(petaining to the temple services) instead of the 10 commandments also know aslo as the moral law.

The reason it is important which law you are talking about is that the function of the Moral law is to convict you of sin. and bring you to christ. It is like a spiritual X-RAY. it tells you you are sick, which then leads you to search out healing, that healig is christ. the 10 commandments are a tool It is the means of converting people. "The law of the lord is perfect ,CONVERTING the soul. To convert a person is to bring them back to God.

They, the pioneers choose, at the urging of EGW's, vision from God, or so Uriah Smith claims, to interpet the passagage in Galatains as the Cermoinal Law,pretaing to the temple.

How does the cermonial Law bring us back to God is anyones guess. This leaves us on own to come up with the power to keep Gods law.

Assuming your argument is true which I have not seen a direct EGW quote from you on the law in Gal 3, your subsequent arguments are wrong.

The ceremonial law pertains the temple did point to Jesus's character and ministry. See the following:

Psalm 29:9 The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.

Ezekiel 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.

 

[OntheDL]

Since you are not capable of reading post #1,2,22 let me make it abundantlyl clear. Lets reviw the evidence already posted.

Evidence #1

1. "Uriah smith had a hard time accepting the message not so much because of the message, but because he thought he remembered EGW opposing it in a vision in 1856, when Waggoners father brought it up. "W.W. Prescott -The forgotten giant of 2nd generation Adventism" Gilbert Valintine, page 82-83

a. Uriah Smith says he rememberd EGW opposing this view . Waggoner1 in 1856.
b. it was not just an opinion it was a VISION. so it was God opposing the view in 1856


2. I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.... Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.

a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.
b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
c. J.H. was quitet after that.
d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.

Have you even bother to look up the original quote???

"I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.--Letter 28, 1887, p. 1. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 325.1}
I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that was given to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . ." {9MR 325.2}



I typed your highlighted 'quote' in the whiteestate search. I came up with 5 results.

Every single one of them is EGW saying she was trying to find her original article contained the quote "I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.... "

They are not her admission of writing this quote like you are trying to make her out to be.

 

[OntheDL]

Since you are not capable of reading post #1,2,22 let me make it abundantlyl clear. Lets reviw the evidence already posted.

Evidence #1

1. "Uriah smith had a hard time accepting the message not so much because of the message, but because he thought he remembered EGW opposing it in a vision in 1856, when Waggoners father brought it up. "W.W. Prescott -The forgotten giant of 2nd generation Adventism" Gilbert Valintine, page 82-83

a. Uriah Smith says he rememberd EGW opposing this view . Waggoner1 in 1856.
b. it was not just an opinion it was a VISION. so it was God opposing the view in 1856


2. I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.... Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.

a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.
b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
c. J.H. was quitet after that.
d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.

Due to my inability to read your post, I went back and read them again. And yet came up with a same conclusion but different from yours.

So before you go on to what JH Waggoner taught, lets exam your 'conclusion' from a to e.

a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.

---> no. She did not. She merely restated the question.

b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
---> no. She did not.

c. J.H. was quitet after that.
---> same as above.

d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
---> That's your conclusion. Ellen White did not say it.

e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.
---> Again, please read the whole page. She was restating the charge brought before her and was asking for such article.

And lastly, I read the article from the Evangelical site which you have been cut-and-pasting from, they DID NOT even say Ellen White admitted writing such letter.

This AGAIN shows the lack of research on your posts. Please get the facts straight before you level a charge against someone.

For your convenience, I will quote all five 'instances' where the statement concerning JH Waggoner.

1
"I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown [that] his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {15MR 18.2}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet." {15MR 18.3}

2.
I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown [that] his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {1888 21.1}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet. {1888 21.2}



3.
The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}
I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}

Cautions Regarding Differences of Opinion on the Law in Galatians.-- I have sent copies of letters written to Brethren Waggoner and Jones to Elder Butler in reference to introducing and keeping in the front and making prominent subjects on which there are differences of opinion. I sent these not that you should make them weapons to use against the brethren mentioned, but that the very same cautions and carefulness be exercised by you to preserve harmony as you would have these brethren exercise.


I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}

4.
I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.--Letter 28, 1887, p. 1. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 325.1}
I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that was given to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 325.2}

5.
Basle, Switzerland, February 18, 1887
Dear Brethren Waggoner and A. T. Jones:

I have some things to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the added law. I read this to Elder Waggoner; I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law wasincorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {PC 131.1}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have an understanding of anyone's ideas and views; and that not a mould of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. {PC 131.2}

I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg. I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law; but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet. {PC 131.3}

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Due to my inability to read your post, I went back and read them again. And yet came up with a same conclusion but different from yours.

So before you go on to what JH Waggoner taught, lets exam your 'conclusion' from a to e.

a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.

---> no. She did not. She merely restated the question.

b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
---> no. She did not.

c. J.H. was quitet after that.
---> same as above.

d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
---> That's your conclusion. Ellen White did not say it.

e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.
---> Again, please read the whole page. She was restating the charge brought before her and was asking for such article.

And lastly, I read the article from the Evangelical site which you have been cut-and-pasting from, they DID NOT even say Ellen White admitted writing such letter.

This AGAIN shows the lack of research on your posts. Please get the facts straight before you level a charge against someone.

For your convenience, I will quote all five 'instances' where the statement concerning JH Waggoner.

1
"I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown [that] his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {15MR 18.2}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet." {15MR 18.3}

2.
I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown [that] his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {1888 21.1}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet. {1888 21.2}



3.
The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}
I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}

Cautions Regarding Differences of Opinion on the Law in Galatians.-- I have sent copies of letters written to Brethren Waggoner and Jones to Elder Butler in reference to introducing and keeping in the front and making prominent subjects on which there are differences of opinion. I sent these not that you should make them weapons to use against the brethren mentioned, but that the very same cautions and carefulness be exercised by you to preserve harmony as you would have these brethren exercise.


I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}

4.
I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.--Letter 28, 1887, p. 1. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 325.1}
I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that was given to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 325.2}

5.
Basle, Switzerland, February 18, 1887
Dear Brethren Waggoner and A. T. Jones:

I have some things to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the added law. I read this to Elder Waggoner; I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law wasincorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. {PC 131.1}
I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have an understanding of anyone's ideas and views; and that not a mould of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write. {PC 131.2}

I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg. I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law; but the special article that I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me yet. {PC 131.3}

Are you saying there was no letter???

 

[OntheDL]

Are you saying there was no letter???

Did you read? She was saying she tried to find it, and asked those who said those thing to send her the letter, but all to no avail.

Do you have the original letter?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Did you read? She was saying she tried to find it, and asked those who said those thing to send her the letter, but all to no avail.

Do you have the original letter?

DL the point of the post is 3 fold.
1. there was a letter - that is not in dispute. uriah smith was correct in his rememberenc of this fact.
2. it was to show that she knew that the contant told him he was wrong. - smith was right about that
3. We may not have the exact contant of the letter, but we don't actually need the letter to establish the effect of the conference and the effect of the letter. What is not indispute is the fact that she said something to waggoner and he was quiet.
In fact Mcmahon states that Waggoner II when asked what Waggoner I taught said he taught something very different. Now we know, Waggoner I and Waggoner II taught the exact same thing.

Now why would Waggoner II say that Waggoner I taught something differernt when in 1856 they taught the same thing, unless he had changed his mind? could it be he was told by the prophet that he was wrong?? this is very suspisious and goes in the favor of Butler again.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

DL there is no dispute that the letter actually existed. I was talking to the SDA History professor, of the local SDA College, today at chruch and he said the chruch is well aware of this problem it is no secret. In fact He recommended that I reread AT. Jones by geroge knight. to explain the problem .

 

[OntheDL]

DL there is no dispute that the letter actually existed. I was talking to the SDA History professor, of the local SDA College, today at chruch and he said the chruch is well aware of this problem it is no secret. In fact He recommended that I reread AT. Jones by geroge knight. to explain the problem .

Then you must produce that letter. By merely saying it exists or quoting the hear-says does not help your case.