Each time you have posted lately, it has been to tell us that you aren't going to discuss anything. Now tell me if that makes sense to you.
Speaking of context, your quote from Ellen White's address from November 1888 could use some more (and you forgot the citation).
I have been shown that Jesus will reveal to us precious old truths in a new light, if we are ready to receive them; but they must be received in the very way in which the Lord shall choose to send them. With humble, softened hearts, with respect and love for one another, search your Bibles. The light may not come in accordance with plans that men may devise. But all who reverence the Word of God just as it reads, all who do His will to the best of their ability, will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, notwithstanding the efforts of the enemy to confuse minds and to make uncertain the Word of God. God calls every man's attention to His living Oracles. Let no one quench the Spirit of God by wresting the Scriptures, by putting human interpretations upon His inspired Word; and let no one pursue an unfair course, keep in the dark, not willing to open their ears to hear and yet free to comment and quibble and sow their doubts of that which they will not candidly take time to hear. {1888 167.1}
Let men be careful how they handle the Word of inspiration, which has been preserved for ages through the power of God. If men were themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit they would bring heart and soul to the task, searching and digging in the mines of God for precious ore. They would be eager to come into harmony with the writings of inspired men. If they are not controlled by the Spirit of God, they will give evidence of this by caviling over His word and by sitting in judgment upon its teachings just as did the Jews. {1888 167.2}
We should guard against the influence of men who have trained themselves as debaters, for they are in continual danger of handling the Word of God deceitfully. There are men in our churches all through the land who will pervert the meaning of the Scripture to make a sharp point and overcome an opponent. They do not reverence the Sacred Word. They put their own construction upon its utterances. Christ is not formed within, the hope of glory. They are educated critics, but spiritual truths can only be spiritually discerned. These men are ever ready and equipped to oppose at a moment's notice anything that is contrary to their own opinions. They handle the Scriptures in an unwise way, and bring self into everything they do. {1888 167.3}
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). The servant of the Lord must not strive, but must teach the Word of God in the manner that God has ordained. Any other way is not God's way, and will create confusion. {1888 167.4}
Brother Morrison is a debater; he is a man who has not had a daily, living experience in the meekness and lowliness of Christ. He is in danger of making false issues, and of treating them as realities. He will create strife, and the result will be dissensions and bickerings. He has many things to overcome, and if he fails to overcome them, he will make shipwreck of faith, as did Elder Canright. It is dangerous to cherish feelings of self-sufficiency. He must have the meekness of Christ; the sanctifying power of the truth must be brought into the sanctuary of his soul: then he will be a polished instrument in the hands of God to do His work. {1888 167.5}
Now, I don't know who Morrison was, but I do know who Elder Canright was - and he didn't "shipwreck" his faith. What did he do?
He examined his Bible carefully, and found that Adventism's model erected to support a non-event in 1844 has a few problems. Massive problems, actually, much as the problems I have found in my own studies. You cannot accept a doctrine that denies Christ's atonement for us just because you need to prop up a non-event in 1844 for your church to continue. Ellen White encourages us to refer to our Bibles and accept what it says, but that isn't consistent with her own refusal to do so
for fifty years, as she claimed in the previous quote from her that I provided. Ellen White's entire approach to apologetics is based on rejection of anything any critic of her "I saw" doctrines brought to the table.
You didn't respond to the quote I provided earlier, in which Ellen White demanded that her inspiration was either from God or the devil, leaving you with no middle ground to appeal to. I would have concluded she made a lot of stuff up from her own imagination, but she doesn't leave that option open for anyone to conclude.
I don't think you perceive that Ellen White would have rejected the "spirit" in which Jude wrote, who had this to say in his short epistle:
3 ¶ Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jude's emphasis was on God's grace, as are all of the new testament epistles.
The Adventist emphasis is on the law mediated in the hands of Moses in the first covenant Christ took away (Hebrews 10:9). Your own emphasis is consistent with that observation:
Canright was rejected because he criticized the Sactuary Doctrine central to Adventist theology. He appealed instead to the common salvation we have by grace, by virtue of a completed and sufficient atonement that there is no "second and final phase" of (quoting SDA Fundamental Belief #24).
Ellen White's appeal to submit to your Bible by rejecting what it says is convoluted at best.
