This has been shown to you before in other threads, but it bears repeating.
SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs
18. The Gift of Prophecy
The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Numbers 12:6; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 2:14-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:8-9.)
This answers your question.
And just as before, I already posted the Fundamental belief statement in the thread, in this case in post 4.
And no, it does not answer all the questions. In fact, it raises another question when compared to these other statements.
My personal view as an SDA:
If Ellen G. White was given the Spirit of Prophecy, that is, divine inspiration from God Himself, then Ellen White's writings will always be in sync with scripture.
If the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested (by every SDA, as per #18 of our Fundamental Beliefs).
Even if there was some discrepancy found in Ellen G. White's writings, scripture would make it apparent and over-rule said discrepancy.
Let's follow that through....
- The fundamental indicates that the Bible is what tests everything.
- So then as you read Ellen White you test everything she says by the Bible
- Then you find some possible "discrepancy" (hypothetically).
- Now how do you test Ellen White's writings by the Bible if Ellen White's writings
correct inaccurate interpretations of the Scriptures, are
an inspired guide to Bible passages?
Or to put it a different way, how is everything tested by the Bible if Ellen White corrects inaccurate INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible?
Saying the Scriptures are the test doesn't make sense if you say the thing you are testing--Ellen White's Writings--correct inaccurate interpretations of the testing tool!
Now if you simply said that the Scriptures are the test, and we consistently find that Ellen White meets that, and consider her inspired, OK. That makes sense. And then people can see if they feel she meets the test as well. And if she does, they may benefit from her writings, but always testing by Scripture. That would be testing all things by Scripture.
But you can't then say she corrects readings of the testing tool, because then her correct readings are the true test.
For instance, here is a record of a discussion of Adventist scholars and administrators discussing whether the year-day principle is a biblical teaching at Glacierview.
The conversation itself is interesting, and I think there are times the year day principle is used, but I agree that Dan. 9 is using the sabbatical years system. But in this case I am noting how they reference Ellen White when discussing whether something is a biblical teaching.
Full text of "Raymond F. Cottrell, The Sanctuary Review Committee and its New Consensus (1980)"
JEAN ZURCHER (secretary, Euro-Africa Division): We cannot prove it from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. We need another principle. I believe the year-day principle is based on the sabbatical year and the jubilee system. (He presented evidence for the jubilee system as a basis for the principle.)
JOHN W. FOWLER (president, Ohio Conference): The jubilee system in addition to Numbers and Ezekiel.
HARDER: We will have to recognize that the day-year principle does not apply in Daniel 9.
COX: I do not use Numbers and Ezekiel at all. But it is a biblical principle; I just say, "A day symbolizes a year," and let it go at that. Let us not use specious arguments when it is not necessary to do so.
HARDER: Ezekiel does not satisfy me at all. We need to provide something that we can rely on.
BRADFORD: We are saying that the day-year principle is valid .
MILLS: Are we to tell our people that we have been wrong? Doesn't Sister White use this argument?
FRANZ: It is a biblical datum.
ALALADE: There is no problem in recognizing that we have been wrong. We believe in progressive revelation, and that implies progressive understanding, does it not?
WOOD: Ellen White speaks of an "unfolding." The word "progressive" has evolutionary connotations. This church has a lot to lose by being iconoclastic with the pioneers. We should build on, and enrich, their insights.
STRAND: I am with Jim Cox on shabu'ah ("weeks" or "sevens" of years).
COX: Why should we insist on using arguments that are weak?
STRAND: Our consensus, then, is "yes,"but that we need to base it on better reasons
than we have in the past.
DUFFY: We should not use negative expressions in our report.
STRAND: The crucial issue is how Ellen White used these texts (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6) . God always communicates with His people in terms of their own time.
If the Bible is the test of all doctrine, then why does Strand say the crucial issue is how Ellen White used certain Bible texts? Why does Mills note that Ellen White used the argument, in a discussion about whether it is a biblical teaching?