Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about complete, 100%, absolute, perfectly exact sameness - neuron for neuron, dendrite for dendrite, molecule for molecule. This is not how identical twins are. Even their retinas are not identical, much less their neurons, especially if they did not have identical experiences (which affect the size of the individual boutons).

Anyway, that's just a technical aside. As long as you declare that identical brains can have different minds, that's good enough for me.


So you are saying that there are factors at play that are beyond the known physical processes. Of course, strict application of the scientific process rules out this belief because it is beyond our ability to observe. In short, this belief is a spiritual matter, unexplainable by human science.

So it should not be much of a stretch for you to consider that we can receive, AT BIRTH, from our parents traits that are not currently explained by genetic theory. If we can have a mind with factors independent of the brain, certainly we can have an inheritance with factors independent of chromosomes.


So you are saying that Adam was created with no mind, since he had no experiences at that point. Correct?

When your wife says something wrong in front of the children, do you rebuke her on the spot? If you do, do you do it in the same way, or perhaps with the same vehemence as if you were doing it in private?

When you're in church listening to a sermon and something wrong is said, do you address it in the same way as if you were having a one-on-one study?

Time and place must be taken into account.


How is it that the Baker letter is contrary to the "standard" teachings?

Were they (Haskell, Jones, etc.) teaching that Jesus had, for even one moment, evil propensities? Is this how they fought the HF?

Did EGW teach that Jesus had evil propensities?

Do modern postlapsarians teach that Jesus had evil propensities?

Regarding #108847, I don't know what you're getting at. I've just been saying that postlapsarianism in EGW's time dealt with two main issues:

1.Christ took our fallen nature, including our inherited inclinations.

2.Christ, by uniting "flesh of sin" with divinity, prepared the way for humanity to be victorious as He was.

Regarding Adam's creation, I don't know what that has to do with heredity. Adam was clearly a special case that would have be discussed separately.



If I were a prophet, and what she said that was wrong was urgent, I would correct her on the spot, and this action is consistent with how Ellen White actually acted in similar circumstances. Paul is another example which comes readily to mind, as he rebuked Peter.



Exactly time and place must be taken into account. That's what I've been saying. When one takes these things into account, there's no way Ellen White's feeling on this matter could have been contrary to Haskel's. She pointed out the important of engaging in sound arguments with the opposition. Should would have had to have been a complicate hypocrite to have let this unsound argument fly, repeated over and over again, for months at a time, in our most read works and in the General Conference session.



It's not, and that's my point. It's been interpreted in a way that's not credible for this very reason.



No to all of these.

It's been interpreted in a way that would contradict what Haskel said. Haskel read from The Desire of Ages, and declared that "this is fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations." The Baker letter has been misinterpreted to counter this idea.

The example doesn't quite apply because here's what's actually happening:

X = EGW & friends fought HF by asserting that Jesus had a fallen physical nature.

Y = 100 years later, people say that EGW asserted to Baker that Jesus had no evil propensities.

Z = 100 years later, people say that EGW's friends asserted that Jesus had evil propensities, and since we have no evidence that EGW directly corrected them, she must have agreed with it.

Here's my view: The people described in X and Y are correct, while those described in Z are wrong.

X = EGW & friends fought HF by asserting that Jesus took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations.

Y = 100 years later, people say that EGW asserted to Baker that Jesus had no evil propensities, which means Jesus didn't take fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations.

Z = 100 years later, people quote published direct statements from EGW's contemporaries (with whom she was actively working on this specific subject) who publicly read published statements by Ellen White regarding Christ's taking fallen nature, and concluded that Christ took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations, and since we have no evidence that EGW directly or indirectly corrected them, and since she directly endorsed those with similar views, and taught similar views herself, she must have agreed with it.

That was to show that lack of information regarding how genetics and other physical phenomena work cannot be construed as any kind of evidence regarding how spiritual traits are or are not transferred from parent to child.


And I say that one with a virgin mother and a divine Father is also a special case.

Ellen White disagreed doctrinally with many public figures, about many other subjects – the shut door, the personality of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s eternity, etc. However, in most cases she never corrected their views directly. She limited herself to writing about the subject in her books or articles.

One interesting case was Butler’s articles in the Review about degrees of inspiration (written in 1884). She never corrected Butler, but mentioned, 5 years later, to R. A. Underwood, that the view expressed in those articles was wrong (See 1SM 23.1).

Now, besides the Baker letter, Ellen White wrote on many other occasions about the subject in question:

He [Christ] was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family.--Letter 97, 1898. {7ABC 462.2}

If she is not referring to tendencies, what does she mean here? That Christ did not sin before birth?

In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. -- The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.

What does she mean with “not taking the sinfulness of man”? The sinfulness of man in the form of acts is not something one can “take.”

"Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man." {16MR 182.2}

He was capable of yielding to temptations but not because He possessed the same sinful propensities as man.

I think I'm seeing things more clearly. Tell me if you agree with this argument, given the above:

Jesus had all the hereditary inclinations of fallen humanity.
Jesus did not have evil propensities.
Therefore, the hereditary inclinations of fallen humanity do not include evil propensities.

I agree with this argument, if it's saying what I think it's saying, which I would put the following way, just for clarity:

Jesus took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations.
Jesus did not have evil propensities.
Therefore, evil propensities are something different than hereditary inclinations.

That looks like a clear case where the SOP tells us Jesus took a nature that lacked sinfulness, i.e. a sinless nature. The next item to be settled is what did she mean by "nature" in this context.....