Well, since that desert is a place where serpents abound, it can be deduced that God did not send the serpents, but merely refrained from chasing them away.

Deuteronomy 8:15 who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions and drought, where there was no water, who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint,

The Scriptures say that God "sent" the fiery serpents. What principle would allow for understanding this as God's removing His protective hand?

The principle that sometimes God is presented as doing that which He permits. Since the desert was plagued with serpents, why would God have needed to “send” them?

God would send them from where they were to where they needed to go.

This is just one example of the principle. What I'm getting at, is that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits. We know what God is like, because He has revealed Himself perfectly in the person of His Son. We don't need the Spirit of Prophesy to tell us that when the Scriptures say God sent fiery serpents, that this means He permitted them access to the Israelites; nor that God sent a strong delusion means God allowed it to happen; nor that God destroyed Jerusalem means He allowed that to happen; nor that judgments at the end time happens when God gives Satan control of those who have rejected Him; nor that God's blinding the eyes and deafening the ears of those who reject Him means He gives them over to their own choices; nor any other similar example.

It's fantastic that God has given us light that we may understand His word more clearly, but they way to do this is by understanding the underlying principles; not using EGW's writings as a inspired commentary where we can only understand what's really happening if she wrote about the event.

This is the difficult I have with the principle that we assume God is doing whatever "bad" thing attributed to Him, unless there is some other Scripture or inspired comment saying He didn't do it. Given what we know about God revealed in His son, why should we assume God would do any "bad" thing?

Christ never destroyed/harmed/killed/inflicted with pestilence anyone who rejected Him; He just went away. God is no different than Christ.

Given that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits, and that He describes His wrath as being His withdrawal, why should not we not choose to accept these as general principles, as opposed to isolated incidents which must be considered on a one by one basis?

We are told that force is not a principle of God's government, and that God destroys no one. These are general principles we can also apply, in addition to the principles that God has revealed Himself perfectly in His Son, and that He presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

bump