Adventists and Conspiracy

This is a great article written on an Adventist website that explains why Adventists (Seventh-Day Adventists) are gullible and obsessed with conspiracy theories. http://spectrummagazine.org/article/news/2012/05/30/seventh-day-adventists-and-conspiracy-theories

A portion reads

So why are Adventists attracted to conspiracy theories? The ones most attractive to Seventh-day Adventists involve religion, especially the subject of Last Day Events. If the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings give some details, they want more. But curiosity can be a very dangerous element. Adventists are especially vulnerable to theories of a New World Order because they want so badly to see any signs that might confirm their belief that Jesus is coming very soon and the dreaded Mark of the Beast is just around the corner. In my view people believe in New World Order because it is what people with their “itching ears” want to hear.

Why Catholics cannot be Scientologists

Scientology is a very deceptive "religion", especially to potential converts.  So as to ease the conversion process, they will inform you that can you keep your current religion and also join the Scientologist "religion."

Recently, I went to a Scientology tour and the guide informed me that there is a Baptist minister who was a Scientologist. This is obviously to make adopting Scientology seem harmless with no risks. I should mention that the minister they mentioned they claimed was somewhere around south Los Angeles (Compton I think), and just like many churches in Los Angeles they may have liberal leanings, just as there is a Baptist church in LA that's part of the Southern Baptist Convention that has recently adopted a stance in support of homosexual marriage. The Scientologist also informed me of Jews that practice Judaism and are Scientologist--which makes it very unlikely they are Orthodox Jews. However, all of this is just deception by Scientology.

Scientology is more associated with far eastern philosophy, if we should call it that, than any form of religion, Scientology books even admits to their Far East origin in "Church" writings. Scientology insists make does have a spirit, but practically ignores the concept of god, though they insist there is a god or something similar. It perhaps can best be described as a self help cult. The IRS fought the Church of Scientology tooth and nail to try to deny it tax exempt status as a religion and church, but eventually gave up. Some speculate because the government could not afford all the lawsuits and it would tie up resources.

There is an alleged report online where the Church of Scientology answers questions from the IRS saying they expect members to only follow Scientology scriptures to the exclusion of others.

Scientology believes in reincarnation, which is contrary to Christianity, in fact higher level Scientologists have to sign a Billion year contract, meaning they agree that when they die and reincarnate into another body will continue their work to advance scientology.

According to L Ron Hubbard's own son, L Ron Hubbard Jr (who renamed himself Ron DeWolf) said his father and Scientology was involved in black magic, the occult and Satanism. Watch the interview here, the black magic discussion starts at around 3:10.

 

 

My video:

Ellen G White: on the Pope, Sabbath, her bad history

Remembering the official SDA writings state Ellen G White and her comments on scripture are inspired by God, I thought to look at what she says about the Pope since Seventh-Day Adventists are known for their pope obsessions--blaming him for everything and anything that's wrong in the world, the worst crime of all being "changing the Sabbath day to Sunday!"

I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for he never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.--The Review and Herald, Experience and Views. July 21, 1851

This is the typical SDA interpretation of Daniel that says pope is the one spoken of:

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.--Daniel 7:25 KJV

She also makes the absurd statement that if God's law changed, then God changes! But the fact is we KNOW God did change the Law since He no longer requires a person to baptize themselves after touching a dead person, or declares a woman unclean after giving birth, or requiring physical circumcision on the 8th day of a male. Also, the problem there is no evidence the Pope ever changed the Sabbath day, all that Adventists can point to is a bunch of writings from magazines in the 19th century some of which are inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent. Sometimes, they will point to a statement by early Christian writings talking about not keeping the Sabbath day, however, in either case, the SDA are never able to produce any actual evidence the Pope ever instructing the Church to cease observing a seventh day Sabbath and do a Sunday Sabbath. In fact, you will not find any reference in Catholic magisterium where Sunday is called the Sabbath day itself. Several early Catholic writings state they went to Mass on both the Sabbath and Sunday--showing Sunday was not considered by them to be the Sabbath day! The best Adventists can come up with is councils where Judaizers are addressed for keeping customs like the Sabbath, or a quote of 19th century bishop saying the Solemnity of the Sabbath was transferred, though not saying the Sabbath itself was! Its interesting the "prophet" Ellen cannot provide any evidence that it was the Pope that adopted the "Sunday Sabbath" as she would see it. Here is another statement I felt was riddled with errors in the same section:

For a number of years Milan was the capital of the kingdom of Italy, and since the fourth century it has surpassed Rome in extent, and in many respects in importance also. Here was the head of the church founded by St. Ambrose, whose diocese maintained its independence of the popes until the middle of the eleventh century. His diocese included not only the flourishing plains of Lombardy, but also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France. Although it is not to be supposed that the light of this people was entirely undimmed by the surrounding darkness of their age, still their faith was essentially Protestant, and in strong opposition to the Roman creed. --Ellen White, The Review and Herald, June 1, 1886, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys

It seems "God" has mislead the "Prophetess Ellen" once again! First, her description of St Ambrose's diocese of Milan included "also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France" is a massive exaggeration. We know this is inaccurate because St Ambrose wrote a letter to the church in Vercellæ (now spelled Vercelli), which is a city and province of Piedmont about how they need to select a new bishop to replace their now deceased bishop Limenius:

Ambrose, a servant of Christ, called to be a Bishop, to the Church of Vercellæ;, and to those who call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Grace be fulfilled unto you in the Holy Spirit from God the Father and His only-begotten Son. I am spent with grief that the Church of God which is among you is still without a bishop--St Ambrose, Letter 63, Letter to the Church of Vercellæ

Now, if Vercelli was part of St Ambrose's diocese why would he address it to "the Church of Vercellae" and then say they were still "without a bishop" if according to Ellen White, he, Ambrose, was their bishop?! St Ambrose did have a relationship to the Vercellae, since it was a suffragan to Milan, but he didn't appoint or elect their bishop, Milan was a metropolitan diocese, or archdiocese, so the smaller dioceses are out rank by the metropolitan and will answer to it. To say that Vercellae is part of the diocese is plainly false, and to say St Ambrose founded it is absurd.

She states St Ambrose founded the Church of Milan, yet St Ambrose was the 11th bishop of Milan, not counting the Arian bishop he displaced named Auxentius (a man whom St Ambrose writes about in nothing but negative language). St Ambrose was elected bishop 374 and served until his death in 397. The Church of Milan is written before St Ambrose became bishop by St Athanasius of Alexandria who visited Milan and died in 373--before St Ambrose was even bishop of Milan!

But while they thought that they were carrying on their designs against many by his means, they knew not that they were making many to be confessors, of whom are those who have lately made so glorious a confession, religious men, and excellent Bishops, Paulinus Bishop of Treveri, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer, Bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy, and Dionysius of Milan, which is the metropolis of Italy. --St Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part IV,  28. Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

St Athanasius plainly states before St Ambrose was bishop of Milan that Dionysius was! Since St Ambrose would not be elected bishop until after St Athanasius death! Notice also the bishop "Eusebius of Vercelli" who was bishop of this Piedmont town. So, the "Prophet" Ellen White is wrong, St Ambrose did not found the Church of Milan at all! We see Dionysius being mentioned as bishop by St Ambrose himself in his letter to the nearby bishopless church of Vercellæ. 

Another city of Piedmont is Turin which also had its own bishop. The successor of St Jerome, Gennadius, in writing "Supplement to De Viris Illustribus" includes a few recent prominent Italian prelates St Jerome did not include, one of them is the bishop of Turin. The work is from the 5th century.

Maximus, bishop of the church at Turin, a man fairly industrious in the study of the Holy Scripture, and good at teaching the people extemporaneously, composed treatises In praise of the apostles and John the Baptist, and a Homily on all the martyrs. Moreover he wrote many acute comments on passages from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. He wrote also two treatises, On the life of Saint Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, and confessor, and On Saint Cyprian, and published a monograph On the grace of baptism. I have read his On avarice, On hospitality, On the eclipse of the moon, On almsgiving, On the saying in Isaiah, Your winedealers mix wine with water, On Our Lord's Passion, A general treatise On fasting by the servants of God, On the quadragesimal fast in particular, and That there should be no jesting on fast day, On Judas, the betrayer, On Our Lord's cross, On His sepulchre, On His resurrection, On the accusation and trial of Our Lord before Pontius Pilate, On the Kalends of January, a homily On the day of Our Lord's Nativity, also homilies On Epiphany, On the Passover, On Pentecost, many also, On having no fear of carnal Foes, On giving thanks after meat, On the repentance of the Ninivites, and other homilies of his, published on various occasions, whose names I do not remember. He died in the reign of Honorius and Theodosius the younger.-

Supplement to De Viris Illustribus Chapter 41, Gennadius 

White also makes the claim that the diocese of Milan "maintained its independence of the popes."  The only time the Milan church was independent in some sense was when it was ruled by a heretical bishop that were Arian like Auxentius, because of this heresy they rejected the bishop of Rome. Before Ambrose was made bishop, bishops from around the world accepted the Council of Sardica in AD 344 which gave the Bishop of Rome authority to judge bishops, settle disputes, or appoint judges, there is no reason why Milan would be any different.  In St Ambrose's funeral homily of his brother Satyrus, he writes about how important Satyrus thought communion with the Church of Rome was (note Satyrus was involved with the administration of the Diocese of Milan):

 But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church? And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith, yet my brother did not think that there could be true faith in schism. For though schismatics kept the faith towards God, yet they kept it not towards the Church of God, certain of whose limbs they suffered as it were to be divided, and her members to be torn. For since Christ suffered for the Church, and the Church is the body of Christ, it does not seem that faith in Christ is shown by those by whom His Passion is made of none effect, and His body divided.--St Ambrose, On the Death of Satyrus: Book I, 47

In St Ambrose's letter to Emperor Gratian he writes:

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all the bonds of sacred communion."—St Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

I have to wonder about White obsession with St Ambrose since he wrote that he was a priest and practiced things she would consider "Roman." She goes on to say the people of Piedmont were essentially Protestants, a claim she cannot prove, and a claim that the Waldensians even deny, who themselves claims to have been a 12th century breakaway group from the Catholic Church.

Let's continue on to another instance where the prophetess White writes of the Pope.

The Bible is presented to us as a sufficient guide; but the pope and his workers remove it from the people as if it were a curse, because it exposes their pretensions and rebukes their idolatry.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys, June 1, 1886

 This state is pretty ironic since the Seventh-Day Adventists have since then accepted White's Bible commentary as divinely inspired making them some sort of scripture (though they would object to it being called that):

Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

Somehow, this is not a contradiction to Adventists.  Continuing on, White writes a typical statement of a Protestant from that error--Catholics tried to hide the Bible and were idol worshippers! Ignoring the fact Mass readings included different parts of the Bible, the 10 commandments were always standard teaching. Also, venerating icons and relics is not idolatry since idolatry is making physical objects divine representations of false gods. The practice of making images and statues was not forbidden either since in Exodus 25 we see God commanding Moses to make golden angel statues, then in Joshua 7:6 we see Moses' successor Joshua bowing to the Ark of the Covenant. Later on the Temple of Solomon itself contained lots of images and even larger angel statues.

Going on Ellen White mentions the Pope in passing in respects to her concept of God's law:

God’s will is expressed in his holy law. This is the only correct standard of righteousness, and if a man’s character stands in harmony with the Lord’s standard, his testimony may be received and relied upon; but if he stands in opposition to the requirements of God, he measures himself and others by his own finite, fallible standard, and may claim as much as does the pope of Rome.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, How do we Stand?, July 24, 1888

He then measures himself by his own finite standard, and may claim for himself as much as does the pope of Rome; but in the light of the detector of sin, his character may be wholly wanting.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Obedient Approved of God, August 28, 1894 

This is a shot White takes against the Pope, and appealing to common Protestant hatred of the Pope she says failing to keep or accept the Law makes you no better than the Pope. She's possibly mocking Vatican I also in referring to "fallible standard."

Going on:

 A former Wesleyan local preacher’s family are all interested, and thoroughly convinced of the truth. Even the children ask why they should “keep the pope’s Sunday when they know it is not the true Sabbath.”--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Australian Camp-Meeting, January 7, 1896

Ellen was smart, what better way to persuade your fellow Protestants something is wrong that associating it with their "boogey man" of the day--the Pope! Never mind the fact there's no evidence the Pope himself started Sunday worship.

Going on, she talks about the remission of sins and the pope:

Remission of sins can be obtained only through the merits of Christ. On no man, priest or pope, but on God alone, rests the power to forgive sins.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899

Ellen G White insists the Catholic concept of Confession is wrong and no one has the power to forgive sins, despite what John 20:22-23 says, in which she reworks it to be about ecclesiastical censuring:

Remitting sins or retaining applies to the church in her organized capacity. God has given directions to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. Censure is to be given. This censure is to be removed when the one in error repents and confesses his sin.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899

 To her forgive sins does not mean forgive sins it means to "remove" a censure, and retain means to "reprove, rebuke, exhort," "censure." However, the Apostles already had this ability since its mentioned in Matthew 18, so they did not need this special event. She disables the text rather than deal with what it plainly states.

Let's look at another time she mentions the pope:

Through the Holy Spirit’s guidance the disciples would remember the lessons Christ had given them; and in their future work, their language would express the divine thought of God. Thus the truth would come down through pure channels, commending itself to the hearts of the receivers. Christ’s followers are to plant their feet, not on the word of pope or prelate, not on the word of the clergy, who mystify everything that is plain, and confuse the minds of the ignorant; they must place their feet upon the sure foundation.--Ellen G White, The Review and Herald, The Parable of the Sower, October 3, 1899 

This statement is itself somewhat ironic since Ellen's commentaries of the scriptures are considered inspired by the Seventh-Day Adventists and therefore to be studied.  So its just a switch and bait--don't follow them--what do they know!? Follow me instead!

Another step in papal assumption was taken, when, in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII. proclaimed the perfection of the Romish Church. Among the propositions which he put forth, was one declaring that the church had never erred, nor would it ever err, according to the Scriptures. But the Scripture proofs did not accompany the assertion. The proud pontiff next claimed the power to depose emperors, and declared that no sentence which he pronounced could be reversed by any one, but that it was his prerogative to reverse the decisions of all others.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 57

First of all, though I do not know for sure if Gregory VII made statement of the "perfection of the Romish Church" and that it could "never erred, nor would, according to Scripture"  and that no sentence "could be reversed by anyone" but I can say dozens of popes,  and bishops Church Fathers long before him made that statement. The indefectibility of the church as a whole if found in the Church Fathers long before Pope Gregory VII. Also, Pope Gregory in his letters DO use scriptural citations for his claims by he ought to be obeyed and respected as Pope, for example

Since thou dost confess thyself a son of the church it would have beseemed thy royal dignity to look more respectfully upon the master of the church,-that is, St. Peter, the chief of the apostles. [Matthew 10:2] To whom, if thou art of the-Lord's sheep, thou west given over by the Lord's voice and authority to be fed; Christ Himself saying: " Peter, feed my sheep." [John 21:17] And again: " To thee are given over the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." [Matthew 16:18] --Pope Gregory VII, Letter of Gregory VII. to Henry IV., December 1075

It seems Ellen White had in mind the "Dictatus Papae" which is uncertain if it was even written by Pope Gregory VII. In any case, the Dictatus had 27 points, ironically at one time the Seventh-Day Adventist church had "27 Fundamentals"--key doctrines they believed in from 1980-2005 when they added another making it 28 fundamentals.  Also, there is no indication the Dictatus Papae was a public document that was sent to people. Regardless, as I mention above claims of infallibility were not new, nor where Scripture passages for it unknown, just the Dictatus Papae does not cite them.

White in the some work goes on to says:

The advancing centuries witnessed a constant increase of error in the doctrines put forth from Rome. Even before the establishment of the papacy, the teachings of heathen philosophers had received attention and exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the belief in man’s natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the virgin Mary. From this sprung also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal faith.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 58

 She says the heathen philosophers got much attention even before she thinks the papacy was established. Clearly, she disproves of listening to "pagan" and "heathen" philosophers. Who can be blame for this? St Paul actually!

“One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, "Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons."”—Titus 1:12 *He quotes the Cretan philosopher-poet, Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6^th Century BC

For 'In him we live and move and have our being,'—Acts 17:28a *Many attribute the first half to the philosopher-poet Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6^th Century BC  

as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'—Acts 17:28b *This is a quote of the poet Aratus of Soli, a fellow Cilician of St Paul’s, from the 3^rd Century before Christ.

 So we see quoting, read, and using "pagan" philosophers is not inherently wrong, otherwise St Paul corrupted the Bible.

As far as her other claims about the doctrines of immortality of the soul and consciousness after death--those too are taught in the Bible and were believed by the Jews of the time.

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.--Matthew 10:28

Notice Christ says "destroy" rather than use "kill" when referring to damnation, showing even the damned are not wiped out of existence.

The claim about consciousness after death is refuted by the story of the Witch of Endor. Saul and Samuel where the Biblical text explicitly states the dead Samuel appears.

“An old man is coming up,” she said. “He’s wrapped in a robe.” Then Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed low out of respect, nose to the ground.

 “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Samuel asked Saul.

"I’m in deep trouble!” Saul replied. “The Philistines are at war with me, and God has turned away from me and no longer answers me by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”--1 Samuel 28:14-15

Also stories like Judas Maccabee meeting the Prophet Jeremiah and Jesus talking to Moses shows that soul sleep is not the case. Also Revelation 6:9

When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”--Revelation 6:9-10

As far as Mary "worship", its interesting she praises St Ambrose in her writings yet St Ambrose said:

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world, a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin.--St Ambrose, Epistle LXIII: 33

 And eternal hell is taught plainly in the Bible in Daniel 12, the aforementioned reference in Matthew 10:28 and other places like Revelation.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. --Daniel 12:2

It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:--Mark 9:44 

 There is no indication that causes us to believe anyone will be wiped out of existence

 

Evidence the SDA teaches Jesus is Michael

Some who are Seventh Day Adventist, sympathetic, or just uneducated about them believe they do not officially teach that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. [As I mentioned several times before Jesus=Michael was a common Protestant doctrine among Calvinists and some Baptists until the 19th century] In a sense, this is true since their official website will you see very little about the Archangel being Jesus. I did find this:

Even before time on Earth began, the universe was engaged in a terrible conflict. John, the last living disciple of Jesus, described this conflict from what he saw in a vision while a prisoner on the island of Patmos. "There was war in heaven," he said. "Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back" (Revelation 12:7).--A Lesson from History, Rodney Woods  [emphasis mine]

This is only a reference in passing. For more definitive proof the SDA states White is a prophet and her interpretation of the Bible is to be used since it was inspired by God. We see their official statement on Methods of Bible Study under Methods of Bible study 4.l says:

l.          Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

The preamble of this statement says:

This statement is addressed to all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the purpose of providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others. --Methods of Bible Study, 1. Preamble

Also, at the bottom of the statement on the webpage says:

This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986

Their official Church Manual under their 28 Fundamentals also states about Ellen White:

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, 18. The Gift of Prophecy, page 162. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

The Adventists state this statement was lead by the Holy Spirit, but admit the Spirit might later cause them to better express their beliefs:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, page 156. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

So, its plainly clear that Seventh-Day Adventists must believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen G White's writings. (Interestingly. despite the SDA often saying the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, here they seem to make a church structure like the Catholic with Ellen White being the equivalent to the Pope, and the General Conference being equal to Ecumenical Councils,) Here is what the "prophetess" White says about Michael the Archangel [all writings are on an SDA website], remember according to the SDA her writings are "inspired" by God according to them:

The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Daniel 10:21. --The Desire of Ages, page 99 (1898) Ellen G White

Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.--Patriarchs and Prophets, Page 761. (1890) Ellen G White

Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”--Early Writings, Page 164, Ellen G White [statement also found in The Story of Redemption, Page 206]

Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses, came down from heaven,--The Truth About Angels, Page 104, Ellen G White

 We see that since the Seventh-Day Adventists regard Ellen G White as a prophet with her writings inspired and "authoritative truth," and those writings teach Jesus is Michael, that logically this would make official Adventists doctrine to be Jesus is Michael.

Does Michael's Name mean He's God or Jesus?

The doctrine that Jesus is the Archangel is found among many Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, and was previously found among Baptists and Calvinists as I demonstrate in an older article. Part of the reasoning for this is the name itself. Here is an example of a commentary:

By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? --John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Commentary on Jude 1:9 (Reformed Baptist, 1697-1771)

Generally, the name Michael has traditionally been understood as being a question "Who is like God?" and not a statement "who is like God." Ordinarily, the Hebrew word asher would be expected, though mi CAN be used (and rarely is).  Furthermore, why would Michael be Jesus if the name means "LIKE God", instead of "is God"? John Gill's reasoning sounds absurd by making "like" the same as "equal to," which he being a Trinitarian would mean in substance. The ka/cha in Michael is used through the Hebrew bible for similes--that is to compare something to something else, it would not be a comparison if the things being compared are the same! Daniel does call Christ one "like the son of man," however, it makes sense then since He was not yet man, so it would be most accurate to say He looked "LIKE a son of man", rather than "is a man." John Gill was full aware of the tradition among the Jews and Christians that Michael was a created angel (one among the 7 archangels), yet to fit his Reformed Baptist/Calvinistic theology it was necessary for him to abandon this and force a Michael=Jesus doctrine.

Regardless, even if the point was granted that "like" is the same as "is" or "equal to" and that the name is a statement and not a question, using the name as proof the angel is God would be presumptuous. We have names similar to Michael, in fact a book in the Hebrew bible is written by Micah, who's book bears his name--his name is an abbreviation which means "Who is like Yah?" (Abbreviated forms of names are often used in the Bible, even for prophets like Y'hoshua->Yeshua, Yeremyahu->Yeremiah) No one would assume the prophet Micah is God simply because of his name, and his name shows a name can be a question. [Also, there is another similar name Mishael.]Here are the 4 times the long form of Micah's name--Michaiah appears in the Hebrew Bible:

And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah [ מִיכָיָה] , and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying--2 Kings 22:12 KJV  

וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן וְאֶת-עַכְבּוֹר בֶּן-מִיכָיָה וְאֵת שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר, וְאֵת עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ--לֵאמֹר--II Kings 22:12 MT

And [certain] of the priests'sons with trumpets; [namely], Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah  [מִיכָיָה] , the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph:--Nehemiah 12:35 KJV 

 וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים, בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת--זְכַרְיָה בֶן-יוֹנָתָן בֶּן-שְׁמַעְיָה, בֶּן-מַתַּנְיָה בֶּן-מִיכָיָה, בֶּן-זַכּוּר, בֶּן-אָסָף--Nehemiah 12:35 MT

And the priests; Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Michaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, [and] Hananiah, with trumpets;--Nehemiah 12:41 KJV 

 וְהַכֹּהֲנִים אֶלְיָקִים מַעֲשֵׂיָה מִנְיָמִין מִיכָיָה אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי, זְכַרְיָה חֲנַנְיָה--בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת--Nehemia 12:41 MT

Micah [מִיכָיָה]the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed [like] a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.--Jeremiah 26:18  

מיכיה (מִיכָה), הַמּוֹרַשְׁתִּי, הָיָה נִבָּא, בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-כָּל-עַם יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיִּים תִּהְיֶה, וְהַר הַבַּיִת, לְבָמוֹת יָעַר--Jeremiah 26:18 MT

Also, Micah has another longer form--Michaiahu .
Here are the verses Michael's מִיכָאֵל name appears (13 times in 13 verses in the Masoretic Text) I will give the MT :

Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל] .- Numbers 13:13 KJV

לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל—Numbers 13:13 MT

And their brethren of the house of their fathers [were], Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.These [are] the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz;---- 1 Chronicles 5:13-14 KJV 

The son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,-- 1 Chronicles 6:40 (25 in some) KJV

בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל בֶּן-בַּעֲשֵׂיָה, בֶּן-מַלְכִּיָּה--I Chronicles 6:40 (25) MT

And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.-- 1 Chronicles 7:3 KJV

And Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah--1 Chronicles 8:16 KJV

As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that [were] of Manasseh.-- 1 Chronicles 12:20 KJV

Of Judah, Elihu, [one] of the brethren of Did: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל]:-- 1 Chronicles 27:18 KJV

And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.-- 2 Chronicles 21:2 KJV

 

And of the sons of Shephatiah; Zebadiah the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and with him fourscore males.-- Ezra 8:8 KJV 

 וּמִבְּנֵי שְׁפַטְיָה, זְבַדְיָה בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל; וְעִמּוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים הַזְּכָרִים.--Ezra 8:8 MT

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael [מִיכָאֵל], one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.—Daniel 10:13 KJV

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [מִיכָאֵל] your prince.—Daniel 10:21 KJV

And at that time shall Michael [מִיכָאֵל] stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.-- Daniel 12:1 KJV

וּבָעֵת הַהִיא יַעֲמֹד מִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל, הָעֹמֵד עַל-בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, וְהָיְתָה עֵת צָרָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נִהְיְתָה מִהְיוֹת גּוֹי עַד הָעֵת הַהִיא; וּבָעֵת הַהִיא יִמָּלֵט עַמְּךָ, כָּל-הַנִּמְצָא כָּתוּב בַּסֵּפֶר.--Daniel 12:1 MT 

Notice the name Michael is found in the Torah in Number 13:13 with the same spelling but for a human being, never is an angel called Michael in the Torah, would anyone ever suspect this man Michael was "equal to" or "like unto God" simply because of his name? NO! Also, notice Numbers was written about 1000 years before the book of Daniel, so Jews would have been familiar with the human Michael first, and not have any notion of a divine Michael who is equal to God.  Also, since the human Michael is named first what would his name be interpreted as a question or statement, ie "Who is like God?" or "Who is like God," the former would be blasphemous.  Also, there is the name in the Torah מִישָׁאֵל which means "Who (is) what God (is)?" (eg Leviticus 10:4) שָׁ being an abbreviated asher.  

Furthermore, the Bible states several times "who is like God":

“There is none like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens to your help, through the skies in his majesty..--Deuteronomy 33:26 ESV (the KJV is less coherent but makes the same point)

 אֵין כָּאֵל, יְשֻׁרוּן:  רֹכֵב שָׁמַיִם בְּעֶזְרֶךָ, וּבְגַאֲוָתוֹ שְׁחָקִים--Deuteronomy 33:26 MT

And he said, To morrow. And he said, [Be it] according to thy word: that thou mayest know that [there is] none like unto the LORD our God.--Exodus 8:10 KJV (6 in some versions)

 וַיֹּאמֶר, לְמָחָר; וַיֹּאמֶר, כִּדְבָרְךָ--לְמַעַן תֵּדַע, כִּי-אֵין כַּיה*ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--Exodus 8:10 (6) MT

Who [is] like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high--Psalm 113:5 (notice this is a rhetorical question! not a statement)

 מִי, כַּיה*ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--    הַמַּגְבִּיהִי לָשָׁבֶת--Psalm 113:5

There are more verses on this matter.

The Ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 condemned the idea Christ is of "similar" or "like substance" to the Father, which would be consistent with the Scriptures statements of no one being "like God."

Also, unrelated to the name of Michael, the angel is called "one of the chief princes" in Daniel:

lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me--Daniel 10:13

Why would Jesus, or Michael be one of the chief princes--which shows there are OTHERS at the same level as Michael--certainly not the one who has preeminence over creation of Colossians 1!

Summary:

1) Michael is a question, not a statement. It means "Who is like God?"

2) Michaiah is a Hebrew name that also appears in the Bible that means "Who is like Yah?" and is a name for humans like the Prophet Micah, yet no one believe his name indicates he is God. This also shows a name can be a question--like Michael.

3) Michael cannot be God since the name means 'who is LIKE God," why would God be called "like Himself." Several verses show no one is like God.

4) Michael was a name applied to humans in the Torah and else where, long before Daniel was written, yet no one suspects Number 13:13's Michael is like God!

SECOND UPDATE: A Seventh Day Adventist insisted the translation of Daniel 10:13 is a mistranslation and should properly read, "first of the chief princes" and not "one of the chief princes." This is not true:

 וְשַׂר מַלְכוּת פָּרַס, עֹמֵד לְנֶגְדִּי עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד יוֹם, וְהִנֵּה מִיכָאֵל אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים, בָּא לְעָזְרֵנִי; וַאֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי שָׁם, אֵצֶל מַלְכֵי פָרָס--Daniel 10:13

 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes[אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים], came to help me; and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia.--Daniel 10:13

Gensenius explains the Hebrew ordinal numbers.  He states:

The ordinal first is expressed by רִאשׁוֹן (cf. § 27 w), from רֹאשׁ head, beginning, with the termination וֹן (§ 86 f). On the use of אֶחָד as an ordinal in numbering the days of the month, cf. § 134 p; in such cases as Gn 1⁵, 2¹¹, the meaning of first is derived solely from the context. --Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar §98. Numerals. (b) Ordinal Numbers.

So, reshit is the word for first. He explains ahad cab be used to mean 'first' but when you are numbers days of a month. The usage the Adventist is trying to appeal to does not apply here.  

אַחַד appears 24 times in the Masoretic text, more if you ignore the vowels, but this changes the word somewhat. When going with אַחַד we see the following with the translation of the phrase and the word following it in red:

AV Gn 21:15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

AV Gn 26:10 And Abimelech said, What [is] this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.

AV Gn 32:22 And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

AV Gn 48:22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. 

AV Lv 13:2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh [like] the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:

AV Num 16:15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD, Respect not thou their offering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.

AV Dt 1:2 ([There are] eleven days'[journey] from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea.)

AV Dt 25:5 . If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

AV Jdg 17:5 And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.

AV 1Sa 9:3 . And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.

AV 1Sa 26:15 And David said to Abner, [Art] not thou a [valiant] man? and who [is] like to thee in Israel? wherefore then hast thou not kept thy lord the king? for there came one of the people in to destroy the king thy lord.

AV 2Sa 6:20 . Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

AV 2Sa 7:7 In all [the places] wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?

AV 2Sa 17:22 . Then David arose, and all the people that [were] with him, and they passed over Jordan: by the morning light there lacked not one of them that was not gone over Jordan.

AV 1Ki 19:2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do [to me], and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to morrow about this time.

AV 1Ki 22:13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets [declare] good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak [that which is] good.

AV 2Ki 6:12 And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that [is] in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber.

AV 2Ki 18:24 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?

AV 1Ch 17:6 Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?

AV Isa 36:9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?

AV Ezk 33:30 . Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the LORD.

AV Ezk 45:7 And a [portion shall be] for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy [portion], and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy [portion], and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length [shall be] over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border.

AV Dn 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Even when the translation of ahad is less obvious, in none of these is it translated "first" even if we were to change to echad, it only means first in the sense of an order, not of rank of importance.

UPDATE: A Hebrew grammar was written explaining mi is an interrogative. (By the way, an interrogative is sentence is a sentence that asks a question.) In the section "The Interrogative Pronouns" in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar we see the following which is relevant to the "mi" in Michael:

§137. The Interrogative Pronouns.

137a The interrogative pronoun מִי who may refer either to a masculine or feminine person (Ct 3⁶), or even to a plural, e.g. מִי אַתֶּם who are ye? Jos 9⁸; מִי־אֵ֫לֶּה Gn 33⁵, Nu 22⁹ (more minutely, מִי וָמִי Ex 10⁸, i.e. who exactly, who in particular?). It is used of the neuter only when the idea of a person is implied, e.g. מִֽי־שְׁכֶם who are the Shechemites? Ju 9²⁸, 13¹⁷, Gn 33⁸, Mi 1⁵; even more boldly, with the repetition of a מִי used personally, in 1 S 18¹⁸, 2 S 7¹⁸.—Another interrogative is אֵי־זֶה which, what?; of persons only in Est 7⁵.

137b Moreover, מִי may also be used in the sense of a genitive, e.g. בַּת־מִי אַתְּ whose daughter art thou? Gn 24²³, 1 S 17⁵⁵, 56, 58; דְּבַר מִי whose word? Jer 44²⁸, 1 S 12³; in the accusative, אֶת־מִי quemnam? 1 S 28¹¹, Is 6⁸; with prepositions, e.g. בְּמִי 1 K 20¹⁴ (in an abrupt question by whom?); לְמִי Gn 32¹⁸; אַֽחֲרֵי מִי 1 S 24¹⁵.—Similarly מָה, מַה־, מֶה what? is used for the nominative, or accusative, or genitive (Jer 8⁹), or with prepositions, e.g. עַל־מָה whereupon? Is 1⁵, Jb 38⁶; why? Nu 22³², &c.; עַד־מָה quousque? ψ 74⁹.^[1]

137c Rem. Both מִי and מָה are used also in indirect questions (on the merely relative distinction between direct and indirect questions in Hebrew, see the Interrogative Sentences), e.g. Gn 39⁸ (but read מְא֫וּמָה with Samar. and LXX), 43:22, Ex 32¹.—On the meaning of מִי and מָה as interrogatives is based also their use as indefinite pronouns (equivalent to quisquis, quodcunque or quicquam), e.g. Ex 32²⁶, Ju 7³, 1 S 20⁴, Is 50¹⁰ (read יִשְׁמַע in the apodosis), 54:15, Pr 9⁴, 16, 2 Ch 36²³; even שִׁמְרוּ־מִי have a care, whosoever ye be, 2 S 18¹² (unless לִי is to be read, with the LXX, for מִי); so also מָה (whatever it be) Jb 13¹³, 1 S 19³, 2 S 18²², 23; cf. Nu 23³ וּדְבַר מַה־יַּרְאֵ֫נִי and whatsoever he showeth me. Cf. also מִי אֲשֶׁר whosoever Ex 32³³, 2 S 20¹¹, and מִֽי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר any man who Dt 20⁵ ff., Ju 10¹⁸. A still further weakening of the indefinite use of מָה is the combination מַה־שֶּׁ· that which, Ec 1⁹, 3¹⁵ (just like the Syriac מָא דְ); cf. Est 8¹, and בַּל... מָה Pr 9¹³, לֹא... מָה Neh 2¹², nothing whatever.—On מְא֫וּמָה quicquam, anything at all (usually with a negative), and as an adverb in any way, 1 S 21³, see the Lexicon.

1. A quite different use of מָה was pointed out (privately) by P. Haupt in Ct 5⁸ will ye not tell him? i.e. I charge you that ye tell him, and 7:1 = look now at the Shulamite, corresponding to the late Arabic mâ tarâ, just see! mâ taqûlu, say now! It has long been recognized that מָה is used as a negative in Ct 8⁴.