Sister White did not have the complete light

Is this taught in the Shepherd's Rod message?

     Perhaps their grossest distortion of fact is the statement: “When the attention of the author of The Shepherd’s Rod was called to this direct contradiction, he did not deny it, but claimed that his interpretation should be accepted because Sister White did not have the complete light on the subject.”—A Reply to The Shepherd’s Rod, p. 42. {7Tr:34.1}

     This allegation deals either in fabrication or misconstruction, for at no time have we made any such statement, neither indeed could have made it, as we believe the Rod to be in perfect harmony with the writings of Sister White. Therefore we hope that for their own sakes the committee will be honorable enough to correct this misrepresentation.—7Tr:34.1, 2

I did a search by reading all 56 references to make sure Bro. Houteff never used this understanding concerning Sis. White, "did not" + "light".  The closest passage that almost fits the sentiments of the GC men may have been trying to distort is found in SR Volume One. But we must keep in mind that this is what they claim they heard not what is published. It says:

     The symbol is, that the church has been on a spiritual decline for forty years, and has had no new spiritual food to feed upon.  Some may say, "We have the Bible and the Testimonies and we feed on them."  It is true we have had them, but they have been closed to us, for we did not make proper use of the truth we have had, and it is a fact that the church has had no new light upon scriptures that were not understood forty years ago.—1SR:125.2

Is this the passage being taken out of context to make it appear to say what it is not saying? I did however find Bro. Houteff used this concept about the SRod message but never about Ellen G. White.

You will find it in two places:

     Clearly, therefore, both statements are correct. The only point of difference between them is that when the one in Volume 2 was made, the Rod did not have the additional light which later inspired the one in the Code, and which shows that both the 144,000 and the great multitude are remnants: the former because of escaping from the slaying of the Lord in the church (Isa. 66:19), and the latter because of not being called out of Babylon until after the former have gone to the land of Israel (Isa. 66:20), also because of remaining alive after the wicked, from among whom they are called out, have perished.—8SC1-12:20.3  (See: 2An:64.1.)

Clearly, we should avoid using this language about the Spirit of Prophecy although it is ok to use it concerning the SRod in context. In the SRod message, we can clearly see that between the years of 1930 - 1955, light advanced within the message itself. Especially about who is the remnant of Rev. 12:17 and the new subject of the pre-millennial kingdom.

Let's not play into the hands of the enemy using this rhetoric about Sis. White. Laodiceans are already repeating they are rich and increased with goods and believe, under the influence of the angel of the church of Laodicea, that they have need of nothing—truth or prophets.

And when one has greater direct advanced revealed light based on a "thus saith the Lord" then that should be depended upon. This line of reasoning may prejudice some and it does very little convincing compared to the weight of evidence that we can provide.

He certainly dealt with this subject more clearly answering the question "Can one Prophet's Writings contain all the Truth?" (See: 7SC7-12:15.9-16.5.)

CAN ONE PROPHET'S WRITINGS CONTAIN

ALL THE TRUTH?

Question No. 230:

     In a subject involving the Kingdom, Sister White wrote: "'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.'  Man in his present state is mortal, corruptible; but the kingdom of God will be incorruptible, enduring forever.  Therefore man in his present state cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But when Jesus comes, He confers immortality upon His people; and then He calls them to inherit the kingdom of which they have hitherto been only heirs. {7SC7-12:15.9} 

     "These and other scriptures clearly proved to Miller's mind that the events which were generally expected to take place before the coming of Christ, such as the universal reign of peace and the setting up of the kingdom of God upon the earth, were to be subsequent to the second advent."--The Great Controversy, p. 323. {7SC7-12:15.10} 

     These statements do not even intimate a beginning of the Kingdom "subsequent to the second advent," but the Rod so teaches.  Does it not, therefore, contradict The Great Controversy? {7SC7-12:15.11} 

Answer:

     If we are to understand from The Great Controversy statement, used by the questioner, that the Kingdom incorruptible has no beginning, but comes into being complete in a moment at Christ's appearing, then we would be setting The Great Controversy at odds with the Bible, which plainly says that the Kingdom in its "stone" stage smote the earth's kingdoms and then emerged into its "great mountain" stage and "filled the whole earth."  Dan. 2:35. {7SC7-12:15.12} 

     If the continuity of events recorded in Early Writings, pp. 15, 17, must be taken as absolute, and no other event or events can be sandwiched in, then the questioner is getting himself into deep trouble, for the chapter in question does not include in its record of events either the seven last plagues or the millennium.  Giving the appearance that the saints ascend to heaven, then very shortly return to earth, it excludes the plagues, the millennium, and the judgment during it. {7SC7-12:15.13} 

     The Bible contains many prophecies which the writings of Sister White do not even mention, let alone treat of, and if the Lord does not now reveal them to meet the church's need today, she will not be prepared for their fulfillment, but will be left to perish in her undone, Laodicean condition.  And if these prophecies were not to be revealed, then for what purpose were they written? {7SC7-12:15.14} 

Vol. 7 Symbolic Code Nos. 7-12 15

     No prophet of God has ever fashioned a complete, prophetic chain with no links missing.  The mind, therefore, which takes the position that Sister White has done what no prophet either in or out of the Bible has ever done, does so at the utter disregard not only of the Bible rule but also of revealed truth. {7SC7-12:16.1} 

     She herself says that "no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the divine purpose in the work for his own time.  Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name."--The Great Controversy, p. 343. {7SC7-12:16.2} 

     Some persons, being of the parrot kind, utter parrot-like statements, never stopping to think what they say, and seemingly caring not whether their statements stand or fall.  Such are they who say that no other event or events can come before, between, or after those set forth in Sister White's writings. {7SC7-12:16.3} 

     The Jews rejected the prophets because what the prophets taught and wrote was not all found in the teachings of Moses.  "We know," they said, "that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence He is."  John 9:29. {7SC7-12:16.4} 

     As no prophet's writings ever predicted the entire truth needed by the church to carry her clear through to the Kingdom, and as other prophets followed, either enlarging upon or adding to the prophecies already recorded in the Scriptures, then for anyone to turn down present Bible truth on the grounds that it goes beyond Sister White's writings, is for him to take the same inexcusable and fatal stand as did the Jews.  It is to say, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (Rev. 3:17), and as a result, to be spued out of the Lord's mouth.—7SC7-12:15.9-16.5

And the same reference (GC:343) is used again in "Will the Kingdom be set up before the Millennium?" (See: 2An:74.2-85.3.)

We should rely less on "plausible reasoning" when there is in fact a clear "thus saith the Lord" that would have a stronger effect that cannot be gainsaid.