My dear Brethren:
Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
I am setting out below copy of a letter I have just dispatched to Brother Jolly; and I send with it the prayer that you may read it with that “wisdom from above which is without partiality”. May our Good Shepherd prosper you richly in the Truth and the spirit of the Truth that thus you may gain that inheritance which is the hope and promise of all who “fight the good fight” unto a victorious completion.
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle Pilgrim
Dear Brother Jolly:
Again it becomes my unpleasant duty to record my protest against a few (although not nearly all) of your sins of teaching and practice at the Philadelphia Convention just passed.
1. You stated most emphatically that the Great Company is – and always will be – a class higher than the Youthful Worthies. The last statement I have from Brother Johnson says – “Just as we are unable to state definitely what the nature of the Great Company will be, so we are unable to state definitely what nature on the spirit plane the Ancient and Youthful Worthies will have. All three may be on the same plane as spirit beings, but the Scriptures being silent, we must not teach it as a matter of faith. The Little Flock, as the chief singers in Heaven, will be immediately followed by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and the Great Company.” You clearly and definitely disputed this statement by Brother Johnson, so it would seem you are “out of harmony” with him on it.
2. You stated your being antitypical Baanah establishes you as Pastor and Teacher. There is nothing in the name Baanah itself (which means mournful or sorrowing one), or anywhere else in the Bible that would confirm your contention; and, so far as we know, Brother Johnson did not see that there for you either, or he most certainly would have told us about it. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson pointed you out as antitypical Baanan many years before he died, you must have been Pastor and Teacher during all those years. Did you exercise your office then; or were you, the Pastor and Teacher, cleansing yourself at Gulrock? Also, you said nothing about it for some time after Brother Johnson died. Just when did you see yourself in that position? This claim by you at this time fits in very well with your confusion on “Judas not a thief”, about which I wrote you on Nov. 18, 1954. The more you say and do, the more you yourself display your crying need for a Pastor and Teacher, rather than to occupy such position yourself.
3. You say the Good Levites of the LHMM were cleansed by the time of Bro. Johnson's death. The Great Gompamy developing truths were to appear progressively for 80 years (See E‑4. pages 105‑7, especially top of page 107); but it seems you now contend that 76 years are all that were needed for this purpose. Do you know of any experience of the Little Flock in 1910 (when they were not yet all finally determined as permanently in the Body) to parallel your contention for 1950? As you must agree, the Little Flock could not have been completely “Purified” in 1910 as respects their developing truths, because new ones were still coming into the Body. It should be clear enough – even to novices – that you are here destroying the parallel. And the reason for this attempt by you is very clear, too.
As was the case with That Evil Servant, when Brother Johnson annihilated any of his erroneous teachings, he immediately was forced to throw away other truths in an effort to support his previous errors. The Great Gompany developing truths that is tormenting you now (which will eventually cleanse you and ALL uncleansed Great Company members, if and when they submit to and appropriate this “razor” truth to themselves) is the one I have repeatedly presented to you; namely, That the final remnant of the Great Company in the LHMM was fully and completely abandoned to Azazel by the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor from them on October 22, 1950 at which time the Last Priest was removed in death. Self‑evidently, this was impossible while Brother Johnson was alive – just as the understanding of this advancing Great Company developing truth could not possibly have been clarified before his death. Especially is this latter true, because its understanding would have averted much of the trial of the past five years – just as a proper understanding of truth by the Jews would have prevented the crucifixion of our Lord.
4. You said you would rather die than accept Brother Krewson as a teacher. Inasmuch as you accepted so much of his teaching for a few years, were you heading toward death then? Also, you accuse him of pre‑arranging dates, then planning his course to make them fit his parallels. Since he told you that you were paralleling Brother Russell for the balance of the Epiphany, can it be possible you yourself did any of that same arranging of parallels – especially, arranging your trip to England with the Bible Films in 1954 and feigning surprise when Brother Armstrong spoke of the 1914 parallel (See PT Sept. 154, Page 71, cols 1, par. 2) – although Brother Armstrong himself had already called it to your attention in 1953, so you had plenty of notice of it long before you even started for England? (Note: I want it definitely understood here that I am not offering any brief for or acceptance of Brother Krewson's claims; I am engaged here exclusively with YOU, and the mention of his name is only incidental thereto.)
5. Question at the question Meeting: If the Saints are to reign a thousand years, does that mean they will have to reign until 2950, which would be one thousand years from the time Brother Johnson died?
Your Answer: O, no! The part is here taken for the whole – just as when two or three Apostles were present they represented the whole. This is an instance where “God counts those things that are not as though they are.”
Here is the answer I would give to that question: Rev. 20:4‑6 says “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years”. At Sept. 16, 1914 the entire 144,000 who would constitute the Body of Christ “lived” for the first time; and they also were then reigning in a limited sense, because they were “executing the judgment written” – Psa. 149:7‑9. Brother Johnson stresses that “this honor have ALL the Saints”, and relies heavily upon it as a sure proof that the High Calling, was then closed. From Sept. 16, 1914 to the end of the Little Season will be exactly 1,000 years, the time the entire 144,000 will have reigned. “Then the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God” – 1 Cor. 15:24. Thus, the Scripture, “They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years”, means exactly what it says – ALL of them living and reigning the full thousand years as a complete entity. I think the explanation I have here set forth meets all seven axioms for correct Bible interpretation.
6. You stated most emphatically that the article in the May PT was “word for word as Brother Russell had written it”. From much experience with you, I know how unreliable your statements are; but I would not have believed you could be so foolishly open in your untruthfulness as you have in this instance. On Page 35, col. 1, par. 1 there are some statements about “Youthful Worthies and Consecrated Epiphany Campers”. Is this “word for word” as Brother Russell wrote it? And on Page 37, Col. 2, par. 4 there is described the case of a “prominent Truth brother”, etc. Is this “word for word” as Brother Russell wrote it? Of course, any one who has read the Manna texts and comments would recognize without coaching that large parts of your article are the words of Brother Russell. For instance page 36 contains the Manna comments for Sept, 8 and 10; page 37 contains those of July 14 (in two sections) and December l, some of the latter being also at the top of page 38. I find no fault with those comments, any more than I do with what you yourself have added to the article. It was the cover‑up use you attempted with the article that constitutes the “Wooden Horse” of which I spoke. Scriptures are usually correctly quoted but often misapplied. The teachings that really apply in this slander disgrace are those contained in Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908. You were specifically requested to use this article, yet you did not even mention it in your “Blessing God and cursing Men”. Why? Even as Brother Johnson, in discussing That Evil Servant's “Let Us Dwell In Peace”, states – “This exhortation all of the Lord's people, subordinately to purity, should strive to practice. Nobody strove in harmony with Truth and Righteousness harder than we to prevent in 1917 the rupture of peace and unity; and we trust not to be behind others now in 1920 in seeking to restore a peace and unity in harmony with Truth and Righteousness.”
7. You made great play on Prov. 6:19 – “he that soweth discord among brethren”. Why did you not also quote another portion of that Scripture – “The Lord hates a lying tongue”? Here you are following the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant; he was very pronounced and repetitious in quoting Verse 19, while ignoring completely Verse 17. He then fanned the “unstable and the unlearned” into a raging flame of rabid sectarianism with his “Avoid Them” campaign – just as you did at this Convention. Your failure to be sobered by his terrible course and his ultimate end is a mute testimonial of your own desperate and appalling position at this time. And your yelling “Discord among brethren” at those who are exposing your sins of teaching and practice would put Martin Luther, Brothers Russell and Johnson, and all the reformers under the condemnation of Prov. 6:19 in their efforts to be true‑Protestants.
8. Furthermore, why do you not apply Prov. 6:19 to Brother Gavin, whom you selected as Chairman for this Convention? He has been quite busy, since way last winter (if not before that time), in circulating the Krewson discourses, which you now label as a Sifting Movement. Was Brother Gavin “cleansed” by the time Bro. Johnson died in 1950, as you now claim was true of the Good Levites in the LHMM? And do you still consider him “cleansed” as you take him prominently into your bosom – even tho he has “Joined hands with a sifter”, as you state it? You have given the brethren no public warning about him; and your inconsistent and ridiculous position in this situation is a combined comedy‑tragedy of the first order. Truly, “their foolishness shall be very plain to all”. (2 Tim. 3:9, Dia.)
In your letter of August 20, which was awaiting me upon my return from the Convention, you say I “apparently do not understand your position”; but you may be sure I “understand your position” much better than you think I do. The expression should be just the other way round – YOU apparently do not understand my position.
Sincerely your brother,
(Signed) John J. Hoefle