by Epiphany Bible Students

NO. 170

A number of items in this paper should have some analysts, so we begin with the article on p. 41, “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age.” RGJ places great stress upon the fact that the Great Company would have to “serve itself” after the de­parture of the last Priest; but it seems to us it should require no great brilliance to recognize such a self-evident fact. What else could they do? Thus, he stresses a very elementary point, as he passes in silence a few major items that are definitely essential to a proper understanding of his subject.

In col. 2, par. 1, he quotes Brother Johnson to the effect that “the Church would always have her general and local (italics by RGJ) Divinely appointed teachers until the Church would be complete and leave the world.” Then, he proceeds to the conclusion: “Therefore, since the star-members are all gone, including the final one, and since they continued in the service of the Little Flock wholly, thus giving them direct service from a star-member until the whole Little Flock completed their course... it follows that with the taking away of the final star-member there would be no Little Flock members left on earth.”

All brethren familiar with Epiphany Truth know of the teaching in E-15:525, that ALL crown-losers (the best of them as well as the worst of them) must be abandoned to Azazel before they can be cleansed, and that they would be led astray during their abandonment – some more and some less; and that they would then go into devious errors “cast the unprofitable servant (the Great Company) into outer darkness” – error (Matt. 25:30 – See Berean Comment) – and be given “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11 – See Be­rean Comment). During their abandonment, Scriptures once clear to them become dim, often causing them to teach error on subjects where they once had the Truth. And, if they do that with the Scriptures, they would do the same with the star-members’ writ­ings. They are unable to read, and understand, difficult and involved explanations. “Rebellion (Revolutionism) is the sin of witchcraft” – especially deceptive false teach­ings (1 Sam. 15:23).

And this is exactly what has occurred with RGJ in the present instance. Brother Johnson says “the Church would always have her general and local (italics by RGJ) Di­vinely appointed teachers.” But there is no mention in this statement of a star mem­ber; RGJ simply read that into it. Brother Johnson appointed us a general elder ­or general teacher – as he did a number of others; but none of his appointments were star members. Only a few of the general elders (pilgrims) appointed by Brother Rus­sell were attracted to Brother Johnson after 1917; so the major portion of his pil­grims were his own appointees. Nor did all the general elders die in 1950; some con­tinued for sometime after that date, as the facts clearly demonstrate. All Brother Johnson’s pilgrim appointees taught the general church, which included the Great Com­pany, the Youthful Worthies, the Tentatively Justified, as well as the Little Flock. If RGJ wants to argue this point, then let him tell us who was the star member from the time William Miller died in 1849 until Brother Russell arrived – more than twenty years later. If RGJ wishes to enlist Brother Johnson’s help here, let him also ex­plain this indisputable fact.

Furthermore, it needs no argument that the vast majority of crown-losers in the various Truth groups, and in Big Babylon, were “serving themselves” without the ser­vices of a star member prior to 1950; and they continued right on doing it since that time. Thus, their situation in that respect has not changed one iota since 1950. In fact, many of them have been serving themselves all during the Gospel Age – and most especially so during this Epiphany period. RGJ did indeed try to “serve himself” under the Epiphany Messenger in several instances, and did actually revolutionize against the Arrangements during that time. However, he did have direct service (re­straint and supervision) from a star member, and he was “made manifest” of what sort (class) he was at that time when he openly rebelled (revolutionized). We can concur in the Great Company receiving direct service from a star member until the Epiphany Messenger’s demise if we accept those Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement as a representative number (the part taken for the whole) – although that wouldn’t mean that the Great Company in the majority did have direct service from him – nor would it mean that the Little Flock in the other groups had direct service from him. The status has not changed one iota even yet for any of the Great Company leaders in the other groups: they did not accept direct service from the star member when he was with us, nor are they accepting indirect service from him now.

But the status has charged for one Great Company leader, viz., the Executive Trustee of the LHMM. He is indeed receiving no direct service from the Epiphany Mes­senger now – and he readily disposes of any indirect service (his writings) where it interferes with his plans and present errors. The same condition exists in lesser degree today in the LHMM that existed in the Society when That Servant died: Those Great Company leaders were no longer restrained or influenced by the direct service of the star member before them (That Servant), and they did indeed “serve themselves.” And what a service they gave themselves! Many of us were witness to that 1917 debacle, and of the revolutionism, the false doctrines and the “casting out” (Isa. 66:5) of those who remained faithful to the Parousia teachings. Those crown-losers also were the Lord’s ‘Mouthpieces,’ according to them! After Brother Johnson’s demise in 1950, we had some of the same “casting out,” and some of the same revolutionisms, except on a much smaller scale – with some of the same errors in evidence: Jonadabs (now the Large Multitude) in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Campers Consecrated (the identical twin of the Jonadabs) now with the LHMM.

Also, Brother Johnson often stressed that there were more Little Flock members in the various Truth groups than there were with him. What “direct service” from a star member did they have after 1916, when they wouldn’t even read the Epiphany Mes­senger’s literature? The Epiphany Messenger also stressed the fact that the Little Flock did not have to take instruction from him to make their calling and election sure. All of us know that many of these saints were deceived into believing that Brother Johnson was in the second death; thus, they would have nothing to do with him. We wonder if RGJ will answer this – or will he just pass it by in silence, as he has done with the crushing defeat we gave him on 1 Cor. 15:24, and numerous other items?

And this same RGJ is the one who is now telling us on p. 42, col. 1, par. 2, that his teachings (real “clear” teachings such as he is now offering on the Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age) should “serve as a safeguard for the Youthful Wor­thies against the subtle attempts of Satan to entice them to try to usurp the teach­ing office of the Great Company.” And in the face of the glaring inconsistencies we have examined herein, RGJ is now telling his readers that HE is the one the Lord has chosen to prevent the Great Company and Youthful Worthies from going “further and fur­ther astray.” The Papacy and That Evil Servant have made identical claims for themselves.


On p. 46 RGJ poses a number of questions and answers designed to refute some state­ments in our April paper; and he calls upon Brother Johnson to support him, saying “his (Bro. Johnson’s) teachings are in harmony with each one of them, including those in which the Consecrated Epiphany Campers are involved.” This statement by RGJ is simply a self-evident falsehood. We have repeatedly asked him to show one place in any of Brother Johnson’s writings where he even hints at Consecrated Campers in the finished Epiphany picture; but up to now he hasn’t done so. And he hasn’t done so because he can’t do so! Thus, once more we quote as our answer a direct contradic­tion by Brother Johnson to RGJ’s “Jonadab” relatives: “The Epiphany Camp in the fin­ished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” (E-10:209) We call special attention to this Volume 10, because it is a much later, and more direct and relevant statement, than what RGJ attempts to offer from Volume 5.

RGJ is in a tantrum because we say he is making an addition to the Epiphany House of the Lord. We would now elaborate our statement to the effect that he is now trying to do exactly what his bosom (ex)-co-laborer “Cousin” Krewson actually claims to be do­ing: He is finishing the work of the Epiphany Messenger! RGJ doesn’t say that in so many words as does “cousin” Krewson – but “acts speak louder than words”; and RGJ’s “acts” in this instance are a classic example. Of course, he does say Brother Johnson “made provision” for what he’s been doing, but this is simply another attempt on his part to becloud what Brother Johnson really taught on the subject in E-10:209.

Let us recall that around 1954 RGJ was lavish in his determination to make “Epi­phany Parallels” of Brother Russell; but time itself has clearly demonstrated how non­sensical his conclusions were. Thus, he is now ready enough to have his readers for­get that jumble, as he attempts the milder thought that Brother Johnson “made provis­ion” for what he has been doing since 1954.

Be also quotes Brother Johnson from E-4:420, that “consecration is always in order”; then he has the unmitigated audacity to cite E-10:114; but he uses only that part of the latter that is convenient for him. If he wants to provide his readers with honest teachings, why does he not also quote from E-10:114: “When we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel-Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” If he now wants to insist upon the date of 1954 as the end of the Youthful Worthy call, let him then also accept what we have just quoted, and explain how he fits the two together. To make our own position clear here, we accept the interpretation of Rev. 22:10,11 as correct in all its parts; but we con­tend that time itself has definitely demonstrated that Brother Johnson was mistaken on the time he set for it to operate; but that time mistake does in no way alter the truth contained in the interpretation.

As we have said in previous papers, Rev. 22:10,11 is a composite text; when one part of it is operative, then all of it is operative. Just selecting a part of it that suits the convenience is eisegesis – not exegesis. It is a procedure of which RGJ’s crown-lost kinsmen all during the Age have been grossly guilty in their handling of the Bible. Of course, all of them were a part of the goat “for Azazel” (See Lev. 16:8, margin); so it should not surprise us at all to see RGJ now following in their steps. The mere fact that Brother Johnson has made a time-feature mistake, does not reduce him in our estimation – any more than Brother Russell’s mistakes on predicting future events limits him in our estimation. That Servant did make the correct prediction for the be­ginning of the “Time of Trouble,” or the Epiphany, although he was mistaken as to its dur­ation. The same with the Epiphany Messenger: he correctly pointed out the beginning of the “Time of Trouble,” or the Epiphany, although he was mistaken as to its duration and subsequent details. No prophecy can be understood in detail until it has been fulfilled, or is in the course of fulfillment; and Brother Johnson says he and Brother Russell, as well as other star members, were at fault for attempting such details before the “due time.”

To say that consecration is always in order requires the limitation that St. Paul himself puts upon it in Rom. 12:1, 2 – it should be in accord with “that good and accep­table, and perfect will of God.” The first question then is: What is God’s will? Is it God’s will now to deal with the Restitution class? Both Messengers are very positive in their statements regarding the world of mankind – that none of them are acceptable during this Age before the Highway of Holiness is opened for them. Christ’s merit – imputed or tentative – is for the elect only. And it is the elect only who will share in the resurrection of the “just.” Brother Russell treats of this in his Book of Covenants, and many other places. He also treats of those who consecrate be­tween the Ages – during the time when the High Calling is ended and before the Highway of Holiness is opened, assuring us that such consecrators will have a reward with the Ancient Worthies. (See Sept. 1, 1915 Watch Tower, Reprint 5761)

The situation here is exactly the same as it has been with baptism: Some had re­ceived John’s baptism (Acts 19:1-6); but they learned from St. Paul that it had ac­complished just nothing for them. The same would apply to the general run of Restitu­tionists who consecrate during this Age – before their “due time.” It would be use­less for them, as God is not now dealing with Restitutionists, and will not deal with them until the end of the Millennial when they are tested and perfected. Tentative Justification is a partial consecration – a determination toward righteousness; but unless they consecrate with “all the heart, mind, soul and strength,” and put a seal on their tentative justification, they will eventually be ejected to the Camp. As Brother Johnson has said, the Tentatively Justified are no more than Nominal Chris­tians – because, unless they do consecrate, they will eventually take their place in the Camp with the Nominal Christians. So also would be a consecration for the Epiph­any Camp in the finished picture, if we still adhere to Brother Johnson’s Scriptural teaching that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture will contain the UNconsecrated. It is indeed quite a coincidence that That Evil Servant should also have advocated con­secration for the Camp many years ago; and now comes another crown-lost leader doing identically the same thing! Of course, those abandoned to Azazel would logically ab­sorb the same errors from the same teacher.

It should not be overlooked that RGJ’s Attestatorial Service in 1954 was started with the firm conviction that it would parallel the 1914-16 Little Flock Attestator­ial Service; and he made his plans with that in mind. This, according to E-10:114, should have been the date “that the last member of the Great Company would get his first enlightenment that would bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956.” Is there the slightest indication that this has occurred? Of course not! And RGJ has become so enmeshed in his confusion of what to do about it that he knows not which way to turn – except to call names, “sifting errorist,” etc. Of course, it was “Cousin” Krewson who fed him Campers Consecrated (or quasi-elect consecrated), based upon the improper time setting of 1954; and he now allows RGJ to face the resultant confusion. As we have so often stated, not one infinitesimal ‘sign of the times’ has appeared to give support for that date. This one fact in itself should cause all who are reason­ably schooled in Present Truth to be wary of such a date. Had nothing happened in 1914, we would have been forced to conclude that the Gentile Times had not been properly cal­culated.

RGJ attempts his usual “profusion of words to no purpose,” as he tried to enlist the support of Brother Johnson on the various “classes” of saved human beings. There­fore, we also now accept the following from Brother Johnson in E-5:62 (59):

“It will be noticed that there were four human pairs who went into the Ark, as well as at least one pair of every clean and unclean kind of animals. We know that there are four elective classes who in this life obtain a good report through faith in the Abrahamic Covenant (the “just”—JJH):

(1) The Christ, (2) the Ancient Worthies, (3) the Great company, and (4) the Youthful Worthies. Noah undoubtedly types our Lord, who is the Heir of the righteousness which comes to us by faith (Heb. 11:7). These classes we understand to be typed in their respective order by Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife Ja­pheth and his wife and Ham and his wife, the males apart from Noah representing all the leaders of their respective classes, and the females the rest of these classes. We understand the animals in the Ark to represent the non-elect who will ultimately be saved (the “unjust”—JJH). We understand the clean animals to represent the Jews, as typically clean, who will be saved, and the Tentatively Justified as tentatively clean, who will be saved (all the quasi-elect—JJH). The unclean animals we under­stand represent those of the present unclean world who will be saved; while those who have perished in the flood we understand to represent from one view-point those who have perished under the Adamic curse, and from another standpoint, the movements and systems of Satan’s Empire and the Second Death Class. Just as in the type the clean and the unclean animals occupied altogether different positions in the ark from those of Noah and his family, so in the antitype the Jews and the Tentatively Justi­fied on the one hand, and the prospectively saved of the rest of mankind on the other hand, are quite differently related to the Abrahamic Covenant from antitypical Noah and his family (they occupied the position of the “unjust,” while Noah and his family occupied the position of the “just”—JJH). These animals were placed in the Ark to type that anticipatorily their antitypes would be included in the Abrahamic Covenant.”

If RGJ or others want to attempt to change the foregoing, that is their concern. Let them attempt to remodel, or modernize, “the House of the Lord,” as it was con­structed by the good Epiphany Solomon, if they will. But also let them not complain later when “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which is to be the lot of the “unprofitable servant” (Matt. 25:30 – See Berean Comment: “Sorrow, disappointment and chagrin in every sense”) as their house “built upon the sand” (See E-5, Chapter 7 and Luke 6:46, 49) topples over, and they along with it. Brother Johnson makes no hint at more than SIX saved “classes” from among mankind in the above quotation; and that teaching remained as his firm conviction to the day of his death.

When RGJ says Brother Johnson “made provision” for his work since 1954, we would offer a clear contradiction to his conclusion from E-9:156: “Miriam joining the people in journeying types the Great Company, especially in its leaders, doing the clean work that will be theirs after their cleansing – building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal-church believers after the nominal church is destroyed, and, second, from among fleshly Israel after they look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn for it (Zech. 12:10).”

Let us note that leprous Miriam in Numbers 12 types the crown-lost leaders during the Age – and especially here in the Epiphany. And all of us know that one of their outstanding evils has been their refusal to “wait upon the Lord.” Thus, it should oc­casion no surprise to observe another crown-lost leader in the person of RGJ also re­fusing to “wait upon the Lord,” as he revolutionizes against the clear Epiphany teach­ing respecting the work of antitypical Miriam in the finished picture. Instead of waiting until the nominal church is destroyed to construct the Epiphany Camp, he is doing it now. Here is some more from the same quotation that emphasizes what we have said aforegoing:

Miriam will be in the antitypical journey, among other things, engaging in her work of gathering Gentile and Jewish believers into the Epiphany Camp, the service per­formed as a part of the final journey (to Paran), which is the final Gospel-Age growth in grace, knowledge and service.”

“I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.” (1 Cor. 1:4-5) “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excel­lency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1, 4)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



QUESTION: – The Epiphany Messenger told us that Brother Jolly was antitypical Hiram, and his principal helper for many years.

Therefore, are you not revolutionizing against the Epiphany Truth when you repeat­edly criticize Brother Jolly as you do?

ANSWER: – We only criticize him for his revolutionisms against Parousia and Epiphany Truth. No, we are not revolutionizing against the Truth or its Arrange­ments when we do that, anymore than did Brother Johnson when he criticized J. F. Rutherford for his sins of teaching and practice. Quite a few of the brethren thought Brother Johnson was wrong when he resisted J. F. Rutherford’s revolutionisms, etc. In this query the questioner makes a mistake common with many Truth brethren – a mistake akin to some Big Babylon people who contend that “once in Grace, always in Grace.” It is never revolutionism against the Truth or its Arrangements to resist error, and to offer justifiable refutation against the sins of teaching and practice of others – re­gardless of who they may be – so long as the action is done “without strife or vain­glory.” It would even be proper to criticize saints also if they were presenting error to the General Church – and necessary to the welfare of the General Church, and for themselves. And it would be proper Christian decorum to do so publicly if the Gen­eral Church would profit by it. St. Paul even “withstood the Apostle Peter to the face” (Gal. 2:11) when he was teaching error. The general rule for such matters would be to do so privately if it be simply a matter between two brethren (“if thy brother trespass against thee, go tell.... him alone” –Matt. 18:15). It should be done before the ecclesia if it be a class matter; and before the General Church if the offense be against the General Church.

Brother Johnson offered a certain amount of deserving praise for RGJ, but he did not hesitate to record open criticism of him either before the General Church when the offense was serious enough to require such public manifestation. All of us know his faults were sufficiently serious enough to require such public manifestation, even as they were serious enough to lose for him “the pearl of great price.” He himself has publicly admitted that. That is General Church knowledge – and that for definite purpose – although it would be definitely wrong to parade his past sins before the Church now if his present conduct were Scripturally unimpeachable. But it would be equally wrong not to take proper notice of it – and that before the General Church – if his present sins of teaching and practice are a continuation, or recurrence, of those recorded sins. They were not recorded by Brother Johnson for the sole purpose of humiliating and hurting RGJ, but rather to help him by reminding him of “what manner of person” he once was – as well as for the purpose of protecting others against any further machinations that might come from him.

The Scriptural rule for all of this is the attitude of God Himself toward erring brethren: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness.... none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” (Eze. 33:12-16) There are outstanding examples in the Bible of both classes of people. God was greatly pleased with the good Solomon at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs. 3:5-14) – just as He became greatly displeased with him when he deflected from the ways of David his father, and “did evil in the sight of the Lord.” (1 Kgs. 11:1-6) The same observation applies to Judas; and to That Evil Ser­vant. That Evil Servant’s past service and good deeds under That Servant were well known to the brethren – hence, so many stayed with the Society, and became enmeshed with his gross errors of teaching and practice, because they thought he was still the same person they had known in former years. It is a well known fact that the same has occurred all down the ages: When Martin Luther and other Reformers resisted Papacy there were many who thought he was the one doing the wrong; when Brother Russell came on the scene many in Big Babylon thought he was the one doing wrong – just because he was exposing the sin; of teaching and practice of Big Babylon, and resisting their errors; and it was much the same with the Epiphany Messenger: he, too, suffered much from the revilings and persecutions he received from his former brethren. But he did not let that deter him from his vows and resolves to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the brethren. And so it is today with those who faithfully endeavor to pursue the same course in resisting the errors so prevalent in our day they, too, receive the same treatment from the same kind of brethren.

Thus, our opinions should not be influenced by what people once were but by what they are now. The brethren gladly welcomed St. Paul after he became one of them: they didn’t hold his past conduct against him; but they did not mourn for Judas once they saw clearly the extent of his sins – “by transgression he might go to his own place.” (Acts 1:25) Brother Johnson loved J. F. Rutherford more than he loved any one else in the Harvest Movement – excepting Brother Russell, of course; but he did not hesitate to expose him before the General Church when it seemed expedient to do so – to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. And that should be the attitude of all faith­ful brethren – to be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.” When our Lord exposed the Scribes and Pharisees for their sins of teaching and practice, that was His motivating purpose.

And with us, we had only good will and brotherly love toward RGJ when Brother Johnson died, and we believe he was well aware of this. We warmly assured him of this as we returned from the cemetery together the day Brother Johnson was interred. So here again, we offer some more from Eze. 33:8,9: “When I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man, thou shalt surely die: If thou doest not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand... If thou warn him.... if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” This Scripture is the influencing factor in our pres­ent attitude toward erring brethren. There is a growing antipathy in the various Truth groups against controversy; but it is our opinion they give no heed to this Scripture, and in this they are decidedly remiss. They are not being influenced by the sound prin­ciples of the Truth, but rather by their sentiments – “knowing after the flesh.”

Perhaps we should offer here some elaboration on King Saul of Israel, because he is the outstanding Bible type of Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. His rise to the throne was not the result of his own political ambitions; it was solely through the Lord’s choice of him. And Saul shrank back from the great exaltation – “he could not be found.... had hid himself among the stuff.” (1 Sam. 10:21,22) His exalta­tion to be King was accompanied by his own commendable modesty. Yet in such a very short time he displayed a direct reversal of his good character; he then regarded him­self as above all human and Divine restraint. And, whereas faithful Samuel had been the human agency to anoint Saul into the royal office, he did not in the least hesitate to recite to him his gross deflection, and to withdraw all brotherly help and favor from him: “Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.” (1 Sam. 15:26) There are valuable lessons in this en­tire fifteenth chapter of Samuel; and we suggest that the questioner, and all our readers, read carefully and meditatingly. It will lead to a proper appraisal of some of the problems that confront us now. Antitypical Saul is definitely the leader of that class of people of whom Jesus said they are the “foolish man which built his house upon the sand” (Matt. 7:26, 27), and “great will be the fall of it” (See E-5:508-09), when the Lord eventually abandons them in their trial time. To such the promise does not apply, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” Rather, they will all re­ceive exactly the same treatment from the Lord that Saul received from Samuel – until their cleansing processes are completed. ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be desired!

“But crown-losers fail to do His sayings as to their taking Him as their Teacher and that in two respects. They fail to seek His teachings in the right way and frequently take as His teaching things that He does not teach. The Lord guarantees to give the meek (Ps. 25:8,9), the hungry (Matt. 5:6), the humble (Matt. 11:25), the honest and good (Luke 8:15) His Truth; but He will not give it to others. It is be­cause the Faithful have the above-mentioned qualities and then use faithfully the seven axioms as the tests of Truth that they are freed from error and taught the Truth by the Lord..... Consequently, they imbibe more or less of error. Some of them go to the ex­treme of receiving with blank and unquestioning minds whatever a real or fictitious chan­nel of the Lord presents to them. It is even required of them in the Catholic wards of Great and Little Babylon to shut their eyes, open their mouths and swallow whatever is presented to them on the ground that it is not theirs, but God’s business to keep the channel clean, while it is their business to drink whatever comes through the channel.” (E-5:479)



Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Dear Sirs:

Thank you very much for sending “Where Are the Dead” and “What Is the Soul”! Have mailed them to a friend. Enclosed is a check for mailing Where Are The Dead, What Is The Soul, The Resurrection of The Dead, Two Distinct Sal­vations, The Three Babylons, God’s Great Sabbath Day, and The Great Reformer – four copies each. J. E. W. is my brother-in-law – whose wife recently passed on. We are all interested in your material. Thank you!

Sincerely ------- (FLORIDA)


Dear Sir: I am writing in regards to the letter my mother received from you after my father’s death – or the Catholic papers is actually what it was. The different religions have their own views and beliefs on death. I am not condemn­ing your belief because I as an individual value our freedom of religion. But I am saying that I am not a Catholic, and I do not believe in Purgatory.

The death of our Dad was very sudden and very shocking, but the one relief we all had was that he would have no more pain and he will finally get the rest that he has needed for so long. Our relief was knowing that Dad was in Heaven.

My purpose in writing this letter is that you should cease from sending your literature to any one but Catholics.

Yours truly,------- (GEORGIA)


Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be unto you!

Yes, we sent ... pounds to Brother ......... Sr. ........... sent us some to send for you, and we made it up to ... pounds. We are glad it has been received. It was good to hear from you – also from dear Sister Hoefle. We did not expect you to write for our birthdays, as we know you have been extra busy with moving and sick­ness to contend with, too.

We thank the Lord for your services, but the more important things come first. Nevertheless we do thank you! What a privilege it is to be in “Present Truth”! Psa. 91:7 Oh, that our straying brethren would read “Studies in The Scriptures”! So true, Vol. 4, page 592 and onward – and 242-243. Then Vol. 3, pages 241-242 and Note 6, bottom of page 413. Brother Johnson’s Volume 10, pages 111-112.

Our love to Sister Hoefle, Sister Moynelo and Sister Dunnagan and yourself.

Your sincere brethren ------- (ENGLAND)