No. 161
On p. 61 is set forth an attempted explanation of some “Prophecies Concerning Benjamin,” which betray the confused condition of the Editor’s mind, along with a very limited ability in spiritual discernment, as well as some self‑evident rank dishonesty. And he labels such statements as these from us as “disparaging the Good Levites, speaking all manner of evil against them falsely,” etc. This statement by him is a fit companion for one made by J. F. Rutherford, when he wrote to us that “Paul S. L. Johnson is vilifying me.”
There is quite some elaboration of the virtues of “good Levites”; but he says nothing about good Levites who become “Bad Levites.” Nor does he mention the disputations of the “good Levites” with the Lord’s Mouthpiece. This is akin to the second deathers who quote texts concerning themselves when they were saints, and of the Roman Church applying Scriptures to themselves that actually condemn instead of supporting and lauding them in their present reprobate state. Any one with even a smattering of Epiphany Truth knows that good Levites become manifested as bad Levites when they revolutionize against truths they once proclaimed correctly.
It is stated in col. 1, par. 4, that an attempt is made “to ascribe evil characteristics to an antitype (Benjamin) where none are indicated”; and on p. 62, col. 1, bottom, there is the further comment that Benjamin was “indeed especially loved and favored of God.” And in col. 2, par. 4, “Typical Benjamin enjoyed God’s special protection even to the very end of the Jewish Age.” Here is simply a duplication of Levitical attempts all during the Age to analyze Scripture by using only a part of the pertinent texts – that part that particularly seemed adapted to their errors, the same resulting in Babylon – confusion. In Judges 19‑21 we have the record of Benjamin as the chief culprit in what is probably the most reprehensible crime of the entire Old Testament, wherein the Lord not only did not give Benjamin “special protection” – as RGJ so emphatically states – but He actually instructed their own Jewish brethren to go up against them (20:28); and verse 35 declares, “the Lord smote Benjamin before Israel.” Thus, the statement that “Benjamin enjoyed God’s special protection even to the very end of the Jewish Age” is nothing more than impudent falsehood. Be it remembered that because of the great slaughter inflicted upon Benjamin by their own Jewish brethren there that Benjamin was thereafter the very most diminutive tribe of all Israel; they were almost exterminated because of their sin then.
SAUL AND JONATHAN
Much the same conclusion may be drawn by RGJ’s attempt on p. 61, col. 2, par. 3, to laud Saul of Benjamin and his son Jonathan as “mighty warriors, making prey of their enemies.” This commendation was true of them only up to the time that Saul “rebelled” (typical of present‑day Levitical revolutionism against the Truth), after which time one failure after another overtook them until their enemies eventually made “prey” of them. (See 1 Sam. 31:4‑6) They came to an ignominious and humiliating end. This is so graphically expressed by David in 2 Sam. 1:25: “How are the mighty fallen!” Certainly, any one with even a smattering of Present Truth knows that both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were very pronounced in exposing the evils of antitypical Benjamin; and much of what we have written is simply quotations from them. Thus, we have often repeated that Saul is a type of the crown‑lost leaders (a part of antitypical Benjamin) until Armageddon, when he will be slain as such – although not necessarily to a completion physically. However, those of them that do survive the Armageddon cudgeling will then be cleansed from their present evils – prepared to perform a fruitful ministry as a result of that cleansing. And this includes RGJ himself – although he makes strenuous effort to exalt himself as a cleansed Levite now. But, when that time comes, his readers will then know just how much credence they should have placed in his present praise of antitypical Benjamin. (1 Sam. 31:1‑6)
With such glaring contradictions so clearly in the record, it seems unbelievable that the Present Truth Editor would be so crass as to offer illustrations that in the ultimate actually completely condemn him and his kind. It is an identical twin to JFR’s course. As all of us know, he, too, performed valiant service under the benign leadership of Brother Russell – just as did RGJ under the faithful guidance of Brother Johnson – notwithstanding his disputations and revolutionisms even then. With the both of them, it was only after their abandonment to Azazel – through their separation from the faithful priesthood – that they plunged headlong into vitiation of truth and righteousness. Indeed, half truths such as RGJ presents are often more misleading than whole errors. An impartial appraisal – a fully comprehensive appraisal of this situation is to be found in E‑15:519, 520:
“As we saw that there was a progress from good to a mixture of good and evil in their dispositions, the good being the Holy Spirit in them, while they were measurably unfaithful, so there is a progress in their condition of being very unfaithful; for it degenerates into varying degrees of a preponderance of the evil mind over the good mind in the worst of them, and in the preponderance of the good mind over the evil mind in a comparatively few of them – those who almost, but not quite won out in the high calling; and in some it is more or less a case of half of one and half of the other, with considerable of see‑sawing between them. Yet a double mind is in all of them, as St. James assures us: ‘A double minded man is unstable in all his ways’ (Jas. 1:8), with very much of variation in the double‑mindedness in the individuals, even as we saw above....Always they either set aside in revolutionism more or less of the teachings of the Bible and more or less of the arrangements that God has given for His work, or they partisanly support others who become guilty as leaders or ledlings of those two forms of rebellion. Whenever a company of them form a group, they become partisan sectarians: and their leaders always grasp for power and lord it over God’s heritage (1 Pet. 5:3), becoming guilty of love for money, influence, honor from men and leadership. (Note the very clear application of this to RGJ himself in E‑10, p. 585, top and p. 646, top – the very book from which RGJ quotes to laud antitypical Benjamin – JJH)....With all of this they increasingly lose part of their ability to discern between truth and error (also clearly true about RGJ and true in principal of those Youthful Worthies that succumb to his perversions of teaching and arrangements – JJH).
And the resentment of all of them at our repeated quotations similar to the above is clearly explained by Jesus Himself: “Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:20, 21)
However, it is certainly a pertinent observation here that all during this Age there has been a very close affinity between the sons of antitypical Rachel. This is so clearly shown in 1 Sam. 18:1: “The soul of Jonathan (typical of Gospel‑Age crown‑losers) was knit with the soul of David (type of Gospel‑Age Little Flock), and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” This is further confirmed in 2 Sam. 1:26 in the words of David after Jonathan’s death: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Thus, the Little Flock often has admired the good qualities of antitypical Benjamin with such fervency that they either failed to take note of their evils, or overlooked them with a generous indulgence. But this is no indication that their attitude was the right one, or that God viewed them similarly.
REBELLION IS ALWAYS THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT
Then there is an attempt to disparage Youthful Worthies who oppose his revolutionisms by referring to Epiphany Vol. 4, pp. 446‑447. Certainly no Youthful Worthy should conclude he has any part of leading Azazel’s Goat to the Gate and deliverance to the fit man, which Brother Johnson is there discussing; but here again RGJ is offering another half truth. Should Youthful Worthies be gentle in reproving murderers, slanderers (murderers of a brother’s reputation – see Manna Comment for July 14), congenital liars, etc.? Brother Russell explained this situation very clearly when he said there are times it would be wrong not to have righteous indignation, and to show it. Brother Johnson himself was not nearly so drastic with JFR before he realized he had gone the way of Cain and Judas, after which he became more severe with him. And it certainly needs no qualification when we say it is right and proper for any worldling to resist evil toward himself and others, even if it is committed by the “Good Levites” – the Measurably Faithful. God Himself is against all evil, and approves of those who do likewise – whether those in His Household or others. Note the case of Pharaoh re Abraham – Gen. 12:14‑20. Certainly, God does not approve of the evils that the Measurably Faithful commit! RGJ’s tendency is much the same as some of the worldlings today: Pity the poor criminal, and denounce the innocent for wanting him brought to justice – denounce good principles!
That the Youthful Worthies should be positive in their stand against all evil is clearly confirmed in E‑15:532:
“St. Paul gives the testimony as to all the Ancient Worthies, that they wrought righteousness and exercised faith (Heb. 11:1, 2, 33), and in principle these passages apply to the Youthful Worthies. Hence it is a Biblical teaching that the Ancient and Youthful Worthies have that part of the Holy Spirit, God’s disposition, that is the will to do God’s will....consecration to righteousness....the consecration of sanctification...the will that wills God’s will sacrificially. In other words, so far as consecration is concerned, they make the same consecration as the Little Flock ..... their attitude is the same.”
Thus, it is their duty to reprove for sin, for righteousness, and for judgment (John. 16:8‑11). It is indeed a matter for weeping as we observe RGJ crying that he is being treated too severely for his violations of truth and righteousness. “Don’t do that,” says he, “because I am a higher class than you are” – even as his repeated perversions scream to high Heaven that his behavior is often of a much lower class. When the Ancient Worthies exposed and reproved the corrupt priesthood, their ‘higher class’ was often emphasized. “The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer. 5:31) “Answerest thou the high priest so?” (John 18:22)
In the face of this, and much more, RGJ is brazen enough to declare that “the Good Levites are the only group that has not revolutionized against Parousia and Epiphany Truth, but, on the contrary, has defended and still defends both in their fulness.” (p. 62, col. 2) Here are some of the fundamental Parousia and Epiphany Truths against which RGJ and his ledlings have revolutionized:
(1) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Scriptural teaching of Six Saved Classes only from among mankind as set out in Joel 2:28, 29 (see Epiphany Vol. Four, pp. 319‑320). RGJ now has Seven Saved Classes from among mankind – a clear revolutionism against Epiphany Truth.
(2) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Epiphany Truth on the Abandonment process for Azazel’s Goat (the Great Company) as set out in Epiphany Vol. 15, p. 525, and other places. RGJ now teaches that it isn’t necessary for the “Good Levites” (that is, he and those with him in this revolutionism in the LHMM)) to be fully abandoned to Azazel – that is, to have all brotherly fellowship and favor of the Priesthood withdrawn from them before their cleansing can be effected (which includes all restraining influence of the Star Members such as was removed from JFR after the death of That Servant, after which he openly revolutionized against the Truth and its Arrangements – and offered “strange fire” – especially in his newly invented class of Jonadabs – before the Lord). RGJ has also revolutionized against the Truth (having revolutionized against the Arrangements during the Epiphany Messenger’s ministry), and has offered “strange fire” – especially in his newly‑invented Campers Consecrated Class, after the death of the Epiphany Messenger. He does all this in the face of the Epiphany Messenger’s clear teaching that ALL OF THEM – the good, the bad and the in between, including those who lost Little Flockship by the ‘skin of their teeth’ – would have to experience full abandonment to Azazel before their cleansing could be effected. RGJ now disputes and revolutionizes against this truth as he tells us he and his kinsmen in the LHMM don’t have to have this process.
(3) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Star Members’ teaching on Tentative Justification in the Court only. RGJ now has Tentative Justification in the Camp also, to accommodate his Campers – a direct contradiction of both Parousia and Epiphany Messenger. In his denial completely of tentative justification, JFR was forced to move the place of consecration in the Tabernacle picture from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate; but RGJ now goes him even one better: He removes consecration from the Court altogether, and has it floating about somewhere in the Camp just where he has never made clear. As we have so often stressed, of the Gospel‑Age, the Epiphany and the Millennial Tabernacles, ONLY ONE operates at a time. Let RGJ state which one is operating now, and the confusion of his ‘justification in the Camp’ then will become glaringly apparent.
(4) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the teaching that the Camp contains the unconsecrated. RGJ now teaches consecration is available for his Campers – a direct revolutionism against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth.
(5) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against Parousia and Epiphany Truth regarding the Laver. Both Messengers taught that the Laver is indispensable for the Tentatively Justified and the Consecrated. He has his Campers “consecrated” in the Camp without the benefit of this indispensable Laver.
(6) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against Epiphany Truth that Revolutionism against the Truth or its Arrangements) gross and persistent), or both, is the ONLY yardstick for recognizing new creatures as crown‑losers. RGJ now teaches that all new creatures are crown‑losers whether they have revolutionized against any Truth or its Arrangements or not (Truths and Arrangements they once accepted and upheld).
(7) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Epiphany teaching on Lev. 12 claims to have produced Great Company developing truth now – 14 years after the 80 day (year) period is over. We shouldn’t be too surprised to see him offer some Little Flock developing Truth one of these days – that is, if he doesn’t extricate himself from the clutches of Azazel. Any of the brethren who have received Parousia and Epiphany Truth in a “good and honest heart” will be able to recognize these perversions, distortions, and repudiations as gross and persistent revolutionisms against the Truth. Only those who have been in a leprous house and become contaminated with leprosy cannot “discern between good and evil” – between adherence to the Truth and revolutionism against the Truth.
(8) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the clear teaching of Epiphany Vol. 1, p. 115, bottom, 116, top “God’s love toward Israel helped the faithful among them to qualify for Ancient Worthies and helped the measurably faithful among them to be fit for the first place among the world of mankind in the Restitution Age.” RGJ now has his Campers Consecrated scheduled for the “first place” among Restitutionists – just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses also displace the Jews from “first place” to supplant them with their “large crowd.”
With such revolutionisms so glaringly apparent, RGJ’s claim to adherence to the Parousia and Epiphany truth is akin to the bombast of the Papacy in claiming strict adherence to the teachings of St. Peter, and to the effervescent claims of other groups who also avow adherence to the teachings of That Servant. All of which finds placement in Solomon’s denunciation of the brazen harlot – “she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness” (Prov. 30:20).
As a final observation on RGJ’s loose and irresponsible teachings, note his statement on p. 56, col. 1, par. 3: “Who shall be able to stand?” He applies this text (Mal. 3:2) here to the fifth Parousia sifting; and then at the bottom of col. 2 (same page), he says, “The reference clearly applies to this Epiphany period.” All instructed in Epiphany Truth know that “Who may abide the day of His coming” is the part of this text that applies to the Parousia ONLY; and the Epiphany Messenger was very emphatic in his time application of the two parts of this text. This text in both parts applies to new creatures. In the Parousia it was a matter of whether they “abide” as new creatures, or go the way of Judas as did the ransom‑deniers, et al, of the Parousia. In the Epiphany it is “Who shall be able to stand?” – continue in the Little Flock standing during this separation time, this manifesting time. And how do we recognize those who fall – the crown‑loser who do not ‘stand’ (those who revolutionize against the Truth and its Arrangements – one or both)? It is gross and persistent revolutionism that separates the crown‑retainers from the crown‑losers.
Now RGJ has admitted that his revolutionism against the arrangements under the benign leadership of the Epiphany Messenger, was gross and persistent. Since the Epiphany Messenger’s demise – at a time when he had lost the brotherly fellowship and favor of the Priesthood, and his complete abandonment to Azazel, he has revolutionized against the Truths which we have enumerated in this paper – although it isn’t clear in the case of Mal. 3:2 whether he is in this instance revolutionizing against this Epiphany Truth, or if he is simply so befuddled by Azazel that he unwittingly contradicts himself right on the same page of his magazine. Truly, those who fall into the clutches of Azazel offer all sorts of nonsense in their writings and teachings. In fact, he is in a very poor position now to use that Epiphany section, because he claims there are none at all left on earth who have been “able to stand”: He says such are all gone from the earth.
“I will also praise thee with the psalter, even thy truth, O my God; unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel. My tongue also shall talk of thy righteousness all the day long: for they are confounded, for they are brought unto shame, that seek my hurt.” (Psa. 71;22, 24)
-------------------------------------------------
QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST
QUESTION: – On p. 389 of the July 1, 1968 Watch Tower the question is asked, “Is your religion the true one?” Then they make the statement, “The test is a relatively easy one to make.” Is it easy to “discern between truth and error” in religious teachings?
ANSWER: – There is plenty of Scripture to dispute that statement. In 2 Pet. 3:16 it is said that the Apostle Paul had written “some things hard to under stand, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest.” And in Psa. 97:11 it is written, “Light (truth) is sown for the righteous.” The inference here is clear enough that the Truth is not sown for the unrighteous; and the Manna comment for June 19 has this: “It is God’s provision to open the eyes of understanding of those only whose hearts are in sympathy with righteous principles. To others the Truth would be an injury.” In support of this we have the words of Jesus in Mark 4:11, 12: “Unto you (the Disciples) it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (the unrighteous, the unstable and the unlearned), all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” Of course, elementary truth can be understood by the good worldlings – those who are seeking to live in harmony with good principles. But, the Apostle Paul tells us that “Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14) Self‑evidently, the “test” is not relatively easy for any except those who are of “full age.”
God put the secrets in the Bible in so hidden a manner that none could understand them except by a special act of God’s enlightening grace, which He has withheld from all except from those to whom He wished to reveal Himself – the faith class. It is for this reason that the Bible in large part is simply unintelligible to any but the fully faithful – and that as due. This St. Paul makes very clear in 1 Cor. 2:7‑14. Truly he could say, “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery” – in a secret way.
The Witnesses themselves offer ample contradiction to their contention in this instance, because they make radical changes from year to year in their own understanding of the Scriptures – so much so that they now offer direct contradiction to very many things they presented as the Truth in years past. Thus, if we should admit that they now have the Truth, it would readily follow that it has not been “relatively easy” for them themselves to find that Truth. And of those who are now their devoted “dedicated” devotees, how many do we meet that know their own teachings today, and can “give to every man a reason for the hope” they cherish.
Their thought is the same as that held by the Editor of the Present Truth, although he does limit his contention that the Truth is for all the consecrated. But even this is clearly contradicted by 2 Thes. 2 11, “Because they received not the love of the Truth ..... God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” – not the Truth, but a lie! His “strong delusion” that we are already fourteen years into the Basileia, and that this is a parallel to the 25‑months overlapping of the Parousia into the Epiphany (Sept. 1914 to October 1916), is perhaps the foundation “strong delusion” for most of his other “strong delusions.” As all Truth people know, the Laver in the Court of the Tabernacle types the Bible; and, as the typical priests in Israel washed at the Laver, so the Gospel‑Age people of God wash in the antitypical Laver, the Bible. Yet he now places his consecrated Truth seekers in the Camp, where there is no Laver, no chance for them to wash. And just how much Truth should we expect his consecrated Campers to see when they do not even have access to the antitypical Laver in the Court:
It might be well to remember here that all systems of error have some truth in them; otherwise, nobody would believe them. And the Watch Tower article under discussion has many items of truth, as they sandwich in their error that it is “relatively easy” to understand the most intricate of all books, the Bible. And the Present Truth magazine also has much Truth in it to embellish the errors it contains. St. Paul tells us in Eph. 2:19 20: “Ye (the true Church) are of the Household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (the specially enlightened leaders of the Gospel Age).” Without the help of these guiding lights, it would be impossible for the ordinary seeker to gain more than a smattering of that knowledge that “maketh wise unto salvation.” “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom. 10:14, 15) Nor would so many people be in gross darkness if we didn’t have false teachers: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Pet. 2:1‑2)
------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Dear Mr. Hoefle:
I send you a study which I published in the U.S. several years ago – about a subject you wrote about in your No. 158. I hope to publish a book about Evangelical Churches and their attitude toward Zionism, and shall use your material in re-editing my chapter about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Sincerely yours, Dr. ------- (JERUSALEM)
Answer to above:
Dear Doctor ------- Christian greetings!
Your note of June 20 just arrived, so I hasten to assure you that you are free to use anything I have written. Also, it will be my pleasure to assist you further in any way I can with your new book, of which I would like a copy when you have it ready.
The Reprint you enclose is quite interesting, although I am intimately familiar with much it contains. To inform you somewhat about myself: As a youth I was confirmed into the Lutheran Church, but it was not until I read Pastor Russell’s Scripture Studies that I became an active Christian. At that time I was quite in harmony with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society (now Jehovah’s Witnesses). I attended those two Cedar Point Conventions mentioned in your Reprint; I was energetic in circulating the petitions (on which we eventually secured more than a million names – a volume large enough to fill an ordinary rail freight car) in 1919, which resulted in Rutherford and his seven associates being released from Atlanta Penitentiary, to which they had been sent in 1918. About 1920 Rutherford proposed that I become his personal secretary, which I have since been very grateful I did not accept, as his multitudinous departures from the teachings of Pastor Russell were soon to make their appearance a fact which caused me to leave the Witnesses about 1923.
About that time I became closely associated with Pastor Paul S. L. Johnson (a Christianized Jew, about whom I have written you briefly in the past), and I continued that relationship until his death in 1950. His publishing name was Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, of which R. G. Jolly became the guiding officer after Pastor Johnson’s death. He has also followed the course of Rutherford in forsaking the teachings of Pastor Russell, although not nearly to the same extreme degree. Enough so, however, that I was forced to make an open break with him in 1955 – which distressed me much, as I had provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Pastor Johnson in the work he did. I conducted his funeral; and, so far as I know, his group was the only one of the many schisms that developed after Pastor Russell’s death that strictly adhered to the latter’s teachings – a course I now try to follow scrupulously, with the exception of the time features of those prophetic observations that time has clearly proven to be wrong. However, it is still my firm belief that we are in “the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), exactly as Pastors Russell and Johnson taught, with the reservation that some of their expectations have not materialized at the dates they expected. It is good to note you seem to have such a good opinion of Pastor Russell, as he was truly a profound and honorable man.
Enclosed is one of my No. 133 – The Time of the End – which I hope you will find interesting, and I offer you my cordial good wishes for success with your coming book.
Sincerely your brother and servant, John J. Hoefle
……………………………………..
Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!
I was very glad to get your last letter – and I thought I could send you the additional names for your list. I find some of these people very liberal, and think they will read other views at least, although they are not too well established in Present Truth. I also enjoyed the July issue on the Epiphany – a very good answer to John W. Krewson. Only wish I had some names and addresses of his people. One that I know is Mrs.-------, and another Mr. and Mrs. -------
Brother and Sister ------- visited us a week ago Sunday ……. They said RGJ is going to have the Philadelphia Convention in a Baptist Church about a mile from the Bible House……. Said they didn’t have enough room in the Bible House – having only a small chapel in which used to be a big ball room in the residence.....
I will be anxiously awaiting the August issue on the Jewish Question. Personally, I do not expect a lot of results toward the Jews at the present time. I believe that the Jews will not accept Christ, or the Truth, until late in Jacob’s trouble. Here are a dozen, or more, of Jewish names for you to send the August paper to. I surely hope you will get some reaction from these brethren. Let me know.
With much Christian love, Brother ------- (MICHIGAN)
………………………………………
Dearly beloved of The Lord! May Grace and Peace be your continued portion.! Num. 6:24‑26
It was really very sweet of you to send us your message before we left for Ireland. Sister sent the message on to Beaumaris, and acquainted Brother ------- also with the message. Recently we had two Jehovah’s Witnesses call. We did not know them personally. Of course, they think we merit Second Death because we don’t believe their views. However, we had a good talk, and we trust they will remember some things. They are obsessed with their views, and their excuse for changing doctrines, etc., was – they are human! The brother was continually emphasizing the organization. He did not like being told that the Roman Church had a great organization. “Oh, don’t liken us to them!” he said. He made no comment about their memoralizing Jehovah and not the sacrifice of Jesus who died for our sins....
We will return around the 2nd or 3rd. Our united love to Sister and yourself also Sister Dunnagan and Sister Moynelo. God bless you all!
Your sincere brother ------- (ENGLAND)
……………………………………….
Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace through our dear Redeemer!
Haven’t meant to be quite so long answering yours of the 15th. I am enclosing $‑‑‑‑ for the work. I have been rereading the 1967 papers, and they are so good! Just do not see how any one can think differently on the “end” in 1 Cor. 15:20‑25. You make it plain enough for any one. One would have to be blind not to see it. Surely even Jolly sees it now.
With much love and prayers, ------- (KANSAS)