by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 98

My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Due to the time element and other considerations, we were unable to give full analysis to the May-June Present Truth, so we now keep our promise to present further comment thereon; and we begin with Brother Johnson's statement in E-5:497 (25):

''The reason for the reassertion of the Parousia Truth is that many who were once its exponents as pilgrims, elders, etc., are seeking to over­throw it. As Satan's mouthpieces, in proportion to their abilities they are attacking the Truth that they once professed to hold as dearer than life itself. Some of these attack some of its features; others attack others of its features; and by the time that the sixty groups of Levites will have been formed (the LHMM is one of those sixty groups – JJH), every feature of the Parousia Truth will have been repudiated and attacked by one or another of the sixty groups of Levite leaders.”

We now present to R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine our Question No. 16: Do you believe the above teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? But, as we await their answer, we now proceed to explain why Brother Johnson could logically reach such a conclusion. In E-8:192, he offers this fact: “The crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders. “ We find this even more to the point in E-5:499:

''He (Bro. Johnson) abhors controversy with brethren (just as we also do–JJH), and at first had, by the Lord to be pushed into it, greatly against his inclina­tions (as was also our own experience – JJH).... Just as after the Apostles fell asleep, Satan used crown-losing leaders who hungered for a following to pervert the Apostolic Truth, until it was lost from the earth through their efforts, culminating in the papacy; so after That Servant passed beyond the veil, Satan began to raise up crown-lost leaders to take away from the Church the Truth that the Lord gave by him, seeking to destroy it entirely,”

Thus, it should not surprise us at all to see R. G. Jolly doing identically the same thing that his kinsmen in the other 59 groups have been doing – something he was not in position to do until he was fully abandoned to Azazel in 1950. Let us not for­get that Brother Johnson taught that all new creatures were to be regarded as Priests, and in the Holy, until they revolutionized, and were then forced into the Court. But so long as they remained in the Holy, many of them (even including That Evil Servant before he became such – and including also R. G. Jolly before his manifesta­tion in 1938) gave commendable and valiant aid to the Truth movement. It was only after their abandonment to Azazel that all of the Epiphany Levite leaders began their headlong rush to pervert various features of the Parousia Truth. That is why Brother Johnson states in E-10:398:

“As long as the priesthood does not abandon crown losers, Azazel cannot possess himself of them.”

And, according to R. G. Jolly's own admission, Brother Johnson never at any time dur­ing the latter's life abandoned R. G. Jolly (withdrew brotherly fellowship from him). That is why he retained – on the surface, at least – the Epiphany Truth while restrained by Brother Johnson's presence with us; and that is why we may be fully certain now that he is not cleansed, as he claims. Otherwise, he would not have become so befuddled by Azazel that he would have accepted and persistently retains, those perversions of Parousia and Epiphany Truth that were fed to him by his “cousin” J. W. Krewson.

And he kill continue to “wallow” in such errors until he comes to a correct understanding and sufficient honesty to admit the truth (“they admitted not the love of the Truth”– 2 Thes. 2:10, Dia.) on the abandonment procedure for all crown-losers, as set out so succinctly and clearly in E-15:525-527 and in E-4:210 – a teaching on which he self-evidently wasn't clear – although he may have understood, perhaps vaguely, its workings toward crown-losers in other groups. This is exactly as Brother Johnson taught about this Class, as it is recorded in E-4:129!

“Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose; then it will be under­stood by the properly disposed Levites. E.g., now the understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and abandoning him to Azazel, is withheld from them. After they are cleansed, they will understand these things.”

Clearly enough, R. G. Jolly does not yet understand this doctrine; and this in turn is prima facie evidence that he cannot possibly be cleansed. Otherwise, he would understand it, as Brother Johnson has stated he would. Indeed, here is provided a striking example in proof of this Epiphany teaching – the most prominent crown-loser (R. G. Jolly) in the Epiphany Movement, one who was proof-reading about everything Bro. Johnson wrote, yet no more grasping its portent as applicable to himself than those who had never read the teaching – even though Brother Johnson cogently emphasized its applicability to all crown-losers in all its features before they can be cleansed – ­the same applying to the very best of them right in the Epiphany Movement (to those who lost their crowns by the “skin of their teeth”– Please see E-15:525).

Note also that Brother Johnson insisted that crown-losers were never forced out of the Holy until they revolutionized – that they must first revolutionize before they could be abandoned by the Priests and delivered over to Azazel. Yet, in the face of this clear Epiphany teaching, R. G. Jolly immediately declared all new creatures in the Epiphany Movement, and everywhere, to be crown-losers at Brother Johnson's death; and received them (of the LHMM group) and used them as Pilgrims, contrary to Brother Johnson's action with R. G. Jolly when he was manifested in 1938, and forced out of the Holy. However, since 1950 all the LHMM leaders who have embraced R. G. Jolly's errors have clearly revolutionized against Epiphany Truth and some features of Parousia Truth, thus definitely manifesting themselves – although this conclusion certainly would not apply to those Epiphany new creatures who have left him. That is why we insist that some priests are to be found among those who have not revolutionized. To all of our readers we urge another careful reading of The Epiphany Messenger's writings as cited herein. Especially do we stress this with our Youthful Worthy readers, because revolutionism by them would in principle label them in like manner to revolutionizing new creatures – a loss of their Class standing and the Lord's disapproval.


It should be kept in mind that Brother Russell here in the reaping feature of the Gospel-Age Harvest was an exact parallel to the twelve Apostles in the reaping feature of the Jewish Harvest; and, as soon as those Apostles passed from their earthly activities, the crown-lost leaders began immediately to pervert one after another of their teachings. That is why Brother Johnson could reach the conclusion he did in E-5:497; and we ourselves have been witness to the truth of his observation, even moreso than he himself had been, because the last Levite post to operate as such under a crown-lost leader is the L.H.M.M., which process could not begin until after Brother Johnson's death. And what do we see with respect to this group? Have they not matched stride for stride their kinsmen in the other 59 groups? And does this not automatically prove all of the sixty groups to be Little Babylon – confusion? Here are just a few illustrations:

(l) – They now teach Tentative Justification in the Camp; whereas, the Parousia Truth (and confirmed and reasserted repeatedly by the Epiphany Messenger because of the Epiphany crown-lost leaders' perversions on Tentative Justification) stated this condition is typed in the Court.

(2) –     In Tower Reprints, page 5526, caption “The Present Crisis,” Brother Russell says this, in part: “The present terrible war is not the great time of trouble in its fullest sense of the word, but merely its forerunner. The great time of trouble of the Scriptures (the Epiphany period in its fullest sense, because the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identicalJH) will be brought on by Anarchy – ­the general uprising of the people;. as the Prophet says, 'every man's hand against his neighbor' – Zech. 8:10.” (But R. G. Jolly has the 'overlapping' of the Time of Trouble – The Epiphany period – taking place when only the 'forerunner' – as Bro. Russell tells us – has transpired–JJH)

Clearly enough, if Brother Russell is right, the Prophet is here describing the Great Tribulation, the Epiphany period in the “fullest sense of the word.” R. G. Jolly now repudiates this Parousia Truth by having the Epiphany period end in its “restricted sense” in 1954; whereas, it has not yet even in 1963 arrived in the “fullest sense of the word” if the Parousia Messenger knew whereof he wrote. And the “cousin” (J. W, Krewson) has the Epiphany period as a thing of the past, before it has actually arrived in “the fullest sense of the word.” This perversion by the both of them is exactly in keeping with perversions of other truths by the crown-lost leaders in the other 59 groups, except worse for the “cousins” because of the greater light received by them from the Epiphany Messenger. This conclusion by us is also based upon another Parousia teaching, as given in the Berean Comment on 2 Thes. 2:11: “Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.”

Therefore, we now propound our Question No. 17 to Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe the foregoing teaching by the Parousia Messenger, a teaching which was accepted in every detail by the Epiphany Messenger?


In E-4:341 Brother Johnson makes this comment: ''This method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them,, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discus­sion of that doctrine occurred, was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age..”

Surely, all of us know – even as those now truth-repudiating leaders of the LHMM themselves know – that it has ever been a characteristic of all errorists to stress such Scriptures as suit their purpose, even as they ignore, or even repudiate, other Scriptures that would utterly destroy their position. Early in the Epiphany we were refuting an errorist on the state of the dead, etc., at which he cited Elijah's whirl­wind experience, to prove that here at least was one that had gone to Heaven. When we quoted in offset John 3:13, “No man hath ascended into Heaven,” he violently cast down the Bible, and shouted, “I don't believe that!” – and walked away.

Thus, also, Jehovah's Witnesses are now forced to ignore certain Scriptures which destroy their present contentions. In their funeral discourses they no longer quote 1 Tim. 2:4, “God will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the Truth”; just as they also now pass by 1 Cor. 15:22, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Likewise, a Christian Science reader made use of Rom. 8:17 in his funeral oration, “If children, then heirs, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.” And right there he stopped, knowing that the remainder of the text, “if so be that we suffer with Him,” would cause him to appear imbecilic, since they contend there is no suffering – it's all just a state of mind.


Come now R. G. Jolly and his henchmen no longer using Heb. 13:13, “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” In times past this was always an appropriate and often-used text in consecration discourses; but not so any longer in the LHMM. Even the merest beginners might want to know just how they are to “go to Him without the camp,” even as they are now being told that they come to Him ''within the camp” – as Consecrated Campers. Last Fall at the Chicago Convention August Gohlke made quite some point in his discourse of how one section of those formerly associated with them had gone to one extreme, while the other section had gone to the other extreme – even as they themselves were occupying “the golden middle.”. Indeed, there was much more Truth mixed in with his error than he himself realized. Had he but omitted the word “golden,” his statement would have been the full truth; for they are now decidedly occupying the “middle” when they place their proselytes in the Camp. It is truly the “middle” between the Court, which contains the truly justified, and “without the Camp.” (“Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” saith the Lord – Luke 19:22)

Be it ever remembered that Big Babylon also has occupied “the golden middle” all during the Age; they also are in the Camp, which places R. G. Jolly's Campers Conse­crated right where they belong – right with Big Babylon (confusion). Repeatedly did Brother Russell warn that we are not to follow wayward brethren, or prospective new­comers in their forbidden paths outside the Court; rather, we should call to them to join or rejoin us, as the case might be. But it is no longer a matter of calling such into the Court; to offer consecration hopes to new ones it becomes necessary to join them in the Camp, as that is the only place in which they can logically be served –­ that is where they are. Note now a further comment by Brother Johnson on this Camp position (E-8:566-89):

“The faith-justified (the unconsecrated) in their three groups were privileged to be assistants of the new creatures in this work, and they succeeded in working in the people a measure of pleasement with God, that much as they would allow with their being parts of the antitypical Camp.... God did not expect that degree of pleasement with Him from the unjustified antitypical Camp.... Their development in these respects would stop short of repentance and faith, which are the transitional steps out of the antitypical Camp (away from Babylon – “Come out of her, my people,”! Rev. 18:4 – JJH) into the antitypical Court.”

Now comes another quotation from E-8:13 on this subject: “It is only a narrow view that, leaving out of consideration certain Scriptures (as R. G. Jolly is now doing – JJH)... facts as well as sound reason, moves some Truth people to deny that the tentatively Justified are also pictured forth by the Levites.”

Here is a clear statement that the Levites type the tentatively justified; or, stat­ing it in reverse, the Gospel-Age tentatively justified are antitypical Levites. Does R. G. Jolly now include his tentatively iustified Consecrated Campers as anti­typical Levites? Let him give a clear answer to this question also – if he has one. And we emphasize again that there is no Tentative (faith) Justification after the Gospel Age. (Please see E-11:169 and E-11:482.) Brother Russell offers further con­firmation of this question of antitypical Levites in the Question Book, p. 694:

“All who are in harmony with God in any sense of the word are, tentatively, Levites.... will become actual Levites.... they make an entire consecration.”


It will be recalled that in the May-June PT R. G. Jolly assumes an attitude of disdain toward sifters; he won't cheapen himself by engaging any of them in contro­versy – that is, since he himself is now wallowing in the quagmire of error. Be it noted that in that 1909 encounter with M. L. McPhail Brother Johnson did not even wait for a challenge from that sifter; he went directly to where he was and sought him out – in the presence of a large number of the Chicago Church. And his reason for this is clearly set forth in E-5:489, top: “In delivering us now our Lord does two things: (1) He rescues us from all the snares that the Devil (who is the leader and motivator of all sifters – JJH), the world and the flesh lay for us; and (2) He gives us victory in all our conflicts with them.” This is quite in harmony with St, Paul's conclusion in 2 Cor. 2:l4: “Thanks be unto God, which always causes us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of His knowledge by us in every place,” The “savor of His knowledge” was not made manifest in Chicago that April day by Brother Johnson refusing to face the sifter; rather, it was “Made manifest” by his bold encounter with the sifter through the “savor of His knowledge” to the bless­ing of the sheep in that congregation. Brother Johnson did not allow the sifter there to chase him away and send in a written answer to the burning questions at issue – ­which would have been the case had Brother Johnson failed to have the Truth on his side.

Of course, at that time Brother Johnson was faithfully building upon Christ as The Rock; whereas, R. G. Jolly has been building upon Christ as “the sand.” (Please see Epiphany Volume 5, p. 473 onward – “Two Houses Built and Tested.”)

We now quote a little from E-5:491 – “In sickness and wounds they (the Fully Faith­ful) must be hopeful of cure; and in all things endure hardships as good soldiers.. of Jesus Christ.... Such come off more than conquerors.... in this the best of all wars... (19) But crown-losers do not so wage war (as exemplified in the counsel R. G. Jolly now proffers to Fred Blaine and others – JJH).... These accept the defeatist mental attitude. They attempt to act out and often do act out, in many a fight the couplet of certain cowardly earthly soldiers:

                                                He who fights and runs away

                                                Lives to fight another day.

(20) However such a sentiment may occasionally be true in earthly wars, it certainly is not true in our warfare of the Spirit. To yield in, and flee out of its battles, leads to discharge from the army of the King's Own. Moreover, such yielding and flee­ing expose one to greater danger than facing the foe.”

Certainly, all of us who have borne any measure of the heat and toil of this trialsome day know from personal experience the clear and indisputable truth of the foregoing. R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine at one time in their warfare, under the sus­taining and skillful leadership of the Epiphany Messenger, knew it, too. When R. G. Jolly urgently prevailed upon JJH to engage the foe in battle in 1951, he did so because he was fully persuaded that JJH would not return from the wars all cut and bleeding –­ just as he knows now that is exactly what would happen to Fred Blaine if he gave him a similar assignment, in an attempt to defend his errors. If we are indeed that “sifter” he heralds now with his “profusion of loud words,” then, of course, there would be no hope of rescuing JJH from the 'snare of the fowler.' But what about his duty to the sheep in Trinidad? Just how is he “taking heed to the flock” (Acts 20:28) when he leaves them at the mercy of the “sifter”? Of course, for one who has built his house upon “Christ as the sand,” such erratic drivel is now all that is left to him. And, when we compare the valiant soldiers both of these were under the inspiring leader­ship of the beloved Epiphany Messenger with their present abject crawling, truckling and fleeing, we can but once more quote the words of 2 Sam. 1:25: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle.... and the weapons of war perished” – THE TRUTH, which is ever the weapon of warfare of the Fully Faithful.

Thus, we join with St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:57) in meeting all perverters (Azazel means Perverter) and sifters alike with the blessed assurance: “Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is the privilege of the Faithful to think ever in terms of victory; there is no such thing as defeat in our battles so long as we are fully obedient soldiers to the instructions of the Good Cap­tain of our Salvation. If we are faithful in putting on “the whole armor of God” in this evil day, then we may rest in the strong consolation that “no weapon (of sifter or perverter) that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the (fully Faith­ful) servants of the Lord.” (Isa. 54:17)

And for now, “I will praise thee forever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints,”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



QUESTION: – You continue to refer to brother Jolly's “bad conscience,” mentioned by Brother Johnson in E-10:585. Aren't you being unjust and evil to cast up today something that occurred over twenty-five years ago?

ANSWER: – There are circumstances in which the accusation of your ques­tion would cer­tainly be pertinent. For instance, the laws of our United States are humane and just enough that they prohibit calling any one a thief who may have been convicted of this felony, served a prison sentence therefor, and subse­quently resumed his place with society – that is, if such a person steals no more. This is exactly in harmony with God's law, written in Eze. 33:15-16: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity.... None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” Certainly, all will agree this is as it should be, and is accentuated by Brother Russell in Vol. 6, wherein he teaches we should not cast up past wrongs to erstwhile disfellowshiped persons who have been received back into the Ecclesia.

However, if past wrongs continue to assert themselves, then it is our duty to oppose them with even more vigor and decision than at the first offense. Thus, we continue to cast up the sins of the Papacy that are centuries old, because that System gives no evidence at all of repentance. And we should follow the same course with R. G. Jolly – or toward any one else who is in position to hurt others by their sins – ­who clearly manifests a similar disposition. It would be wrong not to do so. We be­lieve clear justification for our present course is to be found in R. G. Jolly's state­ment in the Feb. 1951 PT, p. 31, col. 2:

“I can truly say that I recognized no willfulness in anything that I did (in his revolutionism of 1938JJH), for I verily thought I was doing the Lord's will.”

It was only after the necessity of Brother Johnson's very harsh exposure that he came to see he had done a wrong – so says R. G. Jolly. In contrast to this, note that Bro. Russell, March 1, 1913 WT, Reprints 5197, col. 1, disputes this in toto:

“Blemishes are the weaknesses and imperfections of the flesh. Spots are NOT those wrong doings of which we are unconscious.”

At the time Brother Johnson convinced R. G. Jolly that what he did in 1938 was so wrong that it unmistakably manifested him as a crown-loser, then we believe he should have been able to recognize the weaknesses and sin that caused him to lose his crown – ­had he been truly repentant and possessed of a “pure heart” after his submission to that correction. Had he then fully recognized “the sin that doth so easily beset him” (a “bad conscience,” etc.), he would also have recognized the willfulness on his part when he committed the gross wrong, and would have been so much on his guard in the future that he would not fall again, realizing only too well that further “hard­ness of sin” under God's disciplin­ary hand would surely eventuate in another “sorer punishment” (Heb. 10:29). However, his rush to assert himself so dogmatically and dictatorially the very night after Brother Johnson's funeral offers clear evidence that his 1938 rebuke by Brother Johnson only humiliated him, but did not work in him a true humility (a proper self-estimate); otherwise, he would not have proceeded as he did.

Consider once more that type and antitype must correspond in every detail; then pair the performance of R. G. Jolly with his type, King Saul – 1 Sam. 15:13-24:

“I (Saul) have performed the commandment of the Lord... And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord.... but the people took of the spoil... And Samuel said .... Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord He hath also rejected thee from being king. And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned.” Says R. G. Jolly: “I recognized no willfulness in anything that I did.” Said King Saul: “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord – I recognize no willfulness in anything I have done.” Note the Berean Comment on v. 13: “Manifesting considerable hypocrisy,” etc. His lie is repeated in v. 20; and it was only Samuel's stern countenance and rebuking finger that eventually forced Saul to admit:. “I have sinned,” In identical fashion does this “correspond in every detail” with R. G. Jolly's record of his 1938 “rebellion” (Revolutionism), when confronted with the caustic rebuke of a member of antitypical Samuel – Brother Johnson.

Similar to the foregoing is his Revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany arrangements, when he attempted to set aside the Manna texts and comments for testimony at Conventions. R. G. Jolly also saw no wrong in that – “recognized no willfulness in anything I have done” – until our own rebuke for that wrong persuaded him to correct it. And for this we certainly commend him, even though his subsequent conduct bears witness of no true repentance from the heart; he still persistently revolutionizes against other important Parousia and Epiphany Truths and Arrangements.

There is no available record that he has ever “confessed” (1 John 1:9) any of the besetting sins that entered into his 1933 exposure; his only confession – under extreme compulsion – is that he did do an 'unconscious' wrong at that time. Nor do we have any record of his admitting any besetting sins that caused him to lose his crown. Until such thorough search of self, and admission of guilt – and a true repentance – no crown-loser can be cleansed, as is clearly taught by the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, and by Scripture.

In the same Watch Tower reference (Reprints 5197), Brother Russell gives us the following:

“It is the duty of the new creature to detect the imperfections, errors and shortcomings of the flesh, and go immediately to the throne of Grace with them, to obtain mercy and forgiveness. Only those with tender consciences (the crown-retainers – JJH) will keep the garment unspotted. The failure to do this seems to be the reason why so many (the Great Multitude–JJH) fail to make their 'calling and election sure.'”

From the foregoing, it should be clear enough that R. G. Jolly did not have a tender conscience prior to 1914 (otherwise he would not have lost his crown); and it is also clear enough he did not have a tender conscience in 1938 (24 years later); it is also clear enough he did not yet have a tender conscience in 1951; otherwise, he would not have been so solicitous to cover up his past wrongs. It should also be clear enough from this that he could not possibly have been cleansed in 1951, as he claimed to be – and as he still claims to be. This is exactly the attitude we should expect from one in Azazel's clutches; such a person fails to recognize his evils, while browbeating those under him for any seeming outward offense to make himself appear righteous. Therefore, he could not possibly cleanse himself from something which he could not recognize (while 'deluded'– 2 Thes. 2:11) – “the sin which doth so easily beset him” (a bad conscience, approbativeness, prone to lying, etc.) – ­which is just the reverse of the Fully Faithful Little Flock, who did recognize their sins, and speedily corrected them and sought forgiveness for them. Has R. G. Jolly ever sought forgiveness for the sins that caused him to lose his crown? We remember very clearly – from our own personal experience with him in 1926 – that he had not then come to such recognition of himself (although he was having no difficulty at all then in recognizing other crown-losers and the “sins that beset them”), because he discussed with us personally his standing in the Body of Christ, how he would not place a mater­ial value upon his 'pearl of great price' (which self-evidently he had already done at the time he lost his crown). That was at least twelve years after he had already lost that 'Pearl' – sold his 'birthright' (crown).

Referring again to p. 31, col, 2, bottom of the Feb. 1951 PT, where R. G. Jolly is telling Brother Haviland he “verily thought he was doing the Lord's will” in his 1938 revolutionism, and whereby he was attempting to place dear Brother Haviland in the same class with himself, we now state in defense of Brother Haviland that he was never manifested by revolutionism, as was R. G. Jolly; therefore, the comparison is simply some more of his (R. G. Jolly's) perverted thinking. Maybe Brother Haviland was a crown-loser; but we have nothing – just nothing at all – to prove that he was such; yet we say also in fairness we cannot definitely assert that he was a Saint) although Brother Johnson regarded him as such, and so did many of us. And, when he said he was aware of nothing amiss in his consecrated life, he verily spoke the truth – ­from a good conscience; therefore, R. G. Jolly's browbeating of one of the Lords little ones was simply one more evidence of his “bad conscience” as late as 1951. And his similar treatment of others since that date offers further confirmation that his conscience is still “bad”..

Knowing the past as we do – knowing the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on this subject – knowing also R. G. Jolly's present behavior – that is why we continue, and properly so, we think, to remind all of R. G. Jolly's “bad conscience.” In 1 Tim. 4:2 St. Paul mentions some “having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Whether this is now R. G. Jolly's condition, we leave in the hands of Him who judges all things wisely and well. Once more we emphasize that it gives us no pleasure at all to expose the sins of R. G. Jolly – or the sins of any one else – even though we may appear to be “rude in speech” (2 Cor. 11:6). St. Paul admonishes us to “exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceit­fulness of sin” (Heb. 3:12). This is an obligation placed upon us all; thus, ''We use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12) in a sincere effort to “provoke to love and good works” if by any chance we may rescue R. G. Jolly and others of like disposition from the snare of the fowler.



Dear Friends: –

I have been receiving literature from Epiphany Bible Students, and I do not find it profitable, so please don't send anymore and save your money. I know nothing of Bro. Jolly or Bro. Hoefle or their disagreement and very little of the Epiphany Movement... To me it is sad to see two, who claim Christ as their example, quarreling so bitterly. I knew Bro. Johnson as a child when I went with my parents to meetings at the Bible House in Allegheny when Bro. Russell was living, but never read any of his books (Bro. Johnson's).... Please read the Epistles of John and try to get the deep meaning that is in them.

I read the Bible “as is” and my relationship to God is very simple, I love Him and know that he loves and cares for me. Christ is our glorious example. He died to give us life and lived to teach us of the Father. Our Father arranges the times and season, and I trust his wisdom and justice – and love. I do not have to concern myself about them I know that I am kept by his power in “the shadow of his wing.”

So much is written today to no real purpose. We need encouragement and food – real food... I appreciate written talks by brethren, but they must be uplifting – something that brings me closer to our heavenly Father and to a deeper understanding of his love. I do not believe that we judge the brethren. God alone knows their hearts and intentions, and he can handle it all without me. With Christian love ------- (WASHINGTON)

NOTE: When this dear lady says “Christ is our glorious example,” it is simply so much empty talk, devoid of meaning. Apparently she is a parlor Christian – of whom there are legion – using her Bible as a “textbook,” and believing that our Lord, the Reformers and the Parousia Messenger were all engaged “to no real purpose” as they were constantly “quarreling so bitterly” with their brethren in error. But she doesn't wish to be bothered – just let ''God alone handle it all without me!”

We appreciate the cooperation and zeal of the brethren who send us names; but we would appreciate it if they would also give us the religious background with the names, if possible. In that way we would know what kind of literature they are able to receive.