by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 84

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

In the May‑June 1962 papers of J. W. Krewson and R. G. Jolly (both 'feeding' the sheep (?) every two months, while 'feeding' the world – at least in R. G. Jolly's case with his Bible Standard – more often, contrary to the Scriptural teachings on such matters, and contrary to the procedure of Brothers Russell and Johnson) there is quite a detailed attack upon us for offering April 17 after 6 P.M. as the proper time to observe the Memorial of our Lord's death. By joining hands once more in this in­stance (as well as in many other Instances – such as their publications, etc., etc, contrary to the Arrangements) to embrace the same error (just as they have done on Campers Consecrated, etc.). they once again provide potent proof that they are indeed "Cousins” (See our Nov. 1, 1961 paper No. 76‑A).

At the outset, let us make clear that we do not count it a grave offense if the wrong date is used by honest mistake; that is, if it be done inadvertently and in good conscience, and not carelessly so. Furthermore, we believe this subject is much too complicated for the brethren in general to work out for themselves; it is mostly the responsibility of the leaders – although we have the strong assurance of faith that all the Fully Faithful will recognize whence comes the Truth about it once it is made clear to them. All of us know that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both made honest mistakes in their calculations of the date; and probably the only chastening that came to them from the Lord was their humiliation before the Household in being forced to admit their fallibility. But, when pompous and irresponsible leaders offer profuse and insulting diatribe against us for the Truth we presented, their responsi­bility is thereby greatly increased; and their subsequent humiliation will also be emphasized accordingly. Thus, we hope to present our analysis now in sufficient de­tail to make the item clear to all the Fully Faithful. And be it emphasized that we should use the right date if we know the right date, because  – "He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

First, on p. 83, par. 4 of J. W. Krewson's paper he states, "The rule laid down in the Scriptures, in the Parousia and Epiphany writings is that.... moon NEAREST the Vernal Equinox news at Jerusalem, it is the one ALWAYS to be taken,” etc. This statement is simply a rank falsehood in all its parts. Let him show such a rule from the Scriptures if he has one! And if he had one, why didn't he cite the Scrip­ture? The only thing we have definitely in Exodus is that the Passover should be slain on Nisan 14; but nowhere does the Bible give even a hint about how we should arrive at Nisan 1. Nor does the feast of unleavened bread enter into the calculation, as he contends. That feast was the seven days following the Passover itself. Thus, it was the Passover that determined the date for the feast; the feast had nothing whatever to do with setting the date for the Passover.

If the foregoing be true, then we must go to sources outside the Scriptures to set the date for Nisan 1. Seemingly, the Jews left Egypt after the Vernal Equinox -­the Equinox being the exact instant when the sun is directly over the Equator, which occurs at about March 21 and September 21 each year. That is why Josephus stresses the point the way he does In connection with Aries; and that is why Brother Johnson quoted him, too. If Brother Johnson's logic is any good at all for one end of the month Nisan, it seems to us very elemental that it should apply with equal force to the other end of Nisan. And the Jews, deeply impressed as they were by their miracu­lous delivery from bondage, would be very scrupulous to hold the Memorial also in keeping with this reasoning at the correct season.

            In the year 1962 the Jews' calendar contains a Ve‑Adar (or second Adar) begin­ning March 5 and ending April 4. Had they used the March moon this year, as the Jolly‑Krewson twosome have done, they would have observed their Passover Memorial in the last month of the year, Ve‑Adar, instead of in the first month Nisan, as the Scriptures insist they must do. But we rejoice for them that this much of the "Oracles of God” has not been lost by them over the centuries past. We fully agree that their calendar is unreliable; but from this it does not follow that the fact of the Pass­over in Egypt, and the season of its occurrence, are also confusion to them.

The whole Christian world accepts the moon as a factor each year in determining the date of our Lord's passion. In the English Prayer Book it is stated that Easter can never occur later than April 23; and it has been that late on only a very few occasions in the past nineteen hundred years. This year it was on April 22, just one day short of the extreme. But it was the moon which determined April 22, because the Christian world in general dates Good Friday as the first Friday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox; and it would not be possible for a moon to come to its full later than about April 20 if the previous one came full even one minute before the Vernal Equinox. Had the Christian world used the March moon this year, then Easter would have occurred on March 25. In fact, this question was raised, and various views presented, early in March over WJR Detroit, Michigan, one of America's most powerful radio stations. In due course we sent in one and one‑half typewritten pages on the subject, which was read over that Station on March 12, and apparently 'refuted all the gainsayers,' as there was no further comment. Our analogy is too lengthy to reproduce herein, but any of our readers who wish a copy are welcome to it upon request.

Perhaps Brother Russell and Brother Johnson understood this much better than we have stated it; but we have not resorted to this detail to becloud the real point. If the last two Principal Men were not in full accord with what we presented, we would have hesitated long to make the decision we did this year 1962 respecting the correct date. Here's what Brother Russell says about it in Reprints 3968 (1907 Watch Tower, p. 98):

"When the new moon comes a little before the Spring Equinox, it starts the Jewish ecclesiastical year; – ­provided the full moon be not before the Equinox.”

Clearly enough, Brother Russell makes unequivocal exception to his rule about the "nearest" moon; and this year 1962 is one of those exceptions. When the Jolly‑Krewson twosome started their new moon on March 5 to begin Nisan 1, they then had the moon come full before the Equinox, which is wrong according to Brother Russell.

And Brother Johnson followed Brother Russell by stating the same exception on p. 30, Feb. 1933 P.T., under the caption, "Jewish Calendar Unbiblical.” Here is what he says:

"The Jewish calendar in use during the time of the New Testament... required Nisan 14 to come within a month after, but never before the vernal Equinox.”

Also, same P.T., col. 2, Brother Johnson says: "The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan or any other month, much less the arbitrary method of the Jewish calendar.” Thus, Brother Johnson diametrically dis­putes J.W. Krewson – although he does tell us, as did Brother Russell, that usually it is the new moon "nearest” the Spring Equinox that governs.

Could the foregoing citations be any clearer than they are? In following them, the date of April 17 which we used this year was right; and the date of March 18 used by the "Cousins” was wrong. Note especially that R. G. Jolly quotes from the 1907 Watch Tower and from the 1933 Present Truth; but he ignores the exceptions in both instances. Was this wilful on his part? Or is it because he is now in Azazel's hands, at which time Brother Johnson says such persons are so befuddled of mind they can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject? And, be it noted, he is crass enough to revile us several different times as a "teacher of sophistry” – even while he himself, as is his usual custom, is the one in error here, and not we. For shame that he should sink so low! "Sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3) In the past, after we have fully refuted his many errors, he has withdrawn behind a wall of silence, thereafter resort­ing to his reviling name‑calling, which is all there is then left for him. Will he resort to the same tactics in this present instance? And will his trusting followers uphold him in his evils, thus becoming a partaker of his sins? We abide our time!


Throughout both May‑June papers of the "Cousins” there is a kindred jabbering jumble, which would be unbelievable were we not actually witness to it. To analyze those in the Krewson paper would require a full effort in itself, which we leave for a future occasion, now confining ourselves largely to R. G. Jolly.

On p. 44, col. 1 he discusses "Justification and the Linen Curtain"; and about every citation he offers to "prove" his point very clearly disproves his claims. He presents E:10‑114 as his first – quoting only part of it, of course, as is often his custom, even as he shouts "shyster lawyer” at us. On p. 114 Brother Johnson clearly states:

"After 1954 .... no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.... Certainly, 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 and sinners to repent for the tentatively justified and sin­ners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of Rev. 22:11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

R. G, Jolly says his Epiphany Campers 'consecrated' can arise higher than the other quasi‑elect; that the "sinners’ can obtain tentative justification in his Epiphany Camp, and consecrate, and gain a standing higher than 'sinners.' But Brother Johnson distinctly teaches that no such thing can exist when Rev. 22:11 is fulfilled. Brother Johnson teaches that when Rev. 22:10‑11 applies the class standings of all individuals are already fixed. But R. G. Jolly, the 'cleansed' (?) Good Levite leader disputes Brother Johnson's teachings now, just as he attempted to withstand and dispute him during his lifetime. We wonder if R, G, Jolly still believes that Brother Johnson is the Epiphany Messenger? "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:13,19). R. G. Jolly and others are now receiving such plagues.

Is there any reason at all to assume that only a portion of Rev. 22:11 would be applicable at 1954‑56, as R. G. Jolly now attempts to have it? Even he contends his supporters should continue his "Attestatorial Service” to win Great Company members and Consecrated Campers to the Truth – in spite of Brother Johnson's inter­pretation and emphatic statement that such efforts would be useless once the time arrives for Rev. 22:11 to apply. Clearly enough, fulfilled facts themselves demon­strate that 1954‑56 has no relation whatever to Rev. 22:11 – any more than 1956 has any relation whatever to those 27 counterfeit pyramid calculations presented by the "Cousins” in the Jan. 1947 P.T, Their penchant for mathematical "witchcraft" (especially deceptive false teachings) is something to contemplate! Indeed, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" "The covering is narrower than that a man can wrap himself in it" (Isa. 23:20 – See Berean Comment), Once more we ask – Does R. G. Jolly believe all this reference (as quoted from E:10‑114)? Or, is he just selecting what suits him? He does the same thing with p. 672 of Vol. 10, where he omits the follow­ing from Brother Johnson's statement:

"Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.”

Our use of this statement in our refutations of R. G. Jolly's errors also causes him to yell "shyster lawyer" at us. Thus, when he refers to us as a "teacher of sophistry, this errorist," etc., he is offering the same kind of "Truth" that he does for his Memorial date; it is just some more of his thinking in reverse. We offer to him and his readers the Proverb (13:5), "A Righteous man hateth lying." Here is a sure and complete contradiction to his claim that he is "cleansed." If he were in that "cleansed" condition of which he now so blatantly contends, he, too, would "hate lying."

In this same setting he uses Brother Russell's writings in like manner when he refers to p. 402 of the Question Book. We now offer something from the Question Book, p. 312, year 1912, as follows: "Question: Can one who has entered the Holy as a Priest, during the Gospel Age, ever drop back into the Great Company, or Court Condition? Answer: This is a misunderstanding – the Great Company are not in the Court. The only ones in the Court now are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion – the Great Company are not in the Court (in the Parousia – JJH). The only ones in the Court now (in the Parousia) are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion.”

Brother Russell did not see the full and clear Truth on the Youthful Worthies, although he did see such a Class (Brother Johnson didn't see such a class as Epiphany Campers Consecrated at all! But R. G. Jolly sees it!). It was an Epiphany 'doctrine' (the Youthful Worthy Class) given to us with ample Scriptural proof by the Epiphany Messenger, the last Star Member (only Star Members are given new doctrines); and we challenge any new doctrine given to us by the 'cleansed' or 'uncleansed' Great Company leaders, because God does not give them new doctrines ('cups' – See E:8‑193). We believe all the doctrines were given to us before the last two Principal Men were removed from us; and that the only points left on these faithful and true doctrines are the clarifications of some of the items, as the Lord directs us. Insofar as R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers are concerned, he doesn't even claim for them the RESURRECTION OF THE JUST (although he clings tenaciously to the thought that they are 'tentatively justified' here in the end of this Age – and that in his Epiphany Camp). He admits that they will receive their Resurrection with the UNJUST, yet he contends they will have a peculiar and special position above the others who failed to consecrate during the Gospel Age! Who could be more ridiculous than R. G. Jolly (except J.F. Rutherford with his "Millions Now Living” and J. W. Krewson with his 'cleansed nucleus')?

Brother Russell continues on p. 312: "At the close of this Age there will NO LONGER be a tentative justifica­tion." How very wise was this "Wise and Faithful Servant"! And Brother Johnson adhered to this teaching. Of course, when the 'finished picture' is with us, there will no longer be a tentative justification offered. Why? Because the Gospel Age purposes will be fulfilled, and the Millen­nial Age purposes will be in the immediate future, when consecration for all Resti­tutionists (the formerly tentatively justified of the Gospel Age who failed to seal their tentative justification in consecration, together with those who were never in the Court during the Gospel Age, or during the Epiphany, the last Special Period of the Gospel Age) – of which R. G. Jolly's Campers Consecrated will be a part, unless he has befuddled them so much by their 'supposed' consecration for his (R. G. Jolly's) purposes – or some purpose besides Gospel‑Age or Millennial‑Age purposes, that they won't even have the standing of the quasi‑elect (the same applying to the Society's "great company" and to J. W, Krewson's quasi‑elect consecrated). So it is only such people as R. G. Jolly, J. W, Krewson and the Society who would offer such unscriptural rewards for such people! Neither Star Member gave the least intimation they ever saw such a Class for any kind of purpose. We are still living in the Last Special Period of the Gospel Age, the Epiphany, in which persons, principles and things are being made manifest most clearly before our eyes. if we have "continued in what we have learned and been assured of” (from the last two Principal Men), then we are indeed in a blessed condition! We will be protected from all such Levitical nonsense, whatever their loud and boastful contentions are regarding their 'cleansed' condition.

As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, "Azazel means Perverter"; and the perversions of R. G. Jolly which we herein examine are adamant proof of his definition! Here it is appropriate to quote from p. 18 of "Tabernacle Shadows”:

"The Camp was the nation of Israel at large, which was separated from all holy things by the curtain of white linen, representing to those within, a wall of faith, but to those without ("at a respectful distance" – p. 14, par. 2) a wall of unbelief which hindered their view of an access to the holy things within."

Neither the Parousia nor the Epiphany Messenger ever changed the interpretation given above, or even hinted that it should be changed; nor did either of them ever hint of a consecrated class in the Parousia or Epiphany Tabernacle Camp! Also, the Tabernacle itself had an outer covering of seal skins (mistranslated 'badger' skins) – ­an unsightly picture to those without, concealing completely from such the glorious things within the structure. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit, for they are foolishness unto him" (unattractive and malodorous pelts). And no amount of Levitical "sleight‑of‑hand" can erase this picture! Let us keep in mind that the linen curtain hid from view in large measure the altar of sacrifice and the laver; those in the Camp could not see that equipment – they could not see through the curtain! But now, Behold the miracle of an uncleansed levite! He has improved the vision of his Campers in such pronounced fashion that they can see right through that figurative curtain! That's the only way, of course, that they could view the altar and the laver, because in the Camp R. G. Jolly has his Campers in a vacant house – no furni­ture or fixtures of any kind in it. How ridiculous ('foolish') can he be! And granted that his Campers Consecrated could perchance see through the curtain, they still would be in no position to use the altar or the laver, as they are not in the Court – and there is no such furniture in the Camp!

Notice another quotation from E:17‑330: "The quasi‑elect in the Millennium ..... those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to consecrate, yet remained faithful to the Ransom and Righteousness." Let us keep in mind that Vol. 17 was published in 1956 by R. G. Jolly himself as a part of his "Attestatorial Service." This does indeed attest much for him! Did he believe it then? And does he still believe it?

As we have so often stated, A place in the Tabernacle types represents a condition in the antitype. R. G. Jolly resolutely ignores this truth – and for good cause. Can he explain what condition his present Camp represents? During all the Gospel Age up to the Epiphany, the Tabernacle Court (the place) represented the condition of the tentatively justified – ALL in the Court condition were tentatively justified. In the Epiphany Tabernacle the Court still represented the condition of the justified – the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the unconsecrated tentatively justified. ALL in the Court condition – and only those therein – were justified, the only difference being the degree, or progress, of the justified. Now that he has moved Tentative Justification into the Camp, does his Camp now also represent the condition of the justified, right along with the Court? And are all in his Camp now justified, as has been consistently true of the Court all during the Gospel Age and the Epiphany? Or does his Camp condition contain some of one kind and some of another – just as he attempts with his interpretation of Rev. 22:11? We opine that even Azazel (Azazel means Perverter) will deem it expedient to ignore this question.


On p 36 of this May‑June P.T., there is further "profusion of words" by R. G. Jolly, in which he accuses us of not being clear respecting the Truth on Cleansed Levites – some of which is so confused that we wonder if he himself understood what he was trying to prove. Anyway, when he says in col. 1, last par. (and you will note that we especially point out exactly where the brethren can find his statements – while he, who admits he is the "cleansed” Levite of this Epiphany – just fails to point out definitely any statement we make for fear his deluded followers might try to see the article to which he refers and thereby be persuaded by the Truths presented therein!), that the "Good Levites.... are properly spoken of as being cleansed by late in 1950," he offers the same "proof" for this statement that he does for his Campers Consecrated, etc. (only his word, which has been proven to be worthless – and the same 'proof' he has offered for his false accusations of dear Brother Roach in his report of the 'elder' – actually Brother Johnson's duly‑appointed representa­tive, and R. G. Jolly's until just recently – and the Trinidad happenings when he was there. Brother Roach never accepted or taught the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Conse­crated, although R, G. Jolly was not kept in darkness thereof, but has been R. G. Jolly's representative since 1950, and through 1954, when R. G. Jolly first began to teach this 'strange fire') – which 'Proof' is exclusively R. G. Jolly's own word for it – and nothing more!

We quote the clear rule given us by Brother Johnson in E:15‑524, bottom and P. 525, by which rule, and only by this rule, is the cleansing of ALL GREAT COMPANY MEMBERS ACCOM­PLISHED: – "These experiences.... contribute toward that end in all the Great Company, and almost entirely accomplish it in those who lost Little Flockship by the skin of their teeth (the Good Levites – JJH).... As in none of the Great Company (Good or Bad – JJH) do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient.... the Lord resorts to a second set of untoward experiences.... He delivers them over to Satan..... Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests dis­fellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. (When did this happen? Why, it could only have occurred when Brother Johnson was removed by the Lord! At no other time did R. G. Jolly receive complete disfellowshipment and separation in an official manner by the World's High Priest! – JJH).... It also implies that God temporarily abandons them, and lets Satan (Azazel) buffet them.”

The above is exactly the same experience as given AZAZEL'S GOAT in Lev. 16, when the Fit Man turns him loose into the wilderness. Let R. G. Jolly show where he and other Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement (who came with Brother Johnson at the outset as he did and remained with him until his death) ever received such discipline by the Church or by him (where they were completely disfellowshiped) and cast out ("that they may learn not to blaspheme” – 1 Tim. 1:20). In fact, he publicly admitted at Jacksonville, Florida, and also at Winter Park, Florida, in March 1955, that he himself had never received such treatment necessary for his final cleansing in his own Epiphany experience. That admission came at a time before we began pointing out the Truth to him on the abandonment process," which evidently was withheld from his understanding (even though it was there for those who had 'under­standing') until the purpose of it was no longer needed. It is self‑evident now that R. G. Jolly was one sadly unenlightened about its real meaning – otherwise he wouldn't have answered as he did on these two occasions (and this is a tribute to Brother Johnson's clear teaching that the Great Company could not understand the steps to be taken in connection with their abandonment and cleansing, until such time as the necessity of the secrecy was no longer needed).

Note in E:4‑129: "Now (during Brother Johnson's life – JJH) 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 the Great Company." Apparently, R.G.Jolly does not even yet (in 1962) understand this teaching – and we caution our readers not to be misled by his perversions of it, because it is a faithful Epiphany teaching given by the faithful Epiphany Messenger for our admonition.

This subject is further clarified in E:6‑364, par. 2 (as well as in E:4‑203,210, etc.): "How do we lead Azazel's Goat (the Great Company, for their cleansing – JJH) to the gate? (1) By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? (2) By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? (3) By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor." Will R. G. Jolly still contend that he had the necessary steps taken for his cleansing in the face of these plain Epiphany teachings – where Brother Johnson clearly sets out that ALL THE GREAT COMPANY HAD TO BE COMPLETELY DISFELLOWSHIPED AND ALL BROTHERLY FAVOR WITHDRAWN BY THE WORLD'S HIGH PRIEST BEFORE ANY OF THEM COULD BE CLEANSED (either Good or Bad Levites)?

Did R. G. Jolly ever have all favor withdrawn from him by Brother Johnson at any time prior to his removal by the Lord Himself? The answer is No! Does R. G. Jolly revolutionize against this faithful Epiphany teaching? The answer is Yes!  Has he persisted in such revolutionism?  The answer is again Yes!

In 1938, when R. G. Jolly grossly revolutionized against the Epiphany Arrange­ments, and attempted to "gain control” of Brother Johnson (See E:10‑586, top, and p. 646, top), it was then that Brother Johnson withdrew "priestly fellowship" from him (classified as No. 2 above); but at no time did he deliver him to Azazel for his complete abandonment necessary for his cleansing, by withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from him – by completely disfellow­shiping him ("that he might learn not to blaspheme" – 1 Tim. 1:20). R. G. Jolly admits as much in col. 2, par. 1, when he says Brother Johnson "used him as formerly in his magazine and book publishing work." This simply means he was allowed to perform the duties of an ordinary clerk. At Brother Johnson's recommendation, the Philadelphia Church did receive him as a "guest speaker," as he claims – without, however, allowing him to officiate longer as an elder of that Church, and not allowing him to close with prayer even those meetings at which he was a "guest speaker." This truth about his revolutionism in 1938, as we have set it forth (and as Brother Johnson has recorded it for our protection), does not appear merely so "matter‑of‑fact" and inconsequential as his own recitation of it in this May‑June Present Truth would lead the uninformed reader to believe.

He also tries to write up a "similarity" between the Little Flock in 1914 and the 'cleansed' (?) Great Company in 1954 (actually 1950, he says!); but there is no similarity – no more than there is between the 'children of disobedience' (the Great Company) and the 'children of obedience' (the Saints, the "us‑ye‑we and salt" class)! In 1914‑16 the Little Flock had a Fully Faithful Star Member (Brother Russell) and his companion helper (Brother Johnson) to supervise and guide them in that Attestatorial Service; and it was a complete success! It brought all the Little Flock into Present Truth. Let us compare that with the 1954‑56 "Attestatorial Service!" We need ask R. G. Jolly only two questions: (1) What did he expect to accomplish when he launched his Attestatorial Service in 1954? (2) What did he actually accomplish by 1956? Will he answer these questions? We doubt that even he is so befuddled by Azazel that he will attempt to answer these two questions! Instead of bringing all the Great Company into Present Truth by November 1956, be probably had even less of that class than he started with in 1954; and all his attempts in other directions were even more pronounced failures, if possible. Consider now Brother Johnson's teaching: "After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruit­ful ministry." By the same process of reasoning – If they do not have a fruitful ministry, then they are not cleansed!

On p. 37, col. 2, par. 2, R. G. Jolly stresses that "Good Levites.... do not revolutionize against Epiphany truths" (No, they did not under Brother Johnson! If they had and persisted therein he would have withdrawn all brotherly fellowship and favor from them. So those who remained under his restraining hand Did Not, during Brother Johnson's lifetime, revolutionize against Epiphany teachings!); but he (R. G. Jolly) has repeatedly and persistently revolutionized against the Epi­phany truths on the Abandonment and Cleansing Process, as well as many other Epiphany teachings – and is doing so once more in this paper we are now examining. And, while doing this very thing, he issues his "great swelling word" of self‑righteousness, just as the Pope in Big Babylon, and That Evil Servant in Little Babylon have done. Certainly, he was once classed as a "Good Levite” when he was under the restraining hand of the last Star Member, and he performed commendable service for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren then (just as he was once classed as a Saint, in the Tabernacle Holy, and had a crown "laid up for him'); but since that time he has become one of the "bad" Levite leaders indeed! Why? Because he has sinned against much greater light. With R. G. Jolly, as with others (J.F. Rutherford, et al), it seems no one would recognize how 'clean' and righteous he is (even as was true of the Scribes and Pharisees) if he himself did not proclaim it so loudly. Indeed, "Thou dost protest too much"! (What you are speaks so loudly, we can't hear what you say!) Nor did Jesus Himself recognize such people as 'leansed' leaders in His Day, despite all their protestations for themselves, and their false charges against our Lord for his 'ncleansed' condition – just as the 'leansed' Great Company leaders do today (yelling "shyster lawyer," etc., etc., when they cannot face the Truths charged against them). So they 'cast out the Faithful' who resist their sins of teaching and practice, just as they did our Beloved Lord; and they are 'crucified' by them, even as was Jesus by those 'cleansed' leaders (Scribes and Pharisees) of His Day.

He quotes also from Brother Johnson's words in Present Truth 1935, p. 175, col. 2, top: "The Good Levites, the leaders of whom are good." Right here, why doesn't he explain that he wasn't even considered a Levite when Brother Johnson wrote that – that R. G. Jolly was then masquerading as a Priest at that time; that only Brother Johnson knew then that he was a Levite? Also, why doesn't he quote from a much later statement by Brother Johnson in E:10‑646, published in 1941 (after he was disgracefully manifested before all as a crown‑loser), which describes the con­duct of R. G. Jolly and two of his "kinsmen" (all leaders of the Good Levites) in 1937‑38, in which he says they attempted to "gain control of the Lord's mouthpiece!", Brother Johnson himself – by introducing a resolution in the Philadelphia Church "so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very elect?" One of R. G. Jolly's collaborators in that bold, impudent and power‑grasping escapade in 1938, was E. F. Hochbaum, whom Brother Johnson later characterized as a Bad Levite, and who revolutionized himself right out of the Epiphany Truth in 1948 (at which time Brother Johnson withdrew all brotherly help and favor from him – just as R. G. Jolly has done with the Epiphany Truth since Brother Johnson's death), taking with him a small group of soulmates, of whom he is now the leader in a sifting move­ment. But R. G. Jolly remained until his death – measurably accepting some of the restraint of the Last Star Member – receiving his complete abandonment from the Lord Himself when He removed Brother Johnson from our midst.

Truly, "Wisdom is justified of all her children"! Note also that in 1941 (six years after 1935), pages 585‑591 of Vol. 10, Brother Johnson mentions R. G. Jolly by name, describing him as a "false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser"; and on p. 594 he states this: "God charges that both the three bad Levite groups and the good Levites, the crown‑losers in the Epiphany Movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge" – just as R. G. Jolly has so flagrantly done in this paper we now analyze.

"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”!  Indeed, this Epiphany time does "manifest the counsels of hearts."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



My dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!.......

It would seem, dear Brother... that both Bro. and Sr. Armstrong are due in the USA this next August; also that RGJ is taking them to quite a number of LHMM classes... We have known for quite a time that R.E. Armstrong would like to have settled down in the USA when he was there, but Sr. Armstrong did not favor this...

May the dear Lord's richest blessing abide with you and also with those who by His Grace are with you. With much love in His Name... Bro. & Sr ------- ENGLAND

(NOTE: – R.E. Armstrong is another good "cleansed" Epiphany Levite who reflects upon the "extent of error into which JJH has fallen" – his reference being to the Truth we have presented on the correct Memorial date, as he himself embraces the error about it given by R.G.Jolly. The Epiphany is truly a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts"; and we may be certain every leader in the Epiphany Movement will be "manifested" for exactly what he is – good or bad – before its end – JJH)



On p. 47 of this May‑June P.T. is a letter from the above 'leader,' in which he complains about a letter we wrote to him "several years ago" (actually Oct. 15, 1955); so we reproduce that letter to him to correct the falsehood he makes – namely, that we described him as we did was because I (Fred E. Blaine) "would not enter into an altercation with him." We publish this letter so that all may be able to judge the matter according to the Truth, and the truthfulness of this "cleansed" leader.

Dear Brother Blaine:

In your discourse before the Detroit Ecclesia last Sunday you attempted to become quite technical on the third chapter of 2nd Timothy – so much so that you even set aside the teachings of Bro. Russell. If you will read p. 415 of Vol. 6 you will note he says that an individual is not to judge his brother – disfellowship him; that this is a decision for the Church. Also, p. 416 of the same Volume we read: "The object is not to cast the brother off utterly; but merely to show disfavor toward his wrong course with a view to assist him to its correction. To treat such an one 'as an heathen man and a publican' would not mean to slander or dishonor him even after he had been cast off........ We are neither to speak ill of, nor to look cross at, publicans and sinners, nor to refuse to do busi­ness with them; but we are to withhold from them the special fellowship and courtesy appropriate to the brethren of the New Creation and possessed of the holy Spirit and its love, joy and peace."

Even if I belonged to the latter class, your conduct at the Detroit Ecclesia would not have complied with the clear teachings of That Wise and Faithful Servant. However, I do not belong to that class (I have not been disfellowshiped – by the Church), yet you came into that meeting hall (where I am a duly‑elected Elder and a Pilgrim appointed by Brother Johnson), and walked within a few feet of me without even saying Good Morning. Indeed, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." (NOTE: R.G.Jolly had not disfellowshiped us at that time, so this 'pilgrim' of R.G.Jolly's appoint­ment even rushes ahead of him with his cruel (individual) pronouncements and dis­fellowshipment – besides ignoring and setting aside the Arrangements and the Scrip­tural teaching of That Wise and Faithful Servant – JJH)

Your attitude in some of the above is just a step or so above the moronic, and makes crystal clear why Bro. Johnson did not see in you the qualifications of an Auxiliary Pilgrim, and why you do not yet possess such qualifications. "When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which is the first principles of the Oracles of God." (Heb. 5:12)

(Dated Oct. 15, 1955) Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle

NOTE: In the face of Fred E. Blaine's misrepresentation of the above, we wonder how much we can depend on the other statements he has made regarding his faith in the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers consecrated. Brother Roach reported that he did not mention the 'strange fire' in Trinidad; and other brethren have reported the same of him when he was in their midst.