by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 114

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

The above-mentioned paper by R. G. Jolly reached us on September 28 – too late for us to make response in our November paper, which had already been completed for mailing when his paper arrived. However, we shall now make systematic comment on those “Questions of General Interest” to be found in his Present Truth on pp. 76 to 80.


We realize this discussion of ‘conscience’ by us is one R. G. Jolly would much rather avoid, because of the fact that Brother Johnson charged him, along with others, of having a ‘bad’ conscience. And this charge by Brother Johnson was clearly justi­fied by R. G. Jolly’s conduct toward the “aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless.” In that shameful situation R. G. Jolly was Brother Johnson’s chief opponent before the Philadelphia church on the subject (See E-10, pp. 585-586). R. G. Jolly’s heartlessness in this matter, and his evils in other matters, moved Brother Johnson to record these charges against him; nor has R. G. Jolly at any time made denial in the Present Truth of that “spot” against him. It is elementary, we believe, to Truth people that a ‘bad’ conscience is not to be trusted; but we are assured that a ‘good’ conscience can be trusted – and, furthermore, that all God’s people who have “good and honest hearts” will seek to keep their consciences “good,” and regulated by His Word.

‘Tis true that sins can be committed when one’s conscience is not properly regu­lated – and not be a violation of that person’s conscience; but when they are apprised of such evils, they do all in their power to adjust the evils they have committed, and correct their consciences to the best of their ability – to make amends to the person, or persons, they have wronged; i.e., if they have “good and honest hearts.” We have an example of such a course in the Apostle Paul. It is also elementary that all Great Company members have had “bad” consciences – some moreso than others – otherwise they would not have lost their crowns. Their sins of omission and commission had to be at least partially willful (in violation of conscience) to the extent of knowingly violating their consecration vows (knowingly committing wrong in error of teaching or conduct). So, if Brother Russell was prompted in his comments by the “large crowd” who came with him during the Harvest; then his statement to them, “Don’t trust your con­science” would certainly apply. And this same situation would also apply now to R. G. Jolly’s rabid sectarian adherent.

Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both repeatedly warned us not to take their Scripturally unsupported thoughts as God’s Word – because they both well knew that they were fallible men, and ofttimes corrected, or modified, their previous statements by elaborating on the subject in subsequent articles. Brother Russell made the statement (Reprints 5247, col. 1) that, “There is no excuse for our getting into the Great Com­pany.” We believe this to be Scriptural, because God gives all new creatures the needed help to insure their faithfulness – otherwise, He wouldn’t be a God of Love and impartiality; He calls no one – ever – to an impossible task (He assures the faithful of VICTORY in their Class standing as they continue to “keep their hearts with all diligence,” and a “conscience void of offense toward God and men”). And we also state, we believe with full Scriptural support, if we accept the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching thereon, that NO CLEANSED GREAT COMPANY LEADER will attempt to present a new doctrine; for in so doing they will be offering “strange fire.” Any ‘cup’ they attempt to use will not be from the Lord, but from Azazel. See E-8:192, onward. Brother Russell also makes the statement that, “The ‘great company’ do not belong to the kingdom at all. They will be associated in some way not explained, but will be part of the kingdom real, nor yet of the earthly or representative kingdom.” This statement is certainly not in harmony with all other Scripture, because we believe Brother Johnson gave us a clearer picture and better understanding of their future reward, and gave us clear Scripture to substantiate his conclusions. They will be noblemen, a sort of police force during the Kingdom Reign, and will be a part of the Heavenly phase of the kingdom, as Brother Johnson has taught us. Brother Russell was probably influenced by the conduct of some of the “measurably faithful’’ who came with him. So we mention what Brother Russell ‘said’ in the instance, knowing full well that R. G. Jolly will not use this to “prove” the Great Company is not a part of the Kingdom, earthly or Heavenly. But when Brother Russell ‘said’ that the Great Company will have their portion with the hypocrites in the Time of Trouble, we do adhere to this teaching, because it is Scripturally supported (See Reprints 4654, col. 2; Matt. 25:11).

In R. G. Jolly’s attack upon us for our Scriptural teaching on conscience, he uses Brother Russell’s statement (what Brother Russell ‘said’) as a shield for his sins of teaching and practice. Yes, he reprints articles “word for word” from both Messengers. So did J. F. Rutherford! Both of them have done this to ‘prove’ they are in harmony with the Messengers’ teachings–and it deceives many that otherwise wouldn’t be deceived if they published their gross doctrinal errors and omitted such articles altogether. In this same paper in which R. G. Jolly castigates us he publishes an article by Brother Russell – “Blessed are The Pure in Heart” – but he also inserts his own gross errors (“strange fire”) at the bottom of p. 67, onward.

Had R. G. Jolly refuted us because what we gave in our July paper was UNSCRIPTURAL, then he would be in order and should be commended for his efforts to “contend fox the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.” But his whole contention is that “Brother Russell said.” So we now also quote from what “Brother Russell said” on the subject of ‘conscience,’ which we believe is Scripturally supported and in complete accord with what we presented in our July paper: “Every Violation of Conscience Wrong.” In this article Brother Russell states – ‘the weaker thus might violate the conscience, which would make the act a sin to him. (not necessarily a sin in itself aloneJJH). Every violation of conscience, whether the thing itself be right or wrong, is a step in the direction of willful sin.” (Nov. 15, 1911 WT, Reprints 4920, top, col. 2) If one is not to trust, or listen to, his conscience, how could he commit willful sin by ignoring the voice of conscience? It is this same article in 1911 to which Bro. Johnson refers in his Manna observations for November 24, in which he himself states, “based upon such a good conscience, our sacrificial acts will be in order and will be acceptable (their ‘‘works’’ won’t be burned – See 1 Cor. 3:13-15), if in harmony with the Lord’s Spirit, Word and Providence.”

And when Brother Johnson charged R. G. Jolly with having a ‘bad’ conscience, it is because it is unbelievable that his conscience was so seared that it supported his course against the sister who by a “combination of starving and cancer died.” “if a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye gave them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:15,16) Unless R. G. Jolly has reached the point of “no return,” we charge him with a ‘bad’ conscience today–because, if he is yet in the Household, his conscience–if ‘good’-­wouldn’t allow him to call us “shyster lawyer,” “sifter,” etc., just because we are resisting his present evil course (the same resistance Brother Johnson waged against evil-doers). He knows only too well that at no time have we refused help to the downtrodden; that at no time have we pulled any political tricks to gain a position for ourselves; that at no time have we “coveted any man’s silver or gold”; and at no time have we used the Truth for our personal aggrandizement, or achievement. The Star Member (Brother Johnson) had no occasion to record any such sins against us, but R. G. Jolly, who is most guilty of many of these evils (and tacitly admits them as he continues to hold to the Truth that Brother Johnson was the Epiphany messenger), does now broadcast, as well as ‘whisper’ such infamous lies against JJH (please note that a “whispering campaign” was waged against this dying, helpless and cancerous widow, and that R. G. Jolly was Brother Johnson’s chief opponent in this disgraceful Levitical crueltySee E-10:585, bottom.

But we proceed a little further to the March 15, 1914 Tower (Reprints 5425): ‘We may be sure that if our course as new creatures in Christ is condemned by our own conscience it would also be condemned by God.” And we quote a little more from Brother Russell in the same March 15, 1914 Tower: “A scale which is rightly adjusted will stand level. It is reliable. And so with a good conscience – it is one which can determine the slightest deviation from God’s law” (and thus can, and should be trusted–JJH).

We accept the quotations aforegoing from Brother Russell because they are Scrip­turally correct–because they are in harmony with St. Paul’s statement respecting a “good conscience,” which caused him to conclude in Heb. 5:14 that we “by reason of use have our senses (conscience) exercised to discern between good and evil.” And when one has his senses so exercised, he will not offer a ‘refutation’ that attempts to displace the Scriptural teaching thereon, as presented in our July paper, now so brazenly attacked by R. G. Jolly. Thus, it is clear enough that his conscience is still not ‘good’ enough to discern between “good and evil” – thought and Scripture. Therefore, we quote him St. Paul’s words (Heb. 5:12): “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.”

When That Evil Servant began to analyze hypocrites, Brother Johnson observed that JFR should be well qualified to define such, as he himself was one of the worst hypocrites of the entire Gospel Age (and when R. G. Jolly still had a bad conscience as late as 1938, recorded against him, he kept one for a large part of his sojourn in the Household, even if he has since become “cleansed,” as he proclaims since his emancipation from Brother Johnson’s restraining hand). And it seems R. G. Jolly is also well qualified to understand “shyster lawyer methods and practices of deceit,” when he himself has been most guilty in his dealings toward the Star Members’ teach­ings, and toward us. Also, he should be well qualified to describe a ‘bad’ conscience; but is hardly qualified at this time to describe a ‘good’ conscience.

Let us keep clearly in mind that it is because of their bad consciences that God tells us through St. Paul (2 Thes. 2:11) that He would, specifically in the Epiphany ending of this Gospel Age, send the measurably faithful “an energy of delusion” – ­a punishment God does not inflict upon the fully faithful. And, as we witness them forsaking the Truth that once made them clean (John 15:3), and receiving instead “an energy of delusion,” we have the indisputable proof that such new creatures are crown losers in an uncleansed condition. And in all of this he would have his readers be­lieve he is being abased by us. This is an identical twin to the wail of That Evil Servant for Brother Johnson’s criticism of him.

Also, let us keep clearly in mind that the studied shyster is a lawyer who argues mere excerpts of laws, or laws that are “irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial” to the cause at issue – just as R. G. Jolly attempts to do with the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Such lawyers always quote the law “WORD FOR WORD”-­just as R. G, Jolly does with the writings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. R. G. Jolly is indeed a good one to shout “shyster lawyer” at others. His charge against us of “vilification, misrepresentation and false condemnation” applies pointedly to him (as Bro. Johnson recorded of him); and we once more observe in conclusion of this “conscience” bit that Brother Johnson specifically wrote in the record (E-10:585) that R. G. Jolly has a “bad conscience” and was guilty of many “misrepresentations” – a charge Brother Johnson never made against JJH. Nor would we revive R. G. Jolly’s past evils if he had overcome them - if he were the “cleansed” Levite leader he claims to be. The difference in his present evil course and that of the past is this: He no longer has the restraining hand of the World’s High Priest (now since all brotherly fellowship and favor are removed from him–See E-15:525) There was a marked difference in JFR’s course when under Star Member Brother Russell’s restraining hand, to what it was after Brother Russell’s demise, as most of us know.


He accuses us of a misrepresentation when we stated he had not previously answered our conclusions regarding Zechariah’s stoning “between the temple and the altar.” His criticism of us in this instance is measurably justified;. and we now make due apology. However, we now add that we did speedily make answer to R. G. Jolly’s 1957 contentions, and cited many Scriptures in our Nov. 15, 1957 paper that completely annihilate his position and contention re Zechariah. So far as we can recall he has never answered these presentations in the Present Truth. But it is never our wish to resort even to half truths in any degree at all in any of our statements of R. G. Jolly, or any one else. As most of our readers know, we have much more than enough Truth to use against his perversions of the fundamental doctrines of both Messengers, and his “strange fire” (false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated); so it is not necessary for us to resort to his methods of untruth, half truths, and “sleight-of-hand” to annihilate his precarious position, as he squirms at our Scriptural refutations of his gross errors of teaching and practice. (See Luke 21:15)

However, here again – as he has done on previous occasions - he attempts to “make quite a case” by shouting we repudiate “true” teaching we formerly held (Did he accept Bro. Russell’s statement re Great Company not being a part of the Kingdom real, or the earthly phase? And, if so, does he now repudiate that teaching?) Of course, when he inserts the word “true” in his statement, he is offering merely his own be­fuddled conclusion (based upon his desire to eliminate all the Fully Faithful when he became the Executive Trustee of LHMM, and the self-proclaimed “cleansed” Great Company leader). Our contention now is that the teaching we offered in 1952 was not in accord with all other Scripture on this vital subject; although there was much truth in that statement that we still accept, We now admit we were then unduly influenced by R. G. Jolly because of a misplaced confidence in his ability and integrity – not then realizing the full import of his record under Brother Johnson. We believe Bro. Johnson himself was unduly influenced by some of R. G. Jolly’s good qualities–hence the record is there only because of necessity. The Lord allowed us to fall temporarily into this mistake for His own good reasons – just as He did with Brothers Russell and Johnson in similar instances.

Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both made mistakes in teaching until full clarity was received – because they, too, were fallible men; and R. G. Jolly himself has been an outstanding performer in this respect. Just take those 27 “mis”-calculations he gave in the January 1947 Present Truth – mathematical “certainties” (?) for 1956, which directly contradict a great part of what he himself now advocates re Zechariah. And he based many of those calculations (which may be defined only as the machinations of Satan) upon the very same Pyramid which he used three short years later to “prove” October 22, 1950 was the correct date for the last saint to be glorified, instead of 1956 – and to ‘prove’ that his former ‘pyramid’ calculations re antitypical Zechariah were false, since Brother Johnson died on the former date. But everything else (in the ‘parallels’ up to 1956), according to his later contentions, was fulfilled accord­ing to expectation (with the exception, of course, that all the saints were eliminated in 1950 instead of 1956) in the person of R. G. Jolly, etc., in the enaction of his “Brother Russell’s Epiphany Parallels.” And R. G. Jolly is the same person who would now cry “sifting errorist” at JJH! But R. G. Jolly now explains that “Jesus’ primary reason (for the expression “between the temple and the altar”) obviously was to identify clearly which Zechariah he meant, for many in Israel had that name.” Yes, about 28 Zechariahs are actually mentioned in the Bible, including the one that was stoned, and the one bearing his name in the Bible book. But, was there any one of these – aside from the officiating priest – that was martyred by the Jews? If not, then what sense is there to such an argument? Nor is there anything in the record anywhere to show the Jews knew the priest had been slain “between the temple and the alter.” Therefore, our Lord’s limitation would be as meaningless to the Jews as it is to us – unless He had a deeper meaning in mind. Here again R. G. Jolly “darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge.” (Job. 38:2)

However, the real crux of this Zechariah contention, the real touchstone by which it should be gauged, is the Number One question that applies to every Biblical interpreta­tion: Is It in harmony with all other Scripture? R. G. Jolly himself once believed and taught this fundamental truth; but it would seem he has now rejected it (in his ‘frenzy’ – “strong delusion” – to eliminate the saints altogether and gather his Epiphany Campers Consecrated – thus saying by his acts, “My Lord Delayeth”). Let him reconcile his Zechariah interpretation with the large Gospel-Age Samson antitype. Let him recon­cile it with Gen. 3:15: “Thou (the seed of the Serpent) shalt bruise his heel.” Did this final “bruising” take place with Brother Johnson’s death? Let him also reconcile it with Zech. 8:10, and Brother Johnson’s clear statement on this text as recorded in E-6:630 –

“The ‘no hire’ for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the foundation of the church beyond the veil was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence, it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”

Likewise, let him reconcile his present contention with Brother Johnson’s teaching in E-5:420 that the message of Rev. 19:5 would be given by the Great Company after they are cleansed. None of the 60 Groups as such were cleansed prior to October 22, 1950, if we are to believe Brother Johnson on the subject. Does R. G. Jolly contend that the removal of Brother Johnson’s beneficent influence, and restraining hand, cleansed the LHMM Group? And let him reconcile his interpreta­tion with Psa. 46. Brother Johnson stated that, in the face of the clear interpretation placed upon Ps. 46 by Brother Rus­sell, only one befuddled by Azazel would contend that the last saint would be gone be­fore Armageddon. And with that conclusion we are in full agreement. And we declare also that our own present interpretation of the Zechariah type is in full harmony with all other Scripture.


R. G. Jolly also makes quite some uproar because we omitted the word “pertinent” from the quotation in E-11:473. This was an inadvertence on our part – which we now regret, chiefly because of the opportunity it affords him of “straining at gnats.” We realize, of course, that grasping at this “straw” is prompted by desperation on his part. He’s now telling us that Jesus’ Executorship extended into the Camp in 1954 (something Brother Johnson failed to see and record) – even as he also tells us that He ejected the unconsecrated tentatively justified from the Court into the Camp at that same time. According to this argument, Jesus merely relinquished His Executor­ship over them in the Court so He could take it up again in the Camp (According to R. G. Jolly’s contention, then the only time they would be without Jesus’ Executorship is the time they are passing through the Gate into the Camp!). A clear picture? Yes, clear as mud! The comment that Brother Johnson made re JFR on a similar perversion now applies pointedly to R. G. Jolly (E-6:191,195):

“To maintain his evident error, the tabernacle teachings must be twisted and distorted.... (p. 191) The Camp means the rebellious nominal people of God, who, while desiring some relationship with God, do not desire it sufficiently to be approved by Him, even for fellowship with Him.... in the finished picture (at the end of the Epi­phany periodJJH) those who are less than tentatively justified.” (P. 195) (Of course, if R. G. Jolly can make a “narrow way” in the Camp, why not extend Jesus’ Executorship there, too?)

As things stand now, R. G. Jolly has at least three classes in his Camp: (1) the rebellious nominal people of God (if he still adheres to Brother Johnson’s teaching thereon), (2) the Court rejects who had “received the Grace of God in vain” up to 1954, and (3) his Consecrated Campers. If Jesus’ Executorship now extends to the Camp, does it apply to all those in the Camp, or merely to R. G. Jolly’s select few Campers Consecrated? Or does R. G. Jolly contend that Jesus’ Executorship now extends to the whole world (before the inauguration of the New Covenant)?

Once more we refer R. G. Jolly to E-11:591 – “There is a threefold set of antitypes of the tabernacle type: (1) the Gospel-Age antitype, (2) the Epiphany antitype and (3) the Millennial-Age antitype. Only one of these three antitypes operates at a time.” So we ask again: Which antitype is operating now? And we observe further that when the Millennial Camp is definitely erected, it will operate under the New Covenant, at which time Campers can consecrate. Are his Conse­crated Campers now under the New Covenant, or has he moved some feature of the oathbound Covenant into the Camp to accommodate his Campers (his “Household of Faith”)? All such features have hitherto been in the Court (where the Household of Faith is always represented until the Gospel Age is fully ended – according to the teachings of the last two Star Members).

We offer further comment by Brother Johnson in E-14:350 – “God declares that the time is coming when He will punish all the measurably unfaithful consecrated – the crown losers – with the unconsecrated. The latter are worldlings (nominal) church-members, Jews, clericalists, autocrats... for all these classes are unconsecrated and all the captive (nominal) church-members are also unconse­crated in their hearts.” (They –­ the Great Company – will have their portion with the hypocrites, as we have quoted from Brother Russell–JJH) R. G. Jolly now attempts to place his newly-consecrated Campers right alongside himself, throwing them also right in with those described aforegoing. A most winsome picture he is offering them for walking the same “narrow” way the fully faithful Youthful Worthies walk! (Please see R. G. Jolly’s July, 1955 Present Truth where he treats this subject in detail.)

At the bottom of p. 79, col. 1, R. G. Jolly attempts some detailed analysis about “the parallel time 40 years after 1914, i.e., Oct. 1954.” Just what “parallel” does he have in mind? Is it the parallel Brother Johnson defined, in which he himself expected to play a very prominent role, and which never materialized? Or is it now “Brother Russell’s Epiphany Parallels,” in which R. G. Jolly allowed himself to be inducted by “Cousin” Krewson? If he is now discussing the parallel Brother Johnson gave, why does he ignore completely this statement by Brother Johnson (in E-10:114): “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlight­enment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956.” And why does he also distort a further statement on that same page? – “After 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively-justified state.” We have often quoted the above; but, R. G. Jolly’s only response is the lame “sleight-of-hand” that this means “for Gospel-Age purposes.” Brother Johnson states the Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age. And even R. G. Jolly himself admits that we are still in the Epiphany – overlapping, of course, into the Basileia, but still in the Epiphany nonetheless. Since things equal to the same things are equal to each other, then “Gospel-Age purposes” are still with us if the Epiphany is still with us, because the Epiphany is a part of the Gospel Age.

And we add to these refutation of his position that up to now he hasn’t produced one scintilla of physical evidence that anything at all occurred in 1954 to substantiate his “Parallel.” And with such unanswerable refutation to his 1954 date, he still brazenly yells “shyster” at others. We realize, of course; that he is desperate! “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” (Rom. 11:22)

“The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.” (Prov. 15:2 – “foolish virgins”) “But the salvation of the right­eous is of the Lord; he is their strength in the time of trouble” (Psa. 37:29).

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



My dear beloved Brethren: Greetings in our dear Lord’s Name!

Your letter of Sept. 26 received, and I thank you for the help you sent me, copied from Present Truth. You see I had asked him for Bro. Johnson’s word about Campers Consecrated, and also the type – for so far we always have had a type for every Class. Do not copy the Reprints, as I have them.

I sent Oct. 1, No. 112 to the brother who left Jehovah’s Witnesses when he read the Three Babylons tract. I am sending you his address, but he is moving from there. I am glad that Sister ------- is better. Sincere love and best wishes to you all and all with you. Your sister in the faith ------- (Pennsylvania)


My dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you and the other dear ones with you!

Thanks for your good letter. I noted all you have said. We have not yet received the November article, but have received the October paper. We are grateful for you, Brother Hoefle, and all the dear ones that lend a helping hand in making us the spiritual food we look forward to with hungry hearts. I am glad you had such a good opportunity to fellowship and help the friends in Newark. I would have been glad to be there to hear your discourse.

I am reading Brother Russell’s discourse – a book given to my father by Brother Johnson. I am so glad that I am blessed with such books.

I am grateful for your love and prayers. I do need your prayers, for I am weak.... Remember me to Sisters Dunnagan and Wells, and all the dear ones your way.

Yours by Grace, ------- (JAMAICA)


Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings of love and peace!

I returned to my son’s home Sept. 28, after a very pleasant interlude. Our hostess is the widow of a Baptist minister, and my impression is that the other ladies were of the same faith. They all seemed well developed in character (good morals), but with little interest in religious questions..... believe I won her confidence, for she sometimes told me of her difficulties, which she has accepted as for her own good. I saw no opening for helping her (in the Truth), so I left it to you through that fine sermon – the Two Salvations.

Whatever unhappy experience you may have had at Philadelphia, you can be sure they will be more than made up to you. “For thy shame thou shalt have double in thy Maker’s favor blessed.”

My grandson.... brought me several cartons of old letters – many by friends who went through the sifting at Brother Russell’s demise, and others through this present one. Among these letters I found one from Sister ------- who is now with the Lord.... So many of these dear old letters show how the Lord has led us through confusion into the “Land we hold today.” God bless Brother Hoefle, I pray. With prayers and love for richer blessings for you both

Sister ------- (MARYLAND)