by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 67

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

 In accordance with the promise in our November paper, we now offer further thoughts on the September‑October Present Truth. On p. 68, col. 2, par. 2, there is some profuse comment by R. G. Jolly re “Brother Johnson's teachings helping” him to see how the Epiphany would overlap into the Basileia. It seems it isn't enough for him to choke his paper with his errors – he must place the responsibility for such gross errors and perversions on the Star Members, as he at the same time intones, “God Bless Their Memory.”

If there is any foundation at all in his own (not Brother Johnson's) _manufac­tured’ parallel, then there should be a small Basileia – just as there was a small Parousia and, a small Epiphany. Is he trying to teach this? He doesn't make him­self clear on it. In any event, let us examine the matter! 2 Tim. 4:1– Dia., tells us, “Christ Jesus is about to judge the living and the dead, by His appearing (Epi­phany) and by His kingdom (Basileia).” As all Epiphany‑enlightened brethren know, the “living” include the New Creatures at the end of the Age, and the “dead” refers to the dead world of mankind, whether in the tomb or out of it. Therefore, we make this text clearer by stating, “Christ Jesus is about to judge the living at His Epiphaneia, and the dead at His Basileia.”

 At the very first day of the Epiphaneia in September 1914, the judgment of the crown‑retaining division of the ”living” was completely and irrevocably determined – ­no more could enter the High Calling, and those Saints in it would certainly retain their crowns. At the very day the overlapping of the small Parousia into the Epi­phany ended in October 1916, the judgment that had already been determined began to be manifested. Note Brother Johnson's comment about it in E:4‑20,21:

“In a word, the Parousia is preparatory for both the Epiphany and the Basileia, the Kingdom, and the Epiphany carries forward the results of the Parousia, and intro­duces the Basileia, the Kingdom... With the beginning of the first smiting of Jordan the Parousia and the Epiphany began to lap into one another; and by October 16, 1916, the Parousia was at a full end. One may ask, Why do we fix on this date as the full end of the Parousia? We answer: for two reasons: (1) On that day our Pastor left Bethel for the last time, and actually relinquished his hold at head­quarters and never took it up again. (2) On that day the leaders of the Levites in America and England began as such to take a firm stand against one another. At Bethel on that day our dear Pastor spent several hours seeking to reconcile, on the one hand, J. F. Rutherford and A. H. MacMillan, and H. L. Rockwell on the other hand, with one another..... On the same day in England Jesse Hemery and six elders supporting him became irreconcil­ably opposed to H. J. Shearn and the ten elders supporting him in his efforts to set aside our Pastor's controllership in Tabernacle Affairs and the assistant pastorship of Jesse Hemery in the Taber­nacle...... therefore, with the first of these dates we believe the Parousia as a period ended, and from then on we have been in the Epiphany without there being any more a lapping of the two periods under consideration into another....... The Epiphany of our Lord's Second Advent is limited to the time between the Parousia and the Basileia. It is used to designate the period of the great tribulation, the TIME OF TROUBLE.”

Here is some more from E:4‑217 (79): “In the Millennium, Basileia, the third stage of our Lord's Second Advent, the Lord will bring to light individually the world's hidden things of darkness and manifest their hearts counsels.”

It should be apparent to any novice that the foregoing shows not the faintest parallel to 1954‑56, except the parallel R. G. Jolly has manufactured. Parallels are of two kinds – related and contrasted. Even the only “contrast” in these two contentions is the repulsive contrast of R. G. Jolly's nonsense with the sound, sober and erudite Truth that Brother Johnson has given us. “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense,” says Brother Johnson; so we should “think it not strange” – in fact, it is a strong visible and indisputable truth that he is not cleansed. Note carefully Brother Johnson says the small Parousia was at a full end on October 16, 1916. Therefore, if R. G. Jolly's parallel is a true one, the Epiphany should have come to a full end at October 16, 1956. He has accused us of “shyster lawyer” tactics in our truthful attacks on his ‘restricted’ end of the Epiphany in 1954. We believe it will be quite unnecessary to hurl any abusive epi­thets at him in return –  just allow his ‘parallel’ to speak for itself. Even he him­self is emphatically contending we are still in the Epiphany – even if we swallow his ‘restricted’ end in 1954 – and we are now four full years past the full end of his man­ufactured parallel.

To carry the analysis a little further, on the very day (October 16, 1916) that Parousia overlapping ended, Epiphany manifestations began. Therefore, if any paral­lel exists in 1956, a similar thing should occur. DID IT? We are not, even yet in 1960, in the violent features of the Time of Trouble; and Brother Johnson clearly states above that the Epiphany is the GREAT TRIBULATION. When the Epiphany judgments began to be manifested in 1916, some human beings saw it immediately; and, by the same logic, when the Epiphany fully merged into the Basileia, the same situation will prevail. And what is that situation? Why, it will have to do with the judgment of the human race in general –  the manifestation of which will be the resurrection of the Wor­thies. Then – and not until then – will the world fully recognize their Elect stand­ing. On that day of their resurrection will the Basileia be clearly and irrefutably instituted. There was not the slightest hint of this in 1956; and there isn't yet – ­four years after the _manufactured’ parallel should have been fully established. So we repeat: It is simply some more of R. G. Jolly's nonsense – just as was true of “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels.” It should be noted once more that R. G. Jolly still brazenly contends he is sustained, and is sustaining, the Star Members; as he boldly and shamelessly sets aside their teachings in the very same paper which carries his claims of _loyalty’ he proclaims his DISLOYALTY.


On p. 75 R. G. Jolly offers some comments on this subject; and we are certainly glad to agree with him any time that he preaches the Truth. But even when he preaches the Truth, he just can't present a good clean exposition – a clear proof of his un­cleansed condition. In col. 1, par. 2, he quotes from E:17‑256, par. 1; but he also injects some of his own comments in brackets – just as though these also are by Brother Johnson. In this particular instance his bracketed insertions are correct – just as they have been wrong on so many other occasions. However, his statement, “epiphan­izing and apokalypsying are both required at the same time for a complete exposure,” is simply a garbled take‑off of what we have presented on this subject in our No. 34 of May 1958. In that paper we elaborated on R. G. Jolly's weakness in his own earlier presentation, because he did not present in clarity what he now attempts to do with the help of our paper No. 34. This is all right with us, of course; but his ethics in this instance –  appearing to quote Brother Johnson while actually using a reconstruction of our presentation and indirectly quoting us – are just another indication of the “little” man that he is; and does indeed remind us of those brethren who turned against Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger, yet continued to use the Epiphany Messenger's teachings in their presentations, even while vilifying Brother Johnson. What he is now using from our No. 34 is the very thing we said his paper lacked in his attempted refutation of J. W. Krewson.


On p. 71, col. l, par; 2, R. G. Jolly states he “appreciates the help he received from them (Brother Johnson and Brother Russell) in setting forth other items of advanc­ing Truth in the Present Truth (the name being clearly a misnomer), such as... The Other Half Tribe of Manasseh.” For sheer gall and brazen Levitical impudence, this excels about anything we have ever witnessed! Brother Johnson offered not the slight­est hint anywhere in his writings to corroborate such a contention. R. G. Jolly offers the nearness of relationship to the half tribe east and the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan as his main argument in the matter. On that premise, the children of the Gospel‑Age saints ought to have some sort of high ranking in God's Household; certainly they have been closer to their parents than any one else. Yet we know that many of them left the Household of Faith completely – “received the Grace of God in vain!”

Also, the Half Tribe East of Jordan joined the other two tribes to help the 9½ tribes establish themselves West of Jordan. There isn't the slightest hint any­where in the narration that the Half Tribe of Manasseh West of Jordan joined those from East of Jordan in accomplishing this work for the other Nine Tribes. Yet, Brother Johnson has clearly stated that the true quasi‑elect (unconsecrated of the Gospel‑Age) of the Mediatorial reign would join in such a work.

Furthermore, both Star Members gave us the clear teaching that in many of the Old Testament types a place types a condition in the antitype. Apparently, this part of their true teaching has not helped R. G. Jolly in his endeavors toward advancing Truth. Clearly enough, he doesn't understand this Truth teaching of the Star Members at all. Note now some quotations along this line, E:12‑187 (Bottom):

“The unconsecrated but faithful tentatively justified of the Gospel Age undergo similar experiences for similar reasons .... for these and the be­lieving Jews will be associated as the fifth elect class in a Millennial world‑wide work ... (p. 188, last of par. 1) thus will be fulfilled toward Israel and the Gospel-­Age unconsecrated .... tentatively justified the good things that God promised them.”

E:12‑517, par. 1: “The Land East of the Jordan represents the doctrine of elec­tion, i.e., that God, during the period of the ascendency of sin selects out of the world the faith classes; and the Land West of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Free Grace, i.e., that during the Millennium will give all passed over during the elective period, the non‑elect, the unbelief classes, the opportunity to gain resti­tution on condition of faith and obedience. It will be recalled that Reuben, Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh received the Land East of the Jordan as their in­heritance, on condition of their crossing Jordan and helping the rest of Israel con­guer the Land West of Jordan, which they did. Thus, God offers the Elect, the Little Flock (Reuben), the Great Company (Gad) and the Worthies (the half tribe of Manasseh) a heavenly inheritance, with the understanding that they will help the non‑elect to obtain restitution. (Further on p. 519, par. 1)... Sharon (Plain of Sharon, which is a place – JJH) represents the quasi‑elect in the Millennium.”

In the foregoing we direct special attention to Brother Johnson's interpretation that the place in the type represents the condition in the antitype; and it would be most interesting to hear R. G. Jolly's explanation of just what “help he received from the Star Members” to interpret those Palestinian places into his Consecrated Campers. Clearly enough, the One who helped him here was not the Star Members; it was the One in whose hands he has been since Brother Johnson's death (Azazel's). As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, “When these people fall into Azazel's hands, their minds become so befuddled they can no longer think clearly on spiritual matters.” Thus, they not only do not receive new Truth – even that presented by the priests –, but they become benumbed and befogged on much of the Truth that once blessed them. They are given “strong delusions.” One thing after another has R. G. Jolly set aside completely, or perverted (Azazel means Perverter), that he once fully accepted and believed.


In this same paper with “These Ten Years” appeared a letter submitted by Auxiliary Pilgrim R. L. Gough, of Jamaica, which contained a slurring reference to this “sifter” (JJH). It prompted us to write him the letter set out below:

Dear Brother Gough: –  Greetings through our Lord Jesus!

This last Present Truth has published a letter from you, in which you refer to “the two sifters,” apparently referring to me as one of these two. You then charge that “nearly all the alleged new light of these two has contradicted the writings of the two Laodicean Star‑members,” whereas, you yourself “have chosen the Star‑members.” Therefore, I would like to ask you some questions.

R. G. Jolly has profusely and vehemently contended that “due Truth is for all the consecrated”; and he repeats this contention in the paper that carries your letter. In E:4‑129 Brother Johnson says this: “Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone ... now the understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate.. is withheld from them (the uncleansed Levites).”

How do you reconcile your statement of “choosing the Star‑Members” with this clear statement by Brother Johnson?

            2. R. G. Jolly now has the Half Tribe of Manasseh West of Jordan typing his Consecrated Epiphany Campers; whereas, Brother Johnson taught they type the same kind of Restitutionists as the other Nine Tribes. What is your answer to this?

            3. In E:10‑209 Brother Johnson says, “the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of .... the NOT consecrated.” R. G. Jolly is now trying to complete the Epiphany Camp with his consecrated! Do you “choose the Star Member” here, or do you prefer R. G. Jolly?

            4. Brother Johnson taught that Tentative Justification ceases when the Gospel Age ceases. R. G. Jolly is now teaching it will continue during the Kingdom reign. Do you “choose the Star Member” here?

            5. In E:10‑672 Brother Johnson says “Youthful worthy brethren not yet conse­crated are to be won for the Truth” after Babylon is destroyed. R. G. Jolly now disparages this teaching as error. Do you “choose the Star Member” here?

            6. In E:15‑525 Brother Johnson teaches that all crown‑losers (including those who lost Little‑flock by the skin of their teeth) MUST BE FULLY ABANDONED to Azazel for their cleansing, the abandonment resulting from the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor from them by the Priests. In your own individual case, will you please inform me when you underwent this experience during your life prior to October 1950?

            7. When talking to me in Jamaica in 1957 you said then you would not consider me – or any one else – a sifter and out of God's Household unless he became grossly im­moral or denied the Ransom or Sin Offering – that you were then acutely aware of the injustice that had been done to Brother Johnson by ignorant brethren. Have you now changed your mind about that?

Much of the foregoing bears directly upon changes of the Star Members' writings by Levites since Brother Johnson's death, changes in the fundamental Parousia and Epiphany teachings which are supported by Scripture; and they are certainly vital to the spiritual health of all of us. Therefore, I hope you will gladly and promptly give clear and complete answers to these questions.

I assure you of my prayers that you may receive and be guided by “the spirit of understanding.” Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle ­(dated October 12, 1960).

The following was received in answer, dated October 26, 1960, although we did not receive it until Nov, 6, 1960.. The letter was postmarked October 31.

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in the name of our Saviour!

This will acknowledge your letter of the 12th October. You, yourself, are at variance with Brother Johnson on so many points, it is strange that you should men­tion that point at all; and it is amazing that you should have the temerity to quote Brother Johnson! Why don't You quote him to yourself, on the many points on which you flatly contradict him? Is it that you claim the right to do so yourself, while you condemn others for even apparent variations? Let me remind you of some proverbs: “Finger say kooday, never kooyah,” meaning, “Do not point the finger at others, when it should more properly be pointed toward yourself:” “Kettle must not call pot black,” meaning, “People must not accuse other of things which they, themselves, are guilty;” “People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.” And there is a saying that some people throw dirt on others in order to cover their own dirt!.

 My letter in the P.T. seem to have excited you. I observe that while you quoted Brother Johnson in some of the questions, and gave E. Volume references, you did not do so in all of them; and the same thing applies to your references to Brother Jolly's teachings. Do you expect me just to take what you say, and come to conclusions on simply what you allege?

I have nothing to retract, from the letter which appeared in the Sept.‑Oct. P.T. I meant just what I said. Your alleged new light in so many instances contradicts the Scriptures and the teachings of the two Laodicean Star‑members that it would not be possible to go along with you and remain faithful to the Lord and the Truth. (Note: It would have been becoming to have just remembered and mentioned one item‑­JJH) As between you and the two Star‑members, I have chosen the Star‑members. While I do not hope to convince you of the many errors of your way, both in doctrine and conduct, since the able exposures and refutations in the P.T. have not been able to do so, I will reply briefly to your questions:

            (1) In P.T. '57, page 94, after exposing and refuting your errors on the Plow­man and the Grape‑treader of Amos 9:13, in which you contra­dict the teachings of the Laodicean Angel, Bro. Jolly discussed “Spirit­ual Discernment.” He there stated: “The Scriptures teach that for all times the due Truth is for all of God's consecrated people to discern, by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” This is almost word for word as Bro. Johnson stated it in E. Vol, 15, page 652: “The Scriptures teach for all times that the due Truth is for all the consecrated.” You try to find fault with this state­ment, and by quoting from E. Vol. 4, page 129, with certain omissions, you try to make it appear that Bro. Johnson contradicts Bro. Jolly's statement, and thus also contra­dicts his own statement in E. Vol. 15, page 652 (though you hide the latter inevitable conclusion by conveniently not mentioning it). I cannot approve of such blatant duplicity. I impeach you of handling the Star‑members' writings “deceitfully” as some do the Scriptures! If you would more carefully note his word “due” you would be more likely to see the light. (Note: We particularly note that Brother Johnson teaches that the uncleansed – though 'consecrated’ – Great Company do not receive “due” Truth, but reject it while in Azazel's hands – JJH) .. He says that “for all times the DUE Truth is for all the consecrated”; and in E. Vol. 4, page 129, where you foolishly think he contradicts himself, he shows plainly that for a limited time certain truth regarding their dealing with Azazel's Goat was DUE to the Priests alone, hence was then withheld from those for whom it was not DUE; but he states clearly that after “it has served its secret purpose, then it will be understood by the properly disposed Levites” (it will then be DUE for them to understand). So Bro. Johnson and Bro. Jolly are surely right in teaching that “for all times the DUE Truth is for all the consecrated.” Bro. Jolly refuted your false position so thor­oughly in P.T. '58, page 58,59, that I need add nothing more, except that I might remind you that the Apostle Paul received certain truths that were not yet DUE for others to understand (2 Cor. 12:4). (Another Scriptural proof of our contention and position. – JJH) I agree with Bro. Johnson rather than you.

            (2) You give no reference, so I reply merely that I find no contradiction between Bro. Jolly's and Bro. Johnson's teaching on the half tribe of Manasseh to the West of Jordan. They both teach that this half tribe, with the other nine tribes, “type the entire restitution class” (see E Vol. 4, page 451). (We also continue to believe they are the “unconsecrated” of the Gospel‑Age who will have opportunity to consecrate under the New Covenant arrangements, but not before. – JJH)

            (3) Since you do not hold to Bro. Johnson's teaching that the Epiphany in its narrow sense ended in 1954, you give me no basis for the proper discussion with you of this point. (Brother Johnson tells us that the Epiphany, beginning in 1914 and ending with Jacob's trouble, is its ‘narrow sense,’ which is an excellent basis for ‘proper discussion.’ – JJH)

            (4) Here again you give no reference. However, you so openly contradict Bro. Johnson's teachings on this subject that I cannot go with you. For example, in E. Vol. 10, page 114, he stated that “after 1954 no Youthful Worthies will be won,” and he bases this teaching on a number of Scriptures (Please cite the Scriptures! – JJH), but you still hold forth Youthful Worthy hopes to new consecrators; he shows that now “no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes,” but you claim they are; he shows (E. Vol. 10, page 209; 14, page 266, 5, page 420) that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of the truly repentant and believed ones, the loyal faith‑justified, the believers in Jesus as Saviour and King, but you falsely teach that both the Gospel‑Age and Epiphany Camps are “assigned to the unjustified by both Star Members.” (We agree that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture con­tains the believing and repentant, but the UNCONSECRATED – JJH) I prefer to follow the teachings of the two Star Members as defended by Bro. Jolly, rather than to fol­low your opposing vagaries. If you have not profited by the able presentations on this subject in P.T. '55, pages 13, 22, 30; P.T. '58, pages 59‑61, 91‑93; P.T. '59, pages 38, 56, 57, there is nothing I can do that would help you. (We are not ready to refuse to help this Brother, if he will permit us – JJH)

            (5) In 1941, when Bro. Johnson wrote E. Vol. 10, page 672, he expected the Epiphany to end in its full lapping into the Basileia in 1956 and that there would be a short period of time between the destruction of Babylon in the Revolution and October 1954 when the last Youthful Worthy would consecrate (see page 114); but in his later writings, from 1947 on (see P.T. '47, page 53, paragraph 2; P.T. '54, pages 51‑54), he showed that there would be a further lapping beyond 1956, and that the building of the Epiphany Camp would come after 1954. (Brother Johnson tells us in E:4‑15 – “Accordingly, the words epiphaneia and apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous.” Also, “It is in the narrow – ­the second – sense of that term that we use it in our subject.” See E:4,53‑54 – ­He further tells us what the other sense is – the 'wide’ sense – on p. 53 ­“In its wide sense it covers the period from 1874 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble.” But the 'narrow sense’ begins in 1914, at the beginning of the first phase of the Time of Trouble – the World War.– JJH) It is not treating Bro. Johnson rightly to use his earlier writings against the clearer light that he pre­sented in his later and clearer understandings of the Truth as it gradually unfolded. This is another instance of your handling his writings deceitfully! (Brother Johnson gave us ample Scriptural proof that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same thing. Even R. G. Jolly has used this to some extent against J. W. Krewson's errors on the Apokalypsis. A “doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.” – ­The humiliations, buffetings permitted in their fit‑man experiences, especially after their full and complete abandonment, are especially permitted by the Lord to bring about the “destruction of their flesh”(ly) minds “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” We continue to pray that all who are under­going their fit‑man experiences will be properly exercised thereby. – JJH)

            (6) As to your question regarding E. Vol. 15, page 525: this matter was re­ferred to and discussed in P.T. '56, pages 27,28. I am quite in harmony with the explanation given there. As to my personal experiences, I prefer not to discuss them with you, for I am quite aware of your opposing attitude. (Note: We have no opposition to Brother Gough's acknowledgment of his revolutionism of either the Epiphany Truth or its Arrangements under Brother Johnson – before 1950 – as this is the only gauge we are permitted to use in recognizing New Creatures as crown­losers; nor are we arguing that Brother Gough is not now a crown‑loser, manifested as such by his revolutionism. – JJH)

            (7) I am still “acutely aware of the injustice that had been done to Brother Johnson by ignorant brethren.” What is the point you would like to make? (The point we are making is that we are receiving the same treatment that Brother Johnson received, and that for the same reason – our exposures of uncleansed Levites – JJR) I do not see that any injustice has been done to you. (No injustice in circulating slander about us? – JJH) On the contrary, you have been unjust to Bro. Jolly. Have you forgotten the awful things which you said about him, and the many vile names you called him? (We have exposed his sins of practise and teachings, but we have never conducted a “whispering campaign” against him as he has against us, even as he did under Brother Johnson – JJH) Do you remember that I spoke to you about it when you were here, and advised you to “play the ball and not the man,” and you said, “I agree, brother, I agree”?

I still think that no one is out of God's Household unless he became grossly immoral or denies the Ransom and the Sin Offering. I believe that you are in har­mony with these truths (and I hope and pray that you will ever be), and are there­fore a member of the Household of Faith. (We are pleased Brother Gough is not “in harmony” with R. G. Jolly in this respect. Even at Jamaica in 1957, R. G. Jolly called us all sorts of vile names and warned the brethren not to speak to us – ­not to shake hands with us, as we were poison. The leading brethren didn't agree with him at that time either. – JJH) But I believe you have become a sifter. When you were here, I entertained the hope that you would come to realize that you were on “the wrong side of the fence” (as I told you at the time), and retrace your steps. Instead, you have gone from bad to worse. St. Paul says, “Mark them which cause divisions” (Romans 16:17). (The favorite text of J. F. Rutherford against Brother Johnson. – JJH).. The logical effect of your activities is to cause a “sifting” among the brethren and divide them, and those who “sift” are sifters. (We constantly seek to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ and ‘lay down our lives for our brethren,’ the measurably faithful, as well as the faithful. – JJH) Therefore, on this point, I have changed my mind somewhat, because of your continued and persisted opposition to the Lord's Truths and Arrangements.

 But I still pray for you. St. Peter says, “The Lord is not slack.. but is long­suffering to us‑ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” So I pray that the Lord will convert you from the error of your ways, and cause you to come to repentance. I also pray for you on the basis of St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, that “You may find mercy of the Lord in that day” (2 Peter 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:18). (The spirit of brotherly love demonstrated here causes us to hope and believe this brother will be one who will successfully come through the 'great tribulation.’ – JJH)

Instead of using such strenuous efforts to find faults and flaws, you would be better occupied by renouncing your teachings that so openly contradict the Scriptures, such as I Cor. 15:24; Psa. 149:7‑9; Rev. 20:2‑7, etc., your teaching of what Bro. Johnson called “sophistry,” your opposing views on Baptism, and your many other contradictions of the teachings of the Laodicean Star‑members, which you frequently wrest and twist to suit your own purpose; using their former immature statements against their later, more developed ones, etc. There is no need for you and me to discuss matters further until you make a radical change in your teachings and atti­tude for the better.

 I have read your circulars for several years – from the beginning – and I still think that you are on the “wrong side of the fence,” and that you are illogical, sophistical and superficial. Prejudice is a thief of reason, and your prejudice against Bro. Jolly makes it difficult (if not well nigh impossible) for you to think straight or reason clearly on any matters relating to him. It prevents you from understanding what he writes, and makes you see only faults and flaws in every­thing that he does or says. Your molehills have become great mountains in a few short years. What a pity! (Note: Self‑evidently, “whispering campaigns” and slander such as R. G. Jolly conducted against us are very insignificant ‘slips’ on the part of a leader – not considering his revolutionism and false doctrine following as a natural sequence to such activities – J.J.H)..

I still “choose the Star‑Member” as well as associate with, support and “hold up the hands” of Bro. Jolly, because of his loyalty to, harmony with, and defence of their teachings against your errors as well as those of others.

I can still say, “God bless you!” – according to your needs, according to your heart's condition to receive it, and according to His wisdom. But I would advise you not to use your time and stationery and postage stamps to write to me again, until you have completely retraced your steps and made a public confession of it. Otherwise, I will find it necessary to ignore your letters.

 With Christian love and best wishes, I remain,

Sincerely your brother, (Signed) R. L. Gough – Jamaica

The comments in the above signed “JJH” are ours. Below we quote our answer to the above, dated Nov. 10, 1960:

Dear Brother Gough: – Christian greetings!

            In your letter of October 26 you say you will “ignore my letters until I have completely retraced my steps”; but I feel impelled to write you once more just for the record. You advise me “to play the ball and not the man”; and I suppose that statement does have a certain appeal to superficial thinkers. However, it would be interesting to know just how any one can “play the ball” without tackling the man who is carrying the ball. Your advice here is in keeping with the other statements you make. And the Star Member (Brother Johnson) you claim to uphold certainly never failed to expose the “man” as well as the “ball” (the error of teaching and practise) he was throwing, in his exposures of J. F. Rutherford and other uncleansed Levites of his day.

            You complain that I do not quote Brother Johnson for all the points I made in my letter of October 12. No, I didn't! But maybe I assumed too much for you; it never occurred to me that I would need to become profuse over elementary Epiphany teachings with you who have been around so long. Is there any one of my unsupported statements that you do not believe to be true, that you are unable to find in the Epiphany writings of Brother Johnson? If there is, just point it out, and I'll gladly give you the citation for it.

            In your No. (1) on p. 1 you refer to E:15‑652 re “Spiritual Discernment.” In this you reveal the same confused reasoning as does R. G. Jolly. You do this by attempting to use present and future tenses as though they mean one and the same thing. I fully agree that the Great Company will come to understand some of Present Truth after they are cleansed – just as Brother Johnson teaches –; but, when he clearly states that such Truth is “withheld from them” in their uncleansed condition, then certainly it is not “for them” in their uncleansed condition. It is you who handle this question “deceitfully,” and not I. Any _babe’ in the Truth should know that when two inspired Scriptures seem to contradict each other, the fault is not with those Scriptures; the fault lies with the one who argues “contradiction.” And the same principle is true in this instance. In E:15 Brother Johnson is discussing “Classes” – faithful Classes; and this must be moderated by his statement about un­faithful Classes, as well as Measurably Faithful individuals of the Household (the con­secrated). Brother Johnson was making a general statement, which can apply only in a general way – even in Times of Restitution. Even with the Faithful, the due Truth is for them as they are able to receive it and use it. Jesus was the only one who re­ceived the Holy Spirit without measure; all others receive it by measure, as they are able and according to their needs. You offer the same nonsense here that comes from nominal Church – that the Bible is for all men now. We can't dispute the fact that it is here – anymore than we can dispute the Epiphany Truth is here. Not too many of the ‘consecrated’ have received Epiphany Truth, and many of those who have (the uncleansed Great Company in particular) are now perverting and revolutionizing against it. But Jesus clearly states (Mark 4:11,12 – Dia.), “to those without (the world) all things are done in parables; that seeing, they may see, and not perceive.” The Great Company (the ‘consecrated’) stand in the same relative condition during their Abandonment to Azazel. Brother Johnson said the due Truth is hidden from the uncleansed Levites, that “they may not perceive” until they are cleansed. While some of them are privileged to read the Epiphany Truth, it is a self‑evident fact that they do not understand what they read; the ‘understanding’ is withheld from them. I do not wonder that R. G. Jolly, and those in similar condition, fight against this! We know from personal discussion with him after Brother Johnson's demise that he (R. G. Jolly) did not see any difference between “Good Levites” and “Cleansed Levites” – although Brother Johnson made the matter very clear in his writings. So, tell me, was he then too dense to understand the matter, or had it been “withheld” from him during Brother Johnson's life? R. G. jolly proof‑read about everything Brother Johnson wrote, so he had every opportunity to read the Epiphany Truth. Clearly enough, he doesn't understand the ‘abandonment’ process yet, even though it is set out in definite and distinct words by the Epiphany Messenger; although I agree with you he “will” yet understand it (in the future) if and when he cleanses himself. Brother Johnson makes this very clear in E:4‑129‑130: “The understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Coat to the Gate... is withheld from them. After they are cleansed they will understand these things... from 1881 on the Lord gave all the faithful consecrators... an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative understanding of the operation of the Spirit of begettal in the heart.” And elsewhere Brother Johnson says that they (the Great Company) not only don't receive due Truth, but reject it while in the Fit‑Man's hands (while they pervert the Truths they had previously received).

            Then your (4) on p. 2: Your argument here is truly an identical repetition of R. G. Jolly. As you must know, Brother Johnson taught that all who are forced from the Court at the end of this Age lose their Tentative Justification in the fin­ished picture. But they are still intrinsically the same people as they were before. Call them what you will – “loyal faith justified,” or what not –, but your attempt to argue nomenclature is certainly handling Brother Johnson's writings very deceitfully. He said such people would be unconsecrated; whereas, R. C. Jolly says they are the “consecrated.” You ignore this, the vital crux of the whole argument, as you refuse “to follow my opposing vagaries.” WHY? Did R. G. Jolly assist you in writ­ing your letter? This “strange Fire” (false doctrine) is a twin to what the Jeho­vah's Witnesses are now foisting on their proselytes, although R. G. Jolly's efforts will never reach the proportions of this prominent sect in Little Babylon. As I have men­tioned before, even though perhaps not intentional, this is a perversion of the Ransom teaching. Restitutionists and the Faith Classes are not on trial at the same time during the Gospel‑Age.

            Now, I consider your (5) on p. 2: You speak of Brother Johnson's “clearer light...and clearer understandings of the Truth” re 1954‑56 than he gave in Vol. 10. Cite me to some of that “clearer understanding,” won't you please. You accuse me of changing some of Brother Johnson's teachings on this time feature. Where have I changed any of his writings anywhere that are Scripturally supported? When Bro. Johnson's death occurred in 1950 instead of 1956, as he thought, I didn't make that change! The EVENT itself changed that thought and teaching. Early in the Epiphany uncleansed Levites accused Brother Johnson of the same thing – and truthfully so, because time itself clearly demonstrated the inaccuracy of some of Brother Russell's future predictions. Only the grossly ignorant, or the willingly ignorant, would have failed to do what Brother Johnson did. And I say the same now for our time. It should be kept in mind that the Gospel‑Age and Epiphany Tabernacle picture (God's arrangement with respect to the Household of Faith) would self‑evidently remain the same, even though the Star Member miscalculated some time events in relation thereto (which has always been a trial of the Faithful). When time itself indisputably proved some of their anticipations wrong, then only “the unstable and the unlearned” would attempt to change God's arrangements in the Tabernacle picture. “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical,” says Brother Johnson. If that is true, and he offers much Scriptural proof for it (See E:4‑7 through 72), then the Epiphany Taber­nacle cannot change until the Time of Trouble is over. To attempt to change God's arrangement on that is simply perversion of the worst sort (Azazel means Perverter) and gross nonsense. Here again, I challenge you to show one scintilla of proof from Brother Johnson's writings where he even hinted that the Epiphany Camp – at any time – ­would contain consecrated Tentatively Justified. Christ's merit cannot extend to the Restitutionists while it is on embargo in the Court. And you accuse me here of “handling his writings deceitfully”!

            On p. 3 (7) you accuse me of being unjust to Brother Jolly. I wonder if you read the early paper I sent out about him? On several occasions after Brother John­son's death – and before that “loan” item came up – I told R, G. Jolly in brotherly love of some of his mistakes in teaching and practise; and I continued to write him similarly until I learned he was going about slandering me, and encouraging others to do so (even while he was addressing me as “Dear Brother”). Even when I accused him of that (before I made public exposure of him), he didn't deny it. When the issue became too warm for him, he simply “made amends” by disfellowshiping me. At that Philadelphia Convention of 1955 when the brethern assembled there had the first exposure, it was a most appropriate time for him to deny the charges publicly and offer proof of his denial. Instead of doing the proper thing then, he simply made mention from the platform, that 'according to some paper,’ etc., he and Daniel Gavin were “bad eggs.” Seemingly, this is all quite fine with you, This does not surprise me, since you freely admit your soulmate relationship. Repeatedly have I accused him of falsehood; and I have the written proof of my statements here in our file. He ac­cuses me of lying, of having a “bad spirit”; but he offers no more than his unsup­ported word for his statements, which he repeatedly demonstrates is worthless. Of course, if he had the Truth on his side, he wouldn't have to resort to such tactics; nor would he do it if he were actuated by honorable motives. That is why he, and others like him, will be cleansed only by “great tribulation” – if they are cleansed at all. Brother Johnson placed it in his written record that R. G. Jolly had a “bad conscience,” that he was “unfair and unkind” (See E:10‑585 where these exact words are to be found). Now, you tell me I'm on the “wrong side of the fence.” Well, I'm on the same side of the fence as Brother Johnson, the same side I was on when he was here with us – and I thank God at every remembrance of it!

            You speak of my “opposing views on Baptism,” etc., which you say I “wrest and twist to suit my own purpose.” Why don't you cite one instance of such “twisting and wresting”? For your convenience I refer you to my No. 23, July 1, 1957, No. 55, Dec. 1, 1959, and No. 58, March 1, 1960 papers in which John's Baptism is treated, and ask that you cite one perversion of Scripture, if you can. All I've asked in this matter is Scriptural proof in relation to Acts 18, which has never been forth­coming. You say you are kindly disposed toward me, so I now ask you for that proof.

            Had you been given your Fit‑Man experiences in your abandonment process before 1950, that would have been some help perhaps to R. G. Jolly (proving that you were fully abandoned by the Faithful and had received your cleansing therefrom). There is much more I could write, but this is already quite lengthy. I reciprocate your Christian love, and assure you of my earnest prayer that we may very shortly once more “dwell together in unity.” (Psa. 133).

Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle


            In this Sept‑Oct. P.T. there is also a letter from Auxiliary Pilgrim Hubert H. Motley, in which he speaks of “the hurts that we receive from false brethren”; so we feel it in order here to relate our own experience with this “staunch supporter” of R. G. Jolly. Thirty years ago this “staunch supporter” was resident in Detroit, as we also then were. He was so destitute he was sleeping on the floor of a small resident garage; and, being one of those “false brethren” to whom he refers, we gave to Brother Motley the lift of love – brushed the dust of the garage off him, gave him an excellent suit of our own clothes (which fit him almost perfectly) and other clothing, and ad­vanced him various sums of money so he could rehabilitate himself and leave Detroit for parts in which he felt he could better start life anew. We still have in our possession his “I promise to pay” for $400.00, although this does not nearly cover all the gratuities and advances we made to him.

            After he left, we heard from him on occasion; but never once in all these years has he even hinted at repayment of the $400.00; but he's a good “staunch supporter” of R. G. Jolly – undoubtedly a true soulmate! Isn't it truly remarkable how such a per­son has no trouble at all to understand the “truths” (actually the errors) that have been foisted upon the unsuspecting sheep since Brother Johnson's death (And which he himself is circulating as an Auxiliary Pilgrim), yet he just can't grasp the clear and simple truth of a paper with his own name signed to it – an “I promise to pay” for $400.00!! It seems R. G. Jolly attracts quite a few of such “staunch supporters” –, and he is quite welcome to them. However, if any of our readers know the present address of Brother Motley, we would like to send him one of these papers – free, of course. His “staunch support” of R. G. Jolly, while ignoring his debt to us, is in keeping with the general thinking of those in Azazel's hands. Apparently, the text “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” has no more force with them than the “abandonment” teachings of Brother Johnson. Nor does the text “Owe no man anything, but to love one another” mean anything to this “cleansed Levite”.

            Our readers should ever bear in mind that all during the Epiphany it was the uncleansed Levites who heaped abuse of all sorts upon Brother Johnson – the main reason for that being his teaching that their cleansing could come only through fit‑man exper­iences, the same being unfavorable circumstances and persecuting persons. For this they labelled him the No. 1 “sifter” after 1916. For five years now we have been pub­lishing the same teaching on this that he did; and we are receiving the same treat­ment. In this they offer much the same resentment as the disobedient boy who is about to receive the paddle from his parent – they're being abused, of course!


            On Saturday October 29 at the Chicago Convention, Daniel Gavin gave the Baptismal talk, in which he offered a rather sketchy and vague reference to a “new class” since 1954. If we followed him understandably, he did not refer to this Class by name – ­although he did mention the “Queen. of Sheba” contingent... That is, we did not hear “Consecrated Epiphany Campers” or Quasi‑elect Consecrated. But, be that as it may (we could not hear too distinctly at times, as his tones were subdued, even as most of the speakers spoke in subdued tones at that Convention), he said this new Class was first seen by the “Lord's Representative.” If we have the story straight –  and we admit to hearsay here –, it was J. W. Krewson who “sold” this Consecrated quasi‑elect to R. G. Jolly; so it would be very interesting to know just who Daniel Gavin had in mind when he said the “Lord's Representative” first saw this Class. We do know – ­of our own knowledge – that he was fully convinced and told us this personally, that J. W. Krewson was the “Lord's Representative” in 1955; and we know, too, that he con­tinued in that belief for some time after he left our home, after he stood up so “nobly” for R. G. Jolly at that Winter Park meeting, as he was continuing to distribute J. W. Krewson's discourses where he could. So we wonder if he still holds that belief, or if the idea became so entrenched in his mind then that he just can't get rid of it. This would be in keeping with the course of a “doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways” – a crown‑loser.


            This same Daniel Cavin also refuses a civil greetings to the “Sifters,” even away from the meeting hall, which is also contrary to the teachings of That Wise and Faithful Servant – although we do acknowledge that R. G. Jolly and some of the leaders in the L.H.M.M. have not reached that point as yet in their revolutionisms. That Ser­vant taught that we should treat the 'cast out’ (disfellowshiped) as “heathen and publicans.” (See Parousia Vol. 6, p. 416) – Actually, they are “sinners” if they have been justly cast out. However, many times the Faithful have been 'cast out’ while the “sinners” cried, “Let the Lord be glorified.” (See Isa. 66:5) Certainly, we don't refuse to greet such “sinners” in common civility, even though we cannot re­ceive them in Christian fellowship. However, we did receive Daniel Gavin in fellow­ship, love and confidence, in our home before we knew of his traitorous course, not only toward us, but also to R. G. Jolly, and finally toward J. W. Krewson. It seems he was faithful to no one or anything. His record is unique, we believe. So we need not be surprised when he fails to comply with the simple and understandable features of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth (Truths that even the 'babes’ can understand and appreciate), as Brother Johnson tells us that while they are thoroughly unfaithful, and being buffeted by Azazel, during their abandonment period, they can't think clearly on matters of the Truth, as is so sadly manifest here.

            We extend our warm greetings and best wishes to all our brethren everywhere for the coming Holiday Season. “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:7)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle,



Dear Sirs:

            Thank you for sending me your leaflets entitled “Where are the Dead” at a time when I needed an answer to that question more than ever before. The fact that you contacted me means that you read or heard of my young son's death. Of course, I am interested in his future after such a brief life on this earth.

            I was a Baptist by birth, and an Episcopalian by raising, but have had no conso­lation from or belief in either. I have long looked for a true faith that I could be­lieve in and, after reading your leaflet it comes the closest to what I have always believed in my innermost self.

            Please send me your other leaflets: The Resurrection of the Dead, The Three Babylons and What is the Soul. Thank you!

--------- Mass.


To Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n:

            Will you please send me a copy of “What is the Soul”?

Yours truly --------- Conn.


Dear Sirs:

            I would like to have free copies of The Resurrection of the Dead and Where are the Dead. My address is......

Sincerely yours --------- N. C.