My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
Concerning the November‑December 1958 Present Truth which reached us Dec. 9 about three months since receiving the previous one. On p. 89 there are Convention Reports containing the usual falsehoods and snide comments which we sadly note are chronic with R. G. Jolly. He says the “sifters” were “brazen enough to again attend our conventions”; and we observe he is well qualified to define brazenness – just as Brother Johnson said That Evil Servant was well qualified to define hypocrites, because he himself was chiefest among them. In the Question Meeting on Sunday morning at Chicago on Nov. 2 some one, unknown to us, asked R. G. Jolly if he had made the statement the “sifters” now attribute to him about the tracts of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson being “timeworn and threadbare.” He not only unreservedly denied the charge, but went further to brand as liars the “sifters” who accuse him of doing so – their purpose being only “self‑exaltation.” Immediately after that meeting we had delivered to him a letter, a part of which we reproduce below:
“I now inform you that you made that statement at the Chicago Convention in the Y.M.C.A. at 826 E. Wabash, in 1953 – right after I had delivered the discourse at 3 p.m. that afternoon on the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers; and I have the proof for my statement. Therefore, I am calling upon you now to correct this injustice before the brethren here assembled, and thus erase the ’sin that lieth at the door.’ If you do not do this, then you may find yourself proven doubly guilty and humiliated in the Lord's due time.
“You know full well we are not sifters, and I again emphasize – as I did in Philadelphia two months ago – that I write this letter in a kindly and brotherly effort to help you; and the matter now rests squarely upon your shoulders, with no one to blame but yourself for the future disposition of it.” (Signed: John J. Hoefle)
It will be noted from the Present Truth now being reviewed that R. G. Jolly not only does not correct his sin in this matter, but heaps further abuse upon those he has so flagrantly wronged. He looked the Lord's people directly in the face that morning to deceive them with his foul falsehood; he yet stands boldly guilty in that falsehood; and this is the man who accuses us of being “brazen,” and of being “false accusers”! He is also the same man who is “glad to admit and correct his mistakes“! It is so very clear why he does not desire our presence at his conventions: If we were absent he would then have no restraint in his untruthful statements such as the one we now expose. The Scribes and Pharisees treated Jesus in identical fashion because they, too, were “offended” at His exposures of their falsehoods, their thievery, and their depraved deception of God's sheep. We know His reception in the synagogue was equally as cool as ours; yet He hesitated not to go there. But it should be noted, too; that – although He had perfect sanctified courage – He had none of that depraved gall by which He would brazenly stand before God's people and falsely brand others as liars – and we are genuinely grateful that we have never been “brazen” enough for that!
Nor has this “sifter” (JJH) ever been “brazen” enough to conduct a “whispering campaign” against a destitute and defenseless widow – in open defiance of the Eighth Principal Man. But R. G. Jolly was brazen enough to do it – the same R. G. Jolly who now accuses us of being “brazen.” Yes, the very same! (For details about this see E‑10‑585 –bottom)
Nor has this “sifter” (JJH) ever been “brazen” enough to attempt to seize control of the last Star Member in a course of open revolutionism. But R. G. Jolly was brazen enough to try it – the same R. G. Jolly who now accuses us of being “brazen.” Yes, the very same! (For details see E‑10‑645,bottom.)
Nor did Brother Johnson ever label this “sifter” (JJH) as a “false accuser”; but he did charge that to R. G. Jolly. (See E‑10‑591, par. 1.) Nor did he ever charge JJH with having a “bad conscience”; but he did charge that to R. G. Jolly. (See E‑10‑585, top.) And it now becomes very apparent that R. G. Jolly is yet ever ready to be the “false accuser” – that he does not now have a “bad” conscience, he has a “worse” conscience, if indeed he now has any conscience at all!
We doubt not that he would be ready enough to deny he tried to eliminate the Manna texts and comments altogether from his convention Testimony Meetings if the written evidence of this were not in the hands of so many brethren. In fact, at that very 1953 Chicago Convention he ignored the Manna text completely for Testimony Meetings, and substituted Psa. 100:4 for Oct. 30, Heb. 13:7 for Oct. 31, and 1 John 5:14,15 for Nov. 1. Of course, none of these had any Star Member comments, being purely R. G. Jolly's personal substitutions. Therefore, it should not require argument that R. G. Jolly clearly revealed there by his act – if not specifically by words –that the Manna texts had became “timeworn and threadbare” to him, just as he had expressly stated in words about the tracts at that very Convention (giving praise to his new tract as being “up‑to‑the minute” – his “Flying Saucer” tract). This gives his denial a very unsalutary taint, wouldn't you think? And we are convinced it was only our exposure of his revolutionistic course that restrained him. He would probably have followed the course of That Evil Servant to eliminate the Manna completely because the comments so often condemn his present evils. Can this be the reason he selected his own texts (without Star Member comments)? And what about the regularly Wednesday‑night Testimony Meetings – Does he face those comments? But in all this, and similar items, we shall be “brazen” enough to point the accusing finger at R. G. Jolly – just as did Jesus against the “cleansed” Levites of His day, as He determined to be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren.” in all of this it is indeed laughable to note his slighting comment about the “few exceptions” who give us recognition. If our presence has so very little influence, why raise so much hue and cry about it?
It is clear enough now that it was truly the hand of the lord that moved The Epiphany Messenger to record as he did the evil characteristics of R. G. Jolly – evils that are now even more glaring since his abandonment to Azazel by the Fit Man. At the time Vol. 10 was written he was having only the first part of his fit‑man experiences – unfavorable circumstances – and we now state for the record that the humiliations he received in 1938 will appear as a picnic frolic in comparison with what he will yet receive – if he remains in the Household of Faith and eventually cleanses himself. And be it remembered that his 1938 experiences were so drastic that they drove him to seek the mercenary consolation of “the children of disobedience” for mental relief – of which much more anon.
“Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson; and it need occasion no surprise that such bunglers are “brazen” enough to charge others as instigators of their bungling. During 1953 R. G. Jolly had produced his latest brain‑child, “The Flying Saucer”; and it was during his prolific and volatile eulogy of that tract that he tossed in the remark about the Star Members' tracts being “timeworn and threadbare.” But those tracts were Present Truth; and sifters have never succeeded in crushing Present Truth during the Star Members' ministry. However, five short years have pretty well determined The Flying Saucer to be “timeworn and threadbare,” because it had no sound foundation at the outset – just as the $5 correspondence course is also “timeworn and threadbare.” But true to his kind – as Saul found fault with David –he now blames the “sifters” for his aberrations. Ahab did the same to Elijah: “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” And we now use Elijah's reply to answer R. G. Jolly's kindred accusation against us: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou has followed Baalim.” (1 Kgs‑ 18:17,18)
Right here it is pertinent, too, to inquire about his successes at the “chop suey” conventions of other conglomerate groups. It will be recalled he regaled the brethren at our own conventions with “profusion of words” about the “great blessings” he was receiving by his attendance at those gatherings. But we have heard just nothing from him now for several years. Can it be those people got their fill of his “loquacious, repetitious, effusive” technique much quicker than the generous and long‑suffering brethren of our group? Or is he “brazen” enough to blame the “sifters” for this collapse of another of his many abortive efforts? Brother Johnson's treatise in PT '26, P. 132, col. 2, re That Evil Servant is so very applicable in this instance that we present some of it, with variations by this writer to suit the occasion: One would think that brazenness would be about the last subject R. G. Jolly would select to accuse others, lest people's attention might be attracted to his own colossal “brazen” hypocrisy. Yet he may have done this on the principle of the _stop thief’ cry, in the hope of diverting attention from himself. At any rate he ought to be better qualified in “brazen” analysis than any other person, because, from the standpoint of his own unenviable preeminence in that sin, he should understand its workings more fully than others.
Verbose ‑ Repetitious ‑ Effusive
Then follows more than a full page of comments on “Stating Errorists' Names.” He first considers Jesus' silence on Judas' name in John 13:21) 22. He includes “Wrongdoers” in his heading to allow himself plenty of opportunity for jugglery; but even this is not sufficient to allow him to conceal his unclear thinking. Of course, Judas was teaching no error; he had not even committed the wrong to which Jesus alluded; but this doesn't bother R. G. Jolly. In this affair Jesus was exercising only reasonable senctified secretiveness –just as He maintained silence at His trial later that same night. Had He audibly and unmistakably announced Judas, it is quite probable the other disciples would have restrained him in his evil course; and this Jesus did not want – any more than He wished to talk His way into Pilate's good graces, so He “held His peace.” R. G. Jolly's injection of the Judas affair here is akin to his nonsense on “Judas not a thief” – another perversion he has not yet been “glad to admit and correct.”
Comes next his account of the “damsel” in Acts 16:16‑18. In this incident the maid is not teaching any error; she is actually stating a truth by the demon who possessed her. The real lesson for us in this matter is that we should decline the help of unrighteousness, even though it might seem to help us – the maid's identity being only secondary. However, Paul looked directly at her, leaving no doubt in others' minds with whom he was dealing. Nor is there the slightest hint that Paul even knew her name; so a sound analysis of this episode just reveals some more Jolly nonsense, as he tries to “make” a case for himself. As Brother Johnson has so aptly observeds when these people fall into the bands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and R. G. Jolly's attempts in this instance simply provided additional proof that Brother Johnson knew whereof he spoke. Of course, to him, his aberrations in these two examples are nothing more than “fly‑specks”; and any one who sees more is just a “sifter.”
But the prize piece of bungling in his attempted answers is to be found in (3) col. 1, p. 91 – where he apparently refers to us (without giving any name). He uses one sentence here to cover a whole paragraph – about 300 words in one sentence, plus copious quotations, and reference to at least six different subjects. Maybe his motive in offering such a jumble is to be sure his readers will not understand those various subjects any better than he does – just as Catholics are often subjected to latin ceremonies by their priests to be “sure” they'll understand them. When Brother Johnson wrote of R. G. Jolly that he is “loquacious, repetitious, false‑accusing .... partly foolish effusions ... condemning truth and righteousness, etc.;” he surely gave us no exaggerations of this crafty perverter (Azazel means Perverter!).
Probably his effusive, verbose and repetitious harangue here is just a tricky attempt to have his readers forget his nonsense about “Restitution accomplished by 2874” – which we annihilated in our September paper; and the crushing defeat we also gave him in that same paper about “due Truth being for all the consecrated to discern by the use of the Holy Spirit.” Since he talks in reverse on so many things, this may be his method of being “glad to admit a mistake, and to correct it.” We are still waiting for something more from him an both these items.
But while we are waiting, we shall present some more for him to include in his answers: Brother Russell repeatedly stated prior to 1914 that the Kingdom had not been set up. One such place is vol. 3, P. 116, top. He confirmed this on p. 4799 of the Reprints, col. 1, middle: “God's kingdom, Messiah's kingdom... is not yet set up.” But note his changed viewpoint on p. 5631, col. 2, middle (Feb. 15, 1915):
"To our understanding the first step in the setting up of this kingdom was the raising of the sleeping saints... in the spring of 1878. (Note: R.G.Jolly contends “the first step” was in 1874 – to harmonize with his “the” thousand years) ... This does not signify that there may not be a part of the kingdom work begun while some of the members of Christ are still in the flesh... We believe the Times of the Gentiles ended just on time... that the time for setting up of the kingdom was on Sept. 21, 1914.”
And here's confirmation of the above by Brother Johnson in E‑16‑174, last par.: “The testing time will be the Millennium in its widest sense, in which the little season at its close is included ... at the and of the Millennium – in the little season.” (P. 175, bottom) – Let R. G. Jolly harmonize the foregoing from both Star Members with his own contention of “Restitution accomplished by 2874” – if he can! And let him explain, too, how the “stone” of Dan. 2:44,45 could do its smiting before the “stone” was complete namely, in 1914. When the Gentile lease expired in 1914, the “stone” could and did proceed to do the “smiting”, to “execute the judgments written”; but not before. Clearly enough, the Star Members taught the thousand‑year reign of the 144,000 is from 1914 to 2914.
At the bottom of p. 89, col. 2, R. G. Jolly says he re‑emphasized at Chicago that the Little Flock has finished its share in Gideon's second battle on this side the veil. Yes, he re‑emphasized it in typical Jolly fashion – offering his own perversion (Azazel means Perverter) in direct contradiction to the Star Member's teaching. Note E‑5‑159:
“These type the two conflicts of the final victory of the Little Flock... the first smiting of Jordan... in which all of the last members of the Christ took part unto a completion.... the second battle... wherein the Little Flock participates unto a completion.... the two battles of the 300 as typing the two parts of the final conflict of the Very Elect.”
And R. G. Jolly again “re‑emphasizes” his opposition to the above, while yelling be is “in harmony” with the Star Members, but the “sifters” are not. Let him prove – if he can – his harmony and our dis‑harmony with the foregoing. Here again his only answer will be to cry “evil surmisings, false accusations and caustic invectives”! He treats antitypical Gideon's Second Battle in the same fashion he treats the “Salt” class, the Little Flock wilderness refuge vs. Great Company wilderness exposure (abandonment to Azazel), etc., etc,
On page 91, col. 2 there is a Question – very apparently inspired by R. G. Jolly himself, because it starts by stating a false premise; namely, “the Epiphany period... in the restricted, 40‑year, sense.” The only “sense” in which we can locate the period he describes is in R. G. Jolly's “non”‑sense. In no place can he find any proof from Brother Johnson's writings or the Scriptures that the Epiphany “in its restricted sense” ended in 1954. Brother Johnson taught, with indisputable Bible proof, that the Epiphany in its narrow sense is the Time of Trouble. Here is a quotation from E‑4 – page 53 (51): “In its narrow sense (the word _narrow’ means the same as _restricted’ –JJH) it covers the period from the beginning of the World war in 1914 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble... It is in the narrow sense of that term that we use it in our subject... the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing.” And on p. 65 (63) “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age.”
These quotations clearly state Brother Johnson's view: The Gospel Age continues with us so long as the Epiphany is with us; and the Epiphany in its narrow (or restricted) sense is with us so long as the time of trouble is with us. If we accept this terse teaching of the Star Member, then we may evaluate the balance of pages 91‑94 by R. G. Jolly as just so much drivel. He bases his whole argument upon a parallel which isn't there – not one shred of tangible or intangible evidence to prove his point; while he tosses aside the teaching just quoted, as well as the Star Member's interpretations on Psa. 46, Rev. 19:5‑10, 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10. Thus, we have a whole battery of invincible Scriptures to be pitted against a parallel with no proof to support it; and, true to his Class, (Azazel means Perverter) R. G. Jolly seizes upon a nebulous nothing in preference to the solid and sound Bible. Let all follow him into his mirage who wish to do so; “as for me and my house” we shall cleave to the inspired writings.
But we shall proceed: At the bottom of p. 91 he offers E‑5‑420, but this very citation defeats him: “Vol. 1 ... will be the substance of the Great Company's message after they are cleansed (Rev. 19:5)... after the earthquake has destroyed the beast and his image.” This very citation negates all his claims about 1954 and thereafter. He says “darkness is more and more settling over us”; but we adhere to the Star Members' teaching, as he does not, so his remark is simply some more of his empty talk.
The same applies to his other citation here from E‑10‑209: “The Gospel‑Age Camp is the condition of the unjustified people of God, while the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” If we are in the “finished picture,” then his Campers “Consecrated” has no place here; and if we are not in the “finished picture,” then he's still talking nonsense!
He follows with three more paragraphs of rank perversion on p. 92. Regardless of the time element, Brother Johnson taught – and we agree – that Jesus' Executorship operates only in the Court; it never extends into the Camp during the Faith Dispensations – at least not so long as any of the elect classes remain on earth. This sort of twisting is typical of Azazel's Goat – “profusion of words to no purpose.” All the more do we understand why Brother Johnson told us R. G. Jolly is “loquacious, repetitious, effusive,” etc. Here again he tries to make a “parallel” between 1914 and 1954; but let us not forget that in 1914 – when the High Calling closed – the new Class that then developed (the Youthful Worthies) had their justification in the court, just where every other member of the Household of Faith has had it – from Abel to Restitution. Thus, when he suggests we “apply the same principles” in 1954, let him be consistent and make a full “application.” Also, up to now, at least, he's made no application of the laver to his Camp. Why not? It's impossible to have any acceptable consecration without first washing at the laver; but this fact he avoids with continued silence.
And on p. 93, par. 2, he offers the inane premise about Youthful Worthies coming in right up to the Kingdom. When did we ever present such nonsense? Here again he must talk to becloud the real issue. Brother Johnson emphatically stated some Youthful Worthies would be won after Armageddon. Why not conclude from that, then, that Brother Johnson taught they would be won right on through Jacob's Trouble? We believe, however, that once more Brother Johnson's teaching is most apropos – “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense”!
That Attestatorial Service
There is much more to be said about Campers “Consecrated”; and in dull time we plan to say it. But let us examine further his Attestatorial Service. At the bottom of P. 93 he says this service “continues for an indefinite time beyond Oct. 1954”; but he offers Just nothing in corroboration of that statement. He also tries to make a point that the “gleaning” in 1914‑1916 was done by the “poor and the stranger.” We have not contradicted this, as he would like to have it appear. Regardless of who did the “gleaning”, it was certainly the direct result of the Little Flock's Attestatorial Service and the chronology and the signs of the times were there to corroborate it just as those “two witnesses” have accompanied every feature of prophetic unfolding. “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” wasn't corroborated by the chronology or the signs of the time either – and has now been “forgotten” by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Let R.G. Jolly show such corroboration for 1954‑56! Let him show when and where he had the slightest shred of such corroboration for 1956. Let him show if the Great Company were all won for Present Truth by Passover 1956 – as was true of the Little Flock in 1916! Regardless of who did it in 1914‑16, it was done. But once more, in 1956 the “parallel!” that isn't there leaves him bruised; but not sufficiently bruised, we are grieved to note, to retard the “loquacious, repetitious, effusive” products of his “bad conscience” – all these quotes being the words of Brother Johnson written into the record about R. G. Jolly. And in the face of all this he yet stoops to explain – at this late period – “why so much criticism and refutation” (?) by him.
It should be remembered that in many of these errors we are now refuting R. G. Jolly's “cousin”, J. W. Krewson, was the primary guiding hand; the “power behind the throne” – the same “cousin” he now vehemently castigates. If “John's Beheading,” – “Campers Consecrated,” – “Last Saint Gone,” are Present Truth now – as R. G. Jolly so emphatically contends – then they were Present Truth when he collaborated about them with J. W. Krewson. And it needs no argument that R. G. Jolly was then unwittingly accepting him as the “Teacher.” This also is something really new in Gospel‑Age dealings – to find the “Teacher” repudiated, but his teachings championed by a crown‑lost leader who now labels his former “teacher” a “sifter.” Strange happenings have passed before our eyes since October 1950! Such a “Comedy of Error” can be nothing more than the spawn of a ludicrous Levite in the hands of Azazel. In wonderment we inquire – How can brethren instructed in the sober teachings of the Star Members now accept such a foolish contradiction?
To such as do not perceive these “strange acts” we simply say, “Sleep on now and take your rest.” But to those who are awakened we say, “Be ye therefore strong and immovable”; “continue in the things thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou has learned them.” We them all herein if space permitted.
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Question of General Interest
QUESTION: – Brother Jolly teaches the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” will be more honorable and have a higher position than any of the quasi‑elect. Isn't this a direct contradiction of the Scriptures that tell us the Jew will be the first to be blessed after all the elect are in?
ANSWER: – Yes, such a doctrine is in violation of Scriptural teaching and is a gross revolutionism of both Parousia and Epiphany teachings. Brothers Russell and Johnson both taught that the Jews would be the first to receive the Millennial blessings and all would have to become Jews to receive those blessings. This is only reasonable, as the Jews will be in Jerusalem when the Worthies return. Brother Johnson gave us the true teachings on the Epiphany Camp – which is to consist of the loyal faith‑justified (the formerly tentatively justified) and the converted Jew. This fifth class is a Restitution Class – the sons of Joel 2:28 – which includes all the quasi‑elect. Brother Johnson points out that the Miriam Class (the quasi‑elect) would be the chief – or first to receive the blessings (the believing Jews,and Gentiles –but not consecrated). This teaching is very similar to Jehovah's Witnesses' claims that those who come with them will be “chief.” The Epiphany Campers “consecrated” and the J.W.'s claims have no Scriptural basis. We will have more to say on this in a future writing.