NO. 37: PRIESTCRAFT

No. 37

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

It seems most appropriate just now to present some thoughts on PRIESTCRAFT.

Since the day the tabernacle was fully set up by Moses and Aaron the various religious organizations that have existed in Jewry and Christendom have gone through three successive stages – Priesthood, Priestcraft and Priest-“graft.” As Israel’s first high priest, Aaron gave them a most faithful service – so much so that he is referred to in Psa. 106:16 as “Aaron the saint of the lord”; and he is the only Old ­Testament personage to receive such honor. As most of our readers know, it was Brother Johnson’s thought that the word “Saint” refers only to members of the Christ Company ­with which we agree. In discussing this subject with him on one occasion, this seem­ing contradiction in Psa. 106:16 was mentioned, and he offered the explanation that this one exception was made because of Aaron’s high degree of faithfulness) in which he most fittingly typified the Gospel-Age Saints as the true Royal Priesthood.

In due course this faithful Aaronic priesthood degraded into a priestcraft, which expression we use here in its derogatory sense as meaning unholy intrigue, or Azazel­ian cunning designed to promote self through defeating and destroying all opposition and at the same time fooling “the unstable and the unlearned.” A notable instance of priestcraft is to be found in the sons of Eli as recorded in 1 Sam. 2:12–25. A second illustration is the pompous Hananiah in Jer. 28:10-15, where he offered a false proph­ecy in his effort to dispute and defeat Jeremiah. And he not only was successful in having his false prophecy accepted, but he also succeeded in having the faithful and true prophet Jeremiah cast into the miry dungeon (a type of slander) – “Thou makest this people to trust in a lie.” The conditions then prevailing in Israel were most fittingly expressed in Jer. 5:31: “The prophets prophesy falsely... and my people love to have it so.”

And this attitude of the people easily made way for the third stage in the Jew­ish system – the period of priest-“graft.” By the time Jesus appeared on earth the system had reached the very bottom of the dirty barrel; graft by the priesthood had became revoltingly repulsive. The Law had specified that the animals presented for sacrifice should be “without blemish”, which stipulation had become so distorted and abused in Jesus’ day that it is said the priests had as many as seventy reasons why they would reject an animal. Thus, if a pious, trusting peasant came in from the hill country with his lamb or kid under his arm for sacrifice to make his peace with God, the grafting priesthood was there to examine the animal in meticulous fashion. And if they found a wart on its belly, or some other insignificant irregularity, his animal was rejected. So what was he to do? To go back home for another animal was out of the question. But the priests had a ready answer for him; they would sell him one they had in the yard back of the temple, allowing him something for his re­jected animal.  Then his rejected animal would be put into the yard and sold at a goodly price to the next penitent as “without blemish.” Yes, they had developed a thriving business in priest-“graft.” This enables us to understand more clearly the words of Jesus in Matt. 21:12, 13: “Jesus went into the temple... and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them... My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

But that “den of thieves” was composed of the “good” people of that time – those who always showed a “good” spirit in contrast to Jesus’ “bad” spirit. It was they who neither ate nor drank anything “unclean.” “All their works they do to be seen of men... the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called Rabbi”—Matt. 23:4-7. It was they who “sounded a trumpet before them” in their alms­ giving to “have glory of men” – “long prayers on the street corners to be seen of men” “fasting with sad countenance to appear unto men to fast” (Matt. 6:2,5 16). Indeed, they had made “the outside of the cup clean”, while the priest-“graft” flourished as a “den of thieves.” Little wonder is it that the Lord could find no further use for that system – “this day your house is left unto you desolate.”

And substantially the same pattern prevailed in the Gospel-Age systems, chief among them being the Papal organization.  By 325 A.D. priestcraft had acquired such strength that the Council of Nice was able to banish the faithful Arius from the Roman Empire, forcing him to take refuge in Northern Africa. And of that imposing assembly only one stood with dear Brother Arius and accepted his fate. Once more the people of “good” spirit prevailed, while ridding themselves of Arius and his companion – those with the “bad” spirit. Priestcraft was paving the way for priest-“graft.” By the time Martin Luther arrived the “den of thieves” was again in full evidence; John Tetzel was filling the papal coffers with his sale of indulgences throughout the length and breadth of Germany. And that system went the way of its Jewish twin - “weighed in the balances and found wanting,” rejected as useless, and consigned to the “burning flame.”

Following on, we come to the Harvest time, and again the same pattern. That Faith­ful and Wise Servant was scarcely in the tomb until priestcraft appeared again – unholy intrigue and Azazelian cunning by That Evil Servant and Company to rid themselves of the faithful Epiphany Messenger. Nor did that system waste any time with its priest­craft; we are in the day of rapid travels and the religious thinking must keep abreast of the times. Thus, in one man’s lifetime the system organized by the faithful Royal Priesthood went rapidly from priestcraft to priest-“graft”; before That Evil Servant died, his slave labor was filling his coffers with royalties from the sale of his liter­ature.

Observation of the past should teach us something; but the human race learns slowly, so very slowly. The small boy asked his father, “What is a financier?” The father ­“He’s a man who can gain experience without paying for it.” But the financiers are so very few, which leaves the great majority to pay, and pay dearly, for their experiences. That is why priestcraft is already prevailing and predominating in the LHMM in the few short years since Brother Johnson’s death. A vivid illustration was presented at the Grand Rapids Convention over this last Memorial Day week-end.  On one occasion R. G. Jolly declared with much emphasis and gusto: “The Present Truth won’t deal in personalities, but the Present Truth will defend the Truth!” Here is an excellent illustration of priestcraft – saying one thing, but doing the very opposite. In our group, who has indulged in personalities more than has R. G. Jolly? He has publicly called three different persons a thief; he has referred to this writer as an errorist, sifter, teacher of sophistry, would-be teacher, etc., etc. And all this, and more, he has said about others. And this he has done while perverting the Truth, instead of defending it – therefore, his statement should properly read: “The Present Truth in­dulges in personalities and repeatedly perverts the Truth.” All are not skilled in discerning between Truth and error, so we make charitable allowance for many of his supporters – but we find it difficult to extend much charity to those who agree with him that he “does not indulge in personalities.” Any one who reads his paper should see without help that his denial of this fact is simply priestcraft at its worst.  In fact, as soon as he made his statement from the Convention platform, “The Present Truth (meaning R. G. Jolly, of course) won’t deal in personalities”, he immediately began to rail at “the sifter in our midst.” Thus, he himself put the stamp of false­hood to his own statement before his own echo had subsided. He won’t deal in personalities, 0–o–oh, No–o–oh! Here’s the dictionary definition of “indulge in personalities”: Referring directly to, or being aimed at, an individual – especially, some­thing of a disparaging or offensive nature.

It should be kept in mind that both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson repeated­ly identified individuals, not because they found pleasure therein – anymore than do we – but because they were convinced that “necessity was laid upon them” to do so. Here is something quite to the point in April 1, 1932 PT, p. 58, col. 2:

“Now that we are exposing their wrongdoings and teachings, they quote against us from “that Servant’s’ writings statements on evil speaking. These apply to their course, not ours. As Jesus (Matt. 23) publicly reproved the Phari­sees; as Paul reproved Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-15); as the Prophets in in­numerable places and the Apostles in many instances as God’s mouthpieces spoke against the wrong acts of evildoers, even mentioning their names (2 Tim. 3:8; 1:15; 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Pet. 2:15; 3 John 9:10; Jude 11); and as all Re­formers, e.g., our dear Pastor, spoke against the clericalists, frequently mentioning their names, so in cases like the present, where guarding the flock against the brethren who are “deceiving and being deceived’ is necessary, it is not only not wrong, but our bounden duty as servants of the Truth, to ex­pose the clericalists in our midst. “That Servant’s” view reproving their slanderous course against us and justifying our exposures of their wrongs against the Church and their three colleagues on the Committee, is found in the Manna comment for July 14th. If we should keep silence, God would raise up another servant to warn His people against their false teachings and wrong practices.”

We take our guidance from the above when we vigorously attack the Azazelian methods of R. G. Jolly; but R. G. Jolly takes his guidance from That Evil Servant, whom all Epi­phany-enlightened brethren know to have been a teacher of error, and one who received his instructions from Azazel, in whose clutches he was. Think you that R. G. Jolly would do this if he were proceeding in the power and might of the Truth and Righteous­ness that actuated and sustained the true Pastors and Teachers that God gave His people in the last two Principal Men? In this last May-June PT, p. 41, col. 1 (top) he says, “(the teacher of “sophistry” on the time of the saints reign, already clearly identi­fied in these columns,)” Why not specifically identify this “teacher of sophistry”? He could have done it in fewer words than he used to mimic JFR. Would he mimic JFR if he were not motivated by the same spirit?  Indeed, it is such methods that provide us with the strong assurance that he is in Azazel’s hands for buffeting experiences, and that the Lord’s blessing will be with those who courageously resist such evil practices as they have opportunity. We have every confidence that the faithful brethren realize it has been very distasteful to us from the outset to pursue the unpleasant task of ex­posing brethren whom we have loved and respected, in their sins of teaching and prac­tice as evidenced since Brother Johnson’s death. We emphasize, however, that at no time have we attacked R. G. Jolly, or others, with vicious gossip or published state­ments about their personal lives or family affairs – although those very methods have been employed against us in the slander that has been circulated since Brother John­son’s death, just as uncleansed levites did the same to Brother Johnson when they could not meet the Truth he presented. They gossiped that he had dissipated Sister Johnson’s finances; and on at least one occasion, which we remember quite clearly, even his mor­als were impugned. Of such methods none can justly accuse us – although we have produced the proof of slanders against us. Our course has been against erring brethren in their official capacity only, having studiously avoided family relationships, their business ethics, etc., although we have repeatedly been given derogatory information about some of them along these lines. Jesus did not use these methods against the Scribes and Pharisees, although He did attack their sins of practice (their character).

As we should expect, R. G. Jolly’s principal Yes-Men accept their example and in­struction from him. At this same Grand Rapids Convention one of them discoursed on “The Treader of the Winepress.” On two or three occasions he quoted Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51, “Upon you shall come all the righteous blood from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah.” But he failed, carefully failed, to quote the clause, “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Now, why would be do that? Well, some one might ask him what that means – and he might not be able to tell them – and that would be embarrassing! As we have previously pointed out, the addition of that clause by Jesus, when referring to 2 Chron. 24:21, is not without purpose. Partial quotations of Scripture or of others’ statements to warp or conceal the Truth are pretty good evi­dence of priestcraft. Much along the same line may be said of that same speaker’s use of Amos 9:13, of which we hope to treat in due course. But, as Jesus said of those in His day on earth, who resorted to similar tactics, “They have their reward”; in other words, they will reap even as they sow.

CHRIST’S THOUSAND-YEAR REIGN – Reviewed

In this May-June 1958 Present Truth there is presented about seven pages more on “Christ’s Thousand-Year Reign.” That our readers may reach a proper appraisal of this jumble, we first of all quote from p. 47, col. 2 (end):

“By the time (1) the Millennium and (2) its subsequent “little season’ (Rev. 20:3) will have fully ended, God through the Christ (Head and Body), the Seed of Abra­ham (Gal. 3:8, 16) 29). will (1) have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution (in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874), and (2) they will have stood faithful in the testings in the Little Season.” (E–17–414)

Now we suggest that our readers refer to bottom of p. 414, Vol. 17 and note the substi­tutions R. G. Jolly has made in that quotation – substitutions cunningly designed to pervert what Brother Johnson has written. Note especially his addition, “in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874,”  Certainly it is his questionable privilege to be­lieve what he has added; but to include it in the quotation, thus putting R. G. Jolly’s own words into Brother Johnson’s mouth, is just what we might expect from any one in Azazel’s hands. Azazel means Perverter; and here we have a classic example of perver­sion. He also makes a butchery of Brother Johnson’s English, because if Brother John­son had used R. G. Jolly’s parenthesis he would have said in the last sentence of the above quotation, “they will have to stand faithful” instead of “they will have stood faithful”. We shall show later on that Brother Johnson directly contradicts R. G. Jolly’s addition as quoted above.

Also, he finally stintingly admits there is considerable conflict in the statements of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson; but those against his argument “really don’t mean anything.” To those about us we have often questioned how long it would be until R. G. Jolly would be forced into this admission, and what he would then do with it. But the Truth will out – and will prevail. We are pleased to note that at least a little – even though a very little – has finally registered with him. Now, on p. 44, col. 2, par. 1 he attempts to answer Brother Johnson’s statement, “We may reasonably infer that the Millennium will end by time stages; otherwise, we could not claim for Christ and the Church a full 1,000 years’ reign.” If R. G. Jolly is right in his pres­ent contention, then this statement by Brother Johnson is just empty and foolish. We know Brother Johnson was clear in his understanding that a part is often taken for the whole; also, that the Millennium in its first sense is from 1874 to 2874. He also knew that not even one of the Saints “reigned with Him” in 1874. Thus, none of them would “reign with Him” a full thousand years if that time ends in 2874. This is only simple arithmetic – and Brother Johnson understood the equation clearly enough. And because he did see it clearly, he was forced to make the statement just quoted to show that in no sense – “narrow sense”, “restricted sense”, or any way R. G. Jolly wants to term it – would that Scripture be stating the Truth if it were referring to 2874.

We have repeatedly predicted that R. G. Jolly will be forced to silence in this matter – and we now repeat that prediction. It’s been more than six months since our last paper appeared on this matter (Nov. 1, 1957); and he is wily enough to wait long enough to allow his readers to forget his past statements and defeats, and to give him a chance to adjust his previous contentions with the annihilation we have given his previous statements. He is now forced to state (p. 41, col. 2, par. 2, that “the Head alone from 1874 to 1878” reigned. And we may expect to see more – much more – of such acrobatics until, and if, he cleanses himself, just as we saw the same acrobatics in That Evil Servant on his numerous and contradictory views on Elijah and Elisha.

Take, for instance, his “faulty disc.” He has repeatedly admitted it isn’t clear. Now – for the first time – he’s telling us it makes no difference if the disc says “of” or “is”. It took him a long time to find that out; and, if he is now right, why send out the edict to change Volume 17 to fit the sleight-of-hand “correction” he made in 1956? But, when he tries to offer the flimsy explanation that the “effects of Satan’s reign” is meant – and that means “things” and not “persons” – he reveals once more his stature. Even if Satan were destroyed, but the least semblance of sin could yet be found (which will not occur, of course), wouldn’t that remaining sin still be the “ef­fects of Satan’s reign” not yet destroyed? He must give his readers a very low rating if he thinks they will swallow that!

Of course, he must accept the above hypothesis to justify his mutilation of Brother Johnson’s statement in E–17–414, wherein he injects his perversion, “mankind with resti­tution – in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874.” Just as his tampering with that “faulty disc” directly contradicted Brother Johnson’s statements elsewhere, so he now does again on this restitution perversion. Here’s what Brother Johnson says about it in E–6–709:

“The right to human life is the Divinely sanctioned privilege of a human being in harmony with justice to exist perfectly, which implies the possession of per­fect human physical, mental, moral and religious faculties and life, while the life-rights are the blessings attached to such a right to life, e.g., a perfect earth, climate, home, food, fellowship between God and man (which implies for­giveness of sin) and between man and man, rulership of the earth, of nature’s laws and of the animal creation, in so far as man comes in contact with them. These were the main things that Adam lost for himself and his race, and that Christ sacrificed for mankind. This He will do on condition of faith and obedience to the New Covenant arrangements in the Millennium .... Hence we by our faith-justification have reckonedly what the obedient of the world actu­ally will get in the end of the Little Season – the confirmed right to human nature, life and life–rights.”

It should be noted the above is a direct contradiction to R. G. Jolly’s interpo­lation into Brother Johnson’s statement in E–17-414; and this he has done because he, like J. W. Krewson, has read something from Brother Russell and from Brother Johnson that he doesn’t understand. All who survive the Little Season must enter it with per­fect characters, says Brother Johnson in E–8–616; and such characters will be superior to what Adam had in Eden because those characters will be crystallized in righteous­ness – a thing Adam did not possess in Eden. But there is a wide gap between perfec­tion of character and physique as against “the restitution of all things” which R. G. Jolly apparently doesn’t understand, or he would not conclude from Brother Russell’s statement in Z 4442, par. 7. that “mediation for the thousand Years” (italics R.G.J.’s) accomplishes restitution. Jesus had a perfect character while on earth, but He cer­tainly did not have “the restitution of all things”; and many will be brought to per­fection of character and physique long before the Mediatorial reign will end, but they will not have “the restitution of all things.”

R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson seemingly hold to the same error here – which should not surprise us. But we are indeed surprised that their thinking is so shallow that they would pervert Brother Johnson’s statement in E–6–709. It should not require the intellect of a Star Member to see the Truth Brother Johnson has given – even if he had not said it; a little reflection should make this clear to a novice in the Truth. Dur­ing the Little Season mankind will be divided into two camps, one of them bent upon vio­lence and uproar – “Gog and Magog, to assemble them together for war... and...... they en­circled the camp of the Saints; and the beloved city.” (Rev. 20:8,9–Dia.) “Satan will at that same time fight the greatest battle of his career, against the Christ, Head and Body, who at that time will be God’s mighty Vicegerent, and against the Christ’s earthly representatives” – (E–17–423, top) – toward the end of the Little Season. Does this sound like the “peace and quiet of Eden before Adam sinned”?  Does it sound like “fellowship between man and man”, which Brother Johnson states to be one of the component consti­tuents of restitution? It would seem a sixth–grade boy should be able to see it does not. And, if it does not, then “the restitution of all things” will not yet be accomplished in 2874. Thus, it is easily seen why Brother Johnson comments in E–17–414 (bottom) as follows:

“By the time the Millennium and its subsequent “little season” (Rev. 20:3) will have fully ended, God through the Christ (Head and Body)... will have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution, and they will have stood faithful in the testings in the Little Season.”

And again in E–17–367 (top):

“But favorably to influence all toward Him is far different from their living faithfully during the thousand years and standing the final tests during the Little Season.”

Brother Johnson has well said that these people talk all sorts of nonsense when they fall into the hands of Azazel; and here is another piece of “perfect” nonsense by R. G. Jolly, when he tries to teach that Satanic “war” and the “restitution of all things” can exist side by side at the same time.  And it is this same publisher of nonsense who yells “teacher of sophistry” at JJH, while he himself perverts these ele­mental truths! (Azazel means Perverter.) Again we invite our readers to compare his contentions with what we have set forth, a recommendation which is just the reverse of his counsel to his readers.

In this connection, note Brother Johnson’s statement in E–16–55 (bottom):

“Those who will not obey in the final trial, when Satan is loosed at the end of the Age (Rev. 20:1-3) will be destroyed in the second death, at the end of the Millennium.”

Then, further on p. 56 (middle): “The last expression of sin will occur in the Little Season, at the and of the Millennium.” Certainly, that “last expression of sin” refers to things as accomplished by persons.

As has been stated in previous writings, restitution will restore “that which was lost” – namely, Fellowship with God, Paradise, Dominion and Life. Surely, Dominion will not be restored by 2874! As Brother Johnson has so well explained, the Ancient and Youth­ful Worthies will be “princes in all the earth” throughout the Mediatorial reign – until 2874, after which they will become new-creaturely Sons of God. At that time the resti­tutionists will became princes, and succeed to kingship after the Little Season trial proves them faithful and after their erstwhile earthly rulers have departed this earth. Then, for the first time will Dominion be restored to them; then for the first time will they be kings, as was Adam in Eden. (See E–11–289, 290; and especially pp. 260-263, where Brother Johnson interprets the Little Season antitype of the wicked Pharaoh and his army pursuing fleeing Israel. Definitely, no “fellowship between man and man” is to be found in the turmoil of that clear picture.)

While R. G. Jolly’s own references and statements defeat him, we offer a few more of the many statements by the Star Members which also conclusively defeat him. The “stone cut out of the mountain without hands” was not complete until 1914, therefore, could not begin the smiting until 1914, at which time antitypical Elijah came to Mount Horeb. Note Parousia Vol. 3, P. 128:  “That the Gentile Times would not end until 1914 is found, on the contrary, to be in full harmony with the unfoldings of God’s plan for the campaign of the Battle of the Great Day exactly as foretold by Daniel (2:44), who declared, “In the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set up a Kingdom, and it shall break in pieces and consume all these.” It must, therefore, be just as we have found it: Our lord must be present, must test the living members of His Church, must exalt them, glorify them and associate them with Himself in the power and authority to be exercised during the Millennium (Rev. 20:6).”  Now follows a quotation from Re­prints 5632:

“We believe that the time for the setting up of the kingdom was on September 21, 1914. At that time, when it was due for our Lord to take up His great Power and reign, the nations were already angry... The due time for the “wrath” was September 21... The nations have been in just this same unloving spirit one to­ward another for a number of years, but apparently they have been under some forcible restraint. We believe God’s time had not yet come.” (Feb. 15, 1915)

And here is more from the same article in Reprints, P. 5631:

“What time, then, is signified by the expression “in the days of these kings’, when the Kingdom of God was to be set up in power? To our understanding the first step in the setting up of this kingdom was the raising of the sleeping saints of the Gospel Ages which we believe was in the spring of 1878. Then began the glorification of the church. The work of setting up the kingdom has, we understand, been progressing from that date, and is now merely lack­ing the last members of the church class. When these have taken their places as members of the church in glory, the kingdom will be fully set up.”

Self–evidently, The Christ could not reign until they had a kingdom (to reign over), and they could not have a kingdom until September 21, 1914. Now couple the above quo­tations with this from E–6–427:

“In Rev. 18:23 the word “Bride’ is applied to the entire Church in the flesh and in the spirit in an activity begun Sept. 20, 1914. The following will clarify this so far as the Church in the flesh is concerned: Elijah’s coming to Mt. Horeb at the and of the 40 days types the Church coming 40 years after 1874, i. e., in 1914, to the kingdom, in the sense that the last begettal then occurring, all the faithful under the call up to that time will obtain the kingdom, and therefore in God’s sight (Rom. 4:17) they are from then on in the kingdom.”

There is yet very much more that could be presented on the subject; indeed we suggest the entire reading of the Reprint article cited above; but we believe what we have offered aforegoing is clear enough for a child to understand it. For a subject yet almost a thousand years future (except for that which applies to the various be­ginnings and their significance), it would seem more than enough has already been said. We have pursued it to its present extreme only because of R. G. Jolly’s errors and bom­bastic talk; and from this standpoint we hope the discussion has proven profitable to our readers. Obviously, none can know now the details of the Little Season’s overlap­ping; that time (which will be the Millennial-Age Harvest) will provide its own trials just as the Jewish and Gospel-Age harvests have done.

And once more do we offer the words of Solomon to all who call upon the Lord in a “good and honest heart” – “In all thy getting, get understanding.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

...........................................................................

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – You teach that we are still in the Epiphany; so I would like to know if you think we are still in the Gospel Age, as your June 1 article on Tenta­tive Justification seems to indicate?

ANSWER: – Yes, we do believe we are still in the Gospel Age. Gospel means “good news”, and the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gal. 3:8) is the good news to the world of mankind of ultimate Edenic salvation. But, as applied to the Gospel Age, the good news is the call to become “heirs of that salvation” to minister it to the “residue of men.” Therefore, so long as there is at least one of such here on this earth who has answered that “call” and has been accepted into it, we must conclude that the Gos­pel Age is still with us. This is confirmed by E–4–20 (13):

“As periods, the Parousia and the Epiphany lapped into one another, somewhat after the manner in which, from 1874 until the last spirit-begotten person leaves this earth, the Gospel and Millennial Ages lap into one another.”

Inasmuch as there are New-creaturely Saints and levites yet on earth, the Gospel Age must also still be with us. R. G. Jolly’s comment at Grand Rapids Convention that “Tentative Justification in the Court is “for Gospel-Age purposes only”, is indeed correct; it is his failure rightly to apply it that is error. As we have pointed out before, does he move the laver from the court to the camp?  Once more he fails “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” Therefore, as the above quotation by Brother Johnson teaches – and which we accept – the Gospel Age is still with us in the same sense that it has been with us all during the Epiphany; and Tentative Justification “for Gospel–­Age purposes” exists now in the Court and not in R. G. Jolly’s newly-invented Epiphany Camp – although the Jolly-Krewson twosome revolutionize against this clear and once-accepted Parousia and Epiphany Truth.

QUESTION: – Do you deny that the Millennium began in 1874?

ANSWER: – No, we do not deny that the Millennium began in 1874. The chronology, the parallel dispensations and the Jubilee Cycles all pin-point 1874. We think Jesus then assumed some of his great power and began the binding of Satan, which bind­ing will continue until the Millennium in its primary features ends in 2874. The con­troversy is the Thousand-Year Reign of the Christ, which R. G. Jolly sets forth as the same thousand years of Satan’s binding. In no sense do we believe that the reign of The Christ began in 1874, nor did either of the last two Star Members ever advance the thought that The Christ began to reign in 1874. This idea is an invention of R. G.