My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
On page 10, col. 2 (bottom) it is stated “the Good Shepherd spears through the Parousia and Epiphany Truth” – and the argument is presented that R. G. Jolly is in harmony with this, while this writer is not so. Of course, such an expression is simply empty talk without the proof to back it up; and his further comments demonstrate clearly enough that he is offering merely empty talk – of which he seems to have a boundless store. He sites 1 Kgs. 6:9, 14, “Solomon built the house and finished it”; and he places special emphasis on the word “finished”. Since he claims to be clinging to the Epiphany Truth, let him show where Brother Johnson ever gave that text the interpretation that R. G. Jolly tries to place there. Brother Johnson's explanation is this: “Built the Lord's house – arranged God's people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work.” It will be noted that R. G. Jolly offers as proof of his statement PT 1953, PP. 52;53, which is simply repeating the interpretation he himself offered then. In other words, he is now offering an unsound statement to prove the soundness of his unsound statement in 1953.
It is indeed pointedly coincidental that both R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson so frequently offer their own ideas as against plain Scriptural teachings, yet they claim to “speak Parousia and Epiphany Truth”! In our November 15 writing, page 1. we cited 1 Thes. 4:17 – “We, the living, who are left over, shall at the same time with them be violently seized by clouds.” This one Scripture ought to be enough to sober them in fact, it has sobered them to the extent of at least closing their mouths, as neither of them has attempted to handle it. Nor will they attempt it because they can't! While the text itself should be enough, note Brother Johnson's comments on it:
“The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's. whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being violently seized by clouds’, the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A.V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, – ‘caught up in the clouds.’”
Along with the foregoing we offered Brother Johnson's comment an Zech. 8:10:
“The ‘no hire’ for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the foundation of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”
Neither of them have offered any comment on this either – because they can't! But both of them are ready enough to offer seven foolish questions (which we hope to analyze shortly, D.v.) and their interpretation of types to prove that these plain Scriptures are wrong – just as they have completely avoided almost all the Scriptures we presented in our August 1957 treatise of The Last Saint. They both continue to present their own conclusions against the clear and indisputable conclusions of both the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers – all the while they are yelling “in harmony with Parousia and Epiphany Truth.” The Scriptures we have presented above and in August 1957 are largely Parousia and Epiphany Truth; and we now defy them or any one else to take those Scriptures one by one and point out where we are wrong in using them. In this connection, note Brother Russell's comment on page 25 of the Berean Topical Index under Types and Figures: “A type must not be used to teach a doctrine, but merely to illustrate one that is already taught in plain terms.”
R. G..Jolly's only answer so far to the foregoing is that we “misrepresent, slander, surmise evil and falsely accuse,” Of course, this technique he has borrowed from the corrupt politicians of our day. When such are caught – with their hands dripping corruption – they offer the same defense, their opponents are out to “get” them.
The same goes for R. G. Jolly's quotation from Brother Russell on Habakkuk in the January 15, 1914 Watch Tower, as explained by us on Page 3 of our February writing. His twist there is a direct perversion of Brother Russell's teaching – not an adherence to Parousia truth, but a laceration of it, which he is forced to do to maintain his false position in this whole discussion.
He has complained of being “misrepresented, slandered”, etc., by us since we first made public exposure of him in 1955 – this being his only defense after the crushing defeats we gave him on The Faithful and Measurably Faithful. On this one, tho, he did offer the lame alibi that his perversion of this plain Epiphany Truth by Brother Johnson was just his “opinion”. And this goes hand in glove with J. W. Krewson's “Do You Knows”, which we discuss later on in this article. On many of the errors of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome we have attacked them both – those errors to which they still cling with slight variations. The same for Baptism: Both of these “cousins” keep shouting we are wrong and “out of harmony with Parousia and Epiphany Truth”; but it will be noted that neither of them has made any attempt to handle the clear Scripture we offered from 1 Peter 3:21, as well as many other texts we presented to prove them wrong – or at least, that they could not prove themselves right. And against such presentations there comes that plaintive wail ‑ “misrepresent, slander, evil surmise and falsely accuse.” A pretty weak _refutation’, wouldn't you say?
Then there is that “faulty disc” – by which “correction” R. G. Jolly has Brother Johnson saying Satan will be destroyed before the Little Season even starts. Yet, he will tell you he is in harmony with Epiphany Truth – and we are the perverters of it! He is being “misrepresented, slandered, falsely accused” when we denounce such unprincipled tampering with the real Epiphany Truth.
It is also appropriate to offer some further comment on our Question & Answer on page 6 of our February writing, the same treating with R. G. Jolly's statement that “the due Truth is for all of God's consecrated people to discern, by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” R. G. Jolly says he has two capable hard‑working brethren to assist him in Philadelphia in the research and preparation of the Present Truth. And the three of these – hard‑working deep‑thinking – by pooling their combined spiritual resources, produce an answer which is simply rank nonsense to a question of elemental substance. Certainly, all three of them have known all during the Epiphany that the leaders in Little Babylon have not “discerned the due Truth by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” Even though they were not versed in the plain Epiphany teachings on the subject – and even though they were not familiar with the plain Scriptural teachings on the subject – , it would seem this outstanding physical fact – which was staring them in the face as the Noonday Sun – should have sobered them sufficiently to restrain them from offering Mother Goose logic on it. The physical facts dispute their answer, the Epiphany Messenger disputes their answer – and the Scriptures dispute their answer. Yet, R. G. Jolly is “adhering to the Parousia‑Epiphany Truth”, while the “errorist‑sifter” who exposes such nonsense is abusing him –“mirepresentation, slander, false charges, etc.”
We may be sure he will drop this subject like a hot coal, Just as he has done with others in the past – and will run on to other matters just as though nothing had happened. In this instance, he has once more handed his trusting adherents a piece of spiritual indigestion; but it won't bother him! He's their “Pastor and Teacher” who is “looking after their souls as one who must give an account”; but he won't mind at all that they have tucked another parcel of Levitical nonsense under their belts – he'll let them go right on contaminated with his perversion. We should think the man would be ashamed; but it seems there is no shame in him. We pity him!
CONCERNING J. W. KREWSON
On page 19 of his January 1958 writing there appear five “Do You Knows” having to do with our Pilgrim status, the last of which says “it will be interesting to note how he (JJH) squirms out of this dilemma.” Well, we won't try to “squirm out of this dilemma”, because there's no dilemma present so far as we are concerned. For quite sometime we have been convinced that J. W. Krewson is cursed with the “mark of Cain” – just as is true of his “cousin” R. G. Jolly. In his five questions just cited he tries to put doubts in the minds of all his readers about our honesty, the implication being we are a fraud because we put ourselves forth as something that we are not. And, we shall handle this slander just as we have handled the slanders of his “cousin” and others by proving his claims to be completely false. We set out below a copy of our Pilgrim appointment:
Philadelphia 48, Pa. U.S.A.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS is to certify that John J. Hoefle is a duly authorized Pilgrim of THE LAYMEN'S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT, authorized as such by the said MOVEMENT, through its General Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee, with headquarters at 1327 When Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
This authorization gives the said John J. Hoefle the right and privilege of preaching the Gospel and lecturing on the Bible in any country in the world.
GIVEN at the Epiphany Bible House, the said MOVEMENT'S Headquarters, on the eleventh day of the tenth month of the year of our Lord 1942 and signed by the General Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee of the said Movement, and sealed with its seal.
(Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson
General Pastor, Teacher & Executive Trustee of the
LAYMEN'S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT
If any of our readers doubt that the above is fully genuine; we shall furnish a photostatic copy upon receipt of $2.
It is probably well to quote some of the letter, too, that Brother Johnson sent to us with the above:
My dear Brother Hoefle:
Grace and peace! I am enclosing a certificate of your appointment as a Pilgrim of the Epiphany Bible House of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, signed by myself and sealed with the seal of the Movement.
Upon entering this phase of the work, my dear brother, I desire to repeat the advice that our Pastor gave me before I entered the Pilgram work: “Be full of deep humility with loving zeal and everything will be well.” You can be assured that in this service you will have the special opposition of the adversary and those who have his spirit, and thus you will have severer trials. On the other hand, remember the Lord is on our side and will give you special help and blessings, if you faithfully use your privileges of service ...
Sending you my hearty Christian love with the assurance of my prayers that your work will be fruitful and pleasing to the Lord, I remain
Your brother and servant)
(Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson
Pertaining to this slander by J. W. Krewson, we offer below a letter from a brother, which is self‑explanatory:
Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our dear Redeemer's name!
For some weeks past I have had correspondence with Brother Krewson on his challenge of your Pilgrim status; and I am now convinced that his published insinuations were not from the Lord, but are malicious and untrue. His hints mean you are a fraud, of course, which is a slanderous charge if not true. And, since I have always held you in high esteem as a General Elder in the Church, I now consider it my obligation to turn this correspondence over to you – in accordance with Brother Russell's instructions for such matters in the November 15, 1908 Watch Tower. You may publish any part, or all of it, including this letter, as you may see best.
You will note he says in his Nov. 24, 1957 letter: “We do not believe he was appointed to the Pilgrim office by Brother Johnson but on the authority of a reliable witness are reasonably certain he was appointed an auxiliary pilgrim. It seems that after Brother Johnson's death he dropped the adjective auxiliary and claimed the office of Pilgrim.” When I asked Brother Krewson for his “reliable witness”, he refused to provide the name, but answered in his letter of Dec. 5, 1957: “We realize dear brother we are not directly answering your question but our 'Do You Know’ has accomplished its purpose in your case and perhaps others, it has brought this matter to your attention.” From this it seems clear enough he wants all his readers to suspect you of fraud.
The above reveals the brother's thinking and intent toward you, but I hope you will not overlook his statement in his Jan. 10, 1958 letter: “If you will examine the article where you think I made an accusation you will find I did not accuse Bro. Hoefle at all, I simply asked a question – Do You Know? I did not state I knew, the Do You Know asked if You knew? Thus I made no accusation against Bro. Hoefle.” I suppose, on the basis of this line of thinking, you could offer some “Do You Knows” along this line: Do You Know that Brother Krewson is a thief? Do You Know that he once served time in the penitentiary? Do You Know that he once murdered a man? Do You that he and his wife were once enmeshed in Spiritism, and are still involved in this evil? Then, if he or any one else should bring you to task for such incriminating statements, you could just ease out by saying – as he does –, “I did not state I knew; my Do You Know asked if you knew. Thus I make no accusation against Brother Krewson.” I wonder how he would like it if you tried that!
But, in the face of the aforegoing he offers the self‑righteous explanation in his Jan. 10, 1958 letter that he does not want to destroy your influence among the brethren – even while he offers written proof to me he is conducting a vicious “whispering campaign” against you. Brother Jolly offered almost the same words as his excuse for his “whispering campaign” of slander against you before he was forced into the Present Truth with it. How much of this Brother Krewson has done to others is better known to him than to any other person; but I told him I feel such tactics should be shunned by all who have named the lord as their Saviour, but it is especially unbecoming to one claiming to be a special mouthpiece of the Lord. And when he hopes others may be contaminated with his falsehood, then he is “rejoicing in iniquity”, which is contrary to every concept of the Truth and its spirit that I know. The real Parousia and Epiphany Messengers never had to resort to such underhanded and unchristian tactics. They spoke whereof they knew, and only then did they do this when they considered it in the best interests of the Lord's sheep.
Furthermore, he offers another warped statement in the same Jan, 10 letter when he says, “Brother Hoefle claims Brother Johnson was not the last Priest; therefore, logically RGJ and others must not have been abandoned to Azazel at his death.” I don't see how he could have the audacity to come out with such an observation in the face of your clear and conclusive explanation of it in par. 1, page 5 of your October 1957 article, where you quote Brother Johnson's teachings on the Abandonment process – which you have upheld right along. When he writes me such falsehoods and at the same time asks me to accept him as a teacher of “advancing Truth”, I can only say I just can't fit such things together.
You will note he prints six pages of Do You Knows in his Jan. paper, and in the No. 4 on page 21 he says, “This is no false statement.” I for one now know be wants us to believe this particular Do You Know; but It seems he admits that other Do You Knows are false – and with the rest he allows his readers to answer the questions. He is content to sow the seeds of doubt and willing to leave the rest for his readers to find out the best way they can. In this connection, he claims Brother Johnson is now working through him. If so, he is doing it in complete reverse of the way he formerly did when with us in the flesh. When he published Do You Knows he was stating facts of which he himself was convinced – facts which he wished to convey to others. But the Krewson transition completely reverses this now –the Do You Knows are not statement of fact, but are asking the readers if they can come up with proof to support his falsehoods. I wonder how much of the “fruits of the Spirit” he expects to develop in his readers by this unsavory method.
May the God of all Grace grant you wisdom and strength to “hue to the line”; and I am sure He will. Be assured of my prayers, and whatever cooperation I can give you in this “good fight.”
Your brother by His Grace, ---------
J. W. Krewson's course in connection with our Pilgrim status offers a stellar illustration of a power‑grasper. He himself could receive nothing more than an Evangelist rating from the Epiphany Messenger; yet that Messenger was barely in the tomb before he grasped for himself the pilgrim privileges, trying at the same time unjustly to tear away those privileges from a brother (JJH) who had received them in fair and honorable fashion from that same Messenger because of his faithfulness and skill in handling the Word of Truth.
And may all of you be “blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.”
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Questions of General Interest
Question: – In Do You Know No. 9 on page 20 of this January 1958 Krewson paper there is some comment about “making character blemishes the ground for declaring brethren to be Levites.” Will you please elaborate on this?
Answer: – If you will go back and read DKY No. 3 on page 38 of the October‑November paper by the brother, you will note he does a complete about‑face in his No. 9 on page 20, mentioned in the Question. In his October‑November writing he plainly states we should not be opposed to others, such as RGJ, “on character faults.” Now he gives it the twist that we are judging them to be Levites on the basis of their character faults. We did not give any hint of such in our answer; and we agree fully with Brother Johnson in B‑4‑132,133. He wonders how we shall “squirm out of this dilemma” re our Pilgrim appointment. It seems he “squirms out of his dilemmas” just by changing the subject, thinking by his “profusion of words” to becloud the point. Here again he shows himself a close “cousin” of R. G. Jolly –both of them using plenty of words, “as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matt. 6:7). St. Paul certainly attacked the brother in 1 Cor. 5 for his character faults – not a thing said about his teachings. We wonder how J. W. Krewson could have the effrontery to come back on this question – that is, if he read our reference in E‑9‑140,141. As we said in our December paper, he had apparently read something in E‑4‑132,133 without understanding what he had read. In view of his follow‑up comment, he still either doesn't understand what he read, or he is now trying to “squirm out of his dilemma.” These people, such as RGJ, that we oppose are self‑admittedly out of the Christ company; and this admission they themselves made years before we began openly to oppose them on their character faults (sins of practice). In this we are on firmer ground than was Brother Johnson, because many of those he opposed because of their sins of teaching and practice did –and still do – contend they are of the Christ. As we said in our December paper, it is our bounden duty to be opposed to character faults – both in ourselves (first of all) and in others, the difference in the vehemence of that opposition being predicated upon each individual case. If character faults were the basis of judging into when, then only One in this Gospel Age would have finished His course with joy. J. W. Krewson's “profusion of words” here is simply so much nonsense – all the while he calls us a “novice”.
Letter of General Interest
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!
I was so happy to receive your letter of December 28, and am thankful for your good wishes and for your prayers. I also received the February paper – the real Present Truth. It is an excellent paper, – just right – harsh enough, but not too harsh. I wouldn't know any way to improve it. I have been so disgusted at RGJ for always saying the “errorist”, “the sifter”, “one of the sifters” – never coming out into the open saying whom he means. I am so glad that is mentioned in this February paper. It is not too strong.
Also, you tell them you are a Pilgrim, and I think both Krewson and Jolly should be ashamed! But they won't be – they will find a way to justify themselves. Then that “when refuted” is just like RGJ. In his talks and in the P.T. he is always saying “there are Scriptures to prove”, but he does not cite the Scriptures. Why? He doesn't know any. Did Brother Russell or Brother Johnson ever say “the Scriptures prove”, and then not cite the Scriptures? Just makes me sick! I don't see how RGJ will ever be able to retrace his steps. He is acting as bad as JFR. Your writing, Brother Hoefle, is so clear and plain I just can't see how any one who really reads it can fail to see the logic. Sister ______ likes it and says surely all will see it. Well, of course, we know they won't; but surely some will.
The “Concerning Habakkuk” is so very good. Now, of course, I do realize that some have not had the opportunity to learn the Truth that I have had; so perhaps I should not be surprised that many won't get as much out of your papers. Oh, I do thank the Lord daily for guiding me all the way and bringing me in contact with the things I need to know......
Much Christian love, Sister ---------Oregon