by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 29

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

The Chicago Convention October 25‑27 gave further evidence of the deplorable con­ditions among the brethren in general in the LHMM – and especially so of the uncleansed condition of the leaders. In addition to a number of rank falsehoods from the platform by R. G. Jolly, he exploded with the statement that the “sifters (viz., JJH and company) should know by now that they are not welcome.” It should be observed that this R. G. Jolly is the same person who had the brethren specifically vote in the Philadelphia disfellowshipment proceedings in 1955 of Brother and Sister Krewson, that they be per­mitted to attend meetings so long as they occupied the back seats and took no part in meetings. More and more is the truth impressed upon us – “A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.” So often does he reverse himself as occasion seems to require; and in all this we are sadly reminded of C. A. Wise, Vice‑President of the Society under That Evil Servant: “Brethren, we don't believe this year what we believed last year; and we probably won't believe next year what we are believing this year.” – “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel”—Gen. 49:4.

The brethren who have known us intimately over the years know full well it was never our tendency to praise self; we are indeed a firm believer in the adage, “Self­praise has a bad odor.” But there comes occasion when close personal statements must be offered; and we believe this is one of them. At no time during Brother Johnson's life can any honestly say that we prated over the physical and financial energies we expended to build the LHMM to the place it occupied at Brother Johnson's death; and we do so now only to demonstrate the colossal gall of the statement by R. G. Jolly quoted above. In money alone, we contributed more than enough to purchase the entire Tabernacle which now houses this same R. G. Jolly – the same Tabernacle in which we “should know we are not welcome”. Of course, it is the age‑old spiritual `mayhem' being enacted once more ­“Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” The reproving finger of Truth has always been most unwelcome in the house of spiritual lepers, so we should “think it not strange” – although we observe that we have seen gutter bums with a better sense of ethics than R. G. Jolly has displayed in this instance. There was just the most passing notice taken of other “sifters”; the concentration was all on JJH and company; the “avoid them” was emphasized in all quarters in scurrilous depravity.

And in contrast to the courtesy voted to Brother and Sister Krewson, be it noted that JJH has never at any time before Brother Johnson's death, or since, attempted to grasp for himself powers that were not justly his through the Pilgrim appointment that was his from Brother Johnson's hand. At no time have we attempted to set ourselves up as Pastor and Teacher, or to question R. G. Jolly's right as Pilgrim to address the Gen­eral Church. Our opposition to him has come solely through his sins of teaching and prac­tise – a duty that “of necessity is laid upon me” 1 Cor. 9:16), a duty we would be most happy to have removed when the causes are removed.

It should be noted there was one brother at this Convention who does not even be­lieve Brother Johnson was one of the Saints; yet he was received into the Love Feast – ­Hail, Brother, glad to see you! And there were others there of whom even worse could be said; but we spare you and them! All of this is quite in keeping with the course of That Evil Servant who failed to correct erring and corrupt brethren so long as they were “in harmony with the channel” – meaning, of course, doing obeisance to JFR. It is little wonder that the LHMM has so rapidly deteriorated since the departure of our beloved Epiphany Messenger. “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness” (Jer. 23:32). And the stream of abusive invective against JJH and company is only sadly reminiscent of the treatment accorded to Martin Luther and Thomas Crammer by the errorists they exposed. As Brother Johnson has so well ex­plained – These two exalted brethren were the special targets of the Papacy because it was these two who hurt them most with the hard cutting truths they hurled against that monstrous citadel of error. We do indeed pity those who are motivated by such perverse inclinations; but we ourselves consider it a small matter as we consider those grand Protestants of the past who received similar treatment from their “brethren who cast them out” (Isa. 66:5).

It seems fitting here to compare and contrast the course of Brother Johnson, That Evil Servant – and R. G. Jolly. It should be remembered that Brother Johnson's faith­fulness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren was never once questioned during the en­tire Parousia – (Just as has been true of JJH during the entire Epiphany when Brother Johnson was with us) – although That Evil Servant was often subject to criticism during the Parousia, just as R. G. Jolly was guilty of open Revolutianism during the Epiphany. But did Brother Johnson tell R. G. Jolly to get out of the meeting house? No, indeed; on the contrary, he gave him every brotherly help he could, that conditions would allow, in an effort to help him recover himself from the mire into which he had fallen – even allowing him to take limited parts in meetings, etc., and eventually recommending him before the brethren as Executive Trustee (believing he would cleanse himself in due time). R. G. Jolly has sadly betrayed that trust, and is now in much the same position as the “wicked servant” of Matt. 18:23‑35. He continually besmirches JJH with the “sift­er” opprobrium, although his contention could not be true even if all he claims about us is correct. At Chicago he offered quite some “profusion of words” about “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism” – although he himself stated publicly that this “out of harmony” is not fundamental. Of course, he hasn't been able to prove any of his contention here; but, even if he could, but it's not “fundamental”, why brand any one a “sifter” because of it? And much the same can be said for his loud talk on the 1,000‑year reign and the linen garments. His arguments on both these items were so weak they smacked of talk that is heard from derelicts – just yelling without saying anything. But, assuming he is right on all of it, he is still guilty of slanderous falsehood when he labels us as “sifters”.

We wish it known that R. G. Jolly and his most partisan supporters are indeed wel­come in any meetings at which we have charge, and we would welcome their questions in Question Meetings – just as we invited R. G. Jolly to ask us questions at the Crofts Hill, Jamaica meeting last January 10 when we occupied the platform. And we would coun­sel all in harmony with our views to grant such every civility and such brotherly help as their condition and attitude would permit – in an effort to help them if possible. And we do now offer a cordial invitation to such to attend any meetings at which we may officiate, and to come with such questions as they may have. We believe this is in har­mony with the course of Jesus, who never turned His back on a questioner. The Truth does not need to run away from questions – although we often see error run away from the Truth's answers.

Prompted by some statements made by R. G. Jolly in his discourses Friday and Sat­urday nights, some questions were put into the Question Meeting, one of which follows:

“Brother Russell teaches the Queen of Sheba and Solomon picture is our Lord and the Restitutionists – a Kingdom picture. In your discourse you claim it is an Epiphany picture, with Brother Johnson as Solomon. Is this your “advancing Truth”, or do you claim Brother Johnson himself taught this doctrine, revolu­tionizing against his own teachings as given in E‑4 “The Epiphany Elect”, and his teachings of the Epiphany Tabernacle?

As is his wont when he cannot answer a question, he proceeded to give a small discourse without answering the question; but he did say that even though it were a Kingdom picture, it could have other applications, so it would do no harm to preach it now. This is another trait of That Evil Servant, who said his “Millions” doctrine may belong to the next Age, but it is still proper to give the message now. And by such a course both of these pseudo Pastors and Teachers throw away another Scripture which “cramps their style” – Namely, 2 Tim. 2:15, “rightly dividing the word of truth”. We here em­phasize that any time a clear Bible text is ignored or vitiated it can work nothing but mischief; and the history of the Gospel Age certainly corroborates this statement. Just as sensible would it be to defend those errorists hundreds of years ago who preached “the spirit and the bride say come, and whosoever will let him come”. The message was out of setting, and it could do nothing but work the confusion it did – just as any mes­sage out of setting now will result only in confusion. In fact, it was apparent right in this Convention in the confused statements that R. G. Jolly himself made at various times – statements that directly contradicted each other. For instance, he told the two candidates for immersion that God now vievs them as justified; yet he stated on another occasion that there is no tentative justification since 1954 for Gospel‑Age pur­poses. Also, in his answer to a question bearing on the matter, he said his Consecrated Epiphany Campers would not receive the resurrection of the Just, such resurrection be­ing reserved only for the Ancient and Youthful Worthies. What kind of just(ification) does his Quasi‑elect (or Epiphany Campers “consecrated”) have if they are not counted in with the Just? And how can they walk the same narrow way with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies and still receive the resurrection of the Unjust(ified)? Of course, he may have some explanation for the difference in the justification now enjoyed by the Youthful Worthies and that accorded his Campers, and it would be very interesting to hear what it is, if he has one. We shall not offer here further comment on others of his foolish statements on this and other points; we wait for him to put them into print, at which time there will be much more to say. However, once more do we state that it was at the beginning of the Epiphany that a Great Company‑Youthful Worthy combination produced the incestuous sons of antitypical lot; so here in the waning of the Epiphany in its narrow sense we have another Great Company‑Youthful Worthy concoction in the Con­secrated Epiphany Campers – with both members of this duet now hurling invectives at each other. It's hardly likely they can both be right, so that – viewed by generous standards – at least one‑half of this team must have been in “spotted” garments when this new doctrine was given birth.

Inasmuch as this will probably be our last message for this year, we extend to one and all cordial good wishes for a blessed Holiday Season, and for the blessing that maketh rich and addeth no sorrow therewith to all who serve the Lord from a “good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim


Questions of General Interest

Question: – On page 38 of this last Krewson Volume there is this statement: “To state that RGJ or others were abandoned to Azazel when and because Brother Johnson died is just as nonsensical as stating that the Apostles were abandoned to Azazel when and because God removed our Lord as His special eye, hand and mouth from their midst.” What is your thought on this?

Answer: – The statement is superficially shallow and reveals clearly enough that Brother Krewson is incapable of rightly dividing the writings of the Star Members ­and demonstrates why an Evangelist rating was the best Brother Johnson could give him. It will be noted he says “the Apostles”. Presumably he means all twelve of them, although it is clearly stated of Judas, “Satan entered into him” (Luke 22:3), and that shortly thereafter “he went and hanged himself”. Of course, the remaining eleven were not aban­doned to Azazel, because they were the Fully Faithful – which class is never at any time abandoned to Azazel. Only Azazel's Goat is “for Azazel”. Naturally, Judas was not a member of that Goat, but the analogy is pertinent. Had he repented after his deflection ­before he had fully left the Household of Faith – he would have been received back into measurable grace, because the promise is without restriction, “He that cometh unto me I will in nowise cast out.” However, it probably was impossible for Judas to have that “godly sorrow” that worketh true repentance, because “he was a thief”, and no honesty was in him.

But just as the eleven were not delivered to Azazel at Jesus' removal, so the Fully Faithful (the Very Elect) in the Society were not abandoned to Azazel when Brother John­son left there – even though That Evil Servant and his cohorts were then fully abandoned; nor were the Fully Faithful in the LHMM abandoned to Azazel at October 22, 1950. Aban­donment divides Azazel's Goat into two classes – one part cleansing themselves of their sins; the other receiving the fate of Gehenna. Nor is it usually possible for us to know the exact time at which this latter class fully leaves the Household. But it should be noted that abandonment is accomplished by the “withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor” – which is just another way of saying they must be disfellowshiped. Now, we have R. G. Jolly's written statement that Brother Johnson “used him as formerly” after the 1938 episode; and we have Brother Johnson's written statement that he (R. G. Jolly) had not cleansed himself in 1943. And, since his cleansing could be brought about only by disfellowshipment (just as was true with the brother in 1 Cor. 5), we ask Evangelist Krewson, just as we have so often asked R. G. Jolly, to offer the proof for this event prior to 1950. If he was cleansed at 1950, as Evangelist Krewson apparently claims, he had to have the necessary experience to accomplish it – just as would be the case with other members of Azazel's Goat in the LHMM. Furthermore, if R. G. Jolly, et al, were cleansed at 1950 they have since become uncleansed a second time – as Evangelist Krew­son himself presently claims – and this poises a delicate question: If they have re­turned again to their “wallowing in the mire”, can they receive a second cleansing? It may be possible, of course; but we doubt it is probable.

During the past two years we have been repeatedly enjoined to make open exposure of Evangelist Krewson's many foolish statements, which we have steadfastly declined to do – having not the least desire to hold him up to ridicule – just as we lovingly, but with increasing severity; remonstrated with R. G. Jolly before making public exposure of him. Even when we treated of some of his nonsense on the Stewardship Doctrines on page 7 of our August 1 writing, we tried to set up the quotations from his letters in such fashion that our general readers could not know of whom we spoke. We did this in the hope of sobering him and winning him, if possible; but it seems he is determined to have it otherwise, which leaves us no alternative. Be it noted that he and R. G. Jolly embrace many of the same errors, which they concocted together during their palmy days their chief divergence now being a “contention among them, which of them should be thought the greatest” (luke 22:24—Dia.). Henceforth, we shall consider them both to­gether, in the same basket where they belong; and we state for the benefit of all that there will be plenty of this in future, D.v.

We have also had another compelling reason for concentrating our refutations against R. G. Jolly, this reason being the same as Brother Johnson gave for his con­centration upon That Evil Servent. The latter was in position to do more harm than any other person in the Epiphany – just as R. G. Jolly is now also in that same relative position. Brother Johnson reposed his trust in him, just as Brother Russell trusted JFR; and the betrayal of that trust should be a prime motivation with all who pray “God bless his memory”. Early in the Epiphany there was quite a plague of Toms, Dicks and Harries (as Brother Johnson styled them) who had never been authorized to address the General Church, but who were badly infested with the “writer's itch”. Many such Brother Johnson ignored completely; but on occasion he did analyze their errors if they became more than passing troublesome. However, with the Pilgrims of Brother Russell's appointment he felt quite differently when they presented errors to foist upon the Lord's unsuspecting sheep; he considered them a real menace — even as did our Lord with the Scribes and Pharisees – and as did also the faithful reformers who expended their strength and talents against the LEADERS of the Papal Hierarchy, rather than against those never having occupied the office of General Elder in the Church. This has been our policy and will continue to be so, except as set forth herein.

Question: – On page 38 of this Krewson circular there is this statement: “We may be opposed to ones, like we are to RGJ, if it is based solely upon Truth deviations, but not on character faults”. Is this sound doctrine?

Answer: – No, it certainly is not sound doctrine. Once more this brother shows that he – who aspires to the teaching position – cannot even read the teachings of others and understand what he has read after he reads them., We pointed this out in the foregoing question; and sometime back in connection with his contention about the crown‑lost leaders “developing” the Stewardship Doctrines. It is true here also – he has read something without understanding what he has read. When Jesus warned, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”, was He referring to character or teach­ing? And when Brother Johnson classified JFR as one of the worst hypocrites of the en­tire Gospel Age, was he not referring to his character? In fact, when Evangelist Krew­son calls R. G. Jolly a liar, is he not assailing his character?

It should be borne in mind there is a difference between character blemishes due to Adamic depravity and character blemishes that are sins against light. Of course, our only course against the former should be one of benevolent remonstrance – especially so in the case of others – although we should be severe in the judgment of ourselves concern­ing such. But it should also be borne in mind that Brother Johnson pointed out what all of us know – That all of the Saints have believed and taught more or less error, but such “Truth deviations” did not cause them to lose their standing in Christ. Many of them believed and taught a most heinous doctrine – Eternal Torment – but they did this without guile or hypocrisy. But, when hypocrisy was joined with this monstrous error, then the character faults of such teachers should be attacked – just as the Great Com­pany sins of lying, slander, corrupt opinions, false accusers (such as accusing some of being “sifters” who are not), should be attacked. And Brother Johnson did attack them, using the very words – WHAT HORRIBLE CHARACTERS! (See E‑9‑141, top).

It will be recalled that R. G. Jolly has repeatedly said, “I'm not here to defend my character”; so it seems these two aspiring teachers also here embrace anothe per­version – much the same as That Evil Servant also advanced the thought, “Character de­velopment not necessary, so we don't discuss it any more.” Certainly, an intellectual hypocrite like JFR teaching Truth is more to be despised than a lowly Saint who is teach­ing error.

Question: – At Chicago the question was presented, Is Gideon's second battle ended? Brother Jolly said it is still in progress. Do you agree with this?

Answer: – Most certainly we do, although we are sorry to note that R. G. Jolly's acts are not in harmony with his words. It will be recalled that we remonstrated with him after the 1953 Chicago Convention because he said the very tracts that are pertinent to this second battle are “time‑worn and threadbare” – that we should have something more up‑to‑date and alive at this time (meaning his “Flying Saucer”). It should be noted Brother Johnson counselled perseverance in this battle until its full consummation; and he said on page 159 of Volume E‑5 that the Fully Faithful would continue in it to a com­pletion. If that battle is not yet over, then here is another proof that some of the Elect must still be with us. But R. G. Jolly is stressing his Flying Sauser and Israel's Return as the things to use at this time. In the case of the Saucer tract, it must be carded as speculation; there is just no definite proof that it is true. But none of us have the slightest doubt that the tracts on this second battle are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. For all who agree that this second battle is still in progress, and who still regard Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger, we urge them to persevere in it – firm in “the things thou hast learned, and been assured of, know­ing of whom thou hast learned them.”


Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace!

I know you are busy and so do not want to take too much of your time, but I would like to tell you that I was so happy to have the privilege of attending the Chicago Convention. However, my experiences there were not all pleasurable. There was much grief mingled with the joy. The grief was over the decline in spirituality among the brethren of the LHMM since last I met with them.

On the first day of the Convention, Brother Jolly came briskly forward and gave Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑ and me a warm welcome, saying he was so glad to see us. After that the brethren in general gave us warm and cordial greetings until on Sunday morning Brother Jolly spoke so disparagingly of the “sifters” at the Question Meeting. Very few of the brethren would even look our way after that, although Brother Jolly had specifically said he did not consider us sifters – only “bewildered.”

I had looked forward with pleasure to the privilege of testifying at the Memorial Service for the two Messengers, but Brother Gavin did not allow one voluntary testimony. He called by name those whom he wished to testify and allowed them to talk as long as they liked – even encouraging them to do so. At last he seemed to have run out of names as he asked Brother Eschrich to come forward, which he did – using the remaining time. One can't help wondering if there were other brethren who wished to give their testi­mony at this special meeting and whether they, too, were sorely disappointed even as I was.

   Self‑evidently, the purpose of this method of calling individuals by name to testi­fy was to prohibit some from giving testimony – the same purpose as was reportedly ac­complished by using a list of names at the Philadelphia 1956 Convention.

It's just impossible to know where Brother Jolly stands or what he really thinks about anything if we consider his contradictions of himself, both in attitude and in word. When commenting an Gideon's Second Battle, he spoke of the “counterfeit 300”; then on another occasion he said those with priestly hopes were just bewildered and should be treated kindly. A few years back he was calling them second‑death sifters; so we certainly can't know his real heart's attitude here.

   It is my hope and prayer that the faithful brethren will wake up and resist these evils – not only for themselves but for the good of others.

I realize you know these things as you were there, but I wanted to give you my reaction and observations of this my first Convention for some time. You may publish this letter if you like.

Your Sister by His Grace __________ Oklahoma


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

.............. also got another from Krewson, so I wouldn't be surprised if ....... His teachings are almost the same as RGJ's and we disfellowshiped him. Of course, I think he means this class when he says “some have a personal animosity toward RGJ”. Well, if a hatred for lying and slandering can be called personal animosity, then I guess we have it. By His Grace, Sister ___________ N.C


Comment on the counterfeit 300

We all know the last Star Members said the Papal Millennium was the great counter­feit – just about as low a rating as could be given them and still keep within Christian decorum. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's “treat them kindly” coupled with his name‑calling is just some more Great Company doubledealing (“a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways”).