NO. 12: ABOUT THE JULY 1956 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 12

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Again in the July Present Truth (which arrived in the July 23 mail) R. G. Jolly makes desperate resort to words, words, words in an effort to becloud and sidestep the real issues. On pages 69, 70 and 71 he offers profusion of words about Christ's Thousand-Year Reign. As we have said repeatedly, this R. G. Jolly, doubleminded man that he is, seems unable to remember what he has said from one month to the next, so he is often contradicting himself. In the July 1954 Bible Standard (which is the paper he himself has named, and which he has featured from early in his administration by pub­lishing it every month as against every other month for the Present Truth – just the reverse of what Brother Johnson did), on page 54 under the caption "RESULTS OF THE KING­DON'S REIGN", this is what he published:

"One of the results of the Kingdom's reign will be the utter extirpation of all the effects of the curse as the unholy fruits of Satan's rule, authority and power. Among other passages, 1 Cor. 15:20-26 shows this. We quote it from the Improved Version: 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become a first fruit (Jesus) of them that slept.  For since by man (Adam) came death, by (a) man also (Jesus) shall come the resurrection of the dead. For as all in Adam die (Jesus did not die in Adam, for He was not in Adam, and therefore our correction of the translation), even so all in Christ shall be made alive (e.g., the Little Flock is in Christ; they shall be made alive first primarily), But every man in his own order: Christ a firstfruit (the Church is here meant); afterward they that are Christ's at (during) his presence (those who are shown to be our Lord's faithful followers during His presence, these shall also be made alive). Then cometh the end (the end of the Little Season, when He shall have ruled over all the earth and given every man the opportunity to gain eter­nal life, which His ransom sacrifice, a corresponding price, enables Him to give), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father (for God will be final judge over the earth and will exercise His judgment through Christ, the Head, primarily, and secondarily, the Church, His Body, as His Vicegerent); when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and (all) power (every vestige of the governorship and of the pretended authority and the pretended might of Satan, all of this will be put down by the almighty hand of Christ, the Head, and the Church, the Body, using God's power as that almighty power in their hand).  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (Thus we see that not only persons are these enemies, but also things. The Adamic death in the sense of the dying process is this last great enemy; and, because of His faith­fulness, Jesus became the One who will after the close of the millennium finally destroy it).'"

Now, just carefully compare the foregoing with what he is now publishing just two years to the month later, and fit it together if you can. In his wordy efforts to har­monize himself with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, it is here observed that it would be most refreshing to see him just once HARMONIZE HIMSELF WITH HIMSELF. Just how does all his talk about "crushing blows in refutation" fit in with his ownpub­lished statement of July, 1954? And how does it compare with his statement in the March Present Truth, page 32, col. 1 – "Another serious blunder that JJH makes is his misapplication of 1 Cor. 15:24 to the end of the Little Season"? He often asks if JJH has read Brother Johnson's writings.  We now ask R. G. Jolly if he reads his own writ­ings'?

On page 70, col. 2, par. 3, R. G. Jolly makes the inane statement that "Bro. Rus­sell did not write what is stated in that Berean Comment" (on Rev. 11:17).  No, he simply said in Vol. 2 this would occur at the end of the Gentile Times; so Clayton Woodworth made it 1914 – the two expressions meaning exactly the same thing. that sort of nonsense is he trying to palm off onto his readers by this puerile observation? Furthermore, Brother Johnson clearly taught the World's High Priest could not begin to operate until it had been completed in its last member on September 16, 1914, when "the execution of the judgment written" began – which honor have all the saints. Was it not the World's High Priest that began to deal with the Great Company in 1914? And could this World's High Priest start operating until they began to reign in the "limited sense" that R. G. Jolly now scoffingly discusses?

On page 125 of the Question Book (1916) Brother Russell has this to say: "The Church now has no part whatever in the binding of kings........ We need to be in posi­tion to do our part when the time comes." Thus, even in 1916 Brother Russell thought the reign had not yet begun in the sense of "binding their kings with chains", because it was not due for him to see it – although it was going on right at the time he made the statement just quoted. All the sects in Little Babylon, quoting Brother Russell that we should "judge nothing before the time", Ha-Ha'd at Brother Johnson for declaring the "judgment written" – just as R. G. Jolly does with us now; so he is seeking his soulmates among uncleansed Levites, just as might be expected of him. Even though the "judgment written" was going on right when Brother Russell was saying it was still fu­ture, it was left for the Epiphany Messenger to declare and make it clear, although he himself did not see it in 1914-16 any more than did Brother Russell – so far as we know. WHEN DID THE WORLD'S HIGH PRIEST BEGIN TO OPERATE? Not before September 1914! AND WHO IS THE WORLD'S HIGH PRIEST? Jesus and His Faithful 144,000! ALL THE SAINTS had to have part in "binding the kings with chains and executing the judgment written", in the sense of their 1,000-year reign.

In this written debate that has been going on between us, R. G. Jolly has now been completely silenced on The Faithful & Measurably Faithful on John's Beheading ­on the Star Members – on Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels on Antitypical Hiram ­on his "parallel" between the funerals of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Elders conducting meetings – on "No punishment" by brethren to unruly brethren his inability rightly to divide the writings of the Star Members – his confusion on Matt. 18:15 – and his complete silence on the disappearance of the $20,000 from the Book Fund (the explanation for which is his bounden duty as Executive Trustee). We now predict he will seek to forget, and cause the brethren to forget, if possible, his profuse "crushing refutation" on this 1,000-year reign of The Christ, too, as it be­comes much too hot for him to handle. Furthermore, his "Attestatorial Service" will be completed now in a few months, when every feature of it will have been proven an abject failure; so we predict he will be forced to pull a new "rabbit from the hat" just as did That Evil Servant each time his predictions fell flat.

On page 68, bottom of col. 1, he says, "If the Good Levites....... are not yet cleansed, then they are not in a fit condition to engage in these special features of the Lord's work." Here at least he statesthetruth,  eventhoughitbeinreverseofhis intention. We've contended right alongthattheyarenotinfitconditiontodoit; that's why they've had such abject failures in everything they've attempted since October 22, 1950. But, while he was treating of this item, why did he completely ignore our copious quotations from Vol.  E-15 on pages 3 and 4 of our June 1 writing? In further proof of our contention that the LHMM section of Azazel's Goat – as a class – could not pos­sibly have had their Fit Man experiences by October 22, 1950 and thus could not possibly have been cleansed by then, to quote some more from Vol.  E-4, page 203 (65):

Letting the Truth section of Azazel's Goat go in the wilderness seems to mean the part of the fit man's course whereby he puts Azazel's Goat into a condition of isolation from the Faithful, whose measurable favor and help they enjoyed previously to this step – a condition in which they are not even given brother­ly fellowship." (R. G. Jolly has admitted that he received brotherly help and fellowship from Brother Johnson to the day of his death.)

Let R. G. Jolly give a clear and complete answer to the above quotation – just once –, showing when he was ''isolated from the Faithful". when he was not even "given brotherly fellowship". And while he is attempting to do this for himself, let him do the same for 'his Pilgrims Eschrich and Gavin.

In further corroboration of this matter, we quote from Vol.  E-10, page 402, top: "God, so long as they (JFR, et al) even measurably kept the Lord's teachings given through That Servant, would not take them from the Truth and its spirit." And again from page 398: "As long as the priesthood does not abandon crown-losers, Azazel cannot pos­sess himself of them." (How does this fit in with R. G. Jolly's statement that he was completely abandoned to Azazel 1937-38?) These are Brother Johnson's clear statements with reference to the worst of the Bad Levites; so how much more would God's Goodness apply to the Good Levites not to abandon them to Azazel through separation from the priest­hood! In E-10, page 274 (bottom) Brother Johnson says the Good levites were not yet cleansed in 1941; and in the May 1943 Present Truth, page 79, col. 2, he says R. G. Jolly was not yet cleansed. Thus, in 1943 the Good Levites had not yet been cleansed, even in their leader. (Note: This was during the time the Mouthpiece of the High Priest con­sidered them to be Good Levites; but this was no assurance that those then Good Levites would continue good from that time on – just as they did not continue as Saints when they were Saints.) So let R. G. Jolly now give the date when he himself was cleansed, as well as those others who thought themselves Priests right up to October 22, 1950. Or let him reveal any act or teaching that he has produced to cleanse them since October 22, 1950. These questions we ask for information; if he has that information, let him now produce it or forever hold his peace on this subject. As we have been contending since early in 1954, the only new Great Company developing truth that has appeared has been the one that we ourselves have been proclaiming, and which is indisputably supported in Brother Johnson's writings – Namely, that the last section of Azazel's Goat, that in the LHMM, was abandoned to Azazel in October 1950 (i. e. Truth Section).

On page 69, col. 1 he says we present the "new view" that "Aaron stood naked not wearing any garments at all" (at the completion of the Atonement Day sacrifices). This is a fact clearly stated in Lev. 16: 23-4; so what's "new" about it? Is he contending that we have read this into the Scriptures? Or, can it be he doesn't understand the meaning of it, so he resorts to his usual doubleminded and unstable floundering in an effort to divert the minds of his readers from this damaging fact? Then, in this same quotation he puts in brackets seven lines of his own words, but includes them in quota­tion marks as coming from us. And he is brazen enough to do this in the face of all the opprobrium he throws at us throughout his quagmire of confusion on this matter of Aza­zel's Goat! And he does this all the while he is yelling "more honorable position" and "higher class" for his Great Company over the Youthful Worthies!

He says we slandered him in ascribing to him a statement re Brother Krewson which he says he didn't make. Slander is "defamation of character", so we wonder how his character was defamed in this matter. But he still fails to answer the vital question about the statement as he admits he did make it; "INASMUCH AS YOU ACCEPTED SO MUCH OF HIS TEACHINGS FOR A FEW YEARS, WERE YOU HEADING TOWARD DEATH THEN?" He has evaded this question now several times. Will he continue to do it? And, while playing up our mis­quotation (according to him), he is completely silent about our charge against his char­acter that he grossly falsified in his statements that we had full charge of Brother Johnson's funeral arrangements. Apparently, this latter is just one more of his false­hoods he is only too ready to forget. We have repeatedly accused him of falsehood – just as did Brother Johnson accuse him of falsehood (See Vol.  E-10) –, which is indeed a defamation of his character. This he should speedily refute – if he is able – just as did Brother Russell and Brother Johnson in their position as True Pastor & Teacher. In fact, a true Pastor & Teacher would have vindicated his character way last August, when it was attacked, rather than to try to establish his right to the title of Pastor and Teacher; because his good character and correct teachings would speak for themselves and point to him as Pastor & Teacher without his proclaiming it from the housetops. Here again, he might have done well to take a page from the book of That wise and Faith­ful Servant, who never once during his entire saintly ministry ever pointed to himself and said – Brethren, I am That Servant.  He allowed his teachings and noble character to speak for themselves.

For some months now it has been reported to us from various sources that R. G. Jolly has been resorting to his "choice secret weapon", the whispering campaign, by telling various brethren that JJH is "against" him only because JJH wants his position.  Finally, after laying some groundwork with his choice secret weapon, he now comes out openly and publishes his statement. It seems he doesn't realize – or may not care – that here again he is treading the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant, who circulated exactly the sane report about Brother Johnson; although it should be noted that Brother Johnson had cast his votes for JFR to be President of the Society, and assured him of every cooper­ation so long as he would be "faithful to the office.'' We did exactly the same thing with R. G. Jolly; we were secretary of the meeting in Detroit in 1948 which elected him as Executive Trustee, and cast our vote for him, as the records clearly show. At the time of Brother Johnson's death we also gave him every assurance of our full cooperation so long as he was "faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren"; and only when his deflections became so very pronounced did we make open attack upon his errors, his false­hoods, his power-grasping – in identical fashion as did Brother Johnson against JFR.  Be assured we shall continue our attacks upon his sins of teaching and practice so long as he continues in them; and we are assured of our Lord's approval and support of this course. And be it noted that such a course by us has nothing whatever to do with de­livering Azazel's Goat to the Fit Man; that was fully and completely done by the last Star Member, so nothing more can be or need be done about it. R. G. Jolly would like to confuse this teaching with our attacks upon his sins as a cover-up for himself; but he is fooling none with his sophistry except possibly the "unstable and the unlearned;"

Along this same line, he is ever ready and voluminous to hurl adjectives at others that are most appropriate to him, which is quite in keeping with those of his "class", as Brother Johnson so well learned from sore experiences. (Note: We particularly refer to uncleansed Great Company leaders.) R. G. Jolly accuses others of evasiveness; where­as, he himself is one of the most evasive and untruthful "Christians" we have ever met.  Shortly to shall send the brethren some correspondence that will prove our point. His secretiveness, too, was a sore trial to Brother Johnson – "the most secretive person he had ever met" was the way he described him to us and to others. Brother Johnson clearly teaches that the virtue of secretiveness becomes a vice when overdone. At the last Philadelphia Convention he voiced from the platform his "new light" on the Millen­nial Princes, which had come to him as a "sudden illumination" the previous May. It is now more than fifteen months since this blessing (?) came to him; but nothing what­ever has appeared in the Present Truth about it. Is he keeping this "secret", too; or can it be that some conversation was carried back to him by his 'spies’ in which his "new light" was annihilated with Scripture? Note the following from the Nov. 1950 Present Truth:

"Am I doing to my associates and to the Lord, the Head of the Church, as I would have them do to me? If not, I should square my conduct by the Golden-Rule. I should be honest with my Lord, with my brethren and with myself, and make no false professions. Do I treat all the brethren as such, as the Apostle says, 'Without partiality and without hypocrisy?'......... Am I doing to all these a brother's part, as I would that they should do to me, if our positions were transposed?.......... Do I seek to impart to them freely whatever knowledge I possess, or am I trying to hoodwink them and to keep them in ignorance, and to hold them down? In a word, am I doing for the Lord's sheep as an under-shepherd, what I would wish to be done to me by an under-shepherd, if I were one of the Lord's sheep under his care?"

There will be more about much of the foregoing in due course; but with this comes the prayer of the writer that each one who reads this answer to the last Present Truth may do so soberly and honestly "without partiality and without hypocrisy". And may the blessing that maketh rich abide to the full with one and all who love the Truth and keep its spirit.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim