by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 10

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

The May Present Truth carries an article entitled “Further Hoefleisms Examined”, which heading is another attempt by R. G. Jolly to mimic the words of Brother John­son in an effort to whitewash himself; but “the leopard can't change his spots” — nor does Azazel seem able to change his technique.  In much of his article R. G. Jolly is unwittingly treading the identical foot­steps of That Evil Servant, one classic ex­ample of which is his charge against us of “chronic fault‑finding”.  Note the following from Vol. E‑10, page 389:

“JFR said to J., ‘About the only thing you have been doing since your return from England is to say I protest’”.

But Brother Johnson went right an protesting against the sins, errors, falsehoods and revolutionisms of That Evil Servant — just as we intend to do against The Evil Epi­phany Solomon.  If such fault‑finding (?) is “Hoefleism”, or “Johnsonism” (as some described Brother Johnson's teaching), or any other “ism”, it would seem it is much to be desired over “Rutherfordism”, whose characteristics mark our Executive Trustee at every turn.

To substantiate his defense, he quotes copiously from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson; but his efforts here simply demonstrate his inability rightly to divide the writings of the Star Members, just as he has repeatedly shown his inability “rightly to divide the word of Truth”.  There is indeed a “great gulf” between `picking' faults in Saints and SEEING sins in Sinners (the Great Company).  Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both continually saw sins in Sinners (particularly in their leaders); and their writings are replete with their criticisms of those sins.  Just as it would be wrong to `lift the robe' of a Saint to peer underneath, so it would be equally wrong not to see the sins of Sinners and to warn others of “the pestilence that walketh in darkness”, because the “spots and wrinkles” on their sullied robes are being made manifest to all in His Epiphaneia.

An instance of such “spots” on R. G. Jolly's robe is his besetting sin of false­hood — which is recorded against him — another of which he makes on page 52, col. 1. par, 2 4,32 “JJH had full charge of the funeral arrange­ments” (for Brother Johnson).  The truth about it is contained in our writing of May 1, in addition to which we now state that when we arrived in Philadelphia on Wednesday evening, we were told the funeral notices were already in the newspapers and the funeral was to be at one o'clock Friday; and we did not see or even talk to the undertaker until we arrived at the Tab­ernacle at 12:45 to conduct the service.  For the sake of the record, it should also now be told that when we arrived that Wednesday evening R. G. Jolly had already decided to throw away about a thousand dollars of the Truth Fund money; but we offered some counsel which was accepted and saved that money for the Truth Fund.  The LHMM lawyer subsequently made the observation that “sound business judgment had taken a realistic view of things.”

In the first paragraph of his article he says, “In our March issue we examined a number of JJH's recent erroneous teachings, and were enabled thoroughly to refute them”.  In this statement he seems to have taken a page from Hitler's book.  At the top of page 50, col. 2, he saya his John's Beheading is the “only reasonable, factual and Scriptural presentation yet given”.  That Evil Servant had his “John's Beheading”, too, which Brother Johnson ridiculed on page 172 of the October 1919 Present Truth. However, to reveal further the errant nonsense of R. G. Jolly's interpretation of this type we offer the statement that every antitype is greater than its type.  Now, just place the MeCarran Act (RGJ's antitype) beside John's beheading (the type), and these conclusions will readily be apparent:  Brother Johnson did not even know the McCarran Act had been passed, so that not the slightest ripple of a change came into his life.  When John sat in prison subsequently having his head cut off, was that a smaller event than came to Brother Johnson, wbo did not even know that anything had happened? This picture of buffoonery could be elaborated and magnified, but this should be enough for any thinking person to see the fallacy of R. G. Jolly's “reasonable, factual and Scrip­tural” presenta­tion, which he has offered as part of his “Advancing Truth”.

R. G. Jolly also uses the above technique on page 52, col. 2, par. 2 in his comment of the Faithful and Measurably Faithful.  His view is the only one he can see, so that makes it right.  Our only contention had to do with what Brother Johnson was teaching on the matter as it is contained in Vol. B‑4.  He has contended that Brother Johnson's exposition did not clearly reveal what he had in mind. In view of our fur­ther comments on March 27, does R. G. Jolly still contend that Brother Johnson did not make himself clear?

Again, on page 52, col. 1, par. 3, he says “punishment is to be administered — ­not by the aggrieved one, but by the Lord”.  Once more he juggles the Truth to make it appear we are the one confused.  In 2 Cor. 2:6 St. Paul, referring to the one in 1 Cor. 5:1‑5 who had been delivered to Azazel, said, “sufficient is the punishment that was inflicted of many”.  Was Paul referring to the Lord or the Ecclesia when he said the punishment was inflicted of “many”?  Certainly, we are not to punish in the sense of inflicting stripes or determining the final standing in God's House — ­only God, who “looketh on the heart”, is able to do that.  Even when one was disfellowshiped during the Gospel Age that was not proof conclusive that he had fallen from the Little Flock.  However, such a sentence by an Ecclesia was surely a punishment; and the Church at Corinth certainly inflicted punishment upon that brother when they withdrew all brotherly help and favor from him.

On page 49, col. 1, par. 3, he quotes Brother Johnson: “the Star Members would have a full service for the Little Flock until it leaves the world”.  Inasmuch as the majority of the Little Flock were not in the Epiphany Movement, and many of such received no service whatever from Brother Johnson because they considered him in the second death, will R. G. Jolly please explain what “full service” they received from a Star Member during the Epiphany period of the Harvest time?  Also, since Brother Johnson taught they would all eventually come into the Epiphany Truth, will he please give the date the last one (the L. F.) came into Epiphany Truth?  There will be much more to say about this if and when he puts himself into print on these two questions.  He complains we helped the opposition by publishing our letter of March 20, 1954.  He may feel the same about these statements, too; but, is there any reason why they — ­or any one else — should not be helped by the Truth?  We see no occasion for apology here; although we make the observation that he wrote us letters after Narch 20, 1954, without ever once mentioning this item — although we directed it to his attention sev­eral times; and he now shows his “higher class” by blaming us for the results of his own dereliction.  But, if our analysis was wrong, as he now claims, why should he complain if others have it called to their attention.  This same deduction holds for anything else of our writings that CS has published.  Why should R. G. Jolly's peace of mind be disturbed if CS is broadcasting our “errors” if he can ably refute them?  Or, can it be that he is bothered because what CS has printed is the truth?

And when he says our “attack is not upon him personally, but rather upon the Lord's work”, he is again treading the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant, as note Vol. E‑10, page 401:

“JFR sowed the evils of envy, power‑grasping .... combinationism and many other evil qualities, and did this as an alleged service to God.”

When he labels his errors and blunders the “Lord's work”, he is also aping the large Evil Solomon, the Papacy, which claims to be the “Voice of God”, and — “When you criticize us you are really opposing God”.  We expect to say much more about this in The Epiphany Solomon; we merely observe now that kindred minds follow the same channel.

His “Lord's work” had its counterpart in the book published by That Evil Servant “Comfort For The Jews” —, which book contains 127 pages in solid binding, compared with 50 pages and paper cover of the booklet compiled by Professor Raymond G. Jolly; the former book ending with Isa. 40:1,2 instead of beginning with it, as is true of RGJ's booklet.  “Comfort for the Jews” was abortive, and was pretty much of a fail­ure; and the same may be said of the Dawn's “Chosen People” — although it is to the Dawn's commendation that at least one of their leading brethren admits their failure.  And when he complains about us pointing out his failures to date, we do this only be­cause he himself predicted he would “do great works, win great numbers”; whereas, we prophesied the reverse for him so long as he remains in his uncleansed condition, in the Household of Faith.  Therefore, it is only proper that the figures be produced to determine who had the mind of the Lord in the matter.  Also, it should now be in order to quote from Vol. E‑15, page 525, bottom:

"He (Azazel) deceives them (the Great Company) into believing they will accomplish great works, win great numbers, gain great favor, etc.  The upshot of it all is great failures, as is showm of them in Ps. 107:12; Matt. 7:21‑23, 262, 27."

Just a little reflection on this situation should cause any babe in the Truth to con­clude that the Great Company in the LHMM group cannot possibly be cleansed now, nor were they cleansed at October 22, 1950.  Yet, in the face of this devastating record, he has the effrontery to say on page 40, col. 2, bottom, etc., regard­ing the Great Company in the LHMM being in Azazel's hands, that “JJH fights the perti­nent truth as given through the Epiphany Messenger”.  Briefly, this is our position:  The last earthly work of the World's High Priest, before removal of the linen garments of sacrifice (Lev. 16: 20‑23), was to deliver Azazel's Goat into the hands of the Fit Man.  The following is Brother Johnson's statement on it (Vol. E‑4. page 156‑6):

“Another thing that will also prove helpful to us better to understand our subject, type and antitype, is to remember that the transaction with Azazel's Goat is the last High Priestly act before the change of sacri­ficial garments; hence His dealing with this Goat before changing his garments proves that it would occur while members of the World's High Priest would yet be in the flesh.”

Next, we contend that the LHMM section of Azazel's Goat was never completely abandoned to Azazel during Brother Johnson's life; but the final act in this drama was accomplished by the Lord when he removed Brother Johnson in death on October 22, 1950, which act did withdraw brotherly help and favor, the same being necessary for them to give them their abandonment experiences; and which offers clear and indisputable proof that they were not yet cleansed on that date.  In confirmation of this we quote from Vol. E‑10, page 398 (middle):

“As long as the Priesthood does not abandon crown‑losers, Azazel cannot possess himself of them..... Azazel could not get them fully into his con­trol.”

The foregoing condition is brought about by “the loss of brotherly fellouship” (Vol. E‑4, page 210 ‑7) — a thing Which certainly did not occur during Brother Johnson's life, because he had not even withdrawn Priestly fellowship from those in the LHMM who had not been manifested as crown‑losers.

On page 52, col. 2, par. 3, R. G. Jolly states further:  “In further desperate efforts to blacken the Good Levites as much as possible, JJH tries to minimize what Bro. Johnson so clearly stated:  Of all Epiphany crown‑losers it is a fact that they almost overcame — they lost the high calling only by the `skin of their teeth'.  Also, JJH follows his usual course of quoting statements that apply to the worst of the Le­vites, e.g., JFR, and trying to make them apply in the same degree to the Good Levites.... The revolutionism of the Good Levites being comparatively slight, the measure of with­drawal of brotherly fellowship would naturally be slight also.  JJH fights against the principle here set forth by Bro. Johnson, but to no avail, for he cannot alter it.”  In answer to this, we offer Brother Johnson's comments in Vol. E‑15, page 524, bottom, and page 525, in which Brother Johnson makes not the slightest distinction, nor does he measure off the anount of wlthdrawal of brotherly fellowship and help toward those who lost “by the skin of their teeth”, but clearly and definitely states that all must have all brotherly help and favor witbdrawn from them:

“But these experiences have not proved enough entirely to free their new minds, hearts and wills — their Holy Spirit — from their devel­oped bondage to self, the world and sin, though they contribute to­ward that end in all and almost entirely accomplish it in those who lost little Flockship by the skin of their teeth........ As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from the bondage of developed worldliness, sel­fishness, error and sin, and in a large number hardly fazes them at all, and variously but incompletely affects the rest of them, the Lord resorts to a second set of untoward experiences..... He delivers them over to Satan......... Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a con­dition as the priests disfellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them.  It also implies that God temporarily abandons them.”

Certainly, in the foregoing Brother Johnson clearly includes those who lost “by the skin of their teeth”; and R. G. Jolly is now clearly revolution­iz­ing against this indisputable Epiphany Scriptural teaching in his published statement as quoted above.  More of this can be expected from him as he treads the footsteps of That Evil Ser­vant, whose “Right Eye” increasingly darkened on vital truths.

Another glaring instance of his doubleninded and unstable floundering is to be found on page 42, par. 1: “The pertinent notion in no way takes away the serving elder's prerogative of maintaining order (emphasis by RGJ) during a meeting; if any one becomes unruly..... the elder still has charge of keeping order in the meetings and admonishing the unruly ones wisely, kindly and firmly”.  We fully agree with this statement, as we are almays glad to do when he speaks the Truth.  However, just com­pare his contention here with his loud and profuse complaints to this writer and to the Winter Park Ecclesia about Sister Hoefle being “unruly” during a meeting in Win­ter Park on March 15, 1955 where he was the elder in full charge, and at which he followed none of the advice he is now offering JK.  Truly, “A doubleminded man (Great Company) is unstable in all his ways!”

On page 52, col. 1 top, he says, regarding the $5,000 item, “JJH fails to point out the entire $5,000 could just as readily have been lost”.  His statement is simply the observation of a theoretical dreamer; but he reveals his shallowness even more by a snide reference to “gambling”.  As we have told him on several occasions — Why isn't he man enough to state clearly what he means?  Is he here telling the brethren that we are a gambler?  If not, then just what was he trying to tell them by his remark? Of course, his action here is a good sample of his course toward us over the past five years — always that oily Pharisaical jugglery which allows of any interpretation the hearer wishes to place upon it, the language always “proper”, never rough or uncouth.  Here is what Brother Johnson has to say about such in the August 1950 PT, page 115, top:

“It is a great mistake, also, to suppose that because the evil thing is said in a kind and gentle manner, therefore it is a good thing, and evidence of a pure beart, that is full of love; quite to the con­trary, we know that the great Adversary himself is continually present­ing himself in garments of light, that he may exercise the greater in­fluence for evil.”

When we gave him much more of an answer than he expected to his “Brief History”, he says “JJH extols himself”.  Yet, in that same PT he has no compunctions whatever about extolling himself with about three pages of testimonial letters that praise him and his “work of the Lord”.  Consistency, thou art a Jewel!  The brethren who have known us over the years know of their own knowledge how much extolling of self we have done.  His course here again is in exact keeping with That Evil Servant, as can be verified by reference to the Watch Towers for the years 1917‑1920, in which he carried many letters of praise for himself, but never a letter of criticism — although we know he received plenty of them, just as we know R. G. Jolly has also received plenty of letters from others that pointedly refer to his failings.  Wben Brother Johnson re­ferred to his past service and faithfulness to the lord, the Truth and the brethren —­ as St. Paul had also done —, he received the same kind of criticism from uncleansed Levites as R. G. Jolly has given us.  In due time, D.v., we hope to publish some let­ters of praise and encouragement as well as some letters of criticism that have come to us over the past year.

In this May PT he also states that “we (RGJ) faced him with incontrovertible evidence of nany misrepresentations.... he (JJH) passes these by in silence not even referring to them.”  This is certainly a misleading statement to say the least, be­cause we clearly stated on page 10 of our March 27 answer that “several outstanding items of difference are yet to be analyzed; and we offer the assurance they shall re­ceive clear and unevasive recognition in due course, D.v.”  We think we pretty well took care of them all in our follow‑up of May 1; so we now quote him the Scripture,  “Out of thine oun mouth will I judge thee.”  Let him be clear and direct with his charges against us on “gambling”, or any other item — as we have done with him — ­and we shall then answer him clearly and directly on the matter, even as we would al­so do with many of his past insinuations, veiled digs, etc., if he had put himself plainly on record.  For the present, we mention his confusion on Matt. 18:15; Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels; his unfaithfulness as Executive Trustee — especially in his withholding Brother Johnson's unpublished utitings from the brethren; his fail­ure properly to account for the $20,000 which disappeared from the Book Fund; his improper handling of the Slander Case; and we could mention many others which he has “passed by in silence” ‑‑ or Measurably so.

Again it is our prayer that all may read the foregoing and compare it with the Present Truth statements in an honest effort to determine the Truth for the Truth's sake; and may the wisdom and strength of the blessed Holy Spirit keep all who have the "mind of Christ" in His peace which passeth understanding.

                                                            Sincerely your brother,

                                                            John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim