NO. 86: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE JULY-AUGUST PRESENT TRUTH

No. 86

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

On page 50 of the paper under review, under the caption ‘‘Gathering or Scattering – Which?” R. G, Jolly again “makes manifest” what manner of person he is by directing Scriptures at others that correctly apply to him. That Evil Servant did exactly the same thing, and aroused substantially the same comments from Brother Johnson that we have on numerous occasions expressed toward R. G. Jolly. One case in point is Rom. 16:17,18, “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” Let R. G. jolly make clear once and for all when, where, and from whom he learned his doctrine of “Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” We have repeatedly asked this question, with each time Silence as the only answer. And we may be certain of the same Silence once more.

In col. 1, par. 1, p. 50 he speaks of “developing and perfecting His (the Lord’s) Consecrated Epiphany Campers” since 1954. In E:10-114 Brother Johnson clearly teaches that when the time arrives to apply Rev. 22:11 (which time he then in 1941 thought would be 1954), “it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent.” R. G. Jolly sets that aside, of course, and substitutes some teaching (errors) of his own since 1954 – all the while screaming at others for teaching “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” The basic cause of the turmoil in Trinidad this year stems directly from the “strange fire” (false doctrine) of R. G, Jolly’s ‘‘Consecrated Campers’’ since 1954, an error which Brother Roach and others there refuse to swallow – just as we have refused to do it – so it Is he (R. G. Jolly), and not_they, who is respon­sible for the Trinidad division; and the text “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” rightly applies to R. G. Jolly (which motivated Brother Roach in his course toward R. G. Jolly, who is the real culprit in causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine he has learned from the Star Members).

But, just as did That Evil Servant, R. G, Jolly accuses the Faithful of guilt for aberrations that are solely his responsibility. And for this he will surely receive the “shame” (Isa. 66:5) which the Lord has reserved for “brethren” of his strain. As Brother Johnson has so correctly stated in E:3-190, the chief wrongdoing of such crown-losers are in their ‘‘relations to God, to Jesus, to His prospective bride and to one another.” And R. G. Jolly offers vivid and compelling proof that Brother Johnson spoke the truth. His conduct since October 22, 1950 toward the Faithful up to his present and latest attack against the Faithful Bro. Roach of Trinidad clearly reveals that he has not overcome this evil, which he will surely have to do before he ever becomes a cleansed Levite.

When R. G. Jolly accuses Brother Roach of influencing others to a separate Memorial this year, it would be well if he offered proof for his accusation, be­cause we have Brother Roach’s testimony that it is completely false – just another Jolly falsehood – unless we admit that Brother Roach’s faithful magnetism was that “influence.” We were informed by those brethren who attended that meeting that they went to Brother Roach’s home for the Memorial without any Invitation from him – without even previously informing him of their intentions; they were impelled by the “example of the believers” which they have witnessed in Brother Roach over the years, and they were determined to minimize the abuse he was receiving from a “leprous” Levite. (See E:4-243-302)

And be it noted that Brother Roach has never gone “contrary to the doctrine which he has learned” from the Star Members – although R. G. Jolly has flagrantly done so with his self-styled Campers Consecrated, his errors on tentative justi­fication, on Rev. 22:11, on the abandonment process for Azazel’s Goat (See E:l5­525, par. 1), etc., etc. And this perverter (Azazel means Perverter) now vilifies and stigmatizes a brother because he refuses to ‘‘wallow’’ in those errors – a brother who insists upon retaining the “doctrine he has learned” from the Fully Faithful Star Members, as he rejects the “strange fire” emanating from an uncleansed Levite leader.

When he complains that Brother Roach received us, why does he single out Bro. Roach for the occasion? Many of his more prominent Auxiliary Pilgrim-Evangelist representatives have no hesitancy in giving us brotherly greetings at R. G. Jolly’s own Conventions; and they do this openly before him. Self-evidently these breth­ren are persuaded by the exhortation and warning of the beloved Epiphany Messenger:

‘‘Among many Truth people, therefore, clericalism is one of the burning questions. It is almost everywhere rampant. In Little Babylon we have a little presbyterial system of church government – the rule of elders. In its work-director we have its ecclesial bishop..... In the Society pilgrims we have the little cardinals, and in the Society’s president we have the little pope. Trampled under the feet of these clericalists the democracy that in Brother Russell’s day exercised the autonomy and independence of the ecclesias, varyingly in the organizational Levite subdivisions, is being destroyed. Some of the brethren have been aroused to appropriate action in this matter; some are very timidly resisting.....

‘‘And to you, dear Epiphany-enlightened brethren, we would address a suit­able exhortation: ‘Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.’“ (See E:8 pp. 349-350 for the complete warning and exhortation)

These brethren give us such brotherly fellowship because they have known us over the years; they also know that Brother Johnson never exposed us before the General Church as “loquacious, repetitious and false-accusing” (E:10-591), nor as “unfair and unkind,” as he has done with R. G. Jolly; and they refuse to be­come partakers of his sins. Such Youthful Worthy brethren who resist R. G. Jolly’s clericalism are participating in the battle against clericalism and sectarianism in Little Babylon, and if persisted in to the end will be counted as overcomers of these two sins with the faithful Youthful Worthies (See E:5-226-229 – battle against Oreb and Zeeb). The Great Company Class will not be counted as overcomers in this battle, because it has been the Great Company all during the Gospel Age who actually perverted the Star Members teaching and started the various sects to build up Big Babylon – just as it was the Great Company who started the various sects in Little Babylon to build up Little Babylon.

This is probably the real reason R. G. Jolly has made such pronounced effort to expel us from his Conventions; he cannot persuade those brethren to ignore us.... those brethren who still retain the “spirit of love and a sound mind” which is now so sadly deficient in R. G. Jolly himself since his full abandonment to Azazel in October 1950, and is readily apparent by his “strong delusions,” one after another. Therefore, he fulfills the prophecy of Jesus in John 16:2,3, “they shall put you out of the synagogues.” Yes, we pity him, poor little man that he is! He will probably make even more desperate efforts to exclude us from the Conventions just ahead, in an attempt to cover up his blundering on this 1962 Memorial date, and the stinging defeat he has suffered in Trinidad in keeping with the King Saul antitype. (Please-see our No. 76-A, November 1961 on “Samuel and Saul.”)

On p. 60, col. 2, bottom, there is this statement by R. G. Jolly: “A good conscience, properly regulated by the Scriptures and the teachings of the two star-members, could not lead one into an act of revolutionism against the Lord’s Truth and arrangements, causing him clericalistically and rebelliously to over­ride the prerogatives of the local ecclesia.” We are in full accord with that statement as it stands! But we do reflect upon the record of these two (Brother Roach and R. G. Jolly)! At no time did Brother Johnson have occasion to announce Brother Roach as a clericalist, a revolutionist – nor did Brother Roach ever seek to seize control of the Lord’s Mouthpiece; and we now ponder how and when R. G. Jolly came to know the meaning of a “good conscience.” Brother Johnson clearly tells us on p. 585 of Vol. 10 that R. G. Jolly had a “bad” conscience, and often “misrepresented” Brother Johnson – just as he is now “misrepresenting” Brother Roach. Notice also on the same page 585 that Brother Johnson openly accuses R. G. Jolly of being “unfair and unkind”; and R. G. Jolly reveals nothing now at this late date to indicate he has rid himself of these evil characteristics. He is now “unfair and unkind” in his vicious “misrepresentations” of Brother Roach – just as he did with the Epiphany Messenger himself, and just as he has done toward us on numerous occasions.

It is because Brother Roach does have a “good conscience” in that he properly refused to sit at the feet of a proven perverter in the solemn Memorial service. Had R. G, Jolly himself shown the proper humility and “love” for Brother Roach that he professes, it would have been a simple matter for him to allow another to offer the Memorial discourse. That would have placed him in a much better position, because it is not for individuals, generally speaking, to disfellowship each other – ­just as we pointed out Fred Blaine’s disregard of Scriptural teaching in his error for personally disfellowshiping us, when we had done nothing whatever to him per­sonally (contrary to his false accusation against us on p. 47 of the May-June P.T.); and no ecclesia had disfellowshiped us – nor had R. G. jolly himself disfellow­shiped us at the time. So there was no precedent for such conduct set out in the Scriptures, in the Star Members’ writings, nor even by his uncleansed Levite leader (R. G. Jolly himself) at the time.

Yes, “bad” consciences, “misrepresentations” and “unfair and unkind criticisms” seem to be just as prevalent evils now as they were when Brother Johnson was harassed and bruised by them, which he recorded for the protection of all of us in faithful­ness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, that we all may be forewarned against such sins (such record otherwise being unnecessary, if not to protect others while serving as chastisement to correct these evils in R. G. Jolly). Clearly enough, there are many who claim to be “in the Truth”; but the Truth is not in them!

And it seems apropos now to point out that Brother Johnson tells us these crown-losers (of which R. G, Jolly is a part) “Repetitously” boast of their right­eousness (just as R. G. Jolly is now doing in his letter to Brother Roach), and they criticize and pick Brother Johnson to pieces, demanding his attention (just, as R. G. Jolly is now doing to Brother Roach), “They profess that they did not seek to intimidate nor oppress him (Bro, Johnson)” – just as R. G. Jolly claims for himself in his latest attack against Faithful Brother Roach. (Please see E:10-586 for complete details of the references cited,) Be it noted, R. G. Jolly claimed to be a crown-retainer when he was a crown-loser; he is now claiming to be a cleansed Levite when he is a very UNCLEAN Levite, as is clearly manifested by his continued evils and perverted teachings. Also he by act claims that a “cleansed” Levite leader stands in the same relative position of a Star Member in that he has boldly foisted upon God’s people a new doctrine (actually offering “strange fire” before the Lord). In all his “loquacious foolish effusions” now, just as was the case under Brother Johnson, he by his acts clearly reveals his inferiority (his uncleansed condition) by his sins of teaching and practice, while repetitiously voicing his “superiority” over the faithful while comparing his course to theirs (just as revealed in his letter to Brother Roach). Nor should we be surprised that he denies such evils, all the while he repeatedly indulges in such wrongs. That Evil Servant, and the Pope in Big Babylon, have done precisely the same thing, as they repeatedly requested all to behold their “cleansed” and righteous condition. “Why call ye me Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Now follows Brother Roach’s answer to R. G. Jolly’s letter as published on page 58 of the July-August Present Truth:

Dear Brother Jolly: - Christian greetings!

In your letter of May 29 you write me some 4,000 words which you crowd into six pages of closely written typing – full of repetitious effusions and “false­accusing” sentences; and I am now beginning to appreciate from painful personal experience with you why Brother Johnson felt it necessary to describe you in Vol. 10, p. 591, as “loquacious, repetitious, false-accusing and pouring out foolish effusions.” Please know that I have no wish to follow your example in my answer to you.

A number of times you refer to a “sifter and open active enemy of the Truth and arrangements”; but you leave me to guess this “sifter’s” identity, because you do not give me his name. You have attacked more than one ‘sifter’ (?) in your publications before the brethren, so that it would be well for you to resolve to be honest and clear in all your accusations against them, making clear and concise statement so that all the brethren will not become more befuddled than they are already as to your contentions. In this same letter you also repeatedly refer me to the example of Brother Johnson. When discussing such people as leaders in various groups, did Brother Johnson ever leave us in doubt as to their identity? Of course he did not! When attacking the evil course of such prominent ‘mis’leaders, Brother Johnson left us in no doubt as to their identity. He always clearly identified the errorists so that all the breth­ren would be properly informed and forewarned.

You are also telling me I even refused to have conference with you when you sent a special messenger to arrange one. Yes, I did refuse and requested him to draw your attention to “Arch-enemy of God’s People” on page Z 5183, where That Servant advised to keep away from you, thereby rebuking you for applying Scriptures out of their time features. Knowing the brother as I do, I believe he did it.

In our Berean Study in preparing for this year’s Memorial when we got to p. 469) Vol. Six, par. 1, you were discussed in connection with your conduct on page 555 of E. Vol. Ten, with that Youthful Worthy widow in comparison to 1 John 3:17. There were only five or six of us, and I requested that it should not be made public. I next considered 1 Tim. 4:12, that one who claims to be at the head of a religious group should be an example of it.

When I also remember your animosity against Brother and Sister Hoefle in which you left America and showed here in Trinidad, I felt I would be a hypocrite of the darkest hue to sit at the same table with such an one. I am glad to know that we are not enemies, and that I can drop you a note sometime if necessary.

I rejoice in Brother Russell’s advice to keep the prize always before my eyes. Page Z 5082, col. 1. par. 5-7. I cannot see why you accepted that letter from Bro. Krewson in your January 1952 Present Truth.

On p. 3. par. 2, you say Brother Johnson’s teachings “include the Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” Please give me some references where he teaches such a class.

You use many more ‘words’ about my failure to attend certain meetings arranged by the Trinidad brethren. You are well aware that I have not supported you in the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated – nor have I supported you in any of your gross revolutionisms against the Truth and its Arrangements; nor have I acted hastily in withdrawing from you entirely. As you know, I am now fully persuaded that you are presenting ‘strange fire’ before the brethren, because I well realize that no crown-lost leader can receive any new doctrine from the Lord; that they can only receive such “due Truths” from the Star Members. Until you have ‘purged’ yourself of these sins of doctrine and practice, please consider me strong and firm in my stand against such a course. My only proper course as a faithful “overseer of the flock” (Acts 20:28) is to stay away from your meetings and follow St. Paul’s counsel, “from such turn away” (so long as you continue in the “error of your way”). Be assured that there is nothing ‘Personal’ against you in my decision, because I am fully persuaded that I must take a firm stand against such errors of doctrine and practice if I would be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.

When you accuse me of having a separate Memorial and inviting various brethren to partake with me, you make a false accusation against me (just as you did under Bro. Johnson against others). Certain brethren who came to partake with me came of their own volition, without any coercion, invitation and arrangement on my part. I now request that you correct the misrepresentation you made of me on this matter in your May-June P.T. in your next Present Truth. (Emphasis ours–JJH) If you have the ‘love’ for me, the Truth and Righteousness that you profess, and that you should have, then it will be your pleasure to make this correction and vindicate my course in the eyes of the brethren.

Among other things you say the Memorial Season is a time to purge ourselves of the ‘leaven’ (false doctrines being one of the vital issues mentioned). I have faith­fully continued in the fundamental doctrines of the Star Members; nor have I accepted any ‘new doctrine’ given by any crown-lost leader. It would have been a great bless­ing to you and others had you ‘purged’ yourself from this ‘strange fire’ of Epiphany Campers Consecrated at this past Memorial Season. It is my hope and prayer that you will yet see your proper course and “turn from the error of your way” while it is called TODAY.

The Lord has dealt bountifully with me over the past fifty years, especially under Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. He has “guided me with His eye” in the way I should go, even as He has promised the Fully Faithful. I am now past 90, and I am thankful there is no record made (by either Star Member) of any revolutionism against the doctrines or the arrangements at any time. (Yes, this beloved Brother was loved and respected by both Star Members because of his faithfulness; but now when he is past 90 years this self-claimed ‘cleansed’ Levite leader finds him a clericalist and a revolutionist because he resists his errors – just as he resisted similar crown-lost leaders in-the beginning of the Epiphany –JJH) Since I have been placed in a prominent position, such deflections would have been made manifest – ­especially during this Epiphany. The Epiphany Messenger would not have hesitated to record such serious deflections (revolutionisms, etc.), had there been any – even as he did in cases of other prominent brethren serving in similar positions under him. Ever since the Epiphany Messenger’s demise, I have continued to persevere in faith and obedience to the Lord and His Truth, without that “fear of man which bringeth a snare.”

Since Brother Johnson found it necessary to record a few of your serious deflec­tions, as well as to record some of your characteristics (“loquacious effusions” etc.), I find it my duty, painful though it may be, to exhort you to forsake such devious methods (such as your six-page letter reveals) and seek to speak forth the Truth in clear and unmistakable language, abandoning all “foolish effusions” and repetitions of ‘‘Words to no profit.”

There is much more I could say, but this should suffice for now. if you can accept the above exhortations, then I shall appreciate a clear and brief answer to the various questions I have asked you herein.

Yours by His Grace, (Signed) L. F. Roach

June 26, 1962

It is our hope and prayer that the facts set out above will vindicate the faith­ful course of Brother Roach in contrast to the evil course of R. G. Jolly against him as set out in the July-August Present Truth on pp. 58-62; and that if possible for R. G. Jolly, he will turn from his evils, repent and call upon the Lord in sincerity and in Truth. (See Psalms 107:10-13)

Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.” (Psa, 60:12)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

--------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dearly beloved Bro. & Sr. Hoefle: – Grace be multiplied!

Your very sympathetic letter received and I was put in a state of inactivity for the balance of the day. When I think of Bro. Jolly saying in this so-called Present Truth that I enticed brethren to celebrate the Memorial with me, it is some­thing to behold. Oh, yes! It was the very thing I purposely avoided. I will give you an instance. One of the five or six brethren who used to attend the Passover B. S. in Vol. Six with me, and to whom I used to give a regular gift out of my small pension (knowing she is a penniless widow and would need money to pay her taxi fare), wasn’t offered this help at the time. I had the amount ready to give her the moment she asked for it, but I did not offer her the money lest she feel that I was paying, or enticing, her to come..... Lo and behold the very thing I thoughtfully refrained from doing is the very thing Bro. Jolly says I did! Well, well, well! ..............

I thank you for the reference to Bro. Cranmer in E. Vol. 8. My dear brethren, I have to close right now, as tears are darkening my sight. I ask help from you both and from the other brethren by prayer. May God bless you!

Yours by His Grace Bro ------- TRINIDAD

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our blessed Lord and Master!

Yours of June 16 and the July and August articles are duly received. We are glad to receive these rich blessings. it certainly brings pain to our hearts to see how befuddled these uncleansed Great Company members are. I had to speak harshly to one of R. G. Jolly’s able Pilgrims, who – after my efforts to prove Campers Consecrated as a false doctrine from Volumes and Towers of Brother Johnson – ­actually refused to hear the volumes read. Certainly, we fear for them!

I have also received from Brother ------- a few days ago ...pound on your behalf; also Brother Roach has written to me a very encouraging letter. Oh! we thank the dear Lord for such faithful brethren! Although advanced in age, I believe the Lord has much work for him to do, so may we pray the Lord’s continued blessing to rest with him and the dear ones in Trinidad.

The dear brethren here are all still fighting the “good fight” – although not all physically fit. We believe the good Lord has a work for all His faithful to do, and all must accomplish that which the Lord desires of them. So may you in His ser­vice be one found worthy to share in God’s eternal blessings!

May our love and prayers for you, Sister Hoefle and the dear ones with you, bring much blessings as you all continue to be faithful. Hymn 13.

Yours by His Grace....... Bro ------- JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: – Loving greetings in Jesus dear Name!

I am late in thanking you for the nice folders. Thank you very much.

I think ------- wrote you about them, but I ought to myself if possible. The trouble is I have so little good eyes to see what I have written. I guess I had better let M .... do it for me after all.

Lovingly, Sister ------- OHIO

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

Pertaining to your Pilgrim trip, accompanied by Sister Hoefle, to our dear Brother Roach and the Brethren in Trinidad, as related in your message of June, No. 83, it is interesting indeed re Star Members’ teachings, doctrines and Truths... Divinely supported, and your part therein, enabled by His sanction so to do, to offset the errors.... I would herewith enclose a small remittance to enable our pursuit of Zeba and Zalmunna, ever with the wish and prayer of upholding “Truth and Righteousness.”

With hearty Christian love and prayers for all the brethren in your vicinity.

By His Favor, Brother ------- NEW JERSEY

Note: The following letter has just been received from Brother Roach (Aug. 10, 1962), which we would have included in the general exposure of R. G. Jolly had we received it in time. However, since R. G. Jolly makes such public attacks upon us through the letters of others about not publishing his side, we now ask why he would fail to publish Brother Roach’s letter in the July-August, 1962 P.T., especially since it was the one he was answering, dated May 5, 1962? We believe that this letter from Brother Roach will help clear up some of the false accusations made against him by this Levite leader, therefore we now give it to the brethren for their information:

Dear Brother Jolly: – Grace be multiplied!

Your letter dated April 21, 1962 re my dismissal as Auxiliary Pilgrim of L.H.M.M. received with thanks. You will not see with me, but I can only say from a human stand­point it is somewhat late.

From the tenor of your letter it is easy to see that certain facts are concealed from you, I am going to tell you them as Brother Martin gave them to me, as from the so-called emergency meeting: Brother Nelson had a secret talk with you at Piarco Airport. He, Brother Nelson, left you and went for Brothers Khan and Robertson and the three of them came to him where it was agreed that I should be made to apologize to the class before serving them in any form, and if I had succeeded in having things my way, that they, the elders would walk out of the meeting. This was on the night of the 29th of March. Brother Robertson was to give me personally a notice. I never got that notice. When I took the chair to lead a Berean Study they pounced upon me, giving me no chance. See Z 5740, col. 2, par. 5 & 6. Of course as I am the one to be gotten rid of, it does not matter. (This is the only Brother that we recall that was praised so highly by Fred Blaine at last year’s Labor Day Convention–JJH) When I pressed and told them that even among heathen justice is not denied, I was told that I held a separate Memorial Service without the Class’ permission, Please see Z 5501, col. 2, par. 5.

Three days before the so-called elders meeting, that is on the 26th of March, Nelson was foolish enough to go to Brother Martin seeking advice how to put the case to the class about my holding a separate Memorial, among other things he told Brother Martin how he had suffered a lot at the hands of Brother Roach and now it is his turn to come back.

In 1960 in the slander case, I fought it alone for Brother Robertson was in full sympathy with Nelson, in so much that when you gave instructions for the second apology Brother Robertson instructed the apologizer to do so during a prayer and testimony meeting, and those who knew nothing about the matter had to ask questions, The idea of turning a prayer meeting into a business meeting to honour a slanderer! (And these are the brethren R. G. Jolly thinks are ‘fitted’ to take care of the spiritual interests of the brethren in Trinidad! Why? Because they go along with him in his revolutionistic course, and with his false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated! –JJH)

You, Brother Jolly are to be blamed, for you know the man and when he, as an individual, brought his charge you should have seen vengeance behind it, as did dear Brother Martin who refused to be a party to it, and shut down all L.H.M.M. meetings at his house. Dear Sister Walcott, at St. James, has done likewise.

I call the whole business a dirty plot, and I quote Isaiah 51:17: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.”

Brethren are coming one by one inquiring what is happening. A certain one said he is sorry he has left the Anglican Church.

In closing, I deem it appropriate to you that I am told many things you said to the discredit of dear Brother Hoefle, so I thought it only fair to invite him to come to Trinidad and defend himself, which he did with marked success.

I am in the Household of faith and challenge the two clergymen and laymen who could not even allow the case to be put to the vote to explain to inquirers. However, the situation is unique still!

Yours by His Grace, L. F. Roach - May 5, 1962.

Note: We make special emphasis to the praise Fred Blaine made of this brother, because it was timely and true, when he said this brother, although up in age, was so very clear in the Truth. And we say Amen to that statement. – JJH

MORE ON THE 1962 MEMORIAL DATE

No. 87

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

On pp. 113-117 of this July-August 1962 paper No. 45 of J. W. Krewson there is further “profusion of words” containing many falsehoods on this subject; and on p. 115, par. 2, he describes as a “rash statement” our comment that “nowhere does the Bible give even a hint about how we should arrive at Nisan 1.” We quote a similar 'rash statement' by Brother Johnson: “While the Herald conceals the fact that the Jewish calendar is frequently out of harmony with its rule for Nisan 1, its main plea is that we must follow the Jewish calendar, because, they say, it is Scriptural and logical. On this point we take issue and make the following objections (the same kind of objections we offered against J. W. Krewson for similar claims–JJH): (1) The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan or any other month, much less the arbitrary method of the Jewish calendar.” Feb. 1933 P.T., p. 30, col, 1 – Please see for verification of this quotation from Brother Johnson. We now wonder if J. W. Krewson read our quotation from Brother Johnson: “The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan,” etc. in our July paper, p. 2, par. 4? Does he contend that Brother Johnson also made a “rash statement”? And this statement by Brother Johnson is to be found in the identical P.T. from which J. W. Krewson quotes!

And when he quotes in the same paragraph from P.T. 1933, p. 27, col. 1,2, respecting the testimony of the 2520 and 1845-year parallels, it seems here again he's read something which he doesn't even yet understand (much the same as his con­fusion on “Truth needing no defense” and on Brother Johnson's appointment of Epiphany Pilgrims, etc.). Up to 1933 Brother Johnson himself was under the incor­rect belief that the new month began the evening after the moon news; and it was not until 1933 that Brother Johnson realized it begins at six p.m. the evening before it news. To elucidate: If the moon came new at 10:06 p.m. April 4 (as it did in 1962), the custom had been to begin Nisan 1 at six p.m. April 5; and it was not until 1933 that Brother Johnson came to see the truth – that Nisan 1 should begin at six p.m. April 4, if the moon newed during that day. Therefore, Brother Johnson's calculation had only to do with the first day of the month – ­any month, whether that be Nisan or any other month – and it is to that extent ­and to that extent only – that the parallels influence the Passover date, or any other Biblical dates. It still does not inform us how to determine which moon should be the Nisan moon.

When J. W. Krewson says the statement by Brother Johnson “never before the Vernal Equinox” is a quotation from Josephus, this is just another of his brazen' falsehoods, as well as an idiotic one – because it would be a simple matter for the brethren to verify the fact that Josephus did not say it by referring to Josephus' Antiquities, Book III, Chap. 10, sec. 5, to which Brother Johnson re­ferred (the statement made by Brother Johnson being his own conclusion, based upon Josephus' statement regarding the month Nisan being synonymous with Aries in Jesus' day). Therefore, we have simply quoted Brother Johnson in this matter-­not in any effort to justify self, but to offer a clear presentation of the Truth on the subject.

Therefore, when J. W. Krewson says our source of information “must be Satan and the fallen angels,” he is in effect directing that very same attack upon Bro. Johnson. We ask J. W. Krewson the simple question: Did he go to sources outside the Bible to determine the Nisan moon this year, or did he learn that from some­where in the Bible itself? (And we wonder whether this “Pastor and Teacher” knows that the real Pastors and Teachers used “authenticated secular history” for chrono­logy not recorded in the Bible – “reliable dates of the Christian era, and several centuries before it” ?) Will he answer this question, or will he just offer another five pages of “words to no profit,” adding falsehood to falsehood – just as his “cousin” (R. G. Jolly) does when faced with the Truth in refutation of his errors? In fact, were it not for Josephus, and other non-Biblical recordings, we would have no way whatever of knowing that Nisan should not substantially cor­respond with our own January, which begins our year. Thus, J. W. Krewson's remarks here are simply some more of his nonsense – the kind of nonsense that usually DOES COME from “Satan and the fallen angels” (probably the same source the “cousins” received their Pyramid calculations to prove their errors). Brother Johnson accepted Josephus' statement in Antiquities, Book III, to which he referred, but did not quote. even as we ourselves accept it as New Testament procedure.

On his last par. of p. 116 J. W. Krewson attempts to belittle our quotation offered by Brother Johnson (re Josephus' statement), that the Jewish rule in Jesus' day required the Passover to be kept within a month after, but never before­ the Vernal Equinox. Here again J. W. Krewson apparently just reads without under­standing; because Brother Johnson refers to the same Josephus (although he does not quote him verbatim) to prove that in Jesus' day the “sun must be in Aries” when the Passover is kept. See Parousia Vol.Six, p. 734 – Brother Johnson's note.

And, if the foregoing is not enough, we now call upon J. W. Krewson to pro­duce one instance during the entire Parousia-Epiphany period when either Star Member ever observed the Memorial before the Vernal Equinox.

Right at the outset in 1955 (when he first presented himself as “Pastor and Teacher” to the brethren in general) we became aware of J. W. Krewson's limited education, as was so clearly revealed in his writings, grammar, etc. Although R. G. Jolly openly made mention of this defect, we ourselves kept silent; realizing that most of the Apostles were “ignorant and unlearned men,” and that scholastic attainment is not an essential to correct Biblical interpretation (although we all know that the Apostle Paul was 'chief' of the Apostles, and had more secular knowledge, which he faithfully used in the Lord's service – hence had many priv­ileges not bestowed on others just as faithful, but without his education); therefore, it would require more than grammatical ineptitude to condemn his pre­sentations. (However, as to the Apostles, we know from the records that they were men of solid judgment and intellectual ability – they had the rarest of gifts, innate intelligence, to which was added the “spirit of understanding” inherent in the ''Wisdom from Above,” and which is self-evidently so sadly lacking in J. W. Krewson). But it is now clearly evident that he is not even able to read plain English lit­erature, and understand what he has read after he reads it. Clearly enough, he often hears a bell ringing somewhere, but he is unable to locate the bell. He had our August paper No. 85 in plenty of time to read our quotation from E:7-366 from Brother Johnson – the Passover must be kept in the Spring. (His No. 45 did not reach us until August 18)... That book was published in 1938 – five years after the quotations now offered by J. W. Krewson. Why was he completely silent on this latest expression by the Epiphany Messenger. Again we ask, WHY?

It seems apropos to refer here to J. W. Krewson's statement at the top of p. 115: ''The celebration of the Memorial being a Little Flock developing Truth (P. vol. 6, pp. 457-484), the Lord used Brother Russell to establish the proper rule for determining the annual date (emphasis ours) for its celebration. But Brother Johnson says in Feb. 1933 Present Truth that such proper rule was not even given to him until the year 1933, from which we quote:

But, beloved, God is no stinful Giver (Jas. 1:5). When He gives He gives liberally; and in this gift of Truth He has given us more Truth than is above indicated. He has finally given us the correct way of finding out the Memorial date. Our Pastor had great difficulty in this matter, and, so far as we can make out from his varied methods, he sometimes used the full-moon day, sometimes the Jewish calendar, sometimes the method we have hitherto advocated (1800 E.L.), sometimes the U.S. Eastern Standard Time, and sometimes, disregarding all four of these, he used we know not just what method. In 1905, perplexed by these various methods, he even advocated giving up Nisan 14 altogether and taking instead the nominal church date – the eve of Good Friday. And during the Epiphany various groups of the Lord's people have used all five of these ways and have quoted him in approval, By showing us the real beginning of the lunar month as He regards it, God indicates that none of us has been on the right track; and He also thus points out to us additional Truth.” (Feb. 1, 1933 P.T., p. 24, col. 2, par. 3)

And we quote further on this subject from Brother Johnson: “This experience is another evidence that the Lord's mouthpiece priests are not infallible; but when the Truth is due the Lord, graciously pardoning past errors, lovingly uses them to announce it. How could He continue to use them as such mouthpieces, if they did not gladly humble themselves, acknowledge their shortcomings and be glad to anounce the advancing light? (This is the attitude of the real Pastors and teachers! – JJH.... We thank God that as a part of the mother of the daughter we have been cleansed from another item of error and are being sanctified by another item of advancing Truth (the error from which Brother Johnson was cleansed was the previous incorrect method of deriving Nisan 1–JJH). May the same bless­ing be the privilege of all God's Israel as they serve the Truth.” (p. 25 of same P.T., top of page) These quotations were taken from an article under the heading of “A Correction,” pp. 23-25.

J. W,Krewson says he is not offering his present attack to benefit his readers (they don't need it!); he's just doing it “in the interest of our supporters.” It is our fervent hope that at least some of his readers understand this subject better than he does! His brazen and ignorant exposition causes us to wonder if he has accepted the slogan of a certain criminal element in America: “Follow bold­ness with more boldness.” This technique he repeatedly follows – just as he is also now doing with R. G. Jolly in connection with 1 Cor. 6:6; so we are left to wonder if J. W. Krewson is now really, honestly trying to enlighten our readers, or whether he is attempting a cheap and bungling ruse to bamboozle his own supporters.

How timely in this instance are the words of the Wise Man in Prov. 19:23; 22:28 and 19:27: “The fear of the Lord tendeth to life: and he that hath it shall abide satisfied; he shall not be visited with evil.” Therefore, all of us should earnestly ponder, “Remove not the ancient landmarks, which thy (spiritual) fathers have set (those teachings explained when due for us especially by the last two Principal Men). Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from, the words of knowledge.” And “With all thy getting, get understanding.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgram

----------------------------------------------

Letter of General Interest

[Received too late to go in our original Sept. 1 article]

Dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: Greetings in the Master's Name!

I have, dear Brother, received the three bound volumes you sent to us, with much thanks and appreciation. They are to us what we read in Mal. 3:10. When I read Article No. 1 re correspondence with certain brethren in high places, I was shocked! I will not comment further on that at this time.

Now, re Brother Jolly's Tropics Trip, he stated in the Present Truth of May­ June 1962, p. 46, col. 2, under the heading “Editor's Tropics Trip,” par, 1, 3rd line: “We spoke on various subjects connected with self-examination, 1 Cor. 11:28-34, in purging out of the leaven of false doctrine of malice and wickedness.” Yes, he did 'Preach' those things to us, but at the same time his heart was full of malice and wickedness, and well needed the purging out of the leaven of false doctrine – ­such as Epiphany Consecrated Campers, teachings contrary to Brother Johnson and Brother Russell. According to St. Paul in Rom. 2:21-22 – Thou therefore, which teachest another, teachest not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (v. 22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? And, after citing other Scriptures, R. G. Jolly said, “Preparatory to the Memorial, this is much needed, especially because one of your elders, whose name we need not men­tion here, for we would spare him.” The idea he, Brother Jolly, would spare Brother Roach! Just another one of his techniques, for he has good reasons for not mention­ing names. You see, Brother Roach is too well known by the brethren in the West Indies. He knows if he mentioned his name some of these brethren would write to Brother Roach, asking questions. R. G. Jolly doesn't want to be exposed! He said it was Brother Roach who made the division of the Ecclesia in Trinidad. That is not so! It was actually R. G. Jolly himself that brought about the separation, after having developed a certain amount of hatred for Brother Roach, for he said Brother Roach sent Christian love to Brother and Sister Hoefle (Other representa­tives of R. G. Jolly have sent 'Brother and Sister Hoefle' Christian love also–JJH), his enemies – and that he had joined hands with the sifters. Because of that he dis­missed Brother Roach from being the representative of the L.H.M.M.! Knowing that was not sufficient for the friends to dis-esteem Brother Roach as their faithful elder, R. G. Jolly planned to write a letter to the Ecclesia to impress the brethren with the thought that Brother Roach was no longer fit to be an elder of the Class, since he had joined with the sifters, who, he said, was teaching errors. The letter was written in such a manner that it would undermine their confidence in him (Bro. Roach), if the truth were not made known to them. After the letter was read to the Class, I, being the Chairman at that meeting, got up and said: “I deplore the read­ing of such a letter to the Class, especially as we are now preparing for the Pass­over Memorial service.” I said further: “Such a letter would cause a separation of the Class” – (for while the Brother was reading the letter, tears were in the eyes of some of the brethren, as they saw at once the underlying evil motive behind the letter). He, R. G. Jolly, was glad to use the same opportunity to come down here to deeper impress into the minds of the friends the 'unfitness' of Brother Roach to serve them as their Elder – and he did succeed in some measure.

His hatred further manifested itself when on his return trip he had to stop at the Airport in Trinidad, where a brother who has a similar hatred for Brother Roach, traveled about twelve miles to meet Brother Jolly to seek advice from him – how to put a case before the Class to remove Brother Roach from the eldership, because, he said, Brother Roach had violated a principle by keeping a separate Memorial ser­vice; and so he (R.G.Jolly) was able to give him the advice he wanted. As Bro. Roach was down on the program to conduct a Berean Study, he (R.G.Jolly) advised the Brother to get the elders to hold an emergency meeting so as to prevent Bro. Roach from conducting such a study – until such time that he would ask forgiveness for keeping a separate Memorial service. (And this is the same R. G. Jolly who accuses faithful Brother Roach of 'clericalism!JJH)

At the meeting the supporters (of R. G. Jolly) behaved so inhuman that I thought it best two days later to go to Brother Robertson, the secretary, and tell him that due to the behavior of some of the brethren, I would have no further meetings held at my home under the name of the L.H.M.M., and that was the end of it. (Others in Trinidad followed this course, too–JJH)

Sister Martin and I send warm Christian love to yourself, Sister Hoefle and to Sister Wells and Sister Dunnagan and the other dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, Brother George Martin – TRINIDAD

NO. 85: THE EPIPHANY SOLOMON

No. 85

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

 (Reprint of No. 11, with pertinent additions)

At the outset it is strongly urged upon all to prove what is offered herein by close checking with the Scripture references and the teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. Blind sectarianism in its leaders and ledlings always pleads just the reverse. “Disfellowship and avoid those who expose their errors,” has always been their cry, But, “sectarianism is a great sin,” says Brother Johnson, “for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth, but from devotion to partisanship.” And, again “Such support is bound to make one unclean; for the works of sectarianism are wrath, strife, envy, preju­dice, partiality, enmity, persecution and misrepresentation of the faithful, approval of certain evils and disapproval of certain good things of the Truth and its arrange­ments” (E:4-299).

 Secondly, it should be noted that The Epiphany Solomon and The Epiphany Messenger are distinctly two different pictures, which intertwine in some respects, but which have a distinctive cleavage and divergence in other respects. Thus, it becomes nec­essary to describe clearly The Epiphany Messenger in order to have a clear understand­ing of The Epiphany Solomon.

The Epiphany Messenger is a clear and complete parallel of The Parousia Messenger – a fact which is not true of The Epiphany Solomon and The Parousia David. In May of 1876 Brother Russell, “as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle” (Vol. E-9, p. 47), at which time he became The Parousia David, The Parousia Messenger (Vol. E-14, p. 11). ‘‘For 71/2 years from May 1, 1876 to October 31, 1883 he was in friendly cooperative association of the leading brethren,” the Hebron (friendship) condition (E:14-95). In October 1883 he began the Jerusalem phase of his reign, which continued for 33 years to October l9l6 (E:14-140).

 But, just as the Lord allowed Brother Russell to make certain mistakes for the future trial of His people, so the Lord also allowed Brother Johnson to do the same. However, in both cases they left sufficient in their writings (unknown to them at the time of writing) for the faithful truth-seekers to correct some of those mistakes. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, he logically and properly concluded his parallel of The Parousia Messenger would cover substantially 401/2 years from October 1916 to October 1956. However, since Brother Russell was in the Hebron condition ‘‘with leading brethren for 71/2 years,” why should not the same be true of Brother Johnson if he was to “parallel” him? And that is just what we find to be the case! There is abundant evidence that he was anointed as The Epiphany Messenger in May 1910. Note in this connection E:9-300:

 “Immediately thereafter J arrived at the well and dipped from it, on the basis of 1 Cor. 10:1-14, the Truth on the five harvest siftings in themselves and in their relation to the five harvest calls.... As at his well experience the Lord gave our Pastor the final function of the office of That Servant, so He seems in connection with this well experience to have set this brother apart for the office of the Epiphany Messenger; for much of the Epiphany Truth is based on what he got at the well.”

 The above is further confirmed in Vol. E:10-131 (top): “The Lord rewarded his steadfastness and victory in this battle with the demons with a sudden, unpremeditated insight into the types of the five siftings of the Harvest, as St. Paul points them out in 1 Cor. 10:5-11. This understanding flashed through J’s mind with no study at all, by a sudden illumination.”

 And from May 1910 to October 1950 is exactly 40½ years. Were we in possession of the facts, we would probably find the parallel fits exactly to the day. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was so firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, it is not in the least to his disparagement that he did not see this parallel during his lifetime. The understanding of it was not due; and “nobody can see Truths before due” (E:4-324). This is in harmony with Brother Russell’s statement that prophecy cannot be fully and clearly understood until is has been fulfilled, or is in the course of fulfillment. Generalities, Yes; but details, No! We are still in the Age of Faith; and what Faith would be necessary if God’s people could see a detailed schedule of their activities fifteen years before they occur? When at any time over the Ages did the Faith Class have a chart fifteen years in advance of the grievous trials which came upon them?

 If the foregoing is a proper understanding of this matter, then it should be immediately apparent that any attempt to “make” parallels of That Servant after Oct. 1950 could come only from an admixture of nonsense and Azazelian jugglery. Further­more, if the parallel was completed in October 1950, then much that has been said for the year 1956 needs thorough re-examination. It should be noted that parallels are always dangerous and uncertain foundation unless they can be corroborated by the Bible, or the Great Stone Witness. Fully believing the parallel would prevail until October 1956 (although there exists in it a six-months’ shortage no one has ever satisfactorily explained – from October 1916 to October 1956 is 40 years, and not 40 1/2 years)

 Brother Johnson wrote in E:10-114 (top): “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956.”

The veriest babe in the Truth should be able to see that this schedule has not been met, and that a sober reappraisal should be made of the general situation; yet our Executive Trustee plunges blindly on with his “Lord’s work” just as though all were harmony and precision. Surely, “strong delusion” does indeed accomplish a “strange work” in the doubleminded!

 But, whereas there could be an overlapping of the parallels of The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, such could not be true of The Parousia David and The Epiphany Solomon, because Solomon could not begin his reign until David was dead. Therefore, the Epiphany Solomon could not begin his reign until Nov. 1, 1916 – after the death of the Parousia David –; and 40½ years from Nov. 1, 1916 will bring us to Passover 1957, of which much more will be said later.

 There are a number of outstanding, distinctive and exclusive events in Solomon’s reign, the first of which is God’s appearance to “Solomon in a dream by night” (I Kgs. 3:5-12) in Gibeon, in which dream Solomon asked of God “an understanding heart to judge thy people.’’ ‘‘And the speech pleased the Lord.... I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee. And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart.... and Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.” (1 Kgs. 4:29-31) When we were working with Brother John­son in 1947 during his illness, we quoted this Scripture, then asked him: You say Bro. Russell had a higher and much more important office in God’s House than you do; why, then, should this Scripture say you have more wisdom than any before you, which would include Brother Russell? His answer: “I have what he had, plus what I have; and that makes more than he had.” All of us know that the writings of the Good Epiphany Solomon are without equal in many respects; and every thought of it should cause us to breathe a silent prayer that “God bless his memory.”

 The “three thousand proverbs,” etc. (1 Kgs. 4:32) were certainly distinctive of Solomon; and even worldly people recognize the wisdom contained in them, although their writing was probably spread over his good years. Aside from them, the second outstand­ing accomplishment of Solomon was his building the House of the Lord – typical of the Epiphany Solomon “Arranging God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work.” In the overall sense, “God’s House of many mansions” includes every obedient intelligent creature in the Universe. In the earthly sense, for the Ages of Faith, it would be restricted to those human beings that have come into covenant relationship with ­Him. This House has had three subdivisions: (1) The House of Servants, those Jews over whom Moses was leader (Heb. 3:5); (2) The House of Sons – the faithful Christians over whom Christ is leader (Reb. 3:6); (3) The House of Friends, those faithful ones who lived before and after the call into Christ, such as Abraham, etc., ‘‘who was called the friend of God” (Isa. 41:8; Jas. 2:23). Thus, the scripture, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the House of the Lord” (Psa. 122:1) is expressive of such who received the invitation to enter God’s House – who made their covenant with Him (came into His House) with zeal and gladness of heart. And surely the Epiphany Solomon classified the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in their respective groups as none other had ever done; in this phase of his wisdom it was truly prophesied, “there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee.”

“Solomon began to build the House of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah... in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (2 Ch. 3:1-2; 1 Kgs. 6:1) ‘‘And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished” (1 Kgs. 6:38)

Thus, its building required 7 1/2 years; and it was completed 10 years and 8 months after Solomon ascended the Throne of the Lord in Israel.

 ‘‘But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years” (1 Kgs. 7:1) – he built the two houses in twenty years (1 Ecs. 9:10). Therefore, of Solomon’s reign: Ten (10) Years, eight (8) months to build God’s House; Thirteen (13) years to build His own House – Twenty-three (23) years, eight (8) months, both houses completed after his reign began. The building of the Epiphany Solomon’s House symbolizes “establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epiphany Executive.” How did he accomplish this? By expounding those types which had foretold of him. And where did he do this? Specifically in Vol, E-10, The Epiphany Messenger. And when was this done? Vol. E:10-107 col. 2, bottom says, “In 1938 J. commences to write E.J. 1939-41 ...finishes E.J.” If we add 23 years and 8 months to Nov. 1, 1916, it brings us to the latter half of 1940, by which time he had substantially completed “his own house.” Thus, in 23 years and 8 months, from Nov. 1, 1916, The Epiphany Solomon had built the Lord’s House – ­“arranged God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work”–; and had built his own house – “established himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epi­phany Executive.” All of this is clearly set forth in Vol. E-10, which was published and released to the brethren in 1941.

 The Lord Appears unto Solomon the Second Time – ‘‘And it came to pass when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house.... that the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon” (1 Kgs. 9:1-2). When Brother Johnson had completed Vol. E-10, it seems he had con­cluded that his Epiphany writings were sufficient, as evidence the following from Vol. E-10, p. 651:

‘‘For the Little Flock J. will send along ten of Brother Russell’s publications, which J. has had reprinted for this purpose, i.e, the six Studies, Tabernacle Shadows, Manna, Hymnal and Life-Death-Hereafter, all laden with Epiphany notes; and the ten volumes of Epiphany Studies, of which this book is the tenth, all laden with powers the Epiphany Truth and its arrangements – for the Little Flock to help it come into harmony with Epiphany matters.”

But he later concluded he himself would write eleven more volumes for the enlightenment and strengthening of God’s people at this time, While it is probable that some of his first ten volumes contain the most profound of his writings, yet the last eleven of them also contain much of “meat and drink” for God’s people. He gave to this writer quite some detail of his struggles before the Lord in prayer to understand and correlate per­tinent parts of those volumes – “I am but a little child”( 1 Kgs. 3:7); and the Lord had answered his prayers for wisdom and understanding in the pertinent subjects.

SOLOMON BECOMES EVIL

But, just as God had placed a warning in the New Testament (Luke 12:45,46) to That Servant to continue in humility and uprightness before Him, so He gave Solomon a warning against forsaking the way of David his father: “If thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked..... I will establish the throne of thy kingdom forever..... But if ye shall at all turn from following me..... this house which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight,” etc. (1Kgs. 9:4-9). The Good Epiphany Solomon heeded this warning! Sadly enough, the typical Solomon did not heed it – just as the Evil Epiphany Solomon has not heeded it. “He had seven hundred wives, and three hundred comcubines: and his wives turned away his heart..... and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father..... And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord.... and the Lord was angry with Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:3-9). As Bro. Russell and Brother Johnson both properly taught, the large Good Solomon was typical of the reigning Millennial Christ. Brother Johnson also taught that the Large Evil Solomon was antityped by by Papacy (Vol. E:10, Appendage XXXIV):

“In the large picture Solomon in his good acts types the Millennial Christ in the good acts of their reign, and (2) in his evil acts he types the Papacy before the Refor­mation; for the division of the Kingdom from Solomon’s son is blamed upon his wicked deeds, and certainly papacy’s pre-Reformation evils caused the division in the Church, as the 2520 years’ parallels show,”

 Brother Johnson’s interpretation, based upon the 2520 years’ parallel is mathemati­cally sound. The period of Israel’s kings was 513 years, of which Saul, David and Solo­mon covered 120 years, leaving a remainder of 393 years; thus Solomon’s death was 999 years before the birth of Christ (606 plus 393 equal 999). And 999 subtracted from 2520 brings us to 1521 A.D. And, just as Israel’s kings came to an ignominious end 393 years after the death of Solomon when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in the fall of 607 B.C., so the ignominious end of Spiritual Israel’s kings had its beginning 393 years after 1521 – viz., in 1914.

 In April 1521 Luther came to debate at the Diet of Worms; but instead of being given an honest hearing, he was outlawed by the Emperor. This made the final cleavage between Protestant and Catholic, the separation for which there was no healing; and Christendom was divided into two antagonistic parts from that time on, just as was Israel after the death of Solomon. In the type, Rehoboam, foolish young man that he was, accepted unwise counsel, telling the Jews, “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1 Kgs. 12:14). The ordinary whip for public punish­ment contained a number of leather thongs; but the scorpion used for scourging was said to have been made a more vicious instrument by adding metal beads or sharp metallic points to the leather strips. The statement by the foolish Rehoboam was well adapted to the contentions of the two camps in divided Christendom at Luther’s time, because the Catho­lic teaching of future punishment for the wicked was indeed much more moderate than the rabid Protestant claims. The Catholic teaching did attempt to take some of the sting from condemned sinners by teaching a purgatory, where they had some chance of being eventu­ally “purged” sufficiently to escape their horrible fate; but the Protestants held out no such palliative – it was either Heaven or Hell –, and was well depicted by the inscrip­tion which the celebrated Milton placed over his entrance to the final abode of the damned: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” Thus, whereas the Papal fathers “chastised them with whips,” the Protestant leaders “chastised them with scorpions.”

 As Brother Johnson has so ably explained, there was also a rift in Protestanism itself between the Lutheran and Zwingli camps, which had its beginning in 1521; so that feature will not be elaborated here.

It should be noted that at the time preceding the Reformation, Catholi­cism had just about sunk to the bottom of the dirty barrel through the widespread sale of Indulgences by the loathsome John Tetzel. Yet at that very same time they were issuing their “great swelling words” – they were occupying the “Chair of St. Peter,” all the while their teach­ings were choked with error in so many places. Even their stewardship doctrine, “There is but one true Church,” was sullied and distorted by their application of it. And such similar wrongs we should expect to find in the Evil Epiphany Solomon – although on a much smaller scale, of course. These evils we expect to itemize and elaborate in due course; but for the present we shall consider just an outstanding few,

 In our March 27, 1956 writing we have already identified R. G. Jolly’s modern improved sale of Indulgences. In addition, his claim to be sitting in the “Chair of St. Peter” is to be found on a small scale by his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1 of the November 1955 Present Truth:

“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we (R.G.Jolly) now so control it.”

Brother Johnson organized and controlled the LHMM absolutely; he could not be deposed as its Executive, because only the Lord and he himself had established him in his position. But R. G. Jolly was voted into the office of Executive Trustee by the brethren in Convention assembled; and he could be deposed in like manner – a thing that was not possible with Brother Johnson. Therefore, his claim of “controlling fully the LHMM,” as Brother Johnson had controlled it, is simply brazen usurpation and power grasping; and it is here apropos to quote a section from E:4-277 (bottom) and p. 278:

 “In every case of Great Company leaders they have been guilty of power-grasping and lording. When we pass them one after another in review we will see this to be the case. From first to last they want more than the Lord gives them; hence under Satanic temptation they grasp for power and lord it over God’s heritage, which makes them fall under God’s disfavor.”

 Another item: The Papacy used all pressure to suppress the Bible in Luther’s time because it did not want its blind sectarian followers to know what it contained, So, also, the Evil Epiphany Solomon (R. G. Jolly) has suppressed the unpublished writ­ings of the Good Epiphany Solomon. There is certain evidence to prove he has even in­structed his “Yes-men” to juggle and falsify concerning some of those unpublished truths which the Good Epiphany Solomon gave to them verbally.

 Another instance of R. G. Jolly’s “great swelling words” is to be found in his attitude toward any who oppose him. Openly he admits he is not a member of Christ’s Body; also says he is not successor to the Epiphany Messenger. But from the other side of his mouth he claims for himself the prerogatives of the saintly and faithful Star Member. In his efforts to “make” parallels into which he fits himself, while he yells “second death” at his opponents, he seems to be completely blinded to the fact that a great change would take place once “Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5) is no longer on earth. Whether his opponents are still of that “Jesus,” as they claim, matters not at all for this discussion, because he himself openly confesses himself NOT to be of Him. Therefore, gainsaying a Levite (though he might even be a cleansed Levite) is a totally different situation than it was for those uncleansed Levites and Second-deathers who opposed the saintly Parousia David and the Good Epiphany Solomon. Thus, the charges he has hurled at some of his opponents can be nothing more than other “great swelling words.” More about this will appear in later writings, but it should here be recorded that his claim that none should critically appraise his “Lord’s work” is quite in tune with the edicts of the large Evil Solomon: “When I ope my lips, let no dog bark.” It is also in identical cast with That Evil Servant’s statement in the March 15, 1918 Watch Tower, as follows:

“With deep regret we here mention that the practice of some is to go about the classes and at first, by soft and smooth speech, assure the dear sheep that they have deeply the interest of the Lord’s work at heart; and then suddenly they bring a tirade against the work as the Lord is conducting it through the channel that he has used for the past forty years, Some of the dear sheep become very much disturbed, and some are shaken out. This is another evidence of the great shaking now in progress (in the same identical vein R. G. Jolly issued the proclamation that there was a “slight shaking” – See Jan. 1955 P.T., p. 10, col. 2). It would seem that any one who is loyal to the Lord and his cause and the brethren would not seek to disrupt his work; at least, if they could not see eye to eye with the manner in which it is being conducted, the proper spirit would prompt such to remain quiet or quietly to withdraw (such ‘timely’ advice by JFR and RGJ has always been given against the faithful – had Jesus followed that course He probably would not have been crucified!). Any other spirit would not seem to be the spirit of the Master.”

 The foregoing quotation from That Evil Servant has such a familiar ring to it that were one to close his eyes and hear it read he would have difficulty in dis­tinguishing it from some of the remarks in this last May 1956 Present Truth, as evidence the following from page 50, col. 2 (bottom):

 “JJH is so bent on faulting us for what he calls a ‘colossal’ failure..... Usually those who complain the most do little or nothing else than complain. Instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel, or at least not hindering progress, some even try to discourage others.”

Just as the Papacy (the large Evil Solomon) and JFR (The little Pope) plead just to be left alone so they could run riot with their sins, their errors, their usurpations and power-graspings, so the Evil Epiphany Solomon pleads with the same tune and words – “If you don’t want to help me in my evils, then at least don’t ‘find fault’ with what, I’m doing; just let me proceed placidly in the footsteps of my soulmates of the past,’’ This is the course he is still pursuing, as evidence his treatment of certain Trinidad brethren in 1962.

 In keeping with the above, mention should be made of his self-sufficient course after he took office as Executive Trustee. Never once did he call a general meeting of the Pilgrims to discuss the situation. Had he possessed even a small amount of the Good Epiphany Solomon’s “spirit of a sound mind,” he would have realized that “In multitude of counsel there is safety.” Had he followed this sage advice, he could at least have reposed in the assurance that his mistakes were not fully his own, but were the result of combined and considered deliberation. Of course, the path he has taken would yield to him all the glory of success, just as it also places at his feet the full ignominy for his failures. Just as Rehoboam wanted none of the counsel of the Elders of Israel, but chose the rash advice of young and inexperienced men, so the Evil Solomon chose rather the opinions of novices, a few of whom he flattered with the title of his ‘‘Advisers’’ – in reality his obedient and subservient “Yes-Men.”

 In diametrical contrast to such a foolish course, note the attitude of That Wise and Faithful Servant, when he was faced with a similar situation: “Instead of hasten­ing to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained (on the sin-offerings typed in Lev. 16) was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true. Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church.” E:9-297, bottom.

 Had the Evil Epiphany Solomon taken just a small page from the book of wisdom of That Wise Servant in his announcement that the last Saint was gone, as well as on other subjects, and had spent days with leading brethren in their discussion, there would certainly not now be the deplorable condition we find in the LHMM. Even though he were fully right in the decisions he made as he did make them, no amount of discussion would have changed the Truth about those decisions – just as eight days of discussion by That Wise Servant with leading brethren did not detract one whit from the Truth as he finally preached it; in fact, it is quite probable that those eight days of humble and sincere discussion enlarged his understanding and reassured his conviction that the Lord had revealed to him a staggering and far-reaching truth. But R. G. Jolly’s weak­ness is so pronounced in this comparison that he not only did not assemble the leading brethren for conference, but he actually advised Pilgrim Wm. Eschrich, who up to Oct. 22, 1950 was unalterably confirmed in his belief of his own saintship, that he was not even needed at the funeral in connection with RGJ’s far-reaching decisions that were made in a few days’ time at Philadelphia – although R. G. Jolly himself admitted in his two-hour talk to the brethren assembled the evening following the burial that he had been so distraught and bewildered at Brother Johnson’s death that he did not know which way to turn (even though his announcement that the last Saint was gone was so emphatic, loud and detailed that he gave every outward appearance of “the stout heart”¾Isa. 10:12)

 But the specific charge against Solomon was that “he loved many strange (foreign) women” – a thing that was specifically forbidden to the Jews; but one which they seemed ever ready to violate. Scarcely had they left Egypt, until this weakness beset them (Num. 25). And when Solomon, the head and supposedly the example of all Israel went astray in this fashion, it is little wonder that “the Lord was angry with Solomon,” because his wives had “turned away his heart” from serving the Lord. As all Truth people know, women in the Scriptures so often type nominal churches. A classic text on this subject is Isa. 4:1, for which please see the Berean Comments. The Good Epiphany Solomon had barely departed this earth until the Evil Epiphany Solomon made quick to seek the company of the very ones so severely criticized in Isa. 4:1. A superficial observer might have concluded – from his loud and detailed “blessings” he was receiv­ing at the renegade conclaves and his fraternizing with individual pseudo “Pastors and Teachers” – that he had come upon some new and unusual situation. Odd, indeed, is it not, that The Good Epiphany Solomon never woke up to his opportunities in that direc­tion? On Jan. 18, 1954 we wrote R. G. Jolly as follows about that matter:

 ‘‘Also, during that Sales Talk (at the Chicago Convention in October, 1953) you gave some considerable oration on the great blessings you had been receiving by col­laborating with some preachers in your neighborhood – the people who have built their houses of ‘wood, hay and stubble,’ the same who will be destroyed along with their buildings in the approaching world trouble (See E:4, Epiphany Elect, page 54). And you are receiving great blessing by consorting with such!”

 His answer to the above was as follows: “I am sorry to see you of late taking such an antagonistic attitude, not only, and especially, against the teachings of Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson on Baptism, etc., but now also against it seems almost anything or everything I do.”

 He pursues this item further on page 20, col. 1 of the March 1956 Present Truth: “JJH found fault with our tract publishing; our witnessing to the Truth at non-Epiphany Truth Conventions camp meetings, churches in Babylon, etc. (though Bro. Russell and Bro, Johnson served similarly),” (It would be most interesting to have R. G. Jolly’s comment today – Aug. 1, 1962 – respecting his $5 Correspondence Course, his attendance at conglomerate Conventions, etc., which he was extolling in 1953-56–JJH)

Just a few months before he died (June 1950 P. T., page 92, Question 2), Brother Johnson had this to say about the matter:

“Question: – Should the Epiphany brethren cooperate in the movement that is seeking to reunite the divided Truth people?

‘‘Answer: – Such a platform is not suitable to the Epiphany, especially so far on in the Epiphany as we now are.... Such unionism does not benefit the Faithful; rather it exposes them to needless danger and other disadvantages; and the Measurably Faithful are thereby increasingly endangered through greater exposure to the pestilence that walketh in darkness.... Its indifferentism, which compromises the Truth and more or less fellowships with error (2 Cor, 6:14) is the same as that of the combinationism sifting of the Reaping Time (1891-94), Indeed, this unionistic movement is in the Little Gospel Age the counterpart of the combinationism sifting of the large Gospel Age. This one fact should be evidence enough to Epiphany-enlightened saints of the Satanic origin of this unionistic movement.... Hence, it is a delusion for Epiphany friends to take part in such movements in the hope of helping various ones to the Epiphany Truth, just as it would have been a delusion for the reaping saints to have cooperated with Babylon’s combinationism in the hope of winning the combinationists to the Truth. Like Luther’s clean rooster whose owner put it in among some lousy hens in the hope that its cleanness would encourage the hens to become clean, only to find that it became lousy also, these will not cleanse the combinationists, but will themselves become contam­inated.”

 It would seem the above statement by Brother Johnson is clear enough for a child to understand, so it will be most interesting to know R. G. Jolly’s authority for his statement on page 20 of this March P.T, – “Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson served similarly.” Also, while he is so absorbed in “making” parallels, perhaps he would be well advised to consider the part he himself is performing in the little combinationism sifting described by Brother Johnson above. Here it is also in order to cite again. E. Vol 10, p. 401: “JFR sowed the evils of ... combinationism and many other evil qualities, and did this as an alleged service to God.”

 In E. Vol. 14, p. 5 (middle) Brother Johnson says, “Saul types the crown-lost leaders from early in the third century until Armageddon.” And, in discussing how “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul,” he makes this observation in E. Vol. 9, p. 524:

 ‘‘As the Spirit of the Lord ever led Brother Russell forward in every good word and work, so an evil spirit came upon antitypical Saul, ever plunging him into deeper errors, blunders and misdeeds.... Nor are we to understand that God directly wrought such a disposition in either Saul. Rather, as indicated in a general way in the case of reprobates, in 2 Thes. 2:9-11, the Lord withdrew his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations, and thus let the latter have free access to both Sauls.” (In the case of R. G. Jolly, ‘free access’ was not given to Satan’s machinations until the removal of Star Member Brother Johnson, who hindered Satan somewhat in his ‘machinations’ toward R. G. Jolly by continuing to give him “brotherly fellowship” and help until his death, as distinct from Priestly fellowship, which had been withdrawn from him.)

 Note Brother Johnson’s statement above, “the Lord withdraw his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations.” And what was this hindrance in the case of the leaders of the LHMM? Why, it was just what we have been contending now since early in 1954 – it was the withdrawal of the last Star Member on October 22, 1950! Thus, we could expect The Evil Epiphany Solomon to go from error to error, from blunder to blunder, and from misdeed to misdeed – exactly as we have seen him do. Having pointed out so many of his errors, blunders and misdeeds, and not wishing to have this article overly lengthy we shall not here attempt to point out his errors in the March 1954 P.T., p. 24, on “Truths Hidden in The Years of Noah’s Age,” which he brazenly labels ‘‘Advancing Truth,’’ as he has also done with others of his errors; we shall leave that for a future writing; although it is especially appropriate here.

Nor shall we analyze the enemies that “the Lord stirred up unto Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:14-40). Suffice to say they were “an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” Gratefully can we reflect that the “days of Solomon” will come to an end in about a year, in the spring of 1957. In the meantime, the Lord may reveal further truths in connection with this matter; but we offer what has been given thus far in the hope it may bless all God’s faithful people, and accrue to His honor and glory.

FURTHER CONFIRMATIONS (Written June 15, 1962)

 We are now more than five years past the date that the reign of the Epiphany Solomon ended; and we are now in position to point out certain similarities between the large Evil Solomon (the Papacy) after 1521, and those of the small Evil Epiphany Solomon after 1957. Just as the Papacy did not pass out of existence after 1521, so we should not expect R. G. Jolly, as an individual, or as apart of antitypical Saul, or as an uncleansed Levite leader in Little Babylon, etc., to pass out of existence after the spring of 1957 –.although both of them ceased in their Solomon antitypes after. 1521 and 1957, respectively. Now we ‘‘wait upon the Lord” to reveal clearly – before making positive proclamation – whether R. G. Jolly is in fact fulfilling much more serious and conclusive pictures that will determine his eternal status in the Great Eternal Purpose. We do not adopt this course through vacillation; instead, it is not our wish to be found among those who say in their hearts, ‘‘my Lord delayeth.” (1 Sam. 13:8-13

In the Foreword of E-13 Brother Johnson said he hoped to add a chapter treating of the Epiphany Solomon. This the Lord prevented by removing him in death – and wisely so, because he most certainly could not have seen what we now present; therefore, such attempt by him would almost certainly have been intermingled with mistakes – just as is true of some of his observations re 1954-56.

 However, the stentorian protest of the Fully Faithful Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and others did force a certain outward reformation of the evil Papacy. Their protestations became so determined, accentuated and expansive that the Papacy was forced to ban further sale of Indulgences in the year 1562 at the Great Reform Council of Trent.

 But it should here be stressed that their reform was in no way that “godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10); it was merely the “sorrow of the world which worketh death.” That they were still the same at heart –although offering some outward reformation to secure “the praise of men” – is clearly attested by their terrible persecution of the Huguenots in France in 1685, when “persecution raged with the utmost violence, thousands of churches were torn down, vast numbers of confessors were tortured, or sent to the galleys,” causing many to flee to the wilds of the Cevennes and “at last exterminated by an army at least ten times their strength.” Already on August 27, 1572 (just ten years after the Council’s condemnation of indulgences) had the persecu­tion of these staunch Protestants been accentuated by the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in France, at which time the gutters actually ran with blood of the slaughtered ‘heretics! – “in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents”-­Jer. 2:34.

 And so also with the Evil Epiphany Solomon (deceased as such since 1957), he has been forced by stress of circumstances and the continued exposures of his evils to evidence some measure of reformation, though manifesting no real reforma­tion of heart. Among the reforms he (R.G.Jolly) has been forced to recognize may be listed:

1. He has reversed the use of his own selected texts for testimony meetings at Conventions – without Star-member comments – and has returned to those contained in the Manna book, with Star-Member Comments.

2. He is no longer refer­ring to the tracts for Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle as “timeworn and threadbare,” while praising his own flimsy Flying Saucer tract. The clear revelations of the time itself have had much to do with this, of course.

3.  He no longer uses prepared lists of names for his Convention testimony meetings to be sure no one other than his staunch supporters should be heard.

4. There is no longer anything at all heard about the Queen of Sheba Class, a topic that was widely, and profusely discussed in the Spring of 1954. Often was the expression heard among his trusting adherents – “Isn’t it wonderful that we will now proceed to fill the Epiphany Camp with the Queen of Sheba Class?” Be it noted that in some of those very Ecclesias which were loudly voicing such sentiments there are now fewer attendants than there were in 1954. Furthermore, with the passing of the Solomon pic­ture in 1957, it would be straining matters in the extreme to discuss further such a Class coming to the Epiphany Solomon, since that Solomon is long dead. Not even the writings of the good Epiphany Solomon, who died in 1950 are receiving any special recognition by such a Class. It should be clear enough by now that there can be only one other application of that type, and that is the large Millennial application pro­vided for us by That Servant; whereas, time itself has clearly proven that the views of R. G. Jolly re the queen of Sheba class were simply some more of his “foolish effusions.” (See E:10-591)

 There is one other feature of this Solomon picture yet to be explained; and we hope to present it to our readers “in due time”; but for now we humbly and thankfully acknowledge the Grace of our Beloved Lord for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit which still works according to His promise “to guide you into all Truth.’’ ‘‘Beloved, I pray above all things that thou mayest prosper (spiritually) and be in health.” (3 John 2)

--------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – If the sun now reaches the Vernal Equinox in Pisces, instead of it Aries, as it did in Jesus’ day, would that change your conclusion about the correct date for the Memorial in 1962?

ANSWER: – No, not at all! In E:7-366 Brother Johnson states, ‘‘The Jews’ festivals were fixed to the seasons of the year, e.g., the Passover in the Spring.” Therefore, it is clear enough that it is the season, and not the Zodiac, that determines when the Passover should be kept. Therefore, when Josephus wrote in Jesus’ day that they kept the Passover ‘‘when the sun is in Aries,” it was tantamount to saying the Passover must be kept after the Vernal Equinox – in the Spring. This year the “Cousins” kept the Memorial of the festival in the Winter; and that is why the Jews did not use the March moon, as did Jolly-Krewson, because they knew the festival is a Spring festival, and not a Winter festival. By accepting this simple explanation, it will be readily apparent that not only the Passover itself (Nisan 14) would occur in the Spring, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread would also be observed in the Spring – even though the latter might at times extend into Jyar (or Zif) – the second month of the Jewish calendar. That is why Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both stressed that our Memorial must never be kept before the Vernal Equinox. This rule we accept; and that rule forced us then to use the April moon this year which came new on April 4, bringing the proper time for Nisan 14 after 6 p.m. April 17, at which time we kept the Memorial.

It is appropriate observation here that the Scriptures describe the Jews as a “stubborn and a stiffnecked people”; but this sometimes adverse quality has kept them in the Truth on the Passover festival as a Spring Festival – one which they would under no circumstances observe in the Winter. However, it is not for God’s fully faithful people to be “stubborn and stiffnecked,” as it was that very quality which led to King Saul’s rejection by the Lord (I Sam. 15:23): “Stubbornness is iniquity (disharmony with justice) and idolatry (inordinate conceit).” We wish to repeat what was stated in our July paper, that innocent and uninformed use of the wrong Memorial date is not a grave offense. We ourselves had already written up the wrong date for 1962, but proceeded immediately to investigate thoroughly once it was directed to our attention; and we are grateful to the Lord, and to the brother, that we were directed to the clear and correct understanding of the subject. But, if we are correctly informed, the mistake was brought King Saul “stubbornness,” and his subsequent reviling of us as he “stubbornly” clings to his error, that we fault in this matter. He “rejected the word of the Lord” (I Sam. 15:23); therefore, “the Lord hath also rejected thee,” and will continue to reject him until he cleanses himself of his stubbornness and other evil qualities (such as railing against the Fully Faithful in the case of Brother Roach of Trinidad, et al) that he may “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness,” Therefore, this defeat over the correct Memorial date is just one more defeat and humiliation for antitypical Saul, of whom R. G. Jolly is a part. (See our paper No. 76 A, Nov. 1, 1961.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

 We, the friends of the Trinidad Ecclesia, do extend our sincere thanks to you for your recent visit to us. We can assure you, dear brethren, that we were very much helped by your encouragement, and our only regret was that your stay could not have been longer. Your visit was indeed very timely, when we consider the test we were going through. Your exhortations, and refutations of the errors now prevalent, were most inspiring.

 Keep up the good work, and may the Heavenly Father continue to use you as He sees fit. Most of us have received your articles and find them very enlightening. I trust you will continue sending them. Our special love to all the friends over there.

            Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- Secretary-Treas. TRINIDAD

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings to you and yours!

 My pen nor tongue can express my overflowing joy when I received and read your article of June 1st. It certainly expresses God’s love toward His faithful people – also the characteristics of His Fully Faithful.

 I trust that the attitude of our dear Brother Roach toward R.G.Jolly for the defense of the Truth will bring blessings not only to the dear ones in Trinidad, but to others elsewhere. Certainly God will prove us whether we love the Lord with all the soul, mind and strength. We here are still fighting. As for me, I am determined to wage a relentless warfare to the end of my course, with the Lord’s help.

My prayers for you and the dear ones with you are “Be thou faithful unto death...”

Yours by His Grace, Brother ------- JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings in our Redeemer’s Name!

 Your June 1 paper has been received. I can hardly express the joy and blessing I have received when I read it – to see how God’s word is revealing Satan’s errors and his agencies who are trying to entrap God’s people. We know that those who receive the Truth ‘in the love of it,’ God will not suffer the evil one to take them from Him. Psa. 91:1. I had in mind that Brother Roach would come to see the condi­tion. When he was leaving here I had a glimpse of him, and seeing he was an elderly man I said, “What a pity; no doubt he was from Parousia days.” I had a talk with Sister Condell. She said she had written to him.

 A few days before I received your paper I was looking over my books and found Feb. 1, 1949 Present Truth where Brother Johnson treats on seven salvations. Now R. G. Jolly has really separated and brought the sons into the Gospel Age. We pity his condition. If he were obedient to the words of God given through the Star Members he would not have been in Satan’s trap. He will reap what he has sown. When he brought out his Epiphany Campers Consecrated class I could not see where he got it. But as a Brother said (who is now dead) while we were conversing, that it is the sons of Joel 2:28 that he is bringing over into this Gospel Age as his “consecrated campers “

 R.G. Jolly said in one Convention that he would not be like Rutherford, but I’m sorry to say he has been like him in every step of the way. In one of Rutherford’s Conventions it wore down my spirit to see him sell in the Convention his “Millions Now Living” booklet Bro. Russell never advocated such money-making. We have to thank the Lord for you, dear Brother... With much Christian love for you and the dear ones with you.                

Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- JAMAICA

NO. 84: MORE ON THE 1962 MEMORIAL DATE

No. 84

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

In the May‑June 1962 papers of J. W. Krewson and R. G. Jolly (both 'feeding' the sheep (?) every two months, while 'feeding' the world – at least in R. G. Jolly's case with his Bible Standard – more often, contrary to the Scriptural teachings on such matters, and contrary to the procedure of Brothers Russell and Johnson) there is quite a detailed attack upon us for offering April 17 after 6 P.M. as the proper time to observe the Memorial of our Lord's death. By joining hands once more in this in­stance (as well as in many other Instances – such as their publications, etc., etc, contrary to the Arrangements) to embrace the same error (just as they have done on Campers Consecrated, etc.). they once again provide potent proof that they are indeed "Cousins” (See our Nov. 1, 1961 paper No. 76‑A).

At the outset, let us make clear that we do not count it a grave offense if the wrong date is used by honest mistake; that is, if it be done inadvertently and in good conscience, and not carelessly so. Furthermore, we believe this subject is much too complicated for the brethren in general to work out for themselves; it is mostly the responsibility of the leaders – although we have the strong assurance of faith that all the Fully Faithful will recognize whence comes the Truth about it once it is made clear to them. All of us know that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both made honest mistakes in their calculations of the date; and probably the only chastening that came to them from the Lord was their humiliation before the Household in being forced to admit their fallibility. But, when pompous and irresponsible leaders offer profuse and insulting diatribe against us for the Truth we presented, their responsi­bility is thereby greatly increased; and their subsequent humiliation will also be emphasized accordingly. Thus, we hope to present our analysis now in sufficient de­tail to make the item clear to all the Fully Faithful. And be it emphasized that we should use the right date if we know the right date, because  – "He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

First, on p. 83, par. 4 of J. W. Krewson's paper he states, "The rule laid down in the Scriptures, in the Parousia and Epiphany writings is that.... moon NEAREST the Vernal Equinox news at Jerusalem, it is the one ALWAYS to be taken,” etc. This statement is simply a rank falsehood in all its parts. Let him show such a rule from the Scriptures if he has one! And if he had one, why didn't he cite the Scrip­ture? The only thing we have definitely in Exodus is that the Passover should be slain on Nisan 14; but nowhere does the Bible give even a hint about how we should arrive at Nisan 1. Nor does the feast of unleavened bread enter into the calculation, as he contends. That feast was the seven days following the Passover itself. Thus, it was the Passover that determined the date for the feast; the feast had nothing whatever to do with setting the date for the Passover.

If the foregoing be true, then we must go to sources outside the Scriptures to set the date for Nisan 1. Seemingly, the Jews left Egypt after the Vernal Equinox -­the Equinox being the exact instant when the sun is directly over the Equator, which occurs at about March 21 and September 21 each year. That is why Josephus stresses the point the way he does In connection with Aries; and that is why Brother Johnson quoted him, too. If Brother Johnson's logic is any good at all for one end of the month Nisan, it seems to us very elemental that it should apply with equal force to the other end of Nisan. And the Jews, deeply impressed as they were by their miracu­lous delivery from bondage, would be very scrupulous to hold the Memorial also in keeping with this reasoning at the correct season.

            In the year 1962 the Jews' calendar contains a Ve‑Adar (or second Adar) begin­ning March 5 and ending April 4. Had they used the March moon this year, as the Jolly‑Krewson twosome have done, they would have observed their Passover Memorial in the last month of the year, Ve‑Adar, instead of in the first month Nisan, as the Scriptures insist they must do. But we rejoice for them that this much of the "Oracles of God” has not been lost by them over the centuries past. We fully agree that their calendar is unreliable; but from this it does not follow that the fact of the Pass­over in Egypt, and the season of its occurrence, are also confusion to them.

The whole Christian world accepts the moon as a factor each year in determining the date of our Lord's passion. In the English Prayer Book it is stated that Easter can never occur later than April 23; and it has been that late on only a very few occasions in the past nineteen hundred years. This year it was on April 22, just one day short of the extreme. But it was the moon which determined April 22, because the Christian world in general dates Good Friday as the first Friday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox; and it would not be possible for a moon to come to its full later than about April 20 if the previous one came full even one minute before the Vernal Equinox. Had the Christian world used the March moon this year, then Easter would have occurred on March 25. In fact, this question was raised, and various views presented, early in March over WJR Detroit, Michigan, one of America's most powerful radio stations. In due course we sent in one and one‑half typewritten pages on the subject, which was read over that Station on March 12, and apparently 'refuted all the gainsayers,' as there was no further comment. Our analogy is too lengthy to reproduce herein, but any of our readers who wish a copy are welcome to it upon request.

Perhaps Brother Russell and Brother Johnson understood this much better than we have stated it; but we have not resorted to this detail to becloud the real point. If the last two Principal Men were not in full accord with what we presented, we would have hesitated long to make the decision we did this year 1962 respecting the correct date. Here's what Brother Russell says about it in Reprints 3968 (1907 Watch Tower, p. 98):

"When the new moon comes a little before the Spring Equinox, it starts the Jewish ecclesiastical year; – ­provided the full moon be not before the Equinox.”

Clearly enough, Brother Russell makes unequivocal exception to his rule about the "nearest" moon; and this year 1962 is one of those exceptions. When the Jolly‑Krewson twosome started their new moon on March 5 to begin Nisan 1, they then had the moon come full before the Equinox, which is wrong according to Brother Russell.

And Brother Johnson followed Brother Russell by stating the same exception on p. 30, Feb. 1933 P.T., under the caption, "Jewish Calendar Unbiblical.” Here is what he says:

"The Jewish calendar in use during the time of the New Testament... required Nisan 14 to come within a month after, but never before the vernal Equinox.”

Also, same P.T., col. 2, Brother Johnson says: "The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan or any other month, much less the arbitrary method of the Jewish calendar.” Thus, Brother Johnson diametrically dis­putes J.W. Krewson – although he does tell us, as did Brother Russell, that usually it is the new moon "nearest” the Spring Equinox that governs.

Could the foregoing citations be any clearer than they are? In following them, the date of April 17 which we used this year was right; and the date of March 18 used by the "Cousins” was wrong. Note especially that R. G. Jolly quotes from the 1907 Watch Tower and from the 1933 Present Truth; but he ignores the exceptions in both instances. Was this wilful on his part? Or is it because he is now in Azazel's hands, at which time Brother Johnson says such persons are so befuddled of mind they can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject? And, be it noted, he is crass enough to revile us several different times as a "teacher of sophistry” – even while he himself, as is his usual custom, is the one in error here, and not we. For shame that he should sink so low! "Sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3) In the past, after we have fully refuted his many errors, he has withdrawn behind a wall of silence, thereafter resort­ing to his reviling name‑calling, which is all there is then left for him. Will he resort to the same tactics in this present instance? And will his trusting followers uphold him in his evils, thus becoming a partaker of his sins? We abide our time!

MORE ABOUT R, G, JOLLY

Throughout both May‑June papers of the "Cousins” there is a kindred jabbering jumble, which would be unbelievable were we not actually witness to it. To analyze those in the Krewson paper would require a full effort in itself, which we leave for a future occasion, now confining ourselves largely to R. G. Jolly.

On p. 44, col. 1 he discusses "Justification and the Linen Curtain"; and about every citation he offers to "prove" his point very clearly disproves his claims. He presents E:10‑114 as his first – quoting only part of it, of course, as is often his custom, even as he shouts "shyster lawyer” at us. On p. 114 Brother Johnson clearly states:

"After 1954 .... no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.... Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent for the tentatively justified and sin­ners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of Rev. 22:11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

R. G, Jolly says his Epiphany Campers 'consecrated' can arise higher than the other quasi‑elect; that the "sinners’ can obtain tentative justification in his Epiphany Camp, and consecrate, and gain a standing higher than 'sinners.' But Brother Johnson distinctly teaches that no such thing can exist when Rev. 22:11 is fulfilled. Brother Johnson teaches that when Rev. 22:10‑11 applies the class standings of all individuals are already fixed. But R. G. Jolly, the 'cleansed' (?) Good Levite leader disputes Brother Johnson's teachings now, just as he attempted to withstand and dispute him during his lifetime. We wonder if R, G, Jolly still believes that Brother Johnson is the Epiphany Messenger? "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:13,19). R. G. Jolly and others are now receiving such plagues.

Is there any reason at all to assume that only a portion of Rev. 22:11 would be applicable at 1954‑56, as R. G. Jolly now attempts to have it? Even he contends his supporters should continue his "Attestatorial Service” to win Great Company members and Consecrated Campers to the Truth – in spite of Brother Johnson's inter­pretation and emphatic statement that such efforts would be useless once the time arrives for Rev. 22:11 to apply. Clearly enough, fulfilled facts themselves demon­strate that 1954‑56 has no relation whatever to Rev. 22:11 – any more than 1956 has any relation whatever to those 27 counterfeit pyramid calculations presented by the "Cousins” in the Jan. 1947 P.T, Their penchant for mathematical "witchcraft" (especially deceptive false teachings) is something to contemplate! Indeed, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" "The covering is narrower than that a man can wrap himself in it" (Isa. 23:20 – See Berean Comment), Once more we ask – Does R. G. Jolly believe all this reference (as quoted from E:10‑114)? Or, is he just selecting what suits him? He does the same thing with p. 672 of Vol. 10, where he omits the follow­ing from Brother Johnson's statement:

"Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.”

Our use of this statement in our refutations of R. G. Jolly's errors also causes him to yell "shyster lawyer" at us. Thus, when he refers to us as a "teacher of sophistry, this errorist," etc., he is offering the same kind of "Truth" that he does for his Memorial date; it is just some more of his thinking in reverse. We offer to him and his readers the Proverb (13:5), "A Righteous man hateth lying." Here is a sure and complete contradiction to his claim that he is "cleansed." If he were in that "cleansed" condition of which he now so blatantly contends, he, too, would "hate lying."

In this same setting he uses Brother Russell's writings in like manner when he refers to p. 402 of the Question Book. We now offer something from the Question Book, p. 312, year 1912, as follows: "Question: Can one who has entered the Holy as a Priest, during the Gospel Age, ever drop back into the Great Company, or Court Condition? Answer: This is a misunderstanding – the Great Company are not in the Court. The only ones in the Court now are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion – the Great Company are not in the Court (in the Parousia – JJH). The only ones in the Court now (in the Parousia) are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion.”

Brother Russell did not see the full and clear Truth on the Youthful Worthies, although he did see such a Class (Brother Johnson didn't see such a class as Epiphany Campers Consecrated at all! But R. G. Jolly sees it!). It was an Epiphany 'doctrine' (the Youthful Worthy Class) given to us with ample Scriptural proof by the Epiphany Messenger, the last Star Member (only Star Members are given new doctrines); and we challenge any new doctrine given to us by the 'cleansed' or 'uncleansed' Great Company leaders, because God does not give them new doctrines ('cups' – See E:8‑193). We believe all the doctrines were given to us before the last two Principal Men were removed from us; and that the only points left on these faithful and true doctrines are the clarifications of some of the items, as the Lord directs us. Insofar as R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers are concerned, he doesn't even claim for them the RESURRECTION OF THE JUST (although he clings tenaciously to the thought that they are 'tentatively justified' here in the end of this Age – and that in his Epiphany Camp). He admits that they will receive their Resurrection with the UNJUST, yet he contends they will have a peculiar and special position above the others who failed to consecrate during the Gospel Age! Who could be more ridiculous than R. G. Jolly (except J.F. Rutherford with his "Millions Now Living” and J. W. Krewson with his 'cleansed nucleus')?

Brother Russell continues on p. 312: "At the close of this Age there will NO LONGER be a tentative justifica­tion." How very wise was this "Wise and Faithful Servant"! And Brother Johnson adhered to this teaching. Of course, when the 'finished picture' is with us, there will no longer be a tentative justification offered. Why? Because the Gospel Age purposes will be fulfilled, and the Millen­nial Age purposes will be in the immediate future, when consecration for all Resti­tutionists (the formerly tentatively justified of the Gospel Age who failed to seal their tentative justification in consecration, together with those who were never in the Court during the Gospel Age, or during the Epiphany, the last Special Period of the Gospel Age) – of which R. G. Jolly's Campers Consecrated will be a part, unless he has befuddled them so much by their 'supposed' consecration for his (R. G. Jolly's) purposes – or some purpose besides Gospel‑Age or Millennial‑Age purposes, that they won't even have the standing of the quasi‑elect (the same applying to the Society's "great company" and to J. W, Krewson's quasi‑elect consecrated). So it is only such people as R. G. Jolly, J. W, Krewson and the Society who would offer such unscriptural rewards for such people! Neither Star Member gave the least intimation they ever saw such a Class for any kind of purpose. We are still living in the Last Special Period of the Gospel Age, the Epiphany, in which persons, principles and things are being made manifest most clearly before our eyes. if we have "continued in what we have learned and been assured of” (from the last two Principal Men), then we are indeed in a blessed condition! We will be protected from all such Levitical nonsense, whatever their loud and boastful contentions are regarding their 'cleansed' condition.

As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, "Azazel means Perverter"; and the perversions of R. G. Jolly which we herein examine are adamant proof of his definition! Here it is appropriate to quote from p. 18 of "Tabernacle Shadows”:

"The Camp was the nation of Israel at large, which was separated from all holy things by the curtain of white linen, representing to those within, a wall of faith, but to those without ("at a respectful distance" – p. 14, par. 2) a wall of unbelief which hindered their view of an access to the holy things within."

Neither the Parousia nor the Epiphany Messenger ever changed the interpretation given above, or even hinted that it should be changed; nor did either of them ever hint of a consecrated class in the Parousia or Epiphany Tabernacle Camp! Also, the Tabernacle itself had an outer covering of seal skins (mistranslated 'badger' skins) – ­an unsightly picture to those without, concealing completely from such the glorious things within the structure. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit, for they are foolishness unto him" (unattractive and malodorous pelts). And no amount of Levitical "sleight‑of‑hand" can erase this picture! Let us keep in mind that the linen curtain hid from view in large measure the altar of sacrifice and the laver; those in the Camp could not see that equipment – they could not see through the curtain! But now, Behold the miracle of an uncleansed levite! He has improved the vision of his Campers in such pronounced fashion that they can see right through that figurative curtain! That's the only way, of course, that they could view the altar and the laver, because in the Camp R. G. Jolly has his Campers in a vacant house – no furni­ture or fixtures of any kind in it. How ridiculous ('foolish') can he be! And granted that his Campers Consecrated could perchance see through the curtain, they still would be in no position to use the altar or the laver, as they are not in the Court – and there is no such furniture in the Camp!

Notice another quotation from E:17‑330: "The quasi‑elect in the Millennium ..... those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to consecrate, yet remained faithful to the Ransom and Righteousness." Let us keep in mind that Vol. 17 was published in 1956 by R. G. Jolly himself as a part of his "Attestatorial Service." This does indeed attest much for him! Did he believe it then? And does he still believe it?

As we have so often stated, A place in the Tabernacle types represents a condition in the antitype. R. G. Jolly resolutely ignores this truth – and for good cause. Can he explain what condition his present Camp represents? During all the Gospel Age up to the Epiphany, the Tabernacle Court (the place) represented the condition of the tentatively justified – ALL in the Court condition were tentatively justified. In the Epiphany Tabernacle the Court still represented the condition of the justified – the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the unconsecrated tentatively justified. ALL in the Court condition – and only those therein – were justified, the only difference being the degree, or progress, of the justified. Now that he has moved Tentative Justification into the Camp, does his Camp now also represent the condition of the justified, right along with the Court? And are all in his Camp now justified, as has been consistently true of the Court all during the Gospel Age and the Epiphany? Or does his Camp condition contain some of one kind and some of another – just as he attempts with his interpretation of Rev. 22:11? We opine that even Azazel (Azazel means Perverter) will deem it expedient to ignore this question.

GOOD LEVITES – CLEANSED LEVITES

On p 36 of this May‑June P.T., there is further "profusion of words" by R. G. Jolly, in which he accuses us of not being clear respecting the Truth on Cleansed Levites – some of which is so confused that we wonder if he himself understood what he was trying to prove. Anyway, when he says in col. 1, last par. (and you will note that we especially point out exactly where the brethren can find his statements – while he, who admits he is the "cleansed” Levite of this Epiphany – just fails to point out definitely any statement we make for fear his deluded followers might try to see the article to which he refers and thereby be persuaded by the Truths presented therein!), that the "Good Levites.... are properly spoken of as being cleansed by late in 1950," he offers the same "proof" for this statement that he does for his Campers Consecrated, etc. (only his word, which has been proven to be worthless – and the same 'proof' he has offered for his false accusations of dear Brother Roach in his report of the 'elder' – actually Brother Johnson's duly‑appointed representa­tive, and R. G. Jolly's until just recently – and the Trinidad happenings when he was there. Brother Roach never accepted or taught the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Conse­crated, although R, G. Jolly was not kept in darkness thereof, but has been R. G. Jolly's representative since 1950, and through 1954, when R. G. Jolly first began to teach this 'strange fire') – which 'Proof' is exclusively R. G. Jolly's own word for it – and nothing more!

We quote the clear rule given us by Brother Johnson in E:15‑524, bottom and P. 525, by which rule, and only by this rule, is the cleansing of ALL GREAT COMPANY MEMBERS ACCOM­PLISHED: – "These experiences.... contribute toward that end in all the Great Company, and almost entirely accomplish it in those who lost Little Flockship by the skin of their teeth (the Good Levites – JJH).... As in none of the Great Company (Good or Bad – JJH) do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient.... 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. (When did this happen? Why, it could only have occurred when Brother Johnson was removed by the Lord! At no other time did R. G. Jolly receive complete disfellowshipment and separation in an official manner by the World's High Priest! – JJH).... It also implies that God temporarily abandons them, and lets Satan (Azazel) buffet them.”

The above is exactly the same experience as given AZAZEL'S GOAT in Lev. 16, when the Fit Man turns him loose into the wilderness. Let R. G. Jolly show where he and other Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement (who came with Brother Johnson at the outset as he did and remained with him until his death) ever received such discipline by the Church or by him (where they were completely disfellowshiped) and cast out ("that they may learn not to blaspheme” – 1 Tim. 1:20). In fact, he publicly admitted at Jacksonville, Florida, and also at Winter Park, Florida, in March 1955, that he himself had never received such treatment necessary for his final cleansing in his own Epiphany experience. That admission came at a time before we began pointing out the Truth to him on the abandonment process," which evidently was withheld from his understanding (even though it was there for those who had 'under­standing') until the purpose of it was no longer needed. It is self‑evident now that R. G. Jolly was one sadly unenlightened about its real meaning – otherwise he wouldn't have answered as he did on these two occasions (and this is a tribute to Brother Johnson's clear teaching that the Great Company could not understand the steps to be taken in connection with their abandonment and cleansing, until such time as the necessity of the secrecy was no longer needed).

Note in E:4‑129: "Now (during Brother Johnson's life – JJH) the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and, abandoning him to Azazel, is withheld from the Great Company." Apparently, R.G.Jolly does not even yet (in 1962) understand this teaching – and we caution our readers not to be misled by his perversions of it, because it is a faithful Epiphany teaching given by the faithful Epiphany Messenger for our admonition.

This subject is further clarified in E:6‑364, par. 2 (as well as in E:4‑203,210, etc.): "How do we lead Azazel's Goat (the Great Company, for their cleansing – JJH) to the gate? (1) By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? (2) By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? (3) By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor." Will R. G. Jolly still contend that he had the necessary steps taken for his cleansing in the face of these plain Epiphany teachings – where Brother Johnson clearly sets out that ALL THE GREAT COMPANY HAD TO BE COMPLETELY DISFELLOWSHIPED AND ALL BROTHERLY FAVOR WITHDRAWN BY THE WORLD'S HIGH PRIEST BEFORE ANY OF THEM COULD BE CLEANSED (either Good or Bad Levites)?

Did R. G. Jolly ever have all favor withdrawn from him by Brother Johnson at any time prior to his removal by the Lord Himself? The answer is No! Does R. G. Jolly revolutionize against this faithful Epiphany teaching? The answer is Yes!  Has he persisted in such revolutionism?  The answer is again Yes!

In 1938, when R. G. Jolly grossly revolutionized against the Epiphany Arrange­ments, and attempted to "gain control” of Brother Johnson (See E:10‑586, top, and p. 646, top), it was then that Brother Johnson withdrew "priestly fellowship" from him (classified as No. 2 above); but at no time did he deliver him to Azazel for his complete abandonment necessary for his cleansing, by withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from him – by completely disfellow­shiping him ("that he might learn not to blaspheme" – 1 Tim. 1:20). R. G. Jolly admits as much in col. 2, par. 1, when he says Brother Johnson "used him as formerly in his magazine and book publishing work." This simply means he was allowed to perform the duties of an ordinary clerk. At Brother Johnson's recommendation, the Philadelphia Church did receive him as a "guest speaker," as he claims – without, however, allowing him to officiate longer as an elder of that Church, and not allowing him to close with prayer even those meetings at which he was a "guest speaker." This truth about his revolutionism in 1938, as we have set it forth (and as Brother Johnson has recorded it for our protection), does not appear merely so "matter‑of‑fact" and inconsequential as his own recitation of it in this May‑June Present Truth would lead the uninformed reader to believe.

He also tries to write up a "similarity" between the Little Flock in 1914 and the 'cleansed' (?) Great Company in 1954 (actually 1950, he says!); but there is no similarity – no more than there is between the 'children of disobedience' (the Great Company) and the 'children of obedience' (the Saints, the "us‑ye‑we and salt" class)! In 1914‑16 the Little Flock had a Fully Faithful Star Member (Brother Russell) and his companion helper (Brother Johnson) to supervise and guide them in that Attestatorial Service; and it was a complete success! It brought all the Little Flock into Present Truth. Let us compare that with the 1954‑56 "Attestatorial Service!" We need ask R. G. Jolly only two questions: (1) What did he expect to accomplish when he launched his Attestatorial Service in 1954? (2) What did he actually accomplish by 1956? Will he answer these questions? We doubt that even he is so befuddled by Azazel that he will attempt to answer these two questions! Instead of bringing all the Great Company into Present Truth by November 1956, be probably had even less of that class than he started with in 1954; and all his attempts in other directions were even more pronounced failures, if possible. Consider now Brother Johnson's teaching: "After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruit­ful ministry." By the same process of reasoning – If they do not have a fruitful ministry, then they are not cleansed!

On p. 37, col. 2, par. 2, R. G. Jolly stresses that "Good Levites.... do not revolutionize against Epiphany truths" (No, they did not under Brother Johnson! If they had and persisted therein he would have withdrawn all brotherly fellowship and favor from them. So those who remained under his restraining hand Did Not, during Brother Johnson's lifetime, revolutionize against Epiphany teachings!); but he (R. G. Jolly) has repeatedly and persistently revolutionized against the Epi­phany truths on the Abandonment and Cleansing Process, as well as many other Epiphany teachings – and is doing so once more in this paper we are now examining. And, while doing this very thing, he issues his "great swelling word" of self‑righteousness, just as the Pope in Big Babylon, and That Evil Servant in Little Babylon have done. Certainly, he was once classed as a "Good Levite” when he was under the restraining hand of the last Star Member, and he performed commendable service for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren then (just as he was once classed as a Saint, in the Tabernacle Holy, and had a crown "laid up for him'); but since that time he has become one of the "bad" Levite leaders indeed! Why? Because he has sinned against much greater light. With R. G. Jolly, as with others (J.F. Rutherford, et al), it seems no one would recognize how 'clean' and righteous he is (even as was true of the Scribes and Pharisees) if he himself did not proclaim it so loudly. Indeed, "Thou dost protest too much"! (What you are speaks so loudly, we can't hear what you say!) Nor did Jesus Himself recognize such people as 'leansed' leaders in His Day, despite all their protestations for themselves, and their false charges against our Lord for his 'ncleansed' condition – just as the 'leansed' Great Company leaders do today (yelling "shyster lawyer," etc., etc., when they cannot face the Truths charged against them). So they 'cast out the Faithful' who resist their sins of teaching and practice, just as they did our Beloved Lord; and they are 'crucified' by them, even as was Jesus by those 'cleansed' leaders (Scribes and Pharisees) of His Day.

He quotes also from Brother Johnson's words in Present Truth 1935, p. 175, col. 2, top: "The Good Levites, the leaders of whom are good." Right here, why doesn't he explain that he wasn't even considered a Levite when Brother Johnson wrote that – that R. G. Jolly was then masquerading as a Priest at that time; that only Brother Johnson knew then that he was a Levite? Also, why doesn't he quote from a much later statement by Brother Johnson in E:10‑646, published in 1941 (after he was disgracefully manifested before all as a crown‑loser), which describes the con­duct of R. G. Jolly and two of his "kinsmen" (all leaders of the Good Levites) in 1937‑38, in which he says they attempted to "gain control of the Lord's mouthpiece!", Brother Johnson himself – by introducing a resolution in the Philadelphia Church "so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very elect?" One of R. G. Jolly's collaborators in that bold, impudent and power‑grasping escapade in 1938, was E. F. Hochbaum, whom Brother Johnson later characterized as a Bad Levite, and who revolutionized himself right out of the Epiphany Truth in 1948 (at which time Brother Johnson withdrew all brotherly help and favor from him – just as R. G. Jolly has done with the Epiphany Truth since Brother Johnson's death), taking with him a small group of soulmates, of whom he is now the leader in a sifting move­ment. But R. G. Jolly remained until his death – measurably accepting some of the restraint of the Last Star Member – receiving his complete abandonment from the Lord Himself when He removed Brother Johnson from our midst.

Truly, "Wisdom is justified of all her children"! Note also that in 1941 (six years after 1935), pages 585‑591 of Vol. 10, Brother Johnson mentions R. G. Jolly by name, describing him as a "false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser"; and on p. 594 he states this: "God charges that both the three bad Levite groups and the good Levites, the crown‑losers in the Epiphany Movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge" – just as R. G. Jolly has so flagrantly done in this paper we now analyze.

"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”!  Indeed, this Epiphany time does "manifest the counsels of hearts."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------

CONCERNING R.E. ARMSTRONG

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!.......

It would seem, dear Brother... that both Bro. and Sr. Armstrong are due in the USA this next August; also that RGJ is taking them to quite a number of LHMM classes... We have known for quite a time that R.E. Armstrong would like to have settled down in the USA when he was there, but Sr. Armstrong did not favor this...

May the dear Lord's richest blessing abide with you and also with those who by His Grace are with you. With much love in His Name... Bro. & Sr ------- ENGLAND

(NOTE: – R.E. Armstrong is another good "cleansed" Epiphany Levite who reflects upon the "extent of error into which JJH has fallen" – his reference being to the Truth we have presented on the correct Memorial date, as he himself embraces the error about it given by R.G.Jolly. The Epiphany is truly a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts"; and we may be certain every leader in the Epiphany Movement will be "manifested" for exactly what he is – good or bad – before its end – JJH)

-------------------------------------------------------

CONCERNING FRED E. BLAINE

On p. 47 of this May‑June P.T. is a letter from the above 'leader,' in which he complains about a letter we wrote to him "several years ago" (actually Oct. 15, 1955); so we reproduce that letter to him to correct the falsehood he makes – namely, that we described him as we did was because I (Fred E. Blaine) "would not enter into an altercation with him." We publish this letter so that all may be able to judge the matter according to the Truth, and the truthfulness of this "cleansed" leader.

Dear Brother Blaine:

In your discourse before the Detroit Ecclesia last Sunday you attempted to become quite technical on the third chapter of 2nd Timothy – so much so that you even set aside the teachings of Bro. Russell. If you will read p. 415 of Vol. 6 you will note he says that an individual is not to judge his brother – disfellowship him; that this is a decision for the Church. Also, p. 416 of the same Volume we read: "The object is not to cast the brother off utterly; but merely to show disfavor toward his wrong course with a view to assist him to its correction. To treat such an one 'as an heathen man and a publican' would not mean to slander or dishonor him even after he had been cast off........ We are neither to speak ill of, nor to look cross at, publicans and sinners, nor to refuse to do busi­ness with them; but we are to withhold from them the special fellowship and courtesy appropriate to the brethren of the New Creation and possessed of the holy Spirit and its love, joy and peace."

Even if I belonged to the latter class, your conduct at the Detroit Ecclesia would not have complied with the clear teachings of That Wise and Faithful Servant. However, I do not belong to that class (I have not been disfellowshiped – by the Church), yet you came into that meeting hall (where I am a duly‑elected Elder and a Pilgrim appointed by Brother Johnson), and walked within a few feet of me without even saying Good Morning. Indeed, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." (NOTE: R.G.Jolly had not disfellowshiped us at that time, so this 'pilgrim' of R.G.Jolly's appoint­ment even rushes ahead of him with his cruel (individual) pronouncements and dis­fellowshipment – besides ignoring and setting aside the Arrangements and the Scrip­tural teaching of That Wise and Faithful Servant – JJH)

Your attitude in some of the above is just a step or so above the moronic, and makes crystal clear why Bro. Johnson did not see in you the qualifications of an Auxiliary Pilgrim, and why you do not yet possess such qualifications. "When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which is the first principles of the Oracles of God." (Heb. 5:12)

(Dated Oct. 15, 1955) Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle

NOTE: In the face of Fred E. Blaine's misrepresentation of the above, we wonder how much we can depend on the other statements he has made regarding his faith in the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers consecrated. Brother Roach reported that he did not mention the 'strange fire' in Trinidad; and other brethren have reported the same of him when he was in their midst.

NO. 83: OUR PILGRIM TRIP TO TRINIDAD

No. 83

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

Early in April we received the 'Macedonian Call' from our beloved brethren in Trinidad to “Come over and help us” (Acts 16:9); whereupon we, accompanied by Sister Hoefle, proceeded immediately to pursue the privilege at hand. We left Mount Dora April 19, returning April 26, during which time we ministered person­ally for the first time to the Lord's people in the Island of Trinidad – the same being about 2,500 miles from our home and headquarters in Mount Dora.

There we found many sincere, studious brethren, well grounded in Present Truth, but sorely disturbed by the errors that have been presented to them by R, G, Jolly and others. During our stay in Trinidad about 75% of all the brethren there attended one or more of our gatherings; and we heard not one dissenting voice after they had listened to our presentations on various topics now in controversy – including the latest disputation on the correct date for the 1962 Memorial Service. Thus, we believe our efforts will result in much good to those dear brethren individually and collectively, and to all the brethren everywhere. Psa. 133:1

A VOICE FROM TRINIDAD

Our pilgrimage to Trinidad was prompted in large part by various letters that came to us from our beloved Brother L. F. Roach, and a few other faithful brethren. We reproduce several of these letters below; but first we wish to apprise our readers of a brief history of Brother Roach and his experiences in the Harvest work, a brother whom we consider one of the Lord's Fully Faithful followers, and a true yokefellow – ­just as we reported of our beloved departed Brother and Sister Condell of Jamaica.

Brother Roach came into Present Truth under Brother Russell before the “great tribulation” began in 1914. As the errors of That Evil Servant became more numerous and repulsive, he withdrew in a measure of confused isolation – until the Lord brought him into contact with Brother Johnson in 1931. The relationship was immediately cemented and prospered to the extent that the Fully Faithful Star Member (Brother Johnson) promoted Brother Roach in March 1938 to be the representative of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement in the Trinidad area – which office he held until he was dis­missed and rejected as such just 24 years later in March 1962 by crown‑lost leader R. G. Jolly. Markedly appropriate in this instance is the comment of Brother Johnson in E:6‑280, par. 1:

“Our experience in this respect is the experience of God's Priesthood, especially its leaders, and most particularly its Head, from the days of Jesus until now, as we see in the case of Jesus, the Apostles, the angels of the five churches between the Harvests, our Pastor and now ourself. We comfort our heart with the reflection that we are privileged to go the same way as they. Pertinent is the saying of Is. 66:5: “Hear ye the Word of the Lord, ye that tremble (that reverentially stand in awe) at His Word: Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for My name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified (we hate and cast them out for God's glory); but He shall appear to your joy; and they shall be ashamed!'”

The breach between Brother Roach and R. G. Jolly was gradually widened by the errors on Campers Consecrated and other deflections; it was not the result of sudden or ill‑considered emotional conclusion – nor did it involve any ill will or disdain of personality by Brother Roach: It was exclusively a clash between Truth and error. During the altercation R. G. Jolly at one time advised Brother Roach “not to agitate” – ­the inference seemingly being it would be all right to reject his errors re Campers Consecrated, etc., so long as Brother Roach kept his convictions to himself. This causes us to wonder how many more of the L.H.M.M. leaders have been given similar instruction by R. G. Jolly; and we think it apropos to ask our readers if such con­duct is in accordance with the principles expressed by Brother Johnson during his time as head of the L.H.M.M. Could any of us believe that Brother Johnson would have continued in the pilgrim service any who told him they could not in good conscience teach the Youthful Worthy doctrine? Can there be the slightest doubt that Brother Johnson would immediately have counselled such a brother to withdraw from the pilgrim service until such time as he could understand the Youthful Worthy teachings? Why shouldn't R. G. Jolly have the same high standards regarding his representatives if he himself were fully persuaded in his own mind that Epiphany Campers consecrated is a true doctrine?

We remind our readers that Brother Roach was highly commended by Brother Blaine at the last Philadelphia Convention over labor Day, as one approaching 90 years of age, but with a mind still very clear on Epiphany Truth. It is indeed to the com­mendation of Brother Blaine that he himself still possesses enough of the 'Spirit of Understanding' that he could appreciate in some measure at least the capacity of another brother who has retained those things which he has “learned and been assured of, knowing of whom he has learned them” – that Truth received through the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. Brother Roach's letters now follow:

“Dear Brother Jolly: – May our dear Lord's grace abide with you! I received your letter of 12th instant in which you want me to believe that you have not received an answer to yours of October 5, even one subsequent. I can assure you I have no time nor energy to worry now. Did I not tell you more than once that it was partisanship that brought the separation at Crofts Hill Jamaica? Did I not tell you that in Berean studies I could not get Campers Consecrated fitted in E.V. 17, page 37 top? Did I not tell you that I accepted Brother Johnson's teaching that the Epiphany in its narrow sense is from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble? That if any one is now enjoying opportunities of restitution, then you and I should not be here on earth? (E.V.6, page 481). Further did I not bring to your attention that you have departed from principle by trying to get me to believe that suffering for righteousness' sake is not necessary for Youthful Worthyship. (See 1 Pet. 1:11; E.V. 17, page 96, par. 1; Z 5184, col. 1, par. 8) Were it not for that false doctrine of Campers Consecrated you would not be in this strait.

“The only time feature I found myself in jam with was the “Time of the End” when I did not see things work as I had always expected; but, lo and behold I got it over by E. V. 17, page 284, par. 3, where Brother Johnson says that it is from 1799 to establishment of the Kingdom. Is that why you now move away 1956? You should let it remain for a landmark.

“As concerning that letter which appeared in Brother Hoefle's paper, you are against my addressing him as Brother and his wife as Sister. Why? Is it because you forbid them to attend your meetings, and if peradventure they should attend they must do so after the meeting starts and leave before it ends. Does the New Creation teach us that disfellowshipped brethren are our enemies? Are brethren forbidden to correspond with one another? I also noticed what you did to them was without the cooperation of anybody. Then you tell me that I must repudiate that letter! From the tone of your letter I can see rage. Since about 1958 I was reading Brother Hoefle's papers. I told you so, too. We have had very little correspon­dence except one letter when you introduced an extra “narrow way.” Seeing they were inquiring for information which I had, and which I thought would be helpful – and in which my activities in the Lord's service were involved – I gave it, of course. Z 3205, col. 1, top. They are the Lord's as well as we, regardless of what you say or do.

“You said I wrote to Brother Hoefle without having tendered my resignation. Resignation from what? I belong to no party. That is why I came out of Jamaica with a clean slate (1 Cor. 3:3‑5).

“Now I am asking you kindly in the interest of Truth and the brethren here in Trinidad to read Z 5284, Caption – “Doctrine more or less Important.” I would like for you to consider it and do not put any yoke on the dear ones' neck. I am not supporting you in doing so.

“As Executive Trustee I kept nothing from you – but things you considered against your wrong teachings you passed over in silence. Finally you demand an immediate financial report. Thank God I have a letter about a year ago from you thanking me for my liberality in finance to the Movement. My honesty is well known locally.

“As you will be with us in March this year – and to help your ministry to suc­cess this matter will be a secret unless circumstances force an exposure.

“Another fundamental set aside, “Restitution to follow the establish­ment of the Kingdom.” Aug. 15, 1906, p. 3845, col, 1, par, 2; Z4571, col. 2, par. 3. Of course somewhere must now be provided for your Campers! My sympathy goes out to you.  I pray that you see the error of your way and reverse by His Grace!

            Signed: L.F. Roach – dated Jan. 24, 1962 – Trinidad

“P.S. Have no fear for your money. You are going to get every cent (He says in a subsequent letter that he did not mean dishonesty on my part – L.F.Roach 3/27‑62). (2) I accept not anything that contradicts the Star Members' teachings, even by a comma.

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

“Dearly beloved Christian Brethren – Trinidad Ecclesia:

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! A bit of information until I be with you on the first Sunday in next month, D.v. From April last year I had to be out­spoken with Brother Jolly because of false teaching which he produced and which are contrary to those of the Laodicean Stars. At one time he wanted me to com­promise by telling me that if I am not in harmony with the other elders I should not oppose them. My only reply was Acts 5:29. Things calmed down a bit until I got to know that secret ministering on Campers consecrated was active. Acting on John 5:44, I wrote Brother Jolly a very blunt letter, to which he replied (judging from its tone outrageous), telling me that he was suspending me. Why suspend? Why not dismiss? No compromise with the Truth!

“Let me close with these comforting words, dearly beloved: We are living in the Epiphany when God is making manifest persons, principles and things according to Mal. 3:1‑3; and if we were to be left out, that would be proof positive that we are not His children. Let us then set aside sectarianism, partisanship, etc., for it is that among other things that brought the separation at Crofts Hill in Jamaica in 1957. If we are to be kept united, let it be on the basis of James 3:17. I can look with joy and comfort on my having my heart fixed upon Jehovah and Him alone. Psa. 57:7 I came out with commendation from both separate parties in Jamaica.

“By God's grace I hereby promise you that I am prepared to be as faithful to my Trust as I have always been. This is my second experience of this kind in the Truth. The first was when I was with the Society after that Servant died, with Rutherford; and (2) after the Epiphany Messenger died with Brother Jolly. Errors must be repudiated. New doctrines under Jesus are the exclusive privilege of Star Members. E.V.XI, page 495 bottom. Brother Jolly is trying to make you believe that I am giving you teachings from Brother Hoefle, but each of you can testify that I have proven all I ever said by reading the Truth Volume to you.

            Yours by His Grace, L. F. Roach – Dated Feb. 13, 1962‑ TRINIDAD”

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

“Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the Beloved!

I know that you are interested to learn the result of Bro. Jolly's visit to Trinidad. He left yesterday. Acting on the advice of That Servant in Z Reprints 5183, Feb. 15, 1913 – THE ARCH-ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD – ­I attended none of his meetings (save, of course, the one kept in my house on the 13th inst., according to program). He arrived just in time, shook hands, and after the meeting we had about two to three minutes chat. Next day he sent a special messenger to arrange a private talk. I told the messenger to refer him to the above‑mentioned article; and, therefore, I want no conference. Because of objec­tion which the Class had taken because of his visiting us at this time, I sent the accompanying long question, which I learned caused almost every one tears. They felt sorry for him. Also, the attached list of typewritten questions. (NOTE: R.G. Jolly suspended Brother Roach, then began to request conferences. This is illustra­tive of much of his conduct since Bro. Johnson's death – so often thinking in reverse. Surely, Bro. Roach's correspondence with 'Hoefle' was not in itself sufficient cause for suspension. R. G. Jolly should have requested his conference with Bro. Roach before suspending him; and not after. Because of this high‑handed conduct by R.G. Jolly, Bro. Roach was quite within the bounds of propriety and approved Christian conduct to refuse to sit at the feet of R. G. Jolly in any meeting he conducted – whether it be a Memorial service, or any other meeting. This would be particularly true in view of Bro. Roach's decision that he could not in good conscience longer represent R. G. Jolly – and did not wish to offer any appearance of approval of his errors of doctrine and wrong practices – JJH)

“The Class observed that he was in a dilemma. I had already caused some to read the references before, so they were the judges. They are all trying to pre­serve the unity of the Class; but I am telling them it can be only on the basis of James 3:17.

“I am given to understand that in a testimony meeting he told them how he tried to keep me from reading your papers – that you are teaching that the High Calling is still open. At one time I thought your criticisms of Jolly were too severe; but I am satisfied now that you are fully justified in so doing.

“I would like to have you pay us a visit during the Easter Holiday, as Sister -------. will then be on vacation. Of course, you will come on the same condition you first intended, as we are all poor people. Let me hear from you as soon as possible, so that I can announce it.

“I am tired now and must close. With warm Christian love for one and all I received all the papers you recently sent; and, where they were duplicated, I gave to whom I think can benefit from them. I remain, dear Brother, Yours by His Grace.

            Signed: L.F. ROACH – Dated March 20, 1962 – TRINIDAD

NOTE: Now follows the Questions mentioned in par. 3 of the above letter:

“Do you not think you are doing the Class a great disservice by visiting us at this solemn season of the year, and bringing such disturbing and controv­ersial questions as Campers Consecrated and No more Youthful Worthies after 1954, and having them passed as though they were in harmony with Star Members' teachings? And the brethren only saying before your face, Yes, I agree – you well knowing that Brother Johnson on page 209 of E. Vol. 10, says that in the finished picture the Epiphany Camp consists of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles?

“Why treat us like that? Is it because, as I am told, you look at us as being ignorant, or of short memories? I can assure you that next month, whether or not I am down for a discourse, I am going to expose this thing. You are the one to officiate at our Memorial service. Shame! Are Nicolaitanes (Rev. 2:14,15) people who care little for the spiritual welfare of others?

“(5) Brother Johnson admitted fallibility in many things, so why are you now, without one jot of evidence, forcing 1954 upon us? See E Vol. 7, p. 290, par, l.

NOTE: Now follows a paragraph from the Feb. 15, 1913 article by Brother Russell: “St. Paul shows that the most subtle attacks of the adversary are to be expected through human agencies. Satan works in the hearts of the 'children of disobedience' (the Great Company, per Berean Comment; Col. 3:6 – JJH); and the more honorable they are, and the more closely identified with the Lord and His people these 'children of disobedience' may be, the greater service they may render to the Adversary. (The 'double minds' of the Great Company serve partly the Lord, and partly Azazel – ­Azazel means Perverter – and especially so while they are abandoned to Azazel – JJH) For this reason, Satan presents himself as an angel of light, and not as a messenger of darkness; for well he knows that error and sin will repel the children of light.”

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

“Dear Brother Hoefle: The note on the other side of this paper will show how things were. Considering him not a fit man and proper person to conduct the Passover service, knowing conditions according to your paper of December 1961, I celebrated with six others at home. This is the brother who believes there are still Saints here –

                                    Signed: L. F. Roach – March 20, 1962

Here is note referred to above:

“Dear Bro. Roach: – I am sent here chiefly to try to persuade you not to observe the Memorial at St. James apart from the general body, which savors of a division. I personally would advise against it – despite doctrinal differences which Bro. Jolly thinks are major, and not minor, I think differently. on the doctrinal points that count, you are both at one. I give you the above in writing because of your physical handicap. Dated March 16, 1962 – ­Signed: Bro ------- Trinidad”

Now follows a list of Questions by Brother Roach to R. G. Jolly:

“Having accepted your teaching that the Kingdom started in 1954, will you tell us, When did the cataclysm of trouble which is to precede it take place – and the then present order swept away in its entirety? (Z Reprints 5650 – March 1915, col. 1, par. 6)

“(2) Seeing that some such as the Jonadabs, Campers Consecrated and Quasi‑elect Consecrated are enjoying restitution blessings, does that mean that the embargo which was placed upon Jesus' merit when He became our Advocate is now released and applied on behalf of the world for them? (Z Reprints 5666, April 1, 1915)

“(3) Seeing that up to today a lot of stress is being put on the four exhortations of Rev. 22:11, which were to be given by the Epiphany Messenger in 1954, but who died in 1950, Who eventually gave them – and with what results? Also, Why do you ignore Brother Johnson's teaching on page 672, par. 2, E. Vol. 10, where he says that Youthful Worthies can be won up to and after Babylon is destroyed? Furthermore, who are the disobedient ones of Col. 3:6? (See Berean Comments on Col. 3:6 – JJH)

“(4) In E. Vol. 17, p. 37, top, Brother Johnson coupled the sons and daughters of Joel 2:28, and told us that they are to be developed during the Millennium. Why have you now separated them, and bring forward the sons into the Gospel Age? By what authority?

“(5)  Will sacrificing be possible, or required, in the coming Age, as now (Z 3845, col. 1) and, (2) will Restitution precede or follow the establishment of the Kingdom?

“(6)  On p. 614, top, par. 1, Vol. 8, Brother Johnson says that the signal that Restitution salvation is operating will be the return of Ancient and Youthful Worthies. When was that signal given?

“(7)  We are told on p. 581 of E. Vol. 6 that the anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, who will be violently caught up in the clouds, according to 1 Thes. 4:17. who are spiritual Israel there referred to?

Follows now a letter from Brother Roach to R. G, Jolly:

“Dear Bro. Jolly: – Greetings in the Beloved!

Your letter to the Class re my suspension as the Movement's representative has caused quite a commotion, coupled with the fanfare, sheer necessity, given to the acting holder, I was forced to cause a letter from me to be read at the same time, in which I said this is my second experience of this kind in the Truth.

“(l) In 1918, after America had entered the first phase of World War 1, and Rutherford unnecessarily interfered by advising men eligible for enlistment not to enlist, and he and his associates were cast into prison, I here in Trinidad was in a fairly high semi‑military office, I was reported to the Governor as being a Russellite, and therefore was false to the Government. I was then told that I must disassociate from Russellism or be dismissed. I had no other means of liveli­hood; I recalled Daniel's similar position in ancient days. I told the Governor that I cannot disassociate from those people, for I find them the only Christians. I was born and bred in the Anglican Church, of which the Governor was a member. Well, I do not know what went on secretly in the Governor's office, but I know that I was in service five years longer, when I was eligible to retire on a pension, which I now deem a salary in the Lord's service. During those five years, waiting for the Lord's decision, which I felt absolutely certain of, I had to refute Ruther­ford's false teaching, attempting to bring forward the New Covenant to 1918, hence “Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 'Virgins Fair,' 'Sheep and Goats prophecy operation now,' (A similar doctrine to Campers Consecrated – JJH), and a lot more tommyrot.

“(2) I came into contact with Brother Johnson through his writings in 1931.

Right away I saw the unbroken link of Truth, for which I had already undergone a victorious test. I then hunted up all old Bible Students, whom I knew had left the Society, and under Brother Johnson formed this Class in Trinidad, which is now undergoing their first Class testing, similar to what I underwent from 1918‑1925. Bringing forward time features (See one instance, if no more, 1 Cor. 4:8). Brother Johnson says in Vol. 17, p. 37, that the sons and the daughters of Joel 2:28, will be developed during the Millennium. You are now pleased to separate them, and bring forward the sons into the Gospel Age Restitu­tion started in 1954, etc.

“In your letter you place me in Satan's hands. I can assure you that there is the same amount of Truth in that condemnation as there is in the Pharisees ascribing Satanic powers to Jesus – Matt. 12:24‑28.

“I told you before, and I tell you again, it is no use worrying with one another, because we are on the opposite end of a pole. I tell you now positively I do not want to be reinstated as Your representa­tive, for I want no honor from man, but from God only – John 5:44.

“In the early portion of this letter I said that your acting representative is from sheer necessity. After all, somebody must represent you.

“What I am going to say is in the interest of the Truth. If you look up your office file, you will see in one of my letters of 1959, when this brother was going to St. Vincent and Bequia, that he would have been well advised not to repeat things which he cannot prove from the Bible, because the people were not as backward as he may think.

“I am told that on the day he read your letter to the Class he said that you are Divinely appointed and cannot make a mistake. (Brother Roach has now informed us the Brother has made humble apology for this statement, for which we commend him – JJH) – Well, I need not tell you that I refuted that stoutly, by quoting the history of Saul, who was also Divinely appointed, but was finally re­jected because of 'disobedience.'

“On your first visit to Trinidad (after Brother Johnson's death) in 1951, 1 told you that we are looking to you as a pointer to point to Star Members' writings. Many of the brethren still remember those words; but, seeing you are now pointing in an opposite direction, there is no alternative but to forsake you.

“Wishing you all that is good, with the full assurance that no creature can thwart the Eternal Plan, I remain, Yours in His Grace, – (Signed) L. F, Roach ­Dated March 12, 1962 – TRINIDAD”

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

We now call upon R. G. Jolly to present public answer – without evasion or subterfuge – to Brother Roach's questions set out above. And with this comes our prayer that this controversy may result to the blessing of God's Fully Faithful people everywhere; and the reminder once again that “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable.... without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” – (Jas.3:17)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

-------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dear Brother Hoefle:

My heart's prayer for you both is one of thanksgiving for your service and prayers, which have been answered the past weeks of my husband's sickness by the supplies of strength and loving kindness. It may even open a door to service in my own town, as the ... minister called on him in the hospital, and was assured by him that his wife knew all about the Bible (slightly exaggerated) and the minister said he would call on me.....

I am enclosing a clipping sent me from Brother ------- which might interest you and arouse your sympathy. It hadn't occurred to me that many ministers may be con­fused re the virgin birth.... I have received a parcel of reading matter from Hebrew Christian Bible class..... I intend to send the Jewish editor “Where are the Dead” and the Resurrection tracts,...

The cards continue to come weekly urging me to get in touch with the P.T. editor – from Florida, Burmington, Glendale, Cal. One amusing thing was a letter from an aging southern sister asking if I was the one sending them, and if so she would refuse them, etc. I could honestly tell her “Not Guilty.

Your sister in the love of and faith in the Blessed Word ------- MASSACHUSETTS

---------------

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace unto you and yours!

I enjoy your paper very much. One thing I cannot understand in Bro. Jolly's writings – I do not see any Epiphany Consecrated Campers; and there can be no consecration outside the Court or linen curtains, as Brother Russell plainly taught in Tabernacle Shadows. I've never heard Bro. Johnson mention it in any of his Present Truths.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and Sister Hoefle in His love.

I remain your Youthful brother ------- NEW JERSEY

---------------