NO. 77: R.G. JOLLY AGAIN

No. 77

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

Below we quote a letter from R. G. Jolly which reveals more of his Azazelian tactics (See Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 646, top), followed by our answer, with the prayer that our readers may be profited by contemplating the great straits of those in Azazel's clutches:

Philadelphia, Pa.

Sept. 16, 1961

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hoefle:

In Consideration Of The Following Facts:

(1) That you have been publicly setting forth many doctrines that are contrary to the‑teachings of the Scriptures as given by the Lord through His Laodicean angel, e.g., (a) your teaching (contrary to Rev. 20:2‑7; 1 Cor. 4:8; Z 5105, par. 5; 5692, par. 3; E Vol. 17, pp. 94‑96,99, par. 1, etc.) that "at Sept. 16, 1914 the entire 144,000 who would constitute the Body of Christ 'lived' for the first time and they (including those still in the flesh) also were then reigning in a limited sense," and that the Thousand‑year Reign of the Christ is not the same as the thousand years in which Satan is bound; (b) your teaching (contrary to Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; comp. 2 Chro. 24:20‑22; 1 Kg. 6:9, 14, 21,22; Zech. 4:9; Eph, 4:11‑13; E Vol. 10, pp. 142, 610, 665; E Vol. 6, p. 593, etc.) that Bro. Johnson, the final star‑member, was not the last member of the Little Flock to remain on earth; (c) your teaching (contrary to Lev. 16; Z 80, par. 5, 245, pars. 12, 15, 3709, 4602; E Vol. 6, p. 481, bottom, etc.) that "when the last Saint has left the earth, the linen garments of sacrifice will have been forever put away"; (d) your teaching (contrary to Rev. 19:5‑9; P '31, 156, col. 2 bottom; P 150, pp. 192,193 – "the voice from the throne" given through the Epiphany Messenger) that the heralding of the message of Rev. 19:5‑9 by the Truth section of the Great Company since Bro. Johnson's death on Oct. 22, 1950 is premature and that this heralding should not begin until after Babylon is destroyed in Armaged­don; and (e) your teaching (contrary to Lev. 12 as expounded for us by the Epiphany Messenger) that the Great Company's attestatorial offering was not due to begin in 1954, the end of the antitypical 80 days ("from October, 1954, onward" – E Vol. 4, p. 99), the first lapping beginning of the Basileia period – E Vol. 4, pp. 12, 51, 52, 104; E Vol. 5, p. 298; E Vol. 6, p. 454; E Vol. 10, p. 114; E Vol. 11, p.441; C, Appendix, p. 415 (against which attestatorial offering, the preaching of the mes­sage of Christ as Savior and King for the building up of the Epiphany Camp as dis­tinct from the Epiphany Court in its membership, you and your active assistants have been persistently fighting).

(2) That despite repeated refutations in The Present Truth magazine and else­where of your many errors of doctrine, such as the five just mentioned, and of your many errors of practice, and despite repeated expostulations against the evils of the course you have been following, you have continued persistently your "rejection of previously accepted Truth" and your "teaching of errors" (P '50, p. 93, top; '32, p. 151, top), and have been seeking to draw away disciples after yourselves (Acts 20:30).

(3) That you continue through your circular letters and otherwise to spread the above and other serious errors far and fide in the U.S.A. and also in other countries, in a widespread and continued sifting activity, errors by which you persistently con­tinue to oppose the teachings of the

Scriptures as expounded in the Parousia and Epiphany Truth writings, including The Present Truth and the Bible Standard magazine,

(4) That you persistently continue to oppose the heralding of the Rev. 19:5‑9 message from Oct. 22, 1950, onward and also the Great Company's attestatorial ser­vice from Oct. 1954, onward which work is outlined in The Present Truth magazine and participated in by the brethren active in the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, (Note: There were many faithful Bible Students who opposed the errors in the Seventh Volume; even though the Society claimed That Servant was the author and those opposing these errors were 'sifters' and unfaithful – JJH)

(5) That Mr. Hoefle in his capacity as a representative of the L.H.M.M. was suspended on June 25, 1955, that he informed the Execu­tive Trustee on Aug. 8, 1955, that he could no longer serve under his supervision, that he was fully dismissed as a representative of the L.H.M.M. on Feb. 8, 1956, by the Executive Trustee, and that both of you were then disfellowshiped (comp. P '56, p. 33, top),

(6) That advice from Bro. Russell (e.g., Z 4469) and Bro. Johnson (e.g., P '49, p. 128; comp. P '50, pp. 92,93), showing that those who are disfellowshiped and who also are doing a sifting work are not welcome at our conventions, has been clearly stated in The Present Truth magazine (see P '58, p. 79), and

(7) That despite all the above you nevertheless have continued to come into our midst at the L.H.M.M. conventions and have solicited names and addresses and in other ways have sought to win disciples, including the newly interested, and with your assistants have even circulated your oppositional literature inside the build­ing at our convention‑room door.

NOW, THEREFORE, I consider it my duty in faithfulness to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, as an undershepherd of the Lord's people and as Executive Trustee of the L.H.M.M., to notify you in no uncertain terms (emphasis ours) that you or any of your active assistants in your activities herein aforementioned are not welcome or desired at our conventions, until such time as you turn from your present wrong course and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, providing that time ever comes. If despite this notice you insist on coming to any of our conventions in the future, the privilege of attending our convention meetings (except closed business sessions) will be granted to you only if you come merely as hearers and sit in the rear of the meeting room, entering the room after the opening hymn has started, observing proper decorum during the meeting, and leaving either before or immediately after the close of the meeting.

                                                                        Sincerely yours

                                                                        (Signed) Raymond G. Jolly

                                                                        Executive Trustee

RGJ/ES

Mount Dora, Florida

October 16, 1961

To Raymond G. Jolly:

Your letter of September 16 contains a number of half truths; and, says Brother Johnson, "Half truths are more misleading than whole errors." This has been common practice with you over the past ten years – 'half truths' together with the many out­right falsehoods told against me and some of my associates, when it became expedient for you to do so. Nor does it surprise me, in view of what Brother Johnson himself has told us about you; namely, that you have a bad conscience, often resort to mis­representations, with a yen to be a grandstand show‑off. This description of you is to be found in Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 585. And on p. 591 of the same book Brother Johnson also tells us you are "loquacious, repetitious, a false‑accusing Epiphany crown­loser," given to "foolish effusions." Were you now the cleansed Levite you claim to be this record of your past sins would serve as a sober reminder to you of your besetting sins; and you would ever seek to avoid any recurrence of such. It should indeed sober you and make you humble – even as it would do any cleansed Levite who had once been thus so guilty before the Lord that it became necessary for His Mouth­piece to "make manifest his folly to all" the General Church. Inasmuch as your treatment of the Epiphany Messenger himself prompted him thus to reveal you to the General Church, it is not surprising that you should accord similar treatment to me –especially now when you no longer have the restraining hand of the Star Member – although it grieves me considerably that the years have produced just no improve­ment in your character. Nor does it give me any pleasure to be forced to remind you of your past sins! Also, in your many attempts to lean upon Brother Johnson in your letter at hand, it is no surprise at all that you are completely silent on the sections of his writings cited above from Epiphany Volume 10. Nor do you cite them to your readers – although I know you cite many such exposures of other uncleansed Epiphany Levite leaders recorded by Brother Johnson, when it suits your purpose to do so.

Furthermore, it occasions no surprise that you are silent about your "Consecrated Epiphany Campers" – the "strange fire" (false doctrine) which you imbibed from J. W. Krewson, and which has been so thoroughly refuted in many of my papers. This teaching ('gazing') is a very outstanding part of your so‑called "Attestatorial Service" to which you frequently refer; and is flatly contradicted by the same Epiphany Messenger upon whom you pretend to rely for your present activities. Was your silence in this matter just an 'oversight,' or is the Truth presented in my articles against your error and your perversion of Tentative Justification finally forcing you to silence? Your Convention speakers were conspiculously silent on the subject – although you had some "Consecrated (?) Campers" there for water baptism. We have it verbally and in writing from some of your more prominent leaders that they will have no part of your "strange fire" (Epiphany Campers Consecrated); and I wonder if the one who gave the Baptismal discourse at the Labor Day Convention is also afraid of it! If he is, we commend him for having such 'fear,' as it is a very dangerous thing to tamper with the Truth – to offer "strange fire" before the Lord.

The charges you have made against us in your letter are strongly reminiscent of what was once said about you when you were on the side of the Truth – when you were under the benevolent influence of Brother Johnson's leadership. Please see March 1, 1918 Watch Tower, Reprints 6222‑6223 and compare with what you are now doing toward us! He, too (That Evil Servant), resorted to 'carnal weapons' – using everything he dared to use to silence those who were upholding the Truth – just as you are doing to silence us now, That Evil Servant told the brethren to 'avoid' you, at a time when you were upholding the Truth, just as you are now telling the brethren to 'avoid' us because we are upholding the Truth. This you have done since 1955 – both in your publications, from the platform and privately ("whisperings" – even as you did under Brother Johnson).

That Evil Servant forbade them to read the Epiphany Truth because they might be able to discern his errors; and you are forbidding your adherents to read the Epiphany Truth exposures presented in my papers against your errors for 'fear' that the Truth might enlighten them! J. F. Rutherford constantly warned his followers to 'avoid' you – even as you now warn your adherents to 'avoid' us. But at that time you didn't 'avoid' them; you approached them, because you had the Truth at that time – much the same as we approach our brethren today. Why do you preach 'avoid' us now? Is it because we have the Truth, and the Truth is tearing down your 'house'? "Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction." (Prov. 10:14)

And it is a sad spectacle, very sad indeed, to see you now walking in the "counsel of the ungodly" (in the footsteps of That Evil Servant) – which you have been doing since the restraining hand of the last Star Member was removed from you in 1950, at which time you were fully abandoned to Azazel. Are you now so befuddled by Azazel that the good work you once did is completely forgotten – that you no longer even understand that which you once stood for? Now, it seems, your only recourse against us is the 'strong arm' tactics of the Adversary ('carnal weapons'), – just as was done toward Brother Johnson in the Society in 1917! As for me and my house, we want none of such; we rely upon the Truth and its Spirit: "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds." (2 Cor. 10:.4) So whatever devious methods you concoct against us, we are assured that the 'Lord will be with the good' – that His Truth will be sufficient, as "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." The Truth and its Spirit would 'constrain' you from the things you are doing, if you had it. I realize that you are largely under the influence of Azazel – otherwise you could not do the things that you do.

It seems that you don't know from one time to the next how to treat the brethren – ­whether disfellowshiped or otherwise – although That Wise and Faithful Servant has given us clear instructions regarding our attitude toward those who do not agree with us. This was plainly manifest in your treatment of Sister Wells at this last Labor Day Convention. Here was an instance where you could have shown 'large­ness' of heart, if such had been your condition. It would have been only common courtesy, the civility of the ordinary man never schooled in decorum of a seminary as you have been, had you offered your hand in sympathy to the widow of Brother Wells; but instead you berated her before all present. You yourself were the recipient of many favors, professional gratuities and wholesome warm hospitality from Brother Wells; so the least you could have done would be to show his widow kindness and courtesy – and sympathy, if you had any in your heart.

But it is not too surprising that you could treat her in the manner you did, when you could withhold needed help ('dire' need) from another widow back even before you were fully abandoned to Azazel (although your conduct at the time clearly revealed that Azazel was directing you) – an "aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless." (See‑Deut. 26:12) Bro. Johnson says in Epiphany Vol. 10, pp. 585‑586: "R. G. Jolly again was J.'s main opponent before the church on the subject. Actually the sister by a combination of starving and cancer died; and the hospital blamed the ecclesia to J.'s face therefor." But your power‑grasping is ineffective, even with your own house, as could be noted from the cordiality extended Sister Wells by Pilgrim Gavin and your own son, et al. Is that what incited you and caused your bitter words against Sister Wells? For shame, that you should sink so low! Pilgrim Gavin, your own son, and others are to be commended for the common decency they displayed in this instance – however much they may deviate later from such right conduct because of your unscriptural and unholy instructions to them. And your power‑grasping is so ineffec­tive that you must now once again reverse yourself. When the Krewsons were disfellow­shiped in 1954, you definitely had the brethren stipulate that they should be privileged to attend your meetings so long as they occupied back seats and did not participate. You did not stipulate that they were to come after the meeting had started and leave before it closed – although you must know both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught that habitual late arrivals and early departures are a mark of disorderly conduct. Can it be you are once more resorting to Azazelian cunning (See. Vol. 10, p. 646) purposely to stigmatize us?

In your Item 7 you disparage the circulation of literature at your "convention-­room door"; but you fail to mention that we were clearly outside the space for which you were paying rent. How does that compare with your own conduct a few years after Brother Johnson's death, when you organized a crew of your trusting followers to dis­tribute your own literature at a Dawn Convention in Northern Ohio? At that time you attempted to do this right on the private property they had rented; and you and your meek yes-men were ordered from the premises because you were violating the Dawn's legal rights – none of which we did in the instance you now castigate.

Yes, I am learning from multiplied experiences that "a double­minded man is unstable in all his ways." (Jas. 1:8) "Yet a double mind is in all of them (the Great Company), as James assures us – See E:15‑519 (bottom) and 520 (top).

                                                Sincerely, (Signed) John J. Hoefle

P.S. At various times over the past you have regaled your trusting supporters with tales of your prowess to impress them with the courageous efforts you've made in witnessing Truth. One such had to do with a certain minister you encountered in the colporteur work, who scolded you soundly, with the threat he would expose you and your errors from his pulpit the following Sunday. That Sunday morning you walked boldly into the Church front door, down the middle isle – head up, shoulders back, chest out, bravely and courageously (quite a contrast to your present cringing and cowardly attitude toward us) – and seated yourself in the pew third from front (didn't occupy the backseat – yet you knew the minister did not want you there!). Apparently your courage, the determined set of your jaw and that steely glint in your eye, so intimi­dated the man that he did not as much as mention you or the "error" you were distrib­uting. Now, won't you please tell that episode just once more at this Chicago Conven­tion? It would harmonize so beautifully with what you have written me in the letter I am answering. (JJH)

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

As a complement to the above, we quote from E:15‑520‑521: "Al­ways they (the Great Company) either set aside in revolutionism more or less of the teachings of the Bible and more or less of the arrange­ments that God has given for His work (Note: Replacing such arrange­ments with some sensational methods of their own – JJH), or they partisanly support others who become guilty as leaders or ledlings of these two forms of rebellion. Whenever a company of them form a group, they become parti­san sectarians; and their leaders always grasp for power and lord it over God's heritage (1 Pet. 5:2), becoming guilty of love for money, influence, honor from men and leader­ship.... under Satanic manipulation they lead their followers into increas­ing errors and Satan‑given wrong arrangements for the Lord's work. These revolution­isms arousing the opposition of the faithful, controversies set in, wherein to de­fend themselves against the Scriptural truths that the faithful bring against their errors, to maintain a semblance of consistency in their errors, they give up one truth after another; and their sectarian crown‑lost followers (as well as their sectarian Youthful Worthy adherents – JJR) partisanly support their leaders in these controversies, and thus with them lose more and more of the Lord's truths and arrange­ments, though they together with the newly adopted errors (such as Epiphany Campers Consecrated, etc. – JJH) hold to those former held truths and arrangements not in­volved in these repudiations. With all of this they increasingly lose part of their ability to discern between truth and error. This shows a deterioration in the bad part of their intellects and their intellects' contents, while it still shows that their intellects still retain some of their former ability to see and to retain some truth – double‑mindedness in their intellects in varying degrees.

"As their heads deteriorate, so do their hearts deteriorate. The very fact that their heads deteriorate is preceded with some deterioration of their hearts, and in turn is followed by further worsening of the heart. Their errors of head certainly partially undermine their faith, sear more or less their consciences and put a cloud between them and the Lord, curtailing their spirit of prayer and a lively sense of His favor, fellowship and approval. Moreover, they make them more or less BITTERLY partisan against the faithful for their opposing their wrong course."

AND NOW ONCE MORE “THE COUSINS”

In this September‑October 1961 Present Truth, pages 72‑78, R. G. Jolly offers his elaboration on "A Syllabus of Errors Examined," the same presumably being an answer to J. W. Krewson – although he fails to state his name, as did Brother Russell and Brother Johnson with such people. At the outset, may our readers clearly under­stand we are not attempting a eulogy for J. W. Krewson – nor do we countenance his gross errors; rather, we know his claims for himself and the many errors and per­versions he foists upon the Lord's people are decidedly at variance with the faith­ful Scriptural teachings of the last two Star Members, even as we ourselves have previously pointed out in our publications. Our main purpose here is to direct attention to one errorist attempting to refute another's errors with subtle sophisti­cation and errors of his own (one errorist, R.G.Jolly, vs. his cousin, J.W.Krewson).

We begin with p. 76, col. 1, "The Epiphany or Apokalypse," wherein he speaks of his "loyalty" to Brother Russell and Brother Johnson And their "Scripturally‑proven teachings" on this subject. While he makes a blanket reference to E:4‑45/49, why does he not quote No. 43 on p. 45? Can it be that even his most ardent adherents might awaken to some of his own sophistry? As our readers know, we made an exhaus­tive analysis of this subject in our September 1, 1959 paper, in which we stated the Epiphany and Apokalypse are as inseparable as sunshine and daylight. "Epiphany" means "bright shining"; and "Apokalypse" means "revelation." As the sun produces the daylight, so the daylight produces the revelation; it is impossible to have one without the other. Even though one may have his back to the sun, the daylight convinces him that the sun is shining.

Several places in Epiphany Vol. 4, pages 7 through 72, Brother Johnson teaches that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical (see especially p. 53, par. 51). In this citation Brother Johnson says the "Time of Trouble in the narrow sense" is from 1914 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble. R. G. Jolly now contends that the Epiphany "in its restricted sense" ended in 1954, at which time he instituted his so‑called Attestatorial Service. Why doesn't he use the word "narrow," as Brother Johnson does? Webster's dictionary says "restricted" and "narrow" mean the same thing. But R. G. Jolly avoids the use of the word "narrow." Can it be because he is afraid of it? We have often propounded to him the premise: If the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are "identical" (as Brother Johnson correctly teaches they are), then, if the Epiphany ended in a "restricted" sense in 1954, must the same not be true of the Time of Trouble? R. G. Jolly has repeatedly refused to meet this question because his perversions and foolishness might become too apparent. We shall now supplement our contention with the following from E:4‑45, par. 43:

"Parousia is used in respect to the earliest stage.... of the second advent, while apokalypsis relates to the same advent later: – not that apokalypsis and epiphaneia relate to another or third advent, but merely to a later feature (not features, since these two words both as an act and as a period are synonymous.... thus the epiphaneia or apokalypsis, in the sense here used as acts, stretched over a period of time, which is the Epiphany (p. 47, top).... His open manifest­a­tion to the world, His epiphaneia, His Apoka­lypsis."

It needs no elaboration that Brother Johnson taught (and we agree fully with him) that the Time of Trouble in its narrow sense (from 1914 to the end of Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble), the Epiphany and/or Apokalypsis are identical. Therefore, if the Epiphany ended in its "restricted" or narrow sense in 1954, not only the Time of Trouble, but the Apokalypsis also must have a similar ending in 1954. This is so elemental we should not have to point it out at all! Would the merest babe in the Truth believe the apokalypse (the uncovering, or revelation) ended in the minutest degree in 1954? Certainly all of us know that, instead of ending (even in a "restricted sense") in 1954, the revealing has been greatly accentuated since 1954 in its uncovering of per­sons, principles and things since that date – as the bright shining also has increased. So here we have "The Cousins," one of them (R. G. Jolly) telling us the apokalypse ended in a "restricted" sense in 1954; while the other one (J. W. Krewson) tells us it just began there at that time. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson clearly dispute the both of them in their Scripturally‑proven teachings; and we leave each one to deter­mine which of these he shall believe. It is certainly apropos to quote here Brother Johnson's own words concerning those who would distort his teachings on the Epiphaneia and apokalypsis (E: 4‑70,bottom):

"Azazel means Averter, Perverter, and is Satan (1 Cor. 5:5) in his capacity of using the Great Company to avert and pervert the Lord's Truth and arrangements."

Then, on p. 72, col. 1, par. 2, R. G. Jolly offers another statement of truth, which we have often stressed in our papers: "Bro. Johnson for good reason never gave an appointment as a teacher for the Lord's people in general" to J. W. Krewson. No, indeed, he didn't! But setting aside that arrangement by the Epiphany Messenger didn't bother R. G. Jolly at all so long as J. W. Krewson was lauding him with his counterfeit "Bro. Russell's Epiphany Parallels." Therefore, when he now wants to present "Mrs. Russell's Epiphany Parallels," with his "cousin" as the focal character, we observe this is simply some more of his nonsense. If J. W. Krewson is the parallel of Mrs. Russell, is R. G. Jolly contending that he himself is the parallel of That Servant? Certainly, the two cannot be separated!

But, what was her deflection? In E:5‑123/125 Brother Johnson says she led the Truth section of the Reformism Sifting in 1901‑1904. "Some Truth people, led by the wife of That Servant, advocated certain reforms," etc. And in E:9‑404 (46) Brother Johnson says that, while faithful, she had been "exceptionally used" of the Lord. Let R. G. Jolly show such "exceptional use" of J. W. Krewson by the Lord; in fact, he is now vehemently denying such status to his "cousin," who now makes such bom­bastic claims for himself in connection with R. G. Jolly. And what "reforms" did J. W. Krewson advocate in the Lord's arrangements from 1951 to 1954? Manifestly nothing except what R. G. Jolly himself condoned and encouraged. But we do have the clear evidence that R. G. Jolly himself attempted many reforms during that time, some of which we itemize:

(1) He elevated J. W. Krewson to the status of Auxiliary Pilgrim and Pilgrim – ­contrary to Brother Johnson's judgment before his death.

(2) He changed the name of the Herald of the Epiphany to the Bible Standard.

(3) Publishes a Present Truth every two months, with some occasionally almost three months apart.

(4) Attempted to set aside the Manna texts for Convention testimony meetings, replacing them with his own selected texts (although he abandoned that revolutionism after our denunciation).

(5) Greatly encouraged Combinationism.

(6) Attempted to use methods of Big Babylon in his work.

(7) Attempted to supplant antitypical Gideon's Second Battle literature with his Flying Saucer tract – declaring as "timeworn and threadbare" such tracts as Where are the Dead, What Is the Soul, etc. He now denies this; but Richard Blaine and another Chicago lad took a tape recording of his words, so it should be no problem to determine if he or we are the prevaricator. Will he attempt to set this record straight?

Nor should any of the above surprise us, in view of Brother Johnson's summation in E:15‑520,521 (see our quotation on p. 5 of this article): "Always they (the Great Company) either set aside in revolutionism more or less of the teachings of the Bible (as, for example, his perversion on the 1954 Epiphany‑Apokalypse teaching – JJH) and more or less of the arrangements that God has given for His work...... they give up one truth after another (as R. G. Jolly has done on Tentative Justifica­tion – JJH)..... With all this they increasingly lose part of their ability to discern between truth and error..... As their heads deteriorate, so do their hearts deteriorate (revealing a bad conscience, tendency to falsify and misrepresent, and to show off – JJH)..... making them more or less bitterly partisan against the faithful for opposing their wrong course (as R. G. Jolly has manifested toward us for opposing his sins of teaching and practise – JJH)."

We expect to offer more on this Present Truth in future writings, because there are many more perversions and errors R. G. Jolly has presented in his refutations of his "Cousin's" errors that should be pointed out (the Truth would have been all­-sufficient for the purpose had R. G. Jolly had the Truth is he once did). But for now we offer to all who have "ears to hear" the words of wisdom in Prov. 28:13: "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Gentlemen: – Please send me The Resurrection of the Dead and The Three Babylons tracts.

Thank you! --------- Havana, Kansas

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and Peace in His dear Name! I received the tracts. Thank you! I was in such a hurry to get the tracts and my letter posted I didn't put my contribution in my letter for the Lord's service. I am very sorry..... sometimes I have to wait a whole week before I can get my mail posted. Your last paper No. 73 was very good. I sometimes wonder why others can't see – unless they are asleep or bewildered.

I believe the Lord is using you to defend the Truth, which you do so well. May the dear Lord bless and keep and encourage you in this work! ....

Sincerely in the Lord's Service. --------- Conn.

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

Dearest People in the Truth:

Grace and Peace in His Name! Thank you for your promptness in changing my address – and also for your good letter. It made me very happy. I have received your papers very promptly – also for June, July. Again Thank you – also for the wonderful work and explanations in your papers.

With much Christian love to you, your staff and wife.

God bless you all! Sister --------- Ohio

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

Sirs:

I was given a copy of your pamphlet "The Resurrection of the Dead." Will you please send me a copy of this – Also the three you offer to send free on request: What is the Soul, Where are the Dead and The Three Babylons. What is your church called?

M. G. ---------- Peru

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in our Lord's Name!

I was very happy to get your dear letter a few days ago. Have delayed writing because of the storm the country has just had...... The Lord has always been so good and it makes me feel so minute in His presence. It caused me to go over again all the wonderful care He has given me. Of course, since 19l4 we have known nothing but war and trouble, but nothing of that sort has bothered me, as we know these things must come.

Enclosed is a small donation to the Lord's work.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have had a big convention here...... I am enclosing some clippings, even though they are old now. But you can see how they are with their work (efficient) – if not their teaching.

Please give my Christian love to all the friends there, reserving for yourself a portion.

                                                Christian love. --------- Texas

NO. 76: THE STAR OF LAODICEA

No. 76

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

Comes once more the time of year when many of us are sadly reminded of the passing of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers – accompanied howbeit by many pleas­ant memories of our personal experiences with them. In Rev. 1:16 we are told that “He (the Lord) had in His right hand seven stars”; and v. 20 explains that the “seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.” That these “stars” are not individuals, as some have taught, is clearly demonstrated in Rev. 12:1, where the “woman” (the true Church) is adorned with “a crown of twelve stars.” Those twelve stars are the twelve Apostles, who comprised the composite star, or special messen­gers, to the incipient Gospel‑Age Church. And, as was true of the first epoch of this Age, the same has likewise been true of all seven epochs of the Gospel Age – ­each epoch had more than one “angel” as the special Pastor and Teacher. In the last, or seventh, epoch – in which we have been since 1870 – the “star” contained but two individuals, the same being Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Thus, we caption this paper “The Star of Laodicea”; and we hope to relate certain items about both of them to the pleasure and inspiration of our readers.

The “angels” all during the Age were under the Lord's special guidance, protec­tion and care; they were His messengers, or representatives. (See Berean Comment for Rev. 1:20) It is well to note this fact as a sobering influence upon each of us in our appraisal and attitude toward them. Especially is this thought emphasized for the first and the seventh epochs of this Age, of which more later on.

It was never our privilege to meet Brother Russell personally, although we have received much information from various brethren who were closely attached to him. In Vols. 9 and 14 Brother Johnson has eulogized him far beyond anything we might here present; but to what he wrote about him we add one item he related to us personally and is not given in detail anywhere in his writing, so far as we know – although a kindred thought is expressed in E:8‑561. As most of us know, Brother Rus­sell never attended any institutions of higher learning; therefore, his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was limited. On the other hand, Brother Johnson was highly skilled in both languages, so much so that he often quoted copious sections of the Bible in English, then quoted the same text in Hebrew. Therefore, Brother Russell often asked his interpretation on difficult texts; and, in over four hundred such instances, Brother Russell himself had the correct meaning before asking Brother Johnson's opinion. And it was this, said Brother Johnson, that thoroughly convinced him that Brother Russell was “That servant,” because no one unschooled in Hebrew and Greek could have been so consistently right without the special enlightenment, guidance and care of the Lord.

And, as That Servant, “The Parousia Messenger was given charge of the Church, of its doctrinal, correctional, refutational and ethical teachings, of its work.... specifically of the correct interpretation of the Scriptures on the ransom, atone­ment, sin‑offerings, mediator and covenants” (E:11‑107); and “as a priest in his relations to the errors and wrong practices of the nominal church. Certainly his face was set like brass in strength against these errors and wrong practices.” (E:11‑108) Of course, this aroused venom and vituperation from those whose errors and wrongs he exposed – just as the same course led Jesus to the cross.

Many were our personal experiences with such people in the years we spent in the colporteur work early in the Epiphany. On one occasion, as we approached a man, the hardening of his features became apparent, as he declared he wanted none of the literature; he had known “Russell” and attended a number of his lectures. In politeness we asked what opinion he had formed of the man. His answer: “I think he was just an old crank!” In another instance we allayed the ire of a Mormon by mildness and politeness, after which he became affable enough to offer us this advice: “Young man, you have all the qualities, and you could be an Evangelist if you just got away from the influence of that old quack!” Many such instances could we relate as we learned from experience the truth of the Lord's words: “Men shall revile you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely.” And by such treatment That Servant learned that “the servant is not above His Master” – he drank of the same cup as did Jesus. Brother Johnson said he once affectionately told Brother Russell that he was the most loved man on earth. Brother Russell's answer: “Yes, Brother, and the most hated!”

BROTHER RUSSELL'S STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE

On previous occasion we have stated that Brother Russell's stewardship doctrine was the correct interpretation of Leviticus 16, the central feature of which is Restitution. In support of this conclusion, we quote from E:11‑94 (24): “It was especially during this period, in 1879, that the light on the tabernacle in general, and on Leviticus 16 in particular, was by Jesus given, first to That Servant and then later to the Church, showing the two antitypical Sin‑offerings, the two salvations in natures separate and distinct.... Here, too, the doctrine of the World's High Priest was brought to light.”

Corroborating the foregoing is this in Parousia Vol. 3, p. 216 by Brother Russell himself: “And strange to say, it is the message of God's loving provision, in the ransom, for the restitution of all things, by and through Christ Jesus and His glorified body, the Church, God's Kingdom.... that is to develop and draw into heart-­union the true class only, to test them and separate them from the nominal mass.” This statement by Brother Russell clearly states that the preaching of Restitution would accomplish the Harvest reaping work; and this is substantiated even in the name of one of his types in E:14‑114:

“Jashobeam, the people shall return, in allusion to his preaching much on restitution.”

And further in E:14‑155 (16): “Brother Russell also charged these Sunday Pilgrims to exhort the public to declare continually the restitution salvation.” It was the understanding of Restitution that harmonized the Bible, and made vital the Harvest Message. (See E:8‑384 – top) As at the first Advent, “The people that sat in darkness saw great light,” so all of us “saw great light” when the restitution message was explained to us. But, just as the great light at the first Advent roused great opposition, so here in the Harvest time the Truth people became “the sect that everywhere is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22) Nevertheless, Brother Russell continued with vigor and determination to preach Restitution “through evil report, and good re­port”; and, surely we all can join with Brother Johnson in exclaiming “God bless his memory!”

THE SECOND STAR

Brother Johnson was Brother Russell's companion helper, and faithfully carried on in spirit and in Truth the teachings and practices established by him. As he him­self states it in E:11‑107, it was his duty “to expound and defend correctly, every­thing connected with the antitypical Tabernacle.” If he was right in that state­ment, then the attempts to change the teachings of that Tabernacle which have been made since his death, are all anathema.

As some of our readers know, it was in the fall of 1942 that we were privileged to accomplish a month's pilgrim trip with Brother Johnson to the West Coast of the United States and back. This gave us many intimate hours of travel together, dur­ing which he related details of his life from infancy, which he said he had never before revealed to any one. Clearly enough, he was among us “as one that serveth,” – “an example of the believers,” and to the believers. Nothing was ever too bad; he had that “godliness with contentment, which is great gain.” On occasion when the going was rough, he would emit his hearty chuckle with the observa­tion: “When we get into the Kingdom, won't we look back and laugh at some of these experiences.”

As we said at his funeral on October 27, 1950, he was a man, even as you and I; and he made mistakes, even as you and I. But when we consider all the good he did for us in his years of faithful ministry, we reveal our sad limitations if we dwell upon his mistakes, rather than his virtues. As for us, and our house, we heartily exclaim, God bless his memory!

“MY SERVANT MOSES”

It is not good that we should extol the Stars of Laodicea beyond fact; although we should be guided by St. Paul's clear admonition to “count them worthy of double honor who labor in word and doctrine.” (I Tim. 5:17) They themselves repeatedly exhorted all likewise to “labor in word and doctrine” – to “prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good.” Thus, as faithful Pastors and Teachers, they “Watched over your souls as they that must give an account,” and continually waged war against clerical­ism and sectarianism – two besetting Gospel‑Age sins of the Great Company that developed after the Apostles passed away. The Ephesus period of the Church was commended for avoidance of these evils: “This thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nico­laitans, which I also hate.” (Rev. 2:6) Note the Berean Comments: “Those who lord it over God's people. The word 'Nicolans' means 'A conqueror or lord of the people.'“

And, while we should not “fall at their feet and worship,” neither should we take the other extreme of discounting them too much, or become overly critical. The outstanding warning against this latter evil is to be found in Numbers 12, where the Lord's anger was kindled against Miriam and Aaron: “Were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” We do well to take close note of this, and apply it prop­erly and according to our time. Jesus specifically told the “Star” (the twelve Apostles) of the first Church: “He that receiveth you receiveth me.” (Matt. 10:40) At that time those that rejected the Apostles were not blessed with the Harvest Truth. That condition did not prevail between the two Harvests, because the Interim Stars did not possess the same authority as the Apostles. But with the inception of the Gospel‑Age Harvest much the same authority attached to the Laodicean Star; That Servant was made ruler over all His goods. Those who refused to receive him never came into Present Truth; and those who did receive him, then “spoke against” him soon found themselves “leprous,” as was Miriam – they became “plagued” with error. Especially would we say it is markedly true of those who came to an understanding of the Numbers 12 type. Once such began to “speak against” him, it was not long be­fore they became noticeably “leprous”; they rejected some Truth they had, thus be­coming “unclean” (John 15:3).

These are troublous times, with the tendency in every direction being toward Anarchy; and the Lord's people should be on guard that “it shall not come nigh thee” (Psa. 91:7). We believe all would do well at this time to read Chapter 6 of Parousia Vol. 6 – “Order and discipline in the New Creation.” This will be honoring both members of the Laodicean Star.

It is well for us to note here once more that “the Lord seeth not as man seeth.” Moses was the youngest child – the “baby” in his family. Then, as is still true in many countries, the oldest boy was given the preeminence in inheritance and prestige. Even yet, in Germany the oldest boy is considered the head of the family after the father dies, regard­less of the superior brilliance and integrity that may reside in a younger son. We have the striking example of this in the way Joseph's older brethren envied and discounted him – hated him, and “could not speak peaceably unto him” (Gen. 37:4). Somewhat similar was the situation of Brother Johnson, who was one of the younger pilgrims at Brother Russell's death; and his older brethren would not bring themselves to accept instruction from him. Yet, it is now clear to us who hold his memory blessed, that he was more qualified than all of them com­bined to be leader of God's people. Again there was demonstrated the truism that “Age is no proof against folly,” coupled with the advice of St. Paul to Timothy, “Let no man despise thy youth!” (1 Tim. 4:12) It is well that we honor those whom God honors, regardless of age or youth, and to strive honestly to “see not as man seeth.”

It is our opinion that both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson did the best they knew how to do; nor will greater tribute ever be paid to any of us. As Jesus said of Mary, “She hath done what she could,” so may it eventually be said of each of us – We have done what we could! And again, God bless their memory!

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy Palaces. For my brethren and com­panions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. Because of the House of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.” Psa. 122:6‑9

ABOUT SHAKING HANDS

At this Philadelphia Labor Day Convention R. G. Jolly once again demonstrated his “love of the Truth” to be as limited as is he himself in stature when he him­self approached Sister Wells with his hand extended to her. Then, when she attempted to give him that common courtesy which we owe “a heathen,” he made a spectacle of himself before all in his tirade against her; then went into quite a tirade from the Convention platform about a “sifter” trying to shake hands with him.

A few years ago at Chicago he carried his “sleight-of-hand” to greater extreme when he smilingly approached Brother and Sister Clinard, and with feigned enthusiasm actually shook hands with them; then made quite some ado from the platform about “sifters” shaking hands with him. on another occasion he did the same with Sister Dunnagan and Sister Price – approached them with outstretched hand and welcomed them (although Sister Dunnagan had formerly disfellowshiped him).

Knowing from sad experience that R. G. Jolly's limitations in character are as small as R. G. Jolly the man, we had coached all of these brethren beforehand what they might expect of him. In January 1957 at Jamaica he actually came smilingly (as though greeting warm friends) across a room about twenty feet to offer his hand to us, which we reciprocated in keeping with customary civility – without, however, addressing him as “Brother.” Later in the Kingston Convention meetings he assailed us in such venomous fashion that one sister remarked that had he been free to use “dark-age” tactics “he would have burned you at the stake.” There, too, he was very profuse in his denunciation of the “sifters in our midst” – warning the brethren assembled there not to approach us, etc.

Whether R. G. Jolly knows as little about the truth respecting hand-shaking as he does about many other Truth matters, or whether he viciously shows his contempt for the Truth, we cannot be certain. Either state offers distressing revelation of the man. Apparently, he is concerned not at all that he be “caught with guile” (Thes. 2:1-3); and we are caused to wonder if he has ever assimilated Brother Russell's teaching in Volume six on such matters. In that writing we are instructed to follow our Lord's teaching to treat disfellowshiped brethren “as an heathen man” (Matt. 18:17) – “but not injured or treated unkindly in any way” (Vol. 6, p. 303).

Since we do not hesitate to shake hand, or do business, or extend ordinary civility to “a heathen man,” neither should we deny such amenities to a disfellowshiped per­son – although we should not greet him as “brother.” This course we followed with R. G. Jolly at Jamaica (despite the fact we knew he had carried on a “whispering campaign” against us and had slandered us shamefully because of our resistance of his evils in doctrine and in practice), and other instances; as we also counseled those mentioned above to do. In so doing we were quite in keeping with the letter and the spirit of our Lord's counsel, as explained by Brother Russell. It is our desire to have them “turn from the error of their way,” rather than follow them in their error. So long as any of these New Creatures have their standing in the Great Company, though uncleansed, there is hope for their recovery. We realize, of course, that R. G. Jolly has been so often and so conclusively humiliated by us on his many errors that he in fact has nothing left but “carnal weapons” – the cheap trickery of the unprincipled politician or the unscrupulous Jesuits. That is for him to answer, of course; but we advise our readers to be ''without guile,” and to be guided by That Servant's instructions in such matters.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and com­panions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. Because of the House of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.” Psa. 122:6-9

Sincerely your brother John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace through our Beloved Lord!

Recently several of the Winston-Salem Class attended the Jehovah's Witnesses' Convention in Salisbury, N. C., to serve the Three Babylons tracts. There were over 900 present, and we were able to serve quite a few of the tracts. The 'promise' the speaker made to those who would join with the “new order” (their sect) was “live forever.” When he told them they could “live forever” the crowd burst out in loud applause. It was something to behold! But there are others in Little Babylon beckoning to the world (Restitutionists) to consecrate now before the Highway of Holi­ness is opened, with their Epiphany Campers Consecrated, or Quasi-elect Consecrated, etc. (although we hear very little mention of this false doctrine at the L.H.M.M. Conventions – if anything).

We did manage to get quite a few of the Three Babylons tracts out before the ''watch dogs'' were sicked on us (by the “clergy”). They ordered us around and took hold of our arms and steered us away (and not too gently either!). They threatened some of us with the police if we didn't get moving fast. They tried to take some of the tracts away from their adherents and advised for rather commanded) them not to accept the tracts. I went to the street and put some of the tracts in parked cars, where the windows were open. One fellow came up and said: “Don't put any of that stuff in my car!” I asked him kindly which one was his car and told him we had no desire to force the Truth on any one, as this is not the day of force so far as the Truth is concerned. One said he knew all about the tract – had read it. Another asked me questions (one of the ''escorts” – “watch dogs”) about the tract and the Movement. I offered him one (he was as nice as he could be, having received his orders in regard to us), but he was afraid to take it and read it. I told them their attitude toward us betrayed their weakness! that we always accepted their literature, if they had any for free distribution, and read it – nor were we opposed to having any in our group accept their literature and read it. We told them if they would come to our meetings we would treat them with courtesy – would appreciate their interest in us. He said “We wouldn't go to your meetings.” I told him I knew he wouldn't if he knew it. They have been to our meetings and disrupted it on Sunday mornings (although I didn't tell him that). We didn't chase them away either, but they were only too happy to get going, even though we treated them kindly and courteously. One said we had no legal right to come to their meetings. I told him that is what the Scribes and Pharisees said about Jesus when He went among them. He said: “But Jesus did have a legal right!” I answered him that I knew that, but they crucified Him to keep Him from coming among them – and that I felt we had a 'legal' right there, even though they said we didn't. He said no more!

It is marvelous to see how fearful they are of this tract! I told one of the fellows following us around, that surely Big Babylon, in all its venom against the Truth under Brother Russell, hadn't shown any more hatred and persecution than we had received from them. When they were 'advising' their adherents not to accept the tracts and not to read them, I said: ''Are you going to have a burning of the tracts? They burned Brother Russell's books, but that only caused honest people to investigate more than they would have otherwise.” How grateful we are to our Heavenly Father to know it is the Truth that is causing all the uproar – and not us personally. These people didn't know us personally, but several of them had read the tract or have had opportunity to read them, as some of the friends have mailed several to some in that group.

We felt it a privilege to follow in the footsteps of our Beloved Lord and suffer for the same Cause that He suffered. We know if we have the Truth and its Spirit that we must suffer such persecutions from the “religious” groups, just as our Lord had to suffer from 'like' “religious” groups – and just as has been true all during the Harvest under Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. The Truth is hated as much today as ever – and if we would be faithful to the Truth and its Spirit we will quickly find that out. There is much more to relate, but this letter is getting long already.

The Lord bless and direct you as you seek to “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.”

By His Grace --------- N.C.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

As most of our readers know, Brother Johnson each fall designated a period for special effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle against eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead. This he did in loving memory of That Servant. We now recommend the continuance of such effort in remembrance of both Star Members, for those of like mind and who are physically able to do so. We suggest October 15 through November 12 for the Special Effort this year. A good method of engaging in this service is at church doors with Where are the Dead, or What is the Soul. Also, the Resurrection tract can be used in this Battle. Witnessing with the tracts, or other pertinent literature, to individuals where opportunity presents itself is always good. We shall be pleased to supply the pertinent tracts free of all charge to those inclined and able to engage in this good work; and to join with us in the petition, “God bless their memory!”

NO. 75-A: "A FURTHER DEFENSE OF THE TRUTH ON THE EPIPHANY"

No. 75-A

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

On p. 58 of this July‑August 1961 Present Truth the above caption heads some comments by R. G. Jolly in which he once more refers to us as using the “trickery of a shyster lawyer”; and in this he once more validates Brother Johnson's descrip­tion of him as a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser.” So, when he refers to “special trials that have come since 1954,” we repeat that many of these trials are directly chargeable to R. G. Jolly himself

On p. 60, top of col. 2, he makes comment on the two periods of the Epiphany that “concern God's people,” the first of which he describes as “the time in which the Priesthood deals with Azazel's Goat, and (2) the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” As R. G. Jolly well knows, Brother Johnson never at any time before his death referred even to those Levites in the Epiphany Move­ment as anything other than “good Levites,” as a class, for whose cleansing he was earnestly yearning. As late as 1943 he clearly stated that R. G. Jolly was not to be counted among the “cleansed Levites.” Therefore, will R. G. Jolly please tell us how and at what time prior to October 1950 “the Priesthood dealt with the cleansed Levites.” This should be no problem at all for him if he is right in the article we are now reviewing. And did Brother Johnson deal with these “cleansed”(?) Levites as a class before the Truths thereon were clarified and cleansed (before the Mother of the Daughter was purified’)? We have repeatedly confronted him with similar questions on this matter; and his only retort is his customary “false-­accusing” name‑calling. And we may be certain he won't answer it this time either! If his 1954 conclusions are correct, they should certainly fit in exactly with the things that were accomplished by that date; that is, there should be some tangible physical evidence to support him. And his failure to analyze this crux of this entire system of his teaching will be sufficient to convince all truly‑enlightened Epiphany Truth people of his true condition and character.

We direct attention to another item as a perfect companion to the foregoing, the same being found on p. 30 of his March 1955 Present Truth; and we quote his Question and Answer with some bracketed comments:

Question: – Do any unconsecrated ones remain in, and do additional ones enter, the tentatively‑justified condition since Sept. 16, 1954?

Answer: – Until the Ransom merit is applied on behalf of the world, and restitution, which brings actual justification (emphasis by JJH), begins, tentative justification (see E Vol. 4, pp. 341‑352 for details on this subject) will be given to believers as a prerequisite to their being acceptable to God in consecration (Rom. 5:1,2; 12:1). In E Vol. 4, p. 346, par. 1, we read that “the doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (Heb. 11:4‑7), UNTIL RESTI­TUTION BEGINS (emphasis by R. G. Jolly) is a Scriptural one... As long as Rom. 4:1‑25, etc. remain parts of the Bible, that doctrine will stand.” Thus tentative justification made the pre‑Gospel‑Age seed eligible to an earthly feature of the Oath‑bound Covenant (YES, it made them eligible for an elect class – ­NOT FOR THE QUASI‑ELECT – Nor was it for the purpose of making it possible for the non‑elect, or Restitution­ists, to consecrate before the New Covenant is inaugurated – ­JJH), as is shown in Rom. 4:10,11,13,14,16. (Note: When Brother Johnson said “From the time of Abel, Enoch, and Noah” he was specifically speaking of the elect classes (four elect classes selected) – in this instance of the Ancient Worthies! – JJH). This becomes clearer when we understand that to Abraham circumcision came after (Emphasis by R. G. Jolly) justifica­tion, as the latter's seal; for in the Scriptures circumcision is used to type consecration (Rom. 2:28,29). Thus Abraham's circum­cision, sym­bolizing his consecration, naturally would come after his justifica­tion by faith, sealing it to him. Likewise, throughout the Gospel Age, until the initial beginning of the Basileia (emphasis by JJH) on Sept. 16, 1954, tentative justification has been a prerequisite to be accept­able to God in conse­cra­tion during that time there­by setting a seal on their justification, so that it did not lapse for Gospel‑Age elective purposes (emphasis by R. G. Jolly). “Consecration is always in order” (E Vol. 4, P. 420); (Note: Yes, 'in order' during the Gospel Age after they came into the court! And such consecrations – of Quasi‑elect, or Restitution­ists – will be _in order’ in their “due time” – when ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION can be obtained under the New Covenant Arrangements, and not before, as was claimed by J. F. Rutherford, and now by R. G. Jolly! – JJH) – hence it continues after Sept. 16, 1954; and, as a prerequisite to consecration “until restitution begins,” tentative justification must therefore also continue. (Yes, in the Epiphany Court, the proper place for tentative justification. – JJH) While, therefore, as stated in the answer to the previous question, we understand that after Sept. 16, 1954 no more per­sons remain in, nor thereafter enter, the tentatively‑justi­fied condition for Gospel‑Age elective purposes, i.e., as a step toward membership in one of God's elect classes (emphasis by R. G. Jolly), we nevertheless believe that persevering faithful justified ones will remain in, and additional ones will enter into, the tentative‑justified condi­tion for Epiphany Camp purposes, i.e., as a step toward becoming Consecrated Campers. (Note: R. G. Jolly calls them Epiphany Camp­ers consecrated – yet he says it is due to the Basileia having its initial beginning, making it possible for Epiphany Campers to conse­crate! Why not Basileia Campers? In the overlapping of the Parousia Period into the Epiphany period, were we not actually in the Epiphany Period from 1914 onward –with the Parousia overlapping as necessary for the gleaning, etc.? We know the Epiphany Period and the Time of Trouble as one and the same is Scripturally true; but during R. G. Jolly's “period” the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are not one and the same, as the main features of the Time of Trouble are still future – ­to be undergone in his Basileia “initial beginning.” – JJH) It would seem, therefore, that those tentatively‑justified ones who consecrate after Sept. 16, 1954 and before restitution begins, and thus become Consecrated Epiphany Campers, by their consecra­tion set a seal upon their tentative justification (emphasis by JJH), so that it will not lapse for Epiphany Camp purposes. (Note: But Brother Johnson distinctly teaches that those who are remanded to the Epiphany Camp are those whose tentative justification have _lapsed’ – lapsed for any purpose during the Gospel Age, except as they retain their character development for Millennial‑Age purposes. So those whose Tentative Justification do NOT LAPSE, are the faithful YOUTHFUL WORTHIES IN THE COURT! – that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the UNconse­crated. – JJH)

It will be noted that R. G. Jolly was quite emphatic, even in March 1955 (and we would suggest that his readers meditate upon R.G.J.'s 1955 presentation and compare with his present‑day teaching on tentative‑justification operating during the Kingdom – and compare with J. F. Rutherford's course of changing one fundamental teaching of That Servant’ after another to fit his new views – errors) – that he was in full agreement with Brother Johnson and his teaching that “tentative justi­fication operates until restitution begins.” He has now rejected that Truth, replac­ing it with his “advancing(?) truth” that tentative justification will continue all during the Kingdom reign. Is he now telling us that he and Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were all wrong in their previous teaching that tentative justi­fication is a “faith” justification – that the Lord has elected him, a Levite abandoned to Azazel in 1950, to correct a teaching which by all viewpoints should have been cleansed of all error in all ways by 1954? Or is this just another of his “mud splashes” that have been responsible for many of the “special trials that have come since 1954”? This one point in itself should be plenty to convince even a beginner (an honest beginner) of R. G. Jolly's UNRELIABILITY as a Truth teacher!

Here is another clear statement from Brother Johnson re tentative justification: “When this (Gospel) Age ends Christ's merit will cease to be an imputable thing,” (E‑11:170, bottom). Will R. G. Jolly explain his position relative to the above, or will we merely hear more name‑calling from him? Before he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950 he firmly believed the Truth on tentative justification we are here quoting from the Epiphany Messenger. Also, on p. 183: “Faith justification operates only during the Gospel Age.”

He goes into quite some detail – and correctly so – on p. 58, col. 1 about the trials that came at the first and second Advents, which trials stumbled the Measurably Faithful and the complete outcasts, as they were contemporaneously a source of strength to the Fully Faithful. But Jesus Himself set forth the method by which the Fully Faithful would “know the Truth” in his answer to John's disciples who had been sent to ask, “Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear (His teachings) and see (His works).” – Matt. 11:2‑6 In those things they “heard and saw” Jesus did not contradict Himself, as R. G. Jolly has now done on his tentative justification bungle. (Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company, says Brother John­son.) In this, of course he has gone to the other extreme of That Evil Servant. The latter eliminated tentative justification entirely as a Gospel‑Age teaching; whereas, R. G. Jolly says it will carry right on beyond the Gospel Age and into the Millennial reign – just as he claims it has now been enlarged to include his Epiphany Campers. As said, this should be enough for even a beginner to accurately calculate R. G. Jolly's capacity as a Truth teacher. Of course, he's been forced into this bungling reversal of his own approval of Brother Johnson's truthful exposition on tentative justification by the acceptance of his error on Consecrated Epiphany Campers (his false doctrine handed to him by J. W. Krewson and NOT BY THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER!) – just as Brother Johnson predicted of those who fall into Azazel's hands.

Referring again to his p. 60, col. 2 (top), he offers E‑10:10/108 as a reference in proof of his 1954 contention. On p. 103 of that very reference – R. G. Jolly's own citation to prove his position – there is this:

“The nominal‑church foolish virgins, by varied experiences ... coming into the Truth during 1954‑1956.”

Would the merest babe in the Truth contend that prediction occurred by 1956, or even yet has occurred in 1961 – seven years after the “initial begin­ning” of R. G. Jolly's Basileia? We may be certain R. G. Jolly's only answer to this will be some more of his cheap name‑calling!

When 1914 arrived there was abundant physical visible evidence to substantiate that date. When 1954 arrived, there was not one single item of physical visible evi­dence to support that date. As an evidence of R. G. Jolly's chagrin and desperation in having just nothing to support his “Attestatorial Service,” we recall his jubila­tion and loud “loquacious foolish effusions” (Brother Johnson's description of him) in October 1956, when he shouted forth his claims about England‑France‑Israel moving against Egypt “RIGHT ON TIME.” But, after a little reflection, and when that move collapsed completely in the downfall of England's Prime Minister Eden, even R. G. Jolly saw how ludicrous had been his exultation – and it has never been mentioned since. And that is the nearest he has ever come to producing any physical visible support for 1954‑56. When the true Pastors and Teachers made a mistake, they humbly admitted it; when R. G. Jolly makes a mistake he just covers it up with another mistake (just as did J. F. Rutherford), knowing many of his readers have very short memories – following in the footsteps of That Evil Servant instead of in the foot­steps of the Two Messengers (Star Members).

He makes quite some play on Lev. 12, as respects the developing truths for the Little Flock and the Great Company. We are in full agreement with Brother Johnson's interpretation of that Scripture; but there's just nothing in that picture that even hints at a termination of the Epiphany in any sense whatever by the end of that 80 years. In fact, all of us certainly realize that Tentative Justification is a teaching here in the end of the Age that has to do with the development of all New Creatures; it was fully purified of all error by the last two Star Members. But R. G. Jolly now has the impudence to tell us it has been nec­essary for him – an uncleansed Levite – to offer some changes in that truth; although the very type upon which he himself now leans disputes his error in full. Every face‑saving attempt he has made has only made more manifest to truly enlightened Epiphany Truth people his pitiful paucity of clear reasoning on fundamental Truth, as he resorts to “loquacious foolish effusions” and name‑calling as a prop for his bungling.

RESPECTING GENESIS 26

In corroboration of the statement immediately above, we refer to R. G. Jolly's Genesis article on pages 52‑55. So long as he adheres to Brother Johnson the article is superb; but, when the Jolly “logic” is injected, then the Azazelian bungling comes hand in hand. At top of p. 55, col. 1, he says the “justified humanity, as pictured in Azazel's Goat” perishes in the wilderness. In a following paper we shall treat this in further detail – giving Brother Johnson's true explanation; but for present purposes we ask what is typified by the “wilderness”? We have repeatedly stressed that in the Tabernacle and kindred pictures a place types a condition in the antitype. Apparently this has not even yet registered with R. G. Jolly, or he would not offer his nonsense on the subject.

Let us assume a member of the Philadelphia Ecclesia being abandoned to Azazel: Does such a person actually go off into the literal wilderness, as did Miriam in Numbers 12? No, of course NOT! That person would continue to live in the same house, follow his same secular occupation, and be the same person from all worldly viewpoints. The only change in his status would be the withdrawal of “all brotherly help and favor” from him by the Fully Faithful; he would be disfellowshiped. But this would be known only to those in the Truth who were familiar with his case. Thus, his “justified humanity” would be only moderately affected, but certainly would not “perish” – although his “fleshly mind” would be badly pummeled and eventually “destroyed” if he were properly exercised by his “unfavorable circumstances.” We shall have more on this matter in a subsequent paper; and we ask our readers' indulgence as we direct attention to R. G. Jolly's claim at bottom of col. 1, p. 55, that he is one of “the cleansed Great Company” being used “exclusively to bring forth advancing Truth.” His understanding of the item just discussed is a splendid proof of just how “cleansed” he is and what kind of “advancing Truth” he is presenting! What he is speaks so loudly we can't hear what he says!

In R. G. Jolly we have just one more living Epiphany illustration of what occurred after the Apostles passed away. As the Roman Church grew, it injected one error after another – just as R. G. Jolly is now perverting tentative justification in its time and place features – all the while saying they were following and preserv­ing the Truth as passed to them by St. Peter. R. G. Jolly and other leaders in Little Babylon all vociferously and with profusion of words claim they are adhering to and upholding the Truth as given by That Servant, although they do just the reverse in actual practise, R. G. Jolly now adding the Epiphany Messenger to his “authority” for his perversions (Azazel means Pervert­er). Brother Johnson taught – in harmony with Brother Russell – to the day of his death that tentative justification ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ceases, and is typed by the Tabernacle Court. This R. G. Jolly now rejects, all the while he repeats, repeats, repeats how he is uphold­ing the Epiphany Messenger's teachings. Brother Johnson accused That Evil Servant of giving Brother Russell the “Judas kiss” by such chicanery.

“The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down. He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the Lord.” Psalms 145:18; 146:9; 148:14 –

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – You have offered much criticism of Evangelists. Do you consider that office unworthy of respect?

ANSWER: – It is certainly not our wish to discount Evangelists in general. Eph. 4:11 clearly states that our Lord “gave some evangelists... for the work of the ministry”; and St. Paul admonished Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5) It would seem that the evangelistic office is a step above that of local elders, so any praise due elders would apply to evangelists with added emphasis. In 1 Tim. 3:1, 2 St. Paul states, “If a man desireth the office of a bishop (elder), he desireth a good work ... must be blameless..of good behavior.... apt to teach”; and Titus 1:9, “he should be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” – all of which would also apply to evangelists.

Our comments respecting one evangelist appointed by Brother Johnson (J. W. Krewson) have been actuated by his power‑grasping, his irresponsible talk, his inability to present “sound doctrine,” and his failure to “do the work of an evangelist” as Brother Johnson intended he should do. What we have said concerning him would be equally applicable to any General Elder, or lesser officer in the Church, if they resorted to his distortions and perversions. But to all evangelists of Brother Johnson's appointment, who hold his memory in loving respect, we would once more offer St, Paul's appeal with double emphasis now: “Do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry”!

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑-----------------

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

Your kind letters received and both much appreciated. Thanks! It is real good to have a few words from time to time, although we are sure you must have little time nowadays on account of the increasing demands made upon you in the Lord's service – ­with the preparation of your carefully written articles to help the Truth brethren in particular to see matters aright – and to prove who is manifesting their faithfulness to all the teachings the dear Lord has given us through His last two Star Members; and also those who are so guilty of repudiating and perverting the “Word of God,” as well as breaking the Lord's arrangements which are surely intended to bind us together in faithfulness and obedience to Him and to one another in Christian love and service.

We received your No. 74 issue... which like all the others contains ever so much food for thought....... You convincingly prove to us all just how antitypical “Hiram is safer with the Ass, than the Ass is with Hiram.” How very true indeed is this say­ing, when we recall Bro. Johnson's statements that the “Ass” types.Truth Teachings, and that “Hiram” types R.G.J.

Sincerely your Brother & Sister ---------- ENGLAND

NO. 75: THE SONS OF GOD

No. 75

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

On page 92 of the 1960 Nov‑Dec. Present Truth R. G. Jolly again revels in some more of his name‑calling and loud talk about the “teacher of sophistry” and “this errorist” (referring to JJH in both instances); and once more does he offer a vivid illustration to prove that those in Azazel's hands lose their ability to discern between Truth and error, and offers an irrefutable example in proof of Brother Johnson's words in E‑4:128 (9):

“For the most part they (the Great Company).... see only counterfeit light, i.e., such as never was on the antitypical lampstand, and thus partake of un­clean bread, i. e., such as never was on the antitypical table.... As a re­sult their new creatures are famished, weak, sickly and asleep.”

In this they offer striking contrast to the good Youthful Worthies, “Who are privi­leged to see and appreciate every truth except such truths as the Lord may desire to be limited to the priests.”

In view of the foregoing, it is little wonder that R. G. Jolly screams forth his “counterfeit light,” and contrasts it with the real Truth that we presented on the Gospel‑Age Sons of God, pointing to our presentation as ”sophistry” and “error.” And in this he will fool the majority of his readers, those whom the Lord wishes to receive buffetings similar in nature to those meted out to uncleansed Great Company members during their abandonment to Azazel – those dwellers in Laodicea who are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17) So confused is R. G. Jolly in his answer to us that he fails to see any difference in the Old Testament “sons of Jacob” and the “sons of Levi” and in the New Testament “sons of God.” And in the face of this he is crass enough to refer to himself and his cohorts as “cleansed good Epiphany Levites”!

Be it noted in Malachi Chapter 3 that it is Jehovah Himself who is the speaker, and He is sending His Messenger (our Lord Jesus) to accomplish a certain work among the “sons of Levi.” If these are the same as the New Testament Gospel‑Age “sons of God,” why does not Jehovah refer to them as “my sons,” as He does elsewhere when addressing the Fully Faithful? Even R. G. Jolly's own quotation from Brother Russell at the bottom of p. 92, col. 2, says, “These sons of Levi, in the antitypical sense, are the household of faith.” Is R. G. Jolly willing to accept this statement for just what it says? If so, then he must include in it all the tentatively justified, plus his Campers Consecrated. Is he now trying to put them also in the Gospel‑Age “sons of God”? Be it understood that we are not now trying to complicate this issue with “profusion of words,” so we hasten to explain that Brother Johnson shows from his various statements that it is new creatures here in the end of this Age that are specifically being “purged” – although the purging applies in a secondary and limited sense to all members of the Household of Faith. The criticism we now offer is that R. G. Jolly should have made such explanation if the matter were clear to him, because “he that discerns clearly, teaches clearly”; but we realize he does not discern clearly, so it is impossible for him to teach clearly – even when he has the Truth on a subject (although he is the one now in full error on the “sons of God!”).

It will be noted in E‑5:118 (28) that Brother Johnson says, “The sons of Levi (the “justified” in contrast to the “unjustified” – JJH)... represent the Lord's people in and out of the Truth.” Further, in E‑5:137 (62): “Who will be able to stand when He appeareth (when He makes all His people manifest, i.e., in the Epiphany, Mal.3:2)?” And in E‑5:395 Brother Johnson explains that the “sons of Levi” even refer to the first Advent “in a secondary application.” Further, in E‑5:415 (22), Brother Johnson tersely states, “By the sons of Levi in this text the Little Flock and the Great Company are meant”; but there is not the least hint in this expression that those “sons of Levi” are synonymous with the New Testament “sons of God.”

In support of our statement aforegoing, we now offer something from Brother Russell in Z Reprints 4574, col. 1, bottom: “Notice how distinctly the Scriptures differentiate between the church class (the 'little flock’ of underpriests, and the 'great company’ of antitypical Levites) and the remainder of mankind. 'Ye’, 'we,’ and 'us’ are terms Scripturally applied to those 'called’ during this Gospel Age to be sharers with Christ in the high or heavenly calling ... Christ's members over whom He is the Head – the bride class, of whom He is the Head or Bridegroom.”

Complementing the above is this in E‑3:213: “Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation (Armageddon – JJH) in order to the completion of her work toward Azazel's Goat.”

This leaves not the least doubt but that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson diametri­cally contradict R. G. Jolly's determination to put himself and his lesser lights into the “light,” “salt” Class of the New Testament; for our Lord clearly states, “Ye (those mentioned by Brother Russell above) are the light of the world; ye are the salt of the earth.” If the last two Star Members are right in their interpre­ta­tion of these texts, then R. G. Jolly displays some more impudent Levitical presumption in his brazen attempts to put the Great Company (cleansed or uncleansed) into the same Class with the saints.

Brother Johnson lends confirmation to the foregoing in E‑12:275, where he speaks of “Christ and the Church,” which term he applies exclusively on this page to the saints, the “us” Class, in contrast to the Great Company: “There is still another difference between the sufferings of the Great Company and those of the Church” (the Little Flock, the “us” Class the “salt” and the “light” – JJH).

Once more we quote from Brother Russell from Z Reprints 2481, col. 1, par. 1, in order that all may clearly discern what manner of personä R. G. Jolly is, and what credence they may place in any of his “counterfeit light”:

“The Lord's wrath is come on the _children of disobedience’. Who are these children of disobedience? Are they the wicked, the worldly, the unregenerate? No, none of these; for they are not 'children’ at all, The reference evidently is to those who have become children of God by His legitimate arrangement of (1) justification and (2) sanctification  through faith in Christ. He is referring to those who are of the class 'called to be saints,’ but who fail to make sure their calling and election to joint‑heirship with the Lord, as members of the Kingdom 'Little Flock’ ...... He refers to the Great Company.”

In this July Bible Standard is an article on “The Christian Walk,” and on p. 51, col. 1, he offers some comments in pars. 2 and 3 which demonstrate once more that “his eyes are dim, that he cannot see” (see 1 Sam. 4:15 and 3:2, where Eli types a certain section of the Great Company who “cannot see”). The Berean Comment for Col. 3:6 states clearly and specifically “the Great Company” are the “children of disobedience”; yet R. G. Jolly applies this text to other classes in his usual foggy and misleading manner. Had he even a glimmer of understanding on this text, then we know full well he would not have offered his bracketed comments (although his comments are indeed the Truth): “Be ye therefore not partakers with them (the children of disobedience; do not take part with them, fellowship with them – in such evil things; do not seek their company, or feed on literature they produce).” Certainly, the Lord's faithful people are strongly admonished to follow explicitly the foregoing counsel while the Great Company are in Azazel's hands. in harmony with Brother Johnson's advice that we should stoutly resist “Combinationism,” we also counsel the Lord's faithful people in general not to seek the solace of fellow­ship or instruction in any of Little Babylon's groups – although those “rooted and grounded” in Epiphany Truth may do so on propitious occasions in the hope of helping such as have “ears to hear.” This may often prescribe a lonely way, but it is cer­tainly the only safe and proper way. We here direct attention to our readers that Combinationthoism is the third Slaughter Weapon; thus a worse evil than Sectarianism, which is not classified as a Slaughter Weapon at all, and is being rapidly swallowed up in Protestant groups by the Combinationism Slaughter Weapon. It is something to behold how this “Perverter” (Azazel means Perverter) of Scripture (R. G. Jolly) strives to replace himself into texts which were once his (the salt, light, etc.), but from which he has eternally been ejected, and to remove himself from those texts which specifically refer to him, such as “the children of disobedience.”

Before leaving this feature, we feel we would be remiss if we didn't draw atten­tion to his par. 1 on p. 50, col. 2 of July Bible Standard. This entire paragraph is 100% correct if the “we” he is discussing are the saints. But, if he includes himself in the “we,” as “not having the spirit of fear,” then again he offers abject perversion of Heb. 2:15: “(The Great Company)  through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (See Berean Comment for a very clear explanation by That Servant..)

As Brother Johnson informs us in E‑15:525, these “disobedient” ones are eventu­ally formally disfellowshiped by the Fully Faithful, during which time they are to be abandoned to Azazel “for the destruction of the flesh.” This means God also temporarily abandons them – much the same as an earthly father disinherits a wayward son for his reformation. There are a number of things such people lose when they fall from the priesthood: They lose their crowns, thus being forever removed from the Body of Christ, the Bride Class; they lose their anointing, which is never regained; they lose the spirit of understanding, which prevents them from thinking clearly and correctly on Scriptural subjects while in Azazel's hands; they lose some of the “exceeding great and precious promises” which once were theirs; and they lose their standing as “sons” in God's Household during the Gospel Age – although they will become daughters in God's Household after their cleansing. In fact, while they are in Azazel's hands – and until they reform – they also lose that “Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (being “bound in affliction and iron” – Psa. 107:10), and lose their favor of God (although many of them still receive great “praise of men,” but are Scripturally designated as “sinners” against their Covenant by Sacrifice). All this is inferentially stated by Brother Johnson in E‑9:155 as follows:

“We hail it as the day when our bound and Azazel‑controlled brethren will come to the liberty of God's daughters (2 Cor. 6:18).” Thus, clearly enough from Brother Johnson's conclusion, they are no longer considered “sons of God” (as R.G. Jolly claims) – are not even considered as “daughters” during their abandonment – but are relegated to the position of “daughters” after their full recovery from Azazel.

Companion to the foregoing, we offer corroboration from Brother Russell in Parousia Vol. 6, p. 378: “Those begotten again to this new spirit or disposition, the Spirit of God, and having become pupils in the school of Christ to learn of Him and walk in His steps – these, and these alone, can be safely put under the Law of Liberty. if they lose the spirit of sonship, they cease to be sons, cease to be under this Law of Liberty.” While the Fully Faithful have ever been scrupulously careful not to abuse that “Liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free,” not so the Measurably Faithful. They have not only abused that Liberty to the extent of losing their crowns and “grieving the Holy Spirit of God, whereby they were sealed” (Eph. 4:30), but many of them prescribed a liberty of their own (after the restraining hand of the Star Members were removed from them), which has caused them to talk all sorts of nonsense and present much of the false doctrine that has been foisted upon the Household of Faith during this Gospel Age.

Note Brother Johnson's comments in E‑13:87: “He (Satan) used the speculative minds of the second, third and fourth centuries' crown­-lost leaders as the means of palming off his counterfeit of our Lord's natures and His office. The mental twists and contortions ... had the hardest kind of mental gymnastics to perform in their efforts to harmonize even seemingly the teachings of St. John .... with their God‑man theory.”

In his letter published in the November 15, 1910 Watch Tower, R. G. Jolly admitted the same sort of “mental gymnastics”; and we believe those of our readers who read with unbiased mind will conclude he is now hard put with more of his “mental gymnastics” in his determination to put himself and his cohorts into the “light,” the “salt,” the “us‑we‑ye” Class of Gospel‑Age “sons,” in direct contradiction to the clear teachings of the last two “Principal Men.” Once more – in this Epiphany period, which is mani­festing persons, principles and things – Satan is using the “Speculative minds of crown‑lost leaders” to reinstate themselves into those positions forever lost to them among the fully faithful Christ Company.

Some more of Brother Johnson's teaching pertinent hereto is to be found in the Question and Answer on p. 155, col. 2 of the October 1935 Present Truth:

“Question: Are Jesus' wilderness experiences typical?

“Answer: Their forty days represent the time during which the Church, like Jesus during the forty days, spent much time in study of the Truth for its proper use as to self and others. His fasting typing the Church's self‑denials during the Parousia, and His temptations during the forty days representing the Church's Parousia temptations. As the three great temptations of Jesus came after the forty days, so the three great temptations of the Church have come after the Parousia, in the Epiphany. Jesus refusing to use His miraculous powers for self‑indulgence – a thing in which the Great Company contemporaneously failed. Jesus refusing to use faker methods to attract attention of the world types the Church refusing to give up the Lord's arrangements for doing His work and keeping to the methods given in the Parousia – a thing in which the Great Company failed, as witness the changes in the Lord's arrangements, in seeking to attract the multitude by sensational methods and messages, e.g., high‑powered book selling, regional directors, Millions Now living, etc. (also Flying Saucers; $5 correspondence courses; Combinationism –such as Youth for Christ, a Babylonish method; beckoning to the world to consecrate now as Campers Consecrated, similar to J.F.R's “drives” of various kinds – JJH). Jesus refus­ing for the price of serving Satan to take powers that were not His (the kingdom of this world) types the Church refusing for the price of serving Satan to grasp for power and Lord it over God's heritage (Baal worship, such as disfellowshiping saints and pronouncing them second‑deathers only because they continued to hold their _glorious hope’ – JJH) – a thing in which the Great Company, in leaders and led, failed, as wit­ness the power‑grasping and lording and partisan support of such power grasping and lording in the Great Company.”

Now follows a list of those New Testament texts relating to “sons of God”; and we offer the observation that every one of them refers to the “very elect,” the saints, with not a single one of them including the Great Company:

John 1:12 – As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God (see Berean Comment). Rom. 8:14 – As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (see also Rom. 8:19). Phil. 2:15 -‑ That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God.

Heb. 2:10 – Bringing many sons to glory (Note Berean Conmentä – “glory, honor and immortality”).

1 John 3:1,2 – Now are we the sons of God (Note Berean Comment for v. 1: “us” – Christ's joint‑heirs).

There are many other texts containing only the word “sons”; but these, too, substan­tiate the above quotations. As said in our Paper No. 63, the Great Company will eventually again become “sons of God,” though on a lower plane than the Fully Faithful “sons” of this Gospel Age; but this offers no justification whatever for terming them “sons” at the present time, when the best appellation allowed them after their cleansing is that of ”daughters,” according to Brother Johnson.

Pertinent to this situation is the teaching of Brother Johnson in E‑11:369:

“Then God adds a final prohibition that in approaching The Christ as God's Altar, either in this or the next age...... one should not with vaunting ambition exalt himself by grasping for powers not given him by God and by lording it over others (neither ... by steps). Whosoever so does, now or Millennially, will fall into sinful practises against God's arrangements and into false teachings against God's Truth, and will be exposed unto shame is such (that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon).”

Be it noted that R. G. Jolly has arrogated to himself a position in many texts that apply only to the Saints, with different words but substantially the same thought as J. W. Krewson's contention, “What one does  through another, he does for himself.” Thus, the “cousins” give lurid proof of their kinsmanship in thought and technique. There is yet one outstanding type in which R. G. Jolly has not attempted to inject himself, and that is the large Gospel‑Age Samson. On that he has been conspicuously silent, as it is a clear and irrefutable contradiction to his teaching that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. With the two antitypical pillars of the Philistines' temple still standing, he is hard‑pressed indeed to fit this situation into his many perversions – his “nakedness is being fully discovered.”

DESTROYING FLESH OF AZAZEL'S GOAT

Related to the foregoing is R. G. Jolly's teaching respecting the “humanity” of Azazel's Goat. Going back to his statement in the March 1956 Present Truth, p. 28, col. 1, he correctly states that the bullock (of Lev. 16) represents the humanity of Jesus, that the “Lord's Goat” represents the humanity of the Little Flock, and that Azazel's Goat represents the humanity of the Great Company; then he proceeds to say that the humanity of Azazel's Goat was not cleansed by the wilderness experience. In this latter he is talking some more of his nonsense. If the humanity of that Goat is completely destroyed in the wilderness, just what would be left for the Great Company to “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteous­ness”? Certainly, any novice in Present Truth knows that none of the three princi­pals in Leviticus 16 sacrifices the New Creature! Therefore, if the New Creature is not sacrificed – and if the Old Man’ is destroyed, just what would Azazel's Goat Class have left (after their wilderness experience – designed for their cleansing) to “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”? Our Lord Himself had nothing but His human body to sacrifice. Without that body, He could not have accomplished His mission to “give His (human) life a ransom for many.” “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me” (Heb. 10:5); and “He taketh away the first (the animal sacrifices of the Tabernacle services), that He may establish the second” (the sacrifice of Himself primarily, and His Body Members secondarily –Heb. 10:9). All any of us have to offer in sacrifice is our human all – primarily our bodies as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1) willingly and not as a thing to be forcibly destroyed by Azazel (because of measurable faithfulness). Had R. G. Jolly discerned this teach­ing clearly, he would have taught it clearly; but his statement as recorded in his 1956 paper, when taken just as it appears, is very misleading to say the least, if not  actually grossly erroneous.

Brother Johnson offers a clear and correct elucidation of this matter in the June 1950 Present Truth, p. 50, Question and Answer: “According to the word (1 Cor.5:5)  both their fleshly minds and fleshly bodies (of the Great Company) are to be destroyed … Evidently their fleshly minds will be largely destroyed some considerable time before  their fleshly bodies, because this will be necessary before they can in an acceptable  manner render the service.that they will perform after their cleansing, and before they leave the flesh (Num. 8:21,22)."

This is quite a different explanation than the one offered by R. G. Jolly, who  on occasion has made the public statement, “Let the humanity be destroyed in the  wilderness; it has to be destroyed anyway" (but the Little Flock’s humanity is con-  sumed alS they willingly use their human all in obedience to His Word and Arrange-  ments). But, according to Brother Johnson, if their humanity is completely destroyed  in their wilderness cleansing, there would then nothing remain for an "offering unto  the Lord."

Were R. G. Jolly "fully persuaded in his own mind" concerning the things herein  discussed, why is he not stressing the cleansing and proper place and work of the  cleansed Great Company, as did Brother Johnson? The Fully Faithful have a three-  fold mission in this life, according to Brother Russell and Brother Johnson: First,  to make sure the attainment of their own goal; Second, to help others of their  brethren to do the same thing; Third (and incidental to the other two), to witness  a good confession to the world "for Sin, for righteousness, and for judgment."  Therefore, the obligation of R. G. Jolly and his kinsmen is primarily their own salvation and share in the Church of the Firstborn, after which it is their Obligation  to aid other Great Company members to evaluate properly their true condition and the  Lord's requirements for them. All this talk about converting Israel or winning  "Consecrated Epiphany Campers" (a non-existent class) is merely remotely incidental to the other two requirements we have outlined. Quite often the Truth is unpleasant  to those whose toes it cramps; but we ourselves accept the edict to "preach the word"  whether it be a "savor of life unto life, or of death unto death" (2 Cor. 2:l5)--not  that we specially find pleasure in offering corrective teachings against the wayword  course of our brethren in iniquity, because we believe we are in full harmony with St. Paul's precept, "Love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the Truth." It would give us pleasure supreme to see such "turn back from their path of error"  (Jas. 5:20--Dia.); and it is our prayer that our efforts may prove a real assistance  to them to that end.

"But the king shall rejoice in God; everyone that sweareth by him shall  glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped ;" Psalms 63:11

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Sir or Sirs:  

You or one of the members of your "society" have recently sent me a copy of  The Herald of the Epiphany. I cannot answer to the person who sent it, for it was without return address. If you would kindly read what I have to say about some things I would be very delighted … What you are doing is calling the Bible a liar. You go around telling people there is no such place as hell. Well, I wonder why the rich man looked up from hell and begged for a drop of water to quench his tongue. He was tormented in flames … You only teach the verses you pick out … One of these days the people who teach these lies will look up from hell and beg for water. And I would like to tell you that YOU can't put anybody's soul in a nutshell. You can't, but maybe God can! Please-read your Bible and study it more carefully. Be sure and get you a real Bible and not a Bible that is especially prepared for the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses … To end my letter I would like you to ask your friends not to send me anymore trash. A friend and believer in the  Bible---Florida   

………………………………..

Dear Brother Hoefle:  

Greetings in our dear Lord's Name! Received your letter of May 15 and was pleased to hear from you, but sorry to hear that Brother Wells is so seriously ill. I hope by now he is better and well again.  Thank you for the reference of Psa. 149:6-9. I had studied it before and had it all marked. Had no trouble in finding it. I studied it two or three times since you wrote and was greatly blessed by the Lord in so doing. It is very enlightening and it also has become much clearer to me.

I met Brother------and his wife on Sunday as I went to visit the Dawn. He spoke on the "Harvest." I had a talk with both on the Harvest and the "Door" being closed. Some of the friends were up and were very nice to me. I sent some Babylons tracts to some of them.

I think the last paper No. 73 would be good for the two elders of the Dawn.

Please send some tracts - Where are the Dead and What is the Soul, and the Resurrection. I am thankful that we are on the Lord's side. Praise His Name!

With Christian love and prayers to all. Thank you for tracts … Sr. --- Pa.

………………………………..

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n Dear Sir:

I got a copy of the Herald of the Epiphany today. It was a special edition, printed Aug. 1, 1959. I have never heard of The Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n and don't know how you got my name. But I did enjoy it very much … Since I had just buried my son (51 years old) who died suddenly of heart attack …

I would like a copy of "What is the Soul" - "Where are the Dead" and “The Three Babylons" - or anything else you have that would help me bear my loss.

Sincerely yours, -------- Kansas

………………………………..

My dear Brother Hoefle: - Grace and peace in His dear Name!

Please send me … "The Resurrection of the Dead" - Enclosed is $_ for the Lord's service. Please let me know if you receive this -- being a shut-in it is the best way for me to help in the Lord's service to send money.

In the Lord's service, Sr. ----Conn.

NO. 74: R.G. JOLLY AGAIN

No. 74

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

On pages 42‑46 of this last May‑June Present Truth R. G. Jolly presents a number of Questions and Answers in another feeble attempt to justify his failures and sub­stantiate his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated. And once again does he make lamentable display of his errant reasoning powers, and confirms Brother Johnson's classification of him as a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser”. (See E‑10‑591) At the outset, be it ever remembered that his Campers Consecrated false doctrine was first fed to him by J. W. Krewson, whom he now repeatedly and emphatically castigates as a “sectarianizing errorist” – doing this in the very same paper in which he supports that “errorist's” errors. This is indeed a new and “strange” performance – sufficient in itself to require no further comment to satisfy those who are “rooted and grounded” in sound doctrine (just as J. W. Krewson's acrobatics on R. G. Jolly's being cleansed when he was with him from 1950 to 1952, which he has changed – now correctly contend­ing that R. G. Jolly's antics at that time were parallel to J. F. Ruther­ford after Brother Russell's demise, should also be sufficient for those who are “rooted and grounded” in Epiphany Truth). And, in this same observation, let us remember also that the two “cousins” now contradict each other on this doctrine of tentative justi­fication for their Campers Conse­­crated.

At various times we have quoted Brother Johnson that by September 16, 1914 the Body of Christ was fully gathered – tentatively and individually (“on that day Moses had fully set up the tabernacle”); and on that very same day that Tabernacle pic­ture passed forever out of existence to make way for the Epiphany Tabernacle and its arrangements. So we now ask R. G. Jolly our oft‑presented question: Did the Epiphany Tabernacle pass out of existence in September 1954 to make way for the Basileia Tab­ernacle? He's always avoided this question, and we opine he will continue to do so, because he doesn't dare to face that issue. And, when September 16, 1914 arrived, there appeared also the full and complete Body of Christ. In R. G. Jolly's “parallel” to that date is he now contending that at 1954 the full and complete Great Company and Youthful Worthies also were finally and irrevocably determined in their respective classes? He should have an answer for these questions. He should give his followers something to substantiate his “offerings” (his “new light”).

On p. 44 he offers his usual “profusion of words” about the “laver,” present­ing a confused jumble of Gospel‑Millennial‑Age conditions. Since 1954 are we in the Age of “works,” or are we still in the Age of “faith”? He complains about our hand­ling of the Star Members' writings, apparently realizing that his loud “loquacious, repetitious, foolish effusions” (also Brother Johnson's description of him) will con­tinue to bamboozle those he has browbeaten into his “avoid them” (of JJH and his associates) – a true parallel to That Evil Servant's tactics against Brother Johnson. At top of col. 2, p. 45 he cites Brother Russell's Question Book to prove Tentative Justification in the Millennial Kingdom. Why doesn't he also quote p. 312 of that same Question Book, wherein Brother Russell says: “At the close of this (Gospel) Age there will no longer be a tentative justification”...?

And why doesn't he also comment on Brother Johnson's statement in E‑11:169 (27): “There will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium”? It will be noted that this time he forgets’ Brother Johnson's teaching that “Tenta­tive Justification will continue until Restitution”; so at least he learned from our previous refutation of his “strange fire” not to have the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers contradicting each other on the same page of his paper. And he should also consider the teaching in E‑7:65 (top): “He (Christ) will cause the works justi­fying process of salvation to operate” – in the Millennium.

Furthermore, in E‑6:708 Brother Johnson says: “We advance from the beginning of tentative justification (the gate of the court).” R. G. Jolly will probably contend that this condition applied before 1954; but again we emphasize that Brother Johnson was discussing the Epiphany Tabernacle. Therefore, once more: Is that Tabernacle still with us?

As to persons gaining some cleansing in the Camp from the Laver, any babe in the Truth should know that. Nor have we ever disputed it! St. Paul speaks of those who are “seeking God, if perhaps they might feel after and find Him” (Acts 17:27 – Dia.), which was the condition of many of us before ever we reached tentative justification just inside the Gate. But his contention here has no bearing on the subject; such cleansing does not in itself place one into justification and consecration. Be it noted that both Messengers gave the first veil of the Tabernacle as the place of con­secration. Certainly, if there were the least merit to Campers Consecrated, then some special place shouldä be indicated for their consecration in the Camp. But that doesn't bother R. G. Jolly! Just any place is all right – up a tree, on some rock, anywhere! And this would have to occur right in the midst of a multitude of the un­justified (i.e., worldlings) – quite a great gulf between that arrangement and the true one as performed in the seclusion of the Tabernacle enclosure by the truly justified – ­among the justified and no others. Yes, quite a difference! “Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson.

We now offer the following from E‑11:383 (29): “The six sets of sifting leaders God .... will put into such controversial disadvantages that amid them to defend his errors he will be continually surrendering formerly held truths that impinge against his new errors, as was done with all six sets of harvest sifters. Thus does God punish such invasions.”

In the case of R. G. Jolly, he at one time fully believed and often quoted Brother Johnson's statement that “tentative Justification will continue until Resti­tution begins,” and that such justifica­tion ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ceases. He fully believed – and emphatically contended – that it was a faith justifi­cation for the faith dispensation – in harmony with the last two Principal Men. Now he is “surrendering formerly held truth that impinges against his new error” – ­the error of Campers Consecrated that he imbibed from the “errorist” (J. W. Krewson) whom he denounces in the very same paper in which he defends this “strange fire.”

In this connection, he also wants to quote Brother Johnson's explanation of Rev. 19:1‑10. Why does he not also quote his comments on Rev. 22:10, 11 in E‑lO:ll4? Here is some of it: “1954 is the date that .... no more persons will enter the tentatively‑justified state. Hence the exhortation – “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified and not consecrate).” Is R. G. Jolly following out this part of his 1954‑56 parallel – or is he yet encouraging the tentatively justi­fied to consecrated as Consecrated Campers? Here is another instance where we can be reasonably sure we shall receive nothing but silence from him, because he has no answer. In this respect it means, of course, that the Tentatively Justified who do not consecrate while in the Court can remain as such in character (although it is not possible for them to progress any further in their class standing...). Their tenta­tive justification has lapsed and they are remanded to the Camp.

Furthermore, why doesn't R. G. Jolly explain Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6:195 where he says the Camp in the finished picture contains those LESS than Tentatively Justified? And why doesn't he quote from E‑4:322 where Brother Johnson tells us they cease to be Levites and cease to have tentative justification? They are put out of the Court.

And, continuing we now quote from E‑4:405 (1):

“QUESTION: Are the Youthful Worthies of the Household of Faith?”

We quote part of Brother Johnson's answer on p. 406: “The Youthful Worthies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having _the faith of Abraham’ (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are among the be­lievers referred to under (2). They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith” (cease altogether – and lose their opportunity to become of the Household of Faith FOREVER – JJH), having used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel‑Age Household of Faith who per­sist into and during the Epiphany.”

R. G. Jolly teaches that his Epiphany Campers Consecrated are of the Household of Faith and are walking a _narrow’ way in the camp! Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both teach the solid Truth on Tentative Justification – they taught that tentative justification ceases with the Gospel‑Age! So when any of the Lord's people become confused and bewildered on the subject of Tentative Justification, then they are that much ready to imbibe the false doctrines of the various Revolution­istic Great Company Leaders.

For the sake of clarity, we again emphasize that Tentative Justification cannot be attained any place but in the Court. R. G. Jolly's sole purpose in his question on Tentative Justification is a cover‑up for his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated – yet he does not mention CONSECRATED Campers! He treats solely of Tentative Justification. But the zenith of his hypocrisy isä on p. 45, par. 2, col. 2, where he says: “Thus we see that Brother Johnson did not deny or teach against the Ransom when he taught that the Camp would after 1954 picture the condition of certain tentatively justified ones...” Of course, Brother Johnson never denied the Ransomä in any of his teachings – and most assuredly he did not deny the Ransom in his teaching on tentative justification! He taught that tentative justification was attained IN THE COURT! Why didn't R. G. Jolly mention this? The reason he didn't is that such a faithful Truth teaching would set aside his ef­forts to obtain “newcomers” into his Epiphany Camp!

In par. 1, col. 1, p. 43 he speaks of the 1950 work of the “Good Levite section after their cleansing had begun.” Is he now finally agreeing with us that the Good Levites were not cleansed at Brother Johnson's death?

THE THOUSAND‑YEAR REIGN AGAIN

Further, in par. 2, he states JJH “has been unwilling to face squarely perti­nent Scripture, e.g. Rev. 20:1‑7.” August Gohlke made that same false claim at the last Philadelphia Convention; and we exposed his lack of veracity in our October paper, No. 65, quoting from our No. 27 of November 1957. Thus, R. G. Jolly's state­ment here cannot be an unwitting slip; it must be classified for what it is – just brazen falsehood. And yet this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (quotation from Bro­ther Johnson) is so unprincipled that he shouts “bold and outright falsehood” at us! We offered the only correct and reasonable interpretation – namely, that the binding and the loosening of Satan are “the thousand years,” and not the binding and the reigning. Of course, we are not surprised that R. G. Jolly cannot see this, since uncleansed Great Company members not only do not receive due Truth, but reject itä as they revolutionize against formerly accepted truths while completely abandon­ed to Azazel (all brotherly help and fellowship having been removed by the Faithful) – ­just as he is also now doing with “faith” justification.

We now offer the following from Z Reprints 2739‑40 (pp. 367‑71), relating to this subject:

“QUESTION: – I understand from Rev. 20:4‑6, that Christ will reign one thousand years, and from verses 2 and 7 that Satan will be bound during that period. If Christ began to reign in 1878, and Satan will not be bound until 1915, the two periods do not seem to synchronize; and furthermore, both extend beyond the seventh‑thousand year period which, according to our Bible chronology, began in the Autumn of 1872. How is this? Can you assist me?

“ANSWER: – The Lord has evidently arranged for the gradual closing of the Gospel Age and opening of the Millennial Age, in such a manner that the one laps upon the other, with some particular purpose in view; but just what His pur­poses are He has not been pleased to inform us; and since this extends into the future we may reasonably suppose that it is not now 'meat in due season for the Household of Faith?’ When the end has been reached and accomplished, we have no doubt whatever that it will be manifested to all of the Lord's people that His Word has been accurately fulfilled. Until then a certain amount of faith is required and expected from those who have so many evidences of the Lord's wisdom and exactness in the features of His Plan already accomplished. “We can trust Him where we cannot trace Him.” Apparently this matter of when the thousand‑year period should be reckoned as fully beginning and fully ending will be an open question until the close of the Millennial Age. It is our expectation, from Rev. 20:8,9, that the obscurity of this question will have something to do with the final test of loyalty and obediene to God............

“The Scripture declaration respecting the saints, the _overcomers’ is, 'They lived and reigned a thousand years.’ The reign of the saints cannot be properly said to begin before all the _jewels’ have been gathered, nor before _the times of the Gentiles’ end, in 1914. Nor isä it said that their reign will be no longer than a thousand years. After the thousand years' reign Satan shall be loosed and the above trial shall ensue; but the _reign of Christ and the Church’ will evidently continue long enough after the thousand years to destroy all found unworthy in that final test, and to thus complete the work for which this reign is instituted; – for, as expressed by the Apostle, 'He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet’.... And when all things shall be subdued unto him (some by conversion and some by destruction), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (the Father).”

The “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” repeatedly shouts “teacher of sophistry” at JJH. Let him now give a clear “Yea” or “Nay” as to whether he is in harmony with That Servant's Scriptural presentation as set out above!

On p. 44, col. 2, par. 1, he once more repeats, repeats, repeats his error re “Due truth for all the consecrated.” And he does this despite the crystal‑clear statement of Brother Johnson in E‑4:129: “Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the Priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose .... the Lord gave all the Faithful consecrators for whom no crowns were available an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative under­standing of the opera­tion of the Spirit of Begettal in the heart.”

It will be noted from the foregoing that uncleansed Great Company members re­ceive a marked avoidance; and that even the fully faithful Youthful Worthies would not understand fully all features of due Truth. This reference in E‑4:129 has been offered by us repeatedly; with this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” ignoring it each time. WHY?

In this connection, we now cite E‑16:122‑25 (which is R.G. Jolly's own publica­tion) with respect to the abandonment process: “These revolutionisms (of the Great Company) were resisted by the Faithful .... corresponds to Aaron leading the goat to the gate of the court preparatory to delivering it to the fit man..... Amid these experiences they act so out of harmony with truth and righteousness as to necessitate the Priesthood's withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from them” – that is, they are disfellowshiped.

E‑16 was copyrighted in 1953 “by Raymond G. Jolly” for use in the 1954 “Attesta­torial Service”; and it did indeed “attest” a woeful indictment against him. Did he believe the above quotation when he published it? We inquire further: Did he understand the “due Truth” contained therein when he approved its publication? If he understood –and if he believes it – let him declare when the Priesthood dis­fellowshiped him by withdrawing all brotherly help from him. Did this happen while Brother Johnson was with us? R. G, Jolly himself says that Brother Johnson did not with­draw brother help and fellowship from him at any time (as distinct from priestly fellowship), which we know to be true. He's been very emphatic that he was cleansed at 1950. Let him now produce the proof, or forever hold his peace! Did he ever once as much as mention this “due Truth” to any congregation in lecture or in study, and offer the proper understanding of it? Surely, a teaching so vitalä to him should have received his very profound and extensive consideration and discus­sion in public and privately. Be it noted, too, that Brother Johnson clearly teaches that none of the Great Company can be cleansed without being first fully abandoned to Azazel (the World's High Priest withdrawing all brotherly help by dis­fellowshiping them). “God Himself temporarily abandons them” while they are in that condition. (See E‑15:525).

“Now consider this, ye that forget God (by revolutionizing against the Truth as given through those Faithful Stars that "He holdeth in His right hand’), lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth Me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright (in harmony with the Truth) will I show the salvation of God.” Psa. 50:22‑23

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑---------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – There seems to be no more comment about our money crisis. Has the United States Government now fully settled this matter?

ANSWER: – By no means; it is just another of those items on which they are “sitting on the safety valve.” In 1960 the world consumption of silver was over a hundred million ounces more than all the operating silver mines produced; and that situation will probably be more severe for 1961. We have it from private sources that are usually very accurately informed, that our Government is losing from one‑half to one million ounces of silver per day at present (written May 26), and that the silver reserves are reaching a depletion of critical proportions. This is being kept scrup­ulously quiet; but it would seem its eruption will be all the more violent when it eventually is publicly revealed. When that occurs, the gold situation will also ex­plode, and the same may be true of certain base metals.

We should not be lulled to sleep by the surface calm that now exists. One world‑renowned economist gave a survey of this matter to a carefully selected group just recently; and an intimate business acquaintance informed us that he told them the United States Treasury had had a “financial heart attack” last fall – that another could be expected soon, probably even before 1961 is over – and that the second one would almost certainly prove “fatal.”

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian love and greetings in our Redeemer's Name!

It is with much thanks to God that I am still spared to participate in our Lord's Memorial this year. I had such a serious attack that I thought my last moment had come. But, as you have said, the Lord has a work for all of us, whether for others or in ourselves. I have received many blessings from yours and Brother Russell's comments on same.

We thank the Lord for using you to defend the Parousia and Epiphany Truth in this time when the Adversary and his agents are trying to put it out. But God's Word will stand forever and accomplish the things wherein He sends it – and prosper therein.

I notice your trying experiences with brethren who claim to be holding up the two Star Members' writings – and at the same time discarding and putting them into error. I read sometime ago in Vol. 2 – “The Parousia Messenger”, where Brother Johnson said God would smite them with blindness – that the Truth might appear to them as error and error as Truth. As for Brother ------'s letters, I am much sur­prised over his action. He is quoting the Apostle Paul and he seems to forget how much Brother Paul stood for principle. He has invited you to his mountain top – the one where Satan wanted our Lord to go with him! But we are thankful that you will not go there with him, for the Bible shows that you will be faithful in carrying out the work that the Lord has given you to do. We believe the time will come when the Lord will magnify you. See Joshua 4:14.

My sympathy goes out to you, my dear Brother! But these experiences are evi­dences of your faithfulness. All the faithful have to pass through similar exper­iences.

With this comes my love for you, Sister Hoefle, Sister Dunnagan and all the dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in His dear Name!

In reading your last paper – No. 70 – and Bro. ------'s letters, there seems to be a wrong spirit in the letter (A commandeering spirit and an unwarranted attack on you before he knew both sides of the story). In Prov. 18:13 – “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him.” Brother Russell says we must not jump to conclusions without facts (See Par. Vol. 1, p. 46). We must not condemn until we have weighed all evidence in the case or course. All must be squared by the rule of Justice – the Golden Rule.

Brother Johnson says we are to resort to controversy when opponents fight the Truth with error (E‑8:671) and throw stones (truths) at them (E‑11:378‑79). We must give them warning. That's what I believe you are doing, Brother Hoefle. The Truth shall be thy shield and buckler.... Psalms 91:4

May the Lord continue to bless you in His service.

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

BEREAVEMENT NOTICE: On June 6 occurred the death of Brother C. H. Wells of Winston‑Salem, N.C. He was widely known as a beloved brother and a skillful artisan in the dental profession. He was a true nobleman from the human viewpoint, possessed of a hearty generosity and gracious humility which endeared him to his fellows. We mourn with those who mourn his loss, and rest in the hope that he will be one of God's “princes” in the Kingdom now being established.