NO. 17: PRESENT TRUTH MISNOMER

No. 17

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

The November Present Truth has finally arrived and we observe at the outset that it is such a bedlam of error, falsehood and nonsense that it is an insult to Brother Johnson longer to consider it Present Truth – just as the Watch Tower is now an outrage against Brother Russell. Early in the Epiphany Brother Johnson stated that the name Watch Tower had become a misnomer; and we now say the same of the Present Truth.

In the first article, “Some Thoughts Regarding The Fall of 1956”, R. G. Jolly states his belief that the Great Company Attestatorial Service should not cease as of October 31, 1956. Having been such a phenomenal success, how could any one want to call a halt to it! Then on page 90, col. 2 (bottom), he says the “false claim that at September 16, 1914 the entire 144,000 who would constitute the Body of Christ ..... were then reigning in a limited sense” must be error because the entire number had not then been “quick­ened of the spirit, nor yet instructed in the Truth”. Yet a little later on in this same article he states the Great Company Attestatorial Service by a mere handful of them in the LHMM Group is fully justified because of Brother Johnson's teaching – “It seems to be a general Scriptural rule that when many individ­uals of a class are involved and when time types or prophecies are due to be fulfilled in them, the prophetic time marks the beginning, and not the comple­tion of the predicted event.” Consistency, thou art a jewel! However, he is at least forced to admit the success of the Great Company ef­forts “will come in a larger way after Armageddon” – which we have been contending right along –, although he still clings to the ridiculous contention that those engaging in it now were cleansed before 1950; whereas, Brother Johnson repeatedly stated that it was separation from the Priests that would bring about their cleansing – as a class (or Group). We are still wholeheartedly in agreement with Brother Johnson on this teach­ing; and we state again that the dismal failures of the past ten years are a vivid proof of their still uncleansed condition. It should be noted here that during the Little Flock's Attestatorial Service large numbers of antitypical Lot were coming into Present Truth, the Photo‑Drama had phenomenal success, hundreds of newspapers were carrying the Sermons, and thousands were attending the public meetings – none of which has been in evidence over the past two years. The contention of “rich blessings” upon the efforts since 1954 is only a myth designed to mesmerize the “unstable and the unlearned”; and is simply some more of the nonsense R. G. Jolly has been preaching since October 1950.

On page 92, cols. 1 & 2 we note 44 items of “truths that have been strengthened, embellished and defended” over the past two years. Leading up to all this on the prev­ious pages, R. G. Jolly states (and correctly so) that Brother Johnson's expectations were not realized in many important ways; but he goes on with the argument that many of these things had their “beginnings” during this time, one of which is the start of Israel's conversion. Can R. G. Jolly name just one Jew that has been converted to Chris­tianity by his efforts from 1954‑56? If he cannot do this, then what beginning has it had? And when Brother Johnson made his predictions about this feature, was it the date or the conditions he expected to prevail then that prompted his forecast? We have stressed this matter in previous writings, showing how Brother Johnson expected certain works to be done by the cleansed Great Company, but that cleansing would be ef­fected by extreme Fit‑Man experiences during Armageddon. When R. G. Jolly selects the date instead of the prevailing conditions, he makes an arbitrary selection – one that fits in with his contention; but the hard realistic figures of his Annual Reports brand his claims as just some more of his nonsense. It should be noted that his message to the Jews is certainly nothing new in the Epiphany life of the Great Company. That Evil Servant had his “Comfort for the Jews”; so have the Dawns had their “Chosen People” ­the content of both publications being almost identical in substance to the LHMM book­let. Thus, our booklet in itself is nothing new, has started nothing new, and has ac­complished nothing more than did the others because the “due time” had not arrived. At the top of page 92 he says, “Even if others do not take part in this service, or perhaps even seek to discourage us, let us continue to press on.” These words, too, have the same identical ring to them as those of That Evil Servant, many of whose followers were so intimidated by them that they allow themselves to be debased as human billboards on the street corners as they “joyfully” perform the “service of the Lord – Jehovah's Wit­nesses – in harmony with the Lord's Arrangements.” And that same Evil Servant repeated­ly stressed “love for the brethren”, all the while he was slandering our beloved Brother Johnson and other faithful Saints with his flood of falsehoods, underhand knifing and doubleminded doubledealing – preaching one thing today and the opposite tomorrow, just as his convenience seemed to dictate.

Of the items listed on page 92 a number of them are simply a re‑statement of what Brother Johnson said; some are merely repetition of R. G. Jolly's errors. He still has the effrontery to list his “Faithful & Measurably Faithful”, though we annihilated his position and completely silenced him on it; the same with John's Beheading; the same with his “Azazel's Goat fully delivered to the Fit Man prior to 1950.” In our previous writings we have repeatedly and profusely quoted from Brother Johnson's writings to prove this was an impossible thing, yet he still hands the brethren his error on it. As Brother Johnson so clearly taught, delivery to the Fit Man in its second aspects means complete isolation from the Priesthood; and we have asked R. G. Jolly to name the date this occurred to him prior to 1950, and to give the date, too, that it occurred to Brothers Gavin and Eschrich, both of whom thought they were Priests right up to October 1950. We now ask him again to do so. Will he do it?

We also predicted he would soon enough be willing to forget, and have his blind sectarian readers forget the Millennial reign of the Christ in its relation to 1 Cor. 15:24; and he has just about come to the vanishing point on it, only mentioning “the thousand‑year reign”, etc. By way of record, it is stated here that a couple of R. G. Jolly's appointees at the recent Chicago Convention admitted the truth of this matter as we have set it forth in recent months; and we now offer a little more on it from page 123, col. 2 (top) of the August 1949 Present Truth:

“This test (Note: separation of the sheep and the goats) will be accomplished during the time when Satan will be loosed and he will tempt those who are temptable and could be overthrown. Christ will deliver up the King­dom to the Father, in the sense of sitting as God's Vicegerent on God's throne and delivering the sentence and judgment that the Heaven­ly Father Himself will cause to be made; and this will occur; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power (v. 24). What is meant by all rule, and all auth­ority and power? We answer, every vestige of Satan's governing, of Satan's claim of right, and of Satan's might; all of this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.”

R. G. Jolly told his readers a faulty disc was responsible for the “of” in Brother Johnson's statements in the Herald and in Vol. 17, page 124; that RGJ should have edited this, but had failed to catch it, that the brethren should now change this “of” to “is”. Well, was he also editing the Present Truth during Brother Johnson's lifetime? And does he have another faulty disc as his authority now to correct the above?

From the foregoing it should be readily apparent that this citation should now be corrected, or that R. G. Jolly advised the adherents of the LHMM to Write an error into Brother Johnson's writings when he told them to change the “of” to “is”; and we call upon him now to reconcile his “correction” with the foregoing, or to advise the brethren to eliminate the error from Brother Johnson's writings that he advised them to put in there. If this isn't sufficient to force him to correct his perversion in the Present Truth, then we can offer much more of the same, as we evidence in abundance to support our position.

Before continuing in logical sequence with our comment on the first article in this November Present Truth, we digress to offer some comment on “Revolutionism on Church Organization” as it appears on page 97. Page after page in issue after issue has been expended on this point, when it would seem that one page well directed should have taken care of it in toto. However, if JK is guilty of everything in every way claimed by R.G. Jolly, the brother could not possibly sectarianize the LHMM because he has had no oppor­tunity to do so. Even if he drew away after himself 90% of its present adherents and formed a sect with them, he would still not be making a sect of the LHMM. The only one who has had opportunity to do this – and who has actually done so – is R. G. Jolly him­self. So steeped in ignorance and sectarianism are some of his partisan supporters (sym­bolic kissers of Baal) that they actually “make snoots” during Convention meetings at those with whom they do not agree. Note the violent contrast in this attitude and that taught by Brother Johnson in Vol. E‑6, page 736 (top)!

“On flimsy evidence disfellowshipment is decreed, and is enforced by refusal of even the common amenities of life, such as an ordinary greeting, or a friend­ly look, or handshake. Along this line they are copying the Society policies – `avoid them'. `'The instruments of cruelty are in their habitation.'”

We cannot too strongly urge upon our readers to avoid such conduct as “the pestilence that walketh in darkness”, and which is certain to bring disaster to those infested with it. Should any of you resort to such silly and childish “work of the flesh and the Dev­il”, then the Adversary would have two where he now has only one. Such are to be pitied, but not imitated in even the slightest degree. While R. G. Jolly may disclaim responsi­bility for the conduct of such, and disclaim making a sect of the LHMM, he rebukes others for not adhering to “The Lord's Arrangements” – meaning in effect R. G. Jolly. His con­tention here is simply the “Channel” doctrine dressed in other garb; and this he does while decrying the “Channel” teaching. His self‑evident contradiction in this matter is simply other nonsense since he has been abandoned to Azazel on October 22, 1950. How often we have heard his partisan supporters shriek “out of harmony with the Lord's arrangement” when their only offense was a protest against R. G. Jolly's errors, falsehoods, etc.

On page 93, col. 2 R. G. Jolly indulges in quite a spree of imagination depicting Satan talking to himself. And who should be better qualified to fathom the reasonings of Azazel than one who has been in his clutches for so long! Early in the Epiphany That Evil Servant presented quite a display of rhetoric in describing hypocrites ‑‑ much the same as R. G. Jolly has just done on the mental processes of Satan –; and Brother John­son's comment was that JFR was expertly qualified to define hypocrites inasmuch as he was one of the most obnoxious to put in his appearance during the entire Gospel Age. Now his “little brother” presents a high‑sounding portrayal of the deep mental processes of Azazel. And who should be better qualified to do this than one who has had the “strong delusions” that R. G. Jolly has had during his years in the Truth! “In due time” we ex­pect to make further comment on this matter – just as we expect to do on The Epiphany Solomon and Antitypical Hiram. In passing, however, we take note of his claim that he has made clear the type and antitype of the two Hirams. Yes, indeed; he's made it “clear” – as clear as mud. And we hope he will make still other attempts to make it clear, at which time we shall have quite some more to offer on the two Hirams and their relation to the Evil Epiphany Solomon. We hope he will not defer this matter too long.

As a final plunge into the depths of Azazelian nonsense he states on page 93, col. 2 (bottom half), “They (Note: his so‑called `Sifters') regard it (the LHMM) as unclean ­a house of leprosy... and therefore if they were consistent, they would no longer be in `association with' it, nor encourage others to remain `in association with' it.” Seem­ingly, R. G. Jolly is so befuddled that he fails to differentiate between actual leprosy as a disease and the various forms of spiritual leprosy, as Brother Johnson describes them in Vol. E‑4. On page 291 (bottom) he says leprosy in a house types Great Company uncleanness as they contaminate themselves with sectarianism. This writer and all his house accept none of R. G. Jolly's “leprous house”, the LHMM which he is now “controlling even as Brother Johnson controlled it”; nor do we contend that even a majority in the LHMM are leprous. One of the very outstanding types of Great Company uncleanness is to be found in Miriam as described in Numbers 12. When she became leprous because of her sins against Moses, did the House of Israel follow R. G. Jolly's `consistency', leave their possessions and their God‑given rights to separate themselves from Miriam? Did they? They certainly did not! Rather, she was forced into the wilderness condition until such time as she should be cleansed from the contagion – just as St. Paul forced the brother in 1 Cor. 5 to do the same thing. And we call upon all faithful Youthful Worthies and cleansed Great Company members in our midst to follow this same course with the leprous Great Company members in our Group. Nor can we expect any prosperity from the Lord until that is done. – “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, saith the Lord.” – Any who see the sins of Revolutionism, power‑grasping, falsehood, etc., and who calmly say, “leave it in the Lord's hands”, will eventually be given up to their lie, just as Brother Russell predicted would be the fate of such.

For some time now we have realized only too well that R. G. Jolly would be well pleased to have this writer and others withdraw from the LHMM, thus allowing him free scope to run riot with the heritage that is rightfully the dower of all the faithful in the Movement – all the while he blames us and others for his staggering failures, just as did the wicked Ahab with Elijah the Prophet: “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (1 Kgs. 18:17) Nor can we find better answer to this than Elijah's words: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the command­ments of the lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” It should be noted that many who have come at variance with R. G. Jolly since Brother Johnson's death were the noblest and best of the “good soldiers” who gave most freely of their time, their money and their blood to “build the house of the Lord” in this Epiphany time, and to aid the Good Epiphany Solomon in building his own house. Let each think it over and answer for himself, bear­ing in mind that each must eventually “stand before the judgment seat of Christ”, where the palaver of leprous Levites will find no lodging or influence – as each one is “judged according to his works.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑

Grace and Peace through our Lord Jesus Christ! I trust you received my letter to you with an enclosed copy of one sent to Brother Jolly from our class here. We got a reply far from what we expected. Part of his answer was “I am sorry you received the Hoefle literature, but others elsewhere received it, but seeing the bad spirit they are not in­fluenced. However, I will consider an answer in the Present Truth.”

Since then we got the January Present Truth. I think we will write to him again, for we are not satisfied with that answer. The representative and Pilgrims are not disposed to interfere with what is happening, so they are not pleased with us. But we are sure God's work will be carried through. I thank God that He has caused you to open our eyes to see the published errors in the Present Truth.

I am enclosing on separate paper some questions sent by Brother Jolly to a Sister to be answered. I would like very much if you would in brief send me an answer to them for my enlightenment. It was given to me by the Sister to have and read, and so I copied it, having in mind to show you. I am glad for your help, for my one determination is to please God if I am even to stand alone ........ Thanks to you very much.

Yours by God's Grace, Sister________

NOTE: This Sister was one of many who wrote R. G. Jolly asking for a clear answer to the slander matter; but none of our informants ever received such an answer from him, his alibi always being “JJH's bad spirit”. After this matter was submitted to the Gener­al Church it was then six months before he came out in the Present Truth, and then only did he do so because of much prodding from various sources. And even then he did not answer the charges made against him, his only defense being further slurs and insinuations against JJH. Nor has he yet vindicated himself on the many lies he has told against JJH – especially, has he completely ignored his gross falsehood that “JJH had full charge of the funeral arrangements” for Brother Johnson. He could not help but know his statement was an unvarnished falsehood, since he himself had made ALL ARRANGEMENTS for that funeral even before JJH reached Philadelphia two days before the funeral, even the newspaper notices having already been published, leaving only the funeral itself on Friday for JJH to conduct. Brother Hoefle.

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

New York

Dear Sister Hoefle:‑

Received “Present Truth” the 21st, if you want to call it the “Present Truth”. It be­lies its name. R. G. Jolly should change its name, too... I only read his references to Brother Hoefle, and his so‑called refutations. The more he talks the more he involves himself. Many more should wise up soon and begin to see his shoddy tactics of dishonesty and trickery. His glittering personality and holy (?) mien will not always shine out so brightly.

I received .... the August 1 and August 15 articles and they seem the best yet. Bro. Hoefle has the faculty of hitting the nail right on the head every time. Surely the Lord is using him to help His people at this time. I pray daily he may continue faithful and be strong in the lord and in His might .... and I am assured such will be the case. God bless him!....... Give my Christian love to all. I am with Brother Hoefle 100%! He has both courage and ability.....

Your brother in Him _____________

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

California

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑

Grace and Peace! You may not remember me, but I met and heard you at a Convention in L.A. before Brother Johnson died. I forget the year. I enjoyed your talks and felt convinced at the time that you are faithful. I remember so well after Brother Johnson had made one of his deep addresses on the graces, telling how we could employ one of the graces to help use some other grace. Well, it was interesting ‑‑ but when you got up after he sat down, you said, “Well, that sounds very simple.” We all laughed and so did he. I am praying the Lord to direct you....

Sister_________

NO. 16: QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

No. 16

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

Inasmuch as numerous requests have come to hand for elucidation on past comments, we now offer some questions of general interest.

Question: What is the antitype of Aaron standing naked for a short time in the court of the Tabernacle, as shown in Lev. 16:23‑24?

Answer: As Brother Johnson so well explained, Garments in the Scriptures symbolize three things: (1) Graces of the Holy Spirit; (2) “Dis”‑graces; (3) office Powers. Inas­much as the risen Christ is fixed in character, the first two of these points could not apply; but the “Office Powers” certainly can apply. When the last Saint has left the earth, the linen garments of sacrifice will have been forever put away. According to the type, they next put on the garments of Glory and Beauty, at which time they would proceed to “bless the people.” But they cannot proceed to “bless the people” immediately after putting aside the linen garments of sacrifice. Why? Because the Great Company and Youthful Worthies will not yet have finished their course; and, until the merit that reckonedly and tentatively imputed to these two classes has been returned, that merit cannot be used to seal the New Covenant, which sealing must precede the donning of garments of Glory and Beauty incident to blessing the people. Therefore, the time of waiting between doffing the linen garments of sacrifice and donning the garments of Beauty is typed by the High Priest standing naked for a time in the court after comple­tion of all the Atonement Day sacrifices. In that interim the Christ will be complete as the Mediator; but they will be without the “Office Power” to fill that office until the returned merit allows them to put on the garments of Glory and Beauty which they must wear before any blessing can take place.

Question: Inasmuch as St. Paul had striven all his life to keep the Law of Moses strictly to the letter, how could he say in 1 Tim. 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief”?

Answer: It is true that St. Paul adhered to the Law of Moses to the best of his ability, as his statement in Phil. 3:6 (Dia.) clearly declares: “As to that righteousness which came by law, I was irreproachable.” Yes, he had indeed been a “Pharisee, an Hebrew of the Hebrews”, which meant he had never been a drunkard, had never been immoral, never a thief, etc.; therefore, he had never degraded to the level of the “beggarly elements”, who, concerning righteousness, “cannot discern between their right hand and their left” (Jonah 4:11). As we see it, there is only one way in which we can reconcile St. Paul's statements: In Acts 7:58 it is stated that Paul (then named Saul) “held the clothes” of them that stoned St. Stephen to death, thus making him equally guilty with the perpe­trators of that act. Therefore – so far as we know — Paul is the only member of the Body of Christ who was guilty of the murder of another member of that same Body. Thus, among the Body Members that deed would make him the “chief sinner”.

It is now December 1, and there is still no November Present Truth. In 1951 it was reduced from one each month to one each two months; now it seems there isn't even one in three months. Can it be that R. G. Jolly had his November Present Truth through the printer's shop, then had to re‑write it because some more of his nonsense became apparent to his co­-laborers? We wonder.

With this letter comes the Christian love and assurance of our prayers to one and all – May the Lord bless thee and keep thee".

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

December 1, 1956

An Open Letter to Raymond G. Jolly:

In view of some things you said at the Chicago Convention October 26‑28, I feel obliged to address this open letter to you:

1. In substance, this question was submitted – “Should we continue to invite a brother to our meetings when a brother from the Philadelphia Bible House is our speaker if that brother interrupts the speaker with his own opinions during the discourse?”

Your Answer: Please report to me any brother who lets the brethren be that unruly. I am going to ask that brother why he didn't keep order. My dear brethren, any one that goes forth should maintain order in the Church where he is serving...... The one who interrupts might not know any better; but the speaker should keep order.

I consider your answer as set out above 100% correct; and I commend you for finally coming to see the Truth on this point of order in the Church. However, your claim that Sister Hoefle was disorderly at the Winter Park meeting on March 15, 1955, if true, placed you in the identical position in every detail to the situation described aforegoing – ­yet you did not give her the benefit of the corrective instruction you now advocate; i. e., if she were guilty as you charged behind her back. Certainly, the obligation now rests heavily upon you to write the Winter Park Class an explanation in harmony with your own advice which you gave the brethren assembled at Chicago.

2. At the Friday‑night Business Meeting you stated you “rejoice in all things” – including the sifting experiences; and you specifically mentioned the 1908‑11 sifting. If Brother Johnson has given us the Truth on the 1908‑ll sifting on pages 165‑170 of Vol. E‑14, then neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson agree with your statement about it. On page 170 it is stated that Brother Russell “sought by most self‑denying labor and by humbling himself..... to the dust before God”; and that leading brethren “sought to assuage his grief.” Certainly, this gives no hint that he was “rejoicing” during that sifting. Nor is your statement in harmony with Paul's words in 1 Cor. 13:6 that “love rejoiceth not in iniquity.” Nor is it in harmony with Ezek. 33:11 – “I have no pleasure (do not rejoice) in the death of the wicked.” Also, it would be interesting to have your explanation of how Jesus “rejoiced” when He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. (Luke 11:35) And how was He rejoicing as He wept over Jerusalem because of the sins that had been committed there? Or what rejoicing He displayed in the agony of Gethsemane, and throughout that night, and the next day on the cross? The Bible gives not the slightest hint that Jesus or any of the brethren “rejoiced” that Judas, when manifested, was the “son of perdition”; and certainly no one with “the spirit of a sound mind” could “rejoice” in the heinous crimes or the human depravity that we see everywhere about us. I know from personal conversation with you that you did not rejoice in 1937‑38 when you were a manifested crown‑loser ­nor did I rejoice over your loss; and I sincerely hope you do not rejoice over others losing their crowns. All Scripture must be read in the light of sanctified reason; other­wise, all sorts of nonsense may be “proved” by the Bible. The Bible says God can do all things; yet it also says it is impossible for Him to lie. It is stated in Prov. 10:12 that “love covereth all sins”; yet Jesus said that a sin against the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven (covered) — Matt. 12:31. Indeed, your teaching on “rejoice in all things” is loose and perverted and very misleading.

3. You said Brother Johnson indicated, while he was yet living, that the next great sifting would come from the Youthful Worthies. Where did he indicate anything like that? Certainly, you know full well that the sifting that cane after his death involved almost exclusively New Creatures, and affected Youthful Worthies very little. Nor is your claim in harmony with Brother Johnson's comments under the Nov. 14 Manna text.

4. You said the Great Company developing Truths were all brought out by the end of the 80‑year period that came to a close in October 1954. Will you please point out just one such Truth that you published in the Present Truth between 1950 and 1954 that Brother Johnson had not fully clarified while he was here? Or, are you contending that the “purification” was completed by 1950?

Also, in that same statement you said those truths would have to appear by October 1954, because they would be prima facie error if they were presented after that date. With this I am in full agreement. Then you proceeded to declare that the contention of one Youthful Worthy sifter that the abandonment to Azazel of the last Great Company Group (those in the LHMM) was accomplished on October 22, 1950 is prima facie error because it did not appear until 1955. I am forced to conclude you are again guilty of wilful false­hood when you make such a statement, because this matter has clearly set out on pages 9 & 10 in my writing of March 27, 1956 as follows:

“R. G. Jolly belittlingly states re our statement of the last Great Company develop­ing truth to appear in the 80‑year period – `it is appearing rather late – in his Nov. 15, 1955 circular.' Well, well!! He loudly and repeatedly has contended — ­and correctly_so – that `classes of individuals are frequently represented in their leader or leaders!' But now – with his usual sleight‑of‑hand – he tosses that teach­ing out the window because it seems to suit his convenience. On January 18, 1954 the following statement was sent to him by this `Sifter':

“`When you recognized that the last Priest had left the earth, you should also have recognized that the last act of the High Priest on the Day of Atone­ment, before removing his linen garments, was to deliver Azazel's Goat into the hands of the Fit Man (Lev. 16:20‑24). It seems to me that the awful reali­zation of your appalling position should have caused you to prostrate yourself before God and the Brethren. But, instead, you began to assert yourself with emphasis; those who could not immediately agree with you were `stubborn and self‑willed! I know of my own knowledge that your attitude caused some to leave us. Perhaps their leaving was `for good'; perhaps `they went out from us because they were not all of us.' I say, Perhaps! But, perhaps the words of Jesus should be considered here, too: Offenses indeed must come, but woe unto that man by whom the offense cometh. Seemingly, you learned little or nothing from observing the terrible course of That Evil Servant, who imme­diately began `to smite his fellow‑servants' (his equals).'”

When you juggle the truth and inject gross falsehood, as you have repeatedly done in the above and other matters, you may consider yourself quite clever as you deceive and mislead trusting brethren; but I remind you that you are not thus fooling the Lord in the slightest degree. He has said He will not “be mocked”, so there is certain to be a day of reckoning. So far, my protests to you along this line seem to have influenced you not at all; and, if you do not speedily make an honest effort to cleanse yourself, to remove yourself from “darkness and the shadow of death”, then your eventual lot will appear with the Epiphany Jambres – an end from which there is no recovery. My prayer is that this letter may arouse you to your precarious position, and that you may eventually “stand in the congregation of the righteous.” This is my only motive in addressing you as I have. Please know I do not “rejoice in iniquity”; nor do I find anything but regret and sorrow in having to expose your sins to the gaze and consternation of brethren near and far. “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” — Prov. 29:1.

Sincerely,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letters of General Interest

Oregon.....

Dear Bro. Hoefle: When the brethren turn against you and say untrue things, it is indeed a bitter experience and hard on the flesh. I have had some personal experiences along that line;........... When first I read the May Present Truth I remarked that I bet there was sure a lot of trouble brewing to have brought forth that article, but had no idea what was behind it......... I re‑read the May Present Truth article and very carefully read all of the letters you sent, and want to assure you that I approve the stand you have taken against this slander........... But more than that I rejoice at the stand you have taken for the Truth and for upholding the last two Star Members. It seems to me this slander relative to the money, your lack of “harmony”, etc., may well be the Lord's overruling providence to bring about the action you took in your letter of August 8 to Bro. Jolly. Though it is hard on the flesh, the lord will surely bless you richly spir­itually......... Knowing so well your great knowledge and keen understanding of the Truth, your opinion has always carried a great deal of weight with me...... I am sure many of the other friends have this same opinion of you, and therefore it is all the more important that for the sake of the Truth and the brethren you make your position clear. No doubt by so doing you will keep many in the L.H.M.M. from being misled........ With Christian love, Sister ________

Oklahoma.....

Dear Brethren: Yesterday morning when I found that....... I would have some un­interrupted time...... I studied the Epiphany Solomon article more thoroughly than I had previously. I looked up every Scripture and Volume reference, and gave it a prayerful and critical going over. Though I was pretty well convinced of its truth­fulness from previous readings, you can be sure that I am now. It is a splendid article and a remarkable revelation. It is so clear that I don't think of a question I need ask now concerning it. The Lord seems to have blessed my hours of study. One can see the Lord's leading in Brother Hoefle's explanation, and I thank Him for using Brother Hoefle to bring these truths to our attention........... With warm Christian love to you both, Sister ________

New Jersey...

Dear Friends, And I do think that you mean to be friendly and helpful in sending me your literature from time to time. However, I am asking you to send no more as I do not agree with what you consider as Truth or “new light” nor do I care for your reason­ing concerning Bros. Jolly, Gavin or Eschrich. The latter has asked for forgiveness and if the other two have not or deny that they've repeated rumors to your detriment, I think it would be well to let the matter drop....... A.Y.W. cannot demand one of a higher class (G.C.) to go according to Matt. 18:15‑17 .... Sincerely, Mrs. M. S.

Ohio........

Dear Bro. Hoefle:‑ Grace and peace in our dear Lord's name! We have put off writing you for so long, but it's not because of ingratitude on our behalf, but just too much to do...... Your letters have been acceptable here, and I look up every reference you have given. We appreciate them very much, and the others have asked if they should send some money to help pay the cost of sending out these letters....... Have never neg­lected the study of both Parousia and Epiphany volumes, and delight in so doing. The Manna each day is most helpful, and how much we love the time spent on it. May God bless you as you View and Re‑View that which is being presented as Truth. In the love of the Truth, by His Grace ‑Sister ________

Michigan.......

Dear Bro. and Sr. Hoefle:‑ Grace and Peace! I have greatly appreciated the letters that you have been sending to me the past year and I am enclosing $.... to help out on the postage in sending out these letters to the brethren; and I know that some one should do this work in pointing out conditions in the L.H.M.M. It is a sorry spectacle when one is not able to testify now in Conventions unless you are on the list. I wonder what Bro. Johnson or Martin Luther would say of this. You sure have Bro. Jolly over the bar­rel on the 1000‑year question, which I thought from the beginning.......... You will find in the new Book Vol. 17, The Millennium, on page 124 where Bro. Johnson in treat­ing of 1 Cor. 15:20‑26 has in brackets very plainly after “then comes the end”.... has it the end of the Little Season, which is a very good point ....... and let Bro. Jolly try and get around that if he can. Any one with common sense from the context of the Scrip­ture should know that it would be after the Little Season that the Christ would deliver the Kingdom to the Father.......... The reference that Bro. Jolly uses in the Question Book on the Little Season has reference to the Mediator only........ With much Christian love, Your Bro. In Him, ________

Scotland.......

Dear Bro. Hoefle:‑ 2 Peter 1:2. We gratefully acknowledge all the typewritten sheets you have sent us and pray that the Lord will bless all your efforts to understand the revelations of Truth that has been given to us by Brothers Russell and Johnson. It has been a joy to read the Scriptures re the small Solomon and the volume citations. We are sorry you have had to suffer so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation – 2 Tim. 3:12‑14; yet, we rejoice that you have been exposing the errors of power‑grasping and combinationism in the Evil Epiphany Solomon. Brother Johnson pointed out that the Lord would raise up defenders of the Truth and we are glad to remember you in our prayers.... ......In closing, thank you very much for your labor of love and may you be kept in the love of God. Our love to you and Sister Hoefle. Yours in His grace & service, Brother and Sister ___________

England........

Dear Bro. Hoefle:‑ Greetings in His name! We are writing to notity you of change of address, and we thank you for your correspondence, which we find interesting and in­structive. And we pray that the Lord will bless you in your work. Again thanking you..

 ... Yours in Him, Brother and Sister __________ Psalms 91.

Tennessee.......

Dear Brother:‑ We are behind you 100% with your word of Truth. I know Bro. Jolly; he has been in our home. Pray for us, and continue to send us your papers. Brother__________

Pennsylvania.......

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑ I wanted to write to you long already when I got my first paper from you, but simply put it off from time to time. I want to tell you that I see the Truth as you see it, and I want to thank you very much for what you have sent so far and I am looking to you for more, my Brother....... I hope you keep us posted on the error that is being taught at present..... I hope to hear from you from time to time and thank you very much. With much Christian love, Sister________

NO. 15: HIRAM - TYPE AND ANTITYPE

No. 15

My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master! In accordance with previous promise, we now present an analysis on Hiram – Type and Antitype.

Inasmuch as king Hiram ruled over Tyre, it would seem in order first of all to set forth the history of Tyre itself. In Gen. 10:15 we are told that Sidon was the firstborn of Canaan, the grandson of Ham, the great grandson of Noah (see Gen. 10:1 & 6). The mar­ginal reading for Sidon is Tzidon – he was the patriarch of the Zidonian Tribe of the Canaanites (note Gen. 10:15-18); and his settlement was at the outermost edge of Canaan – ­"the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon." (Gen. 10:19) Thus, Sidon comes into the Bible record more than 2,000 BC We present all this detail because it seems apparent that Tyre was a colony of Sidon; Isa. 23:12 says Tyre is "the daughter of Zidon."

It seems that Tyre had a rather rapid growth, and soon outshows the mother; it was probably at its pinnacle about 1035 BC, when Solomon began to "build the House of the Lord." At that time it was wealthy, and one of the most prominent seaports of the ancient world; and Hiram was one of its greatest sovereigns. But one of its chief assets was its location: It was on an island of rock a half mile from the mainland, which rose some 1968 feet above sea level, and was properly styled the "Queen of the Sea." Being surrounded by water, such a promontory was practically impregnable against the weapons of that time. After Shalmaneser vanquished the Ten Tribes of Israel, some 739 years BC, he lay siege to Tyre for five years, but failed to take it during that time; and the siege was lifted at his death. It was to have been a part of the inheritance of the Tribe of Asher (see Josh. 19:24-29), but they never occupied it – probably because they considered its conquest im­possible; although it should be noted these people were not among those specifically slated for extermination by the Jews when they moved into Canaan. This may have been one reason they were friendly to the Jews under David and Solomon. It also clarifies the reference in Josh. 19:29 re "the strong city Tyre." Furthermore, it was certainly policy for Hiram to be friendly with David and Solomon, because they could have seized the adjacent main­land any time they wished, which would have made life pretty miserable for Hiram in Tyre. Tyre actually paid tribute to Shalmanesor's successor to free themselves of that nuisance.

It should be noted that the mainland opposite Tyre held almost no strategic value, as it was often overrun by invaders. Therefore, Tyre itself occupied a position comparable to Gibraltar, although Tyre attained its ancient glamour by going "down to the sea in ships", rather than from its strong defensive position. The whole of Phoenicia, of which Tyre was the chief city, was about 150 miles long by about 30 miles wide – an area about one-­tenth the size of the State of Ohio. It consisted mostly of a succession of narrow valleys, ravines and hills. The whole political history of Phoenicia may be summarized thus: They never built an empire; each city had its little independent territory, assemblies, kings and government, and sent delegates to Tyre for general state business. They were strictly commercial, leaving no literature worthy of preservation. (Compare this statement with that of R. G. Jolly on p. 81, col. 2, bottom, of this September Present Truth.)

The male deity of Tyre was Baal, whose consort was Astarte. She was the Ashtoreth of the Bible, the Ishtar of the Babylonians – the same being the Moon Goddess, preeminently the Goddess of reproduction and sexual passion. She is thus readily identified with the depraved Semiramus, the one to whom the Jews "make cakes to the queen of heaven" (Jer. 7: 18), and to whom they "burn incense and pour out drink offerings" (Jer. 44:17-19). Tyre and Sidon called the sun Baal and the moon Ashtoreth; and they honored them with orgies and tumultuous feasts. It is pointedly worthy of note that as soon as Solomon became evil he "went after Ashtoreth, the Goddess of the Zidonians" (1 Kgs. 11:5, 33); so that his league with Hiram led to ultimate shame for Israel. An outstanding product of Baal – Ash­toreth is the wicked Jezebel, wife of Ahab. She was the "daughter of Eth-Baal, king (also high priest) of the Zidonians" ( 1 Kgs. 16:31); and she it was who vowed to slay Elijah after he had slain the prophets of Baal (symbolic of power-graspers) – 1 Kgs. 19:2.

It is to be hoped that the foregoing detail will help to clarify the following analysis of the two Hirams who were linked with Solomon. R .G. Jolly says we "fail to distinguish be­tween the two Hirams"; and we are grateful to him for allowing us this opening – it makes this analysis much easier for us. But we venture the opinion that, had he himself clearly distinguished between the two, he would not have effused the volume of nonsense that he has.

We consider first Hiram the Artisan: on p. 82, col. 1, of the Sept. PT, R. G. Jolly quotes our remark (re Hiram the King) that "Solomon did not so much as give him one guest room in Jerusalem." He says our statement is mere "conjecture for which we can give no proof". If the Bible is silent about it, and nothing can be found about it outside the Bible, is his conjecture not just some more of his nonsense? But he goes on to say "Hiram Ahib....... Undoubtedly was provided with living quarters in Jerusalem, for it would have been out of the question for him to commute." And the same R. G. Jolly makes this statement who accuses JJH of confusion! What proof does he have for his ''undoubted'' statement? We ask because we have pretty reasonable contradiction for it. We are told in 1 Kgs. 7:40-46 that the vessels, whose making required Artisan Hiram's skill, were cast "in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarthan." This locality is down beyond the River Jordan; and there would certainly be no more sense in Hiram commuting back and forth to Jerusalem, as there would be for him to do so to Tyre. It is well established that the Temple was constructed without the "sound of a hammer." The stones and timbers were all completely fashioned be­fore reaching the Temple site; so why not the vessels, too – just as the Bible indicates?

But let us assume that Artisan Hiram did "commute" to Jerusalem. He would have done so only while the Temple was abuilding, because 1 Kgs. 7:40 says he "made an end of doing all the work that he made King Solomon for the house of the Lord." There is nothing what­ever to indicate he stayed on to work on Solomon's House; and there is fairly sound reason to dispute it. Let us take a look at the antitype. Building Solomon's house means for Brother Johnson "establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord's Epiphany Executive." Did antitypical Hiram help him do that? Certainly not! In 1923, during the heckling of Job, R.G. Jolly was "angry at him", threw "many misrepresentations" at him, ridiculed him, belittled him, and "R. G. Jolly was J's main opponent before the church." And in 1937-38 R. G. Jolly was again the ringleader in attempting to usurp Brother Johnson's authority as the Lord's Epiphany executive. In Brother Johnson's own words, "they tried to gain con­trol of J., the Lord's mouthpiece" (Vol.  E-10, p. 646 top). Thus, instead of helping The Epiphany Solomon to "build his house", instead of helping him establish himself as the Lord's Epiphany executive, R. G. Jolly was doing his level best to tear down the Epiphany Solomon's house – rather than helping him build it. And it is the same R. G. Jolly who re­peatedly accused the good Epiphany Solomon of being "impractical" that now charges JJH with confusion. Indeed, "the leopard cannot change his spots – nor does Azazel seem able to change his technique.

On p. 81, col. 2, par. 2 he goes into more profusion about types, and he says “it is hard to understand how JJH could become so blind" re types. Then he quotes Brother John­son's "general Scriptural rule when many individuals of a class are involved." Is he now contending that antitypical Hiram is a "class"? If not, then we ask again, Who is confused here?

Now we consider Hiram the King: In  par. 1,  col. 1,  p. 82,  he  says  JJH  should  "take the trouble to look up secular history." Indeed; and this JJH had done quite sometime back; and he is very much pleased to note R.G. Jolly's approval. However, in view of his own confusion, we wonder if he himself took the trouble to consult secular history. If he did, then we can only conclude that here is a man versatile indeed in the ways of Aza­zel: He "makes" secular history just as easily as he "makes" types and parallels. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised at this, because the large Evil Solomon has also "made" plenty of history!

He says our position (re Hiram passing out of the picture first) "might be somewhat tenable if we could prove that Hiram in the type died first." Then he says the Scriptures are silent about it – and this is right –; so we go to secular history for that part of it, just as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often did in their search for truth. And secu­lar history tells us that the King Hiram, who helped Solomon, ruled for 34 years. There­fore, if he did not begin to reign until the very day Solomon began to build the Temple (which we are not contending), he would have died some three years before Solomon died. But it should be specifically noted that neither Hiram contributed one splinter – or had anything whatever to do with the Temple, the Temple Court or its fixtures once Solomon had "built the house of the Lord, and finished it." Everything they did during the Temple's construction was done under the express direction of Solomon; therefore, any attempt to "make" a type of either Hiram after Solomon finished the Temple can only be labeled as more nonsense.  Therefore, will R. G. Jolly please make a clear statement of just what feature of either Hiram he is now antityping?

As we said in our Epiphany Solomon article of July 2, there was to be an Epiphany Sol­omon, a son of the Parousia David. In the same sense that Brother Johnson was a son of the Parousia David, so also is R. G. Jolly such a son; and the latter is the only one who can now be identified to complete the Epiphany's Solomon's reign. Therefore, should us assume that all we have said herein is set aside, there remains only one simple question: Who has been sitting in Solomon's seat, using Solomon's powers, to complete the 4012-year parallel of the Parousia David? Let R. G. Jolly give a clear accounting for the Epiphany Solomon after October 22, 1950. All the building he claims he is to do has been just the reverse since that date. Like so many uncleansed Levite leaders, he inherited gold, and he has speedily turned it into ashes. We have repeatedly pointed this out; and his own figures on the Present Truth and Bible Standard subscribers tell only too clearly their pitiful story. At the recent Philadelphia Convention there was not even one candidate for immersion. Yet, there are still "great works to be done, and great numbers to win" – and this same R.G. Jolly still offers his big talk that he is the one who will supervise all this.

Before concluding this article it would seem appropriate to take note of R. G. Jolly’s statement (p. 86, top) that JJH is "more confused in his reasoning than a certain 1948-51 sifter." This is another of his cheap tricks to which he frequently resorts, all the while he himself is oozing confusion from his every pore. A typical instance of this is his con­tention that we show confusion by picturing him as Rehoboam in our July 2 treatise of The Epiphany Solomon (page 7) at the same time that we picture him as the Evil Epiphany Solomon. Nowhere in that article did we even hint that he is picturing Rehoboam – did not even use the word "type" or "picture" in what we said of R. G. Jolly. We merely spoke of the simi­larity between the foolish Rehoboam and the foolish R. G. Jolly – just as in that same article we also drew a comparison between the foolish R. G. Jolly and the wise Brother Russell. By the same process of nonsense, R. G. Jolly should also contend we are picturing, or antityp­ing him as Brother Russell. As we have previously observed, when crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and here is another case at point. Azazel has R. G. Jolly so befuddled since October 22, 1950 that he cannot even read plain and simple English and understand what he has read after he reads it. From what we have presented herein, it should now be apparent that much of what he writes on pages 81-87 should be relegated to the ashcan; it comes well within the scope of what Brother Johnson said of some of the drivel published by That Evil Servant: "It is confusion worse con­founded."

And may the blessing that maketh rich indeed abide with one and all, and guide  you  in to all Truth.

Sincerely Your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 14: "SOME MORE HOEFLEISMS EXAMINED"

October 1, 1956

No. 14

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

Now comes a Review of “Some More Hoefleisms Examined”, as carried on pages 84‑87 of this September Present Truth. R. G. Jolly says we falsely “accuse him” when we say $20,000 disappeared from the Book Fund. Certainly, the $20,000 has disappeared from the Book Fund; and his statement that “our reply to these accusations is found in P `56, pp. 20, par. 2 and 52, par. 1” is simply another evasion by him — all the while he shrieks “evasion” at others. The $20,000 is not even mentioned in either of these ref­erences; he simply says he had an audit made — that's his “explanation”. There are men sitting in jail who had audits made, which showed their books in balance, but failed to explain items such as the one in question here. It is such irresponsible statements by R. G. Jolly that have caused many to lose all confidence in him and to withdraw all support from him; and we predict many more will yet do so if he does not speedily re­solve to adhere to the truth in what he says and does. Copies of some correspondence are enclosed to corroborate this statement; and more will quickly follow, D,v.

Just as he “deals deceitfully” with our contention in the $20,000 item, so he re­peatedly “deals deceitfully” with the writings of the Star Members. He certainly did so with Brother Johnson's “Faithful and Measurably Faithful”; he also did so with “good” Levites and “cleansed” levites, using these expressions as though they were identi­cal in meaning until we showed his sophistry to be utterly ridiculous; he is now at­tempting to do the same thing with the 60 “Groups” and 60 “Posts”, as evidence page 60, col. 1 (top) of the July P. T. — of which much is yet to be said.

A flagrant instance of his “dealing deceitfully” with Brother Russell's writings was seen at the recent Philadelphia Convention. At the two‑o'clock Testimony Meet­ing on Saturday — at which 123 were in attendance — he had one of his Evangelists conduct the service. This brother opened the meeting with two hymns and a prayer; but did not even read a Scripture text, much less offer any preparatory comment (although later in the meeting he did repeat the day's manna text). He then proceeded to say this would be a “Testimony Meeting” — testimonies and no hymns. Then he asked how many did not want to testify, at which a scattered few raised their hands in various parts of the Tabernacle. After this he began to call upon various ones to testify from a list that had been previously prepared; and he checked them off with a pencil after various individuals came to the microphone to tell how thankful they were for someone at this time like “dear Brother Jolly”. On one or two occasions the name called did not respond — either refused or was not even in the meeting; and the lead­er's confusion was apparent. About 2:45 a brother arose, saying he would like to tes­tify; but was told he could not do so because he was “not on the list”. When he pro­tested the microphone was taken from him, and he had to return to his seat — without testifying.

At the Question Meeting some one (whose identity we do not know) asked if the above‑detailed method was not Revolutionism; at which R. G. Jolly said he had been expecting just such a question, so he read from Tower Reprints 5384 to prove (?) Brother Russell had advocated such a method. Just think of it! His loud and verbose answer was in his usual form — as it also was in his distortions and weak confusion in his discourse on the fourth chapter of John in another meeting. His “stage” conduct throughout the Convention again painful­ly reminded us of the small ships at sea:  They usually honk the loudest when they are in a fog!

At the beginning of his “Examination” on page 84 R. G. Jolly says, “JJH does not attempt to offer anything better” (for his nonsense on John's Behead­ing) — which statement he apparently makes as some measure of proof (?) that his explanation is correct. Some 30 years ago Brother Johnson laughed down That Evil Servant's John's Beheading “without offering anything better” — just as he also did with Brother Streater's exposition on Revelation; and he received much the same retort as R. G. Jolly now hands us.

R. G. Jolly says JJH grasps at straws as does a drowning man; but we know — and many others know — that his statement is simply a reflection of his own inner tor­ments. As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, “Half truths are more misleading than whole errors, as the course of every erroneous system proves.” As a vivid illustration of this truism, we cite R. G. Jolly's repeated and parrot‑like quotation of Brother Johnson's statement “after my demise” — which remark he has offered many, many times to justify what he has been doing since Oct. 22, 1950 —; but the companion truth that should always accompany “after my demise” R. G. Jolly garbles or ignores completely.  Brother Johnson clearly taught that the work of Rev. 19:5‑9 would be done by the Great Company “after they are cleansed” — by passing through the refining fires of Armageddon. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson died six years sooner than he expected, the question logi­cally arises: Which one of the foregoing companion truths should control? Surely, no one could truthfully contend that Brother Johnson's death in itself effected the cleans­ing of the Great Company as a Class — even in its leaders.  One of the leaders right in the LHMM was not even sufficiently moved by that death to come to the funeral. How­ever, it should not require much imagination to realize that God's heavy hand upon them in the second phase of their Fit‑Man experiences during Armageddon will have a most sobering and cleansing effect upon every one of them who gains life at all.

We have gone into quite some detail in the foregoing for the benefit of every Faithful Youthful Worthy and other Faithful members of God's House who read it now, or may yet read it; and we urge upon them to plant it indelibly upon their minds when they are talking of present conditions with any uncleansed Great Company member — ­especially, the leaders among them. We have realized for sometime how unpopular with them is our contention that they could not possibly have been cleansed — as a class — in any of the 60 Groups at Oct. 22, 1950. As they consider what may lie ahead of them — if we are right —, it is certain to give them “butterflies in their stomachs”; and their arguments are certain to be colored, perhaps unconsciously so by some of them, by their horrible predicament. Please know we do not say this facetiously; we say it in all sobriety and keen sympathy. But, as we have previously said, there is no occasion for any Youthful Worthy or others in God's House to become involved with the uncleansed Great Company in their Fit‑Man experiences — unless they are in the same relative condition.

In this connection, we have vigorously pursued the slander matter over the past year, because we have been acutely aware of the King Saul type, (he types the crown-­lost leaders up to Armageddon) wherein Saul immediately began to lie after Samuel con­fronted him with his “rebellion” (spiritual witchcraft — “especially deceptive false teachings”) — 1 Sam. 15:13,23.  We are all witnesses of the flood of falsehood that has appeared in writing and conversation during the past few years — and it is still going on!  Another instance of it came to our attention during the Philadelphia Con­vention.  We were talking to a certain brother, a member of the Philadelphia Class, when a sister came up and interrupted to say that this very brother was circulating a story about us to the effect that we made all our money playing the race horses; that she had asked him if Brother Johnson had known about it; that he had told her, “Yes, but what could he do about it?”  When confronted by the sister, the brother free­ly admitted all the details as given here; but just “couldn't remember” who had told it to him — just some more of the underhand knifing of which we have been protesting.  This same brother said he doesn't read our writings because of our “bad spirit” — ­although he apparently reposes in smug complacency of his “good spirit” which freely allows him to “murder” his brother (see Berean Comments on 1 Jn. 3:15).  All know that Brother Johnson gave us Pilgrim appointments right up to the month before he died; and that he insisted that we conduct his funeral — none of which he needed to do if any of the foregoing were true.  Nor did he need to accept such “tainted” money from us, or pub­lish the gracious praise about it as it is found on page 191 of the 1936 Present Truth a small part of which we quote:

“We are sure that all of us will rejoice over this (the unstinted gift of 1327 Snyder Avenue to the Epiphany work) and that all of us will therefor first of all thank God, and, secondly, will feel grateful to the dear brother who so kindly gave it, and who for years has been the largest financial supporter of the Epiphany work. His not desiring his left hand to know what his right hand has done moves us to withhold his name; but without knowing his name, will the brethren please remember him in prayer, for which we are sure he will be grateful and rejoice.”

The malicious gossip detailed herein could be only the concoction of a vicious liar, or emanate from one so nearly moronic that he just can't understand why and how two and two make four.  All of this is a sad reminder of Jesus' words spoken about those “whited sepulchers” of His day whose “good spirit” would not allow them to light a fire on the Sabbath, but which freely allowed them to crucify the lord of Glory:  “Ye compass land and sea to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of Hell than your­selves” — Matt. 23:15.

Now we come to consider “The Thousand‑year Reign of Christ”, as found on page 86. R. G. Jolly still labels as “new light” our reference to 1 Cor. 15:24, although he admits our quotation about it by Brother Johnson appeared first in The Herald of The Epiphany on Nov. 15, 1949.  It also appeared in 1954 in The Bible Standard; and again in 1956 in the book, The Millennium.  Presumably this statement was proof‑read before and after publication in 1949; then again in 1954; then again in 1956. But never once did Bro. Johnson, R. G. Jolly, or anyone else, raise a question about it.  Thus, is not R. G. Jolly again guilty of gross falsehood when he accuses us of preaching as “new light” an item that had previously been published and approved three different times in our own LHMM publications?

But he tries to make an “out” for himself by pleading a faulty disc.  It now “appears” that the word “of” should have been typed “is”.  When he says it “appears” that way, he is admitting he is not at all certain of it; and we now ask if he would allow us or others to inspect that disc?  In any event, his “correction” just won't work, because it makes a ridiculous jumble of Brother Johnson's writing; and reveals at the same tine the scrambled state of R. G. Jolly's mind.  So often we have re­ferred to his contentions as nonsense — which we do again in this instance; but we do this not in a manner of name‑calling; we do it because that's the way Brother John­son put it.  “When these people fall into Azazel's hands”, he said, “they talk all sorts of nonsense.”  So we simply use the language the Star Member said best suits such cases.  In this instance R. G. Jolly is desperately pushed to save his face; and, as was the case with Saul, he goes from error to error, from blunder to blunder, and from misdeed to misdeed.  Conversely speaking, when crown‑losers repeatedly talk all sorts of nonsense, we may know they are in Azazel's hands.  Brother Johnson aptly stated that such preach much better in righteousness while they are under the restrain­ing hand of a Star Member and before they are abandoned to Azazel; and R. G. Jolly is a pointed illustration of this truth.  Before he was abandoned to Azazel on October 22, 1950, he had not displayed one‑tenth the nonsense he has been showing since that date.

Let us note carefully what Brother Johnson wrote:  “Then cometh the and (when he shall have ruled over all the earth); when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God; when he shall have put down all rule and authority (the pretended authority and the pretended night of Satan).”  Surely, if language means anything at all, the “shall have” in all these statements (which we have abbreviated to save space) is a clear and unmistakable declaration that all the items mentioned are fully accomplished before “cometh the end”.  We reconstruct it to make it clearer:  “When Christ (Christ Himself primarily, and the Church secondarily) shall have ruled over all the earth....... when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God......... when he shall have put down all rule...... (the pretended authority and the pretended night of Satan, all of this will be put down by the almighty hand of Christ) then cometh the end.”  Thus, R. G. Jolly's “correction” now has Brother Johnson saying Satan is to be destroyed before the Little Season even starts!!

From our knowledge of past occurrences we can sometime discern the future.  Thus, there was a Harvest at the end of, the Jewish Age — the separation of the wheat from the chaff.  This Harvest occurred during the first 40 years of the Age that followed — ­in the Gospel Age.  Thus, “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11) intertwined in insep­arable fashion for that Harvest.  Then there was a Harvest of the Gospel Age — the separation of the wheat from the tares — which Harvest occurred in the first 40 years of the Age following it — in the Millennial Age; therefore, these two Ages are insep­arably intertwined just as had occurred with the Jewish Harvest.  Now, there will be a Harvest of the Millennial Age (see Matt. 25:32 Berean Comments) — the separation of the sheep from the goats —; and it is a very logical deduc­tion that Harvest will occupy 40 years, and will occur in the first 40 years of the Age following the Millen­nial Age — just as was true of the Jewish and Gospel Age Harvests.  All of this is just deduction, of course; there is no direct Scriptural proof for it.  So, if any one wishes to be contentious, we have no further argument to offer, except to say Brother Johnson is in agreement with this presentation.

However, we realize it is measurably weak simply to say any statement is correct just because “Brother Johnson said so”.  Therefore, we now turn to the Scriptures for corroboration.  It is stated in Matt. 25:31:  “The Son of Man shall come...... all the holy Angels with him (This self‑evidently is Christ and the Church — see Berean Com­ments)..... and shall divide the sheep from the goats....... Then shall the King say.”  This “King” is the same Christ and His Church — reigning on their Millennial Throne and this whole parable is a clear presentation of the Millennial Harvest in the Little Season — the first 40 Years of the Age following the Millennial Age.  A King is the chief executive of the country over which he reigns — just as our President is Chief Executive of the United States.  We have three branches of Government.  The legisla­tive branch (Congress) enacts the laws; the judicial branch (our court judges) inter­prets those laws; and our executive branch (of whom our President is chief) executes the judgments written, even if it becomes necessary to call out the army to do so.

Now, in the Millennial Age Christ and His Church will be all three of the fore­going.  They will enact the laws (“the law shall go forth from Mount Zion”); they will interpret the laws through the Worthies (“the word of the lord from Jerusalem”); and they will “execute the judgments written”.  The 144,0Ol — as a complete unit — be­gan to “execute the judgments written” for the first time in September 1914; and they will finish the “execution of the Judgments written” 1,000 years later — at the end of the Millennial Harvest, which is the end of the Little Season.  Now, Brother John­son says in Vol. E‑l9 (mis‑numbered E‑l7 by R. G. Jolly), Page 350 nine lines from bottom, that the Jews will “prove faithful in the Little Season” (See also top of page 351).  Be it noted that this Vol. E‑17 is the same one R. G. Jolly is now trying to “correct”.  On page 367 (top) of the same book it is stated all who gain life must live “faithfully during the thousand years and stand the final tests during the Little Sea­son.”  On page 414 of the same book (bottom) we have, “by the time the Millennium and its subsequent little season will have fully ended God through the Christ .... will have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution”.  And on page 407 of the same book (12 lines from bottom) it is stated the Christ will effect “the eter­nal annihilation of Satan and the impenitent angels at the end of the Little Season” —­ not before the Little Season starts, as R. G. Jolly now “corrects” it.  Thus, the final “execution of the judgments written” will be accomplished by Christ and the Church in 2914 — just 1,000 years after the full Christ company began to “execute the judgments written” in 1914.  Please note we do not contend — and never have contended — that 1874 to 2874 is not the Millennial Day. We are in full harmony both Star Members on this.  Our contention is that the Christ's reign does not end until the Millennial Harvest ends.

R. G. Jolly says JJH is revolutionizing in this matter; but JJH now passes the “compliment” right back to him — he is revolutionizing with his “correction”.  We now patiently wait for him to “declare, if he has understanding.”!  We wonder if it will be necessary for him to “correct” some more discs to do this.  In due course we shall have much more to say about his presentations in the July and September Present Truths; but we wish to observe here that the once‑elevating Present Truth has in six short years become so besmirched and “dis”graced by its present Editor that it is rapidly approach­ing the level of the once‑elevating Watch Tower.

With this writing comes the prayer of the writer that this presentation may be the means of one and all “growing in grace and in the knowledge” of our Beloved lord.  We advise all to read and compare this with R. G. Jolly's Present Truth (?) — which is just the reverse of the advice he is giving to his blind sectarian followers.  “Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Please note: The following correspondence is published by request of The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia.

Winston-Salem, N. C.

March 31, 1956

To R. G. Jolly:

In view of the March Present Truth we feel that we would not be faith­ful to the Lord and to Truth if we did not register a vigorous protest against the errors printed there as well as some others. It will not be necessary to list them for you, as Brother Hoefle has been doing that very ably and you have not made any attempt to correct or amend your false teachings, slanderous statements, etc.  We cannot support one who “sets himself up” as Pastor and Teacher and then proceeds to slander a brother and “lord it over” God's people.  We hope you realize fully the seriousness of your position — i. e. that your very life is in Jeopardy (1 John 3:15).

You have gone to great lengths to prove that the Great Company in the LHMM were cleansed by late 1950.  If this were true we believe it would show “by their fruits”.  However, the words and actions of some of these Great Company members show them to be in a very uncleansed condition.  We are sorry to see also that some of the Youthful Worthies are not “proving all things”, but are accepting unquestionably anything you say or print merely because “Bro. Jolly said so”.  This is sectarianism.

You may consider this as a complete withdrawal from you of fellowship and support, financial or otherwise, until such time as you forsake your erroneous course, which we sincerely hope you will do before it is too late.  We do this in accordance with Brother Johnson's instructions to withdraw brotherly help and favor from wilful revolutionists.

Sincerely,

The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia

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

April 12, 1956

The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia

c/o Sister ----------, Sec'y.

carbon copies:  Sister --------, Bro. and Sr. --------

Brother J. W. -------, Sister --------- and Brother and Sister ------------

Dear Brethren: Greetings in Jesus' name!

I was much surprised and saddened to receive a letter dated March 31, signed “The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia by Sr. --------, Sec'y.,” telling of “a complete withdrawal of brotherly fellowship and support, financial and otherwise,” from me.  I cannot bring my­self to believe that this letter really expresses the true heart's sentiments of each one of you.  Until I have much more, and indisputable evidence to the contrary, I will con­tinue to be persuaded of better things concerning you.  I am sending a separate copy of this letter to each one of you, or to each family, so that each of you may have an oppor­tunity to study it carefully and answer it individually.  If any of you did not agree either partially or wholly with the March 31 letter, I would be glad to know.  I cannot feel that the March 31 letter is fully and unreservedly endorsed in every one of its state­ments by every individual of your ecclesia.

The March 31 letter (I will not call it your letter, because I do not think it ex­presses the true heart's sentiments of all of you) stated, “In view of the March Present Truth we feel that we would not be faithful to the Lord and the Truth, if we did not register a vigorous protest against the errors printed there as well as others.”  The March 31 letter does not even point out one thing in the March P.T. or elsewhere in our magazines which is supposed to be erroneous, and yet it says, “You have not made any attempt to correct or amend your false teachings, slanderous statements, etc.  Not once have any of you written to me about any of the points at issue in the present controversy, or anything connected therewith which I have written or stated.  And yet the March 31 letter mentions “a complete withdrawal of fellowship.”  Brethren, such things ought not to be.  If this is the kind of judgment with which you judge (Matt. 7:2), then I tremble for you.

If you are registering a vigorous protest against some things in the March P. T. which you do not name, but which you consider to be error, I wonder if you are also registering a vigorous protest against the widely disseminated errors of John Hoefle?  As examples: (1) Are you protesting against his error on the Saints' thousand‑year reign, set forth in his Sept. 15 circular, which in the March P.T. is clearly proven to be out of harmony with the Scriptures, and the writings of the Parousia and Epiphany messengers? (2) Are you vigorously protesting against J. J. H.'s fighting the proclamation of the Rev. 19:5‑9 message as beginning Oct. 22, 1950, whereas Bro. Johnson told us very plainly that it would “have to be proclaimed by the Great Company and Youthful Worthies,” after his demise (P 150, p. 192), and “that it does not refer to that section of the Great Company that remains in Babylon until it is destroyed, but to the Truth sections” (P 131, P. 156, col. 2)?  (3) Are you protesting against J. J. H.'s attempt to prove that the Great Company is not a higher class than the Ancient and Youthful Worthies?

The March 31 letter states, “We cannot support one who ‘sets himself up' as Pastor and Teacher.” Brother Johnson made it clear that my successorship as executive trustee of the L.H.M.M. did “not imply successorship of general pastor and teacher, i. e., successor­ship of the Epiphany messenger as such.” Nor have I ever claimed successorship of the Epiphany Messenger as pastor and teacher.  But I remind you, brethren, that it was Brother Johnson and not myself, who indicated, not only my successorship as executive trustee, but also my office as “the Lord's appointed leader for the good levites and good Youthful Worthies” (P '48, P. 45), and stated that after his demise I was to lead “the brethren of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies in a victorious war for the Lord” (P '5O, pp. 192, 193).  It was Brother Johnson, and not myself, that set me forth as antitypical Baanah and Hiram, his special helper (P `42, p. 14, col. 2, bottom; P `43, p. 79, col. 2, top:  B Vol. 10, p. 449 line 18).  I do not see how I could possibly fill these offices without doing some teahhing (can you?), not as a successor to, or as a parity with, the Epiphany Messenger, but in the far inferior office, as the Lord's appointed leader for the good Levites and good Youthful Worthies.  Is this what the March 31 letter calls “setting myself up”?

The March 31 letter states, “We cannot support one who .... then proceeds to slander a brother and `lord it over' God's people.”  Yet it does not state a single instance.  It is very easy to make charges of this kind.  I would like to know the specific instance or instances wherein I have slandered a brother and lorded it over God's people.

The March 31 letter continues, “The words and actions of some of these Great Company members (i. e., in the L.H.M.M.) shows them to be in a very uncleansed condition.”  Again a general charge is made, and no specific instance is cited.

The letter continues, “we are sorry to see, also, that some of the Youthful Worthies are not ‘Proving all things' but are accepting unquestion­ably anything you say or print merely because ‘Bro. Jolly said so.'  This is sectarianism!”  Let me ask, If some in Brother Russell's day (E Vol. 5, P. 480) or Brother Johnson's day did not prove all things, but accepted unquestionably anything they said merely because Brother Russell or Brother Johnson said so, did this prove that Brother Russell or Brother Johnson was at fault?  Have you known any case wherein I have encouraged such an attitude on the part of any?  Have I not rather, on the other hand, in harmony with St. Paul's admonition in Col. 2:18, discouraged servility and angel‑worship, as is evidenced, e.g., by the article on Angel ­Worship in the September 1952 P.T.?

The letter states further, “We do this in accordance with Brother Johnson's instruc­tions to withdraw brotherly help and favor from wilful revolutionists.”  Where did Bro. Johnson ever instruct withdrawal of brotherly help and favor prior to a proper investi­gation and hearing of a matter?

My hope is that all of you, or at least some of you, will realize that the action indicated in the March 31 letter was taken hastily, without proper hearing and investi­gation.  The great Adversary would like every one of us to disfellowship one another, and that without sufficient cause.  He is interested in having us bite and devour one another (Gal. 5:15).

Brother Johnson often quoted the text, “He that answereth a matter before he hear­eth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13).  How are we, brethren, ever go­ing to be fitted to assist in the Judging work of the Kingdom, if we do not carefully and thoroughly hear a matter before we make a decision on it?  If we cut someone off from fellowship without proper investiga­tion and cause, will the great King of the Uni­verse approve us and our action?  Let us remember that each of us has his individual responsibility in this matter, and we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  I realize that this is a severe test for most of you, and it is made more severe by the fact that J.J.H. is married to a blood relative of most of you.  I pray that the Lord will give you the necessary wisdom and grace to stand firm amid this test, and to de­cide the matter solely on the basis of the principles involved.

I expect to hear from you further concerning this matter, either individually or as a class.  It you reply as a class, then I would appreciate the signatures of each member of the class who approves the contents of said letter fully and unqualifiedly.  With continued love in the Lord, and prayers for your welfare, I remain,

Faithfully your brother and servant,

(Signed)  Bro.  R.G. Jolly

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

Winston‑Salem, N. C.

April 22, 1956

To Raymond G. Jolly:

In answer to your letter of April 12, we wish to tell you first of all that our letter of March 31 was unanimously approved at our business meeting without protest from any one against any part of it.

Secondly, we further wish to inform you that our letter of March 31 was our voluntary act — not suggested or dictated by Brother Hoefle.  Therefore, when you “wonder if we are registering a vigorous protest against the errors of John Hoefle”, we think you would be well advised just to speak for yourself. Certainly if he is guilty of everything in every way you charge, that would in no sense justify you to “go and do likewise” — or excuse you in the slightest degree.  Here again — just as has been your wont in about everything you write — ­you resort to your usual volume of words in an effort to bury your own errors and sins.

You ask us for specific instances:  Brother Hoefle has given numerous speci­fic instances, so why should we repeat them.  Our suggestion is that you answer them in the Present Truth, eight of which are found on page 10 of his March 27 answer to your March Present Truth.

Also, on page 3 of Brother Hoefle's article of November 15, 1955 your atten­tion is directed to your statement in the November Present Truth:

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

In our humble opinion, that statement can only be classified among your sins of lying or power‑grasping or wilful revolutionism. If we are wrong in this, we shall appreciate your explanation in the Present Truth.

We have tried to make this letter terse and to the point. We realize we could have resorted to voluminous words; but we think we have made ourselves clear enough. You seem to be ready enough to “tremble for us”; but we think you should resort to self‑examination first of all and answer the charges that have been publicly made against you in clear and unmistakable language — and while you are exonerating yourself, please give a clear explanation in regard to the way you have handled this slander case against Brother Hoefle, stating in unmistakable language as to whether Brother Eschrich is guilty of the slander as charged by Brother Gavin; or whether Brother Gavin is guilty of lying and making up the slander, giving it to Brother Hoefle and numerous other brethren.

Insofar as having each one in this class sign this letter, we are having it signed as usual – by our secretary – with all the names given below.  We do not feel you have a right to dictate to us in this matter.  The class – each member – ­has voted unanimously that this letter be sent to you, and all were present at this business meeting.

Sincerely,

The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia

NO. 13: LETTER EXCHANGE BETWEEN ESCHRICH AND HOEFLE

No. 13

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace thru our Beloved Master!

Once more it becomes our unpleasant duty to make public a recent exchange of letters in the much-publicized slander case, the same having been opened up again by Pilgrim William Eschrich in his letter of March 20, 1956. It had been our hope and prayer that there is still sufficient honor remaining in these prominent parties in the LHMM to publish a clear and full statement; but about five months have now elapsed since Brother Eschrich's “confession”, with not a word appearing in the May or July Present Truths, so we are now forced to continue in our “wrong course” by making this further correspondence available to all the brethren, exact reproductions of which appear below and on the pages that follow:

March, 20 1956

Dear John,

In meditation and prayer I have come to see that, while I had no evil intentions when I told Bro. Gavin  of conditions in the field where he also serves as a pilgrim, I did wrong in telling him about your investing $1000.00 for a Truth sister, reportedly without giving her a receipt. I want to tell you that I now see that in telling him about matters in which you were involved in a way that might reflect against you I was overtaken in a fault. As you already know from my letter of Nov. 2, 1954, I do not think there was any wrong doing on your part in that transaction. I want to as­sure you again, I have not peddled rumors around, I now ask your forgiveness for what I told Bro. Gavin, which I should not have done, though I had no evil intentions. Also Sr. Eschrich wishes to ask your forgiveness for mentioning the matter to one or two others. Please do not think that this letter means an approval of your wrong course you are following; but I do feel I Owe you this statement, and I ask your for­giveness in as far as the matter may have affected you.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) William Eschrich.

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

March 28, 1956

Dear Brother Eschrich:

Greetings thru Jesus, our Beloved Lord!

In your letter of March 20, which you mailed from Springfield, Mo., and which was forwarded to me here, you ask my forgiveness for whatever part you may have had in the slander that has been circulated about me; and I wish to assure you, my Brother, I am quite happy to note you are beginning to meet your Scriptural requirements in the matter. That is my sentiment toward Sister Eschrich, too; and I truly hope your ef­fort here to “Pursue that true holiness without which no man shall see the Lord” may prove an exhortation to the other two Pilgrims involved with you to also make an honest effort to set their houses in order at this Memorial Season.

But, you say I am not to “think that this letter means an approval of your wrong course you are following.” Your statement has me puzzled, as you do not intimate any­thing in particular that you consider wrong about it. When I was given your name in connection with the slander, I came to you directly on October 30, 1954 – and to no one else. I thought that letter to you was in all good spirit – that I had come to you in full honesty and compliance with my Scriptural obligation in every particular. Is it your thought that I “followed a wrong course” in any way at all in that letter of October 30, 1954? I think you owe me a clear and frank answer to this question.

And, if you do not find any fault with that letter, are you now contending that my taking the matter to the Brethren, many of whom had been given the slander far and wide, was a wrong course? Your letter of March 20, 1956 is about eighteen months late. The wrong you are now confessing was just as much your obligation eighteen months ago; and, if your refusal to meet it then has caused me to take drastic steps (which I assure you have been most unpleasant to me), are you now attempting to shift to me the blame for your second wrong in this matter?

In my letter of November 18, 1954 I asked you a question: Did any one other than Sister --------       come to you about the matter? And at Jacksonville on February 27, 1955 I asked you if Brother Gavin was correct in telling me you had told him in Springfield, Mass., on September 12, 1954 that Brother Jolly had told it to you – which question you definitely refused to answer then. But I think you should answer both these questions now – in harmony with Brother Russell's saintly article of November15,  1908, which applies in such matters as this one.

In my letter to you of November 6, 1954 I asked you a question: Did any one other than Sister -------- come to you about the matter? And at Jacksonville on February 27, 1955 I asked you if Brother Gavin was correct in telling me you had told him in Springfield, Mass., on September 12, 1954 that Brother Jolly had told it to you - which question you definitely refused to answer then. But I think you should answer both these questions now - in harmony with Brother Russell’s saintly article of November 15, 1908, which applies in such matters as this one.

In my letter to you of November 6, 1954 I told you:

“I can find no fault with what you have written to me (re your con­versation with Sister -------- last summer)..... However, the purpose of my letter of October 30 was to learn if you had been told anything at all about this matter, since your conversation with her last sum­mer, by any one other than Sister -------, any one at all; any one at all since that time – along with the name of the parties and the content of the conversation.”

You will note from the above I told you I found nothing wrong with you conver­sation with the Sister, so there would even now be nothing there for which you need ask my forgiveness.

Furthermore, in your letter of November 2, 1954 you say the whole thing is “abso­lutely a false charge,” and you have submitted that letter for publication in this last Present Truth to be read by the Brethren far and wide. Now you come to me pri­vately in complete about-face admitting it was not a “false charge”, and you ask my forgiveness. I think I am certainly entitled to an explanation from you here.

I think I should now tell you, too, that Brother Gavin informed me that he had learned in his Pilgrim trips that the reports that had come back to me about my name being besmirched was only a trifle of what he had heard over a wide section of the country. At the time I did not press him for further comments – just allowed him to volunteer what he wished to give me – although several different times he offered the information without any urging from me that the vicious gossip was having a very ac­tive distribution. Whether you and Sister Eschrich are the starting point for this disgraceful abuse I cannot know – nor do I accuse you of it now –; but it would seem it must have been given decided impetus from some influential source somewhere.

As you must realize, there are only a few bona fide Pilgrims of Brother John­son's appointment that are here any more; and this should make each and all of us the more “resolved” to respect and honor his memory by being “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren.” When your good name became enmeshed in this “miry pit”, I came to you as a true brother and a fellow Pilgrim “first of all” – just as you should now come to me first of all concerning any wrong course you may think I am following; and I do hope at least that you are not again committing the same mistake over again, as you did in the slander – by discussing my supposed “wrong course” with others be­fore you come to me about it.

Of course, I cannot know what has prompted you at this late date to comply with at least a part of your Scriptural obligation in this slander case; but with this letter comes my hope and prayers for you that you will now proceed to meet the bal­ance of your obligation in the matter by answering the questions I have put before you as they are set out above. I assure you and Sister Eschrich of my prayers as a brother and as a Pilgrim who served with you side by side in “the GOOD fight” for so many years,

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed)    John J. Hoefle

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

April 26 - 1956.

Dear John:-

Your letter of March 28 recieved, in which, referring to my March 20 letter, you say: “You ask my forgiveness for whatever part you may have had in the slander that was circulated about me,” I note that you are stating my reason for asking your forgiveness quite differently than I did in that March 20 letter, viz., my tell­ing Bro. Gavin “about your investing $l000.00 for a Truth sister, reportedly without giving her a receipt.” In your letter of Oct. 30, 1954 You said: “It has come to my attention that you have been a party to a vicious rumor to the effect that I have de­frauded a Truth sister, a widow, in the handling of $1000. for her; that I did not even give her a receipt for the money.” In my reply of Nov. 2, 1954 I said: “Your letter of Oct. 30 came to me as a surprise: that I am a party to a vicious rumor to the effect that you have defrauded a Truth sister, a widow, of $1.000. This is absolute­ly a false charge and misconstrued facts.” Then I gave you a detailed statement of the facts on my conversation with Sr. ....... I still deny having been a party to a slander to the effect that you had defrauded the Truth sister.  I never felt that you had defrauded her.

You state also: “In your letter of November 2, 1954 You say the whole thing is 'absolutely a false charge'.” I cannot find any statement in my Nov. 2 letter that can possibly be honestly applied to “the whole thing.” Again, you accuse me of hav­ing “submitted that (Nov. 2) letter for publication in this last Present Truth.” I did not submit that letter for publication in the Present Truth, nor did I have any idea it would be published at all, until I read it in the March PT When, after your name had been fully cleared in the P.T. and otherwise, you brought your personal grievance before the brethren world-wide and reproduced and circulated far and wide much private correspondence, you omitted my letter of Nov. 2, 1954; hence I do not see any objection to its appearing in the PT

You ask, “Did any other than Sister come to you about the matter?” I do not recall other than Sister .......... coming to me concerning her business matters with you. As to your question at the Jacksonville Convention: Your unexpected reaction and attitude toward me startled me for the moment; hence under the conditions I did not answer you. Brother Jolly never told me you had defrauded a Truth sister; nor do I recall that his name was mentioned in my conversation with Brother Gavin. As to what Brother Gavin may have told you I do not know, but I understand he also does not recall Brother Jolly's name having been mentioned in our conversation on Septem­ber 12, 1954, as to conditions in the field in connection with our Pilgrim service. I am sorry that I told him about matters in the field in which your name was connected in a way that night reflect against you.  For this I have asked the Lord's forgive­ness and your and Bro. Gavin's forgiveness and I now feel that I have made the matter right. Therefore I shall consider the matter as closed.

You express the hope that I will not make the mistake of discussing your supposed wrong course with others before I come to you about it. I do not know of any Scrip­ture or Scriptural principle which requires me to muzzle my lips in defending the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth against adverse attacks circulated among the breth­ren in general. I hope by the Lord's strength to continue to fight the good fight of faith against error and wrong-doing, both in myself and in others, especially those who are making a general attack on the Lord's dear sheep. Your wrong course is no longer a private matter, for you yourself have made it public far and wide. It is now for the brethren to discuss the matter freely, if they so desire, comparing your teach­ings and course of conduct with the Scriptures as expounded by Bro.  Russell and Bro.  Johnson, and deciding on which are right.

As to your inquiry on what I think is wrong in the course you are following: I disapprove especially of your wrong course in teaching and circulating teachings far and wide which are in opposition to the teachings and arrangements given by the Lord through the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, such as your teaching in opposition to the declaration of the Rev: 5-9 message as due to be declared since Bro. Johnson's demise by the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, before Babylon falls; your teach­ing in opposition to Bro. Johnson's teaching from the Scriptures, that the Great Com­pany will forever occupy a more honorable position, and perhaps a higher nature than the Youthful Worthies” – E 4, 454; 446; E 16,200; your teaching in opposition to Bro. Johnson's teaching (P 138, 29, col. 1, bottom, etc.) that the Good Levites could be cleansed before 1954; Your teaching in opposition to Bro. Russell's and Bro. Johnson's teaching on the Christ's thousand-year reign; your contradictory teachings on Azazel's Goat, etc. By your circularizing such errors you are spreading confusion among the brethren and are doing a sifting work, which I cannot approve of. Of course, I can­not give you any brotherly fellowship in such a wrong course, I see no need to dis­cuss the matter with you further, as it is sufficiently discussed in the PT. You have my best wishes for whatever blessings you will allow the lord to give you. I do not expect to write you any further until you change your course of conduct and er­roneous teachings, and are ready to admit at least some of your many manifested sins against the Truth and its Spirit.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed)   William Eschrich

NOTE:

The statement contained above – “your teaching in opposition to Bro. John­son's teaching (p '38, etc.) that the Good Levites could be cleansed before 1954” – ­is simply one more falsehood and malicious misrepresentation to add to the long list already accumulated in this disgraceful slander case. Can it be possible that Brother Eschrich's mind is so tragically confused here, or is he willfully falsifying in a desperate effort to “throw dust” into the eyes of God's trusting people? We are cer­tainly not in “opposition to Brother Johnson's teachings” in the 1938 Present Truth; have never been in opposition to it; nor have we even hinted that we were. In the main, Brother Johnson is there discussing individual cleansings in the Epiphany and all during the Gospel Age. But here is what he says about class cleansing:

“There has been no class cleansing of the Great Company yet. This will set in..... very shortly after the 60th post has been set up.”

In Vol.  E-4, P 146 (27) Brother Johnson discusses in detail the individual cleans­ings all during the Gospel and in the Epiphany; then has this to say on Page 147:

“The case will be different with the class cleansing of the crown-­losers, which is to set in shortly after the 60th Epiphany post is erected. They will have to cleanse themselves from their errors and accept the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, as well as overcome their sins, selfishness and worldliness.”

It should be noted that in the foregoing Brother Johnson does not even mention 1954; but he does say very clearly the cleansing of the class cannot begin before the 60th post is erected. Was the 6Oth post erected before October 22, 1950? If not, those in that post could not possibly have had their class cleansing by then – according ­to Brother Johnson's very clear statement about it. If some wish to argue that the 60th post was there in substance, the Great Company – as a class – in that 60th post had not had their Fit-man experiences prior to 1950, so they could not possibly have been cleansed – nor has there been a single Great Company developing truth given in the Present Truth, even to this late date, that could be construed – even by double­minded twisting – as having effected such a cleansing.

At the bottom of Page 106 and top of 107 in E-4, Brother Johnson comments further on this matter:

“The same principles apply to the Parousia-Epiphany Truth (the Little Flock's part having been duly clarified) needed for the development of the Great Company. It has not all been made clear at once to and by the Epiphany Messenger, nor have all his misunderstandings as to its details been removed at once. Both of these features of this work have been pro­gressing and may be expected to progress as the Epiphany advances – as the antitypical mother of the Great Company advances toward 1954.”

Certainly, such false statements as the one by Brother Eschrich quoted above only tend to accentuate the uncleansed condition of the Great Company Leaders in the LHMM – can only add to their condemnation, cause them to continue under God's disapproval, and make more severe their ultimate Fit-Man experiences – if they are to be cleansed at all. “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, saith the Lord.” – Jer. 23:32

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

By Brother Hoefle

May 8, 1956

Bear Brother Eschrich:

In your letter of April 26 you say you “do not expect to write me further.” I can well understand you would be most happy to drop it – even as you told me at Jacksonville on February 27, 1955. With such a weak and unrighteous cause to espouse, you should in­deed want to forget it as quickly as possible – particularly if you have not been moved by that “godly repentance” that produces a contrite spirit. See Psalms 34:18. However, I feel differently about it.  It had been my hope and prayer that your letter of March 20 was motivated by that “godly repentance”, and I am truly sorry this was not the case.

In the first paragraph of your letter you say I have stated your meaning “quite dif­ferently”. I have asked you several times to state specifically what you did repeat to others; but you have always evaded my question. Brother Gavin stated distinctly – in your presence at the Jacksonville Convention – what you had told him, which you did not deny. I take it from this last letter that you did tell Brother Gavin I accepted $1,000 from a Truth sister, reportedly without giving her a receipt.” If I actually did accept money without giving a receipt then I could not even have given her an accounting, because such an accounting would prima facie be a receipt. And, if I gave her no accounting, wouldn't that be fraud? Also, if you gave the tale to Sister Eschrich, wouldn't that make you responsible for any evil she may have done with it? It seems you both considered the morsel choice enough to repeat it to others.

The defense of yourself in your second paragraph is so thin and childish it seems difficult to believe it of you. You submitted that letter to R. G. Jolly, and you “see no objection to its appearing in the PT” Just why did you give him the letter at all? And did you give him also my Nov. 6 and 18 letters? If so, did you or R. G. Jolly see any objection to publishing those letters in that same Present Truth for the further en­lightenment of the brethren? Suppression, perversion and misrepresentations have always been the implements of Satan and his servants (Rom. 6:16).

In paragraph 3 you say my “unexpected reaction and attitude toward you startled” you at Jacksonville on Feb. 27, 1955. You had seen me around the Convention for a couple of days; you knew for four months you had failed to answer my letter of Nov. 18, 1954; and you approached me in conversation that afternoon – I did not approach you. But you immediately gave me your “solemn word” you had repeated the tale to no one except your wife. Your letter of March 20, 1956 now puts the lie to your “solemn word”. So it seems you were so “startled” that afternoon in Jacksonville that you could immediately conjure up an unvarnished falsehood, altho you could not state the simple truth when you were “startled''. When you become “startled” it does strange things to you; it does in­deed! Brother Gavin said there that afternoon you had said R. G. Jolly told it to you; and he repeated this at other times in the presence of witnesses. He does not even yet deny it; simply says he “doesn't remember”. It seems he's “startled”, too.

Anyway, at that time you still addressed me as Brother, yet you partook of the Memor­ial five weeks later, knowing I had a sore grievance against you; and you continued in that same condition for at least four months before I made any move at all to appeal to the general Church. Were you so “startled” all that time that you still could not tell me the simple truth, but allowed that falsehood to hang over your head while you allowed me to pursue a “wrong course”? Too, it was reported that after that Jacksonville Conven­tion you did not hesitate to give your explanations of that conversation to any of the brethren who were willing to listen (along your Pilgrim way). And, even after I made general knowledge of it (openly and in the hearing of all), you still continued silent insofar as the general Church was concerned (although you still recognized me as a Brother) for many more months without any attempt to rectify your wrong. Were you still “startled” all that time? In the position you occupy in the Church you certainly were duty-bound to make a clear and truthful public statement about this disgrace long before you disfellowshiped me; and the publication of your letter of Nov. 2 in the Present Truth without my letters of Nov. 6 and 18 is certainly grossly misleading, to say the least. If you feel that such an evasion brings you the “Lord's forgiveness and makes the matter right”, then you have truly taught yourself very little in all the years you have been attempting to teach others.

I realize acutely that you have had severe trials since Brother Johnson's death; and you may be sure I have not been unsympathetic toward you. I know you were firmly convinced of your Little Flock standing prior to Oct. 22, 1950; nor had you been manifested other­wise before that time.  Therefore, if you were a New Creature, you were considered as in the Holy – in harmony with Brother Johnson's teaching; hence, you had never been abandoned to the Fit Man. Thus, you could not possibly have been cleansed; you did not even know you needed cleansing. In view of your conduct and attitude in the matter under discussion, I wonder if you are yet aware of your own true condition. You say you will not “muzzle your lips” in exposing my “errors”; but he who would teach others should himself first be taught. You have shown a pitiable paucity of understanding on the Scriptural teachings regarding slander of a brother (spiritual murder). If you are no better qualified to teach on other vital doctrine (and your fleshly mind makes the use of your unmuzzled lips that you admit), then I think you would be well advised to “muzzle your lips” until such time as you have enlightened yourself on “What is Truth”. “No lie is of the Truth”.

I am informed you were most miserably downcast when you learned your Little Flock hopes were gone. However, regardless of that, it seems incredible you would not wish to attend the funeral of the Star Member who had been such a loving brother to you and had done so much for you. I understand R.G. Jolly told you over the telephone you were not “needed.” How you could have accepted such advice is also incredible. Had you talked with me, I would certainly have told you that the faithful brethren were then all sorely in need of the help of their leaders during their sorrow and bereavement. The anguish on the faces of many of them that Friday afternoon is still a vivid and sorrowful memory with me; and we ourselves — especially those prominently associated with Brother Johnson in service – “needed” to give him that respect and honor due him. But I make reasonable allowance for what you did be­cause I realize you accepted the counsel of an uncleansed Great Company.

I realize, my brother, that I have gone somewhat afield of the point at issue; but I have done so in the hope – and with the prayer for you and Sister Eschrich – that it may cause you to pause and consider what bad advice has done for you over the past five years. You talked to R.G. Jolly about the tift in Jacksonville that Sunday afternoon on Feb. 27. I don't know what advice he gave you; but it was certainly not the advice the Lord Himself or the faithful Parousia and Epiphany Messengers would have given you: “If thy brother have aught against thee, go to thy brother.” Had you followed their counsel, instead of that of an uncleansed Levite, you would have had none of the public humiliation that has been yours over the post year, Apparently motivated by the same bad counsel, you made no effort whatever to correct your wrong you now confess when you saw me three months after Jacksonville at the Muskegon Convention on May 30. Or was that because you were still “startled”? Just give the past five years a little sober, quiet thought, Brother.

You address me as “Dear” John, so I assume you mean what you say. The world resorts to such formalities, but the Lord's people are to be guided by Truth rather than policy, and they are to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” I have ad­dressed you as Brother and I shall continuo to consider you as such until I am convinced you are guilty of willful revolutionism, at which time I would disfellowship you in harmony with Brother Johnson's teachings. I have written this lengthy letter solely for the per­sonal help and upbuilding of both of you, as I pray you may not be completely blinded by Azazel to the Truth I have expressed, may you receive it in the spirit in which I write it and be blessed accordingly! I am applying the Golden Rule in my dealings with you the same as I endeavor to do with all my brethren – and I would appreciate such dealings from you and all my brethren everywhere, both privately and publicly.

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed)    John J. Hoefle

It should be noted that Brother Eschrich's letter of March 20, 1956 is in direct contradiction to his letter on Page 20 of the March 1956 Present Truth, the publica­tion of which has misled its readers, many of whom have asked us about it. So it be­comes not only a duty, but also a matter of self-defense of our good name, that this additional publicity be given the matter; and it is our hope that a clear and complete answer may now be forthcoming in the Present Truth to the following questions:

(1)        Brother Eschrich having on March 20, 1956 admitted repeating the slander to Brother Gavin, does he flatly deny that R. G. Jolly talked with him about this matter at all; or does he merely deny that RGJ used the word “defrauded” in his story to him?

(2)        If R. G. Jolly did not give it to him, then did he just make it up him­self, or from whom did he receive it? (It should be noted here that he does not accuse the Sister of giving it to him; and she herself has given us a written statement – “I never said, or meant to imply that you had defrauded me, or attempted to do so”.)

(3)        In the fall of 1954, when Brother Gavin first gave us this report, we made copious shorthand notes of much of our conversation, in which is contained the clear statement that William Eschrich had given it to him on September 12, 1954 in Springfield, and that William Eschrich said it had been told to him by R. G. Jolly. There was not one word that the Sister in question had given it to any one.  Does Brother Gavin now contend that we falsified those shorthand notes – or do they contain the truth ?

There has been so much evasive juggling – “I don't remember” – etc., that it would seem a concerted effort has been made to shield some one; and we think we have a right to know who it is – in harmony with Brother Russell's saintly article on just such a case as this, as contained in the November 15, 1908 Watch Tower.

What think you, Brethren – Has JJH “blackened” these Great Company leaders, as has been charged in the March and May Present Truths; or have they themselves shown by their acts that they are already quite black enough, with no one to blame but themselves for their pitiable condition? With this writing comes the prayer that each of you may “sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself, in your heart, and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim