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

NO. 12: ABOUT THE JULY 1956 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 12

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 11: THE EPIPHANY SOLOMON

No. 11

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In accordance with previous announcement; the following treatise is now submitted on

The Epiphany Solomon

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

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

The Epiphany Messenger is a clear and complete parallel of The Parousia Messenger – ­a fact which is not true of The Epiphany Solomon and The Parousia David.  In May of 1876 Brother Russell, "as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle" (Vol., E-9. p 47), at which time he became The Parousia David, The Parousia Messenger (Vol.  E-14, p 11). "For 7½ years from May 1, 1876 to October 31, 1883 he was in friend­ly cooperative association of the leading brethren," the Hebron (friendship) condition (Vol.  E-14, p 95). In October 1883 he began the Jerusalem phase of his reign, which continued for 33 years to October 1916 (Vol.  E-14, P. 140).

But, just as the Lord allowed Brother Russell to make certain mistakes for the future trial of His people, so the Lord also allowed Brother Johnson to do the same.  However, in both cases they left sufficient in their writings (unknown to them at the time of writing) for the faithful truth-seekers to correct some of those mistakes. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, he logically and properly concluded his parallel of The Parousia Messenger would cover substantially 40½ years from October 1916 to October 1956. However, since Brother Russell was in the Hebron condition "with leading brethren for 7½ years", why should not the same be true of Brother Johnson if he was to "parallel" him? And that is just what we find to be the case! There is abundant evidence that he was anointed as The Epiphany Messenger in May 1910. Note in this connection Vol.  E-9, P. 300:

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

The above is further confirmed in Vol.  E-10, P. 131 (top):

"The Lord rewarded his steadfastness and victory in this battle with the demons with a sudden, unpremeditated insight into the types of the five siftings of the Harvest, as St. Paul points them out in 1 Cor. 10:5-11.  This understanding flashed through J's mind with no study at all, by a sudden illumination."

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

If the foregoing is a proper understanding of this matter, then it should be im­mediately apparent that any attempt to "make" parallels of That Servant after October 1950 could come only from an admixture of nonsense and Azazelian jugglery. Further­more, if the parallel was completed in October 1950, then much that has been said for the year 1956 needs thorough re-examination. It should be noted that parallels are al­ways dangerous and uncertain foundation unless they can be corroborated by the Bible, or the Great Stone Witness. Fully believing the parallel would prevail until October 1956 (although there exists in it a six-months' shortage no one has ever satisfactorily explained – from October 1916 to October 1956 is 40 years, and not 40½ years). Brother Johnson wrote in Vol.  E-10, P. 114, top:

"1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956."

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

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

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

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

"Solomon began to build the House of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah ..... in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign" (2 Ch. 3:1,2; 1 Kgs. 6:1).  "And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished" (1 Kgs. 6:38). Thus, its building required 7½ years; and it was completed 10 years and 8 months after Solomon ascended the Throne of the Lord in Israel.

"But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years" (1 Kgs. 7:1) – he built the two houses in twenty years (1 Kgs. 9:10). Therefore, of Solomon's reign: Ten (l0) years, 8 months to build God's House; Thirteen (13) years to build His own House –­ Twenty-three (23) years, 8 months both houses completed after his reign began. The building of the Epiphany Solomon's House symbolizes "establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord's Epiphany Executive." How did he accomplish this? By expounding those types which had foretold of him. And where did he do this? Specifically in Vol.  E-10, The Epiphany Messenger. And when was this done? Vol.  E-10, P. 107, col. 2, bottom says, "In 1938 J. commences to write E.J. 1939-41 .... finishes E.J." If we add 23 years and 8 months to Nov. 1, 1916, it brings us to the latter half of 1940, by which time he had sub­stantially completed "his own house". Thus, in 23 years and 8 months from Nov. 1, 1916 The Epiphany Solomon had built the Lord's House – "arranged God's people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work" –; and had built his own house –"established himself in his own sphere as the Lord's Epiphany Executive." All of this is clearly set forth in Vol.  E-10, which was published and released to the brethren in 1941.

The Lord Appears Unto Solomon The Second Time

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

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

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

Solomon Becomes Evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With deep regret we here mention that the practice of some is to go about the classes and at first, by soft and smooth speech, assure the dear sheep that they have deeply the interest of the Lord's work at heart; and then suddenly they bring a tirade against the work as the Lord is conducting it through the channel that he has used for the past forty years.  Some of the dear sheep become very much disturbed, and some are shaken out. This is another evi­dence of the great shaking now in progress. It would seem that any one who is loyal to the Lord and his cause and the brethren would not seek to disrupt his work; at least, if they could not see eye to eye with the manner in which it is being conducted, the proper spirit would prompt such to remain quiet or quietly to withdraw. Any other spirit would not seem to be the spirit of the Master.''

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

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

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

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

In diametrical contrast to such a foolish course, note the attitude of That wise and Faithful Servant, when he was faced with a similar situation:

"Instead of hastening to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained (on the sin-offerings typed in Lev. 16) was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true.  Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church". Vol.  E-9, page 297, bottom.

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

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

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

His answer to the above was as follows:

"I am sorry to see you of late taking such an antagonistic attitude, not only, and especially, against the teachings of Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson on Baptism, etc., but now also against it seems almost anything or everything I do."

He pursues this item further on page 20, col.  1 of the March 1956 Present Truth: "JJH found fault with our tract publishing; our witnessing to the Truth at non-Epiphany-Truth Conventions, camp meetings, churches in Babylon, etc. (though Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson served similarly)."

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

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

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

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

In Vol.  E-14, P. 5 (middle) Brother Johnson says, "Saul types the crown-lost lead­ers from early in the third century until Armageddon". And, in discussing how "the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul", he makes this observation in Vol.  E-9, P. 524 (18):

"As the Spirit of the Lord ever led Brother Russell forward in every good word and work, so an evil spirit came upon antitypical Saul, ever plunging him into deeper errors, blunders and misdeeds..... Nor are we to understand that God directly wrought such a disposition in either Saul.  Rather, as indicated in a general way in the case of repro­bates, in 2 Thes. 2:9-11, the Lord withdrew his former hindrances to Satan's machina­tions, and thus let the latter have free access to both Sauls."

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

Nor shall we analyze the enemies that "the Lord stirred up unto Solomon" (1 Kgs. 11:14-40). Suffice to say they were "an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon." Gratefully can we reflect that the “days of Solomon” will come to an end in about a year.  In the meantime, the Lord may reveal further truths in connection with this matter; but we offer what has been given thus far in the hope it may bless all God's faithful people, and accrue to His honor and glory. We humbly and thankfully acknow­ledge His Grace for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit which still works according to His promise "to guide you into all Truth." "Beloved, I pray above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health." (3 John 2)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 10: "HOEFLEISMS"

No. 10

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                            Sincerely your brother,

                                                            John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim