NO. 4: THE FAITHFUL AND THE MEASURABLY FAITHFUL

No. 4

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

As stated in the letter of October 29, this letter will present an analysis of the faithful and the measurably faithful.

As a proper foundation, it should be stated that the word Faith is used in the Bible in three senses: (1) It is what we believe – Jude 3: Ye should earnestly con­tend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints (the Truth, what we believe); (2) It is the quality by which me believe – Mark 11:22: Have faith in God (trust); (3) Faithfulness – Gal. 2:20: I live by the faith of the Son of God, who gave Himself for me (Paul did not live by what Jesus had believed, or how He had believed it; but he lived because of the Faithfulness of Jesus in providing the ransom price).

The next question in order is – Who are the faithful? In the broad sense it in­cludes all justified believers, because Paul addresses the tentatively justified as “Brethren” (Rom. 12:1). Therefore, the word “faithful” is relative, and must so be con­sidered. In Vol. E-4, page 96 on, when discussing Leviticus 12, Brother Johnson was discussing the Little Flock and the Great Company. There has now arisen a conflict of opinion in the proper understanding of his thoughts, so this presents another question to be answered before a true analysis of the Faithful and Measurably Faithful can be undertaken; namely,

IS BROTHER JOLLY PASTOR and TEACHER, as he now claims to be? He relies heavily upon a statement in the September Present Truth, page 84: “Brother Johnson as the con­structive executive expounder and antitypical Hiram (Brother Jolly) his special helper... whose antitypical office and work did not cease in 1950”. Is there anything other than Brother Jolly’s word to substantiate this statement re 1950? Is there any Scripture or combination of Scriptures that even remotely supports his contention? On the other hand, there is clear Scriptural contradiction of it. In the type did Hiram continue his work after the death of Solomon? Hiram is no longer mentioned shortly after completion of the Temple and the House, although Solomon is still given considerable comment; so Hiram passes out of the picture first. As all of us must realize, many mediocre characters in history are given quite some space simply because of their proximity to some outstand­ing person. This is certainly true of Hiram. Had he not aided David and Solomon it is reasonably certain that none of us would know today that he had ever lived. He ruled insignificant Tyre, which in those days was little more than a “suburb” of Israel; so Hiram’s place in the Bible is totally and completely due to his association with David and Solomon. They towered over him as a Giant towers over a dwarf! Perhaps it should be stated, too, that the same situation existed during the Parousia with the special helpers of Brother Russell. Had it not been for their association with him, would any of us today be likely to know anything at all about Barber, Paton, Von Zech, Mrs. Rus­sell, etc.? Hardly! Here again it may be properly stated we would probably not know they had ever lived. But, did being his special helpers qualify them for the Office of Pastor and Teacher? Does the question need any answer? Surely, Brother Russell towered over all of them combined even as David and Solomon overshadowed Hiram.

However, it may be claimed that the foregoing is simply the writer’s own biased reasoning; so let us take a close look at the type. What did Hiram receive for helping Solomon build the Temple and the House? Why, Solomon gave him twenty cities in Galilee (1 Kings 9:11-13); but did not so much as give him one guest room in Jerusalem where Solomon held court. Inasmuch as Jerusalem types the position of sole executorship for Parousia and Epiphany purposes, this Scripture becomes most significant. Had the Lord intended that antitypical Hiram should succeed as Pastor and Teacher, would He not have given at least some little hint of it in the type? But, “for our admonition and learn­ing”, He has given just the reverse! Verse 12 says the “cities pleased Hiram not”. Should not one who becomes Pastor and Teacher at the Lord’s hand be highly pleased? The office of Pastor and Teacher may not be everything, but it is almost everything! “Know” ledge is power”, and knowing how to use such knowledge makes one wise. A true Pastor and Teacher would possess knowledge of the Bible, combined with that “wisdom which is from above”; and these combined with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit gives one about every­thing – in fact, the Executive Office usually follows such a gifted person. But Hiram was given twenty cities in Galilee, and nothing in Jerusalem.  Twenty is two times ten; ten having to do with natures lower than Divine, with the two natures involved being the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And the cities being located in Galilee, with noth­ing in Jerusalem, very well pictures antitypical Hiram receiving a keen and bitter dis­appointment, although the Epiphany Solomon did eventually salve the wound by asking the brethren to vote Brother Jolly into the office of Executive Trustee, AND NOTHING MORE! “And it pleased Hiram not”. “And Hiram called the cities the land of Cabul” (dirty, see margin); a “dirty trick” had been played on him, he said. But, so far as the Sacred writing reveals, Hiram did nothing but resign himself to his unsatisfactory compensation. But not so with the one now claiming to be antitypical Hiram, he’s going to be Pastor and Teacher even if he has to vote himself into that sacred office.  There is more here than meets the eye, and further comment may be offered in due course. Later on D.v., the writer expects to produce an article on the Epiphany Solomon, which will make clear­er yet than the foregoing why things are as they are now; but this should be sufficient for the present. This much has simply been given here to prepare for what follows. If Brother Jolly were Pastor and Teacher, then his various claims on the Faithful and the Measurably Faithful should not be met with undue acerbity; but, if his claims are simply so much fraud, then their exposure should be in clear and unmistakable terms.

In the September 1955 PT Brother Jolly cites Vol.  E-4, page 96 on, where Brother Johnson explains Leviticus 12. In his article in the July 1954 PT, pages 54-9, he tries the sleight-of-hand that the Faithful in this discussion must mean the cleansed Great Company, because there have been no Priests here since 1950. Note carefully how he states it (July 1954 PT, P. 54, col. 1, last par.);

“And who are the ‘Faithful’ and the Measurably Faithful’ servants mentioned here? Since Brother Johnson frequently and correctly used the expressions ‘the faithful’ and ‘the measurably faithful’ when contrasting the Little Flock with the Great Company, it might at first glance appear that he intended the same meaning to be understood in this instance; however, a more careful study of the context and fulfillment’s indicates that this meaning is not to be under­stood here.”

It’s just too bad he did not first read the top of page 96 instead of starting at the bottom of that page.  At the top Brother Johnson says: “The Great Company suffer the loss of the prize – the Divine Nature and joint-heirship with Christ, which the Faith­ful obtain”. Could this leave the slightest doubt in the mind of any one whom Brother Johnson considered the Faithful? This one statement should be enough; but it is prob­ably well that the analysis be carried to its finality.

Vol.  E-4, page 99, par. 14: “The crown-retaining and crown-losing... servants will minister ... throughout these periods (1874-1954), and that tobothclasses”. Thisstatement is in answer to Question 14 on page 151, as follows: “Inwhatactivitieshavethe Faithful and the Measurably Faithful servants of the Truth shared?” Here again, can this leave the slightest doubt as to what Brother Johnson wanted us to believe?

The crown-retaining (Faithful) and the crown-losing (Measurably Faithful) are indisput­ably his thought! When the judges in our courts interpret the laws, one of the cardinal points they consider is the “intent” of those who wrote the law. As an example, one Amendment to our Constitution says “there shall be no involuntary servitude”; and some have plead that as a ground for refusing service in our armed forces. But that Amendment was adopted right after the Civil War, and was intended to abolish forever human slavery in the United States. Therefore, the “intent” was certainly not to allow evasion of civ­il duties. So, is it not a logical question to ask, What was the INTENT of Brother John­son when he wrote pages 96 and on in Vol.  E-4? We all know what it was; he intended and fully expected to be here at the future time of which he was writing. Therefore, to say it must mean something else just because he is not here is simply a sophistical twist not becoming any one claiming to be Pastor and Teacher.

Now, had Brother Johnson been still living, could it be that he intended to include in the Faithful the cleansed Great Company members? No! In Vol.  E-10, page 663, he says “J. in Nazarite consecration was separate from the Great Company.” Furthermore, the Great Company must be considered forever unfaithful insofar as the High Calling is con­cerned, so they could never be included in the same term as “Faithful” with the Little Flock. Also, it should not need argument to declare that “uncleansed” Great Company members are not even faithful when the faithful Great Company members are being consid­ered, so that point likewise needs some analysis herein.

In the September 1955 PT, page 70, col. 1, par. 3, Brother Johnson is quoted as say­ing that by October 1924 “The beginning of the presentation of certain ‘cleansed’ Levites” occurred. The writer has no exception to make of this statement; but it is certainly log­ical to ask if one R. G. Jolly was included in that presentation? Brother Jolly does not definitely say so, and Brother Johnson does not say so at all. In fact, what Brother Johnson said of Brother Jolly back there was that he was arrogant, untruthful and given to garrulous gushings of words in an overweening effort to win applause. (If any one is prone to criticize harsh words here, please be assured the description is Brother John­son’s and not mine.) But, for any to claim such a character to be cleansed, must we not attribute such a claim to “strong delusions” doubly strong? Of course, we should hardly need to remind you that Brother Jolly did not in 1923-24 consider himself a cleansed Le­vite (regardless of what he may now think of it) because at that time he was still be­fuddled with the “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) that he was a Priest (not a Levite in any sense, cleansed or uncleansed). in fact, Brother Jolly was so strongly deluded back there he even considered himself at least the equal – if not superior – to Brother John­son. It is certainly an elemental conclusion to declare that one must first determine his malady before he can prescribe a curative; and this obtains in spiritual as well as in physical ailments. If an uncleansed Levite labors under such a “strong delusion” that he is a Priest in whom “there is now no condemnation”, he is hardly likely to be seeking the “why” or the “wherewith” to cure his leprosy, which he doesn’t even know he possesses – ­just as Uzziah could not see the leprosy in his forehead, although it was clearly visible to the Priests and others (2 Ch. 26:19-21). Brother Jolly’s untruthfulness and ambition to sit in “Moses’ seat” are still glaringly present in him, as evidence his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1, of the November PT as follows:

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

Brother Jolly was put into office by vote of the brethren; and he can be deposed by vote of the brethren, which was in no sense of the word true of Brother Johnson. Even if Brother Jolly were all he claims (Pastor and Teacher), his Executive Trusteeship would still be at the discretion of the brethren; he has not inherited the LHMM, any more than Brother Johnson inherited the Society by being true Pastor and Teacher. His statement quoted above would unmistakably label him as the Miniature Pope if he has not misstated himself. It is the sincere prayer and hope of the writer that he has made just a slip, which he will correct in all haste.

But, assuming Brother Jolly was then cleansed in 1924, he must have again become uncleansed, because he stated from the platform at the Jacksonville Convention on February 27, 1955 that he had been completely abandoned to Azazel from December 1937 to February 1938. Of course, that statement could not possibly have been true, as will be shown further on; but let us accept it at its face value for the present; then ask, Why does God abandon the Great Company into the hands of the Fit Man? Is it not for their CLEANSING, and for nothing else? Our Father is not as some earthly fathers, who some­times pound their children unmercifully at little or no provocation. He gives them the extreme of chastening (Fit-Man experiences) only after all other corrections have failed.

For the more-than-conquering faithful Little Flock it would have been wrong for them to pray, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”.  Why? Because “There is now there­fore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ... Who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”. (Rom. 8:1-4) But note the qualification – “not after the flesh but after the spirit”. During the Gospel Age the “large crowd” have walked “after the flesh”, thus bringing them more and more under “condemnation” until they eventually lost their position “in Christ, the Church which is His body”. They then received a new name ­SINNERS. They are the only class in God’s Christian Household who are specifically styled Sinners (despite Brother Jolly’s emphatic and repeated statements at this last Phila­delphia Convention that we are all Sinners, by which he includes Faithful Youthful Worthies, of course); – and a few Scriptures follow to prove the point: 1 Pet. 4:18 – If the right­eous (Little Flock) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (Second Deathers) and the Sinner (Great Company) appear? James 1:8 (see Berean Comments) and 4:8 – Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded. James 5:20 – He which con­verteth the sinner (Great Company ) from the error of his way shall save a soul from death. The comment in the Cambridge Bible on this text says, “Those that miss the mark”. (It is most remarkable how any one not in Present Truth could have arrived at such an exact statement of fact!)

It is now contended that the Good Levites in the Epiphany Truth were cleansed by October 22, 1950. Has any attempt been made to fit this in with the parallel of the Little Flock as of September 16, 1914? No, because it can’t be done. Nor was the 80-­year purification of the Mother completed by 1950, which in the parallel would logically not be done until September 16, 1954 – that is, all things being equal. Early in 1954 the writer was able to discern, from Scripture, reason and facts that the last of the Truth section of Azazel’s Goat was given over to the Fit Man on October 22, 1950; and, so far as he knows, this is the last developing truth to appear before the 80 years were completed. If this is a statement of fact – that is, that delivery to the Fit Man was accomplished October 22, 1950 –, then self-evidently, the Great Company as a Group in the LHMM could not possibly have been cleansed then (although it may have been true of some individuals); because, as stated above, God would do this to them only as an extreme chastening for their cleansing (reference here is to their character cleansing, of course; not to their cleansing from error). And, if this is the Truth, and they have not yet accepted it, they could not possibly be cleansed even yet! “By their fruits ye shall know them”. From the previous correspondence that has already been sent to you, all of you know that the leprous sin of slander has been placed at the feet of some of our leaders, while others have been accused of ‘aiding and abetting’ or at least trying to cover up for them. If Brother Johnson were here, would any of us suppose he would coun­tenance such treatment of one of his Pilgrims by others of his Pilgrims? Yet, the writer has done not the slightest wrong to any of them. Their conduct is in exact style with their type, King Saul, who attempted to hurl his javelin through David without even the slightest cause. And the whispering still goes on: “Brother Hoefle is not the same Brother he once was; he’s showing a bad spirit” (of course, the slanderers and those who are trying to hush-hush for them are not showing a bad spirit; just the one who resents being maligned, and exposes their sins, is showing the bad spirit). Almost these identi­cal wards were spoken to me back in 1917-18-19-20 about Brother Johnson.  During the Parousia Brother Johnson had been known as the Pilgrim of love, because he had loved the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. But when duty forced him to expose the sins of leprous Levitical Truth leaders, it was freely gossiped: “He’s just not the same loving Johnson any more”. The honey of the Scriptures is always much more appealing then the sharp cutting sword of the Word; but inspired Scripture is given for four different reasons (2 Tim. 3:16), and its use for “refuting” is placed second by Paul in his statement of the matter.  Therefore, if we would be “faith­ful to the Lord, the Truth, the Brethren”, there must come occasions when “refuting” is of necessity laid upon us, unpleasant though the task may be. And would any of us be so foolish as to claim “cleansed Levites” for those who slandered Brother Johnson for what he did during the Epiphany? Only those, perhaps, who were the evildoers against him! It is well stated that before one can successfully fool others he must first fool him­self. And so here again since Brother Johnson died (just as it was after Brother Russell died), the “whispering campaign” of slander has not been “ashamed to show its dangerous brow by night (the Epiphany night) when evils are most free”.  When Brother Johnson was here, such slanderers in our midst would not have dared to do what they have done since he is gone; and this may be taken as pretty conclusive evidence that much of their seem­ing obedience to him was in great part ‘lip service’. But the Epiphany is a time for re­vealing Persons, Principles and Things; and the only way such flaws in the Levitical char­acters could have been “brought to light” was by the removal of the one who was holding them in check. Certainly, many of us were fooled; we thought them to be Saints who were not; and it now develops that some of them were very wretched specimen even of the Great Company. And must we not again repeat that for such to intrude themselves into the se­lect company of the “FAITHFUL” can be attributed only to “strong delusions” doubly strong! What do you think Brother Johnson would be saying of such if he were here today?

It has been profusely stated that these Levites needed to be manifested only to the Priests, and not to every self-assertive Youthful Worthy; that none can say whether or not Brother Johnson knew Who was Who, and that he was under no obligation to reveal all he knew to us. When I was helping Brother Johnson in 1947, quite often an individual was injected into our conversation because of conditions that arose. On occasion, when I would ask him, “Is so-and-so a Saint?” he would say: “I’m not real sure, but I am in­clined to think he is; but if he isn’t, he is one of those hairline cases, who just missed the Little Flock”. From such experiences, I knew of my own knowledge that he did not know them ALL in 1947. And, as his physical forces slowly drained away over the next three years, is it reasonable to believe that in his weakened condition ALL of them were revealed to him? Brother Jolly himself explained away Brother Johnson’s announcement not many months before his death, that Sister Johnson had made the grade (was of the Saint class) due to his illness and weakened condition. How does that tally with Brother Jolly’s later statement as mentioned herein? This might (I say, might) have been true of Brother Johnson’s knowledge of the Saints and the Great Company in the United States; but how about the rest of the world, where he had almost no chance of first-hand observa­tion of the brethren in the various countries? Is not such a claim slightly on the fan­tastic side; and may it not be a clear indication of the desperate position of one who would advance such a theory?

But, assuming for argument’s sake, that Brother Johnson did know every Priest and every Great Company in every spot on earth, had he withdrawn all brotherly help and favor from the latter? As Brother Johnson so clearly taught, this must be done before their final character cleansing can be effected; so, if it had not been done, they could not possibly have been cleansed in their character (i. e., of sin, selfishness and world­liness) by the time of his death. The office of a Priest is to forgive and bless; and, as a true Priest, Brother Johnson could not in the very nature of things have withdrawn brotherly help and favor from the Great Company in our group. Why? Because he would have to follow the teachings of Jesus, his Head, of \Whom it was said (Matt. 12:20), ‘‘A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench”. Brother John­son knew of some of the extreme and obnoxious frailties of some of the Great Company in our midst, but he never hesitated to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” so long as they were willing to listen to his pleadings. On occasion, when he was expecting the writer to call at the Snyder Avenue residence, he would open the door himself with the statement, “Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; why standest thou without?” And with that came his hearty laugh. But invariably at parting there would be his admonition in all sobriety, “Keep up the good fight, Brother”. And similar treat­ment did he give to all who would hear him, regardless of how undone their characters might be! No., he certainly did not withdraw brotherly help and favor from the Great Com­pany in our group.

It should now be appropriate to ask, Did Brother Johnson’s death change one jot or tittle of God’s time calculations for the work and destiny of His people, or the Plan in general? If not, had Brother Johnson continued, as he had expected, would he have injected the alterations in his work that have been done since his death? For instance, would he have issued six Present Truths per year instead of twelve? When this change was suggested in 1951, the writer went to Brother Jolly during the Chicago Convention “in the spirit of meekness” to protest the folly of this move, telling him his first obligation was to “feed the Church of God” which had been committed to his trust. But he would not be dissuaded; he was going to do “great works, win great numbers” – just as had his Soulmates of the past. After the turn of the century the Federation of Churches said if the Lord would give them $30,000,000 they could convert the world to Christianity. So they beat the drums, gave out the loud and profuse talk; and they raised the thirty million.  Then they asked for a man big enough to do the job; and the Lord gave them Billy Sunday. But, instead of converting the world to Christianity, there came the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, and with it the worst blot against Christi­anity since its Beloved Founder initiated it. Then, after the war came That Evil Ser­vant. He could do what his predecessors had not been able to do. “If the Lord will give me one billion dollars (not thirty million), I’ll break the devil’s back in one year’s time.” I heard him make that statement myself. He started the Golden Age Maga­zine, for which he would have 4,000,000 subscribers the first year. If 2,500 workers would just go out and each one write five subscriptions a day at $l each, that would give about 4,000,000 subscribers (and, incidentally, $4,000,000). And who would argue that that was a difficult assignment? Certainly none, at least of his blind sectarian followers, who were aiding and abetting him to slander dear Brother Johnson, and who thought they night go into the Second Death if they tried any thinking for themselves. Well, it was such a flop that the newsstands over the country threw it out because there was no call for the magazine. So That Evil Servant eventually “went to his place”, as Judas had also done; but the Devil’s back seems about as rigid and strong as ever.

And shall we now take a look at the results of the past five years? In the January 1, 1950 PT, which carries the last Annual Report given out by Brother Johnson, we find 1899 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1972 subscribers to the Herald of the Epiphany. In the last Annual Report submitted by Brother Jolly he shows 1423 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1648 subscribers to the Bible Standard – a net loss of 476 PT sub­scribers and a net loss of 324 Bible Standard subscribers.  And the $5 Correspondence Course has been such a complete flop that it isn’t even mentioned any more. A sorry tribute indeed, in view of all the loud talk to have heard! “And the Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets.” So desperate has the situa­tion become that Brother Jolly is now attempting to give the Bible Standard away as a “premium” with other sales – a sort of “bargain-day” deal. “But what about the Bible in Films”, you say, “doesn’t Brother Jolly say they are receiving ‘wonderful blessings’ therefrom, showing them in Salvation Army Halls, Old Peoples’ Homes, Penitentiaries, etc.?” Well, in spite of the “great blessings”, the foregoing figures would convince an average second-grade school boy that the “great numbers” are not attaching themselves to us; so the slogan has to be revised a little bit (not much, just a little bit)! “We’re not looking for quantity, we’re looking for quality”! Indeed! And to what better place could we go for “quality” – real superb quality – than to a penitentiary!! It is most lamentable that Faithful Brother Johnson could not visualize the “great bless­ings” of “going slumming” that the Faithful (?) are now able to see through their new Pastor and Teacher.  That Evil Servant and his seven cellmates received and dispensed “great blessings” to their fellow prisoners at Atlanta Federal Prison during their involuntary stay there (Fit Man experiences) in 1918-19; their testimonies were loud, long and de­tailed about it.

Brother Johnson clearly taught – “After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry”. Conversely, then – Until they are cleansed they won’t have a fruitful ministry. Can it be that the realization of this situation prompts Brother Jolly to state in his Annual Reports – “The work at the Philadelphia Bible House con­tinues to progress” (despite the fact that the quantity and the quality are sadly lack­ing), and why he loudly and repeatedly tries to give the impression on every occasion that all is just rosy and prosperous – even though such statements are just nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of his listeners? Should the brethren start thinking about it, they will be forced to the conclusion expressed herein – namely, The colossal failures of the past five years are one sure visible physical proof that the Great Com­pany cannot possibly be cleansed, regardless of all the loud talk to the contrary.

By now it should be indisputably clear that Brother Johnson was not writing about the Great Company as the “Faithful” when he wrote page 96 and on of Volume 4; and that Brother Jolly himself took only a “first glance” at Brother Johnson’s analysis, instead of the readers of the Present Truth whom he suggests may have done so. And, if this conclusion is correct, then a large part of the July 1, 1954 Present Truth article on page 54 is not ADVANCING TRUTH, but ADVANCING ERROR – a clear case of REVOLUTIONISM against the Epiphany Truth as given through the Epiphany Messenger. Hardly to be expected from a true Pastor and Teacher, would you say? The articles, “Solomon’s Building Ac­tivities” and “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age”, etc., in the March, May and July Present Truths of 1954 all “follow a pattern”; and that “pattern” and the errors in those articles will be scrupulously ana­lyzed in due course, D.v.

And, if any are inclined to wail “rough words” at this conclusion, may you be re­minded that H. J. Shearn (whom Brother Johnson described as “one of the most cunning hypocrites he had ever met”) accused Brother Johnson of showing a “bad spirit” – “You see, Brethren, the spirit that he shows” (Vol. 10, page 377, bottom). It is always an evidence of extreme weakness when any one begins to criticize an opponent’s grammar, or attempts to meet Scriptural analysis with the old Satanic brush-off, “There must be something wrong with the man”. If any are inclined to such conclusions, then the sug­gestion is made that we just forget personalities completely in this discussion, and accept the bare points of Bible analysis herein submitted. That is a most excellent rule for any to employ if they are big enough to rise above partisanship and sectarian­ism; it enables one to place the finger of truth where it properly belongs. The prayer of the writer comes to each reader that he may be able to do so in the present instance.

But some may say, If all the foregoing is sound doctrine, then there should be some outstanding Scripture to support it. Well, let us take a look at a type. Brother Johnson gained tremendous amounts of knowledge just by looking at types. There is only one portion of Scripture – and only one – that deals with “one goat for the Lord, and one for Azazel”. and that is Leviticus 16.  There in the 21st verse we are very clearly told that the last thing the High Priest did before renewing his linen garments of sacri­fice was to deliver Azazel’s Goat into the hands of the Fit man. This picture was progressive throughout the Epiphany, of course; but it was not accomplished in its fullness until the Truth section of the Great Company in the LHMM was thus delivered by the with­drawal of the last Priest on October 22, 1950. If this statement be true – and the type clearly indicates that it is true –, then they could not possibly have been cleansed at that date, because deliverance into the hands of the Fit man is the extreme of chastise­ment by our Heavenly Father in an effort to cleanse them by destroying their fleshly minds in order to save their New Creatures from death. Surely, slander and malicious gossip can only be designated as “works of the flesh”. And, when we see such losing any part of the Truth they once accepted (although they may have accepted such truths only tacit­ly), we may accept it as CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM THE LORD that they are not “continuing in His word”, regardless of what their self-serving denials “to be seen of men” may be (See Matt. 6:5-7). There is quite some Scriptural doctrine to establish this statement, which, D.v., the writer hopes to present “in due time”.

In conclusion, it is fitting to state that NO FAITHFUL YOUTHFUL WORTHY is under any obligation to become a partaker of any Great Company Fit-man experiences; and our Heavenly Father will not require it of any Youthful Worthies unless they are in the same relative condition as their Great Company brethren to whom they cling in partisan blind­ness. As previously stated, our Father does not chastise to the extreme without CAUSE; FIT-MAN experiences are meted out only because of gross wrongs in teaching or practice. Let each determine in earnest prayer before the Lord what his personal course should be.

May the God of all Grace grant to each that sanctified reason which will guide you into all Truth, stablish, strengthen and settle you. The writer is beholden to none (regardless of slanderous reports to the contrary) except to love and pray for one and all; and this much he is entitled to receive from each of you. May our good Heavenly Father dispense His blessing with this writing!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 3: MALICIOUS SLANDER CIRCULATED

No. 3

 

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Inasmuch as quite a number of requests have come to hand for more information about the malicious slanders that have been circulated about the writer, it is deemed expedient to send you some more of the correspondence. My prayer for you is that you may read it slowly, carefully and thoughtfully, with that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality”.

In due course, Dv., I shall prepare some elucidation on the items listed on Page 5, beginning with Item 1 – The Faithful and The Measurably Faithful. Thus each may determine for himself who has the wisdom and mind of the Lord in the matter.

May our Good Shepherd grant you the wisdom and strength to possess and retain your blessed inheritance in goodly Canaan Land, which is, for Gospel Age purposes, the Truth and the spirit of the Truth.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Philadelphia 48, Pa.

August 20, 1955

Mr. John J. Hoefle

2020 Witherell Avenue

Detroit 26, Michigan

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Your registered letters of August 8 and 13 received. From the last sentence of the latter, in which you tell me to consider myself free to expose your errors and your oppositional course, I see that apparently you do not understand my posi­tion. I have no desire to expose you before the brethren, and will not do so, un­less you make it necessary. My desire is not to bring any reflection against you. I therefore expect to make an announcement like the following, either in the Nov. PT, or in our annual report:

 “We have recently appointed Bro. Roy Ekroth as an Auxiliary Pilgrim, and Bro. Gerald Herzig as an Evangelist for the L.H.M.M.; and by mutual agree­ment Bro. John J. Hoefle is no longer available for Pilgrim service for the L.H.M.M.”

I still long for you, and look forward to the time, D.v., when our mis­understandings may be cleared away and our former sweet fellowship in the Spirit of the Lord be restored. Let us both pray the Lord to help us toward this end. Faithfully yours by His grace,

(Signed)  R. G. Jolly

RGJ/ab

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

Philadelphia 48, Pa.

June 25, 1955

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings!

 Your letter of May 20 arrived May 24, as I was in the midst of last-minute prepar­ations to leave on my pilgrim trip to the West coast. I have now returned and, hav­ing attended to a few matters demanding immediate care, I am able to give your letter my attention.

You start by saying: “Your letter of May 17 makes no mention that you are send­ing a copy to the Winter Park Ecclesia, so I shall send them one from here”. You are correct in thinking that I did not mail them a copy of my May 17 letter to you. The only copy I mailed them was that of my letter of March 24, for only it directly con­cerned them, since certain charges had been made before them, in which Brother Gavin, Brother Eschrich, you and I were each involved. Since I was in the presence of the Winter Park Ecclesia (and visitors) charged by Sister Hoefle with circulating certain reports about you, which I did not do, I was glad to deny said false accusations and to exonerate your name to the extent of my knowledge in the matter, and that to the Ecclesia before whom the charges were made. To my knowledge my letter of March 24 is correct in every detail. It was not my intention to send the Winter Park Class car­bon copies of any further correspondence between us, unless it became necessary. Be­cause you have taken it upon yourself to send them a copy of my letter of May  17, be­cause you have written Brother and Sister Stanford a later letter containing many false and misleading statements and because I feel I have a responsibility before the Lord to protect them, as well as to clarify for them some points which are not clear, I am sending them a copy of this letter.

It was not I who invited the Winter Park Ecclesia into the matter. They appar­ently had been informed about the matter before my arrival there on March 15, and the reception I received by some was not as cordial as usual, though I am glad to say this was not so on the part of all. The charges made by Sister Hoefle in a dis­orderly way against Brother Gavin and against me in the presence of the class and visitors came as a shock to me, as I then heard of them for the first time. It was not clear to me as to just what the charges against Brother Gavin were, nor what all was involved, though obviously it centered about a conversation between him and Bro. Eschrich, concerning which he was accused of having said that Brother Eschrich had told him that I was the source of the slander in question (see my letter of March 24). Brother Gavin denied this charge against him repeatedly, saying that, so far as he was able to recall, my name had not been mentioned in said conversation. In spite of this, strenuous efforts were made by Sister Hoefle to involve me in the matter, though I denied the charge. Also, Brother Eschrich denies that I was the source of the slander that he heard about you, or that he told Brother Gavin that I was the source of it.

  You say: “Your attempts of March 24 to plead Matthew 18 is simply so much non­sense”.  I do not think that the holding up of the Lord’s standards and the obeying of His commandments should be called nonsense. Instead, you should realize that you are sinning against the Lord if you are upholding your wife’s disobedience to the Lord’s commands, as manifested at that Winter Park meeting.

As to “a public defense of my character and my ministry” I realize that you and Sister Hoefle have collectively made a public attack on both my character and my ministry and have written and circulated letters containing false charges against me. I trust you will not make it necessary for me to handle this matter before the breth­ren at large. I made no “refusal” to answer your questions, as you falsely state, nor did I refrain from answering them because of any fear to do so, nor did I self-evidently show contempt of Matthew 18, as you charge, for I had already in my letter of March 24 assured you that I had not spread any such reports as I was (in violation of Matt. 18:15) publicly accused of doing, by Sister Hoefle in Winter Park, and con­cerning which you had not previously approached me. I even went beyond the require­ments of justice to seek to remove the slander from your name. I take it that you are in harmony with the presentation on the proper application of Matt. 18 given in the May 1955 PT, P. 44, though it is possible you have not seen it, for I notice that, according to our records, your subscription lapsed last January.

You claim that my May 17 letter to you is a “flimsy evasion” and “untenable” and can mean only one of two things: that either I am “disgustingly guilty and fear the truth” or am “tragically shallow and weak” in my handling of this situation. I reply that you are wrong in both of these conclusions. In my letter of March 24 I assured you that I was not guilty of spreading the reports in question and that I had denied doing so before the Winter Park Ecclesia, in whose presence the charges were made, apparently without the class having arranged for such a hearing. If you disbelieve me – you say that thus the guilt would be shifted to you. Be that as it may, I have given you full assurance that I have not circulated the slander against you as charged.

Nor was there anything shallow or weak (let alone “tragically”) in my writing you on May 17 that in view of paragraph 2, sentence 2, of your letter of May 22, 1954 (in which you said: “You never hesitate to tell a lie when it suits your convenience”), and in view of other considerations, I could see nothing of benefit to you or others that would be accomplished by my writing to you further at that time. Your attitude seemed clearly to manifest a determined attempt to disparage and to undermine the in­fluence of Brother Gavin and Brother Eschrich, as well as myself, despite assurances given you from all three against your accusations; and in view of this and “other considerations”, I could not see that anything of benefit to you or to others would be gained by my writing to you further at that time. You apparently ignored the “other consider­ations”. spoken of in my letter of MAY 17, for you do not refer to them; but these (as well as your accusing me of never hesitating to tell a lie whenever it suits my convenience and then inconsistently asking for my answers to your questions – as though they would have any weight with you) forced me to the conclusion that nothing of benefit to you or to others would be accomplished by my writing to you further at that time and under such conditions.  Some of the “other considerations” (which mani­fest your antagonism in general) are as follows:

(1) Your persistent opposition to some of the teachings of both the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers on baptism, despite the many Scriptures and Scriptural reasons they gave for these teachings, E.g.:

(a) You have persistently opposed Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s teach­ing (E 178-180; F 284; P 142, p. 52, col. 2, par. 1, lines 14,15) that all in the early Church had the gifts of the Spirit. You make the following unretracted statement against their viewpoint: “We know, too, that they did not all receive the gifts of the Spirit,” despite the fact that they gave Scriptures to support their Truth presenta­tions on this subject, such as Acts 8:17; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 14:26, etc.

(b) You have persistently opposed their teaching that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews after John the Baptist’s death, which teaching you counter with such questions as “Do I understand you to insist that after John’s death, and after the inauguration of Christian baptism, that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews? If so, who would take John’s place in performing it?” – as though only John the Baptist could administer John’s baptism, which was for the washing away of sins against the Law and therefore of avail for Jews only, who were under the Law, hence was administered, not only by John the Baptist, but also by others, e.g., by Ananias to Paul (Acts 22:l6) long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian bap­tism (Tower Reprints 2825, column 2; P ‘21, pp. 131-133).

(c) You have persistently opposed the Truth teaching of Brother Russell (e.g., in F 428; Z 3152, par. 7; Z4420, pars. 4,5) and Brother Johnson (e.g., in E Vol. 7, P. 467, bottom; P ‘42, pp. 51 - 53) that John’s baptism was not valid for the twelve Ephesians (Acts 19:1-7) because of their being Gentiles. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson reasoned most clearly and convincingly from the Scriptures on this subject (F 428; P ‘42, P. 51, etc.), and yet you ask for “just one verse of Bible” to prove their position correct. You have persisted in fighting against the Truth as they gave it on the above and other items connected with the doctrine of baptism, despite my laboring hard and long in brotherly love to help you get back into harmony with the teachings of the two Messengers.

(2) Your overbearing, officious attitude in general, your name-calling and abusive language and your many false and unfounded accusations relative to my direction of the work, etc.  E.g.:

(a) You question my authority to appoint pilgrims, etc., and you claim that my article, “Promotions in Service,” in the Sept. 1953 PT, smacks strongly of That Evil Servant’s course of ‘making merchandise’ of the brethren by his book-selling drives, etc..” whereas my exhortations to faithful services are not similar to his, wherein he engaged in great drives, reaped personal profit, etc. Furthermore, my exhortations are meager indeed compared with those of Brothers Russell and Johnson. Nor did I ad­vocate “sell books to get a promotion” as you falsely charge. You repeatedly asked of me: “Revise your Promotions In Service or publish my letters in the Present Truth.” Your oppositional letters were very false and misleading in many of their statements, and to revise the PT article to suit your ideas would have been to violate a true and helpful presentation that was of assistance to many; therefore I could not comply with your request (E Vol. 4, P. 108, lines 12-16), even as I could not revise Bro. Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s Scriptural teachings on baptism and publish your con­trary views instead.

(b) You accuse me of not being “motivated by a proper humility.” How can you judge the motives of my heart and what motivates my actions? From the very beginning of my course as a manifested Levite I have endeavored to humble myself before the Lord in harmony with my lowered position in the Court as instead of in the Holy. E.g., I at once resigned as an elder in the Philadelphia Church. When Brother Johnson said I might serve in meetings where Priests were present, but that I should not offer the closing prayer, I did not tell him that I would deliver discourses only where I could offer the closing prayer and insist on his respecting my wishes in the matter, but I complied humbly and willingly, even refusing to lead in prayer when called on at the next Philadelphia Convention and thereafter. You also have plenty of evidence in THE PRESENT TRUTH of my further humbling myself before the brethren. I can truly say before the Lord that I feel no pride in my heart, that I realize my fallen and undone condition, the sin which doth so easily beset me, and my insufficiency for the service the Lord had placed upon my shoulders, and that I look only to Him for strength to render that service and for my eternal salvation. I feel, therefore, that your accusation is false.

(c) You make many false accusations against me as the executive trustee of the L.H.M.M., accusing me of squandering the Lord’s money, “namely, the many thousands of dollars you have squandered in preparing the Tabernacle for a mark which, up to now, cannot register one single success in any department... Even in the original purchase of the Tabernacle you threw away at least a thousand dollars.” Surely you must know that it was Brother Johnson, not I, who purchased the Tabernacle. I know of no thous­and dollars that was thrown away in its purchase. And how do you know that there is not one single success in any department? How are you going to measure the success of a spiritual work? If you think outward results are needed in order to be success­ful, I have but to remind you that man looks on the outward appearance, but not so with God. If we consider outward success as the important thing, then Judge Ruther­ford was quite a success, for he won quite a following.

(d) You accuse me of immediately (in 1950) plunging into the Basileia work six years ahead of time, whereas I have merely continued the general work as directed by Brother Johnson, e.g., in P ‘50, pp. 7, col. 2, top 192, 193.  I have given in P ‘51, P. 74, last question, and P. 75, and elsewhere the reasons why this work was not to be delayed until 1954 or 1956. Certain features of this work were to begin with Bro. Johnson’s demise, as he instructed, and the initial Basileia work was to start in October 1954, as he indicated (see P ‘54, pp. 54-59, especially page 57), and not in 1956 as you have set forth. The period for the cleansing of the antitypical mother of a daughter was 80 years, ending in 1954. Therefore the attestatorial service had to begin at that time. I do not see how it could allow for any extension until 1956 or thereafter for its beginning. Your faultfinding in this connection is really against Brother Johnson.

(e) You say that the work I am doing is “abortive” in large part, and is sure to result in failure.” Those who opposed the Lord, Brother Russell and Brother John­son predicted similarly of their work, and, indeed, to outward appearances it looked as though their work was a failure. it is easy for some, instead of zealously co­operating in and furthering the Lord’s work in their times, to condemn it and pre­dict its failure. I am seeking faithfully to do my part in pursuing the work as indicated in the Scriptures and, as directed by the Epiphany Messenger, and I contentedly leave the results, which are really the Lord’s business, in His hands (1 Cor. 3:6,7).

(f) You say: “I am still able to find very little that you have done right.” You predict failure for practically everything I do or encourage others to do, even saying that “the same will prove true of your movie campaign, too.” I leave the results in God’s hand. So far it is doing a good work, both in America and in Britain, despite the negative influence of a few faultfinders.

(g) You impugn motives and indulge in abusive language and name-calling, using such terms as “profuse folderol,” “imbecilic,” “liar,” “hypocrite,” “colossal gall,” and speaking of me as “whimper­ing,” “whining”. and a “crackpot.” You seem intent on raking up everything you can find on unfaith­ful leaders and trying to apply it to me. I realize my imperfections and have freely admitted them to you and others, though I fail to find a single instance in our entire correspondence where you have acknowledged making any mistakes, despite my calling your attention to many of them.

(3) The disturbance and the discord (Prov. 6:14,19) you and Sister Hoefle have caused among the brethren.

(a) This was especially apparent at the Jacksonville Con­vention when instead of speaking to Brother Eschrich, the chairman, privately, you accosted him in an excited and disorderly conversation at the back of the convention room, with brethren passing in and out of the Convention room and of necessity having to pass near you, and thus naturally wondering why there should be a commotion and dissension between you and Brother Eschrich and Brother Gavin, whom you say you called into the discus­sion. Your letter of April 1 indicates that you held Brother Eschrich in this dis­orderly discussion until ten minutes past time for him to open the meeting. Brother Eschrich did not inform me what the conversation was all about, though he did tell me that the spirit shown there was so bad (and this was manifest to other brethren also) that he thought best to open the meeting (which you indicate was already ten minutes late) and put an end to it. My statement to this effect is in no sense of the word or to any degree a “direct contradiction” to my letter of March 26, Wherein I stated: “the charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson, of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.” Both statements are true.

(b) It is manifest in the letters that you and Sister Hoefle have been sending out among the brethren, including some carbon copies of your own letters to me, to­gether with slighting and slurring remarks against me, and many prying questions. This has caused a number of the brethren to be amazed at your conduct.

(c) Also, it was manifest in the nature of the antagonistic questions put in at the question meetings at Winter Park and elsewhere, apparently intended to discredit me and put me into as bad a light as possible before the brethren. This has caused considerable comment not at all favorable to those asking such questions, for some remember the course of those who similarly asked Brother Johnson oppositional ques­tions.

(4) Your and Sister Hoefle’s neglect of, disobedience to, misapplication of and misuse of Matt. 18:15-17. I mentioned her course briefly in paragraph 3 of this let­ter.  When I wrote to you on March 24 about the Winter Park meeting, I stated in con­nection with Sister Hoefle’s coarse there that “apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed.” You now write that “Your attempt of March 24 to plead Matt. 18:15 is simply so much nonsense.” I leave this in the Lord’s hands. It certainly was evident that in her disorderly course at Winter Park on March 15 Sister Hoefle was not following Matt. 18:15. You were admittedly not even present at the Winter Park meeting on March 15, and yet you are the one whose grievance was being aired there in the presence of the class, and that apparently without the class hav­ing arranged for such a hearing. I do not see where any Scriptural teaching or prin­ciple could give Sister Hoefle the right to seek to carry out Matt. 18:15 on your behalf. Your calling my reference to Matt. 18:15 in connection with Sister Hoefle’s course “simply so much nonsense” seems to show clearly that you are supporting her in her neglect of and disobedience to the Lord’s injunction in Matt. 18. Instead of man­ifesting the Lord’s spirit, Sister Hoefle in that Winter Park meeting allowed herself to become quite angry and lost her self-control to such an extent that one of the sisters told her to calm herself.

The premise on which the Lord gave His instruction in Matt. 18:15-17 was: “If thy brother trespass against thee.” This does not warrant one in sitting as a judge in a court of judgment and hailing different brethren before him against whom he nay have suspicions and demanding that they all answer whatever prying questions he may choose to ask, in order that he may find out, if possible, something against a brother or brethren. The Lord’s people have “strict instructions from their Lord and Head on this important subject. His spirit of love is to fill them as they go alone, privately, to the injuring person without previous conference or talking with anyone. They go not to make him ashamed of his conduct, nor to berate him or other­wise punish, but to secure a cessation of the wrong and, if possible, some recompense for injury already received” (F 291-292). Notice, our Lord does not say: “If you sus­pect that your brother trespass against you,” but “If thy brother trespass.” Further­more, the purpose given is not to berate, slander or persecute one’s brother, but to secure a cessation of the wrong and to “gain thy brother.” If the injury has been stopped, we should stop pursuing the matter.

Furthermore, your expressed desire to summon Brother Eschrich before the General Church, supposedly in following Matt. 18:17, is in pursuit of another violation of the Lord’s arrangements, for (E Vol. 6, pp. 735, 736) it is “unscriptural” to advo­cate “General Conventions’ assuming the power to legislate for the General Church” and to advocate and practice “the use of Matt. 18:15-18 by Conventions. Matt. 18:15-­18 applies to individuals within an Ecclesia and to individual ecclesias, but not to sins that affect the entire Church. The Old Catholic error that what applies to an individual applies to the General Church has crept in among Truth people”. You should surely know better than to advocate or pursue such an unscriptural course!

The above are some of the “other considerations” that prompted (not a “refusal” to answer, as you have falsely written to others, but) my refraining from answer­ing your questions, as I recognized the impropriety in them, especially in view of your expressed purpose. I expected that you would make merchandise of my not answer­ing your questions, but I did not think you would stoop to such unjust and untrue methods and statements, even calling my citing Sister Hoefle’s violation of Matt. 18 “simply so much nonsense.”

While I cannot agree that your conduct and course of action is in harmony with the spirit of Brother Russell’s teachings, including his article in Z Nov. 15, 1908 348-52, I see no harm in answering your two questions: (1) “Who gave the slander to you about Sister Barger and me?” The first I heard it was when Sister Hoefle made her charges against me publicly before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors there present, as stated in my March 24 letter to you, paragraph 2. This is the first I heard of such a scandal being circulated about you. I understood that a certain widow asked you to invest money for her, on my recommendation of you, but as to any rumor to the effect that you had defrauded a Truth sister,, a widow, in the handling of $1,000 for her, I knew of no such rumor prior to the time of Sister Hoefle’s accusa­tions at Winter Park. (2) “Did you repeat it to Brother Eschrich, or any one else?” No. As just stated, I did not even know of it, hence I could not repeat it to others.

Another false accusation which you have made against me lately in a letter to Brother and Sister Stanford should have attention here. You claim that I have been “most unfaithful to the Lord’s people in willfully withholding from them the unpub­lished literature.” You will have to answer to the Lord for charging me with willfulness in this matter, thus trying to read my heart. You try to make it appear that the three books which Brother Johnson said he hoped to publish in 1950 (P 149, P. 175; P ‘50, pp. 10,11) were ready to be published at that time. There is quite a difference between what one hopes to do and what one is able to do, and our dear Bro. Johnson did not have sufficient strength and time left in 1950 to get those books ready. Any­one who has done any publishing of books knows that it takes considerable time and effort, and I feel sure that, apart from a few faultfinders like you, the brethren in general will be content to wait on the Lord in the matter. I wonder if you recall one year’s Motto Text of Brother Russell, showing the opening chestnut burr and underneath it the words IN DUE TIME? Two of the above-mentioned books have already been published, and the third is in the process. As to withholding the third book from the brethren, your charge can easily be shown to be false as to this volume also, for many of the articles which are to appear in this volume have been appearing in our magazines preparatory to their being made up into book form.

You try to make it appear that I am withholding Brother Johnson’s unpublished literature “because those writings undoubtedly (!) contain information which would put a direct contradiction on much Brother Jolly has been doing – as, for instance, Brother Johnson being in harmony with Brother Russell on Rev. 19:1-6 (See Berean Com­ments on this and Rev. 22:10). If you believe that you have such ability to tell “undoubtedly” what unpublished writings of Brother Johnson contain you should also know what his published writings contain on this subject. In his very first P.T., in the article, “The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha (see P 118, P. 13; re­printed in E Vol. 3, p. 132), “Brother Johnson shows that Rev. 19:1, 2 does not apply to Babylon’s destruction, but to the Society section of the Great Company giving a message pertaining to Babylon’s future destruction. In E Vol. 10, P. 113, Brother Johnson says “Vs. 1, 2 symbolize the Society’s big drive in Jordan’s second smiting, in which they forecast (emphasis mine), as vs. 1, 2 show, Babylon’s destruction.” See also P ‘‘50 P. 192. Thus Brother Johnson showed that he did not agree with Bro. Russell’s view on these verses, because the fulfilled facts showed that Brother Rus­sell’s view was untenable.

If, as stated above, you had been more concerned with Brother Johnson’s published writings, instead of trying to tell others what his unpublished writings “undoubtedly” contain, you would have noticed also how Brother Johnson makes it clear in P 131, P. 156, col. 2, that Rev. 19:1-9 does not refer to the Great Company in Babylon. You will note that Brother Johnson here was replying to the attacks of G. K. Bolger, an independent revolutionist who, Brother Johnson says (p. 159) “casts aspersions on our loyalty to our Pastor’s teachings and seeks to palm himself off as loyal to them.” Brother Johnson further characterizes him as “a symbolic wolf.” It seems you are definitely squinting in the direction of teaching the same as G. K. Bolger did on Rev. 19. Think it over, dear brother. Note carefully what Brother Johnson says on P. 156, col. 2, especially the following sentence, “as a matter of fact, then, we find that Rev. 19:1-9 does not refer to that section of the Great Company that remains in Babylon until it is destroyed and thereby gets its freedom, but to the Truth section of the Great Company (emphasis mine).”

Furthermore, another matter which requires attention in this letter is in connec­tion with your seeking independently to serve the Muskegon Ecclesia on April 16 with discourses, etc. The Muskegon Ecclesia, after telling you they would be very happy to have you serve them in the gospel ministry, also expressed their desire to you to have the appointment confirmed by the Bible House, thus endeavoring to preserve the Epiphany arrangement to the effect that “If any of the classes or individuals de­sire Pilgrim or Evangelistic service, please tell them to clear the appointments with the Bible House or our representatives in other countries, if time permits. (See P ‘50, P. 30) This was nearly a month before the time of the service you were seeking inde­pendently to arrange for April 16, so you had plenty of time to grant the ecclesia’s reasonable request. Instead of granting their request, you wrote them as follows: “There is no occasion now to seek confirmation from the Bible House – and I shall not attempt to do so. I assume you must realize full well that I am completely free to go whithersoever I will, and to preach the Word as I have opportunity, without account­ing to or securing permission from any one for it.” Your course in thus spurning the ecclesia’s reasonable request and refusing to have the appointment confirmed by the Bible House seems to show clearly that you have committed yourself to a course independent of, and antagonistic to, the Bible House. This is the very attitude taken by R. H. Hirsh, W. S. Stevens, and S. A. Cater, when they went astray.

 The Muskegon Class then wrote you again, assuring you thatthey would like very much to have you serve them, but that it had always been their course to have confir­mation by the Bible House for class talks, and that they would like to have it in this instance also, in the usual way. Surely this was not clericalistic, nor sectarian, but in your reply to them you read them quite a lecture, accusing them of clericalism and sectarianism, and, among other things, condemning their proper efforts to maintain the Lord’s Epiphany arrangements by saying: “When you insist that the Bible House pass ap­proval before you accept service from a brother in our midst – or one from elsewhere, for that matter, you affirm your approval of the Pope in Large Babylon, who also in­sists that his ledlings receive only such to minister to them as have been ordained by the ‘laying on of hands,’ etc.” It is astonishing how closely you follow the course of R. H. Hirsh, W. S. Stevens, S. A. Cater, C. A. Zielinski, etc., who accused Brother John­son of being a pope! Also, many similarly accused Brother Russell!

Your conduct for some time now has been very similar in many ways to that of R. H. Hirsh (P ‘20, pp. 142-148, 172-181, 192-194) in his working independently of the one whom the Lord had placed in charge, in opposition to the work then due to be done, in his opposition and secret propaganda by word of mouth and writing of letters in an ef­fort to disparage the Lord’s Epiphany executive and leader while himself posing as a martyr much abused, in his accusing Brother Johnson of clericalism and sectarianism, and in his misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Your oppositional course has been very similar also to that of W. S. Stevens as described in P ‘35, pp. 97-100, 119, 120, 151-154, e.g., in his letters of misrepresentation and false accusation, his independent and oppositional attitude, his much faultfinding, his course regarding Pil­grim service, his characterizing of the Lord’s Epiphany executive as a sectarian and a clericalist, and his threat of court action against him. In your veiled threat of court action, your practice regarding Pilgrim service, etc., your course has been much along the same lines.

I have long-sufferingly endured your abuses and underhanded campaign of opposition and misrepresentation, and I have not exposed your wrong teachings and rebellions con­duct before others, hoping that in time you might recover yourself, nor shall I expose you further, except as you make it necessary for me to protect the Lord’s sheep against your adverse influence. I now have something very unpleasant to do. In view of your continued oppositional course, I now find it necessary as the Lord’s appointed leader for the good Levites and the good Youthful Worthies, and as executive trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, in faithfulness to the Lord and the brethren, to suspend you as a Pilgrim of and for the Laymen’s Home Missionary movement. I am not dismissing you finally, as I am still hoping and praying for you that you may recover yourself and come back into harmony with Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s teach­ings and arrangements, but meanwhile kindly do not consider or represent yourself any further as a Pilgrim of or for the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. However, as just explained, the door is still open for you to recover yourself from your oppositional course and to come back into harmony with the teachings and arrangements of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. It grieves me that I am forced to take this temporary action against you, for I still love you as a brother and I still earnestly pray for you and wish you well in the Lord. I remain as ever,

Faithfully your brother and servant in the Lord,

(Signed) R. G. Jolly

RGJ/ab P.S. Kindly excuse delay in this letter, due to intervening matters.

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

August 8, 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

This is to inform you that I cannot longer accept supervision from you in my Pilgrim activities. This decision comes after much sober thought and struggle in prayer before the Lord; but your gross sins of teaching and practice leave me no other course. I ask that you please publish this letter in the Present Truth, and that you let me know within five days whether or not you intend to do so.

For many months now I have been “waiting upon the Lord” to be certain of His will before taking such a serious step; and I am now relieved that your own action provides me with the answer, which I accept as clearly indicative of our loving Father’s oversight and good pleasure toward me. I have been fully aware all along of Brother Johnson’s teachings of the course I should follow under the conditions; and I suppose I am rather open to criticism for my delay in making such a far-reaching decision. I pray, however, that I may not be subject to overmuch “chastening” for deferring so long such an unpleasant step, because

I have hesitated to touch

Things that involve so much.

Please understand this does not mean I am forsaking my brethren in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement; it simply means I cannot longer be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the brethren” if I appear to condone your Revolutionisms against Parousia and Epiphany teachings and arrangements – against which I have repeatedly protested to you over the past several years, but to no avail. Under the circumstances, your writing of June 25, in which you “suspend me as a Pilgrim”, is nothing more than a flimsy gesture from my viewpoint, as I had long since concluded – had you made request for my services – that my acceptance of any recognition by you would be conditional that no farcical “outward” approval of your evils should attach to me. Certainly, my letters to you over the past few years could have left no doubt in your mind about my opinions concerning you.

My heart bleeds for you, Brother, as you “sit in darkness and the shadow of death”, because I realize your precarious position from certain Biblical types and Brother Johnson’s statements; and I once more appeal to you to forsake your ruinous course and to faithfully and honorably administer the Trusteeship which has been committed to you. I pray for you that you may cleanse yourself while “it is yet today”, and that the “wisdom from above” may guide you into right paths, that thus you may “dwell in the House of the Lord forever”.

                                                 Sincerely your brother,

                                                 John J. Hoefle

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

August 13, 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

Your letter of June 25, Postmarked July 7 at Philadelphia, arrived during my ab­sence from Detroit. Your statement that you are sending the Winter Park Ecclesia a copy of your letter because you have a “responsibility before the Lord to protect them” meets with my full approval; and I have the same reason for sending them a copy of this letter. They are about to become much better acquainted with both of us. It seems you were not too impressed by your “responsibility”, though, if you could leave your let­ter lying about your office for a full twelve days before mailing it.

On Page 1, Par. 2 you say that “only your letter of March 24 directly concerned them” (the Winter Park Ecclesia). Don’t you agree, Brother Jolly, that your faithful­ness, and mine, to “the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren” is a direct concern of ALL the Lord’s people everywhere, and not only of those at Winter Park? And, having writ­ten them the sort of letter you did, certainly they had a right to expect – and did expect – a further statement from you and me to help them determine the truth in this matter. Again I say to you – These contentions are not prompted by any personal dis­like of you; they have a direct concern for all God’s people. So I repeat once more – ­consider yourself free to publish anywhere and any time ALL I have ever written to you. It also concerns ALL God’s people when you suspend any of Brother Johnson’s appoint­ments; they all have a right to be put on guard against self-seekers, schismatics, power-graspers, and the like.

Page 1. Par. 3, you say Brother Eschrich “denies that you were the source of the slander”. Since you have been in contact with him about it, did you ask him why he didn’t tell me that when I wrote him about it last October; and why he didn’t tell it to me at Jacksonville when Brother Gavin accused him of saying that you did do it? In your last sentence of this paragraph you state very clearly that Brother Eschrich ad­mitted to you he had slandered me.  Did you ask him if he had done anything about rec­tifying his wrong? Did you advise him – in accordance with Brother Russell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony” – to come to me at once and give me the name of his informant? Did you? In Brother Russell’s words – “mark those persons who request you to keep secrets from those to whom they properly belong”. At the tine you received this confession from Brother Eschrich I was an official Pilgrim of the L.H.M.M.; yet you receive such a confession from him about me; then you have the unmitigated gall to scold me as the wrongdoer here! Note some more of Brother Rus­sell’s words: “If evil speakings come to our knowledge without our being in any sense a party to them... we will always and promptly bring the matter to the attention of the brother whose name is traduced... tell him the name of our informant, etc., accord­ing to the instructions of Matt. 18:15-17”. Are you still “in full harmony” with Bro. Russell’s article? If so, did you instruct Brother Eschrich in accordance with it? Or are you in desperation trying to browbeat me into silently nursing the “wounds I have received in the house of my friends”? Once more I am forced to the painful conclusion that your avowal of “full harmony with Brother Russell” is just so much empty talk – ­effusion of words – “sounding brass”!!

Yes, I fully realize, according to Page 1, Par. 4, that I would be “sinning against the Lord in upholding my wife’s disobedience to the Lord’s commands”; but I want more than just your word for it that she has done so. Impartial brethren in attendance at that meeting of March 15 do not confirm your statement. You certainly know that Bro. and Sister Stanford upheld you against their own blood relatives in the 1951 sifting; and those relatives were very near to them in natural and Truth ties. Why don’t you ask them if they agree with you? Also, I have read Page 44 of the May Present Truth; and I concluded three months ago that your statement “You have no authority to punish him” is only a half truth and very misleading – because any honest repentance by the wrongdoer should include restitution or undoing of his wrong in addition to simply say­ing he is sorry. Do you agree with that? If you do, why didn’t you put that on Page 44, too?

Page 2, Par. 2 you say my statement of May 20 is wrong. I asked you seven ques­tions in my letter of April 1, most of which were prompted by your Winter Park visit. Did you answer ALL those seven questions in your letter of June 25, or just two of them? And why haven’t you answered them in the seven pages you have taken to say so many other things now?

Page 2, Par. 3, you say “assurances were given by all three against your accusa­tion”. This is just another falsehood by you. I told you in my letter of April 1 that Brother Eschrich admitted repeating the slander to his wife; that Brother Gavin accused him of telling it to him; and you now freely admit that he confessed it to you. Just what “assurances”, then, did he give me? Are you now contending that I am “deter­mined to disparage” a confessed slanderer because I went to him in full accordance with Matt. 18, and he “refused to hear me”? Are you? Doesn’t it make any difference to you if your Pilgrims admit to heinous wrongs without repenting or offering restitution – ­so long as they remain “in harmony” with the “Lord’s Appointed”? It seems you accept Matt. 18 only as a convenient cover-up for you and your “yes-men” – to be quoted to others, but to have no force whatever upon you and your “house”. I am informed you yourself gossiped quite freely about me in derogatory fashion at Winter Park March 15-­17 – when I was not present. Yes, “the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed” (your letter of March 24, Par. 1); it was shamelessly ignored there by YOU!

Now, you come again on Page 2, Item (b) with John’s Baptism! You say it was ad­ministered “long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian Baptism”; but the Tower Reprint, Page 2825, does not confirm your statement, nor have you offered any Scripture to confirm it. Paul was baptized by Ananias before – not after – the inauguration of Christian Baptism, as it has applied all during the Gospel Age; and I wish you would cite me one instance where the Scriptures record one performance, accepted by the Lord, of John’s Baptism after the inauguration of Christian Baptism – that is, after the Baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:48). I am interested only in the Truth on this subject; and I think it is high time for you to contribute something more than you have to it, or now forever hold your peace. The occurrence of Acts 19 was sometime between 50 and 60 AD, according to the best information we have; and Paul’s letter to that same Ecclesia at Ephesus was purportedly written around the year 60. In that let­ter Paul states there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5); so, if you are right in claiming two Baptisms at the time of Acts 19, Paul must have changed his mind in the few interven­ing years. Do you have any idea when and why he changed his mind?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, then I submit to you that St. Peter wrote his first epistle within a few years of the Acts 19 matter. That letter was written expressly to the Jews; and he tells those Jews that Baptism is not for the forgive­ness of sins in 1 Pet. 3:21 (You yourself agreed with this interpretation). There­fore, if John’s Baptism was of avail for the Jews in Acts 19, as you claim, and Peter tells the Jews it was of no avail to them, you are self-evidently advocating the idea that the two leading Apostles of the Jewish Harvest were contradicting each other on the subject of Baptism. What is your answer to this?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, I have something concrete from Brother Johnson to prove beyond any doubt that the men of Acts 19 could not possibly have been Gentiles.

Please understand I have the highest respect for Brother Russell and Brother John­son, but I realize they were not infallible. They both repeatedly told us to prove from the Scriptures everything they wrote; and here is one item with which I cannot do that. And, from everything you have said up to now, you can’t do it either – your only argument being – They said so, which makes it right. I consider your contention about this item to be quite childish, because it affects our present teaching on Bap­tism in not the slightest degree; it is more or less a technicality. It should make very little difference between you and me at the close of the Age; and your continued yelling “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” would seem to be only an excuse to berate me in a “whispering campaign” as you have been doing for some time, and particularly since 1953. You assured them at Winter Park that this was only a technicality, although you there elaborated in your discourse on the brother who is “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism”; then later “emphati­cally stated ‘It is not a fundamental doctrine’“. Just how do you rate their intelli­gence by again profusely making an issue of it and sending them a copy of your letter of June 25 “for their protection”? You pounced on this “not fundamental doctrine” in 1953 as an excuse to shout “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson”; and you continue to do so despite my repeated requests to you to confirm your position from the Scriptures, or at least to disprove my scriptural analysis of it, based upon Acts 18, – neither of which you have been able to do –, although at no time have you been man enough to say so. Again I say, my only interest in this matter is the Truth!

Page 3, 2 (a). Yes, I did – and do – question your authority to “appoint Pil­grims”. Only a General Teacher and Pastor could do this; and you have given no evi­dence whatever of having this appointment from the Lord, or the qualifications for it. You say you could not publish my contrary views in the Present Truth, but you well know that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often published contrary views; then gave their own, to teach the Brethren the Truth. You have done this yourself with some of the writings of others, so why make an exception with me?

You offer quite a piece of self-praise for your humility back in 1937, “resign­ing at once as an elder in the Philadelphia Church” after your sins had found you out after you were trapped in your Revolutionism that had been designed in azazelian cun­ning behind Brother Johnson’s back and you were forbidden to appear as an elder be­fore the Philadelphia Ecclesia. Did your great humility cause you to abnegate your­self before or after you were forbidden to appear there as elder? However, I approve of what you eventually did do; it was commendable and proper of you to resign – ­especially, since your physical forces were so depleted and the “spirit of a sound mind” had so forsaken you that you in desperation sought the services of a Psychiatrist. The Lord apparently was not enough to give you peace of heart and mind. “The Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” – 1 Sam. 28:6. The Lord has always been – and is yet – my helper and Strong Tomer; for which I offer a prayer of thankfulness in real humility at least twice each day, and usually more than twice. The only thing that has overtaken me is the slimy ogre of slander; but I do not feel impelled to resign anything because of that, or to consult a Psychiatrist – any more than did Brother Russell or Brother Johnson in similar circumstances.

When you ask how I can “judge what motivates your actions”, I can only repeat the Lord’s words, “By their fruits ye shall know them”; and Paul’s words, “The Holy Spirit is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Perhaps I should say, too, that I am familiar with the rating various capable brethren gave your humility back in Brother Russell’s day. You state, “I did not tell him (Brother Johnson) that I would deliver discourses only where I could offer the closing prayer, and insist on his re­specting my wishes in the matter, but I complied humbly and willingly, even refusing to lead in prayer”, etc. Is this another one of your sophistical insinuations, against which Brother Russell so bluntly warned all the Lord’s people in his saintly article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony”? If you had me in mind, why are you not man enough to say so? Your “sleight of hand” here is just too weak and clumsy to hoodwink the Winter Park Ecclesia, I am sure. I am informed that you made some such remark when you were there in March. Did you? Did you go behind my back, too, as you did with Brother Johnson in 1937 in your humility? The difference between you and me, Brother Jolly, (with all my “abusive language and name-calling”) is that I came to YOU FIRST OF ALL with my complaints; whereas, YOU have done just the reverse! Whatever I have had to say to or about Brother Johnson I said directly to him – as I also have been doing with you; and on no occasion did I ever try to enter into a conspiracy to usurp his authority – as you did in your great humility. That is one of the reasons why Brother Johnson and I always were the closest of friends; why he confided in me in a manner that he did with none other. Too, he fully agreed with my thoughts about the speaker of a discourse delivering the closing prayer; we were in complete harmony about it – so much so that he asked me in June, 1950, to deliver two discourses, with closing prayers for each, at the approaching Convention in Chicago in November. Aside from the Los Angeles Convention in 1942, where I de­livered several discourses, his invitation to me for Chicago is the only instance in the United States where he knowingly arranged for a Youthful Worthy to deliver more than one discourse at a Convention. After you were trapped in your conspiracy to usurp his authority in 1937, did he offer you increased opportunities of service, and his full approval of your evil course, or did he announce you as an uncleansed revo­lutionistic Levite?

At the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral I gave you all the encouragement I knew how to do, telling you I realized what a trying position yours would be; offered you all the brotherly help I could at any time you might need it – and my subsequent acts proved the sincerity of those assurances. Can you offer any proof whatever, other than words, that you carried the same sentiments toward me?

Page 4 (d). You say my “faultfinding is really against Brother Johnson”. You would certainly like to give it that twist, wouldn’t you? Why don’t you quote some more here from Brother Johnson, as, for instance, that the Great Company developing truths would continue to be purified and enlarged until the 80 years were up? Were the 80 years up in October 1950? What purifying or enlarging have you produced in the five years since he died? A truth has become quite clear since then, namely, that Brother Johnson’s death delivered completely into Azazel’s hands ALL Great Com­pany members – a truth you are now trying desperately to evade. So embattled are you by this clear Epiphany revealment, that you not only resort to open Revolutionism against it, but you indirectly encourage others of your Great Company brethren to do so by encouraging them in their evil ways, thus preventing them from proceeding to that cleansing which will enable them to “offer unto the Lord an offering in Righteous­ness”. Great is your guilt in this matter,, and your “foolishness will be very plain to all”.

Page 4 (e). You say “those who opposed the Lord, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson predicted failure for their work”. Do you know of any one instance where any one who had the Truth and its spirit did this to them? Or, wasn’t it just “dogs and the Sifters who made those accusations? Surely, if I belong to either of these two classes, you would have broadcast it in the Present Truth long ago, because, as you say, you “have an obligation to protect the Lord’s people” – and which indeed you do!! Can it be that your “Dear brother” salutations, and then again your harangue and subtle whispering “out of harmony” insinuations which have come to me from many sources, are simply the workings of your “double mind”? And, when people flocked by the thousands in every large city to view Brother Russell’s Photo Drama, how did his critics appear in comparison with the critic who is now writing you? Harking back to that Photo Drama, are you not again stating a rank falsehood when you say that “to outward appearances it looked..... a failure”?

Page 4 (g). You complain about my language having the savor of that applied to “unfaithful leaders”. What other language could I use? If one is a liar, the epi­thet would apply whether the name be Jolly, Rutherford, Cater, Zielinski or Smith; and many of the terms I have used are pretty much a take-off from what Brother John­son said about unfaithful leaders. You say you have freely admitted your mistakes, so I am setting out some of those you have not admitted (How does it compare with those you have admitted?):

1. Your confusion on the “Faithful” and the “Measurably Faithful”.

2. Your confusion on Judas and the thirty pieces of silver in relation to John 12:6, as set forth in the November 1954 P.T., page 92, per my letter to you of Nov. 18, 1954, which you have never acknowledged.

3. Your confusion on the Star Members, as stated in the March 1954 P.T., page 25, per my letter to you of March 20, 1954, which you have never acknowledged.

4. Your confusion on John 21, repeatedly called to your attention by me. Your answer to my question at Jacksonville on Feb. 27 was so nebulous and incoherent that it is evident you do not yet understand this section of Scripture,.

5. Your misleading statements that Brother Johnson said he would not publish all his books until after Armageddon.

6. The complete failure of your $5 correspondence course (which reeked of commercialism – making merchandise of God’s word).

7. Failure to admit your falsehoods told to the Winter Park Ecclesia the night of March 15.

8. Failure to admit many other falsehoods called to your attention.

9. The selecting of “appropriate” texts other than the Daily Manna Texts, for “Service Testimonies” at Conventions.

10. Starting a 90-minute “special business” session at the Chicago Convention October 31, 1953 without a prayer or opening hymn.

11. Prating about your fraternizing with antitypical sons of Eli (preachers of Babylon) – strongly smacking of Combinationism.

12. Cutting the Present Truth down to Six (6) copies annually instead of Twelve (12) formerly issued by Brother Johnson (Revolutionism against the Epiphany Arrangements).

13. Taking time to publish your Flying Saucer tract, your DYK, High Calling Closed, Israel’s Return, a letter to the brethren regarding a worthless (Italian)  coin, and attending numerous “Chop Suey” Conventions; also your visit to Rome and Switzerland – all of which you were able to do in lieu of the first obligation placed upon your Trusteeship to feed the flock by pub­lishing the manuscripts of Brother Johnson – claiming you “do not have time” to do the latter.

14. Your statement at the Chicago Convention in October 1953 that the solid truths as given in Brother Johnson’s tracts (also used by Brother Russell) were “time-worn and threadbare” (an expression similarly used by JFR; and to this day the J.W.’s claim Brother Russell’s books were all right for HIS DAY), while claiming “up-to-the minute” praise for those printed by R. G. Jolly.

15. Your refusal and failure to account for the $20,000 which disappeared from the Book Fund ... which was committed to your trust when you became Trustee.

16. Your refusal to give an analysis of your Sinking Fund in your Annual Report. You have both a legal and moral obligation to give us this report. An Exe­cutive Trustee is not an owner in this instance; neither are you the Founder of this Movement.

17. Using the appellation Good Levites and Cleansed Levites in your publications inter­changeably, as though they were one and the same – despite your knowledge that Brother Johnson said the “cleansing of these Good Levites” was a thing devoutly to be hoped for (in the future).

I am pleased to note you did correct some of the above after they were called to your attention by me – (e.g., Nos. 9, 11, 14); although you have never so much as men­tioned them to me.

Page 4, 3 (a).  You say I “accosted Brother Eschrich in an excited and disorderly conversation”. This is just another one of your falsehoods. I did not accost him, he approached me. I told you that in my letter of April 1, so yon have no excuse for making this false statement. Even granted that Brother Eschrich gave it the twist you now state, it is still his word against mine, so your proper Scriptural course should be one of neutrality. And when you say that “Brother Eschrich thought the spir­it shown was so very bad”, didn’t it occur to you to ask him what was back of it? You knew you were coming to Winter Park yourself within a few weeks. Didn’t you have enough “brotherly love” to give you any urge at all to try to “provoke to love and good works” on March 15-17? I asked you in my letter of April 1 what conversation you had and what conclusions you reached. Why have you sidestepped that question? And when you say the “bad spirit was manifest to other brethren”, are you by any chance referring to your wife or other “yes-men” that you brought with you to Jacksonville?

Page 4, 3 (b). You say “a number of the brethren are amazed at my conduct”. From this statement, it would seem our differences must have had a pretty wide discussion already – behind my back – which hardly fits in with your continued determination to keep it quiet. The brethren who thus expressed themselves to you must have received their information from you when I was not present to offer explanation or defense – ­just one more evidence of your “whispering” campaign against me. At every opportunity you demonstrate striking similarity of character to King Saul – of whose antitype you are a part. Behind Brother Johnson’s back; behind my back; behind Sister Hoefle’s back! Such sneaking underhand tactics are the unmistakable technique of a moral bankrupt. It was such methods against David, coupled with rebellion (Revolutionism), that eventu­ally drove Saul to the Witch of Endor and – to DESTRUCTION!

Page 5 - 4. You speak about the “disorderly course” of Sister Hoefle at Winter Park on March 15. You Yourself had complete charge of that meeting. Why didn’t you keep order? Didn’t you think it was certainly your obligation in that position? And, if she showed a “bad spirit”, did you reprove her for it, in harmony with Paul’s coun­sel, “He that sinneth before all,, rebuke before all, that others may fear”? Or did you wait until the erring (?) one had left before you began to berate her behind her back? When I came to you about a similar failing on your part – “in the spirit of meekness” –, after the 1952 Philadelphia Convention, and pointed out your Scriptural obligation in the matter, you disagreed with my conclusions, and I did not press the point; although I am informed that you gave the erring one such a verbal beating the following week-end in the Tabernacle that he had tears in his eyes. So, it would seem that by now you should know your Scriptural obligation in such matters. If you do not know what to do to keep order with eleven people in a meeting – where you are in com­plete charge –, it is little wonder you show such incapacity for handling the general work. Did you ever hear Brother Johnson cry about being abused by “disorderly” people when he had complete charge? And so far as I can learn, you are the only one who com­plains of an accusation being made there anyway; you were simply asked a direct ques­tion which you could easily have answered Yes or No. Perhaps it is in order here to quote an old axiom – A guilty conscience needs no accuser! According to your own admissions, you were the most disorderly person at that meeting, because you were in position to keep order, and should know how to keep order, yet you did not do so. But, since you are trying to make wives the cause of much of this trouble, why do you completely over­look the one whose husband admits she made trouble? I refer to Sister Eschrich. Bro. Eschrich admits she circulated the slander; so, according to his own admission, he is not even qualified to be a Deacon in the Church if we accept St. Paul’s standards in 1 Tim. 3:11. Yet you are upholding him as an “abused” man – after he has confessed to repeating the slander, and has confessed that his wife is a slanderer also. Thus, when you say I “manifest a determined attempt to disparage and undermine the influence of Brother Eschrich despite assurances given me against my accu­sations” – even after he confessed guilt to my accusations, and after Brother Gavin himself before you and the Winter Park Ecclesia on March 15, stated that Brother Eschrich should correct his wrong – you give just another evidence of your woeful incompetence, of your flagrant lack of veracity, and of your uncleansed condition.

Brother Johnson was often accused of having a “bad spirit” – as you well know.  And, when Peter accused Ananias of “lying to the Holy Spirit”, he must have shown con­siderable emotion. St. Paul showed great indignation and emotion in Acts 13:10: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness”.... Jesus, too, in Matt. 23, labeling the Scribes and the Pharisees “hypocrites, blind guides, children of Hell, serpents and vipers”, probably showed considerable indignation and emotion; as He also did in Matt. 21:12 where He “overthrew the tables”.  According to your inter­pre­tations, He must have been “out of order”, too! Your standards of righteousness and order are indeed grotesque. Why do I seek to “de­stroy the influence of Brothers Eschrich, Gavin and Jolly”? Because our Lord Jesus, St. Paul, Martin Luther, Brother Russell, Brother Johnson and other faithful servants of the Truth hesitated not to denounce evildoers in the Lord’s House – in positive, direct language that brought “howls” and cries of “bad spirit” from the traducers. And I am not at all moved to apologize to you for my course in faithfully following the examples set before me.

Page 5 - 3. This whole paragraph is a depraved piece of jugglery. You say, “We should stop pursuing the matter”. This is in direct contradiction with Brother Rus­sell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony”. As pointed out before, I did go to Brother Eschrich alone, privately, as evidenced by my letter of October 30, 1954. That letter is clear enough, isn’t it? Can you offer any crit­icism whatever of it? When Brother Gavin came to me with what Brother Eschrich had told him, it became more than just a matter of my personal well-being; it placed an obligation upon me to “pursue the matter”, as Brother Russell so clearly stated.

Are you trying to say now that that is not sufficient for me to come to you, in accordance with Matt. 18, to learn whether you are guilty? Are you contending I would have to wait until you yourself say to me “I am slandering you”, before I could follow Matt. 18? Also, your last sentence in that paragraph – “If the injury has been stopped, we should stop pursuing the matter”, is a Jesuitical twist again closely allied to the perversions of That Evil Servant. Does the article in the Present Truth give me any “assurance” that the “injury has been stopped”? Does your letter give me any “assur­ance” in your protection of the wrongdoers that the “injury has been stopped”? When you soothe the wounded feelings of the wrongdoer and berate the one wronged, do you think that method will correct the evil? If a brother should steal money from you (instead of your good name, as the slanderers have done to me) and should admit his guilt – say he is sorry and promise never to steal from you again – but would make no effort at all at restitution – would you consider yourself “stopped from pursuing the matter”? Would you? You seem obsessed with the delusion that volume of words will impress some, regardless of the nonsense those words may express; and this is just another evidence of your desperation in this vicious and sordid crime against one of the Lord’s House! In 1950 you were very pronounced in defending the truth, “Without repentance, there is no forgiveness by the Lord; and there is no obligation on us to forgive a brother who does not repent”. Are you now revolutionizing against that Parousia and Epiphany Truth?

So Brother Eschrich complains that some one shook a finger in his face at Jackson­ville! A self-admitted slanderer (to you and to me) who wants to brush off his leprous Levitical crime with a “let’s just drop it” complains that the one he has wronged shook a finger in his face! Poor Fellow; he was truly abused there!! Do you think Brother Russell or Brother Johnson would stand complacently by – as you are doing – if they heard of a case of ONE PILGRIM slandering another Pilgrim? Do you? Do you think either of them would “suspend” the slandered one, while ardently upholding the evildoer – as you are now doing in the case of Brother Eschrich? You yourself announce the fact in the PT that this slander was done against me; thus you automatically obligate your­self – if you are honestly “in full harmony” with Brother Russell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908 – to do all in your power to identify the Real Source of this “leprosy” in our midst, as an object lesson for ALL toward proper application of the Golden Rule.

Page 5, Par. 4. You say such things are for “individual Ecclesias”. Will you tell me in which Ecclesia I should carry out this matter with Brother Eschrich? As you well know, this leprous Levitical crime has become widespread in the General Church; they have heard the liars’ side of it – but you now tell me I “should know better” than to want them to hear the truth about it. Nice reasoning; very nice, indeed! The only conclusion one could draw from such “reasoning” is that the one presenting it has truly “lost the oil from his lamp”.

Page 5, Par. 5. The “other considerations” mentioned here were all present when you called upon me publicly to support you in prayer at Jacksonville on Feb. 26; they were present when you wrote your letter of March 24, wherein you “wished I could have been present” at Winter Park on March 16, in which letter you greeted me with “Chris­tian love” and sent your “continued best wishes”; they were present on May 28 at Muskegon(even after you had my letter of May 20), when you came across the dining hall to greet me as I sat at the table with four others. Indeed, your double-minded conduct here once more painfully reminds me of That Evil Servant, who hypocritically shed crocodile tears before Society brethren in his great “grief” over that “evil” Brother Johnson and others, who had “shaken off the dust of their feet” against him. And, when I described your “citing Sister Hoefle’s violation of Matt. 18 as simply so much nonsense”, I repeat that again with double emphasis; your confusion here – as in so many other instances – ­is certainly most lamentable. How could she possibly be involved with Matt. 18, when you yourself admit she did not come to you regarding herself, but simply asked you a question about me? Will you make clear just how Matt. 18 would be binding upon her under such circumstances, when she mentioned no differences between you and her? She asked you about a third person. Other members of the Winter Park Ecclesia had expressed an intention of asking you about this matter. Since they have received this and other hints and warnings which strongly indicated that you were conducting a “whispering” campaign against me, they were desirous of having the Truth and facts come out. Would they have been violating Matt. 18 to ask you about it? Your befuddled thinking here, as elsewhere, is so glaringly ridiculous I would consider it unbelievable were I not personal witness to it.

And I can but answer “nonsense” to you. Par. 2, Page 5, where you speak of my “prying questions” based upon my “suspicions”, etc. Brother Gavin categorically told me Brother Eschrich had slandered me – based upon what he had heard from you; and others involved you in vicious gossip that had come to them. You had been specifically involved in the general content of all the questions I asked you in my letter of April 1; and your profuse play on words here can mean nothing more than a smoke screen in an ef­fort to cover up for the evildoers in this leprous Spiritual debauchery! With all those “other considerations” present on March 15-17 – coupled with your refusal even to write me a letter since June 15, 1954 – not even asking for a report of my Pilgrim ac­tivities for 1954 –, you proceed to write me a character recommendation on March 24, 1955 followed by a special article in the May PT denouncing the injustice that had been done me – all of this while you plead “I am not sure what it was all about”. Need I suggest that this requires much more explanation than you have given to it?

And, though you may not have “known what it was all about” on March 24, you certainly did know “what it was all about” when you had your conference with Brother Gavin on May 7 and 8; and you did know “what it was all about” when Brother Eschrich, you and I were at Muskegon May 28-30. And, having been fully informed by then of “What it was all about”, did you even hint that you and I talk over such a serious matter? Did you sug­gest to Brother Eschrich that he talk to me, at least to tell me what you claim he told you? O, no, nothing like that from you! Instead, a month later you write me seven pages, which contain the vague comment that you talked it over with Brother Eschrich – ­once more behind my back; and you offer quite some elaboration that I must be a dis­gruntled troublemaker with a “bad spirit” if I do not agree with your unscriptural course. At every utterance from you it becomes clearer and clearer that the one goat of Leviticus 16 was “for Azazel”; “his servant ye are to whom ye render service”.

Page 5, Par. 6. Your statement here is in direct conflict with others I have. I am told you were specifically asked about the Sister – slander, and that your con­versation plainly showed that you knew about it; but that you tried to give it the brush-off that you were “too busy” to be concerned with such small items. Then, later in pri­vate conversations, I am told you freely admitted that “every one that came to you with the slander about me you had informed them it was not true, told them not to spread it; and you would continue to do that.” Now, which place are you telling the truth – here in your letter or when you were at Winter Park? Since you admit in the May Present Truth that you knew of “magnified slander” from “mouth to mouth”, it must be your winter Park statements are the truth. Therefore I ask – Did you ever once advise me that my good reputation among Truth people was being assassinated – in accordance with Brother Rus­sell’s article, and the requirements of the Golden Rule? Did you ever once advise any who came to you with it that they should come to me with it – in accordance with Bro. Russell’s article and the Golden Rule? Or, did you wait until the matter became much too warm for your personal comfort before you even generalized about it in the May Present Truth and attempted a belated and lame cover-up with your letter of March 24?

Page 6, Par. 1. You ask if I “recall when this Motto Text”....in “due time” was used by Brother Russell. Yes, I recall it. in my letter of Jan. 18, 1954, Page 2, par. 2, I said: “I repeat that your abortive efforts can result only in failure. I wonder if you recall one year’s Motto Text of Brother Russell, showing the opening chest­nut burr and underneath it the words IN DUE TINE?” I’m glad you brought that up, though – ­very glad! Brother Johnson plainly and emphatically said his idea of “due time” for having all the unpublished literature into the hands of the brethren was October 1956 at the very latest – a date now but a scant fourteen months future. Yet you have brazenly and openly declared – by your acts, at least – that you have no respect for his “due time” date; at the rate you are going, you won’t have half the remaining books in the hands of the brethren come this fall a year. You have raised a great hue and cry about my “out of harmony” on “not a fundamental doctrine”; yet you yourself are boldly declaring your own “out of harmony” with Brother Johnson on a matter that is fundamental and of great importance to all God’s people – while you state from the other side of your mouth how you are “in full harmony with dear Brother Johnson”. This is simply another instance of Revolutionism by you! When you say “two of the above mentioned books have already been published”, you are simply stating another falsehood. Brother Johnson had said he was preparing to publish Vols. Nos. 15, 16 and 17 in 1950. He published No. 15; then you came along and published No. 18. Furthermore, when you say “many of the articles which are to appear in this volume (your mis-numbered 17) have been appearing in our magazines”, I wish you would please refer me to just one ar­ticle that has appeared since Brother Johnson’s death on the real Vol. 17 – “Numbers, Vol. 2”. It would seem here is another falsehood to be charged against you.

Page 6, Pars. 2 & 3. I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written; but when some one such as you tries to give me some instruction or correction, I expect you yourself to know what you are talking about. I am quite familiar with what Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, P. 113; and I agree with his explanation of Heb. 19:1-2.  When the Bible states that work would be done by a “great crowd” I think that fits in pretty well with the “great crowd” in the Society giving Jordan its second smiting. But why didn’t you go on and discuss Verse 6? That speaks also of a “great crowd” saying “The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth”. Brother Johnson states in the very 1941 citation you give that that fulfillment was future; and he stated often enough in other places that the “great crowd” would have a fruitful ministry “after the fires of armageddon” (Rev. 7:14). Why didn’t you say something about that? Are you contending that a “great crowd” has been proclaiming this message since October 1950? By generous count, could you possibly show a hundred? It is little wonder you repeatedly and loudly proclaim your “love for your dear Youthful Worthy brethren”! And do you consider that slanderers and scandalmongers have “cleansed” themselves in harmony with Heb. 7:14? Do You? I may as well quote your own words here, “This it over, dear brother”. Also, you are con­spicuously silent on Heb. 22:10 and Berean Comments. Why?

Page 6, Par. 4. Here you say I was “seeking independently to serve the Muskegon Ecclesia on April 16 with discourses”. This is just another one of your falsehoods! At no time did I approach the Muskegon Ecclesia; my first letter of March 19 was to Brother and Sister Seebald, who had given me perhaps a dozen warm invitations over the years to visit them, as Brother Schmidt of Detroit, a faithful Pilgrim under Brother Johnson, had so often done over week-ends when he was alive (and without asking Brother Johnson’s permission). If Brother Seebald referred the matter to the Ecclesia, that is his concern – not mine. His invitations over the past always seemed warm and genuine; and I am sorry I misunderstood him. However, he told me at Muskegon May 28-30 that you had told him there was nothing wrong if they wanted me to serve them without clearing with the Bible House. Did you tell him that? If so, why all the dust-throwing about it now in your letter of June 25? To protect whom? Is this for the “protection” of the Winter Park Ecclesia – or is it for YOURSELF? It is quite clear that you are try­ing to bury in an effusion of words those pertinent and proper questions I asked you on April 1. This has been a common procedure with you in the letters you have written me over the past three years. It’s not surprising you are swamped with work at the Bible House – while the place swarms with help!

Also, I was told you informed Brother Seebald that my chronological confirmation of Brother Johnson’s statement re the 70 years desolation of Christendom was just “no good”. Inasmuch as I was only enlarging upon Brother Johnson’s statement – and nothing more – do you still want to contend that the 70-year idea is just “no good”’

Furthermore, you say I “for sometime now have been working independently of the one whom the Lord placed in charge”. Do you know of a single instance where I attempted to even offer my services to an Ecclesia? Do you? And, when writing the Muskegon Ec­clesia (after they had officially written to me), I said in my letter of March 26 that “my letter of March 19 to Brother Seebald was purely personal to them (Brother and Sister Seebald), and not in my capacity as a Pilgrim”. You must be pretty hard-pressed when you give this matter the twist you do. And, when you bring in Hirsh, Stevens, Cater, Zielinski, etc., I note you give the Present Truth reference where Brother John­son exposed them all. are you “in full harmony” with him on such matters?

Page 7, last Par. You now come to “something very unpleasant... to suspend me as a Pilgrim”. The only “unpleasantness” in this for you so far as I can see, is you’re now being forced out into the open and admitting what you had already done in fact back in 1953. In fact, it would seem you had already decided on this course at the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral – because I received no hint from you of any requests from you to serve brethren anywhere. When I arrived at Philadelphia Convention in 1951 (al­most a whole year after Brother Johnson’s death), you offered the lame alibi that you would have given me a place on the program had you known I would be there, to which I answered – “You could have found out by asking me, couldn’t you?” and as for dismiss­ing me as a Pilgrim, you cannot do any more than you have done: you cannot add to or take away from what the Epiphany Messenger has established, although I realize you have been attempting strenuously to arrogate the office of “Pastor and Teacher”, to yourself. I am convinced your course is clearly marked in certain Bible Types, so your “profuse words to no profit” impress me not at all. Therefore, I repeat, Consider yourself free to publish this letter – ALL of it or NONE of it – and expose my “errors” and my “oppo­sitional course”.

                Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

(Copy to Winter Park Ecclesia)

NO. 2: A LETTER TO BROTHER JOLLY

NO. 2

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

I am setting out below copy of a letter I have just dispatched to Brother Jolly; and I send with it the prayer that you may read it with that “wisdom from above which is without partiality”. May our Good Shepherd prosper you richly in the Truth and the spirit of the Truth that thus you may gain that inheritance which is the hope and promise of all who “fight the good fight” unto a victorious completion.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle Pilgrim

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

Dear Brother Jolly:

Again it becomes my unpleasant duty to record my protest against a few (although not nearly all) of your sins of teaching and practice at the Philadelphia Conven­tion just passed.

1. You stated most emphatically that the Great Company is – and always will be – a class higher than the Youthful Worthies. The last statement I have from Brother Johnson says – “Just as we are unable to state definite­ly what the nature of the Great Company will be, so we are unable to state def­initely what nature on the spirit plane the Ancient and Youthful Worthies will have. All three may be on the same plane as spirit beings, but the Scriptures being silent, we must not teach it as a matter of faith. The Little Flock, as the chief singers in Heaven, will be immediately followed by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and the Great Company.” You clearly and definitely disputed this state­ment by Brother Johnson, so it would seem you are “out of harmony” with him on it.

2. You stated your being antitypical Baanah establishes you as Pastor and Teacher. There is nothing in the name Baanah itself (which means mournful or sorrowing one), or anywhere else in the Bible that would confirm your contention; and, so far as we know, Brother Johnson did not see that there for you either, or he most certainly would have told us about it. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson pointed you out as antitypical Baanan many years before he died, you must have been Pastor and Teacher during all those years. Did you exercise your office then; or were you, the Pastor and Teacher, cleansing yourself at Gulrock? Also, you said noth­ing about it for some time after Brother Johnson died. Just when did you see yourself in that position? This claim by you at this time fits in very well with your confusion on “Judas not a thief”, about which I wrote you on Nov. 18, 1954. The more you say and do, the more you yourself display your crying need for a Pastor and Teacher, rather than to occupy such position yourself.

3. You say the Good Levites of the LHMM were cleansed by the time of Bro. Johnson's death. The Great Gompamy developing truths were to appear progres­sively for 80 years (See E‑4. pages 105‑7, especially top of page 107); but it seems you now contend that 76 years are all that were needed for this purpose. Do you know of any experience of the Little Flock in 1910 (when they were not yet all finally determined as permanently in the Body) to parallel your contention for 1950? As you must agree, the Little Flock could not have been completely “Purified” in 1910 as respects their developing truths, because new ones were still coming into the Body. It should be clear enough – even to novices – ­that you are here destroying the parallel. And the reason for this attempt by you is very clear, too.

As was the case with That Evil Servant, when Brother Johnson annihilated any of his erroneous teachings, he immediately was forced to throw away other truths in an effort to support his previous errors. The Great Gompany developing truths that is tormenting you now (which will eventually cleanse you and ALL uncleansed Great Company members, if and when they submit to and ap­propriate this “razor” truth to themselves) is the one I have repeatedly present­ed to you; namely, That the final remnant of the Great Company in the LHMM was fully and completely abandoned to Azazel by the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor from them on October 22, 1950 at which time the Last Priest was removed in death. Self‑evidently, this was impossible while Bro­ther Johnson was alive – just as the understanding of this advancing Great Com­pany developing truth could not pos­sibly have been clarified before his death. Especially is this latter true, because its understanding would have averted much of the trial of the past five years – ­just as a proper understanding of truth by the Jews would have prevented the cruci­fixion of our Lord.

4. You said you would rather die than accept Brother Krewson as a teacher. Inasmuch as you accepted so much of his teaching for a few years, were you head­ing toward death then? Also, you accuse him of pre‑arranging dates, then plan­ning his course to make them fit his parallels. Since he told you that you were paralleling Brother Russell for the balance of the Epiphany, can it be possible you yourself did any of that same arranging of parallels – especially, arranging your trip to England with the Bible Films in 1954 and feigning surprise when Brother Armstrong spoke of the 1914 parallel (See PT Sept. 154, Page 71, cols 1, par. 2) – although Brother Armstrong himself had already called it to your attention in 1953, so you had plenty of notice of it long before you even started for England? (Note: I want it definitely under­stood here that I am not offering any brief for or accep­tance of Brother Krewson's claims; I am engaged here exclusive­ly with YOU, and the mention of his name is only incidental thereto.)

5. Question at the question Meeting: If the Saints are to reign a thousand years, does that mean they will have to reign until 2950, which would be one thousand years from the time Brother Johnson died?

Your Answer: O, no! The part is here taken for the whole – just as when two or three Apostles were present they represented the whole. This is an instance where “God counts those things that are not as though they are.”

Here is the answer I would give to that question: Rev. 20:4‑6 says “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years”. At Sept. 16, 1914 the entire 144,000 who would constitute the Body of Christ “lived” for the first time; and they also were then reigning in a limited sense, because they were “executing the judgment written” – Psa. 149:7‑9. Brother Johnson stresses that “this honor have ALL the Saints”, and relies heavily upon it as a sure proof that the High Call­ing, was then closed. From Sept. 16, 1914 to the end of the Little Season will be exactly 1,000 years, the time the entire 144,000 will have reigned. “Then the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God” – 1 Cor. 15:24. Thus, the Scrip­ture, “They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years”, means exactly what it says – ALL of them living and reigning the full thousand years as a complete entity. I think the explanation I have here set forth meets all seven axioms for correct Bible interpretation.

6. You stated most emphatically that the article in the May PT was “word for word as Brother Russell had written it”. From much experience with you, I know how unreliable your statements are; but I would not have believed you could be so fool­ishly open in your untruthfulness as you have in this instance. On Page 35, col. 1, par. 1 there are some statements about “Youthful Worthies and Consecrated Epiphany Campers”. Is this “word for word” as Brother Russell wrote it? And on Page 37, Col. 2, par. 4 there is described the case of a “prominent Truth brother”, etc. Is this “word for word” as Brother Russell wrote it? Of course, any one who has read the Manna texts and comments would recognize without coaching that large parts of your article are the words of Brother Russell. For instance page 36 contains the Manna comments for Sept, 8 and 10; page 37 contains those of July 14 (in two sections) and December l, some of the latter being also at the top of page 38. I find no fault with those comments, any more than I do with what you yourself have added to the article. It was the cover‑up use you attempted with the article that constitutes the “Wooden Horse” of which I spoke. Scriptures are usually correctly quoted but often misapplied. The teachings that really apply in this slander disgrace are those contained in Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908. You were specifi­cally requested to use this article, yet you did not even mention it in your “Bless­ing God and cursing Men”. Why? Even as Brother Johnson, in discussing That Evil Servant's “Let Us Dwell In Peace”, states – “This exhortation all of the Lord's people, subordinately to purity, should strive to practice. Nobody strove in har­mony with Truth and Righteousness harder than we to prevent in 1917 the rupture of peace and unity; and we trust not to be behind others now in 1920 in seeking to re­store a peace and unity in harmony with Truth and Righteousness.”

7. You made great play on Prov. 6:19 – “he that soweth discord among breth­ren”. Why did you not also quote another portion of that Scripture – “The Lord hates a lying tongue”? Here you are following the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant; he was very pronounced and repetitious in quoting Verse 19, while ignoring completely Verse 17. He then fanned the “unstable and the unlearned” into a rag­ing flame of rabid sectarianism with his “Avoid Them” campaign – just as you did at this Convention. Your failure to be sobered by his terrible course and his ulti­mate end is a mute testimonial of your own desperate and appalling position at this time. And your yelling “Discord among brethren” at those who are exposing your sins of teaching and practice would put Martin Luther, Brothers Russell and John­son, and all the reformers under the condemna­tion of Prov. 6:19 in their efforts to be true‑Protestants.

8. Furthermore, why do you not apply Prov. 6:19 to Brother Gavin, whom you selected as Chairman for this Convention? He has been quite busy, since way last winter (if not before that time), in circulating the Krew­son discourses, which you now label as a Sift­ing Movement. Was Brother Gavin “cleansed” by the time Bro. Johnson died in 1950, as you now claim was true of the Good Levites in the LHMM? And do you still consider him “cleansed” as you take him prominently into your bosom – even tho he has “Joined hands with a sifter”, as you state it? You have given the brethren no public warning about him; and your inconsistent and ridicu­lous position in this situation is a combined comedy‑tragedy of the first order. Truly, “their foolishness shall be very plain to all”. (2 Tim. 3:9, Dia.)

In your letter of August 20, which was awaiting me upon my return from the Conven­tion, you say I “apparently do not understand your position”; but you may be sure I “understand your position” much better than you think I do. The ex­pression should be just the other way round – YOU apparently do not understand my position.

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed) John J. Hoefle

NO. 1: "WHISPERING CAMPAIGN" AGAINST BROTHER HOEFLE

No. 1

A MESSAGE OF IMPORTANCE to

"The Epiphany Elect" of

The Laymen's Home Missionary Movement

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

You have probably read Page 37 of the May Present Truth, giving the “case of a prominent brother” maligned by “magnified slander”. I am that brother there referred to; but the account only remotely and vaguely de­scribes the disgrace, so I am enclosing copies of some correspondence to acquaint you with the facts. My prayer for you is that you will read this with that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality” (Jas, 3:17).

Since shortly after Brother Johnson's death an organized “whispering” campaign of slander has been systematically carried on against me, none of it containing one honest statement – much the same as was done against Brother Johnson after Brother Russell's death. Slander and lying are sins common to many of the Great Company (See Vol.  E‑10, pp, 225 and 264, bottom); although I am very happy to observe, too, that some in our Group and in other Groups appear not to be sullied by these Azazelian “dis”graces. In addition to the slander discussed in the enclosed, other false­hoods have been circu­lated – “Brother Hoefle is out of harmony with the Lord's arrange­ments”; and “He was in strong dis­agreement with Brother Johnson before his death”. A little reflection by you should easily disprove this latter without any ex­planation from me; but I remind you of the following facts: Brother Johnson gave me a prominent place on the Philadelphia Convention Program the month be­fore he died; he asked me to convey the Aaronic Benediction to the Conven­tion in his stead (although some of the slandering Great Company were there and con­veniently available). The next morning, while lying in his bed, he told me he was sorry he did not hear my discourse; said he was simply too weak to come to the Tabernacle. When one of the Bible House attendants kept calling to me to terminate my visit because I was exhausting Brother Johnson, he clung to my hand and made the statement, “We don't grow weary of the company of those we love, do we?” And those were among the last words he ever spoke to me!

Furthermore, on numerous occasions in the months before his death he in­sisted that Brother Hoefle should conduct his funeral if he should happen to die (although I knew nothing of this until after he had died); and I suggest you read again the funeral discourse I gave for him to determine for yourself if my words there carry the expressions of a true friend. Also, I was made the Executor for the wills of both Brother and Sister Johnson; and both wills speci­fically stated that I was to serve without posting bond. And Brother and Sis­ter Johnson both, many times during our intimate visits together, exacted from me the promise that I would conduct her funeral – although illness prevented me from keeping that promise, as Brother Jolly himself so well knows, because I re­quested him personally to substitute for me. However, in case the foregoing is not enough, I quote below a paragraph from Brother Johnson's letter to me, dated October 31, 1947:

“This explanation is given to you in confidence, with the distinct under­standing that you will not give it to others. My confidence in your integrity and loyalty to the Lord's word has moved me to give you what I would not even give the Church Class now..... So I am depending on you to keep a secret. I do many things for you, my dear Brother, be­cause of your faithfulness to the Truth, that I have not done for others.” I sincerely hope you have not received and been influenced by any of this slander. But, if you have, then I remind you that you were rubbing elbows with spiritual lepers; and, if you did not heed your Scriptural obligation in such matters, then some of that leprosy passed over to you – and it is still there, whether you realize it or not.

In his letter of March 24, Brother Jolly proclaimed his “full harmony with Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908”; and in his letter of May 17 he com­pletely rejects every principle of that article.  Thus, it is proper to note that his “full harmony” was so “full” that he did not even mention that article in his “Blessing God and Cursing Men” of May 1 – although he had been specifically requested to use it. So we now take his article entitled “Blessing God and Curs­ing Men”, and compare it with another article in the April 1, 1920 Watch Tower entitled “Let Us Dwell in Peace”, by That Evil Servant. Brother Johnson makes a true analysis of the latter in Vol. E‑6, pages 136‑164 (Especially note page 162). Could Brother Jolly's article be a “Soulmate” (another Wooden Horse) of the Apr. 1920 article?

It does seem tragic, indeed, that the unsus­pecting and well‑intentioned Youthful Wor­thies in the LHMM are now being corrupted by some uncleansed Levites in our midst (aided by a few leprous Youthful Worthies) – just as has been done in all the sects of Little Babylon before Brother Johnson died. And I call upon you to arouse yourselves “while it is yet today” to the leprosy in our Group and to cleanse yourselves of it, if the contagion is with you; to help others cleanse themselves of it (in accordance with Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908), and to abide in the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth in keeping with our blessed privileges as the Epiphany Elect!

Please be assured I am still your Brother and I pray for you and all God's people daily – in accordance with the vows I have publicly expressed before you; and the prayer I send you with this letter is that you may be found “blame­less and harmless, children of God without reproach”. As always, I stand ready to help you in any way I can; and I hope for your prayers that I may continue faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed)

John J. Hoefle

For the information of the Winter Park Ecclesia

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

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 24, 1955

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings of Christian love!

I feel that I owe you a letter in view of certain charges made at the Question meeting at Winter Park, in which you and I were involved, I am not sure what it was all about, as apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed, hence, the charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.

It appears that the charges against me were that I am circulating re­ports against you (1) as soliciting investments from widows and (2) as being dishonest in your business dealings and (3) that I am not in harmony with Brother Russell's teachings as given in his article on Evil Speaking in Z 1908, Pp‑ 348‑351.

Of course, I could not deny charge (3) which was then for the first time made against me publicly in my presence (contrary to Matt. 16:15), for it was necessary for me first to read the article in questions which I have now done and I am glad to say I am in full harmony with it. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Winter Park Ecclesia for their information, as my answer to this charge, seeing I was not able to give a reply at the time without first read­ing the article in question.

As to the first two charges, I denied them before the brethren assembled at Winter Park, for I have not spread any such reports. I know of one widow for whom you invested money at her request – in fact when some years ago she asked me for advice, I recommended you to her. I understand that she has no complaints against you. I do not know that you ever solicited investments from widows nor that you have ever been dishonest in your business dealings. I gladly make this statement in your behalf.

I am not clear as to just what the charge was against Brother Gavin, but it had to do with a conversation between him and Brother Eschrich and supposedly involved me. Bro. Gavin stated three times that my name was not mentioned, but his word was doubted by the one making the charges.

The following day the Lord blessed those who attended with rich refresh­ing from His holy Word. I wish you could have been present, but understand that you had other duties, which required your presence in Michigan. With con­tinued best wishes for you in the Lord, I remain,

Your brother and servant,

(Signed)

R. G. Jolly

RGJ/ab

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

April 1. 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

In your letter of March 24 you say “apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed”; but I assure you that I have not ignored Matthew 18 toward you or any one else.

When Brother Gavin was here in Detroit last fall he told me Brother Eschrich had given him, on last September 12 in Springfield, Mass., a slanderous statement about me, which Brother Eschrich said he had received from Brother Jolly. I gave Brother Gavin a very clear and detailed explanation of the matter, which he veri­fied in every detail the next day from Sister ……. herself, who was in Detroit at the time. Brother Gavin, convinced by his own knowledge who the liar was, then told me he had “surmised there was some malice on the part of Brother Jolly” in tell­ing Brother Eschrich what he had told him.  (Note I have quoted Brother Gavin's ex­act words.)

Although it seemed certain Brother Gavin was telling me the truth then, I realized that did not in itself prove it to be the truth; and I did not care to appear ridi­culous by coming to you with third‑hand gossip. Rather, I decided to “do everything decently and in order” – step by step. – so I wrote to Brother Eschrich (copy of my letter of October 30 enclosed), receiving two evasive answers from him. Finally, I wrote him on November 18, asking for a clear, clean answer, to which he never re­plied. So when he approached me with “buttered” words just before the two o'clock meeting at Jacksonville last February 27, I told him the first consideration should be my last letter to him; at which he offered the imbecilic suggestions “Let's just drop its Brother”. At My – “Nonsense! this thing has been peddled from Massachu­setts to Texas, and from Minnesota to Florida”, he then offered me his “solemn word” that he had repeated it to no one except his wife, and – “if she has circulated it, I can't help that. You know how women are; they will gossip.” Thereupon I called to Brother Gavin, who stated most emphatically and in minute detail that –  “You told me that on September 12 in Springfield, and you said Brother Jolly had told it to you.” Brother Eschrich just turned white; but did not dispute one word Brother Gavin had said. When I asked him if Brother Jolly had told him that, he began to vacil­late; so I asked for a clear Yes or No. He refused to answer; then grabbed the con­venient alibi that the meeting was already ten minutes late, and walked away from me.

Here in Detroit we can see no honest reason for innocent parties hiding behind the “Fifth Amendment”; and we think they exude a pretty putrid smell when they do so. Can you offer the slightest excuse why he could not have answered No if No had been the simple truth? In Sister …….’s own words – “I never said or meant to imply that you defrauded me, or attempted to do so”. If Sister ……. is telling the truth (and both of you admit that she is), it then comes down to this: Did Brother Esch­rich concoct that slanderous lie so his gossiping wife could broadcast it; or did you or some one else tell it to him? Also, had he been innocent – and well‑inten­tioned – he most certainly would have gone to you immediately at Jacksonville in an effort to clear you and himself, and have the matter properly adjusted. Did he come to you about it then? If so, what conclusion did you reach?

I should record here, too, that in that two‑o'clock Testimony Meeting Brother Eschrich had the colossal gall to stand up – as did the breastbeating Pharisees of old – and declare – “I have nothing but love in my heart for all of you”, I could not but reflect then that his “love” for me was so touching that he was willing to incite to murderous defamation, then stand by and “hold the clothes” of them who cast the stones; and I have been pondering ever since if this “loving” brother is really such a gross hypocrite, or if he is merely non compos mentis!

From the way I am expressing myself herein, it should be very clear to you by now, Brother Jolly, that I am in no mood for oily alibis. In accord­ance with Matt. 18, I went to Brother Eschrich, and he “refused to hear me”. I went to him also with Brother Gavin, and he refused to hear us. So I think I am now quite in order to take the third step –summon him before the General Church – ; so I ask that you please let me know if he and Brother Gavin will be at Muskegon May 28‑30. If not, when and where do you expect to have them both in attendance?

Also, I am now in position to follow out Matt. 18 with regard to you, so I wish you would please give me a clear answer to the following questions:

1. Did you discuss that matter with Sister ……. during the past year or so? If so, please state what prompted the discussion, and give me a resumé.

2. Did you discuss it with Brother Eschrich about the time of the last Philadelphia Convention – or any other time? If so, please state what prompted the discussion, and give me a resumé.

3. Have you discussed it with any one else? If so, please give details,

4. Did you discuss with Brother Eschrich the Jacksonville item described above?  If so, please give a resumé, and what conclusions you reached.

5. Did you discuss me with Sister Pearson at any time? If so, please state why, and give a resumé.

6. How much evil speaking did you receive about me from Sister Scott of Detroit, and what counsel did you give her about it?

7. Did you say at Winter Park during March 15‑17 that I had asked you to take charge of Brother Johnson's funeral in my place?

In the last paragraph of your letter of March 24 you say – “Brother Gavin stated three times that my name was not mentioned”. If you speak the truth, and if I understand you correctly, you will readily realize from the foregoing that Brother Gavin lied three times that day in Winter Park – just as did another, in a spell of weakness, some nineteen centuries ago, when the self‑admittedly “cleansed” leaders (type of the Great Company in the end of this Age) were scheming for Jesus' blood (Matt. 27:25). In this connection, last Fall at Mount Dora Brother Gavin offered – in the presence of witnesses – to write Brother Eschrich that he had proven without doubt that what Brother Eschrich had heard and passed on to him was simply nothing but slander. Now I do indeed regret my generosity there, because I told Brother Gavin then that I wished to spare him any inconvenience or embarrass­ment that I could – that I was grateful to him for recognizing his Scriptural duty in advising me of the slander – that I had written Brother Eschrich and was then waiting for his answer. Of course, I shall now follow Matt. 18 with respect to Brother Gavin on whatever discrepancies seem to have arisen since then.

He who steals my purse steals trash;

But he who filches my good name

Takes that which does not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.

My prayer for you and all involved herein is that you may eventually be able to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and that your hands may be found free from the blood of all men.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

Copy to Winter Park Ecclesia

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

October 30, 1954

Dear Brother Eschrich: Greetings through our Be­loved Master!

It has come to my attention that you have been party to a vicious rumor to the effect that I have defrauded a Truth sister, a widow, in the handling of $l,000 for her; that I did not even give her a receipt for the moneys.

I sincerely hope you are not guilty of such a gross violation of Christian principle, because it seems unthinkable you would be so shal­low in your Scriptural understanding of such a serious matter – “Re­ceive not an accusation against an elder except by two or three witness­es”. If such a rumor came to you, your solemn Scriptural obligation – as fellow Pilgrim and as a leader and teacher in the Household of Faith – would be to come to me first of all to learn whether or not it be true; just as I am coming to you first of all, without discussing with any one else what is only hearsay and may be a gross injustice to you. You surely are familiar with the sound and sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on such matters (see manna comments for Jan. 7, March 30, July 14, Sept. 10, Dec. 1), so I need say no more on the ethical and brotherly course you are obligated to follow.

Will you please let me know immediately if you are guilty as stated above. If so, then I ask you to tell me the name of your informant, and the exact content of what you were told.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

TELEGRAM

Detroit 26, Michigan

May 16, 1955

R G JOLLY

2111 S, llth ST,

PHILA, PA.

WHEN MAY I EXPECT YOUR ANSWER MY LETTER APRIL FIRST

(Signed)   JOHN J HOEFLE

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

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

May 17, 1955

Dear Bro.  Hoefle:

Your letter of April 1st received.

In view of paragraph 2 sentence 2, of your letter of May 22, 1954, and other considerations, I can see nothing of benefit to you or others that would be accomplished by my writing to you further at this time.

Very truly yours,

(Signed)

R. G. Jolly

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

May 20, 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

Your letter of May 17 makes no mention that you are sending a copy to the Winter Park Ecclesia, so I shall send them one from here. Since you now take refuge behind my letter of May 22, 1954, it would seem you must have completely forgotten that letter when writing me as you did on March 24, 1955.

However, in your letter of March 24 you state you are “in full harmony” with Brother Russell's article in Z Nov. 15, 1908, 348‑52. Did you mean that, or didn't you? Yours of May 17 certainly is not in harmony with your confession of March 24, although I realize you may not have discerned clearly the connection between that ar­ticle and my letter of April 1, so I am stating a few of my questions again:

1.  Who gave the slander to you about Sister ……. and me?

2,  Did you repeat it to Brother Eschrich, or any one else?

Your Scriptural obligation in this matter is clear enough; and I again call upon you to meet it in accordance with your own confession of “full harmony” with Brother Russell's article. I mention, too, that you yourself invited the Winter Park Ecclesia into this correspondence (I was not at Winter Park on March 15‑17); so your refusal now to offer a defense of yourself leaves them – and any others who may read these letters – free to form their own conclusions about the merits of your position.

Your attempt of March 24 to plead Matthew 18 is simply so much nonsense. In your position, you should welcome the opportunity to make a public defense of your character or your ministry, at any reasonable time or in any place, if – YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! My own position is that any of the brethren may question my course in life, my attitude toward the Truth, or my treatment of any of the Lord's people at any reasonable time or in any place, because – I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! I shall be happy to have you publish this statement in the Present Truth; and I suggest you publish the same statement in the Present Truth for yourself, too. Of course, in your refusal to respond to me when I come to you, as I did in my letter of April l, you self‑evidently show your contempt for Matthew 18 – the same Scripture to which you took refuge when it seemed to suit your convenience.

Furthermore, your flimsy evasion of May 17 is untenable, and can mean only one of two things: Either you are disgustingly guilty and fear the truth; or you are tragically shallow and weak in your handling of this situation, I say "shallow and weak" because the merest reflection should make unmistakably evident this con­clusion: If you are not guilty, then a simple negation would answer the questions I asked you; and the guilt would then be shifted to me if you are innocent and I disbelieved you. Having opened up our correspondence again of your own free will – without any invitation from me – you now show pathetically poor face by appeal­ing to my year‑old letter as an excuse to close up what you yourself reopened on March 24, 1955. Surely, “Their foolishness shall be very plain to all.” (2 Tim. 3:9 - Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

(Copy to Winter Park Ecclesia)

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

March 17, 1955

The Winter Park Ecclesia

421 Ohio Street

Winter Park, Florida

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

It has just been reported to me that Brother Gavin flatly denied before you all this week that he ever said he had been told by Brother Eschrich that Brother Jolly had told him (Bro. Eschrich) a tale to the effect that I was imposing upon Truth widows, that I had accepted $1,000 from one, not even giving her a receipt for it.

If I am properly informed, this attitude on the part of Brother Gavin is almost unbelievable. When he was here in Detroit last fall, he specifically told me, in so many words, that Brother Eschrich had told him in Springfield, Mass., on last September 12 that he (Bro. Eschrich) had received this report from Brother Jolly – and, after some very clear explanation on my part (which explanation was verified the next day by the Sister in question when Brother Gavin asked her about it), Brother Gavin ventured his own comment, that he had “surmised there was some mal­ice” on the part of Brother Jolly in telling Brother Eschrich what he had told him.

In accordance with Scriptural require­ment, I wrote Brother Eschrich about it last fall, receiving two evasive answers to my urgent letters. On November 18 I wrote him again, pointing out his evasion, and asked him for a clear clean answer.  I never received an answer to that letter.

At the Jacksonville Convention on February 27, 1955 Brother Eschrich denied repeating the slander to any one but his wife, and – “if she's circulated it, I can't help that. You know how women are; they will gos­sip.” Thereupon I called to Brother Gavin, who said most emphatically and clearly that “You told me that on September 12 in Springfield, Mass., and you said Brother Jolly had told it to you.” When asked for a specific “Yes” or “No” whether Brother Jolly had told him, he refused to answer.

In the days following Sunday, February 27 the matter was discussed frequently and at length with Brother Gavin while he was a guest in our home at Mount Dora from February 27 to March 16; and it was clearly under­stood Brother Jolly was to be questioned about it during his visit with you March 15 and 16. Never once was there any intimation by Brother Gavin that he disagreed in any slightest details about what the discussion had been between him and Brother Eschrich; so that his denial now – at this Passover Season – is nothing less than a Judas kiss. “Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted – and who did eat my bread – hath lifted up the heel against me.” (Psa. 41:9)

I am sorry I must write you such a letter. I am doubly sorry that Brother Jolly, Brother Gavin and Brother Eschrich would sink so low but I say – as did our Beloved Lord – “Weep not for me”; weep rather for them, because it will surely be required at their hands by extreme Fit‑Man experiences. And I admonish you all to “keep yourselves in the love of God”, and do not allow this shameful exhibition of “brotherly love” by those in high places to cause any of you to “fall from your steadfastness.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

Springfield 4, Mass.

Mar. 30, '55

To the Ecclesia at Winter Park, Fla.

Christian Love & Greetings.

Satan at this season of the year certainly tries his best to make trouble.

Sister Gavin received a copy of a letter that Brother Hoefle ad­dressed to you re­garding some things regarding myself. At first I thought, will just forgot it, but the more I thought it over I said I will say a few words. When I came to Fla. to Mount Dora it was agreed that anything that might be said about certain things and persons was to be confidential hence one of my reasons for writing you. Bro. Hoefle has not written to me and I believe that he knows that he should have done so before writing your class.

Now Dear Friends without bringing any­one into this trouble just let me say in self defence what I stated at the Q. meeting, that is, that as I re­member when Bro. Eschrich told me about Bro. Hoefle, Bro. Jolly's name was not mentioned, and for Sister Hoefle to act as she did was a breach of con­fidence as I see it. I still love them both and will do again as I have done before, that is, defend my brother's name when circumstances require it. I feel that our trip to Fla. was a failure on account of what happened at that Q. meeting.

Many of you I have known for Many years and as age is creeping up it is not likely that I shall ever be in Fla. again so I ask of you to think of me not as one that has lifted the heel against his Bro. but one who is still in the flesh and makes mistakes and never ceases to pray for others who make mistakes.

Your Bro. by His Grace,

(Signed)

Daniel Gavin

 P. S.  As far as I am concerned this matter is closed so no answer to this letter is required.

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

May 19, 1955

Dear Brother Gavin:

Recently in Winter Park I saw your letter of March 30, in which you say “it was agreed that anything that night be said about certain things and per­sons was to be confident­ial” while you were in Mount Dora Feb. 27 to March 16.

This is indeed a surprise – quite a surprise – as no one at the Mount Dora residence remem­bers the word “confidence” being even mentioned. You in­sist again that “Bro. Jolly's name was not mentioned when Bro. Eschrich told you about Bro. Hoefle.” So far as I can see, that is the one and only item of contention – Did you bring Brother Jolly's name into the Eschrich conversations or didn't you? If you did not – as you contend – then how could your confidence possibly be betrayed when, as you claim, you never gave that confidence to me? Will you please make yourself clear on this?

As you well know, I was aware of the slanderous gossip being circulated about me long before you came to me about it in Detroit last fall. You added same details, of course, chief of which was that Brother Jolly had passed it to Brother Eschrich, the latter in turn passing it on to you. Had you pledged me to secrecy in this, just what good could it do me to know it? And what is your understanding of your Scriptural and civic obligation in such matters? Surely you must know that if you have knowledge of a murder in your neighborhood the State of Massachusetts would charge you as an accessory to the crime if you re­fused to tell what you know about it. And the Lord also would account you a partaker of their sins should you not expose such evildoers to the one being wronged. And the Lord would hold me guilty, too, should I agree with you to pro­tect by secrecy such sinners in His House. All of this seems so elemental that I find myself constantly asking myself what you have taught yourself in the many years you have been attempting to teach others in the Truth! Seemingly, your understanding of “faithfulness to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren” means to you an obligation to shield the wrongdoers and berate the one wronged. And such a course could produce for you only what it has – Torment of heart and mind. “What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

“Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in His Holy Place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, and who hath not sworn deceitfully”. Quite clearly, one of us has “sworn deceitfully”; and you know full well who that one is, Brother Gavin – and so do I! And so do all the members of the house at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora. And, what is so very much more important, the Lord knows who it is, too! “The hoary head is a crown of glory if it be found in the way of righteous­ness”; but it is a double reproach if it be found in the way of deceit and spine­less juggling.

Please understand, my Brother, that writing you such a letter as this is contrary to all my finer senses. You well recall that I came to you privately “in the spirit of meekness” last fall at Mount Dora to tell you of your erron­eous teaching about the laver in the Tabernacle court, because I had no wish to embarrass you – just as I would want you to treat me under similar circum­stances. A proper recovery of you from the error of your way is much, much more important to me than offering you public humiliation. But the leprosy in this controversy is much deeper than you seem to realize (some of this will become apparent to you when you learn what Brother Jolly said at Winter Park the day after you left). And, while you seem ready enough to “consider this matter closed”, I cannot, and will not, jeopardize my own standing in the Lord's House by giving it such a spineless dismissal. It is your Scriptural obligation – and I now call upon you to meet it – to either admit or defeat the salient statements I have made herein.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

P.S.  See Berean Comments on Psa. 24:3‑4.

(Copy to Winter Park Ecclesia)

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

421 Ohio Street

Winter Park, Florida

May 20, 1955

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace through our beloved Master!

In view of the correspondence which has been furnished to this Ecclesia, namely:

Copy of Brother Jolly's letter of March 24, to you, marked “For the information of the Winter Park Ecclesia”,

Brother Gavin's letter of March 30, addressed to the Ecclesia at Winter Park, Florida, and

Copy of your letter to Brother Jolly dated April l, together with the May P. T., we recognize that our Scriptural obligation in this matter is to give you the facts as we know them, during Brother Jolly's visit to Winter Park, March 15 and 16.

During the Question Meeting, referred to by Brother Jolly in his letter to you, Sr. Hoefle asked Brother Jolly if Brother Eschrich had told him what happened at the Jacksonville Convention. Brother Jolly replied “No”, further stating that Brother Eschrich had not told him anything.

Sr. Hoefle then explained that she was referring to what had happened in Jacksonville between Brother Eschrich and Brother Hoefle, and asked Brother Jolly if ANYONE had discussed it with him, to which he again replied “No”, that he had not been informed.

The morning of March 17, as we were having breakfast in the Bus Station in Orlando with Brother Jolly, during the course of our conversation he men­tioned the “bad spirit” which was shown at Jacksonville Convention, stating that “someone had shaken their finger in Brother Eschrich's face” and that Brother Eschrich told him that the spirit shown there was so bad that he, Bro. Eschrich, thought it best to open the meeting right away and put an end to it.

You will observe that this is in direct contradiction to Brother Jolly's letter of March 24 to you, wherein he stated:

“The charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson, of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.”

Also, it is in direct contradiction to his statements before the Winter Park Ecclesia during the Question Meeting.

He did say, in the presence of several of us, after Sr. Hoefle had left, that he thought she showed a very bad spirit, but he offered no reproval to her personally, neither during the meeting nor after­wards, except that, in clos­ing the meeting he did make the statement that some of the questions “were officious.”

Brother Jolly further stated in his letter to you:

“I am not clear as to just what the charge was against Brother Gavin.”

The Winter Park Ecclesia clearly under­stood that Sr. Hoefle by her ques­tion to Brother Gavin, plainly revealed what the complaint was, namely, that Brother Gavin had not given the same story to the Winter Park Ecclesia that he had previously given to Brother Hoefle in Detroit, and again at the Jacksonville Convention.

Brother Gavin denied before the Ecclesia, that he had said Brother Esch­rich told him that Brother Jolly gave him this report.

In our private discussion with Brother Jolly the morning of his departure, we frankly told him that a number of things had been said to us by certain breth­ren, over two years ago, whereby we were led to believe that he, Brother Jolly, had privately discussed with them, or warned, against Brother Hoefle, although the brethren did not intend to betray any confidences and did not specifically mention names. Brother Jolly denied that he had ever given any confidential in­formation or warning concerning Brother Hoefle, to any of the brethren.

He stated to us that you were out of harmony with Brother Russell and Bro. John­son on a doctrinal point, over which he had considerable correspondence with you, but that you still retained your view in opposi­tion to Brother Russell and Brother Johnson.

Sr. Stanford said that if we knew for a certainty that Brother Hoefle, or any other brother, was not in harmony with the doctrinal teachings of Bro. Russell and Brother Johnson, we would not allow him to give a talk in our home, to which Brother Jolly emphatically stated: “It is not a fundamental doctrine, Sister.”

We feel no malice toward any of the breth­ren, and have had no “personal differ­ences” with any of them. This letter is not written because of preju­dice nor partisanship, but plainly as a fulfillment of our duty, not only to you, but others as well. Therefore, you may use it in the interest of Truth and Justice, as you find need for it.

Assuring you of our prayers for you, and our continued Christian love,

Sincerely your brethren through our blessed Lord and Savior,

(Signed) Brother E. H. Stanford

Sister Marjorie Stanford

(Copy to Brother Jolly)

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

Detroit 26, Michigan

June 6, 1955

Dear Brother and Sister Stanford:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Thanks so much for your good letter of May 20. It is indeed a "cup of cold water’ to have brethren of their own volition take their stand for Truth and Righteousness (Mark 9:41) – “And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” (I Pet. 3:13) “Blessed are your eyes, for they see.”

If I am correctly informed, then it would seem Brother Jolly is once more guilty of unscrupulous falsehood. Such a condition is indeed tragic in one claiming to be leader of the “cleansed” Levites; his acts certainly belie his claims. I had hoped time might be helping him to free himself from the clutches of Azazel, the Father of Lies (John 8:44 ‑Dia.); but it would seem that only extreme Fit‑Man experiences will accomplish this for him. Let us pray for him that it may be speedily accomplished, and that he may soon rightly keep that Trust which has been committed unto him – keeping ever in mind for yourselves that there is no obligation on the part of upright and faithful Youthful Worth­ies to become a partaker of those Fit‑Man experiences.

Brother Jolly's refusal to answer my letter of April 1 because of mine of May 22, 1954 is the clumsiest of sophistry. You yourselves were at Jacksonville on February 26 when he publicly asked me to support him in prayer. That was nine months after May 22, 1954; and his letter of March 24, 1955 was ten months later. At every turn he shows a shameful lack of self‑respect and a pathetic inadequacy for the position he is attempting to fill – just as did King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16‑21), who attempted to profane the house of the Lord and was stricken with leprosy in his forehead, a condition which Uzziah could not see himself, but which was so plainly visible to others. Uzziah there portrayed those in the Gospel Age who are diseased in their thinking on spiritual matters.

King Saul also typed the Great Com­pany leaders from about 200 AD up to Arma­ged­don; and his three outstanding sins were Envy, Stubbornness and Rebellion (Revol­u­tionism) “which is the sin of witchcraft” (especially deceptive false teachings). If “all men forsake us, and none stand with us” (2 Tim‑ 4:16), we too may “pray God that it may not be laid to their charge”, as we repose in the promise that “no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper”. In the final analysis, slanderers never do their targets any real harm, I am fully persuaded that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson do not even have the smell of slander on their garments where they now are; and I am equally persuaded that their “dear Great Company brethren”, who “cast them out for My name's sake” with much vilify­ing, are still wallowing in their leprosy, just as Uzziah was “a leper unto the day of his death”. What a tragic ending for one with such blessed and unusual opportunities; and what a warning it should be to all not to follow his disastrous course!!!

Under Brother Johnson's leadership we had no far‑reaching experiences with such evils in the Great Company as we are undergoing now. This was due to the restraining hand of the last Star Member being upon those of them in our group. But, even though we do not have the unpublished works of Brother Johnson in our possession, the Lord has not left the Faithful in darkness concerning the “Times and Seasons”; we have sufficient in Brother Johnson's published literature to en­able us to “have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness” and to “re­prove them” accordingly. Note March 1, l949 P.T., pages 42‑43: “As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient”, etc. (See preceding paragraphs for description of the two forms of the rods.) You will also note in E‑4, page 210, the steps taken by the Lord for the recovery of these Levites –­ the final step being the withdrawal of all favor and brotherly help.

You yourselves were present at the Jacksonville Convention and heard Brother Jolly say that he knew of no time Brother Johnson ever withdrew brotherly help from him; and that statement by him there was indeed the truth (although he made a direct contradiction of it at Muskegon). Also, it is self‑evident that he did not withdraw brotherly help from the unmanifested Crown­losers, when he did not even withdraw Priestly fellowship from them during his lifetime. So the Lord Himself did this to them when He removed Brother Johnson October 22, 1950, at which time the last group of the Great Company (those in the LHMM) was completely abandoned to Azazel through the withdrawal of all brother­ly help of the last Priest.

In attempting to answer a question on this subject at the Muskegon Convention, Brother Jolly did a very disgraceful juggling act – while yelling loudly at the same meeting that he is “in full harmony with dear Brother Johnson”! Truly, “a doubleminded man (Great Company) is unstable in all his ways”! He does not seem to remember his statements from one day to the next, so he repeatedly contradicts himself, thus proving himself to be a very unreliable teacher and untrustworthy leader.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” – Proverbs 14:12. If the Great Com­pany – especially their lead­ers – do not speedily forsake their evil “way”, their end must be death, the Second Death. We hope and pray that they will soon come to recognize their ap­palling and precarious condition and seek to extricate themselves from Azazel's hands by an honest “love of Truth” (2 Thes. 2:10, 11 ‑ Dia.) We shall rejoice to see this accomplished in them. Their continued frustra­tions and failures are a clear evidence that they do not yet “offer unto the Lord an offering in right­eousness”. “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident” – Prov. 14:16. The recently‑devised “Attestatorial” drive will be a failure, too so long as “Sin lieth at the door“. It is indeed shameful how the poor sheep are being deceived, but we may rest in the calm assurance that “God is not mocked”, and that there must surely come “a certain looking to of judgment and fiery indignation”. “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.”

The words of Brother Johnson with reference to Judge Rutherford and others could well apply to Brother Jolly: “Let us pause before discussing his Pyramid delusions and see what he has done with our Pastor's literature, the steward­ship of which he and the rest of the Board and Tower Editors received on condi­tion of faithfully administering it, through which he and they received the special powers, prerogatives and privileges of leadership in the Society, in which he and they have been most unfaithful, and from which they should resign as unfaithful stewards, unworthy of the further benefits coming from a grossly misused steward­ship.” (E‑6, page 391, Par. 1)

Brother Jolly has been most unfaithful to the Lord's people in wilfully with­holding from them the unpublished literature that rightfully belongs to them, and which is in no way his personal property. He has most certainly betrayed his “Trust” with respect to the unpublished literature; and, when he says “The brethren are not prepared for the books – I could ask them a dozen questions on what they have that they could not answer”, he is displaying a brand of impudence well in keeping with the jugglery of That Evil Servant. On Pages 10, 11, 12 of Jan 1. 1950 P. T. Brother Johnson, the Star Member who wrote those books, said he thought the brethren were prepared for them and would make them available forthwith. That was five years ago; and, if the brethren were prepared for them then, they are most certainly more prepared for them now. In fact, they are probably too well prepared for them, because those writings undoubtedly contain information which would put a direct contradiction on much Brother Jolly has been doing – as, for instance, Brother Johnson being in harmony with Brother Russell on Rev. 19:1‑6 (See Berean Comments on this and Rev. 22:10). But again I repeat – “God will not long be mocked” by this unfaithful “Trustee”! In spite of the foregoing clear statement by Brother Johnson in 1950, you will undoubtedly recall how Brother Jolly brazen­ly declared at the Jacksonville Conven­tion that Brother Johnson said he would not complete the publication of his books until after Armageddon (but he failed to qualify that statement by saying Brother Johnson said that back in 1940!)

Very much more could be said about the “leprosy in the Camp”; but I shall conclude with the assurance to you both that I pray our Good Shepherd may re­ward you according to your good inten­tions, and grant you that Peace of Mind which passeth understandings.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

(Copy to Brother Jolly)