No new class??? August 18 2006 at 6:12 AM
Bro. Harold (no login) from IP address 66.57.68.226

From your previous IP address and Post:


Bro. Russell plainly taught that there would be a non-Spirit-begotten class—we call them Youthful Worthies. He told of them first as individuals from 1881 onward for whom no crowns were available, and taught that later, i.e., in the Epiphany, they would come forth as a class, when all consecrations would be without subsequent Spirit-begettal; see, e.g., F 156, 157; Z 4836, 5761; Question Book, pp. 151, 152, 154, 156-158). He did not use the term Youthful Worthies in describing this class, but spoke of them as a class not begotten of the Spirit,

Bro. Harold. You had the information right and references to prove it. Why the change?

What you found totally connects with what I posted recently (see below). Our view has always been what Bro. Harold said before. He even said it himself. Then, suddenly there is this change, and those who are getting poorly treated are those who want to hold to what we have always taught. It's like we went down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland. Everything is upside down.

Here is what I posted recently:

I notice the old thread that I was on....re. the Youthful Worthies's and when they were a class, when the General Call ceased, etc. has gone totally silent and no one has restarted it.

This is what happens every time there is a discussion about the subject with members of our group - LHMM. Those who went with the change of doctrine try repeatedly to talk about four references and they don't ask themselves why they only have four, when there are at least one hundred references the original way, nor do they try to harmonize the four they have with the body of the literature. Nor is there any question why a change would be made to what we call Epiphany truth, which we feel is the responsibility of Bro. Johnson.

Those of us who are LHMMers or former LHMMers know there was a change in doctrine that doesn't match with what Bro. Russell or Bro. Johnson taught. Some people say there wasn't a change, but the the change has actually been called "the present view" by its author, thus there was a former view. Additionally, we have reference after reference after reference that makes it clear there is no reason for a change AND we have convention sermons archived in our library that show clearly what was taught before and it wasn't this "present view."

Unfortunately, anyone who doesn't want to go along for the ride and tries to speak up is treated like they are doing something wrong for not just blindly going along. There are at least 50 brethren who do not agree with the change. Some have spoken up and some have not. Some have been quite persecuted. I have also suffered under this.

As a Christian, I had never suffered serious religious persecution until now. There have been some very sad consequences only because people cannot sit down together and discuss a doctrinal matter.

I have never seen any of those who have gone with the change, look at, respond to, or discuss, the many, many references that are brought to their attention. They always ignore them and continue to only push the four they have - like trinitarians often just focus on a few scriptures and don't look at the whole picture and all the scriptures.

So...that is the issue on that long thread, and why it is so important. That's why I appreciate this forum, which seems to support the idea of respectful discussion among those who believe in Pastor Russell's work as a truth foundation.

As Christians, we should always be able to discuss and we should be slow to judge and label. We should never asked to go along with something we think is wrong just for the sake of leadership.

Hopefully, we can again discuss this topic. Just ignoring something and shutting people out, is not healthy.

What are these 4 references and what is being discussed?
What are the hundreds of references that contradict the 4?

Thanks

What is being discussed?

An LHMM doctrinal disagreement, and there are some LHMM types who appear to be on this forum. We follow Bro. Russell as our foundation and Bro. Johnson as building on top of that. I know this is not a forum that follows Bro. Johnson, but this also threatens foundational doctrine that Bro. Russell presented.

Bro. Russell talked about a class of unspirit begotten consecrated ones - didn't really name them, when he came to feel all consecrators at the time couldn't possibly all eventually be of the High Calling. Bro. Johnson fleshed this out as part of what we call The Epiphany Truth. He basically said that everyone was running for the High Calling until the door closed (I know everyone doesn't agree with this) in 1914. We have always taught that everyone was running for the High Calling prior to that door closing date, but starting in 1881 - after the General Call ceased, it was felt that some of those running for the High Calling eventually were identified as Youthful Worthies, after the door to the High Calling closed - 1914 and class structures were manifest - Little Flock separate from Great Company and from Youthful Worthies, pictured by Elijah and Elisha separating (Little Flock - Elijah AND G.C. (with Y.W. also pictured under this) - Elisha. That separation happened in 1914. Prior to that, they were walking together.

We talk about there being a Parousia period and an Epiphany period - Biblical concepts. We have always taught/believed the Parousia went from 1874 to 1914, and the Epiphany (in a narrow sense) from 1914 to 1954. Those times are important in relation to the classes because the Youthful Worthies and Great Company are considered Epiphany Elect classes - that is the time in which they come on the scene, are dealt with, etc. Prior to that, in the Parousia, it was all about the church and High Calling.

The doctinal change that is causing an issue has the YW's showing up as individuals whom eventually get identified with the class, in 1878 instead of 1881, and then as a class in 1881 instead of 1914, which would suddently put this class in the Parousia, prior to Elijah and Elisha separating, and they wouldn't be an Epiphany thing. Then suddenly, the Epiphany Messenger doesn't have this as falling in his doctrinal era.

There are four refernces they use - sentences Bro. Johnson wrote, but they take them out of context in the following Biblical pictures:
a picture of Ruth & Naomi, where Bro. Johnson refers to the YW's as a class earlier than they actually became one.
The ark picture (a picture of the New Covenant - I believe, and when these classes entered the ark)
The Esther picture.
And a repeat reference at the back of Tabernacle Shadows.

I will not go into more detail but we're talking about like I said, pretty much four sentences without the context surrounding them.

One example of the four: Bro. Johnson at one point in Epiphany vol. 4 - The Epiphany's Elect, says "....some of the brethren who fell away from the Babylon-separated sanctuary class from 1844 to 1874 came back to their first love and brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones from 1878 on."

This is one of the references used over and over again. There has been a literal interpretation of this reference. These "present view" people say...'look he called them a class and said 1878.' They don't look at the book they are holding in their hand, what is the title, and what he is trying to say and then figure out that it needs to fit in the context of the book and surrounding text. The book itself is called The Epiphany's Elect - elect classes in the Epiphany, so it is about elect classes in the Epiphany. See dates for Epiphany above. Also, I probably have at least 40 direct references in that book alone that show he is talking about them as a class in the Epiphany, just like the title more than implies.

This one reference in the whole book (whole idea) concept can be understand when you realize he is talking about their journey prior to being thought of as actually being YWs in any way. I gave an example of this in another post....."My dad met my mom in 1959." I'm talking about my mom and my dad before they ever became parents, but I refer to them as we know them now. That's all he is doing in that reference. It would be ridiculous for someone to say.....oh, "so your mom became a mom in 1959." That would go against history, logic, facts...It's primarily a grammatical thing, easily understood in context.

How else do we know that this one sentence is being taken out of context?
-Title of the book itself, comments in forward, 40 direct references in that book
-Other books he wrote
-History
-The Object of our Lord's return - to gather his bride, not deal with another class
-What we call the Progressive Tabernacle picture - where these Epiphany elect classes are pictured
-The Parousia Messenger (Bro. Russell - what his focus and knowledge was) AND The Epiphany Messenger (Bro. Johnson - what his focus and knowledge was)....this has to do with who had the storehouse of knowledge on various topics, etc.

Realigning these dates affects many things - The General Call, concept of Storehouse of Knowledge, the idea of one calling at a time, and on and on.

It sounds complicated and it is, but the main issue is that a change was made that doesn't make sense, in terms of what we believe, and this is the new way...or hit the highway. So those of us who haven't deviated from our original beliefs, have become the lepers. The world flipped upside down. Quite unfair really.

Additionally, when you shoot the many references at them that show the original view was the correct one, they don't even comment on them or deal with them in any way....they just continue to throw the four out there. And...I comment about whatever they give me, but not the other way around. You get silence, people ignoring you, and writing you off.

Thus...someone like myself, who has been with my group my whole life...since I was a baby, have to agree with the change, how people have been treated who don't agree, etc., and I can't do that...especially how people have been treated.

So...because I wouldn't get on the ride....I have also been labeled.

I think things should always be able to be discussed.

One big problem is that there are many "Epiphany" brethren who do not understand the compexities of the situation. Because they do not fully understand the Epiphany truth, they are not able to see these new ideas presented as Truth therefore they do not research these changes. In actuality, they just accept what ever is in the PT/Bible Standard.

"One big problem is that there are many "Epiphany" brethren who do not understand the compexities of the situation. Because they do not fully understand the Epiphany truth, they are not able to see these new ideas presented as Truth therefore they do not research these changes. In actuality, they just accept what ever is in the PT/Bible Standard."

I agree with what you said. The Epiphany truth should not contradict the Parousia truth but build on it.

And...the brethren do not see that changing this one strand in the tapestry starts to unravel the whole thing, and other changes start to occur.
Now....to make the "present view" work better, they have started to unravel - the date for the General Call ceasing and - the date the High Calling closed (saying it closed three times).

I have seen this even from brethren who seemed seasoned. They just went right down the path....had the previous view first, then suddenly started to say there were "two views," and now just accept the "present view."

On brethren who have had things said about them....when this first started happening, I made a decision to go to the brother or sister I had heard something about, so I have called many shunned brethren. All of them have the same story, in that.....what was being said about them was way out there in left field, and totally off the mark. Even myself...the way I have been portrayed, and almost immediately after I had a question or concern about doctrine and what was going on....almost immediately. Wow.

It might surprise Bro's Jon & Harold to know that 2 of the sisters that have left the movement are the wives of the last 2 Bretheren who were the UK Pastors "in charge" of the movement. I am sure that they would either know them or know of them. I believe that they may have even met them.

Another Bro. who has been maligned and lied about is the Bro that was sent to represent the UK brethren when the "new leaderof the Lord's people" was installed.

These brethren in total have served the Lord and participated in the LHMM for over 130 yrs between them. The UK is now bereft of those who know and understand Bro. Johnson's teachings on Epiphany Truth.

"It might surprise Bro's Jon & Harold to know that 2 of the sisters that have left the movement are the wives of the last 2 Bretheren who were the UK Pastors "in charge" of the movement. I am sure that they would either know them or know of them. I believe that they may have even met them.

Another Bro. who has been maligned and lied about is the Bro that was sent to represent the UK brethren when the "new leaderof the Lord's people" was installed.

These brethren in total have served the Lord and participated in the LHMM for over 130 yrs between them. The UK is now bereft of those who know and understand Bro. Johnson's teachings on Epiphany Truth."


Oh yes, I thought I had heard that too - about those two sisters leaving. I may have met one of them at one point. From what I know of them, they are very conservative people and not given to rash decisions.

Based on my experience, I would not be surprised if things are already being said about these sisters. That's been the MO - negative things are almost immediately said about someone who disents. Here in the U.S., a few brethren have been very vocal in defense of the truth, others have said something locally, and still others have kept to themselves but talked to some of us who stay loosely connected.

I don't know if the brethren affiliated with the LHMM realize how many brethren there are.

I can feel your pain, really... but I also can say that I have discussed this at lenght (in fact I've already said this here on this forum somewhwere) with james and others. I have not written anybody off or the other things you say... in fact I have offered to talk to you or anyone really about this. You said recently (I'll paraphrase) 'Jonalfred wants me to email him... why would I do that ... how would that benefit me?" and then the next post you say we won't talk about this at all. There have been numerous references given here the last week or so regarding the end of the general call in 1878 from the pens of both Bro's Russell and Johnson.

Furthermore, the statement from the Ruth type that appears in the volume in question from the pen of Bro Johnson has been restated by Bro's Jolly, Gohlke and Hedman... the last time in 1997 PT. I wonder why they were reiterating "uncleansed truth".

In the 2004 summer PT the current editor dealt with this issue and gave scriptues and references for both supposed arguments. All he really asked for from his appointees from the beginning was their admission that this is mentioned in the writings 'both ways'. (which it is)

I responded to the original 'letter of complaint' on this issue to its author and wrote in part the following: "I don’t think we can be picking and choosing amongst the comments made by former servants, those ideas which seem to support ‘our’ viewpoint while totally ignoring the statements that appear to the contrary. Clearly, both of the dates 1878 and 1881 are in our writings, and both of them declared, from one viewpoint or another to be the starting point of the Youthful Worthies as individuals… and 1881 elsewhere as their starting point as a class. Furthermore, I cannot fathom why such a big controversy must be kicked up over this matter. If you feel as strongly about this as you apparently do, that is one thing… for no one has asked any of us to violate our conscience… but it seems that if you feel this strongly about the date 1881 in this connection, you should at least be willing to offer an explanation for the other date as why it is worded as such, and also the explanation for the reference in Epiphany volume 5 wherein it is stated that the YW’s, “as a class first entered the antitypical Ark in 1881, when the General Call ceased,.” It appears to me than when viewed from their own proper viewpoint there is no discrepancy of thought….

Obviously, there were no spirit begettals from 1878 up until 1881, until the occurrence of the first “dropping of a crown” by a perspective Little Flock member who failed to hold on to it. From that point forward (in 1881) new begettals would take place in these individual cases with various crown losers as they occurred. What can be said of those then who consecrated during those three and one half years? Your letter assures us that Bro. Johnson’s position was that from 1878 onward the Naomi class brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones… and again they are mentioned as faithful tentatively justified ones who consecrate. Clearly the Lord’s plan to develop a class of Youthful Worthies had long been set… and clearly He knew at this point that these individuals would, if faithful, end up in that class, except for those who would later have opportunity to enter into the high-calling due to the unfaithfulness of others. What was Bro Johnson’s purpose of including “those 5 pages” in Epiphany volume 4? Bro. Russell wrote in the 6th volume in 1903 that the majority of those consecrating in this time period should not expect to be glorified, but if faithful, should expect to be counted in with the Ancient Worthies. When would this begin?… logic called for it to begin the moment that the general call ceased. True it had officially ceased in 1881, but that process had its start according to the 2nd volume in 1878. To state that the Youthful Worthies existed from 1878 onward as individuals is looking at it from the Lord’s standpoint…

In regards to the 1881 date, we see also that it has been written about by two standpoints… that of the Youthful Worthies as individuals up until 1914, and that of the Youthful Worthies as a class. Which is it? It is both really, depending on whose viewpoint we are seeing it from. From the Lord’s standpoint they were indeed a class… as E5 states, entered into the Antitypical Ark at that time. From the viewpoint of those living at that time here in the flesh, they were not aware as yet that there was such a class… and in years to come Pastor Russell would begin to see the situation for what it was, but still no real Scriptural proof would be forthcoming until after his demise… yet that did not take away from the fact that such a class was developing… Bro Russell’s language in volume 6 made it clear that he understood that this was a class, but like the Great Multitude which was also forming at that time, they were not a class as such. These two little words bear a lot of the weight of this little controversy. Both of these Epiphany classes were classes in the Lord’s sight, and He knew at any given time the status of each of their perspective members… but from the earthly side of the dilemma, all of the brethren saw themselves as perspective Little Flock members… "

_________

having said all of this, I consent that none of this is a problem to me. We have long held (even before you were born) that each individual is responsible for what he/she believes and give the scriptures to prove it. We are not to be under the thumb of any man.... and thus who can disfellowship a person for not agreeing with them?

The real problem lies in the way things have been handled... while we've been accused of breaking up classes and such, no such thing has occured. Those few classes that have been effected moved to such on their own accord. Where was there a vote for any to leave? This is why I don't think this should be discussed on a public forum, because it does not involve the public, and it exposes the personal lives of many who are affected on both sides.

I'm here and willing... but not at the expense of others.

respectfully

jonalfred

Sorry this post is so long. I feel it is necessary. I am tired of repeating myself, with no response to what has been posted. Note: I deal with what he wrote. I don't just ignore it. Would be nice to have some of that in return.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: I can feel your pain, really... but I also can say that I have discussed this at lenght (in fact I've already said this here on this forum somewhwere) with james and others. I have not written anybody off or the other things you say... in fact I have offered to talk to you or anyone really about this. You said recently (I'll paraphrase) 'Jonalfred wants me to email him... why would I do that ... how would that benefit me?" and then the next post you say we won't talk about this at all. There have been numerous references given here the last week or so regarding the end of the general call in 1878 from the pens of both Bro's Russell and Johnson.

MY COMMENT: “I can feel your pain, really.” – frustration, righteous indignation, would be a better description of how I feel. You continue to refer to me as being in pain – almost like a pity thing. You may not intend this, but it feels quite patronizing. Please do not presume to know how I feel. Asking would be more respectful. You asked me to email you and I wanted to know why. I don’t see any advantages to emailing you directly. If people very close to me labeled me and wrote me off very quickly after I had a concern, or question re. the change of doctrine – remember “present view,” then how would you be any different? Additionally, on this forum, you have not said anything about the references I gave. You just ignore them and keep giving the same ones you had before. From the posts I read, I don’t see you having a change of heart at this time. Note: You called Bro. James just James. I don’t think that is an accident.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: Furthermore, the statement from the Ruth type that appears in the volume in question from the pen of Bro Johnson has been restated by Bro's Jolly, Gohlke and Hedman... the last time in 1997 PT. I wonder why they were reiterating "uncleansed truth".

MY COMMENT: It depends on what the reference is. Often the references in the PT are quotes from the Epiphany volumes, hence the same basic references that have been used, quoted again in the P.T. Are you saying that all of our leaders have had two views all along? My question to you….is did they know they had two views? If so, why would they purposely present two doctrinal views, two dates, for one event? Are they trying to mislead brethren? Or, did they not know they presented these two views and were therefore, all very confused?

When was the Epiphany truth considered cleansed Brother? I know the date…..do you?

ORIGINAL COMMENT: In the 2004 summer PT the current editor dealt with this issue and gave scriptues and references for both supposed arguments. All he really asked for from his appointees from the beginning was their admission that this is mentioned in the writings 'both ways'. (which it is)

MY COMMENT: [Brackets mine]
Brother, I believe you mean the Summer 2006 article, not the Summer 2004. The Summer 2006 article is where he writes about the Youthful Worthy call. This is where the editor claims that the Youthful call began in 1881 and they also became a class in 1881, based on those few misread references. Here’s an example of a quote from that article which actually supports the correct original view, but is used to try to support the “present view”

The quote: “Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons we call “Youthful Worthies” did not exist as (1) individuals of a class; [Q: Okay everyone – When did the General Call cease? A: 1881. Q: Before that occurred, who did not exist? A: Individual YWs.] ; but since that time they have been, and now are coming as such into existence. [Q” Okay everyone, since what time? A: 1881. Q: What have they been coming into existence as such? A: Individual YWs.]
He’s basically saying they didn’t even exist as individuals of that later manifested class prior to 1881, but did so afterwards. This reference relates to them as individuals, not as a class.

There zillions of references related to them as a class, progressive tabernacle, one calling at a time, Elijah separating from Elisha, etc. Everyone was running for the High Calling and didn’t know that some of these individuals would ultimately become part of another class. When did Elijah and Elisha separate antitypically? 1914. Not before.

The Summer 2004 article was a reprint where the editor altered it to make it seem like Bro. Jolly said the YWs were a class prior to 1914. Bro. James put the original and changed text on another blog. I can get those for you if you like.

So….A) You didn’t even know which PT it was B) The General call is talked about as ceasing in 1881 by the editor you support and you have said otherwise in previous posts C) References are used incorrectly to build a case for two callings going on at the same time, as well as a class showing up way before their time. Remember….the book is called THE EPIPHANY’S ELECT. He’s talking about two Epiphany (after 1914) classes.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: I responded to the original 'letter of complaint' on this issue to its author and wrote in part the following: "I don’t think we can be picking and choosing amongst the comments made by former servants, those ideas which seem to support ‘our’ viewpoint while totally ignoring the statements that appear to the contrary. Clearly, both of the dates 1878 and 1881 are in our writings, and both of them declared, from one viewpoint or another to be the starting point of the Youthful Worthies as individuals… and 1881 elsewhere as their starting point as a class. Furthermore, I cannot fathom why such a big controversy must be kicked up over this matter.

MY COMMENT: Serious error Brother. Very serious.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: If you feel as strongly about this as you apparently do, that is one thing… for no one has asked any of us to violate our conscience… but it seems that if you feel this strongly about the date 1881 in this connection, you should at least be willing to offer an explanation for the other date as why it is worded as such, and also the explanation for the reference in Epiphany volume 5 wherein it is stated that the YW’s, “as a class first entered the antitypical Ark in 1881, when the General Call ceased,.” It appears to me than when viewed from their own proper viewpoint there is no discrepancy of thought….

MY COMMENT: “you should at least be willing to offer an explanation for the other date as why it is worded as such, and also the explanation for the reference in Epiphany volume 5”

I DID AND DID AND DID....see two posts on things you claimed I did not respond to:

1) Here’s the explanation for the other date and why it can’t be the new date. One of many posts on this forum by me:
Yes and No and the NO is the important part of the equation. Pay attention. He is talking about them as if they are in their finished state (which happened later, after 1914). I already said this, like if I said "my mother met my father in 1959." My mom had not even had any kids then. She wasn't my mom. She wasn't anyone's mom. If I call her that, eveyone understands I am talking about her in a later state...we all understand.

This is done all the time. For example. From a website about the state of Wisconsin:

"Prior to the Black Hawk War in 1832, Indians primarily inhabited much of Wisconsin. By the mid nineteenth century, though, Indians had been induced to cede most of their lands to the federal government."

So...Indians inhabited much of Wisconsin in 1832 - huh? Wisconsin was a state in 1832? When did Wisconsin become a state? Answer: May 29th, 1848. Would someone reading this then use the above quote to PROVE Wisconsin was a state back in 1832? No! That's what you guys are doing. That's why I threw the other references your way. Your thought can't contradict the reason they became class after 1914 and why this is an important proof of the Epiphany. It can't contradict 100 other references. It can't make Bro. J. be divided on truth he was responsible for. It can't mess up the object and order of our Lord's return, etc.

Again...“The manifestation of the Youthful Worthies is another proof that we are in the Epiphany. The Youthful Worthies could not have been manifested as a class until after Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of Christ’s Body was brought into the Body.” “Since the manifestation of the Youthful Worthies, as shown by the Gideon type, is an Epiphany work, we must be in the Epiphany; for they are now becoming manifest.” E 4, p. 39

A whole bunch of other things get messed up if you try to prove they were a class based off of one or two sentences, like saying you have an aspen tree forest when you see two aspen trees in a whole forest of pine trees.

Harmonize. Use logic. All those references I gave you have to work with your reference. If you read it logically and in context (my way), you're fine. If you read it (your way), you have to throw out references.

It's very clear. I included the references for a reason and completely explained why. Enough said.

2) Comments from another post I had on the flood year issue in E5:

Okay....let's go to E5, p. 73 to clarify for you:

"This is the period typed by the 56 remaining days of the Flood year. This period of 56 days typed 602.26849312 years, which ended Oct. 1881. The last day of these antitypical 56 days began Jan., 1871. During this antitypical day our Lord returned, raised the sleeping Saints, cast off Bablyon, ended the General Call, and began to develop the Youthful Worthies, who were from God's viewpoint anticipiatorialy in the antitypical Ark with all its other classes..."

Are all the other classess also classes in 1881? Was the Great Company a class as well at that time? He uses this date in conjunction with the word anticipatorialy (meaning in an anticipating way). It's like you take those few references that have 1881 and YWs in the same sentence and try to say they were a class at that point. Then you better say the Great Company was a class too cause he says "with all its other classes"

Or you can realize what anticipatorialy means and.you can then harmonize it with the many, many references and reasons why the YWs became a class in 1914.

Here are just a few references and reasons why they were not a class in 1914:
•“Then, some of the Epiphany light refers to those unbegotten consecrated ones whom we call ‘Youthful Worthies,’ who are the second of the Epiphany’s elect classes…” E 4, p. iii
•“The manifestation of the Youthful Worthies is another proof that we are in the Epiphany. The Youthful Worthies could not have been manifested as a class until after Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of Christ’s Body was brought into the Body.” “Since the manifestation of the Youthful Worthies, as shown by the Gideon type, is an Epiphany work, we must be in the Epiphany; for they are now becoming manifest.” E 4, p. 39
•“accordingly we would expect the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, as classes, similarly to have 40 years in the Epiphany – set aside as the special trial periods along the lines of the principles applicable to them…” E 4, p. 103
•“The clear Truth on the “Youthful Worthies” not being due before the Epiphany, we see that the Millennial Gershonites as a class could not then be understood as a type.” E 4, p. 323
•“…the Lord has been pleased to arrange for the development of the Youthful Worthies as a class. The Epiphany is certainly an important epoch in the Lord’s Plan, among other reasons, because during this time He delivers the Church from the earth, and develops two classes of the Millennial Levites, the Great Company – the Millennial Merarites – and the Youthful Worthies – the Millenial Gershonites.” E 4, p. 404

SO I DID INDEED RESPOND TO THESE REFEERENCES….ACTUALLY, SEVERAL TIMES.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: Obviously, there were no spirit begettals from 1878 up until 1881, until the occurrence of the first “dropping of a crown” by a perspective Little Flock member who failed to hold on to it. From that point forward (in 1881) new begettals would take place in these individual cases with various crown losers as they occurred. What can be said of those then who consecrated during those three and one half years?

MY COMMENT: “What St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not contradict this; for between Pentecost and 1881, to which time alone his words are limited, all the consecrated were New Creatures; hence during that time the term New Creature and the term consecrated applied to the same persons and were interchangeable.” E4, pg. 469

Thus, there could be no individual fully consecrated ones from 1878 to 1881, or they would be spirit begotten as these two things were one and the same during that time. They could be on the path (journey – think Ruth & Naomi – good job), but they weren’t there yet. They were on their way. (think journey – Ruth & Naomi).

Does this jive with history?

“….therefore they heeded not Moses’ words. In this they typed the experience that antitypical Israelites not in the Truth had between April, 1878, and about October, 1881. This particular period was the most barren of the whole reaping time…” E 11, pg. 95.

Why, it does!!!
Prove there were full consecrations during this time period – using the writings.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: Your letter assures us that Bro. Johnson’s position was that from 1878 onward the Naomi class brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones… and again they are mentioned as faithful tentatively justified ones who consecrate.

MY COMMENT: From another post of mine – again:
"Prior to the Black Hawk War in 1832, Indians primarily inhabited much of Wisconsin. By the mid nineteenth century, though, Indians had been induced to cede most of their lands to the federal government."

So...Indians inhabited much of Wisconsin in 1832 - huh? Wisconsin was a state in 1832? When did Wisconsin become a state? Answer: May 29th, 1848. Would someone reading this then use the above quote to PROVE Wisconsin was a state back in 1832? No! That's what you guys are doing. That's why I threw the other references your way. Your thought can't contradict the reason they became class after 1914 and why this is an important proof of the Epiphany. It can't contradict 100 other references. It can't make Bro. J. be divided on truth he was responsible for. It can't mess up the object and order of our Lord's return, etc.

Again...“The manifestation of the Youthful Worthies is another proof that we are in the Epiphany. The Youthful Worthies could not have been manifested as a class until after Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of Christ’s Body was brought into the Body.” “Since the manifestation of the Youthful Worthies, as shown by the Gideon type, is an Epiphany work, we must be in the Epiphany; for they are now becoming manifest.” E 4, p. 39

THEY HAVE TO BE A CLASS IN THE EPIPHANY AS THEY ARE ONE OF THE PROOFS THAT BRO. JOHNSON USED TO SHOW WE WERE IN THE EPIPHANY. Very important!!!!!

ORIGINAL COMMENT: Clearly the Lord’s plan to develop a class of Youthful Worthies had long been set… and clearly He knew at this point that these individuals would, if faithful, end up in that class, except for those who would later have opportunity to enter into the high-calling due to the unfaithfulness of others. What was Bro Johnson’s purpose of including “those 5 pages” in Epiphany volume 4? Bro. Russell wrote in the 6th volume in 1903 that the majority of those consecrating in this time period should not expect to be glorified, but if faithful, should expect to be counted in with the Ancient Worthies. When would this begin?… logic called for it to begin the moment that the general call ceased. True it had officially ceased in 1881, but that process had its start according to the 2nd volume in 1878. To state that the Youthful Worthies existed from 1878 onward as individuals is looking at it from the Lord’s standpoint…

MY COMMENT: “….as the Ancient Worthies came into activity on the stage of God’s plan before the opportunity was opened for any one to enter the High Calling to Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ, so the Youthful Worthies come into activity on the stage of God’s plan after the opportunity to enter the High Calling for the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ is closed.” E 17, pg. 16 & 17.

When did that opportunity close? 1914. So…the AWs and the YWs bookend the High Calling – prior to it opening and after it closed. This is under the 3rd object of our Lord’s return. They could not exist as a class until the High Calling closed.

As individuals....
"Therefore we conclude that the Youthful Worthies are those faithful brethren who, consecrating since 1881, are not Spirit-begotten." E 4, pg. 327.
After 1881 Brother, not before. Before that...YWs did not exist as individuals that eventually became part of that class.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: In regards to the 1881 date, we see also that it has been written about by two standpoints… that of the Youthful Worthies as individuals up until 1914, and that of the Youthful Worthies as a class. Which is it? It is both really, depending on whose viewpoint we are seeing it from. From the Lord’s standpoint they were indeed a class… as E5 states, entered into the Antitypical Ark at that time. From the viewpoint of those living at that time here in the flesh, they were not aware as yet that there was such a class… and in years to come Pastor Russell would begin to see the situation for what it was, but still no real Scriptural proof would be forthcoming until after his demise… yet that did not take away from the fact that such a class was developing… Bro Russell’s language in volume 6 made it clear that he understood that this was a class, but like the Great Multitude which was also forming at that time, they were not a class as such. These two little words bear a lot of the weight of this little controversy. Both of these Epiphany classes were classes in the Lord’s sight, and He knew at any given time the status of each of their perspective members… but from the earthly side of the dilemma, all of the brethren saw themselves as perspective Little Flock members… "

MY COMMENT: Brother, if the YWs were a class in the Parousia in any way, shape or form, then they would have to be part of the “storehouse of knowledge” of Bro. Russell. But Bro. Russell saw an inkling of them but did not write of them extensively. Who did that? Bro. Johnson. He had the Epiphany truth. They are part of his “storehouse of knowledge.” He used them to build the Epiphany Temple or Tabernacle. That class was one of the building blocks.

God is not double-minded and neither were the spirt-begotten servants. James 1:8 “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

I meant also to say that the bookends AWs and YWs happened just before and just after the High Calling.

YW call did not go on at the same time as the High Calling.

One calling at a time. As one closed, the other opened.

(Sr. Kelly) : I meant also to say that the bookends AWs and YWs happened just before and just after the High Calling.

YW call did not go on at the same time as the High Calling.

One calling at a time. As one closed, the other opened.


P2. Page 212-213

This call, which must end when enough have been invited from which to complete the favored Little Flock, the body of Christ, is far from being the limit of God's love and favor and calling. Its end will close the heavenly or high calling. For where this call ends, where this DOOR of opportunity and favor CLOSES, another DOOR begins to SWING OPEN…
(caps mine)

This happened (Door to the High Calling closing) in 1914, allowing the Youthful Worthies as a class to begin… You’ll notice two calls aren’t going on at the same time. We are in essence taking away from the Gory and Beauty of the Church when we put so much emphasis on the Youthful Worthies being an actual class in 1881.

Sr kelly

that "pain" thing is a figure of speech. I don't have a desire to judge you or assign to you any feelings that you're not really experiencing. I cannot think much about you at all since I really don't know who you are, even though it must be true that I've known you for years. But this communication thing is a two way street... I've not been contacted by any except James from the beginning with a I want to talk attitude... but I have gotten some hate mail and a lot of accusational mail. I guess my point is, if we have been friends for years then it would seem to me that we should be able to sit and talk about this "thing".

RE: "the statement from the Ruth type" and the references from the other former leaders"... I guess I'll just have to get those references to you. I am not going to dig them out again, but will get them next week from my office. The last one was in the "journeys to bethlehem" aritcle from 97...


You ask: Are you saying that all of our leaders have had two views all along? My question to you….is did they know they had two views? If so, why would they purposely present two doctrinal views, two dates, for one event? Are they trying to mislead brethren? Or, did they not know they presented these two views and were therefore, all very confused?

jon: No, I'm saying that there is a difference in viewing this class from JEhovah's viewpoint and from ours. Bro Russell did not start to write about this class until 1881... however, this same brother did state that all crowns were apportioned in 1878. Bro Johnson agreed. Those who continued to consecrated were instructed to "run as if"...i.e., as if the call were still wide open, for the time would come (1881) when many would began to be sifted out in the harvest siftings and crowns would become available. Bro Russell made it clear that the majority should not expect to be glorified, but that some would. From Jehovah's position He alone could see and know who was who among all these consecrators during the harvest... that is, who were consecrated and begotten and faithful (LF), who were consecrated, begotten and unfaithful (GC or SDer's), and those consecrated but not begotten. As bro Johnson showed in the article in question, there were a class of consecrated unbegotten ones (that he calls Youthful Worthies in the same sentence) developing since 1878. This is something obviously that only Jehovah knew of. Some of those brethren no doubt later were privileged to obtain a spirit begettal opportunity, but it is not reasonable to think that all did. Bro Johnson did say that there were NO BEGETTALS during those three and a half years, that the next begettals took place after 1881... so that is pretty much the point. We're not talking about a large group of consecrators, but a group none the less that this brother did recognize. In my opinion this is hardly worth fighting about, much less separating from one another... but the whole thing has snowballed into quite a mess. You may not have any pain over this situation... I have plenty. I grieve over it in that it is sorrowful to me that folks that have been so close feel now that they cannot even talk together.

kelly: The quote: “Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons we call “Youthful Worthies” did not exist as (1) individuals of a class; [Q: Okay everyone – When did the General Call cease? A: 1881. Q: Before that occurred, who did not exist? A: Individual YWs.] ; but since that time they have been, and now are coming as such into existence. [Q” Okay everyone, since what time? A: 1881. Q: What have they been coming into existence as such? A: Individual YWs.]

jon: I'm sorry I misquoted the year on this article... I knew you'd know which one I was talking about. I've been working 16+ hours a day for some time... it doesn't always come that easy. The reason that this portion of E4 was quoted was because of the use of the term "individuals of a class" which is different that referring simply to individuals. In other words, it is in reference to the idea of them becoming a class in 1881 "as such", which means reckonedly. It has often been stated by the same servant that the Great Company was not a class "as such" until 1917 even though there members were developed all down through the age. We read of one of them in 1 Corinthians 5:5. Yes, Bro Johnson and others wrote that the YW"s have been a class since 1881 and since 1914, but from two standpoints this is meant... the first "as such", meaning Jehovah was dealing with the individuals who would make up a large part of this class during the harvest by giving them opportunity to grow and develop even though they weren't spirit begotten... and the second referral is to when the class ACTUALLY became recognized as a class by those of the Lord's people who were epiphany enlightened. Obviously this was a trial for most and most never saw it. Many who did initially gave it up and went back to the idea of the high call still being open (thus the Lot and his daughters picture). Let's face it... most folks in the realm of the Truth today still believe such. Most of us don't push them away (although some do)... but they often do that to us. So, Bro Johnson's few usages of the thought that the YW's had their beginning in 1878 refers to the FACT that there were no begettals from the spring of 1878 until October 1881 and so those consecrating ones had to fit somewhere. It was the very beginning of this class that in one article he calls "these early Youthful Worthies".

RE: "one calling at a time" I think we all know what this means, but let's not forget that this harvest/ post harvest was a peculiar time in that the large lump of brethren encompassing the planet consisted of LF, GC and YW (all perspective) and yet they all personally thought they were perspective LF members. While all were to be considered as such by one another, it was a pont of respect. Those who weren't spirit begotten (the Lord only knew) were never REALLY perspective Little Flock members were they? No, they were always perspective YW member, but it was not a thing for a human to know or judge (before the time) and the time began in 1914. It is a matter of manifesting. The YW's that were developing during the harvest were unmanifested, but Bro Russell stated that they were there in his time.

Kelly: Everyone was running for the High Calling and didn’t know that some of these individuals would ultimately become part of another class. When did Elijah and Elisha separate antitypically? 1914. Not before.

jon: yes, this was my point, but we're evidently drawing different conclusions from it. and by the way, Elijah and Elisha did not separate in 1914 antiytpically... it was 1917.

Kelly: The Summer 2004 article was a reprint where the editor altered it to make it seem like Bro. Jolly said the YWs were a class prior to 1914. Bro. James put the original and changed text on another blog. I can get those for you if you like.

jon: I'm aware of them... did not the brother put the original reference pages in the article?

Kelly: So….A) You didn’t even know which PT it was

jon: yes, I knew which PT it was... I mistyped the date, perhaps much like your error above re: 1914/1917... and we're both obviously human

Kelly: B) The General call is talked about as ceasing in 1881 by the editor you support and you have said otherwise in previous posts

jon: Yes sister, and in those posts I have pointed out that there was a "process" taking place from 1878-1881... the former date was the beginning of the ceasing of this call, for if all crowns were apportioned by that date as both servants taught then it ceased in it "calling function"... the 3 1/2 years that followed was a trial period wherein those who received those crowns were tested. Some retained them and some did not. This was the work of that day... it did not prevent others from consecrating, but it prevented them brom being "in the call". So you see, there are more features to this call ceasing than you are evidently willing to admit. Bro Johnson's chapter on "Calls, Siftings and Slaughter Weapons deals with this in large part.

Kelly:
C) References are used incorrectly to build a case for two callings going on at the same time, as well as a class showing up way before their time. Remember….the book is called THE EPIPHANY’S ELECT. He’s talking about two Epiphany (after 1914) classes.

jon: Will we be aruging with Bro Russell on this point, that those who would be counted in the the Ancient Worthies were collecting in a group since the close of the general call. Yes, they are the Epiphany's elect as are the GC.. both the latter of these two collected and developed all during the age and the YW's had their start at the same when the last of the original crowns were taken (1878). IT was not a call per-say. They were coming in under the heavenly call that they failed to see was unavailable. It was impossible for them to see it. At best, as Bro Russell said, enter and and run as if.... but he pointed out that no one could really know for sure. IT became the YW call in 1914 of a certainty, but even then most who were in it did not know it and most rejected it. Did that keep them from being in it... assuredly not.The biggest part of this class never believed it existed.

jon's ORIGINAL COMMENT: I responded to the original 'letter of complaint' on this issue to its author and wrote in part the following: "I don’t think we can be picking and choosing amongst the comments made by former servants, those ideas which seem to support ‘our’ viewpoint while totally ignoring the statements that appear to the contrary. Clearly, both of the dates 1878 and 1881 are in our writings, and both of them declared, from one viewpoint or another to be the starting point of the Youthful Worthies as individuals… and 1881 elsewhere as their starting point as a class. Furthermore, I cannot fathom why such a big controversy must be kicked up over this matter.

Kelly's response: Serious error Brother. Very serious.

jon: I'm at a loss to respond since you don't specify what you mean. Do you believe your consecration hinges on how you believe on this little subject?

While I appreciate your comments regarding 1959 and your parents... I don't agree. The word anticipatorially was used in I believe in regards to the Ark and 1881. The entire class was counted as in (reckoned) the covenant and represented by the first few members, which is a common thing in the scriptures, such as the wave loaf that represents the GC being waved in 1924 even though the entire class was not yet cleansed.


Kelly: So...Indians inhabited much of Wisconsin in 1832 - huh? Wisconsin was a state in 1832? When did Wisconsin become a state? Answer: May 29th, 1848. Would someone reading this then use the above quote to PROVE Wisconsin was a state back in 1832? No! That's what you guys are doing.

jon: This is not what we're doing... we're pointing out the fact that Jehovah knew of them from that very early date... their being manifested as a class in 1914 was the making clear to the eyes of the enlightened that they existed...that it was a true class. In God's eyes they were already a class, just not manifested to His people as of yet. They were always there and their consecrated circumstances did not magically change in 1914 when they were manifested... it was always so.

Kelly: Again...“The manifestation of the Youthful Worthies is another proof that we are in the Epiphany. The Youthful Worthies could not have been manifested as a class until after Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of Christ’s Body was brought into the Body.” “Since the manifestation of the Youthful Worthies, as shown by the Gideon type, is an Epiphany work, we must be in the Epiphany; for they are now becoming manifest.” E 4, p. 39

jon: amen... and you cannot manifest something that is not already there.

kelly:
Harmonize. Use logic. All those references I gave you have to work with your reference. If you read it logically and in context (my way), you're fine. If you read it (your way), you have to throw out references.

jon: Your way right/ my way wrong... seems to be the problem eh? I do not throw out any references...we seek to harmonize them. WE don't agree? so what?

Kelly: 2) Comments from another post I had on the flood year issue in E5:

Okay....let's go to E5, p. 73 to clarify for you:

"This is the period typed by the 56 remaining days of the Flood year. This period of 56 days typed 602.26849312 years, which ended Oct. 1881. The last day of these antitypical 56 days began Jan., 1871. During this antitypical day our Lord returned, raised the sleeping Saints, cast off Bablyon, ended the General Call, and began to develop the Youthful Worthies, who were from God's viewpoint anticipiatorialy in the antitypical Ark with all its other classes..."

Are all the other classess also classes in 1881? Was the Great Company a class as well at that time? He uses this date in conjunction with the word anticipatorialy (meaning in an anticipating way). It's like you take those few references that have 1881 and YWs in the same sentence and try to say they were a class at that point. Then you better say the Great Company was a class too cause he says "with all its other classes"

jon: I explained this above. He states here that he began to develop the YW's so they must have been in the covenant, for it is under the earthly features of the Abrahamic Covenant that they are developed. Are you saying no YW's developed this way until 1914? Assuredly not? To say they weren't a class until 1914 means they were not manifested as a specific group until then, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Bro Johnson's Ruth comment states that they were individuals and they were Youthful Worhties in 1878. that does not violate his comment here or anywhere else for that matter.

To state that they were not a class before 1914 is to point out that they existed "as such" but were not manifested. YOu speak as if you don't accept this. That is what is meant my his language. This is why it is written both ways in the first place... Both of these Epiphany Elect classes had their beginning in the former age... the GC while the Apostles were preaching... and the YW's after the last crown was taken probationairly. The idea of them being Epiphany Elect is that they are cleansed and manifested IN THE EPIPHANY...


jon: ORIGINAL COMMENT: Obviously, there were no spirit begettals from 1878 up until 1881, until the occurrence of the first “dropping of a crown” by a perspective Little Flock member who failed to hold on to it. From that point forward (in 1881) new begettals would take place in these individual cases with various crown losers as they occurred. What can be said of those then who consecrated during those three and one half years?

kelly:MY COMMENT: “What St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not contradict this; for between Pentecost and 1881, to which time alone his words are limited, all the consecrated were New Creatures; hence during that time the term New Creature and the term consecrated applied to the same persons and were interchangeable.” E4, pg. 469

jon: note that the commentary that there were no begettals during these years was Bro Johnson's, not mine.

kelly:
Thus, there could be no individual fully consecrated ones from 1878 to 1881, or they would be spirit begotten as these two things were one and the same during that time. They could be on the path (journey – think Ruth & Naomi – good job), but they weren’t there yet. They were on their way. (think journey – Ruth & Naomi).

jon: now you're talking... I mean you and not Bro J. He said they were YW"s. HE said they were on the path back to the realm of the Truth. He said they were consecrated. He did not say anything about partially or fully. Your consecration and mine are journeys or a sojourn through a wilderness from start to finish. No one is "fully" consecrated at the beginning of their walk. WE all sign the blank sheet of paper, and in every case it takes us places we had no idea we were going.


kelly's quote:“….therefore they heeded not Moses’ words. In this they typed the experience that antitypical Israelites not in the Truth had between April, 1878, and about October, 1881. This particular period was the most barren of the whole reaping time…” E 11, pg. 95.

jon: amen... because the general call ceased beginnign in 1878, and since there was not calling taking place, there were few respondents to the truth message. The message was still going out in the WT and via the volunteer force and colporteurs... but the Lord was not drawing for this purpose. IT was barren in comparison to what preceeded it and what followed it, but still a number came into the Truth during this time and consecrated, and others who had already consecrated outside then found the Truth. They could not have what was not being offered, which was that crown opportunity.

Kelly: Why, it does!!!
Prove there were full consecrations during this time period – using the writings.

I don't put much hope in your "indian" example... I dont' think you're looking properly at the issue, for instance, yourcomment, "It can't make Bro. J. be divided on truth he was responsible for. It can't mess up the object and order of our Lord's return, etc."

Sr Kelly... Bro Johnson was not divided on the truth on any subject... but he did make all of the commentary in question. He continued to make such commentary all the way up to his death as shown in his question meeting answer in 1948 where he said in answer to the question "When did the Youthful Worthies have their beginning" he answered "1878"

Your many references to their begin manifested in 1914 is preaching to the choir... I agree! - but there is a difference in a class of people which they were pre 1914 (known only to the Lord) and a manifested class. AFter 1914 the scriptures were given to prove this was a bonified class.. that is in large part HOW they were manifested. It was still mighty unclear as to who was who for quite some time. One brother did not know until Bro Jolly's death.

Kelly: MY COMMENT: “….as the Ancient Worthies came into activity on the stage of God’s plan before the opportunity was opened for any one to enter the High Calling to Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ, so the Youthful Worthies come into activity on the stage of God’s plan after the opportunity to enter the High Calling for the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ is closed.” E 17, pg. 16 & 17.

jon: amen again... coming to the stage of activity refers to the revealing of the work that would be given to this class... that it would be made known to them. But this does not mean they did not previously have a work. READ the Ruth aritcle through and you will see that Ruth helped to glean the barley (GC) and the Wheat (LF) while in close associated with Boaz (Jesus). That was a tremendous work! 1908-1914

kelly:
When did that opportunity close? 1914. So…the AWs and the YWs bookend the High Calling – prior to it opening and after it closed. This is under the 3rd object of our Lord’s return. They could not exist as a class until the High Calling closed.

jon: wrong... they would not be manifested as a class until that call was ended. its not a could not... for JEhovah could have... but He didn't. They existed previously, but were not manifested until after... and it was not them persay that were immediately manifested, but that there was this Scripturally based class that existed that was manifested in 1914... even the GC was not manifested as to individuals for another 3 years. Elisha represented the Society and the two parts of Elisha were the GC (primarily) and the YW's (secondarily)... they were really manifested as individuals at the same time according to this type.

kelly:
As individuals....
"Therefore we conclude that the Youthful Worthies are those faithful brethren who, consecrating since 1881, are not Spirit-begotten." E 4, pg. 327.
After 1881 Brother, not before. Before that...YWs did not exist as individuals that eventually became part of that class.

jon: then is he contradicting himself? actually no, since he already stated that none who consecrated between those two dates were begotten. So naturally those after 1881 who were not begotten were YW's...

JOn's ORIGINAL COMMENT: In regards to the 1881 date, we see also that it has been written about by two standpoints… that of the Youthful Worthies as individuals up until 1914, and that of the Youthful Worthies as a class. Which is it? It is both really, depending on whose viewpoint we are seeing it from. From the Lord’s standpoint they were indeed a class… as E5 states, entered into the Antitypical Ark at that time. From the viewpoint of those living at that time here in the flesh, they were not aware as yet that there was such a class… and in years to come Pastor Russell would begin to see the situation for what it was, but still no real Scriptural proof would be forthcoming until after his demise… yet that did not take away from the fact that such a class was developing… Bro Russell’s language in volume 6 made it clear that he understood that this was a class, but like the Great Multitude which was also forming at that time, they were not a class as such. These two little words bear a lot of the weight of this little controversy. Both of these Epiphany classes were classes in the Lord’s sight, and He knew at any given time the status of each of their perspective members… but from the earthly side of the dilemma, all of the brethren saw themselves as perspective Little Flock members… "

Kelly: MY COMMENT: Brother, if the YWs were a class in the Parousia in any way, shape or form, then they would have to be part of the “storehouse of knowledge” of Bro. Russell. But Bro. Russell saw an inkling of them but did not write of them extensively. Who did that? Bro. Johnson. He had the Epiphany truth. They are part of his “storehouse of knowledge.” He used them to build the Epiphany Temple or Tabernacle. That class was one of the building blocks.

jon: Sister... they were there in the Parousia according the Bro Russell. HE did not know specifically who they were as individuals, but he knew that God knew. That is the way they were a class or group at that time. They DID IN FACT partake of the storehouse of knowledge, else they could not have consecrated or have come into the truth in any fashion... that is FACT. HE did not write extensively on them because IT WAS NOT DUE, but he did give enough to serve as connective tissue so that Bro Johnson could build on it which began I believe in the very first issue of the PT. Bros Johnson, Jolly etc stated many times that they were a class from 1881 onward, so either they were way off or they were stating just what you said cannot be true in any way. Please harmonize.

__________

So there we've done it... had a nice conversation (or at least close to nice.) Really, I'm smiling and I'm not gritting my teeth or thinking bad thoughts about you. (Again, I don't really know WHO I'm talking to.) All of the mail from your group that has come to me has come without a name or address except for D.B. letters and RB's. James was emailing this info around under the name of Tirzah... so where is the openness you are speaking of? How can you respond to a person with no face or name? As you say there is no reason why we can't talk other than perhaps we won't. I just have my own opinion which is based on my own study... it's all I've ever had. James told me "lets not bring individual personalities into this" (even though that is what it is all about really) but then he would continually slam the Exec. Trustee... When I asked him if he had asked these questions he was giving me directly to the one he was talking about, he said no, but he had thought about doing so. Whatever happened to Matt 18:15-18.

To date we've not seen a class trials in these parts of the world. I don't know where you're from or what you've experienced, but many brethren on both sides have reacted in a way that is questionable... I guess they are all human. I have continued to communicate with some from your group from the beginning and they have thanked me for being candid and honest with them even though we were in disagreement. That's how it's supposed to work. Others amongst you contacted me early on and asked me not to contact them in any way; email, phone, etc. I obliged them. I have not initiated any of these discussions, but have responded to all of them. I did not respond to James when he came to the convention, not because we disagree on this 1878-1881 thing (I have not business having an opinion on his opinion) but because he has been involved with the mailing activities etc. that have been defined in our writings as sifting work. That needs to be rectified. The sixth sifting was wrapped around the violation of the Lord's arrangements. This is one of them.

I wish you well... I do love all of the brethren and miss them terribly. I hope they can say the same. We each must study to shew ourselves approved UNTO GOD and not to each other. My consecration has nothing to do with what you believe and vise versa.

I have mentioned the sifting/sifters in my convention talks a time or two, i.e., that I have several times received antagonistic mail after they heard my talks which they have sought to pick apart. I don't mind the pickind apart... I encourage that and always have. But I've been told many times over the last couple of years that I am a disappointment and was never truly a student of God's Word. That is the talk of a sifter. Let me say that there is a difference between sifters and siftlings. Most are perhaps the latter. I'm talking about those who share in their activities but not in their spirit.

I've run out of words...

jon

Where does Bro. Russell or Johnson say that Jehovah viewed it differently? Where in our writings does Bro. Johnson (who is the messenger for this doctrine) talk about how they are a class from different perspectives? I want at least ONE reference.

And...by the way, that was never what was said when this "present view" came out. We got....he had two views. Later, it changed to just the one. When we asked if he knew he had two views or was it unintentional, we got....no response.

I also asked a brother I knew, why from the podium did he preach the old way but now was saying it the new way. I have this brother on tape, saying it the old way. No good answer....just, it sounds good.

I asked whether the two views or "present view" harmonize with everything else? Such as:

*The object of our Lord's return...order of what he does and importance
*One calling at a time (there is scripture that says this AND Standard Biblical Comments)
*Types and Anti-types, such as Elijah & Elisha
*Who had the storehouse of knowledge on the Epiphany truth
*classes having the 40 year period
*Fitting the concept of Epiphany Elect class not Parousia Class (note again TITLE OF THE BOOK) Do you think Bro. Johnson called them a class in the Epiphany on the cover of the book because he meant they were a class earlier? CAN'T BE...OR IT MESSES UP THE 40 YRS., ETC.
*The journey of Ruth & Naomi being a journey and not instantaneous - look when they presented themselves to Boaz (our Lord) as a classes...which verses and which date
*Spirit begetal and consecration being one and the same between 1878 and 1881

*With what was said before
*with what is archived on tape

Etc., etc., etc.

I got basically a stonewalling.

I'm sorry Bro. Jon, but you are not upholding the Epiphany truth, and you are letting down your brethren. They cannot be a class in the Parousia or it does not harmonize with the rest of the Epiphany truth.

And yes, I was once a friend, but I don't really believe people are reliable anymore. I've seen that over and over again. I do my job. I'm a good person. I pray to God, but I pretty much just trust God & Jesus now, when it comes right down to it. Just them.

And....Bro. James...his stuff makes total and clear sense and aligns with what was always preached.

That quote that mentions the barren time DOES NOT SAY the General Call ceased in 1881.

You blow my mind!!!

I meant...it does not say it ceased in 1881.

Again...you blow my mind.

Arrghh...too late at night...too darn tired.

Did not say it ceased in 1878.

I have 1881 on the brain.

Too darn hard to write that incorrect date.

The fact that you don't think it is a serious to have:

-Bro. Johnson having two views on one matter.
-Bro. Russell not having the "storehouse of knowledge" for his era
-Bro. Johnson not having the "storehouse of knowledge" for his era
-Not having the General Call ceasing in 1881 as always preached
-Having another calling going on while the door to the High Calling is still open
-Brethren being told they must say from the podium there were two views - never asked to do that before
-Brethren who preached it before now suddenly changing that
-Brethren no longer used in service - for no reason at all

says it all.

betwixt my personal life and my work (via hurricanes) I have been indisposed.

as to your list:

The fact that you don't think it is a serious to have:
jon: you are assuming much here by the way

-Bro. Johnson having two views on one matter.
Not two views... but one understanding that a subject is often viewed from different standpoints by different individuals. My comment was that God always knew from the beginning that when the general call ceased there would be subsequent consecrators that would be of another class (the 3rd group of Millennial Levites) and He knew this before it was revealed to any human. Bro Russell did see the beginning of it and wrote about in among other places in F156-7. In the WT he wrote consistantly from 1881 forward about the situation BECAUSE it was in 1881 when it began to be revealed. Do y'all think that things could not have a beginning before they are revealed to the eyes of man? Jesus said even He did not know the time of His second coming, only the Father... so from His standpoint is was viewed much differently than from the Father who knew. THis is the same... Jehovah knew who antitypical Ruth was from the beginning... they began to form and develop from 1878 onward and it was first revealed in 1881 in the WT... that there was a significant change in the way God was working with His people. He wrote in Volume six in 1904 that they would be counted in with the Ancient Worthies in the resurrection if faithful; that they were consecrated but not begotten... and this ten years before 1914. There were no scriptures given until Bro Johnson's ministry as it was then due to be MANIFESTED. Do we know what "manifested" means? To make a thing that already exists known... exactly.

-Bro. Russell not having the "storehouse of knowledge" for his era
Boy, I never said anything against that. IN fact I have given references here showing that he too stated that the general call ceased in 1878. Who's doubting who?

-Bro. Johnson not having the "storehouse of knowledge" for his era
see #1 again...

-Not having the General Call ceasing in 1881 as always preached
always? see #2 again. It ceased as far as the calling part in 1878 BECAUSE all crowns had at that time been appropriated. the 3 1/2 ensuing years were a trial period on those who had received them. No one else received such an opportunity to secure one until they began to be lost, which Bro Johnson showed began in October 1881. IT, like the Lord's Second Advent or the Binding of Satan is a process.... not an event that took place on one significant afternoon.

-Having another calling going on while the door to the High Calling is still open
It was not a call in the sense of folks seeing it and running for it with that reward in mind. As the Pastor had taught them, there was a possibility that they might get into the high call, but also that most should not expect to be glorified (not get their hopes too high or attached to this calling in such a way as sheer disappointment would overtake them if they found out otherwise). The Lord was selecting them as such and their not knowing their true status was not to be considered a deterrant to seeking to live a consecrated life. THe discussion ran along lines of serving God and letting Him give the reward as He saw fit. The Pastor encouraged all to "run as if"... as if what? As if they would all get in the calling he had already said they would not all get in... so most ended up as Youthful Worthies. Now what if some of these died before 1914 which no doubt some did? Where would they end up... It became an open call after 1914 when the last crown was secured on a permanent basis... moreso at Passover 1916 when the last one was sealed.... yet many went to their graves thereafter (up to the present) thinking themselves in the high call, so from their viewpoint there never was such a call... (does that make it so?) Moreover, the Great Company developed from the very beginning of the Gospel Age (1 Corinthians 5:5) and yet we were not told that they were not a class until 1917... but that they were not a CLASS AS SUCH... i.e., because they had not been revealed or manifested as INDIVIDUALS before the church. When Elisha was separated it represented by type that members of this class had become known... not that they had just began forming as a class... that started almost 2000 years earlier. Talk about taking something out of context!

-Brethren being told they must say from the podium there were two views - never asked to do that before
Not true... one brother was asked to state that both dates were given (i.e., 1878 and 1881) as the beginning of the development of the YW's as individuals... which is the Truth... it is written both ways as you know.

-Brethren who preached it before now suddenly changing that
Brethren preached 1881 before and now preach 1878 I presume... yes, I do that... depending on who's viewpoint I'm trying to project. Bro Johnson called these folks between the two dates EARLY YOUTHFUL WORTHIES.

-Brethren no longer used in service - for no reason at all
I would not say for no reason at all... there were only two of them and they both have been involved in what Bro Jolly termed sifting activity. It is not what they believe that got them into trouble... we all have the right to believe as we see fit... it is how they have behaved. See PT 60:60...

"Moreover, to publish a paper for distribution among the General Church requires even a higher power than that of being a general elder merely, though one has to be a general elder, as distinct from a local elder, before he can edit and publish a paper for the General Church. Why do we say this? We reply: General elders, apart from the twelve Apostles, are of three kinds— (1) star-members; (2) non-star-membered special assistants as general elders and (3) their non-star-membered ordinary assistants as general elders. The first class alone has the right to publish a magazine and other special writings for the General Church. The second has the right to publish some occasional writings, but not a magazine. The third do not have either of these rights.... Pilgrims of the third class did not have either of these two rights. So always has it been in the General Church.... So always has it been in the General Church. Others who have done those things, except certain Levite leaders (who however, do this not for the General Church [the Little Flock], but for their Levite group), as indicated in our Pastor's will, have been usurpers, power-graspers, who, as a result, have brought error before the Church, fought the Truth and sifted the brethren [though, of course, they have objected to being called sifters]" (P '37, p. 179)."

Furthermore, they as well as others like Bro James have claimed that the present editor has not right to publish anything but that which has already been written.... against the declaration of former leaders of this same movement PT60;63

"Obviously the Lord will not appoint a Consecrated Epiphany Camper as the leader of the Youthful Worthies, for, as Bro. Johnson has shown from the Scriptures (e.g., Ex. 19: 12-21; E Vol. 11, pp. 336, 339-342), it is contrary to God's arrangements for Him to appoint one of a lower class to act in such an office function over a higher class. Nor will He after the end of the Great Company's earthly sojourn desert His people by leaving them without a leader, to wander in measurable darkness, WITHOUT FURTHER UNFOLDINGS OF PRESENT TRUTH TO THEIR NEEDS; HE WILL NOT LEAVE THEM UNPROTECTED AND AT THE MERCY OF SIFTERS; NOR WILL HE ALLOW OUR WORK TO BE REVOLUTIONIZED INTO AN ORGANIZATION-a "wagon"—such as, e.g., is recommended by the sectarianizing errorist who has apostatized from the Truth and the Lord's arrangements to the extent that in seeking to gain and then maintain control of our work he advocates (P '55, p. 88, par. 4) "a composite trustee of the L.H.M.M., having an associated executive charge (shown by the daughter) toward all Israel, in seeing that the advancing Truth [actually his own multitudinous speculations, errors and repudiations of truths given by the Laodicean star-members] as given by Zechariah [allegedly typing himself] through the printed page, sermons, etc., is presented to all Israel""

Furthermore, he stated in the same article:

"Doubtless the Lord desires that after our demise the same general arrangement shall continue, with our successor as Executive Trustee as such having control only of business matters, but as leader of the Youthful Worthies and Consecrated Epiphany Campers having a much wider sphere of service."

respectfully

jon

I said: "Jehovah knew who antitypical Ruth was from the beginning... they began to form and develop from 1878 onward and it was first revealed in 1881 in the WT..."

In this type Boaz sees Ruth and proclaims "Whose damsel is this?" typing the Lord Jesus drawing attention to the class via His mouth (Bro Russell). It was through his writings beginning in 1881 that Bro Russell began to point out this class that had been gathering "according to Bro Johnson's teaching on this subject" since 1881 when they followed antitypical Naomi back to Bethlehem. If they weren't already there, how could they be recognized. They were with the GC coming into the Truth from 1878 onward... both groups were not classes "as such"... but both were classes indeed in the Lord's eyes.

They type concerning the GC being delivered over to the fit man to be turned loose in the wilderness began its fulfillment in 1917... as a class picture, but members of this class had this same fulfillment individually all during the age. It was not manifested to the world (nor to the brethren for that matter) except for the first harvest when it was evident to Paul who stated: "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (I Cor 5:5) How could this guy be a member of a class that didn't exist. OH, it didn't exist to those to whom it had not been manifested! The Ruth class is the same.

When did they present themselves to Boaz - what date?

Why did they wait so long to present themselves if they were a class so darn long?

Kinda dawdled, didn't they?

"It might surprise Bro's Jon & Harold to know that 2 of the sisters that have left the movement are the wives of the last 2 Bretheren who were the UK Pastors "in charge" of the movement. I am sure that they would either know them or know of them. I believe that they may have even met them."


Note above quote:

Why do you think these dear sisters have left? Very dear sisters and from what I know of them....conservative people and not the kind to leave for no reason.

The minute they leave, the slander machine starts.

The water is getting warmer and warmer, but like the frog in the water.....you don't feel it and don't realize you need to jump out cause it is dangerous.

I doubt that either Jon or Harold will offer a comment on this sitation possibly claiming that they are not party to the reasons as to why they left. I believe that they have met both of these sisters while their husbands performed service in the USA.

If they have not had the pleasure of meeting them, they at least know of their consecration and dedication to the Epiphany & Present Truth. Both of them have served the Lord thru the LHMM movement for many yrs. One of them for over 50 yrs.

The one time assistant editor of the PT is no longer in association with the LHMM. The brother who represented the UK movement at the business meeting to "elect" the current editor is no longer with the movement. At least one Evangelist and possibly two Pilgrims in the UK no longer associate.

They can't all be wrong. They did not speak to each other yet one by one they left.

It would appear that I was right. No comment is a stern reply.

Apologies. Sent it without "signing" it.

"No comment is a stern reply"

Concerned.....you were right.

And, the way it's been all along. Instead of people thinking - "Hey, maybe these brethren have issues and concerns for a reason" instead they get pretty much immediate dismissmal, as if as people they have no validity anymore, as if as human beings they are just a spot to be wiped away. How is that Christian behavior? Salem Witch hunts - it's just people are cut off from any interaction, questions about why, or concern instead of the mores serious things that happened back then.