Bro. Johnson, PT January 1921, Page 7

"From various brethren we have received many questions on the Youthful Worthies. We are glad to note the interest of the Lord's people in this as well as in other Biblical subjects. Such an interest is timely, since at this time the Lord has been pleased to arrange for the development of the Youthful Worthies as a Class as well as of the Great Company 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 Millennial Gershonites."

The above quote parallels the two as to their development as classes. Very clear. No confusion. Moving the development of one of them into the Parousia should require the Executive Trustee to move the other as well. Otherwise, this parallel does not work.

Individuals of a Class

E4, P. 318: “Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons that we call ‘Youthful Worthies’ did not exist as individuals of a class; but since that time they have been, and now are coming as such into existence, and are showing evidence of existence as such.”

Some brethren misread “individuals of a class” in the reference above, saying that it shows a class from 1881. But in the complex sentence, it actually shows the correct view of individuals from 1881 and a class later. “Individuals of a class” is used quite frequently in literature to talk about similar individuals (plural), not a class (singular). A good example of this is from the University of Notre Dame about dialectics: “Lastly, the universal may express what is found in one or many individuals of a class, or even perhaps in all of them, yet in such a way that it could be absent without the individuals' ceasing to be of the same nature.”

Looking at the above E4 reference, it is easy to prove that Bro. Johnson was referring to the individuals with the subject “persons” in the independent clause and the plural pronoun “they” in the dependent clause. Towards the end of the sentence, Bro. Johnson says that these individuals are now appearing as a class with the use of “as such.”

It makes sense when we play it out: “but since that time [1881] they [these individuals] have been [in existence], and now [in the Epiphany] are coming as such [a class] into existence, and are showing evidence of existence as such [a class].”

The First Californians

The root of the movement’s current confusion as to the beginning of the Youthful Worthies lies in a misunderstanding of that exact reference they overuse. Put plainly, the “present view” brought forth by the Executive Trustee two years ago is based upon a lack of understanding of English semantics and perspective on the three misunderstood references in E4, pages 375-376.

• “brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones from 1878 on”
• “coming back into present Truth, and bringing unbegotten consecrated ones with them from 1878 to 1881”
• “Hence no crowns were available for the Ruth class consecrating and coming into the Truth between 1878 and 1881.”

Out of Context

Read on their own, one would tend to think that there were Youthful Worthies from 1878 to 1881. But read in context, the antitype of the first chapter of Ruth shows a journey to full consecration from 1878 to 1881, overcoming obstacles along the way. Both the Ruth and Orpah classes (those more and less faithful tentatively justified) left with Naomi, so they weren’t fully consecrated right away. The obstacles couldn’t take place in rapid succession, since that would make the consecration process too fast and easy (which we know it is not). And all three classes had to leave the Nominal Church, Moab, in order to miss what they had. And finally, in order for both Naomi to be with her people in Canaan and for Ruth to be a stranger member of Israel required that they be in the land…not along the way…and not in Moab.

When did you first meet your lovely wife?

The three references above show a process, coming from a perfected or known point of view. An easy example of this is in the question, “When did you first meet your lovely wife?” A smart husband, in recounting the event, would normally wax rhapsodic about the first time he met this lovely woman. Were they married then? Certainly not! But from our perspective it makes sense. We know her because she is his wife, he knows her as his wife, and the question acknowledges it. So, he references her from that status and knows what we mean. A dim-witted husband, in recounting the event, would take the question too literally and begin his story from the moment the minister pronounced them husband and wife. Clearly, the questioner was asking about their first encounter and not when they were actually married.

The First Californians

A better example, more in line with the E4 references, would be a similar journey. Quoted from California State University course material, “The first Californians were probably immigrants like the rest of us. Archaeologists believe that the ancestors of American Indians crossed over the Bering Strait from Asia thousands of years ago and then headed south. By 1769, about three hundred thousand Native Americans were living mostly near the coast….” The statement is shown from our perspective, since we know California. Hopefully, we would not be motivated to contact the California Historical Society to tell them we had found new truth about the state’s beginning and that it existed long before it was a state in 1850 or before it was a territory.

We All Have Choices

The autocratic attitude from the current Executive Trustee and the mob mentality from brethren who support him no longer allow for open, civil communication to prove truth and to seek to harmonize the scriptures. So let this posted information be a witness to Jehovah and to others that many attempts have been made to reach out to these dear brethren.

In E4, p. 291, regarding partisan support, Bro. Johnson states: “The Truth, its arrangements and its Spirit are by it neglected or antagonized whenever this is in the interests of the sect. Their actual, though not verbal motto is: ‘My party—I stand for it, right or wrong.’ Therefore they support their sect and leaders regardless of how wrong they are.”

The following questions have been asked, but never addressed by the Executive Trustee and certain Pilgrims associated with the LHMM.

1. How do you harmonize the “present view” of the Youthful Worthies with the writings?
   Do not the references by Bro. Russell, Bro. Johnson and Bro. Jolly show 1881 as individuals and 1914 as a class, not 1878 and 1881? As Berean Bible Students, can we harmonize the scriptures--two dates for one event? Does not E5 call this a cleansed truth as of 1954 and that we cannot change cleansed truth?
2. When are the Youthful Worthies a class?
   Are they an Epiphany Class as Bro. Johnson, Bro. Jolly, Bro. Gohlke and Bro. Hedman stated or are they a “Gospel Age Harvest Class” as has been recently stated from the platform?
3. Who do we serve?
   I hope God is the answer and not an organization. Also, calling some in the movement “Former Brethren”, do you now have Jehovah’s ability to determine who has lost their Justification?
4. At the 2007 Minneapolis Convention, you stated that Bro. Johnson disfellowshipped the Minnesota class when Sr. Norma was a child. Where is your proof?
   Why did Bro. Johnson send them Pilgrim service the following summer? Did this indeed happen or were you making this up to justify your attempt to disfellowship the Chicago ecclesia, your involvement in the Keystone Heights (FL), Springfield (MA), and Minneapolis ecclesia’s recent splits. According to the writings, aren’t these acts of clericalism? Would Bro. Johnson have meddled in local class business?
5. Where is the Biblical proof that you are the Spiritual Leader? Did not the Brethren at the 2004 FL convention vote unanimously with a show of hands to have you take over the duties of Executive Trustee? The paperwork handed out to everyone states nothing about you being the Spiritual leader.
6. How many times did the door to the High Calling close?
   This was asked at the 2008 Muskegon convention because of the direct comment you made: “The door shut 3 times. Slammed Shut!” It was stated from the platform that the question was deceitful. Why? Please tell us, according to the writings, when did the door to the “High Calling” close—1878, 1881 or 1914?
7. Does not 2 Cor. 2:14 show that from Pentecost to the General Call being closed (1881) that consecration and Spirit begettal were one in the same?
   Does having fully-consecrated non-spirit begotten ones from 1878-81 harmonize with this scripture and our writings? Is it your duty to harmonize these thoughts that contradict your “present view”?
8. Eph 4:4 – There was only one call during the Gospel Age. When did this call and completion to this call end?
   E5, page 502: “the Youthful Worthies were developing as a class, a distinct class, that consecrated after spirit begettal ended in 1914 and from 1914 for the next forty years until 1954. Here we have the Great Company developing as a class and the Youthful Worthies developing as a separate class also,” These references are found over 100 times in the writings. Yet you say “not so.” You seem to ignore their content and existence.
9. What is the sifting error? Is it the defense of 1881 as individuals and 1914 as a class?
   You and your appointees are using names like “sifters and revolutionist” but are failing to identify the error (all distributed information is from the truth writings). In order to have sifters you need a sifting error. Instead, you have used slander and falsehoods. You have dismissed two faithful Brothers and ignored any who ask reasonable questions. You have denied the right hand of fellowship and mistreated faithful brethren. Bro. Russell, Bro. Johnson and Bro. Jolly would go into extensive detail to “prove all things” and to identify the error.
10. Why have you plagiarized the previous servant’s work by changing thoughts and adding dates without any notation that these were changed thoughts?

Hammering Away at the Same E4 References

For those who receive The Present Truth (PT) magazine, please read carefully the new Summer 2008 issue article titled “God’s Love for Outcasts”. Like other articles published in the PT, it is a modified, republished version of a previously issued article. The original is “God’s Great Love for Outcasts” from PT July-August 1982 by Editor Bro. Gohlke. While there are many changes throughout this new version, we take note of three that deal with the Youthful Worthies.

In the original article, no consideration is given to 1878 as to their beginning—only from 1881. Yet within the new article, all three changes point to the same references in E4, two now have the 1878 date, and one has the added bonus of a new parenthetical comment. Additions are shown in bold red and deletions indicated in bold green.

1. “In Lev. 19:9, 10; 23: 22 God charged the owners of harvest fields (representing our Lord—Matt. 20:1-8) to leave the gleanings for the poor (typing Great Company members, who lost the High Calling riches) and the stranger (typing Spirit-enlightened, non-Spirit-begotten consecrated ones, strangers to the High Calling, Youthful Worthies (E 4, pp. 375-376, pp. 443-445; P ’72, p. 39).”


2. “In the antitype, those post-1878, 1881 (F 156, 157) (P 6, pp. 156, 157; E 4 pp. 318, 376) and pre-Oct.-1954 consecrators who recognize that they are Spirit-enlightened, non-Spirit-begotten ones with Youthful Worthy hopes are not…”


3. The Youthful Worthies, the antitypical strangers, have in some cases from 1881 to 1914, (there were no Spirit-begettals between 1878 and 1881, thereby providing for Youthful Worthies to be developed; E4, p. 376; E11, p. 95) had the privilege of figuratively fathering—beginning the new life—in the spiritual elect and in some of their own class, and from 1914 to 1954 of doing the same in many more of their own class.

The excessive use of this newly added E4 reference to the existing article is a bit unsettling, since it shows the movement’s fervent attempt to focus readers towards their “present view.”

Should Another Date Be Changed?

More importantly, if there were Youthful Worthies fully consecrating between 1878 and 1881 as they believe, shouldn't they change the date for figuratively fathering other Youthful Worthies to 1878 as well (see change 3 above)? Because, if you believe their view, then it would also be possible for a fully-consecrated Youthful Worthy in 1878 to figuratively father another Youthful Worthy in 1878, 1879, 1880, and for part of 1881 (before the General Call ceased).

But this is not the case, since the Ruth picture simply shows those Tentatively Justified ones on their journey towards full consecration from 1878-1881. Full consecration for non-spirit begotten individuals was only available after the General Call ceased because it was limited to the Elect before that time. This is clearly shown at the end of E4, P. 469: “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.”

Inadvertently, their parenthetical comment actually supports the cleansed view. They wrote: “for Youthful Worthies to be developed,” which is actually true because these Tentatively Justified ones were developing towards full consecration…which could only happen in 1881.

Bro. Johnson’s writings MUST harmonize, especially if they’re coming from the same book.

Let’s Celebrate Summer

At the Florida convention in 2008, the following statement was made by the leader of the Question Meeting: “The earth has been righting itself rather suddenly and dramatically here in the last two years. When I check on that every once and awhile for my own curiosity, in the last two years the Earth has righted itself almost 2 ½ degrees. Quite a shift all of the sudden.”

According to a noted regional astronomer, here are the top three things that would happen if this were true:

1. The summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere occurs June 20, 2008, when the Sun is in the zenith at the tropic of Cancer. It gives us our longest day and shortest night of the year. This date is important because it is determined by the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Any dramatic straightening of the tilt would cause the solstice to come sooner in the year and noticeably reduce the extra hours of sunlight we receive.


2. The orbit of the Moon is inclined by about 5° on the ecliptic, so it appears to wobble (moves higher and lower) in the sky. A change of 2 ½ degrees would alter that thereby affecting the moon’s tidal gravitational force. This, plus the heating index differences due to the solstice change, would cause catastrophic weather changes magnitudes greater than what we see today.


3. All astronomers would have to readjust their scopes that are based on calculations using today’s Epoch 2000 coordinate data. All deep-space bodies would be 2 ½ degrees off. In fact, all governments, companies and organizations using satellites or monitoring planetary spacecraft would notice the change. And there can be no conspiracy theory, since there are over 2.7 million registered amateur astronomers in the United States alone. The first community star party given after a shift would cause an uproar in the astronomy community.

The brother who made this statement should offer a correction.

Annual Report For French-Speaking Countries

"Dear Bro. Jolly: Motto text for 1974! I am writing this report after our French Home Gathering at Lens. The Polish, Belgian and Swiss gatherings are held respectively at Auchel, Dampremy-Charleroi and Vallorbe. Emphasis was put in the programs on the Parousia and the Epiphaneia (both from religious and secular viewpoints). The brethren were quite conscious of the exceptional solemnity of these Home Gatherings, marking the first centenary of Christ's Return and Thousand-year Reign, and emphasizing the gigantic works accomplished during that first century by our dear Savior and present King (including the Gospel Harvest reaping and the glorification of the Body of Christ, the manifestation—epiphanizing—of the Parousia of Christ to the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as classes, the building of the Epiphany Camp, the Time of Trouble since 1914, the gradual overthrowing of Satan's empire and the general shaking of Great Babylon)."—Excerpt from Marcel Caron's report, PT January-February, 1975.

When did Jesus receive Spirit Begettal? At the river Jordan.

A Pilgrim in the movement had to correct yet another comment he made at their convention in May, stating that Jesus received Spirit begettal at his consecration. Certainly this brother studied and studied this topic, but perhaps he needs to study it some more. He quoted E15, page 54. Had he continued two more pages, it clearly shows that Jesus received Spirit begettal at the river Jordan. He should “Think about that!”

A correction to his correction needs to be made.

E15, Page 54: "Jesus evidently consecrated Himself before His water baptism; for the real baptism had to be begun before it could be symbolized, since we must have the original before He started out to be baptized by John.”

E15, Page 56: "Jesus, as we have seen, had three begettings: (1) as the Logos… (2) as the embryo Jesus… (3) as the New Creature Christ at Jordan…"

Could this be an incidental feature of the plan or another mistake? The next thing he'll be telling us is that the earth's tilt has shifted 2 1/2 degrees in the last 2 years.

The French Correction

One of the few proofs used by the movement in the United States to support its changed view (from the “two views” it initially brought forth) of the beginning of the Youthful Worthies as individuals and as a class is an interpreted/translated three-part discourse on the Book of Ruth given by Bro. Johnson, August 8, 1933 in Monceau-sur-Sambre near Charleroi, Belgium.

Specifically, they point to a small section within the first part of the document. Translated back to English and published in the Spring 2007 PT, it best reads: "… We can divide the Youthful Worthies in 3 groups: 1st : from 1878 to 1881; 2nd : from 1881 to 1914 when there were many more consecrated than crowns and 3rd : finally those who consecrated after 1914."

A closer look at the document and the use of the work itself as a proof bring up some important issues:

The author of the French-language document is UNKNOWN…though believed to be a Truth sister. And she interpreted/translated a discourse—something difficult to do accurately even without considering Bro. Johnson’s grasp of the English language. During this process, subtle use of words and meaning can be lost, changed, or infused with error. For instance, at the very beginning of the entire work, translated in English it reads, “The book of Ruth covers the period from 1844 to 1921. The 1st chapter relates to antitypical events which took place from 1844 to 1874, and the 2nd chapter refers to events that took place from 1874 to 1881.” These sentences incorrectly indicate the antitypical time periods for the 1st and 2nd chapters of Ruth as given by Bro. Johnson in the original article on Ruth (published three months earlier) and later included in E4, The Epiphany’s Elect. We know these to be 1844 to 1881 and 1881 to 1916 respectively. Additional mistakes appear in other parts of the document, but this example, which is from the very first paragraph, should suffice.

With regards to the initial quote, the French word “groupe” correctly translated “group” in English is never used by Bro. Johnson in any of his writings to describe the condition of the Youthful Worthies at different times. This usage is unique to the French document. Like Bro. Johnson in E4 and the June, 1933 PT, the document does use the French word “classe” to describe the classes which Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah represent. Why is this important? Because the French word “groupe” actually helps to emphasize status and one must therefore determine which three of the possible four are shown: pre-individual (those on their journey to full consecration in the Truth), individual (those who consecrated as strangers in the land), class (all who consecrated after 1914 when it was the only choice), and post class (after 1954 when no more were admitted). Clearly, the status of those after 1954 is not represented thus allowing us to recognize the other three.

What this shows is that only Brother Johnson’s actual, published work should be used to support his Epiphany truth. Certainly no fault can be attributed to the native French-speaking brethren, since few have sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the nuances of Bro. Johnson’s writings. Nor do they have every Truth resource available in French. E4, where this new truth was "discovered", is one such example. The lack of this Epiphany volume in their language makes it difficult for them to understand the changed view made by the movement in the United States, since they cannot easily see that Bro. Johnson would be contradicting himself within his own book.

The Antitypical Ark - Two Dates for One Event?

See PT 2006 Page 22.

“The emphasis put forth in the preceding writing is that the Youthful Worthies came forth as a class in 1881 not 1914”. (This thought or assumption doesn’t harmonize as Bro. Johnson explains, and nor does the erroneous view that two dates are correct as the assumption in this case indicates: 1881 not 1914 ) Reference E Vol. 5 Page 63 Par. 60.  We should also read page 74, 75 Par. 73 from E Vol. 5 and PT 1942 Page 62 to get the complete thought and clarification from Bro. Johnson. 

Please take note of the word “Anticipatorily” and its explanation. It means "as in the future".

Example: Question (1972)—When did Jesus become the Head of the world’s Mediator?

Answer.—At the time the angel announced the birth of Jesus, He was called “Christ, the Lord” (Luke2: 11). This was spoken anticipatorily (Rom. 4: 17), in view of the fact that the babe Jesus was the same one who in due time would be Christ.

Please take note on how the word "Classes" is used.

E. Vol 5 Page 74 Par 73

The last day of these antitypical 56 days began Jan., 1871. During this antitypical day our Lord returned, raised the sleeping Saints, cast off Babylon, ended the General Call, and began to develop the Youthful Worthies, who were from God's viewpoint anticipatorily in the antitypical Ark with all its other classes from the beginning of the antitypical Flood year.

Questions on page 95 – 96 E Vol 5

Please read these questions and compare them to the paragraph.

(73) What is the second question arising from the preceding discussion on the Flood year? What do the conditions before the Flood type? The Flood year? Of what was entering the Ark a type? What benefit in this connection did God give Abel, Enoch and Noah? By contrast how did He treat classes who came into existence long after the Covenant was made? On what Bible principle? On what other principle may the Youthful Worthies be said anticipatorily to have entered the Ark in 2045 B.C.? What does this do with our question?...

PT. 1942 Page 62 Col 1

            Question: Is it not self - contradictory to teach that the antitypical Flood year began 2045 B.C., and that persons, typical of classes which began to exist thousands of years later, entered the ark before the Flood began, while these classes entered the antitypical Ark long after the antitypical Flood year began?

            Answer: We are to remember that the antitype of the days before the Flood year (Luke 17:20, 27) consists of conditions in the world before and especially during the Parousia and Epiphany, while the Flood year represents the time during which the elect classes by consecration entered into covenant relations with God (1 Pet. 3:20 [ last clause ], 21). Entering the Ark was a part of the former picture. As God in the cases of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., anticipatorily gave them the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., treated them as being in that Covenant centuries before it was made, so He anticipatorily considered classes to be in the antitypical Ark – the Abrahamic Covenant – centuries before these classes came into being, on the principle that God “calleth those things that are not as though they were,” in view of His plan respecting them (Rom. 4: 17). This will harmonize the apparent discrepancy.