Dear Bro. R.M. Herzig, Executive Trustee, L.H.M.M:
You have to admit that there were no issues prior to 2004. In fact, issues started when you took the Executive Trustee (ET) position in 2004. There is nothing wrong with using truth writings to present the truth. But, when you begin altering the truth writings deliberately to change the intent, by inserting 1878 for example, and adding and expressing ones own unfounded thoughts is wrong!
General questions to blog readers:
Why did the current ET, who is a non-spirit begotten consecrated individual, change the intent of an article entitled “Quasi Elect” PT 1978, p. 50 as written by our beloved Bro. Jolly, a spirit begotten individual and spiritual leader.
- He deletes the following statements in bold: we take pleasure in republishing it here with "a number of important additions.” and here adds in italics: “few changes to reflect our present view.” Were the former servants wrong? Why the change? Was the former view wrong?
- Why do you suppose that he (ET) deleted this statement in bold? “ ( c ) the antitypical Court of the Epiphany Tabernacle and Temple "in the finished picture--- have as a class been in the process of development (see E-4, The Epiphany's Elect;”)
- He follows this by adding in italics: “The Great Company has finished its course and has now received the spirit nature (Rev. 7: 1-14). The Youthful Worthies, as the last elect class, has been in the process of development since their inception in 1878 (see E 4, The Epiphany's Elect, pp. 372-376; PT No. 519).”
In addition to making changes to the Quasi Elect article, their have been other PT articles that he has changed, including Bro. Johnson's 1913 discourse. Does he feel that this is what Bro. Johnson should have said? When does a lower class have the right to change the intent of the writings of a higher class? Bro. Jolly always taught relating to the YWs the dates of 1881 as the beginning and 1914 as becoming a class. He also taught that the YWs could not be a known as a separate and distinct class while the Little Flock were still being reaped.
Are we going to ignore this? How do we harmonize this?
The Article is Deceptive: What is the correct date for the beginning of the Youthful Worthy call? Why are there differing views on it? 1878 or 1881? The Youthful Worthy call was a forty year period ending on September 16th, 1954. The writer later in the article takes the attention away from his original premise, the word "Call" and modifies the word "Class". This tactic throws the reader off from the root meaning of the question. What is the correct date for the Youthful Worthy Call?
If you are an Epiphany Bible Student, ask yourself this question: How long was the Youthful Worthy Call? If the Youthful Worthy call began in 1881 as the current ET wishes us to believe, then we have to rewrite the Epiphany Truth and add 33 years to the 40 year call to make this error work.
Example: Notice below the subtle topic change from "Call" to "Class" by the current ET. Notice the change of thought moving this Epiphany (1914) Class to the Parousia (1881).
Summer 2006 PT on page 21-C2 the article so states “Please note, that this above insert is describing classes, not individuals, who are separate from group affiliation, and it emphasizes the fact that the Youthful Worthies are developed as a class from 1881 onward, which supports our contention that they were first recognized as coming into existence as individuals from 1878 and later as a class in 1881, not in 1914.”
Additional thoughts addressing the word "Class"
Concerned Epiphany Bible Student
Continued - See comments for additional information.
1 comment:
Questions for the ET continued:
The Y.W.'s did not consecrate prior to 1881. The progressive Tabernacle picture PT 78, p68 C1, tells us that ALL consecrations prior to 1881 were pictured in the Holy. This proves that the Y.W.'s did not consecrate prior to 1881, because all consecrations before 1881 were spirit begotten.
The Y.W.'s are non-spirit begotten consecrators and could not exist as Y.W.'s without full consecration. Are we going to ignore this?
There is another school of thought that our former ET, our dear Bro. Hedman said if there were consecrations these individuals were held in abeyance. What about Bro. Johnson's thought in E-4, p 318, where he says that they were on a reserved list? Bro. Hedman also mention at a Springfield Convention that the Y.W.'s began in 1881.
Lets take this from another point of view, from E-4, p.318 and all the Y.W. articles written by our beloved Bro. Johnson: “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;” It says that they DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 1881. How do we harmonize this statement?
Are we going to be faithful to the LORD and the Epiphany Truth or to someone else? Make note that our dear Bro. Johnson never changed his YW article before or after he wrote the Ruth article in 1933. He always held in the YW articles that the YWs began as individuals in 1881. This is very significant!
It is disrespectful to our former servants to accept 3 or 4 references supposedly supporting the 1878 date, when denying 75 + references that clearly show the date as 1881. The strongest argument that the current ET has is the Ruth type and antitype article. First, you cannot use a type to prove a doctrine. BEREAN BIBLE TEACHERS MANUAL “Berean Topical Index” page 25 reads: “types and figures (see “SYMBOLS”) a type must not be used to teach a doctrine, but to merely to illustrate one that is already taught in plain terms.”
How do we harmonize the 1878 date with the fact that the YWs did not exist prior to 1881?
How do we harmonize the truth writings?
Both beloved Servants tell us that that there are two kinds of consecrations P-6, p.124. The only way that this apparent contradiction can be harmonized is that Ruth class was consecrated to "truth and holiness". They did not render a full consecration! If they did, it would violate all the references that teach us that they did not exist prior to 1881 or if they did, they were held in abeyance as our previous servant shared with us.
The truth writings also share with us the Wedding Supper parable which was fulfilled between 1878 and 1881. Our beloved Bro. Johnson writes in E-4, p. 426 “Historically this parable was fulfilled before there were any Youthful Worthies.”
Let us continue even from another stand point. The Y.W.'s could not possibly be a Gospel age harvest class because there was no sufficient truths to develop the Y.W.'s as a class or the Great Company for that period of time. Our beloved Bro. Johnson explains in E-5, p. 39 as follows: “He was the Parousia messenger, appointed by the Lord over the storehouse and the household for Parousia purposes ---giving the Parousia Truth and superintending the Parousia work. Thus he gave the Church the full Parousia Truth, and superintended the full gathering of the church (hence he can have no successor), and thereby gave the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work; for the Parousia Truth and work are the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work. But, as our Pastor's work was not that of gathering the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as such, the truths that he gave on these subjects were not full enough for the work of gathering these as such. Their gathering as such is an Epiphany work, for the which special Epiphany truths also, not due to be seen in his day, are needed. Therefore “things new and old” are needed for the Epiphany work. The facts of the case prove that our Pastor did not understand these new Epiphany things, e.g., the time of the deliverance of the of the Church, the length of the Time of trouble, the time of Israels' deliverance, the duration of the dealing with the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies,”. IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT THERE WAS INSUFICIENT TRUTH TO DEVELOPE THESE TWO CLASSES AS SEPARATE CLASSES during the Parousia!
It is quite apparent that this is a correct thought and should be aware of E-5, p 502 that “the Epiphany Truth consists of such truths as are needed by the Little Flock to equip her for her Epiphany work, as are needed to furnish the superstructure of Truth required to develop the Great Company and Youthful Worthies”. The Y.W.'s did not become a class in 1881, as the current ET has informed us but, became a class in the Epiphany, because there was insufficient truth to develop them as a class until the Epiphany. This is not to say that they were not developing as individuals since 1881.
How often have we been told that this is new truth, that the Y.W.'s came into existence in 1878 and became a class in 1881. If this is truly new truth why didn't Bro. Johnson explain and change the truth message to reflect this new thought? Was this some new revelation from our current ET with the support of Prov. 4: 18? Is this something that our dear Bro. Johnson was not aware of? E-5, p.40 so states “All of us are familiar with the fact that our Pastor taught, up to about 1909, that everything in the Bible, which is given for the saints' understanding ( 1 Peter 1: 12; Rom. 15: 4), would be understood by the church before leaving the world, i.e., by 1914, as he then supposed.” “Had he known the length of the Epiphany, he would not have given up that thought; for it is evidently a Biblical one; for the Bible expressly teaches that everything in it would be understood while the Church would yet be in the flesh (Rom. 15: 4).” Bro. Johnson was in the position to explain the entire Bible before he went beyond the veil, (1 Peter 1: 12; Rom. 15: 4). If this was new truth and so significant, why didn't he clarify it in the truth writings? Truly this is profound and would require a revision of the truth writings, but he did not! Instead his last and final statement on the subject in his support of 1881 as the beginning as individuals and 1914 as class.
PT 1949, p.156. “While there were Youthful Worthies from 1881 to 1914, i.e. in the case of those for whom no crowns were then available, since 1914 all new consecrators are of this class; because by Oct. 1914 all crowns were filled to a completion.”
Concerned Epiphany Bible Student
Post a Comment