Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Permanent Marker Series: E4, Page 440


(Click the above image for best quality.)

Page 440 is a continuation of the answer started on 439, so we have to be consistent and change both instances of 1881 to 1878. Had we not changed the second instance of 1881 to 1878, then the Executive Trustee's new Youthful Worthies would not have knowledge of the deep things. That cannot be right.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Permanent Marker Series: E4, Page 439


(Click the above image for best quality.)

Page 439 is another one that needs repair in order to match the beliefs of the Executive Trustee. If there were Youthful Worthies from 1878 to 1881, then they should have been included in this answer because they were not begotten of the Spirit. They would be a part of that majority. A more precise change could be:

"While we know that all of those who consecrated between 1878-81 and the majority of those who consecrated between 1881 and 1914 were not begotten of the Spirit . . ."

Thursday, November 11, 2010

The Fuller Truth on the Consecrated

(10) The fuller truth on the consecrated, Spirit-enlightened but not Spirit-begotten elect class, developed here in the end of the Age after the closing of the door of entrance into the High Calling, was not yet due to be given in Bro. Russell's day. Nevertheless, the Lord did privilege him to point out this class—which we call the Youthful Worthies—as one that would eventually be rewarded with the Ancient Worthies (see, e.g., F 156, 157; Question Book, pp. 151, 152, 154, 156-158; Z 4836; 5761, col. 2 [in par. 2 he refers to them as a class]; comp. E 4, pp. 317-469).
--PT. 1971 Pg. 38

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Permanent Marker Series: E4, Page 438


(Click the above image for best quality.)

If the Youthful Worthies were called starting in 1878 and they became a class in 1881, as the Executive Trustee believes, then it seems strange Bro. Johnson wrote that all consecrators before Sept. 16, 1914 were to be accepted as priests. Why were no indications due until then if a separate call was already in effect during the harvest? We don't know, so we chose to point out this oddity on the page to make it fit better with the "present view."