Permanent Marker Series: E5, p. 63

"(60) Apart from those Ancient Worthies who lived before the Covenant, but who were by God anticipatorily considered as in that Covenant, the first ones actually to enter the antitypical Ark—the Covenant—were Abraham and Sarah. Hence the antitypical Ark was first entered by the Ancient Worthies as a class in the persons of Abraham and Sarah in 2045 B.C. The last of all the classes to enter the antitypical Ark consists of the Youthful Worthies. They as a class first entered the antitypical Ark in 1881 1878, when the General Call ceased with the fulness of the Gentiles, and as a result the surplus consecrators became a class different from any other class."

This reference, taken out of context, could imply the Youthful Worthies became a class in 1881. There are a few reasons this is not possible. One, the very sentence itself tells us when surplus consecrators started to exist. We change it here to match the 1878 needs of the Executive Trustee. Two, this reference must harmonize with all of the other references in the same book. Three, the reference is fully explained on page 73.

Permanent Marker Series: E5, pp. 48-49

"Has it ever struck our dear readers that while our Pastor said that those whom we call Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies as princes, he never once cited a Scripture to prove it. He simply drew the conclusion from the fact that there were more consecrations than available crowns since the general call ceased in 1881 fulness of the Gentiles in 1878, and from God's general methods of dealing in the way of rewards with similar characters. So far as we can recall, he treated of the Youthful Worthies in but three places in his writings—F 156, 157; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, col. 2, pars. 6, 7. Additionally he treated of them at Convention Question meetings (What P.R. Said,. 151, 152, 154). In none of them does he cite a Scripture dealing with the Youthful Worthies as distinct from the Ancient Worthies. Why this from one who so strenuously insisted on Scripture as the source and rule of faith? The answer can only be that the subject being an Epiphaniac one even though their call began in 1878, no Scripture on the subject was due to be understood before! But the Epiphany being the time for dealing with this class even though they were as such before the Epiphany, Scriptures not previously understandable began to open up on the subject."

Pages 48 and 49 are in need of some rework to fit the new view of the Executive Trustee. In his mind, there were more consecrations since 1878, not 1881. For those of you who believe his new view because it helps you understand "consecration is always in order" better, have no fear. That principle was never compromised by Bro. Johnson. In E4, what was Ruth's journey? It was the journey from tentative justification to full consecration. You see, the activity of consecrating is still there. That's because consecration is always in order.