French Correction, The Correction?

The Executive Trustee made a correction to the Ruth discourse he printed in the Winter issue. What was put forward in the recent Spring PT shows just how bizarre things have become. Instead of admitting that the entire discourse is not Bro. Johnson's words (even after we pointed it out), he calls the correction a misstatement. This is not accurate.

Merriam-Webster defines misstatement as, "to state incorrectly : give a false account of."

In reality, he correctly stated the errors as they exist in the original French document--but in a modern English translation. So, there is no misstatement. Please remember that what you are reading in this Ruth series is actually the following:

A French-speaking sister listens to Bro. Johnson and takes shorthand notes of his spoken discourse in French or English. Later, she types those notes in French into a document. The completed document from the unknown sister sits idle for almost 77 years. In 2009, it is translated back to modern English to be published in these PTs.

The Executive Trustee doesn't provide this information. He doesn't even make reference to the modern translator or thank the person for their translation. His correction should have been an apology to his readers for trying to pawn off this discourse as Bro. Johnson's own words. Where is the editorial integrity?

French Correction, Final Part

Because of errors and changes thru interpretation and translations, it is obvious that the French document should not have been published or presented as Bro. Johnson’s own words in the Winter 2009 PT. It introduces many problems for the Executive Trustee and it doesn’t even prove his “present view” on the Youthful Worthies. Yet, in the end, the real issue is not this lapse in judgment or the use of the faulty article. The real issue is the Executive Trustee’s misread of the 3 sentences in E4, pages 375-376:

• “…and 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.”
  
• “…for the Ruth class consecrating and coming into the Truth between 1878 and 1881.”

The instant you accept his view that they show unbegotten consecrated ones existing in 1878, 79, 80 or the first part of 81, then you also have to accept that Bro. Johnson was confused and contradicted himself WITHIN HIS OWN BOOK. Were all the consecrated from Pentecost to 1881 Spirit-begotten as he says on p.469? Could the deep things be seen only by New Creatures until 1881 on pages 440 & 462? Doesn’t the title of the book apply to both of its subjects? These are just a few examples of the problems introduced. We don’t know why the brethren would believe this of Bro. Johnson when the sentences are easily harmonized.

For historical events, we often use the current (perfected) condition of someone in the event before it is achieved because that condition is known and common to us. If asked about when you met your spouse, your response is always the first day you were introduced, not the day of your wedding. If a history professor tells his students that a distant trading company brought back with it new colonists from 1478 to 1481, it does not mean they were actual colonists when they left in 1478.

Bro. Johnson, like a good professor, is telling us this journey from the point of completion. The destination condition is our common understanding of both Naomi and Ruth. For the first sentence, he says Naomi BROUGHT BACK Ruth starting the journey in 1878. For the second, he says that Naomi was COMING BACK into the Truth and then shows the entire journey length for bringing back Ruth. The third sentence is very easy--it shows the 3 ½ year journey of consecrating and COMING INTO the Truth. In the end, either these 3 sentences work with the rest of the book, or you have to conclude that Bro. Johnson could not write a book. You choose.

For the last time, we make available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.

French Correction, Part 4

Part of page 6 is the reason the Executive Trustee translated the discourse from French to English and printed it as if it was Bro. Johnson’s own words:
“Therefore, chronologically speaking, we can divide the Youthful Worthies into 3 groups: the first from 1878 to 1881; the second from 1881 to 1914 when there were many more consecrated ones than crowns and, the third: those who consecrated after 1914. All who became consecrated from 1878 to 1881 were Youthful Worthies because no crown fell from 1878 to 1881. The surplus of consecrated ones from 1881 to 1914 also became Youthful Worthies, and all those who consecrated, from 1914 until now, were also Youthful Worthies. Therefore, there are three groups of Youthful Worthies, and Ruth represents all the Youthful Worthies. From 1878 to 1881, she represents the first group; from 1881 to 1914, she represents the second group; and from 1914, she represents all those who became consecrated from this time onward.”

An interpretation to one language and then back should never be used in lieu of someone's own work. Yet, if we look through the text, it actually shows Bro. Johnson’s view and not the Executive Trustee’s changed view. The sister interpreted that the YWs can be divided into 3 groups, a term Bro. Johnson NEVER used in English. She does use his word class to define the three women, so group is more focused and is used to show a change of condition within the YWs. The first group is the 1878-1881 journey of the tentatively-justified Ruth class who became fully consecrated YWs in 1881, the second group is the surplus consecrators or individuals from 1881-1914, and the third group is all who consecrated after 1914 during the 40-year YW call.

How do we know this? Bro. Johnson shows two of the three conditions a few years later in PT April 1938, page 56 , "for the Youthful Worthies as individuals, from Oct., 1881, onward to Sept. 16, 1914, and as a class from Sept. 16, 1914." And we know from E4, page 469 (the very book where the Executive Trustee "found" his view) that all the consecrated until 1881 were Spirit begotten. That helps us understand the condition of the first group, which is the whole idea of the Ruth 1 picture...her journey to full consecration. Even the French document on pages 5-6 shows her full consecration at Ruth 1:16-17, near the end of the journey. Since the French-speaking brethren do not have E4, E15 offers them a competent translation and clearly shows the limit of 1881.

E15 Christ—Spirit—Covenants, p. 419: “Since the unconsecrated as the unbegotten cannot perceive, reason out and remember spiritual things (1 Cor. 2: 8, 9, 11, 14) and the Spirit-begotten man can (John 3: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 10-13, 15, 16), these powers must have been implanted into the mental brain organs by the begettal of the Spirit, which always until 1878 followed a true consecration. This rule was without exception until the general call ceased; the rule now does not apply against Youthful Worthies, who as consecrated ones understand spiritual things. Without the begettal the best of humans cannot desire spiritual as distinct from human things. This St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 2: 9, when he says that the spiritual things that God has prepared for those that love Him [the called according to His purpose (Rom. 8: 28) ] have not entered into the hearts [desires, affections] of the unbegotten; for during the general call to the High calling all the consecrated were Spirit-begotten.”

E15 Christ-L'Esprit-Les Alliance, 369-370: “Puisque les non-consacrés, comme les non-engendrés ne peuvent pas percevoir, raisonner et se rappeler des choses spirituelles (1 Cor. 2 : 8, 9, 11, 14) et que l'homme engendré de l'Esprit le peut (Jean 3 : 3; 1 Cor. 2: 10-13,15, 16), ces pouvoirs ont dû être implantés dans les organes cérébraux mentaux par l'engendrement de l'Esprit qui, jusqu'en 1878, suivait toujours une vraie consécration. Cette règle fut sans exception jusqu'à ce que cessât l'appel général ; la règle ne s'applique pas maintenant contre les Jeunes Dignes qui, en tant que consacrés, comprennent des choses spirituelles. Sans l'engendrement, le meilleur des êtres humains ne peut desirer des choses spirituelles distinctes des choses humaines. St. Paul nous le dit en 1 Cor. 2 : 9, quand il déclare que les choses spirituelles que Dieu a préparées pour ceux qui L'aiment, [ceux qui sont appelés selon son propos (Rom. 8 : 28)] ne sont pas entrées dans les coeurs [les désirs, les affections] des non-engendrés ; car durant l'appel general pour le Haut-Appel, tous les consacrés furent engendrés de l'Esprit.”

As before, we’ve made available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.