The LHMM believes the “Youthful Worthies” is a class of believers that may still have members alive today. To be in the class you needed to have consecrated your life to God before a certain year…possibly 1954. They are currently debating if the class began in 1878 or 1881. Here are some of the things written about this class as they believe:
E4 p. 438 God is not the father of the Youthful Worthies who are not actually His children.
E4 p. 439 The Youthful Worthies do not have access to the throne of grace…They should not be asked to lead prayer in a meeting of Priests.
E4 p.465-467 Antitype of Lot and his daughters - Those who teach the High Calling is open lose their Youthful Worthy standing, etc.
What is the point of separating people into classes? How does this benefit our Christian walk? Should we leave the determination of rewards to God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Nope...they are debating whether the class started in 1881 or 1914 - the 1878 thing is whether there were individuals starting in 1878 or 1881 who would later be manifested as Youthful Worthies. It's a VERY obvious thing!!!! There could be NO calling or class prior to the high calling closing, and that closed in 1914. Hello! - if you an LHMMer, not that hard! That has always been the teaching until like two years ago. Now it's become some litmus test to not only believe the new thing, but believe there wasn't a change as well. What's with that? Very clear what the author (Johnson) was trying to say. Whether you believe in a Youthful Worthy class or not is a whole other issue.
Paul Johnson wrote in several places that there were some, i.e., the first, Youthful Worthies candidates in 1878... he first wrote this about 1920 in the articles of the Present Truth which later became parts of various Epiphany Volumes. The antitypical Flood type is one place, the Ruth picture and the Esther picture are two others. In a discourse in France in 1933 he reiterated it... and in a 1948 convention meeting he again gave the thought... so you are not quite right on this subject as to what the LHMM has always taught on this subject. It is a specialized case and only applies to the consecrated ones between 1878 and 1881 that were consecrated but not spirit begotten.
You are taking a few references out of context and not understanding how to read historically written texts. When referring back to where something came from, history books often say for example, "the state of Mass. got its start when Pilgrims began arriving in the 1600's" - (I'm making up the date as an example). The state wasn't even a state at that point. Read any history textbook and you see it again and again. Everyone knows they weren't Mass. at that time, but that's when it had its origins. You refer to it in its finished as if it already was the state of Mass.
That is all Brother Johnson is doing when he does that in those places, and there are very few of them anyway. The guy didn't write a book with the title "The Ephiphany's Elect" - talk about two classes in the entire book, and mean just one was. Read the forward and you're there. The guy did not split his view. He had the storehouse on Epiphany. Hello!
So...the 1878 thing is the history of their journey, prior to them as indivduals in 1881 and a class in 1914. Once it became clear there was another class when the door to the high calling closed - then the class was manifested, and it was known backwards that some individuals after 1881 who were running for the high calling were not all indeed church members. Brother R. did not start talking about the possiblity of another class until the early 1900's - he had an inkling of it only. It was part of J's storehouse.
And, if you're still confused:
Thus saith the Lord: Eph. 4:4 - (NIV) "There is one body and one Spirit - just as your were called to one hope when you are called." Expanded Biblical comments: "We are not to think of differnt calls; we have no choice in the matter." "There is but one prize held out by the Scriptures as an offer during this Gospel Age..."
Ruth and Naomi's journey was just that - a journey - through steps - to consecration - not instantaneous. You lose the journey if you read it the new way as opposed to what we like to call "the right way."
It's either throw out actual scripture, talks by Brother Jolly, Brother Roberts of CA, and others, black marker through reference after reference, and think that not either Russell or Johnson had the storehouse of knowledge they were supposed to have been granted by God, or realize this little thoughtlet has to incorrect.
Lots of brethen have problems with this and unfortunately instead of realizing people usually don't make a fuss for nothing (everyone has better things to do with their time), there is the traditional - "burn them, they're witches" response. How sad as Christians that we haven't not grown past the behavior of the Salem Witch hunts. What more can I say?
Meg,
You are correct in your study and thinking... God's sole purpose from 29 AD – 1914 AD was to develop a bride for his Son... There was only one call during this period – “Little Flockship”…
I've seen jonalfred's postings on other blogs... He says one thing to Parousia Bible Students and another to Epiphany Bible Students... He realizes that he would lose credibility with these diligent Parousia Bible students if he were to say that two calls were going on at the same time beginning in 1881… and rightfully so… He has lost credibility with many Epiphany Bible Students who have studied and proved the conflicting dates…
This is an excerpt from one of jonalfred's post on another blog:
"Their was not a "specific" call for them to be worthies until the last of the Little Flock were in, which we believe was completed by Autumn 1914... then the Youthful Worthy exclusive call began and all consecrators were grouped with those already consecrated ones who were not begotten of the spirit."
Please take note: “Then the Youthful Worthy exclusive call began according to jonalfred’s blog… When? Yes, 1914… not 1881… Both dates aren’t correct. Which side of the fence is he on?
Many faithful servants of Jehovah associated with the LHMM have expressed this same thought, 1914 as the exclusive call as a class for the Youthful Worthies. They have been labeled and called ( for lack of a better word) sifters… (Sifters are unfaithful servants that preach error)… These faithful servants have proved and preached this thought for years… 1881 as individuals and 1914 as a class… It has been the accepted and proved teaching until the new Executive Trustee for the LHMM started to change this teaching in 2004.
The Summer 2006 PT Page 18: “The Youthful Worthy call” “What is the correct date for the beginning of the Youthful Worthy call?” “1878 or 1881?” It’s neither…
As state above and everywhere in the servant’s writings; Fall of 1914 or the Epiphany, which is one in the same was the start date for Youthful Worthies as a class…
The Youthful Worthies are an “Epiphany Class.” Hello!
“ A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” And, there aren’t two correct dates…
Meg, you can state it any way you like, and you have the right to believe however you wish, but Bro Johnson stated that the class had its beginnings as individuals in 1878 in 1948... he did not go into any detail beyond that. If you were correct he never would have stated it that way. and that was the context.
Tirzah... I haven't heard from you for a while... surely you jest...
you said "he realizes that he would lose credibility with these diligent Parousia Bible students if he were to say that two calls were going on at the same time beginning in 1881"
I have told them JUST THAT over and over... and shown them how Pastor Russell taught that the majority of consecrated ones were not spirit begotten since 1881... so there were two class developing together... the little sister class with no breasts were there... they had breasts after 1914... they were the Ruth class from 1878 all the way up to 1914...
You are continuing to do a good job to distort what a person says... I invite anyone to investigate what I have stated to Bible Students... I have had nothing to hide, in fact have revealed to all of them my real identity and email address and know most of them personally. If you are a truth person you don't have to hide in the bushes like you folks are doing here.
Two calls going on at the same time…
There is a difference between those who are consecrating and those who are consecrated… Instead of starting your proof on Ruth 1: 16 and 17… Start your study on Ruth 1: 1…
“Little Sister Class”… Where do you find this thought in the writings…
You rely on somebody’s notes from a 1948 convention that were found in a drawer at LHMM HQ and use it as proof Bro. Johnson taught the Youthful Worthies had their beginnings in 1878… Bro. Johnson taught 1Cor. 2: 14: “between Pentecost and 1881… the term New Creature and the term consecrated applied to the same persons…
Please re-read carefully postings from your hand…
"Their was not a "specific" call for them to be worthies until the last of the Little Flock were in, which we believe was completed by Autumn 1914... then the Youthful Worthy exclusive call began and all consecrators were grouped with those already consecrated ones who were not begotten of the spirit."
Please re-read carefully postings to Meg from your hand…
“Meg, you can state it any way you like, and you have the right to believe however you wish, but Bro Johnson stated that the class had its beginnings as individuals in 1878 in 1948...”
There was not a “specific” call for them to be worthies until the last of the Little Flock were in, which we know was completed by Autumn 1914… Yet you claim there are two calls going on at the same time while Jehovah was specifically dealing with the Little Flock...
Eph 4:4... Wow, I don’t see any contradictions here???
Jonalfred said:
“You are continuing to do a good job to distort what a person says”
Surely you jest…
Jonalfred - you cannot get around scripture and you can't argue with God. If the scriptures say there was one call and hope for the Church, then there could not be a second call going on at the same time. See again Eph. 4:4.
There are also many other parts of God's plan that would be in conflict if we were to think that Bro. Johnson was not in harmony with in his own thinking. For example, the order an object of our Lord's return would be affected. Jesus did not go onto the other objects of his return until the Church was gathered. That was his focus. Thus again, another call could not have been going on.
Pick up a history book and find how things are written as if they are in the finished state when talking about events that preceeded the main event of focus. Bro. Johnson makes it very clear what the dates are in reference after reference that he gives, the title of the book itself actually matching with the contents, and all the other types working in harmony with the original view that was preached.
The changes that were made are based on just a couple of references that are easily harmonized if you know how authors sometimes write about completed events and the steps leading up to them.
If you go with the new view, you would have to believe that the man who wrote the "7 Axioms" would not have used the 7 axioms himself and meant two dates but didn't harmonize them, or had two dates and didn't know it.
You would also have to be out of harmony with the Bible - the written word of God, to go with the new view.
The brethren should have stood up for God's word - he is the author who has the final say. If all the brethren had stood for what is right, there would not be the situations that are now occuring - the pain that has been caused. Quite disappointing and very sad.
Post a Comment