by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Ow! My eyes!
Was that necessary?
badboy, the UN was supposed to be the image of the wild beast. Which would make the UN Department of Public Information the mouth of the image of the wild beast.
thirdwitness can dismiss your question on the basis that the WTS never joined the UN, so (to his mind) it doesn't matter whether the UN is the image of the wild beast. He has already dismissed this question and similar ones on those grounds several times.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I just wanted to emphasize this point. Thirdwitness' website quotes the 2005 brochure put out by the UN DPI about the criteria for association of NGOs. His argument is that these criteria have likely changed over the years and that the 1994 UN DPI brochure does not speak of NGOs having to support the UN as part of the criteria for association.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/thechangingworldofngos.html
Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?
He then says about the critics:
No. The critics are lying.
He quotes the 2005 brochure and then claims the 1994 brochure does not require "support of the UN":
“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”This page from his site links to page 6 of this 1994 brochure and yes there is nothing on page 6 of that brochure that speaks of the necessity of associating NGOs supporting the UN. Yet, page 7 of this 1994 brochure is not mentioned here by Thirdwitness. It specifically does say that associating NGOs must prove "that they support the United Nations." See:Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all
http://www.randytv.com/secret/DPI%20NGO%20Brochure%201994%20page%207.jpg
The exact language regarding associating NGOs is:
"can prove during the initial 2 years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring U.N. information in their publications and outreach activities."
Did the literature published by the UN during the time of the Watchtower's association say that associating NGOs were required to "support the UN"? Most definitely.
Also, if they only thought it was for access to the library, why did they do this?
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/materials/articles.htm
steve
Gotta give 'em credit Steve. Another way to start Bible studies.
First of all as respects the application and what they agreed to they did not sign any application agreeing to support the UN. Because the UN might later come out with statements or brochures saying that NGOs must 'support' the UN that does not mean that the WTS signed anything agreeing to do that or agreed to support the UN.
No where on those forms is there anything which would compromise the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there was something there then we could read it on those forms ourselves — as some critics would expect — but instead there is simply nothing there. —See the original 1991 forms
You will also notice that there doesn't even seem to be a place to put a signature. This corroborates what the Watchtower Society itself said in it's letter to The Guardian newspaper, where the spokesman for the London Bethel explained, “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”
So in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.
Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.
To illustrate, imagine you join a video-rental store, such as Blockbusters. The membership form you completed when you join is simple and straightforward, entitling you to access any of the videos you wish. Strangely, it doesn't even require a signature. Then, 10 years later, the video store turns around and says, “Oh, by the way, although it wasn't on your membership form, and you haven't signed anything to this effect, you have agreed to rent pornographic videos on a regular basis.” Say what? No, that cannot be. No one can turn around and say “you agreed to this, you agreed to that” a decade later — especially since you never signed any form stating such things. Yet this is the exact scenario with the Watchtower Society found itself in with the DPI and their changing requirements.
Although the evidence indicates that the Watchtower Society never signed or completed one document that said they would support the United Nations, for a moment let's do as many critics do, and pretend that the evidence doesn't exist. Let's pretend we have evidence that the Society did indeed sign a document where they agreed to support the UN and the principles of the UN's charter. What implications would such an agreement have? Would it compromise our Christian beliefs?
The word “support”, in English, is a general term, and we are not at all helped in defining exactly what it means to the UN. In their documents they do not stipulate exact specifications of what it means to support the UN and the principles of their charter — neither in a practical nor philosophical sense.
According to Websters, when the word “support” is used as a verb, can mean to “uphold or defend as valid; to furnish corroborating evidence for; to act in a secondary or subordinate role to.” Using these definitions, what are the implications of supporting the UN and it's charter?
When the Watchtower Society began educating the public on the United Nations and it's place in Bible prophecy from 1945 onwards, it could be said that our support was to “furnish corroborating evidence for” to the UN whether we intended to or not — at least in the sense of educating the public in what the UN is, what it is there for, and what it does. The UN wants the public to know about its existence and relevance in the world. That is why even organizations which criticize the UN's failings can remain DPI NGOs — as did the Watchtower Society. Since the DPI is there to disseminate information it is reasonable to believe that the definition “to furnish corroborating evidence for” would be the applicable definition for the word ‘support’ in this case.
However it is also true that by being “in subjection” to the governments as Romans 13 tells us to do, we are supporting them in that we are acting in a “secondary or subordinate role.” It says:
“Everybody must submit to the ruling authorities for none exists without God's permission and it is he who puts them in their place. So anyone who opposes the authority is setting himself against God's arrangement, and those who do so will only bring punishment upon themselves. ... So pay to all what is due, the property tax to the tax collector, customs to the customs officer, and respect and honour to all whose positions call for it.” —Romans 13:1-2, 7; 21st Century New Testament, Insight Press, Bristol, UKLets say that the definition to “uphold or defend as valid” is what is meant by the word ‘support.’ By paying our taxes and being in subjection to God's arrangement, true Christians support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of all human governments, for by doing any different we would be setting ourselves “against God's arrangement”. We uphold and defend as valid the application of the constitution of the country we live in when it does not conflict with Bible principles. For example, this would particularly apply to the right to choose and practice one's own faith. This includes the Bill of Rights if you live in the United States, the European Convention on Human Rights if you live within the European Union, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within every UN member state.
Furthermore, we use the court system of many countries to advance true worship; Many brothers and sisters sign documents which state they will protect the constitution or laws of the land they reside in. Yes, we support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of the governments put in place by God, for “none” exists without God's permission and “it is he” who put them in their place — yes, including the United Nations.
thirdwitnoid,
You obviously have not read anything here, so before a full reply please read the posts again.
steve
As respects articles submitted to the UN:
Notice how Mr. Hoeffel quotes from 1992 requirements. He quotes the part that the “principle purpose of ... [DPI NGOs] is the re-dissemination of information in order to increase public understanding ... of the United Nations”. The Watchtower Society was already interested in doing exactly that — and had been doing so for decades, ever since the UN was formed.
During World War II the League of Nations had, for all intents and purposes, ceased to function in any practical or meaningful way. However, The Watchtower magazine reckoned on the re-emergence of the League of Nations in a new form, after interpreting the contents of the prophecies in Revelation. Yes — the Watchtower Society was interested in educating the public on the United Nations and how it will play a part in Bible prophecy — even before it was formed! Ultimately the Society has been interested in educating the public on how the UN, along with all other governments, will be replaced by God's Kingdom under the rule of Christ. Yet the UN and it's activities are still not very well-known by the General Public. Hence, the Society is very interested in educating the public about the “principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies.” Hence, we know the Society would be happy to continue to do something it was already doing.
Thirdwitness,
Your site said the 1994 brochure did not say anything about the need for associated NGOs to support the UN. I pointed out how you left out page 7 of that brochure and only cited page 6. Will you update your website to correct the error?
Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.
There is no proof of changing requirements. To the contrary, the press releases from 1992 that I linked above and page 7 of the 1994 brochure which you've ignored show that there has been no real change.
