by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
If anything, it takes worship of the Watchtower Society to remain a JW.
Quite honestly, I would have thought that was obvious! Of course, the likes of 3W have to deny it, especially since they have this firm belief that the Organization™ is "Jehovah".
There is another thing Thirdwitness says here that bothers me.
I also have just realized why many of you have left the truth. It is because you worshiped the WTS. You worshiped the organization. And so when you saw that people in the organization were imperfect or saw wrongdoing or what you perceived as wrongdoing being committed, you were stumbled and left Jehovah and his people. On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization.
If you point out those imperfections, you are called "spiritually weak and going ahead of Jehovah's orginization." No, I will say it again, it takes total devotion and worship of the Watchtower Society to remain a JW.
On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization.
And keep their mouth shut! Or else! 3rdW when was the last time you read the baptismal questions? It makes it plain and clear who is to be worshiped.
jayhawk:
On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization.
Remember that a "true" JW wouldn't even be posting here!
Can someone explain why the articles in the g mag that are shown as evidence to show that the wts had nice things to say about the UN. According to the links I cited in my previous post, they show the UN citing g mag articles. Can eanyone expalin if this is a coincidence or on purpose.
Fisherman,
The best way to understand it is read an account of a Bethel researcher at the time of the societies initial association:
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barbara_anderson.htm
steve
3rd Witness..Having trouble debating??..What does Noah,70CE Christians,or AlanF have to do with your ability to understand:"The WBTS should have had nothing to do with the United Nations"?..Go ahead pick a topic..Noah,70CE Christians or AlanF and explain what any one of them has to do with,the WBTS association with the United Nations?..Every time you say something stupid you will be called to account for it..You and your team of Idiots put your heads together and try to come up with an intellegent reply...OUTLAW
Thirdwitness' ramblings in his post # 497 are a good illustration of the warped psychology of Jehovah's Witnesses. JWs like thirdwitness simply cannot conceive that people might actually go off on their own and form their own opinions. No indeed, in the warped JW mind, people can only follow some leader like dumb sheep. From their infancy in the JW organization, people are trained to avoid critical thinking and to defer to JW leaders in every aspect of life.
Why do JWs like thirdwitness think that all people are dumb sheep? Because that's what they themselves are. Their minds have been so damaged by years of cult indoctrination that they don't trust themselves to think clearly, and must always defer to the "authority" of JW leaders to verify their beliefs. Indeed, most of us on this forum know very well that in the JW world, "harboring personal ideas" is among the worst of sins. People who do this and let others know about their ideas are quickly labeled "apostates" and either ignored or kicked out.
Case in point: Thirdwitness claims that I once worshiped the Watchtower Society and have replaced it with Carl Jonnson, secular chronology, and my own self. He simply cannot conceive that the reason I quit the JWs was precisely because I did not worship the Society, but thought for myself all along. That wasn't for lack of trying by the Watchtower organization and various JWs like my parents to indoctrinate me from infancy. JWs can barely understand that a thinking person can have a great deal of respect for someone, yet disagree in important matters, as I do with Jonsson and plenty of other fine scholars, and as many posters do with me.
Thirdwitness simply cannot conceive that people on this forum will agree with my posts only to the extent that I've proved my case, and that as soon as I post something they think is wrong, they'll not hesitate to argue for their view. While I try to post only what I think is true, and therefore will defend my views, people have proved me wrong and I've admitted it. But this does not happen in the JW world, where the Watchtower Society is never wrong because it speaks for God, and therefore no one should ever question it, and it never needs to admit having been wrong.
Thirdwitness is extremely hypocritical in labeling most posters as vile "apostates" -- even though being an apostate in JW-speak has nothing to do with being an apostate from God -- and then complaining about being called a liar when it is demonstrated time and again that he lies constantly in his posts.
Thirdwitness makes the stereotypical but false JW argument that people on this forum left the JW organization, not because they saw something wrong with the JW organization -- because there cannot be anything wrong with it -- but because they were stumbled by "human imperfection". This is based on the cultish claim of the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnessess -- that the JW Governing Body directly speaks for God and is to be viewed on the same level as God.
As has been pointed out, thirdwitness engages in this foolishness at this point because he is desperate -- he has run out of ways to convince himself that the Watchtower Society did not prostitute itself to the U.N. merely to get a library card. Thus he resorts to the only thing he can -- personally attacking the people who cause him distress. Of course, in this he is simply following Mommy.
The facts of the Society's shooting itself in the balls are simple to list in an informal way:
(1) In early 1991, Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino was told by U.N. staff, rightly or wrongly, that his free access to the Dag Hammarskjold Library at U.N. headquarters in Manhattan was contingent upon the Watchtower Society's becoming an Associated NGO with the DPI.
(2) Aulicino's bosses, including GB member Lloyd Barry and Editor-in-Chief of Awake! Harry Peloyan, did everything necessary to apply for Associated NGO status on behalf of the Watchtower Society.
(3) These men received application material from the U.N. that explained that one of the conditions of becoming an Associated NGO was that the applicant organization must support the U.N. Charter.
(4) Lloyd Barry instructed Ciro Aulicino to write a series of articles for Awake! that seemed to praise the U.N. and its goals, thus fulfilling its obligation to inform the public about the U.N. in accord with DPI requirements. These articles appeared in the September 8, 1991 issue of Awake!.
(5) In 1992 the DPI made press releases announcing that dozens of NGOs had received Associated status and explaining that their obligations included supporting the U.N. Charter.
(6) The U.N. DPI granted Associated NGO status to the Watchtower Society in early 1992.
(7) In 1992 the DPI sent to the Watchtower Society a pile of brochures explaining all of an Associated NGO's obligations, in particular that all NGO's must support, promote and respect the U.N. Charter.
(8) In subsequent years, in the DPI register of NGOs, Lloyd Barry was listed as the Watchtower offical who signed the Society up as an Associated NGO, Ciro Aulicino was listed as the Society's representative, and Service Department offical Robert Johnson was listed as the alternative representative.
(9) In subsequent years, articles seeming to praise the U.N. appeared from time to time in articles in The Watchtower and Awake!
(10) Ciro Aulicino continued to use the Dag Hammarskjold Library, and attended sessions of the U.N. General Assembly as an observer.
(11) At various times in the late 1990s, the Watchtower Society used its Associated NGO status to gain access to various political arenas to promote its own religious freedom and other agendas.
(12) About August, 2001, long-time JW critic Kent Steinhaug posted information on his website http://watchtower.observer.org (now defunct) that proved that the Watchtower Society was an Associated NGO.
(13) On August 27, 2001, the JWD poster MacHislopp started a new thread on this forum, "UNITED NATIONS , NGO's and WTBS" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/10732/1.ashx ), which started the ball rolling that led to the publication of an article in the October 8, 2001 issue of The Guardian exposing the Watchtower Society's duplicity in condemning the U.N. on the one hand while associating with the U.N. DPI on the other.
(14) On October 9, 2001 the DPI accepted the Watchtower Society's request to disassociate itself from the DPI.
Obviously, all of the above facts are verifiable by reference to various Internet websites. Various posters including me have given links to these sites in this thread. With such facts in view, it is no wonder that thirdwitness is unable to continue arguing that the Watchtower Society did not agree to support the U.N. Charter, and never did anything hypocritical in this matter.
AlanF
Fisherman said:
: Can someone explain why the articles in the g mag that are shown as evidence to show that the wts had nice things to say about the UN. According to the links I cited in my previous post, they show the UN citing g mag articles. Can eanyone expalin if this is a coincidence or on purpose.
See Barbara Anderson's comments here: http://www.freeminds.org/women/ciro_aulicino_UN.htm . The Society obviously published these articles seeming to praise the U.N. on purpose.
AlanF
I will make one last attempt even though much of this is a repeat of previous points covered. But for the sake of truth seekers I will do it again.
AlanF in italics.
This is a strawman for two reasons:
(1) Whether an agreement can be produced, or was even explicitly made, is immaterial to the fact that the U.N. itself has always considered acceptance of associated NGO status as an implicit acceptance of all of the clearly published criteria.
An agreement cannot be produced. That is the point. Try getting a loan by just filling out an application without signing an agreement as to how the loan will be paid back.
(2) Thirdwitness deliberately misrepresents what I said. What I said was that the act of applying for Associated NGO status constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria, whereas he turns this act into another sort of agreement (apparently he is demanding a written agreement). But the very act of accepting the Associated NGO status IS the agreement.
The act of accepting the associated status means that the DPI has determined that the NGO meets the criteria. Therefore if the DPI says the criteria is to 'support' the charter of the UN (which by the way is not worded that way in the 1994 brochure) it does not mean what you say it means. The DPI has determined what it means by accepting that NGO.
Did the Watchtower Society, by its acceptance of Associated NGO status and various other actions, agree to abide by criteria such as promoting and respecting all aspects of the U.N. Charter? Indeed it did,
Then show us that agreement signed by Lloyd Barry that you said you saw. Show us the original application signed by Lloyd Barry that you said you saw. Or even show us a blank application with a place for a signature agreeing to support the UN. Are you a liar? So it would appear.
First, I've already shown via U.N. materials, in my post # 4761 on page 21 of this thread, that the U.N. considers that the "very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria."
I notice you use quotation marks here when you say, "very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria." as if you are quoting some UN statement. Is that true? Or are you once again using an old wiley apostate tactic making things appear different from what they really are in an attempt to mislead the readers.
When any NGO applies for association, it receives a pile of written material explaining the Associated NGO's responsibilities, which include things like promoting and respecting the principles of the U.N. Charter. Therefore, if an Associated NGO claims ignorance of the requirements, it is lying.
That is an assumption on your part. Especially back in 1992. There has not been a brochure shown from 1992 and it is even doubtful that the WTS was sent such a brochure. And we know for sure that the 1994 brochure did not say 'support the principles and charter of the UN'. So yes the criteria did indeed change between 1994 and 2001 at least in the wording on the brochure. As for 1992, who knows how much it changed from then until 1994.
To mislead their readers, many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses, such as AlanF, quote from the current version of the DPI's NGO brochure and falsely claim that those requirements are what the Watchtower Society originally signed up to in 1991. The requirements given by the brochure for the DPI's NGOs include the requirement that the NGO "must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN". Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations in all their endeavors. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?
No. The critics are lying. They simply hope that you won't think too much about it, and that you won't delve a little deeper and discover the evidence that the NGO world has changed considerably since 1991. We do not have the brochure from 1991, but we do have a copy of the 1994 brochure, which is considerably different from the current version which the apostates quote.
In fact, the 1994 brochure even testifies to the very fact the requirements and expectations of the DPI's NGOs were changing. Page six of the 1994 document says this:
“A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities.”Indeed, the above statement proved accurate. For if we compare the current (2005) brochure to the 1994 brochure, we see major changes. For example, the 2005 brochure says the following:
“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;”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. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:
“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals.
Some have pointed to page 7 of the 1994 brochure where it says, that for the NGO must show that they "can prove, during the initial two years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring U.N. information in their publications and outreach activity."
It does not say support the UN by supporting the principles and charter of the UN. It does not say support the UN by supporting all their endeavors. The support spoken of is by writing articles about the UN. In other words the word support as defined in Websters dictionary in this case means 'to provide corroborating information'.
And remember it is the DPI that determines themselves whether they believe an NGO meets their criteria. The DPI looks at the information and decides themselves. So they are the ones who determine exactly what they mean when they use the word support.
More to come.
