Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw 122 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hawkaw

  Wendy's comments are for page 1 of 4 of the application form. Note when you get the application form you also get a copy of th criteria. You have to sign the form in the "completed by" section and "date" it as well. Well done Wendy I keep forgetting that.

  .

  Yes you don't have to sign a piece of paper that says you must support the UN and promote it etc... However, we are dealing with CRITERIA for association. In other words you have to demonstrate these things to us and then we will accredit you.

  Just by going through a complicated process, they would have had to attach their not-for-profit corporation papers which was part of the criteria. They would also have to show corporate papers which was part of the criteria. They would also have to show the corporation's papers that show they have a "transparent" (or open) type of corporation which was part of the criteria. They would have to show their previous work supporting the UN which was part of the criteria. They would have had to give a financial statement that was part of the criteria. They knew about these parts of the Criteria but Joe argues that they didn't know about the other two - ie. support UN Charter and promote UN - The odds are 100% against you Joe.

  Thus, they had to meet the DPI's CRITERIA in order to get ACCEDITED. They would have received all sorts of documents with the DPI. The Watchtower must have known what they were into. Then, recalling the 1994 Brochure, they still had a 2 year period where they had to prove their loyality to the UN. Give me a break Joe.

  Just by initiating a "former" & "signed" letter for application the WTS must have known the process and thus, the criteria. They filled out an application form and signed it, submited some sort of references and received letters from DPI on accreditation. These letters would clearly outline that they MET the requirements and could be "associated with DPI".

  Now Joe thinks it is important that the WTS sign a criteria waver. But Joe this was the Criteria for "association" that the WTS had to prove initially to the UN so they could be associated.

  I guess maybe if it were a court of law one may (depending on the circumstances) get away with it but not in this case. A party has expectations and if you don't meet those expectations (or you falsified your papers to get in) you are in trouble. Also, we are not dealing with a court but with supposedly "honest" men who are suppose to be rightous. If they knew about the criteria, which obvisouly they did, then they should never have joined.

  I also think it is key that we have both direct evidence as well as indirect evidence. The Hoeffel letter clearly outlines what was expected by the WTS and what they had to support and promote (the UN). It is direct evidence. Clearly Joe refuses to believe it because he honestly believes that the DPI snookered the WTS by not getting them to sign a criteria waver form. Of course it was the WTS's job to prove to DPI that they met the criteria and if you ask me the WTS snookered the DPI.

  hawk
• 

  Satanus

  Hawk

  Unfortunately, this isn't a law court. If it was, all relevant documents would be subpeonaed. As it is, even without the signed document, the chain of evidence that the wt did 'an act of worship' (by its own definition, see posted material of wt quotes) of the un is complete

  Here are the links of the chain:

  1. Wt proved it qualified for ngo status (some lies here. compare http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/ngo-un/info/res-1296.htm Wt proves it has enough breadth to further un ideology along w its own)
  2. Wt applied (signed papers, followed requisit courses etc)
  3. Wt was accepted
  4. Wt carries out its part of the bargain (proved by the fact that it remained a member for 10 yrs, until it voluntarily withdrew)

  Verdict: wt guilty of transferring allegience from (in wt language) gods kingdom to satans kingdom through this whole chain of events, but specifically by signing the application for association with the un as an ngo.

  SS
• 

  Satanus

  edited because of duplication
• 

  hawkaw

  Fully agree S.S.

  If we produced a form Joe would come up with some other stupid arguement.

  For now I am going to stop posting on this thread I started. I have a few other matters to attend to. As you know Dino uncovered that the Nov 22, 1998 Awake article that the WTS submitted to DPI was found at the Office of the Human Rights Commisioner in Europe.

  The people there are now sending a copy of the document plus any correspondance from the source/author (ie DPI or WTS) to me via airmail. I expect it in next week.

  hawk

  One quick point in your last sentence. Its not "NGO status". The WTS was an existing NGO before, during and after their "partnership" with the UN. What the WTS got was, as an existing NGO, they received an "associate" status with DPI in 1992. Hope the terminology helps.

  Always keep that in mind. Right now the WTS is still an non-governmental organization. They just lost their "associate" status. Look at the definition in the front of the DPI/NGO brochure at the DPI's web site.
• 

  Satanus

  Thanks hawk. I will edit my post accordingly.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Here's the link to my summary of Watchtower articles which some people claim "disseminate UN propaganda":

  * http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Watchtower_Propaganda.htm

  I haven't had time to analyze all of the articles which mention the UN.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Gozz

  Joseph,

  there's an important point in your argument that the non-provision of the forms signed on by the Watchtower cannot be taken as evidence that such really exist. Your claim in the articles on your link that the Awake! articles were written as propaganda for the Watchtower and not the UN is only half of the story. The Watchtower will ordinarily not do a favour without having something to gain. And it is standard practice for articles to be ended with invitations to readers to welcome Jehovah’s Witnesses. The UN departments are themselves not so naïve to think they’re doing a perfect job, and the requirements of the DPI do not mandate the Watchtower to necessarily advocate UN programs as the solution. Those articles served their purpose excellently, part of which was simply to disseminate information about the UN.

  To conclude simply that the Watchtower was only naïve is to underestimate the extent of their guilt. The reaction of the Watchtower after their involvement became public knowledge is very much suspect (your argument states that since the Watchtower knew this would be the case, it getting involved with the UN was giving so much for so little).

  Some critics of the Watchtower claim that it knew that it was getting into bed with the purple beast, and hid this fact from the membership. This seems very unlikely to me. Isn't what actually happened is that the Watchtower believed that it was merely making use of the resources available to the enemy; doesn't everyone, everywhere, in all conflicts, try to do exactly the same thing, if the opportunity presents itself? The Watchtower likely didn't realize that the papers some of its officials signed made it look like they embraced the ideals of the United Nations. Sure, they look foolish for having overlooked the fine print--if that's what it was, or for just being too lazy to learn the conditions under which organizations could use the UN's resources, but that's not the same as being hypocritical.

  You probably assume that because the information about Watchtower’s association with the UN is ‘public’ information, then it would be exceedingly dangerous for the Watchtower to believe it would remain concealed. That is plausible, all things being equal. But the peculiarities of the subjects of the matter make this premise false. The Watchtower organization knows its members. In 1991/92, the Internet has not assumed the active importance that we have seen in recent years. The Watchtower also has a rich history of being able to get away with almost anything by way of explanation to its membership. If you are familiar with Watchtower-speak, you would see outright contradictions looming out of the pages of the magazines. It is not about logic or rationality, it is more about thinking on a plane that ordinary humans don’t. And that is a different story. You probably should get more familiar with Watchtower methods. Regular Jehovah’s Witnesses will accept things from the Watchtower that they never would if it were from elsewhere. The leadership knows this. And they bank on that all the time.

  Foolishness is about out of the question. The array of lawyers in the Watchtower den can read and understand the fine print. The Watchtower does. They are not lazy. An admission that they do not, or that something was somewhat overlooked in getting involved with the UN DPI will ruin a lot of their ‘spiritual’ claims. They know this, and they know the membership knows. The Watchtower was simply not using the resources of the enemy; they overstepped limits, and the evidence suggests they did so with their eyes open. It is my opinion that there will be more to emerge from the UN/DPI mire. The Watchtower has been hypocritical. And they have hidden the information about the UN/DPI affiliation from the membership. They are currently putting measures in place to ensure that the information remains concealed. Currently, one of the fastest ways to be officially reproved among Jehovah’s Witnesses is to ask probing questions about the UN issue. The reaction of the Watchtower to has been extraordinary.
• 

  hawkaw

  Hi Joe,

  I am going to defer my comments for a few weeks. There is a major reason why.

  However, in the interm I just wanted to point out that I did not observe page 5 in that Nov 22,1998 Awake! article. I could be wrong but just recheck to make sure.

  Anyway again - sorry but I will have to hold my comments for a couple of weeks.

  hawk
• 

  JosephAlward

  there's an important point in your argument that the non-provision of the forms signed on by the Watchtower cannot be taken as evidence that such really exist.

  I don't understand what you're saying in the sentence above, Gozz. Will you please explain?

  Those articles served their purpose excellently, part of which was simply to disseminate information about the UN.

  Yes, I certainly agree that the articles contain information about the UN, but since they are completely absent of praise for the UN, their existence does not represent evidence that they were fulfilling some kind of bargain some critics think it made when it applied for NGO status. These articles would have been written even if the Watchtower had not enjoyed such status, in my opinion. The UN is the great enemy of the Watchtower, so it is completely natural for it to be speaking out against it. To the Watchtower's credit, in my opinion, it now seems not to be striking out as hysterically against the UN in its Awake! articles as it once might have, but it nevertheless is making sure that its readers know that the UN is failing to solve the world's problems, and it seldom overlooks and opportunity to hint to its readers that the problems will only be solved by Jehovah and his followers. I think that while information about the UN is definitely getting out through, this is not evidence that this was one of the goals of the Watchtower. It would have been impossible to point out the failures of the UN without mentioning it, isn't that true. Thus, the only thing that is virtually beyond dispute is that these articles are propaganda for the Watchtower; much less clear is whether the Watchtower was trying to satisfy a requirement of the UN.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  hawkaw

  Hey Joe,

  Take each article separately.

  Lets say the one that goes from pages 3 to 5. (You know the one - the one you only have pages 3 and 4 for).

  Now put yourself in the position of a non-JW DPI person who doesn't have clue one what the WTS stands for.

  Now DPI receives this in the mail as one of the WTS annual reports on what the WT did for the UN.

  Would it look to a DPI person (that does not have clue one about what the WTS really thinks of the UN never mind political governmnents) that the WTS dissiminated the UN material or not???

  hawk

  - remember - this article is being written for DPI separately and not the Witnesses who are already preprogrammed for that last "questioning" paragraph (sorry about the word if I offend some).