My purpose in making posts about the accusations leveled against the Watchtower is to explain why I think that too much of what has been said on this matter has been hyperbole. Well-meaning current and former Witnesses are exaggerating the misdeeds of the Watchtower, in my opinion. I certainly could be wrong, but based on the evidence I've seen, I don't think so. Until I see better evidence, I will not believe, for example, that the Watchtower submitted an application or reapplication form on which they agreed to accept the aims and goals of the UN, nor will I disbelieve the Watchtower's claim that they believed they had to be affiliated with the DPI in order to fully access all of the UN's material (I interpret this to mean that they wished to remove materials from the library.)
When I first read in this forum and on Randy's site the allegations of hypocrisy, I was given the impression that the Watchtower accepted the aims and goals of the United Nations when they submitted their application form in 1991, and then reaffirmed their acceptance of these goals when they submitted reapplication forms. One forum member flatly stated that such a form existed, signed by the Watchtower, and many others led me to believe that this was true. When I looked more closely into these claims, I found that there has never been a requirement that the applicants for affiliation with the DPI sign a statement saying they accepted the principles of the UN.
While it's true that the UN expected that NGOs accept the UN's principles, the determination of whether this was true seems always to have been left up to the ones reviewing the application form. The determination was based on the organization's description of its activities; if, in the judgment of the reviewer, the activities seemed to be consistent with the goals of the UN--or at least, some of the goals--then it was just assumed that the organization accepted the aims and goals of the UN. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Watchtower accepted the goals of the UN; the UN may have thought they did, but what they thought, and what was actually true are two different things.
Thus, it is not true, as so many were claiming, that the Watchtower accepted in secret the aims and goals of the UN; all they did was allow the UN to believe whatever they wished to believe; to disabuse them of this notion would hamper the preaching work of the Watchtower, so not divulging the truth in this matter was entirely consistent with their teaching. At all times they must be very careful not to divulge any information to the enemy that he could use to hamper the preaching work. --The Watchtower, May 1, 1957, p. 285-286
I've also seen no credible evidence in rebuttal of Gillies' claim that the application was made to enable the Watchtower's writers access to UN material. Many on this forum have accused Gillies of lying about this, but I don't see enough evidence yet to justify this assertion. While it's no doubt true that much of the UN's material is available to the general public, why would an ID card not be required for those patrons who wanted to take materials out of the library? Gillies said the Watchtower's writer had an ID card, which was returned after the scandal broke; why would he lie about something that could so easily be checked? Has anyone checked this out? Is it true that certain materials could be removed from the library only by patrons carrying an ID card, and is it true that one way to obtain such a card is to become affiliated with the DPI?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
