Watchtower Propaganda

by JosephAlward 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  Joseph,

  I think we can agree that you are technically right - the Society never really intended to support the UN and they never technically signed anything that said they would. The fact that they voluntarily associated themselves with the UN (the scarlet beast) at all is the issue - no matter what the motive. The fact that UN expected them to uphold the charter because of their association is just the icing on the cake.

  Just as you pointed out above, becoming associated with the DPI was not necessary to gain access to the UN library. Also, no change was made in access requirements in 1991 that made the Society's association necessary (as opposed to the year before when they supposedly had library access). Also, the fact that there are several depository libraries accessible to the Society that do not require the same security clearance shows that this association was completely unnecessary if all they wanted was research material. (These depository libraries have most of the same material as the UN library and they can borrow materials from the UN library if they don't have those materials on hand).

  We all know that either they really didn't know the requirements (or expectations) or they lied to the UN. I believe the latter because of the fact that the Society had to renew their association status regularly and all of the brochures and press releases are quite clear. Also, if they were ignorant of the requirements, then there would be no reason to keep the association quiet. Hardly any JW's know that the WTBS was associated with the UN - even after all this coverage. The Society clearly wrote some neutral to nice articles about the UN in the Awake! magazine. Why did they not announce their association in that magazine? Why was it a secret if there was no problem with this association?

  Perhaps an outsider does not understand the significance of the association. An outsider probably does also does not understand how secretive the inner workings of the WTBS are. The Society counts on it's followers to be trusting sheep who mistrust any outside information. That is how they can keep a public membership secret.

  The WTBS association with the UN is offensive to JW's. Here is a test: Tell almost any active JW that the WTBS was associated with the UN and they will say you are lying. They will not believe it - because it goes against their concept of Christian neutrality. If the association, for whatever reason, was not a big deal, then the JW's would have no trouble believing it.

  My father and my in-laws still believe the UN website was hacked. Why do they think this? Because to them, average witnesses they are, any association between the WTBS and the UN would be unthinkable and must be the work of apostates. It actually takes a bit of work to actually convince a JW that the story is true - I was able to convince a JW coworker of mine and he was seriously troubled by the news. Why?

  Like I said, you may not be able to understand why this is such a big deal because you weren't raised in this environment. You may be correct that the WTBS didn't actually agree to support the UN, but that is not the issue at all. The issue is that there were any ties between the WTBS and the UN at all. It's extremely hypocritical of this organization to do this voluntarily when they would disfellowship a rank and file member for doing something similar. The fact that the UN expected the WTBS to uphold it's charter as an NGO (and made no secret about it) is just the icing on the cake.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  JosephAlward

  Rem notes,

  My father and my in-laws still believe the UN website was hacked. Why do they think this? Because to them, average witnesses they are, any association between the WTBS and the UN would be unthinkable and must be the work of apostates.

  I would think that all you would have to do to convince them that there is at least some "association" with the United Nations is have them dig out their copy of Awake!, November 22, 1998, and have them look at page 6.

  A copy of this page is found on the web page at * http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Watchtower_Propaganda.htm

  There they will find a photograph of the High Commissioner of Human rights, taken by a United Nations Department of Public Information photographer, J. Isaac. Such photos are publishable only with permission of the UN; how else would the Awake! editor have obtained such a photo if not by asking the UN for it? Furthermore, how would your father and in-laws explain away the fact that a Jehovah's Witness--the writer for Awake! --actually walked up into the very symbol of the beast itself, way up onto the 29th floor of the United Nations building? If this is not a type of "association"--rubbing shoulders with representatives of the purple beast--then what else would it be called?

  Many other Awake! articles would serve equally well to convince your family that connections to the United Nations have existed at least since 1998. Once they see that evidence, ask them again whether they think the UN website was hacked; I'd like to know what they have to say.

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

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

  crownboy

  Joseph,
  I also think you are misunderstanding the rules of "theocratic warfare". You seem to believe that what the society was implying in the old Watchtower about "deiceiving opposers" of "the truth" would condone the activity they had with the U.N. You are wrong in this regard.

  The "deception" talked about there referred to witholding information from superior authorities or individuals who might oppose the work of Witnesses. A good example would be a brother not telling the police or an informant where Witnesses meet in a country where their work is banned. It would not include joining the police force (even in a capacity that does not deal with persecuting Witnesses directly), then figuring out a way to sabotage the police or governments plans in trying to stop the Witnesses. Your example of the Witnesses joining the U.N. to sabotage it would be similiar. No Witness in a country were Witnesses are persecuted would give a "thumbs up" to a brother who joined the government to change the government policies, because just the act of associating with the government, of being part of Satan's system (all earthly governments are thought to be under Satan's system, but the UN is still seen in a worse light than most of the earth's individual governments) would be considered noxious, and that brother (or sister) would be immediately disfellowshipped.

  So your argument that the Watchtower fooled the U.N. into thinking they supported their charter, even though they didn't may indeed be true but irrelevant. The fact that they may have only become an NGO to get the U.N. library card may be true, but even more irrelevant than the former point (as REM pointed out, the Society could have accessed the library materials sans the library card, so I personally feel there was even more for the Society to gain by their association, such as respectability in the eyes of certain governments that may think them a cult). They couldn't use "theocratic warfare" as their trump card, because it does not include joining up with the enemy (the average Witness would respond to the "theocratic warfare" argument as favourably as the Society would respond to my saying I wanted to join the YMCA to help bring it down; whether or not either of us is true is moot because it "breaks the rules"). You seem to make light of the fact that the Witnesses knew that the U.N. expected a certain amount of loyalty from them, but that the Witnesses simply ignored it, thereby keeping them clean. Dishonesty is a sin, most Witnesses would get into trouble for pulling a stunt for that, and as I stated before this particular deceit does not fall under "theocratic warfare" so therefore it's not "deceit for God", just plain old unscriptural deceit. Plus, don't forget how quickly the society dropped association with the U.N. once the story went public. If the explanation was as simple as you put it, the society would not have discontinued their association with the U.N. and would simply have explained the situation in a letter to all congreagations, or at least to the elders (putting it in the magazines would be a tad riskier, as the U.N. people would have to read it too ).

  Hopefully I have helped in clearing up this issue for you, Joseph.

  Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!
• 

  rem

  Joseph,

  Like I said before, JW's are trusting of the WTBS. When they see the articles in the Awake! magazine (which hardly get read by JW's anyway) they see it in a different perspective than the outside world sees it. They see it as reporting on current events and they focus on the slant that only Jehovah's rule will bring permanent peace. JW's don't look at it as the Society carefully fulfilling their obligation to the UN. They know that we have to put on a different face to the outside world. It's doublethink in action.

  As far as the photographs are concerned, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a JW who realized that association with the UN DPI was necessary to obtain them. Most witnesses would never question them. I know that when I saw those pictures as a JW I just thought they were public domain. Yeah, I was ignorant, but I was a typical JW. Almost all JW's are ignorant when it comes to a lot of things outside of the Organization.

  The JW's are not concerned with the WTBS reporting on the actions of the UN - that is just keeping up with current events. But the act of formally associating themselves with the UN, no matter what the motive, is a totally different story. There is no need to be a DPI associate to provide news articles in the Awake! magazine that show what progress and setbacks the UN has had and how Jehovah's government will do better.

  Would the Society become a formal associate of the Catholic Church so they could report current events about it? Who knows now ;) , but if an individual witness chose to do that he would be disfellowshiped. We know that the society can keep up with the happenings of the Catholic Church without being associated with it and the same is true of the UN. There must have been another compelling reason for their association and I think it has to do with their Cult status that they are trying to fight in other countries.

  Their association with the UN gives them an air of legitimacy that might help them gain favor (they are having major legal battles in European countries). This is just a theory, but it's the only reason I can think of why they would risk this association. There had to be a bigger payoff than just a library card. That is why I believe the Society is being disingenuous in their explanation.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  siegswife

  Joseph, Giles said that the WTS registered as an NGO for the sole purpose of gaining access to the UN library. The librarian said "Grounds passes are obtained by submitting requests on "raised letterhead" from the institution you represent, and these requests must present evidence that there is a legitimate "research need" that will be met by library access; generally "one, or two, or three" persons only from that institution may use the grounds pass. Grounds passes are not issued when one becomes affiliated with the DPI because the DPI does not issue grounds passes; the security department of the library issues those. NGOs affiliated with the DPI would still have to submit a request for a grounds pass on raised letterhead, but the fact of the affiliation would stand as evidence of a legitimate research need, so no further evidence would be necessary."

  That says to me, that the WTS still had to submit a request for library access even AFTER becoming an NGO, they just didn't have to do a little extra legwork by supplying evidence of the need for that access. Being an NGO didn't really contribute at all to the library pass.

  Another thing to remember that although they didn't have to provide proof of need for the library pass, as an NGO they DID have to submit examples of articles promoting UN propaganda. I would think for the sake of their beliefs they would rather supply the proof needed to get library access rather than the meeting the criteria of being an NGO associated with the DPI.
• 

  detective

  Okay. I think understand. The Watchtower didn't need to become an affiliated NGO to access the library. Thanks for clearing that up, Alward. Your conversation with the UN just verified what we already know. Not only could they access information without affiliation, they CHOSE to affiliate with the scarlet coloured beast. Their doing so was completely elective and a completely unnecessary to gather resources.
  If you believe that pathetic loophole attempt is in any way viable, you are seriously mistaken. You already shot (yet another) hole through their information acquiring motive. We already knew as much but you confirmed it.
  So what was their motive, Alward? It wasn't informational resource gathering because they didn't need to associate on an affiliate level for that. What was their motive?

  Mind you, if you say something about defeating the "beast" from within would you rather we point as we laugh at you or would that be rude?

  C'mon, you seem smarter than this.
• 

  JosephAlward

  This is where it stands, in my opinion:

  1. Some branches of the UN library require no pass to enter, but the best, and most extensive information the UN has is at the main library; for that library, one must have a "ground pass" to get by the guard.

  One way to get a ground pass is to register as an NGO with the Department of Public Information, and then submit a request for a pass on "raised letterhead" stationary. There are other ways to be given a pass besides becoming registering with the DPI. The Watchtower chose to register. While it's possible that the Watchtower might have had other reasons for wanting to register as a non-governmental organization, they said they did so only because they wanted full access to the UN library. A ground pass to Dag Hammerskold Library would do that. This is the explanation that Paul Gillies has given, but many have declared him to be a liar, but the evidence of lying seems entirely circumstantial, and is likely not to upset many people, not even former JWs, in my opinion.

  2. There is no evidence that the Watchtower ever agreed to support the aims, goals, and principles of the United Nations. The Watchtower may--or may not--have known that the UN expected the Watchtower to accept principles of the UN; the evidence against the Watchtower in this matter is also circumstantial, and is again unlikely to bother many current or even many former JWs.

  3. The Watchtower clearly knew that it was expected to provide evidence that its writings described the UN's activities. I won't go so far as to say that the Watchtower thought that it was "promoting" the UN's activities, though it is easy to see how the UN--and most others--would think that is exactly what they were doing. However, writing about the UN's activities doesn't go against Watchtower doctrine, but perhaps some will say the act of providing examples of its writings to the UN is a problem. I'm guessing that few JWs would see much of a problem in this, however. The Watchtower was describing the UN's failures in its writings, and who cares if they gave copies of the writings to the UN in order to continue their registration with the DPI? That's what most JWs would say, I'm guessing. Thus, once again, this is not a big problem, in my opinion.

  4. It's been noted time and time again that by far the biggest problem forum members have with this situation is that the Watchtower has "associated" itself in one way, or the other, with the "purple beast." The revelation that this has happened should be like a kick in the stomach to many of those who have treated the United Nations as if it manufactured the Ebola virus and shoveled it daily out its doors; any contact with the UN made one immediately unusable to Jehovah. Any contact whatsoever was virtually the same as sleeping with Satan to some JWs.

  If this attitude toward the United Nations IS fostered by Watchtower teachings, I certainly would agree that even if all they did was go up to the 29th floor of the UN building to interview someone for an article, they would have been commiting a crime against Jehovah. Case closed; there would be no need to debate the other issues, such as whether Gillies lied.

  Readers will have noted that I emphasized the word "is" above; that's because I don't know whether the Watchtower has, in fact, presented doctrine in its writings which clearly states that all association, connections, or contacts with the United Nations or its affiliates are to be avoided under penalty of disfellowshipping. Current and former JWs are in a position to answer this question; I am not, since I've never been a JW.

  I would like to know which Watchtower teachings--which articles in Awake!--make it clear that, say, agreeing to write about the United Nations, or walking into the United Nations building, goes against Jehovah. Naturally, I'm not looking for the words which spell such scenarios out specifically; just clear teachings against virtually any type of "association." Will someone supply those passages? If they exist, then I will then be able to understand why so many on this forum have insisted that the main thing is the "association," no matter how slight.

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

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

  OUTLAW

  The ASSOCIATION WAS NOT SLIGHT,IT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE,BY THIER OWN RULES!!...OUTLAW
• 

  rem

  Joseph,

  It is not against JW doctrine to go inside the UN building and interview someone. What is against JW doctrine is losing Christian Neutrality by aligning ones-self (even just the perception of it) with people and agencies/organizations that are against Jehovah's rule. The UN is basically the worst in the WTBS eyes, as it claims to be the hope for world peace. According to their doctrine, the UN organization is diametrically opposed to Jehovah's purpose.

  That is the issue - neutrality. Once the WTBS formally associated themselves with the scarlet beast they lost their "freeness of speech" as it's called. The forfeited their Christian neutrality, which is a disfellowshipping offense for rank and file JW's.

  The JW's pride themselves of being "without spot" from this corrupt world. How are they to distinguish between their religion and the Harlot riding on the beast in Revelation now? The WTBS was listed along with all of the other false religions, Babylon the Great. Another principle we learned as JW's that just a little leaven spoils the whole lump. We heard the illustration a million times "you wouldn't drink a glass of water with just a drop of sewage, would you?". Also "He that is faithful in least is faithful in most".

  All of these principles and doctrines of JW's plus the fact that the WTBS has demonized the UN in many articles converge on one conclusion. Formal association with the UN was wrong, according to JW doctrine. It was in the very least hypocritical, and most see it as much more - forfeiture of Christian Neutrality. I'm sorry I don't have the time or energy to post Watchtower and Awake! articles to spell these few points I've brought out, but they are extremely common within the religion. These points are inculcated into the minds of JW's over and over and over at the five weekly meetings they attend.

  I do appreciate you taking an objective look at this issue as it keeps us from exaggerating our claims. I do think you have a hard time understanding the reasoning of a typical JW, simply because you are a rational person and you haven't been through all of the indoctrination that we went through. To an outsider, it probably doesn't seem like a big deal at all. That's probably why no one is publishing this story in newspapers. But to JW's it is a HUGE deal. It goes against everything we were ever taught. The big ticket is our Christian neutrality, which we were taught to die for before giving it up.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  JosephAlward

  Rem,

  You’ve mentioned the importance of honesty in the Jehovah’s Witnesses outlook, and you’ve noted that the Watchtower abruptly ended its affiliation with the Department of Public Information soon after it was revealed that affiliated NGOs were expected to accept the aims and goals of the United Nations. You’ve also pointed out the average JW doesn’t know what’s going on in the outside world, and others have led me to understand that the average JW would believe whatever the elders told them irrespective of what they heard from “worldly” sources.”

  These facts present a problem for me.

  If the governing body wanted to continue to gain whatever benefits you believe the Watchtower was gaining from its affiliation beyond the library access, all it had to do was stonewall this issue by merely stating that outsiders were telling lies about the Watchtower. They would have gotten away with it, because, according to you—and I believe you, the average JW will believe whatever he is told by the organization. Thus, even though they could have gotten away with lying to the world-wide body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and thereby gained certain rewards, they chose not to do this—evidently because to do so would have been an act of dishonesty, which their doctrine forbids.

  Well, what conclusion are we to reach? If the honesty doctrine led the governing body after the revelation not to lie to maintain a beneficial relationship with the United Nations, then it logically it would also not lie about the reasons for its registration with the Department of Public Information. If the Watchtower refuses to lie on principle in one case, should we not expect it not to lie in other situations? Thus, it seems that the evidence points to a Watchtower which was not aware it was doing wrong—if indeed it was wrong, and which was being honest with the membership when it explained what happened. Where’s the wrong? They made a mistake, but how and why do you disfellowship the governing body for an honest mistake?

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

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