by Dogpatch 21 Replies latest jw friends
Well, the Society's motives regarding their UN involvement as an NGO don't affect my life at all.
But this sure seems to be very incriminating evidence. I'd like to see a scan of the letter, however.
(Not that it makes much difference to JWs.... the UN DPI letter plastered everywhere a few months ago was called 'a forgery, an obvious cut-and-paste job' by the JWs I showed it to... LOL)
Reborn2002 says,
I think one sentence about sums it up for all the blind Rank& File out there.Not so fast."The issuance of a library pass is independent of NGO status or any other status."
Go fu<K yourself Watchtower.
The letter from Senior Reference Librarian Dana Loytved seems incomplete and to have been copied from the one from her boss, the Head Librarian, who makes it clear that NGO's which have been accredited have access to the library, and what remains is very misleading.
Here is the Head Librarian's letter from Randy's site:
* http://www.thetruthhurts.freeservers.com/dag.htm
1) Although the Dag Hammarskjöld Library and the NGO Section are both within DPI, admission to the Library is not related to NGO status except in the positive sense: anyone with a pass permitting entrance to the United Nations premises (including accredited NGO representatives as well as accredited members of the press) can enter and use the Library facilities. Otherwise, a library pass is required. Passes are granted to serious researchers upon presentation of a letter with the raised seal of your institution and subject to clearance by both the Library and UN Security.I think it's fair to say that "accredited NGO representatives" is the same thing as "NGO's affiliated with the UN Department of Public Information."
Who submitted the Loytved letter to the forum? Is the original on a web site?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
William Powell notes,
So it looks like the WT/GB has been caught in another lie. Seems like they the GB are getting deeper and deeper in s*** on this one.I don't think the Reference Librarian's descriptions fully describe the actual situation, nor are they enough to justify anyone calling the Watchtower a liar. What follows is largely a reprint of a post I recently made to the Scandals forum:
Excerpts below from the Head Librarian's letter (emphasis added):
I offer this excerpt in case there's any doubt in anyone's mind that DPI affiliation gains one entrance into the main library. The librarian's statement shows that "accredited NGO representatives" are permitted entrance, and I think we can assume that this includes representatives of NGO's affiliated with the Department of Public Information.Although the Dag Hammarskjöld Library and the NGO Section are both within DPI, admission to the Library is not related to NGO status except in the positive sense: anyone with a pass permitting entrance to the United Nations premises (including accredited NGO representatives as well as accredited members of the press) can enter and use the Library facilities. Otherwise, a library pass is required. Passes are granted to serious researchers upon presentation of a letter with the raised seal of your institution and subject to clearance by both the Library and UN Security.
Let's continue with her letter:
I am not aware of any changes in 1991.The last sentence goes to the heart of one of the controversies surrounding the Watchtower-UN issue: Is it true that there were changes in the admissions policy in 1991, as the Watchtower alleges?
The Head Librarian's statement does little to answer that question. She does not say definitely that there were no changes, or that there were changes; she is just "not aware" of any changes. We need more than this. We need to know whether she was at the library in 1991, and if she was, whether she was in a position to know then what the policy was.
If she was not there, or was there but didn't know one way or the other whether there was a policy change, we need to find someone who was there, and who does know, for sure. Only when we obtain a letter from such a person stating that there was no change should we consider calling the Watchtower a liar in this matter. Even if the Watchtower doesn't treat others fairly, would not waiting for better information before shouting "Liar!" be the fair--and intelligent--thing to do? If not, why not?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
The following is a copy of a post I made this morning to the Scandals forum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Many on this forum have been too quick to jump to conclusions, and the cause of this has been the tendency to accept as the gospel truth almost all allegations against the Watchtower. While I cannot say that I understand what's in the hearts and minds of all those who have been victimized by the organization, because I've experienced none of what they have, I think I understand in part their motivation. I support 100% the goals of all of those on this forum who wish to bring about major change in the Jehovah's Witnesses culture. However, I do not think it will be helpful in the long run for these well-meaning folks to make accusations which are not fully supportable.
As an objective observer, I've found that some of the claims of certain forum members have been widely accepted as truth, when in fact they were false. Saint Susan, for example, several weeks ago told me and this forum that it was true that the Watchtower representatives had signed a paper saying that they accepted the aims and goals of the United Nations. That is not true; he believed it was true because others also believed it, so evidently he believed it, too. Hawkaw insisted once that Paul Gillies had stated that the Watchtower had applied for affiliation because that was the only way to obtain a library card, but he had evidently misread or misunderstood the letter; we now all know that all Gillies said was that the only reason they affiliated was to obtain a card; there's a huge difference in meaning, as we all know. The former meaning makes Gillies a liar, while the latter--the correct one--does not. Not too long ago, Dino stirred up a lot of excitement with his claim that the Interfaith Center had received a request on letterhead stationary from the Watchtower asking that Jehovah's Witnesses be listed as one of the Center's interfaith organizations. I showed that this was completely false, but not until after a lot of trusting people's hopes had been raised. As a final example of the type of misinformation that has been spread (unintentionally, I believe, by sincere and well-intentioned people) is this current issue dealing with the librarian. In this or another thread, someone put up a letter from the Senior Reference Librarian which contained much the same language as is found in another letter from the Head Librarian, but which leaves out essential and exculpatory information. The former letter would lead one to believe that NGO affiliation is not taken into account in granting grounds passes, when quite the opposite is true, as is made clear in the Head Librarian's letter. Thus, several people immediately jumped on the former letter as damning evidence against the Watchtower; they want to believe the Watchtower lies, so they will seize upon anything, it seems, to satisfy this need.
Now, some on this forum have raised many issues related to the Watchtower-UN “scandal.” They all should be discussed, but only at the proper juncture. First things should come first. One of the first things to be discussed is whether the Watchtower’s explanation of why they affiliated is plausible. Other things should come later. If the Watchtower is shown not to have lied about this, then all of our attention can be turned to the next most important matter, which is, Did the Watchtower associate itself with the United Nations in a way that they would have never permitted the rank and file to do, or was the “relationship” much less than that?
For now, I think we need to focus our attention on facts of 1991: Did the rules for access change, or did they not change? I’ve written a letter to the library asking for clarification. If they respond, I will tell the forum what they’ve said. There are those who say it should not be up to the Watchtower’s accusers to find proof that the libraries rules did not change; they say that the Watchtower should prove that it is not guilty. But, that attitude is indefensible, I believe. In the United States--though perhaps not in Great Britain--one is assumed innocent until evidence is brought by the prosecutor which proves one guilty. Forum members have made an extraordinary claim about the Watchtower--that Gillies was lying about the rule change in 1991--so these members should come up with the extraordinary evidence that proves the Gillies was lying. Is not that the fair way to do things?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph, the issue is not whether DPI membership gets one into the library, it's whether NOT having DPI membership PROHIBITS its use.
The WTS claimed that it was REQUIRED for them to become associates IN ORDER to have access to the library. This is a blatant lie. They could have had access without becoming associates.
Why do you continue to defend the indefensible?
Alward...
I admire your intentions to seek the complete story and all credible facts before reaching a conclusion.
The fact remains the WTBTS for whatever reason... knowingly registered with the United Nations as an NGO. This is not disputable.
Why was no announcement made pertaining to this in any Service Meeting or magazine to the flock? It's well known that a relatively recent Awake article was dedicated to the United Nations concerning Human Rights.. what better opportunity for the WTBTS to promote itself as humanitarian and "walking Jehovah's way" and go ahead and announce their affiliation and purpose for doing so? They couldve covered their own asses that way.
Do the math.
They had something to hide.
It's no secret independent thinking is heavily discouraged on the inside. I know, I was a Witness for 20 years.
Its also indisputable fact that when this news broke that the WTBTS was affiliated with the UN, their PR vehemently denied it, they quickly disassociated themselves, and then stated they registered for the purpose of access to a library, when if any individual witness had worked for the "Wild Beast" they would be subject to loss of priviledges or even DF.
Double standard? You DONT SAY.
I fully expect any active Witness to be in denial over such an event.
If I was still devoting my entire life to believing without equivocation that the WTBTS was the "sole channel of communication from Jehovah".. which they have claimed several times in magazines, only to discover they were at the same time REGISTERED with the United Nations, I would be devastated.
Pick apart this post any way you like. The real truth stands on its own.
The true Kingdom of God is located in your heart, not an organization of hypocrites.
www.geocities.com/latinloverchicago/Jason1.html for my new webpage and info!! Im trying to live now!!
No response JA?
Ive noticed youve had ample time to respond thoroughly on several other threads...
You quote me and I reply and now your silent.
Reason?
Not flaming or being sarcastic, just curious. Perhaps you overlooked the thread.
The true Kingdom of God is located in your heart, not an organization of hypocrites.
www.geocities.com/latinloverchicago/Jason1.html for my new webpage and info!! Im trying to live now!!
Reborn
Yes, it's true that I've overlooked this this thread; I was occupied with other things.
If a quick read of what you written serves me well, it seems that you want me to address the fact of the affiliation, not the motivation for it?
Well, that was not the intent of my response to this thread, though I have recognized in other threads how desperately important this issue is to a great many former and current Jehovah's Witnesses.
My opinion is that if the Watchtower led a great many people to believe that any type of "association" whatsoever with the United Nations was not to be tolerated, then the Watchtower clearly betrayed all of those people when it affiliated with the Department of Public Information, or else it did a terrible job of conveying what it wanted the rank and file to believe. Either way, the Watchtower failed these people, and we may take this as evidence that the Watchtower's decisions are not guided by Jehovah.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Excellent observation JA, I could not agree with you more.
:)
The true Kingdom of God is located in your heart, not an organization of hypocrites.
www.geocities.com/latinloverchicago/Jason1.html for my new webpage and info!! Im trying to live now!!
Joseph,
I welcome your cautious even handed approach. We must be careful and certain of our ground before calling any one a liar. I mean, could there be more than one library? we have reference to the Dag Hammersjold (probably misspelt) library but could the WT be talking about another one?
I too received the standard "Library card " letter ,word for word the same as shown on the net - in response to an inquiry of the WT.
All scandalls have two possible causes, conspiricy or cock up , I favour the latteras a most likley explanation.
