No Change in 1991 - Library Card

by Lionel_P_Hartley 19 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Dino

  Hello Lionel.

  I just wanted to add my thanks for your time and effort in this matter.
  As Hawk noted, if it was not for JosephAlward this issue would not remain to the fore. And I guess we should be thankful for his apparent pedantry in this. I mean no offense to Joseph in saying that. We all hold our belief system dear.
  Lionel, your tenacity has been invaluable throughout this debate. It must have been exhausting. While Joseph's objections are important, I personally think you should be commended equally.

  Thank you, thank you, thank you.
  Dino

  PS I also find myself largely in agreement with Noam Chomsky.
  Have you read anything by Micheal Parenti?
• 

  JosephAlward

  A post this morning from Loytved's office makes it clear that they would not be in a position to know about rule changes relating to the granting of the type of pass that the Watchtower had prior to, and after 1991.

  Actions on grounds passes, which provide access to UN Headquarters facilities in general (including, but not limited to, the UN Library), are not initiated by the library and we have no information about past and/or present practices. The UN Library exclusively deals with library passes which entitle the bearer only to access to the library, not to other facilities at UN Headquarters.

  For access options for NGOs, please contact the NGO Section:

  It seems that the grounds pass was what allowed the Awake! writers not only to have free access to the main library, but also free access to the various offices ("other facilities") at UN Headquarters, where I believe the interview on the 29th Floor took place, for example, and other offices or bureaus in which information relating to humanitarian programs may be found. Thus, it seems the access to information the Watchtower was referring to may have not been just the information on texts in the library, but also that information which could only be obtained via interview.

  To show that the Watchtower was lying about a rule change, accusers will need to obtain a statement from the NGO section similar to the one from Loytved, saying that changes in the rules for grounds passes did not occur in 1991.

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

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

  outnfree

  Joseph,

  I agree that "to show that the Watchtower was lying about a rule change, accusers will need" to have a statement from the NGO section.

  HOWEVER,

  what part of the Society's "at the United Nation's library facilities" don't you understand?!!!

  Lionel is correct that you are shifting the argument.

  What you seem not to be getting, Joseph, is that the Watchtower's having a UN grounds pass for access prior to 1991 is also a problem. They would STILL have been fornicating with the beast, not maintaining strict neutrality, a huge no-no for the Jehovah's clean, untainted, no-part-of-this-world organization.

  outnfree

  It's what you learn after you know it all that counts -- John Wooden
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Dino,

  Thanks. I will check out Parenti's stuff - I wasn't aware of it.

  The remarkable thing about all of this the obvious fact that, if the WTS wanted to be honest then they would have issued a straightforward statement. Alward is spending his time trying to defend the WTS when he could just as well call up Harry Peloyan or someone in the WTS's Office of Public Information and ask for clarification. After all, why would an organization that is interested in telling the truth be reticent to provide much needed clarification to a serious academic researcher? He could also ask how long a creative day is while he's about it.

  It goes like this:

  (i) Please can you tell me precisely what changes occurred in 1991 that caused you to affiliate as an NGO with the UN?

  (ii) Was it necessary to register as opposed to being convenient? If so why?

  (iii) Was it merely access to the library that you wanted or access to other aspects of the UN grounds?

  (iv) What does "library facilities" mean specifically? Does it include conferences organized in the library, or under its auspices.

  (v) Do you still teach that a creative day is exactly 7000 years long?

  I'm highly delighted that I was able to anticipate Alward's new argument - that access did not mean "access to the library" but access to other kinds of research material - material that affiliated NGOs would need to pursue their joint goals with the UN.

  We could probably devote an entire thread to the analysis of what is "research material."

  It all demonstrates that the WTS is extremely skilled in the art of deceit. They choose their words extremely carefully so that they can lie by telling what, according to some outlandish explanation is the truth. It's deceit - plain and simple.

  For example, maybe a WTS writer developed a crush on the girl behind the UN desk. This made it necessary that the WTS affiliate so that the writer could have access to the library to perfom his research on what she liked to wear.

  See how easy it is - honest statements do not permit of multiple conflicting interpretations.

  That is why the WTS makes statements the way it does - it's called theocratic war strategy. As all exJWs and JWs know, lying by telling the truth, or by intentionally misleading, is part of the WTS's theological structure.

  LPH
• 

  hawkaw

  Note carefully what the WTS says

  Our purpose in registering with the Department of Public Information as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1991 was to have access to research material available on health, ecological and social problems at the United Nations library facilities. We had been using the library for many years prior to 1991, but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access

  Now I also noted what LPH stated:

  Taken literally this statement is talking about access to research material as opposed to access to the library specifically. Research material might include, for example, conferences which NGOs would have access to in addition to the library. The WTS throws in the clause about the library to ensure that that connection is made by the reader, but it does not say "access to the library" it says "access to research materials" and the second reference to access clearly refers to the first.

  The whole thing is that the WTS did not need to access the main UN library or the UN grounds for access to research material available on health, ecological and social problems at the United Nations library facilities.

  All of this material is available at UN depository libraries - four of which are available to the WTS in New York and no pass necessary that says you must support the UN charter. Thus, in my opinion the WTS is not being honest with its rank and file and the public.

  Plain and simple the WTS never needed access to go to the UN main library to access the "research material". If the UN depository didn't have it the WTS still could access it through the interlibrary loan system that the UN and its depository libraries have in place.

  hawk
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Hawk,

  Exactly. The WTS's letter is pure deception. That it can be taken so many different ways demonstrates just how slithery the WTS is when it comes to the truth.

  There is more than enough evidence to make the charge that the WTS was lying it way out of this, and if Alward would stick to what he has previously stated to be sufficient evidence of lying then he'd agree too. But his premise is "The WTS didn't lie" and so the debate must be shifted - and new standards for veracity invented - every time his conditions are met.

  Unless he is lying himself, the fact that we have all spent so much time interpreting such a short letter - and that Alward is still seeing new interpretations - demonstrates that the letter was intended to deceive. As I have stated repeatedly, if it were not then the WTS would answer honest inquiries candidly. They won't. Instead they have instructed all branches to sing the same tune, and that tune is a letter that nobody seems able to understand - except for its target audience, the trusting Dub. And they get hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick.

  LPH
• 

  AlanF

  Joseph, I think that Lionel's suggestion to call a Brooklyn official is a good one. Call the main Brooklyn, Bethel phone number (718-560-5000) and ask to speak with Harry Peloyan about the matter. Peloyan is the editor-in-chief of Awake! magazine and therefore had to approve the yearly Awake! articles that purported to demonstrate Watchtower support for UN goals, which were required for continued renewal of the associated NGO status. Peloyan is also the boss of Ciro Aulicino, who since 1991 has been listed as the contact man between Watchtower and the UN. Ask Peloyan about as much stuff as you can manage before he hangs up on you.

  AlanF
• 

  waiting

  .
• 

  Five Gospels

  Let's focus on the meat of the matter:

  Our purpose in registering with the Department of Public Information as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1991 was to have access to research material available on health, ecological and social problems [...]

  I don't think the rest matters that much. First, since "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (1 Tim. 3:16,17 RSV) no additional "research material" is necessary in order to fulfill Christ's commission to feed His sheep. The scriptures alone are sufficient. Second, by their own teachings, it is wrong for a Christian to become associated in any way with false religion, (any religion but theirs) or any political entities, especially that "abomination to God" that is the United Nations. Any JW that shows any support for such things is, by his or her own actions, disassociated from the "worldwide Christian Organization." I don't think it can be argued that association with the PDI was not support. The DPI itself refers to its associate NGO's as partners and it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the WTS upheld its end of the partnership. They may claim "theocratic war strategy" and insist that they had their "fingers crossed" the whole time, but accessing information for books or magazines is not crucial to people's spiritual welfare, i.e. the end does not justify the means.

  Thus any justification is a lie unless (1) it can be demonstrated that God required them to access research materials available only at the UN library (I hope this doesn't giv'em any ideas), (2) they concede that the scriptures alone are insufficient to properly educate the man (or woman) of God that he (or she) may be complete, equipped for every good work and that research material available only at the UN library was necessary to complement the scriptures, (3) they reveal "new light," i.e. now its ok to be associated with political entities as long as it's for "research." But even these justifications would be just that, justifications, and with the exception of (1) their actions would still be wrong in the minds of most believers.

  Just in case there is still any doubt, the true "litmus test" as to the wrongness of the actions of the WTS on this matter is to observe the reaction of a typical JW (not ex-members, but the sincere, albeit misled, member) upon learning about the Society's former association. "That information cannot be correct!" or, "its a fabrication of apostates!" It most definitely offends their sensibilities and their initial reactions speak volumes.

  F G
• 

  Nassau

  Perfect argument Five Gospels! Why should we continue to try to search for good excuses for all these lies! In Portugal they have used completely different arguments for the same shit.
  Nassau