by cedars 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
*** w53 10/1 p. 591 New World Society Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses ***
Then followed another meaty five-part symposium: “The Value of the Congregational Book Study.” Strategic location is important because of its being a service center; its conductor must set a good example in field service and be kind and patient. It serves as a training ground for new ones, to start out in the field and speak up at meetings. It is of special value in times of bans when only small groups can come together.
@cedars:
Look at "A Long Job Finished", "A View from the 29th Floor", "Human Rights and Wrongs Today" and "Human Rights for All -- A Worldwide Reality!", pages 3-14, Awake! , November 22, 1998.
This was their published "support" of the UN charter. They knowingly sugar-coated their views of the UN, published them in the Awake! to show their support of the charter of the UN. This wasn't a passing oversight.
MeanMrMustard
That is correct, an NGO must support the charter of the UN, including the Preamble. With the stated belief of neutrality, being no part of the world, especially part of the armed forces, how can they support the highlighed part below.
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
Blondie - thanks for that quote, which seems even more ludicrous now nearly 60 years "closer" to the "Great Tribulation". I recall at the time that the book study collapsed thinking that it contradicted the perceived logic of meeting in smaller groups as preparation for when the work would go underground. I'm still not altogether sure why they shut it down to this day, because I can't see LESS weekly brainwashing having a positive impact on the Watch Tower Society and its agenda. Your highlighted part of the UN charter is also significant. Precisely what armed force in the "common interest" did the Society feel they could consent to? Slaughtering apostates Jehu-style?!
MeanMrMustard - it doesn't surprise me that pro-UN articles found their way into the magazines during the time that the UN was being courted by the Society. A similar thing happened when they printed that tourist-ad article for Sydney (rather tellingly, not a single scripture was cited), for no other reason than because it was part of the negotiations for the International Convention venue that year. What I wouldn't give to get my hands on hard-copy correspondence between the UN and Watch Tower HQ proving what they were up to.
Cedars
Regarding the toxic waste, here is what one news article said:
"They found some drums while digging the foundation for one of their residential facilities," Hubicki said. The group immediately reported the drums to the DEC.
The WT might use this to defend themselves by making the following points:
Look how honest we were in reporting when we discovered the barrels.
We are in a new era of better understanding the environment and more comprehensive regulations. We are doing our part to conform to a new era of cleaner practices.
Thanks InterestedOne!
We are in a new era of better understanding the environment and more comprehensive regulations. We are doing our part to conform to a new era of cleaner practices.
I like the angle you have suggested they might play, even though the excuse itself is still terrible. True, I suppose any old excuse will suffice if the "library masterpiece" is anything to go by. However, for those of us who are able to think for ourselves, we can simply say "Pah! Since when has burying toxic chemicals in the ground been even a partially responsible approach to the environment?!"
There is also the fact that the Society themselves condemned the practice of burying barrels of chemical waste as potentially "ruining the earth" (see my article on the subject).
I definitely agree that they will try to play up the fact that they came clean about the spill, although personally I am dubious about exactly how the events transpired - particularly with the involvement of a so-called "whistleblower".
Cedars
Wow cedars, excellent point about "since when?" Also, thank you for pointing out the 11/22/1980 Awake article condemning burying chemical drums in the ground. I could see a loyal JW saying maybe the writer of that Awake article didn't know about the society's practice of such burial, and the burial might have occurred a long time prior. It would take some detective work to try to figure out what time period the barrels came from.
InterestedOne
It would take some detective work to try to figure out what time period the barrels came from.
I agree with this entirely - I think you've nailed it. I actually believe the whole pollution scandal would gain far greater momentum among normal Witnesses if people who knew the ins and outs were prepared to come forward. Unfortunately, for understandable reasons, at least one "whistleblower" is so far reluctant to do so. It's a shame.
Cedars
Here is a link where some WT apologists contribute to the toxic chemical discussion. It's so interesting to feel their vibe, even if it is that sick weasly vibe I get from the WT:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TILEP67BCSEEHC8S7
Slimboyfat - I've heard that before about ending the group study because of high fuel prices, is there a quote on that? Just curious.
