The UN Thing - for new members

by Hmmm 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Hmmm

  On another thread someone asked about "the UN thing". I didn't want to hijack that thread, so here is the Reader's Digest Condensed Version.

  The "UN thing" in a nutshell:

  Acronyms Galore: In 1991 the WTS applied to be a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) associated with the UN's Department of Public Information (DPI). The application was signed by a member of the Governing Body and another Bethel Heavy. The application was approved in 1992.

  Supporting the Charter of the Wild Beast: NGOs had to agree to uphold the UN charter, and promote the UN in their literature. They had to reapply every two years and supply proof that they were doing this. (If you look at Awake! magazines from that period, you may notice a softer stance being taken against the UN, and promoting their food and educational programs.)

  Here's Betting they won't be quoting The Guardian Anytime Soon: In 2001 a group of rabid apostates found the WTS listed on the UN site and started proclaiming it to the heavens. Some news sources, particularly The Guardian (a London newspaper that the society often quotes) picked up on the story.

  New Light: 3.92348 milliseconds after it became public knowledge that the WTS had been whoring with Babylon The Great for a decade, the society wrote to the UN requesting to be dropped from the list.

  Plus They Validate Parking!: When asked, the society said they joined the DPI as an NGO to gain access to the Dag Hammarskjld Library--the famed "Library Card" excuse. They later said that the requirements to support the UN were not in place when they applied, but were snuck in some time later (1994 is usually the date they give).

  Demon-Possesed Hackers: The average R&F said that none of it was true: Hackers must have broken into the UN website and slipped the WTS into the list

  Do a search on this site for UN, or click the stats link and you'll see two UN threads among the most active threads of all time on this board.

  [Edit: Can't get the links to work]

  Happy reading,

  Hmmm

  Edited by - hmmm on 15 June 2002 12:58:19
• 

  HomebutHiding

  I have been an exJW for 5 yrs, and devoutly so for a little while less....even so, I am still really shocked about the UN connection. I wonder how I would have grappled with, or justified such as a faithful pioneer. Does the average pub know any of this? Was it dealt with in a reading of a pre-service meeting letter from the society?
• 

  HomebutHiding

  Just reread the info above...even if the rules were not in place until 94..after the GB requested NGO standing, I still cannot fathom that they did such...at all...for any reason. And to think, I didn't have children, go to college (until now, at 45) didn't attend parents' funerals, or sister's wedding, nephews' baptisms, etc. etc....all in a concerted effort to keep from touching "the unclean thing." I am shocked...really shocked, and I need to know if the ordinary publisher is aware of any of this.
• 

  Nowhere

  I am shocked...really shocked, and I need to know if the ordinary publisher is aware of any of this.

  No, not the ones I have asked. First they said it can't be true. Then I proved it was true. And the new answer was, I trust the society, they had good reasons, maybe they did not know what they were signing.

  I also maid a phonecall to bethel, and the response was that the requirements and polices have changed since we applied in 91-92.

  I would be very intrested in evidense that shows that the requirements has not been changed. I would also like to know in wich year the last re-apply was made. And if there are any proof of that.

  edited: maid=made

  Edited by - Nowhere on 15 June 2002 13:47:56
• 

  joeshmoe

  Here's exactly the problem with putting your life in the hands of an organization like JW. Once you do so, you simply cannot get information from outside the org and trust it since it didn't come from them. And of course, the org isn't going to bring it up. So your average witness only knows what the org wants them to know about. It's sad
• 

  HomebutHiding

  Why should policy changes mean anything? Even without the policies, the scriptural command, to which we were so strictly bound by the org. was to not touch the unclean thing. They touched it, alright, and justifying it away is moot. Don'tcha think?
• 

  HomebutHiding

  (Am frantically trying between posts to get my picture of choice up here...Husband is the chief navigator, but he's taking a break.)
• 

  Simon

  If you search for United Nations NGO on the search option you will find most of the important threads.
• 

  HomebutHiding

  Ahh, Simon...thanks for your help. As you can see, we have a successful launch. Thank you, again.
• 

  SloBoy

  Hasn't there been info from some U.N. office that indicated that the criteria for membership hadn't changed; the WBTS is claiming IGNORANCE and that is one thing I can most certainly agree on.