JW's United Defend W.T.'s Relationship With U.N.

by Kenneson 52 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul
    Gadget: I thought the publications were direct from Jehoba, the words just being put into the mind of the writer for him to write out?

    Silly little mouse! There you go confusing "spirit-inspired" with "spirit-directed." Don't you worry, though. In their day-to-day lives every JW is supposed to act, think, and speak as though the Faithful and Discreet Slave (nom de plume of the Governing Body) is spirit-inspired regardless of their admissions of fallibility.

    It is all based on a "spiritual feeding program" drawn from private interpretation of Scriptures. I know for sure that the interpretations were private because they say publicly that God didn't tell them, that they figured it out. (2 Peter 1:19-2:3) Yep, they pretty much admit that they are false prophets.

    Respectfully,
    OldSoul

  • Mary
    Mary

    Oh brother, what a read! I just have to comment on this stuff:

    First of all, his quotes from Professor Bryan Wilson saying that apostates from any religion can't be trusted, should be taken with a grain of salt. Dr. Wilson had never belonged to a cult or a sect---he merely studied them. As we know all too well, you could study a religious cult for 20 years, walk away with a PhD in it, and still not have 1/10th the knowledge of a former member of the religion. I think it's worth noting that Dr. Wilson openly supported the Church of Scientology as a "bona fide religion" and that "...As a sociologist, I see Scientology as a genuine system of religious belief and practice which evokes from its votaries deep and earnest commitment." Wilson was also "impressed by the quality of ministry that the Scientology religion, by its very nature, affords those who practice it." In my opinion, anyone who can "study" an extremely dangerous, destructive cult like Scientology and then come to the bizarre conclusion that Dr. Wilson did, is far more concerned with being "politically correct" than anything else. Especially since one of the best criteria for research when you are getting a university education is first hand accounts and experiences. Dr. Wilson apparently just decided to lump every single person who has left a destructive cult, into one corner with the label "Liars" written above them.

    Anyway, back to what the duffus who set up that website said:

    UN sources have also stated that the Criteria for Association of NGOs has not changed since 1991, when the Watch Tower Society was accepted as an NGO. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Society's representatives knowingly committed the Society to promoting the UN.

    Riiiight........I guess whoever signed on the dotted line must have done so without reading the document first eh?

    Even if the Criteria for Association in 1991 did require a commitment to actively promote the UN, apparently this was not made clear to the Watch Tower representative who handled the matter.

    Ya, I guess it's important to slip that word "apparently" in there, as the GB has no other way of explaining their actions.

    it can be explained quite adequately as a misunderstanding.

    Wow! Good come back! It was all just a "misunderstanding".

    It is quite possible, then, that the Governing Body were unaware that the Watch Tower Society had been registered as an NGO, and even if some of them did know, it is highly probable that they were not aware of all the terms and implications of such a membership.

    Ya right, sure. Is this asshole really trying to say that the men who run this Organization and concern themselves with whether or not someone grows a beard, were not aware that they had a membership with the "scarlet coloured wild beast"?!! Gimme a frigging break......

    Many employers have had the unpleasant experience of being embarrassed, compromised or even exposed to legal action because of an employee 'messed up' and mishandled an important matter

    Can you say "Enron" or "WorldCom"? The heads of these organizations also tried to plead ignorance and that they didn't really know what was going on in their own companies and blaming the underlings.....apparently, Satan the Devil's legal system is smarter than the lawyers for God's True Channel here on earth, because the courts convicted these arrogant assholes who tried to plead ignorance. That brings up another question: in the 10 years that the Watchtower Society "unknowingly" were supporting the UN, why didn't Jehovah reveal it to them that He didn't approve of this? Didn't Jehovah strike Pharaoh with some real bad luck when he unknowingly was about to take Sarah as one of his wives? This guy truly didn't know she was already married to Abraham until it was revealed by God. So why didn't He reveal it to the GB?

    And one thing I don't understand is why the WTS needed a "library card" in the first place. The Governing Body to the Organization's Branch Offices explanation that:

    "....Our purpose for registering..........was to have access to research material available on health, ecological, and social problems at the United Nations library facilities..."

    doesn't wash......you can get all of this research material at any university library or any public library. They most certainly did not need to join the NGO to obtain any information on any of these subjects. They're full of shit and are trying to cover their sorry butts.

    All in all, the troll who created that website has got all the required inplants in his brain with no hope of removal. His arguments are weak and his use of the words I highlighted above in red, is the only defence he can come up with.

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul

    Excellent points, Mary! It seems to shore up the thought that this site may simply be a brilliant piece of black propaganda.

    Respectfully,
    OldSoul

  • ljwtiamb
    ljwtiamb

    Perhaps our defender friend is not such a dumbbell?

    Maybe by hedging such a large bet, he will get some of us to fold or better yet, to show our hand.

    Beware! He makes such garrulous, inflammatory statements, yet has gone to great efforts to hide (his/her/their?) own identity.

  • undercover
    undercover
    UN sources have also stated that the Criteria for Association of NGOs has not changed since 1991, when the Watch Tower Society was accepted as an NGO. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Society's representatives knowingly committed the Society to promoting the UN.

    Even if the Criteria for Association in 1991 did require a commitment to actively promote the UN, apparently this was not made clear to the Watch Tower representative who handled the matter.

    It is quite possible, then, that the Governing Body were unaware that the Watch Tower Society had been registered as an NGO, and even if some of them did know, it is highly probable that they were not aware of all the terms and implications of such a membership.

    This thing reads like a Watchtower study article. I remember those articles always made definitive statements littered with these type phrases and words.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere
    We have no way of knowing which of these documents, if any, were actually sent to the Watch Tower Society. And, if any of them were sent to the Society, we have no way of knowing who dealt with them.

    It all comes down to this statement... yet the author fails to realize that the WTS has blatantly refused to disclose any of the signed documents in question.

    If the WTS is so innocent, why not make these documents public? What better way to exonerate themselves... yet they REFUSE.

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    Questions and Observations

    1. The defender claims that the WTS was not a member of the U.N., but was merely in association with the U.N. as a NGO. It is reasonable that only nations would be members. To be fair than, why are JWs so harsh on other religions who would likewise be merely in association with the U.N. as NGOs? Why not apply the same criteria in their case?

    2. In order to be a NGO the WTS had to renew their application each year for 10 years. How could they make the same mistake over and over? Don't they have paid lawyers (a legal department) to read contracts that they sign? How could they miss the part in the NGO application about supporting the aims and goals of the U.N.? How could God's organization miss this point, when others have not?

    3. How did they manage to print pro U.N. articles and send proof of such to the U.N. if they didn't know the requirements? See http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/materials/articles.htm Look at the 2nd citation at the top.

    4. Why did the WTS feel a need to extol the good points about the U.N.? O.K. She's a beast , a blasphemous counterfeit of God's Kingdom that's going to be destroyed, but these are her good qualities.. And we have to tell her good qualities, as well as her bad, because Rom. 13:1-7 tells us we should. Come on. .Give me a break. They don't tell us why God should destroy his own "superior authorities."

    5.. Point of fact. The WTS was a NGO for 10 years and is no longer. If it was no big deal and they were doing nothing wrong, why are they no longer a NGO? Why did it take an outside source, the Guardian newspaper's exposure, to bring an end to its NGO status within a couple of days? Why don't they lay to rest all our questions by providing in their literature a detailed account of their side of the story with the original contract they signed with the U.N.?

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul

    Just to make sure that the WTS can't label us liars and deceivers on this one, the WTS is still an NGO. As an NGO, they are no longer affiliated to or associated to or joined with the UN/DPI. If anyone on this forum refers to the WTS as an NGO it should be understood that they mean in connection to the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the UN/DPI as an NGO Affiliate.

    NGO means "non-governmental organization," and is a generic term that applies to most grocery stores, hardware stores, printeries, fisheries, and even restaurants. Read in context (which many Jehovah's Witnesses would understandably suck at) NGO refers specifically to the relationship established between the WTS and the UN/DPI. The WTS was never a member of the UN. They were, however, joined with the UN/DPI.

    Whether or not there was any Criteria for Association, that relationship disassociated them from their own teachings by their own standards. (om p. 151, par. 1; od p. 155, par. 2)

    Respectfully,
    OldSoul

  • ezekiel3
    ezekiel3
    Old Soul: I nearly wept at the stark magnificence.

    And I too shed a deferent tear for your excellent response.

  • sf
    sf

    A most excellent thread.

    First off : {{{ tight hugs to my homies Dino, DannyBear and Avenger }}

    Secondly: {{ stands and applaudes oldsoul }}

    Thirdly:

    However, that does not necessarily mean that the Society's representatives knowingly committed the Society to promoting the UN.

    Response:

    Love, sKally

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit