Posts by thirdwitness

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Steve said: Another thing to remember, their association with the UN/DPI was altered in the 1997 registry. In that registry they were now listed among NGO's of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Each year, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI's extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.

Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI's facilities. The form itself clearly states:

“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”

The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:

“Please indicate your organization's main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”

Some have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society's areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from year-to-year. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.

It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it's NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign annually, was simply to state who it's representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI's facilities.

It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Knowing about the full range of facilities offered by the DPI helps explain Bethel's other claim in it's letters:

“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.”

“In any case, we had been using the library facilities at the UN for many years prior to 1991. In that year, our researcher was advised by UN personnel that it would be necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access to the various libraries we were using.”

The Watchtower Society's researcher was apparently told he could no longer access certain areas or facilities without an NGO pass. Why? Perhaps the facilities were new, and reserved only for DPI NGOs. Perhaps existing facilities were now being reserved only for the use of DPI NGO representatives. Perhaps the brother wished to access certain documents which were off-limit to the general public. Or perhaps certain exhibitions or events were taking place that were DPI NGO-invitation only. These possibilities are hinted at in one of Bethel's letters, where it states that a DPI NGO pass was necessary to access “specific areas”, presumably areas which were previously accessible. Whatever happened, the Watchtower Society researcher was told they needed an NGO pass to continue with the same level of access they previously enjoyed.

There is, of course, one other possibility: that the employee who advised of the need for an NGO pass was simply mistaken. How many of us can say we have not experienced some kind of incompetence or received some wrong advice from a government employee? If we are honest, we know that government agencies are often notorious for giving contradictory advice. In the UK's large welfare state, it is a running joke that you can call a government helpline and receive a different answer to the same question if you call twice.

The Global Policy Forum's report, which we quoted earlier, had this to say about the competence of both the DPI and ECOSOC NGO staff:

“The DPI office gets good marks for timely processing of pass requests and for overall courtesy and helpfulness. But its management of documents in the NGO Resource Center tends to be chaotic. Serious problems exist in both offices.”

“Many NGOs complain that some of the notoriously bureaucratic and unresponsive behavior of the ECOSOC office in the past still persists. The office employs cumbersome and time-consuming procedures for issuing passes, it too often it loses accreditation letters, and its staff can be discourteous.”

“NGOs also find the application procedures for new accreditation in both offices tend to be bureaucratic and paper-bound. Staff have lost or mislaid accreditation folders and have been inflexible in applying rules for evaluation.”

We do not quote the above to try and “lay the blame” on the UN for the situation, but just to show that it is quite reasonable to consider whether a UN employee could have given incorrect advice to a visitor. Also, think how the above report is from 1999. Can you imagine how much more confusing the NGO situation must have been in the early 1990's — when the NGO world was still finding its feet? If they can lose papers and forms, then it is neither surprising nor unreasonable to wonder whether the brother was simply given wrong advice from the UN employee.

For whatever reason, the Watchtower Society researcher was informed that to continue his currently level of access, he needed to be a representative of a DPI NGO. Perhaps he tried to access “specific areas” which were now off-limits, or perhaps he was misinformed. We do not know. However, this part of Bethel's story is both plausible and believable. We can see that many facilities were only available to NGOs and therefore Bethel's explanation is entirely reasonable. Thus we have no basis to claim Bethel is lying whatsoever.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Again as respects who could use the library at the UN:

“Although critics may claim that access to the libraries could have been obtained without the need to register as an NGO, that is not what our research personnel were told at the time. They found it necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas, which were off limits to the public.”

The critics often quote statements from the United Nations that the main library, the Dag Hammarskjold Library and it's depository libraries, were accessible to absolutely anyone prior to September 2001. You can read e-mails from the UN itself saying this exact thing.

However, if that is completely true we wonder why the 1994 NGO brochure stated that:

“For NGOs associated with DPI, the United Nations provides: ... use of the Dag Hammarskjold Library.”

If absolutely anyone could use the entire facilities, we wonder why the brochure advertises use of that library as a perk of being a DPI NGO. Of course, if we look carefully we can see that the Watchtower Society did not say they merely wanted access to the “main library”. Bethel said that it was “necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas”. Yes, Bethel never claimed it needed a pass to access the Library itself, but to “specific areas” of that library and specific “library facilities”. A quick investigation reveals that there is far, far, more to the United Nations libraries than simply a main library full of books — and far, far, more than simply the Dag Hammarskjold building.

The library facilities of the United Nations, under the Department of Public Information, includes the following:

books
film and audio libraries
photo libraries
access to meetings
language courses
briefings

seminars
conferences
film screenings
commemorations
concerts
the DPI NGO Resource Center

To access the full range of these facilities you need a DPI NGO pass. Prior to September 2001 you may have been able to simply walk into the Dag Hammarskjold Library as the opposers correctly say — but it is entirely misleading to say all the “library facilities” were available to anyone, because they were clearly not. An NGO pass was required to access everything — otherwise why would the 1994 brochure advertise full access to that library as an NGO privilege? There is only one logical reason: because around 1991 the DPI was making further facilities available at the library, but only to those with an NGO pass.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Mene mene tekel upharsin

2520

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

I have looked at the brochure on page 6 and 7 from 1994. The part that the essay was honing in on was how apostates use this statement in the current brochure claiming that the WTS agreed to support the UN's charter. It reads:

What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”

Rather than making this statement the 1994 brochure said: Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

As for what the 1994 brochure says on page 7 it really doesn't matter.

1. We are not sure what the 1992 brochure says or if the WTS was even sent one. Rather than enclosing a 1992 brochure when addressing the issue Hoeffel refers to the current brochure. It would have been helpful if he would have provided the 1992 brochure instead.

2. Furthermore as we have shown the word support can mean many different things and in the case of the words in the 1994 brochure on page 7 it is evident that the word support means to furnish corroborating evidence. It is, after all, the purpose of the DPI to give information about the UN and its programs.

3. Whatever anyone says or pulls out of their hat doesn't matter. The WTS never signed an agreement to support the UN as the application clearly shows. They never went through the rigorous review process instituted after they withdrew. The only documents the WTS signed was the document showing who would be the representatives for the coming years and what fields they were interested in.

If you put in an application to receive a new car from a car dealer and they gave you a new car and simply said write something about us and you never signed anything saying how much you would pay for the car could they later come back and say, 'Hey, by the way, you owe us 30,000 dollars for that car.' Since you never signed a lease or bill of sale or any contract you could merely say, 'Wait a minute. I never agreed to that. Here's your car back.' It doesn't mean squat if the car dealer sent out brochures later or released press releases saying anyone accepting our cars and agreeing to write about us also agrees to support our charter and ideals. If you didn't sign anything you didn't agree to anything.

So the WTS is exhonerated of wrongdoing from many different angles.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Your site said the 1994 brochure did not say anything about the need for associated NGOs to support the UN. I pointed out how you left out page 7 of that brochure and only cited page 6. Will you update your website to correct the error?

If this is an error yes it will be changed and updated. I will have to look at that.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

As respects articles submitted to the UN:

Notice how Mr. Hoeffel quotes from 1992 requirements. He quotes the part that the “principle purpose of ... [DPI NGOs] is the re-dissemination of information in order to increase public understanding ... of the United Nations”. The Watchtower Society was already interested in doing exactly that — and had been doing so for decades, ever since the UN was formed.

During World War II the League of Nations had, for all intents and purposes, ceased to function in any practical or meaningful way. However, The Watchtower magazine reckoned on the re-emergence of the League of Nations in a new form, after interpreting the contents of the prophecies in Revelation. Yes — the Watchtower Society was interested in educating the public on the United Nations and how it will play a part in Bible prophecy — even before it was formed! Ultimately the Society has been interested in educating the public on how the UN, along with all other governments, will be replaced by God's Kingdom under the rule of Christ. Yet the UN and it's activities are still not very well-known by the General Public. Hence, the Society is very interested in educating the public about the “principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies.” Hence, we know the Society would be happy to continue to do something it was already doing.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Although the evidence indicates that the Watchtower Society never signed or completed one document that said they would support the United Nations, for a moment let's do as many critics do, and pretend that the evidence doesn't exist. Let's pretend we have evidence that the Society did indeed sign a document where they agreed to support the UN and the principles of the UN's charter. What implications would such an agreement have? Would it compromise our Christian beliefs?

The word “support”, in English, is a general term, and we are not at all helped in defining exactly what it means to the UN. In their documents they do not stipulate exact specifications of what it means to support the UN and the principles of their charter — neither in a practical nor philosophical sense.

According to Websters, when the word “support” is used as a verb, can mean to “uphold or defend as valid; to furnish corroborating evidence for; to act in a secondary or subordinate role to.” Using these definitions, what are the implications of supporting the UN and it's charter?

When the Watchtower Society began educating the public on the United Nations and it's place in Bible prophecy from 1945 onwards, it could be said that our support was to “furnish corroborating evidence for” to the UN whether we intended to or not — at least in the sense of educating the public in what the UN is, what it is there for, and what it does. The UN wants the public to know about its existence and relevance in the world. That is why even organizations which criticize the UN's failings can remain DPI NGOs — as did the Watchtower Society. Since the DPI is there to disseminate information it is reasonable to believe that the definition “to furnish corroborating evidence for” would be the applicable definition for the word ‘support’ in this case.

However it is also true that by being “in subjection” to the governments as Romans 13 tells us to do, we are supporting them in that we are acting in a “secondary or subordinate role.” It says:

“Everybody must submit to the ruling authorities for none exists without God's permission and it is he who puts them in their place. So anyone who opposes the authority is setting himself against God's arrangement, and those who do so will only bring punishment upon themselves. ... So pay to all what is due, the property tax to the tax collector, customs to the customs officer, and respect and honour to all whose positions call for it.” —Romans 13:1-2, 7; 21st Century New Testament, Insight Press, Bristol, UK

Lets say that the definition to “uphold or defend as valid” is what is meant by the word ‘support.’ By paying our taxes and being in subjection to God's arrangement, true Christians support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of all human governments, for by doing any different we would be setting ourselves “against God's arrangement”. We uphold and defend as valid the application of the constitution of the country we live in when it does not conflict with Bible principles. For example, this would particularly apply to the right to choose and practice one's own faith. This includes the Bill of Rights if you live in the United States, the European Convention on Human Rights if you live within the European Union, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within every UN member state.

Furthermore, we use the court system of many countries to advance true worship; Many brothers and sisters sign documents which state they will protect the constitution or laws of the land they reside in. Yes, we support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of the governments put in place by God, for “none” exists without God's permission and “it is he” who put them in their place — yes, including the United Nations.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

First of all as respects the application and what they agreed to they did not sign any application agreeing to support the UN. Because the UN might later come out with statements or brochures saying that NGOs must 'support' the UN that does not mean that the WTS signed anything agreeing to do that or agreed to support the UN.

No where on those forms is there anything which would compromise the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there was something there then we could read it on those forms ourselves — as some critics would expect — but instead there is simply nothing there. —See the original 1991 forms

You will also notice that there doesn't even seem to be a place to put a signature. This corroborates what the Watchtower Society itself said in it's letter to The Guardian newspaper, where the spokesman for the London Bethel explained, “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”

So in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.

To illustrate, imagine you join a video-rental store, such as Blockbusters. The membership form you completed when you join is simple and straightforward, entitling you to access any of the videos you wish. Strangely, it doesn't even require a signature. Then, 10 years later, the video store turns around and says, “Oh, by the way, although it wasn't on your membership form, and you haven't signed anything to this effect, you have agreed to rent pornographic videos on a regular basis.” Say what? No, that cannot be. No one can turn around and say “you agreed to this, you agreed to that” a decade later — especially since you never signed any form stating such things. Yet this is the exact scenario with the Watchtower Society found itself in with the DPI and their changing requirements.

597

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness in

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

thirdwitness

Steve contends that I am breaking rules 4, 5, and 6.

Breaking the law
This includes libel, condoning illegal activity and contempt of court (comments which might affect the outcome of an approaching court case). You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.

I am not using 3rd party material.

Spamming
Please don't add the same comment to more than one forum.

I am not doing this either.

Advertising
You can mention relevant, non-commercial websites as long as they support your comment.

And I am not posting commercial websites. I am quoting from or showing the links to relevant non-commercial websites.

Why do you want me off if I am serving to help apostates? You should be happy and shouldn't even mention my removal or alleged misconduct so that I can continue to help the apostates. Could it be that this is not really true? You want me off because I am proving that you and others or trying to mislead unwary ones and are publishing false information against JWs.