hi troubled,
However, a few questions are eating at me:I know the requirements to apply for NGO status are outlined on the UN's website, but it's unlikely the UN even had a website back in 1991. (If I'm wrong, correct me.)
Assuming that the UN didn't have a website, can it be verified that the current requirements for NGO status listed on the UN's website (i.e., supporting the ideals of the UN charter, etc.) were stated or implied in the application package at the time Lloyd Barry applied for membership? I don't see anything to that effect in the current application form. Also, has the form changed in the last 10 years? What exactly was in the application package in 1991?
I know these are side points, and the large picture is really whether or not the WTBTS should even be listed as an NGO. But in the intersts of getting our facts straight, I think it's important to have answers to these questions. To find out exactly WHAT the application package consisted of (and WHAT explicit requirements for NGO membership were agreed to) 10 years ago at the time Lloyd Barry applied for membership.
I have not seen what the membership requirements were 10 years ago, though I'm sure a phone call could confirm it. Think of it this way, however:
1. Why would NGO membership have changed drastically? Wouldn't the purpose of it be the same?
2. There was no web site for it 10 years ago, but the UN had information offices, and the WTS would have had to find out the requirements and met them, web site or no web site. The only difference the web site makes is it provides a window into what the UN is doing in a more accessible manner than we have had in the past.
troubled, I'm sure this UN connection is bothering you as much as it is surprising to all of us. There are certain lines you never expect the WTS to cross. It would be like finding out they recited the Pledge of Allegiance at morning worship at Bethel -- people would exit the organization in droves at that news.
As we have seen in this thread, and others on the subject, some Witnesses have responded to this news by downplaying it. "The WTS is not actually a member of the UN," they say, and that's true, for the WTS is not a country and therefore cannot be a member. All they can do is associate with the UN as an NGO, and that they have done.
"It is a requirement," other Witnesses have said, but that's not true. It is expedient, that's all. Instead of relying on Jehovah, as they used to do when faced with government opposition, and taking their lumps in the meantime in the form of persecution, in recent years the WTS has been sidling up to the governments and playing nice. This UN information is the most extreme example yet. They have chosen to associate with the beast. We all know what would happen to a Witness who chose to do that individually.
Now, there are loopholes involved. I know that Witnesses in New York City are and have been allowed to work at the UN, as long as they are doing clerical work, not direct governmental work. For instance, there are Witnesses who come to New York as part of the diplomatic mission to the UN from their country. That's always been considered fine (or at least for the last 30 years), as long as they weren't the actual diplomat, but merely support staff. I know this for a fact, for I knew several of these brothers and sisters, and the elders knew it too, including some Bethel heavies.
I am sure the WTS will try to weasel out of this by claiming something similar: they are not directly involved with the UN, but merely applying for assistance, or something like that. But they can't erase the fact that they willingly chose to associate with the beast, as part of an organization pledged to uphold the ideals of the UN, and to speak well of it, and that they have done in their magazines for the past decade. All while never telling the friends what they had done. It doesn't smell right, and all long-time Witnesses will know it.