Another reason to be an NGO

by woodsmanhere 19 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • AuldSoul

    Um, they were an NGO when they incorporated back in the 1800's. They've always been an NGO. They were a member of the UN Department of Public Information. An "NGO Associate," to be exact. "NGO Associate" is the kind of membership they had. But you are right on them becoming unclean as spiritual adulterers through that relationship.

    They don't admit it, and they minimize it, meaning they are unrepentant for it. But, there it is.


  • Golf
  • AuldSoul

    Maybe I should clarify. NGO means non-governmental organization. Every organization that is not governmental is automatically an NGO. Non-profit organizations that are non-governmental are usually what is being referred to by NGO, but the WTS was a non-governmental organization at its creation. There is nothing in their teachings that is violated by being an NGO.

    Of course, since it proclaims an invisible king that is currently ruling over them from heaven, I am a little unclear how they can actually be non-governmental at the same time. Maybe governments don't recognize imaginary friends as actual governments...

    In 1991 they applied to become associated to the UN/DPI. In early 1992 their application was approved and they were issued credentials. They maintained that relationship for 10 years, until October of 2001.


  • daniel-p

    Hey I just thought of a simile:

    The Society joining the UN as an NGO to get library access is like a person joining the military for access to the commisary.

    Heh, I though of that all by myself....


    Maybe I should clarify. NGO means non-governmental organization. Every organization that is not governmental is automatically an NGO. Non-profit organizations that are non-governmental are usually what is being referred to by NGO, but the WTS was a non-governmental organization at its creation. There is nothing in their teachings that is violated by being an NGO.

    This terminology is only used in conjunction with the United Nations. It's a term given to organizations that associate with the U.N. We don't go around talking about Wal-Mart as an NGO. So I don't think the above statement does the term justice....anyone else have a take on this?


  • AuldSoul


    You are a fine thinker! I have a new analogy, thank you.

  • woodsmanhere

    Yes Swalker, its not the being a non governmental organization by definition thats wrong. It is being one of the UN's non governmental organizations. That defintion carries with it certain aspects that were inconsistent with the WTS's doctrines. Hence the cover up, lying, spinning, disturbed members, etc..

  • AuldSoul

    I am coming on briefly to clear this up. Unlike the Watchtower Society, we—as a group—have the advantage of being able to kindly self-correct with great speed. Apparently their holy spirit directions takes years to work whereas our brains and research skills make such leaps in record time.

    The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. was involved in gross wrongdoing, according to their own published standards. However, it is VITALLY important that any exJW who talks about this issue gets the facts straight. Otherwise, we tend to provide support for the JW claims that apostates lie.

    (1) There is nothing in JW doctrine that is violated by being anybody's NGO. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has been a non-governemental organization since it was incorporated under the name Zion's Watch Tower Society. They can be anyone's NGO without violating the principles they have published regarding neutrality.

    (2) The Watchtower was never an Associate of the UN, nor were they the "UN's NGO." The UN Department of Public Information is not the UN. The Watchtower Society was never a part of the UN, nor did they join the UN. Any such statements are easily deniable and easily disprovable and will weaken anything else you have to say to an active JW.

    (3) The Criteria for Association to the UN/DPI definitely made what they did far worse—according to their published standards of right and wrong—but the Criteria was not what made it wrong.

    (4) "Associate" is a (widely understood) business world term describing a subordinate member to a superior organization. This may be a subordinate individual member or a subordinate organization member. THIS is what was wrong with their relationship to the UN Department of Public Information. The nature of the relationship was one of subordinate member to superior organization.

    It was a deliberate and intentional joining (as an Associate) of the UN/DPI. This made them a "part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God." A direct violation of the standards set out in the book Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (od p. 155 par. 2) and in the book Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry (om p. 151 par. 1).

    Please, if you are going to accuse the organization of gross sin be VERY SURE of your grounds. I encourage everyone to study up on NGOs is you are going to talk about this issue, just so you won't get tongue twisted. Or worse, tongue forked.

    Non-governmental organization (Wikipedia)
    World Bank definition, via Duke University


  • Midget-Sasquatch

    I wouldn't make all that much of this. The WTS opened up a branch in India back in December 2003. It had its own water purification plant, wastewater treatment-recycling plant and its own electric-power generation. The building was the first time the WTS used a commercial firm for constructing such a large branch. This took mega $$$$$. I can't find the source (maybe someone more adept can?), but there were Indian ministry documents which showed that the WT was among BOTH the largest receivers and donours. The numbers between the two were fairly close. You can figure out the likely cash flow. Mommy -------> Indian branch.

  • Woodsman


    I disagree. The United Nations Department of Public Information is most certainly a part of the United Nations Organization and they consider the NGOs associated with them to be their NGOs. If they fail to meet their obligations they are no longer the UN's NGOs though as you say they are still NGOs.

    The criteria required support for the UN charter which advocates warfare. I don't believe the WTS doctrine supports warfare. Therefore the criteria for association was inconsistent with their doctrine. When I spoke with Bethel about this they acknowledged that.

    The criteria reguired publishing positive information about the UN to one's constituents and a wider audience. The WTS did this. Since their doctrine states that they are organized to publish the good news of God's Kingdom this is inconsistent with their doctrine.

    The United Nations organization is Political entity. It suffers from corruption like other Political entities. Not every one is in favor of the existence of this Political entity and many want to see it abolished. To publish information in favor of its existence and praising its deeds is a Political stance. Since the WTS's doctrine is that it remain neutral in a political world this violated their doctrines.

    I spoke with the NGO department and the WTS on the phone and have no problem making these statements. The WTS did not deny anything I said and the UN verified what I said.

    If I might add, it sounds like when you say UN you mean "member nation" where as The United Nations Organization is much larger than just its member nations and yet all these other facets are part of the UN.

Share this