Wow that UN scandal really DOES work wonders

by osmosis 98 Replies latest jw friends

  • Stromboli


    Why can the WT be part of the bla-bla-bla Beast and you and I can't take up a stupid membership of say a union to help defend your rights as a worker instead of paying big money for a lawyer?

    Not to mention Malawi.......

    The fact that something like that was taken lightly just goes to show how no God is behind the WT, and the giudes have no more holy spirit than you and I have. Maybe a bigger ego......

    They make sure to write lots of little rules for you, making every single decision a drama for your concience, but they seem to be careless for their own conduct.

    That alone, assuming that no alter motive was involved, should ring a bell to you.

    Ultimately you can spin anything and believe what you like. I personally have justified the WT for years always finding very good reasons for their unreal behaviour.

    This people that carelessly dealt with the "Beast" and made a lot of bad predictions are the same people that nontheless are absolutely sure you or child should die before taking blood.

    Please doubt them......

    Recently my cusin (20 years in) told me "how could I not see that?".

    You won't see the wrong untill you are ready for it....... then it'll look so clear......

    Good luck

  • AuldSoul
    tells me that this was an apparently trivial decision made in 1991 , rubber stamped on an annual basis afterward & only when hyped up by apostates did anybody actually realise the implications of the whole NGO business.

    Again, Dozy, you demonstrate blithe reliance on the WTS for your fact checking of what is involved in maintaining the relationship. There is no way to "rubber stamp" this Association. There are criteria to meet on an ongoing basis for the continued renewal of accreditation.

    You want have a 14-year string of decisions and misrepresentations—that continue up to and including the letter I received dated February 8, 2005—reduced to either a conspiracy or a silly botch up.

    Why do you quickly rule out the other possibility? There is a possibility that it is a mix of the two.

    Esau traded his inheritance for a bowl of stew. He convinced himself he need the stew very badly. The WTS compares that account specifically to committing fornication, but teaches that the specific worldly thing sought is irrelevant. If spiritual things are underappreciated in favor of secular things, it is spiritual fornication.

    Entering into an Associate member status with the UN/DPI was an act of spiritual fornication according to the standards set for by the Governing Body, whether knowingly or unknowingly entered in to. Just as having sex with a married person who is not your mate is adultery whether you knows that's what it is or not. Do you deny that simple and direct statement of fact?

    Keep in mind that determining whether there actually was an act of gross wrongdoing is completely separate from the examination of intent, the degree of repentance expressed. If you agree that there was an act of gross wrongdoing then we can move to the next consideration: intent. Otherwise, please explain what it was if not an act of gross wrongdoing.

    The intent was without question secular and not spiritual in nature—even if the intent extends no further than that stated in Paul Gillies' letter. There is no spiritual need for facts and statistics on world affairs from the UN's library.

    Now we can move to the next consideration: repentance. There are certain markers laid out by the WTS for determining repentance.

    *** it-2 p. 774 Repentance ***
    Thus genuine repentance has real impact, generates force, moves the person to “turn around.” (Ac 3:19) Hence Jesus could say to those in Laodicea: “Be zealous and repent.” (Re 3:19; compare Re 2:5; 3:2, 3.) There is evidence of ‘great earnestness, clearing of oneself, godly fear, longing, and righting of the wrong.’ (2Co 7:10, 11) Absence of concern for rectifying wrongs committed shows lack of true repentance.—Compare Eze 33:14, 15; Lu 19:8.

    It has been suggested to me (by my father) that they did right the wrong by ceasing the Association. Stopping the wrong is evidence ONLY of fear of consequences. Righting the wrong involves active steps to CORRECT and MAKE RIGHT actual harm caused by gross wrongdoing. The concept involves acknowledging that there are harmful impacts from gross wrongdoing and working to undo (to the extent possible) any harm done as a result. Where is the evidence that this has occurred?

    If you believe there was an act of gross wrongdoing, whether intentional or not, then why has the WTS never once admitted that it was an act of gross wrongdoing? Why have they not publicly apologized a single time for this choice? It is publicly known, where is the public reproof?


  • willyloman

    Dozy's in denial on this particular topic. He'll come around. After all, most of us were in denial for YEARS on one or more dub doctrines. Yet, here we are.

  • Kristofer

    Gee...for being God's chosen channel guided by "holy spirit", they sure do make a lot of "mistakes"...

  • dozy

    Auld Soul - I have already stated that I feel that there should have been an apology , or at least an official statement of facts. It is wrong that JWs should be reading information in their newspapers and getting no feedback from "Head Office".

    The issue of "trust" is important to me. I know Paul Gillies & his wife - they have been associated with my family for years & stayed with my parents before I was born. He is an intensely clever man who has a keen legal mind & has been on numerous courses. I do not believe that he would knowingly promote a lie.

    I do not know you or any of the shadowy "apostate" or ex-witnesses who post on this site under aliases or build their own websites. I know that any negative matter is exhaustively researched and promoted , regardless of the strength of the case (Rand Corp being an obvious example). The agenda is to "critique" all activity by the WTS & paint it as a cult , both to embolden & encourage existing ex-witnesses & to draw out active JWs , helping them to "see the light". Having researched the UN matter , reading all of the numerous threads on JWD , I am convinced that this was a foolish mistake , compounded by a poor defence justification. I am happy to let the matter rest there and analyse other areas of JW beliefs , procedure & conduct that I feel constitute a stronger case for criticism.

  • AuldSoul


    I agree. However, foolish mistakes can be gross wrongdoing. Or do you think no one who commits gross wrongdoing is guilty ALSO of a foolish mistake.

    I find it hard to believe that someone who commits murder would (in hindsight) view it as anything other than a foolish mistake. Certainly onlookers would view it as a mistake. BUT IT IS ALSO gross wrongdoing.

    In this case the (foolish) gross wrongdoing was followed by a lack of repentance, which lack is evidenced right up to the present time. How do you excuse them for that lack of candor? You don't. Your ethic won't allow you to. You minimize the wrong instead. You hold the leadership to a standard lower than the one to which they hold you.

    I really don't care how you justify your forgiving them for gross wrongdoing. Just as I don't care how Catholics forgive their leadership, or Mormons forgive their leadership. You are a member of just another false religion wherein the disciples have to forgive the leadership for hypocrisy, and the leaders don't ask for forgiveness from the disciples.

    Just another false religion. The saddest part is you think you are better than others. I really hope you wake up. You seem sincere.


  • dozy

    I guess that I just don't see it as "gross wrongdoing". Foolish - yes.

  • AuldSoul

    Okay, Dozy. I'll take you at your word. That leaves two possibilities.

    (1) You believe the UN/DPI is not an organization with objectives contrary to the Bible and that it is not under judgement by God.


    (2) You believe that the Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (and the om book) sets out erroneous guidelines for determining an action that constitutes voluntary Disassociation.

    Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us." (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement. (Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, p. 155, par. 2)

    Which one is true in your case? Or do you perhaps believe that voluntary Disassociation from the Christian congregation is merely a foolish mistake?


  • dozy

    1... The original principles and goals expressed in the UN charter are: "to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems.” Is there anything here which compromises our Christian beliefs. No 2... The OM/OD book is discussing personal activities rather than corporate , so the comparison is strained , nevertheless many witnesses sign documents which state that we will protect the constitution or laws of the country we reside in, because there is no Christian conflict in protecting the stated principles of these governments. The WTS felt that the association it had with the UN , at least initially , was at an arms length basis and did not constitute joining or being part of the UN. The WTS only had to promote the UN’s principles and activities in accord with the WTS’s aims and purposes. There is nothing in the original 1991 agreement that states the NGO had to “support/promote everything the UN stands for. The criteria changed in 1994-6 "After three years of negotiation, ECOSOC reviewed its arrangements for consultation with NGOs in July 1996. One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC....A second outcome...Decision 1996/297, which recommended that the General Assembly examine, at it 51st session, the QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NGOS IN ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE UN.. " Therefore NGOs were encouraged to become more proactive in sponsoring & promoting the UN. When this was brought to the WTS's notice in a feeding frenzy of opposition, they terminated the agreement. You are incorrect on both points , Auldsoul. As stated , I trust the judgement & good sense of people I know , rather than people I don't.

  • AuldSoul


    There is nothing in the original 1991 agreement that states the NGO had to “support/promote everything the UN stands for.

    This is a misrepresentation of the facts, albeit probably an unintentional one that you have been misled to believe. Much the same as Paul Gillies was probably misled to believe lies by those he trusted implicitly. While the criteria did experience some revision regarding the extent of public dissemination expected, the criterion for support has not changed since the Committee's inception in 1968.

    The 1991 letter sent to those NGOs interested in applying for association clearly states as the first criterion of the Criteria for Association:

    "That the NGO share the principles of the UN Charter;"

    Your incomplete (and therefore misrepresented) statement of principles of the UN Charter is shown in toto below:

    Article 2
    The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
    1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
    2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
    3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
    4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
    5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
    6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
    7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

    I don't know from whence you culled your version of the "principles of the UN Charter," but it wasn't from Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter. Not in any year.

    I rebut, you are incorrect on both points. And I have primary source material backing me up in stating that. I can only assume you have a letter from someone with every reason in the world to believe the best about the Society. Is that a mistaken assumption? I believe it is a reasonable one, given that you did not cite your sources. My view of the facts can be verified independently by anyone who cares to do so from unbiased and primary sources, your view cannot.

    I do hope you will continue to do sincere research before you choose to dismiss the views of others as "wrong" on any counts. If you would care to provide the source of your quotes, I will happily investigate the validity of your viewpoint. As it stands, you can investigate the validity of my viewpoint independently bringing heavier weight to my argument. So far, I have to "take your word" for your entire line of evidence.

    Please be more forthcoming with sources. I feel like I am reading an Awake! magazine. "According to one authority..." (shhh! it is the guy who cleans the toilet in my building) "...humans only use 1/10 of 1 percent of our brain." I believe you are sincere, but there must be some reason you aren't citing your sources. What about that makes you feel uncomfortable?


Share this