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

by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Zico


    Why were Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi not allowed to buy Party cards?

  • jayhawk1

    It is funny how when Jehovah's Witnesses are faced with the facts staring them plainly in the face they still will try to make some off the wall argument like saying having a formal association with the UN, even though it is considered a tool of Satan's by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, is like using the Post Office to avoid admitting the truth.

  • stevenyc

    thirdwitnoid:Just face it. Apostates have misled you. The WTS never agreed to support the UN or its charter or even its ideals. The DPI decided and determined that the WTS met the criteria whatever it was at the time.

    Makes you wonder what the Watchtower sent them to make the committee decide and determine the the WTS MET the criteria? You'll notice that with every press reliece from the UN/DPI stating how many have become associated with them, they also state how many DID NOT meet the criteria.


  • startingover


    I know this has been asked before but I don't remember you ever answering it. If it was all so acceptable, why did they immediately disassociate when the info got out?

  • thirdwitness

    AT last here is the truth. Love it or hate it.

    The reason that the DPI did not require an NGO to sign an application agreeing to support the UN or write about the UN is not because of their own ineptness. It is because they were not requiring nor were they wanting an NGO to agree to do anything.

    An NGO sent the DPI their information along with the articles they had written about the UN. If the DPI determined that the NGO met their criteria then they recognized them as an associated NGO and gave them the library passes. They didn't have any requirements as to what an NGO had to do from that point onward.

    It is not necessary for us to explain what the DPI meant by 'support the UN charter' or 'share the ideals of the UN' because the DPI committee is the one that would determine what they themselves meant and whether they felt the NGO did that or not. Their accepting or not accepting a certain NGO determined what the DPI meant by the statement. If they decided that the fact that the WTS favored human rights and liberties and thus met the criteria so be it. There is nothing the WTS agreed to in order that they would accept them. If the DPI decided that a Nazi organization met the criteria or a racist organization met their criteria that would be their determination. There is nothing the NGO could agree to do in order for the DPI to determine that the NGO met the criteria.

    But four years later when it became time to fill out the new accreditation form and supply the articles that had been written during the past 4 years, then the UN would simply remove the NGO if they hadn't written the articles. If they had written the articles then they would once again be issued their library passes and passes for other facilities. Of course the WTS has always written articles about the UN since it began so this was no problem at all. No agreement was ever necessary or required to do anything. That is why no signature was ever necessary and why no agreement appeared on the application or accreditation forms and no agreement appears on those forms even at the present time.

    Whether the NGO criticized or dissagreed with certain things the UN did was up to the determination of the DPI as to whether that would disqualify the NGO or not. Never did the NGO have to agree to say only good things about the UN. In fact, the NGO did not have to agree to one single solitary thing. They didn't even have to agree to write articles about the UN.

    It really was just a library pass. Thats it.

  • fullofdoubtnow
    It really was just a library pass. Thats it

    Very intriguing t wit.

    Not your explanation, but the fact that it's taken you 415 posts to come up with it. That you didn't put this "explanation" on the first page of this thread instead of the 21st suggests 2 possibilities:

    1 It's took you all this time to make this bs up

    2. You had this "explanation" in your mind all along, but just wanted to engage the board in another pointless debate with you, as you have done in previous threads.

    Well, which one is it?

  • zev

    we went down this road years ago.

    we had the proof, actual hard copy proof.

    3w, where is yours?

    [quote]It really was just a library pass. Thats it. [/quote]

    all i see is allot of spew with no actual hard copy facts to back it up.

    if it is in here link me directly to it, i'm not reading 21 pages of this stuff all over again, to prove something that we apostates have know only to well for many years.

    wt = guilty as charged, next case.....

  • AlanF

    In light of my above post that proves that the Watchtower Society, by voluntarily accepting Associated NGO status, agreed to support and respect the U.N. Charter -- with no exceptions, let's review one of thirdwitness' attempts to confuse himself and his readers. At thirdwitness' suggestion I've taken the liberty of substituting "Oleg" for "Greg" where appropriate in his original post.

    : A conversation in 2001 with Mr. Oleg Dzioubinski, an information officer at the DPI.

    : When asked: Is the Watchtower a NGO

    : Oleg answered: Yes

    Obviously, what Oleg had in mind depends on exactly when in 2001 this conversation took place. If after the Watchtower Society asked to be disassociated from the DPI, he must have had in mind the generic definition of "NGO". If before the Society's disassociation, he must have assumed that his questioner used "NGO" as shorthand for "Associated NGO" and answered accordingly.

    : When asked: What do you have to show to be an NGO

    This question only makes sense if the questioner had in mind "Associated NGO", since generic NGOs don't have to do anything at all except not be a government.

    : Oleg: A variety of things including non-profit status and financial statements plus information showing you will promote and adhere to what the UN does.

    Note that Oleg here is clear on promoting and respecting the U.N. charter.

    : When asked: What is an NGO and how does it relate to the UN

    : Oleg: NGOs have no status and are not part of the UN. They get information such as pamphlets that promote the UN through the DPI. Then using the pamphlets, they are then suppose to inform people what the UN is doing through various ways such as magazines.

    Oleg is correct. However, it's obvious that when he said that NGOs have no status and are not part of the U.N., all he means is the obvious: they have no governmental status and thus cannot be part of the U.N. He said nothing about being formally associated with the U.N., which is a completely different issue.

    : Question: Some friends of mine are concerned over the Watchtower not saying nice things about the UN. Is this a problem?

    : Oleg: You can criticize the UN. But, we would take offence if they were using the UN name to raise money or they were saying they were a UN organization when they really are not.

    Obviously this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that to obtain "Associated NGO" status, an NGO must agree to promote and respect the U.N. charter. Many governments make this agreement and are not booted out of the U.N. when they strongly criticize its actions. The United States is the prime example.

    : Question: So what is in it for the WTS if they don’t get any money?

    : Oleg: Well, they are promoting the UN and it helps to show you support the UN in certain areas

    Oleg did not answer the question asked.

    Obviously, by its own admission, the Watchtower Society got a special library card that allowed certain members of the Writing Staff (namely, Ciro Aulicino) special access to the U.N. library. That special cardholding status was precisely the goal of the Society's obtaining Associated NGO status. Since members of the public -- indeed, anyone not officially associated with the U.N. -- are not allowed this access, Associated NGOs by definition have special status.

    Furthermore, "every year, the associated NGOs need to renew their United Nations photo grounds passes which allow them access to UN Headquarters." ( )" Such a special "photo grounds pass" by definition gives the holder special status. This pass also allows the holder special access to the U.N. grounds ( ):

    Associated NGO Access to the United Nations headquarters

    1. Entry into United Nations Headquarters

    Representatives of associated NGOs, with valid annual grounds passes, may enter United Nations Headquarters through the NGO doorway at the Visitor’s Entrance on First Avenue at 46th Street. Representatives of NGOs who are accredited to the United Nations for a specific period of time, may only enter United Nations Headquarters through the NGO doorway at 46th Street.

    During the three week-long General Debate beginning in September, or when heightened security considerations require extra measures, the NGO doorway at 46th Street shall be the only entry point into United Nations Headquarters. The United Nations Security and Safety Service shall give advanced notice of such times to the NGO focal point in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).

    The Delegates’ Entrance at 45th Street and 1st Avenue is strictly reserved for delegations from the Permanent and Observer Missions and can not be used by NGOs.

    2. Access to the Second Floor of the Conference Building of the United Nations

    The General Assembly Hall is a restricted area. Fifty seats at the front of the 4th floor balcony area reserved for members of accredited NGOs who wish to attend meetings of the General Assembly.

    Ciro Aulicino actually bragged to certain of his relatives and acquaintances about sitting in on U.N. sessions that the public has no access to, in the "4th floor balcony area reserved for members of accredited NGOs".

    : End of converstation.

    : Lets review.

    Yes, let's. And we will see how thirdwitness lies and misrepresents things.

    : Are NGOs with the DPI part of the UN?

    : NOOOOOOO. Not according to Oleg.

    Oleg said nothing of the kind. Thirdwitness is creating his usual straw man.

    What Oleg obviously meant, in context, was that NGOs do not have governmental status or the special rights and privileges accorded to governments.

    : Perhaps he got his information from the fact that the UN/DPI clearly states that NGOs with the DPI are not incorporated into the UN.

    Duh. Only governments can be part of the U.N. itself. But the DPI most certainly views Associated NGOs as partners in promoting the U.N., its Charter and its goals. The straw man is hugely in evidence here.

    : Do NGOs with the DPI have special status? NOOOOOO.

    YEEEEESS. The special status included the coveted library card and a special photo grounds pass allowing the holder access to restricted areas.

    : Not according to this DPI officer named Oleg. Perhaps his information comes from the fact that the UN/DPI clearly says that NGOs with the DPI have no special priviledges etc.

    Perhaps the problem lies in the ignorant, and perhaps devious manner in which the questions were posed. The U.N. website clearly describes special privileges accorded to Associated NGOs.

    : Must NGOs support the UN in all their endeavors? NOOOOOOO. Not according to Oleg.

    Another straw man as well as a direct lie. Oleg clearly stated that the Associated NGO must put out "information showing you will promote and adhere to what the UN does." No exceptions.

    : They can even criticize them. And their support can be in certain areas only. Hmmmmm.

    That this is a straw man is proved by the fact that the United States regularly criticizes the U.N. and yet is its biggest supporter, at least on paper.

    : It seems this quote might apply after all: The organization shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.”

    Indeed it does, but the quote is only part of the story of what NGO's are obligated to do. First and foremost, they're required to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, and to agree that the Charter's principles are part of the NGO's own basic principles.

    : The plot thickens as we see that the WTS did not compromise their neutrality

    Indeed it did, by formally agreeing to promote and respect the U.N. Charter.

    : nor did they 'join' the UN.

    You're capitalizing on the sloppy language used by many people. The Society most certainly joined itself to the U.N. by becoming a partner with the DPI and agreeing to promote and respect the U.N. Charter.

    : They merely agreed to write information about the UN and that was it.

    Information that appeared to outsiders to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, its goals and its agenda. That September, 1991 Awake! article is a prime example of this giving an appearance of support.

    Can anyone imagine that Daniel, confronted with Nebuchadnezzar's command to bow down and worship the Babylonian gods, might have bowed down with his fingers crossed behind his back? Who would he have been fooling? Can anyone imagine that the early Christians, confronted with a simple demand to burn a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, would have crossed their fingers behind their back and burned the incense, reasoning that God knows that they didn't 'really' worship the emperor, because God saw their crossed fingers? Not bloody likely. Yet this is exactly what that 1991 Awake! did, and so did many other subsequent articles that gave the appearance to non-JWs of supporting the U.N.

    : Apparently the support that apostates claim that the WTS agreed to means only the following in accord with what Oleg, an officer of the UN himself said:

    I just love these dishonest, hypocritical and self-serving excuses that completely ignore the facts.

    : 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 fact is that if the U.N. had been properly informed about the nature of the Watchtower Society's longstanding and determined bashing of the U.N., by its calling it a tool of the devil and so forth, it never would have accepted the Watchtower for Associated NGO status. But U.N. staffers are extremely secularly oriented and not accustomed to the extreme deviousness of Watchtower officials, and they never made the connection between the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. This was a real embarassment to some of these U.N. officials, and that is why they were not especially forthcoming in explaining how they managed to allow a rabid enemy to become an Associated NGO.

    : 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.

    This is almost too funny for words. Until 1991 the Society published nothing but extreme denunciations of the U.N. After that, it toned down the rhetoric greatly. Many of us JW critics wondered out loud about this, speculating that perhaps the Society was trying to ingratiate itself with the U.N. for some obscure purpose. It all became clear in the autumn of 2001.

    : Since the DPI is there to disseminate information

    Spin-doctoring bigtime here. The DPI is there to disseminate information that promotes the U.N., its Charter, its goals and its agenda. To claim that disseminating violent criticism that claims that the U.N. is an enemy of God and the tool of Satan is obviously a bit outside the DPI's goals.

    : 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.

    Thirdwitness has lapsed into meaningless gibberish.

    I'll have to hand it to thirdwitness. He certainly gives defending the Watchtower cult the old college try. But like all attempts to defend indefensible cults, his try is rife with lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and self-deception.


  • done4good
    Of course the WTS has always written articles about the UN since it began so this was no problem at all.

    But never in a positive way, and rarely in a nuetral, (informatary), way. What was written in those articles in the late '90s almost praise. The tone was very different, an certainly THERE WAS NO MENTION of any "doctrinal" issues concerning the UN. Dishonesty by omission, period.

    btw:Pleae address my above post.

  • AlanF

    Thirdwitness lied:

    : AlanF, Your reasoning was blown out of the water just before you posted it.


    That your statement is bullshit is easily proved: You cannot honestly answer the following challenge:

    When the Watchtower Society agreed to all of the requirements necessary to obtain Associated NGO status in 1992, did it agree to the following basic criterion?

    "The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement with those principles."

    Your refusal to answer will indicate that your is answer is Yes. All else follows.


Share this