Watchtower Propaganda

by JosephAlward 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hawkaw

  I see you still don't get it.

  I said Paul Gillies was lying and he is lying - I stand by that statment and it is backed up in the Watchtower's official letter to all Branches which good old Joe conviently forgets to talk about.

  Gillies was saying they needed to be "associated" to get into the UN library for researching. It gives the appearance that this is the only way to access UN library information and that is not true. There are many other ways as you and I have noted for getting into the UN library information without becoming associated.

  So that leads one to a conclusion that there were other reasons for the association - ie. influence and prestige.

  Without reading anything you twisted what I had written.

  hawk
• 

  hawkaw

  Paul Hoeffel said that the "By accepting association with the DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations," but this does not mean that the Watchtower agreed to anything of the sort. All Hoeffel is saying is that if the DPI accepts the NGO for affiliation, it first will have assumed that the organization supports the UN's principles, based on the organization's description of its activities. Nobody on this forum believes that the Watchtower agreed to accept the principles of the UN. The UN just assumed that this was so, but that does not make it true.

  No Joe the DPI doesn't assume. The WTS had to prove to DPI that they accepted up front what the Criteria was and had to prove it to the DPI committee and for 2 years afterward - note the 1994 brochure.

  You have absolutely no proof to back up your claim that the UN just assumed this was so - gee I love how you provide absolutely no proof to back up your claim and make it sound like it was the truth.

  hawk
• 

  JosephAlward

  Hawkaw writes,

  Gillies was saying they needed to be "associated" to get into the UN library for researching. It gives the appearance that this is the only way to access UN library information and that is not true.

  I don't know what letter you're referring to. I've seen no letter in which Gillies says or implies that reason they applied for affiliation with the DPI was that that was the ONLY way they could gain access to the UN library. The letter I've seen says that the only reason they applied for registration was to gain access, not that they applied for registration because it was the only way to gain access. There's a big difference between "only reason" and the "only way." If they said that it was the "only way," then you're right: they were either lying, or mistaken.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  hawkaw

  ..... “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” ....

  Now Joe, you know that is not true. You even phoned the UN's main library and they told you, just like they told me the different ways you can get the UN library information without being "associated". There was no need to "register as an NGO to have continued access".

  And are you going to tell me that the WTS, who was actually using the UN main library before 1991 did not know how to access the library? Yeah right.

  .

  .
• 

  rem

  Joseph,

  The WTBS is a huge beaurocracy with many different departments. I don't think you should expect the organization to be completely logical and consistent. Yes they made a mistake. It may have been an honest mistake, or they may have been trying to keep it quiet for as long as possible to gain credibility as a UN associate.

  At first they DID stonewall. But once the story broke, they got so many calls from the the rank and file that they had to act. There was a critical mass and they couldn't just brush this under the rug. There were probably people at the top who were uneasy about the whole association thing the whole time, but didn't have the power to stop it.

  What it comes down to is that whether an innocent mistake or not, this organization claims to be guided by god. God would not allow his one true organization to be tainted by the beast. Thus it helps JW's to see that this is not god's one true organization.

  I think you are taking in the WT's explanation a little too easily. It is obvious that the WT knew of the UN expectations for enrollment. If not, then they are severely incompetent, and that's not a good quality for spiritual leaders either. Can you explain how god's organization could enter in association with the UN and not know the expectations? I just don't see it. The fact that many people in Bethel didn't even know about the association helps confirm the fact that the men at the top were trying to keep it under cover because they knew it was shady. But the benefits were too great and they gave up their Christian Neutrality.

  Like I said, let's not expect the WTBS to act logically and consistently all of the time. What made sense in 1991 might not make sense in 2001 either. These people thought Armageddon was going to come before 1995. Perhaps their strategies have changed? I don't know.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  hawkaw

  After reviewing my above noted statement I am editing my comments...

  Just for the record, I am posting a copy of the Gillies letter. I think Joe, you are right about the "only reason" and "only way".

  However, as I stated above Gillies gives the impression that this is the "only way". Think about it. If the JWs found out that the WTS had other ways to access the UN without supporting the UN charter, then the JWs would be upset. The other letters back it up and give the "only way" line. I knew Gillies was trying to get a message out that the only reason they did it was for the library card and that just simply isn't true. Even though if it was true, well that would look really bad because they VOLUNTARILY partnered with the UN all for a measly library card.

  I still love paragraph 3 in this letter where he indicates Years later the UN published the criteria about supporting the UN - a flat out lie. Of course Joe you will likely tell me that good old Paul wasn't lying his face off about that either.

  .
• 

  JBean

  As a current JW (abeit inactive one), let me just say this to Joe Alward: The simple fact that this is an issue AT ALL just sickens me and has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on my faith is what is SUPPOSEDLY God's earthly organization. Rem was absolutely correct in his comments that most JW's are absolutely IGNORANT! I know I was. And I know ALL of my current JW friends and family would NEVER believe that the WBTS would have ANY TYPE of link to the UN. ID card, entry pass, library card... call it what you will. It just is so hypocritical it's frightening. Well, 'nuff said.
• 

  JosephAlward

  In an earlier post I indicated that I'm generally unfamiliar with Watchtower doctrine regarding acceptable associations with the United Nations. One poster indicated that there's no problem with a Jehovah's Witness walking into the United Nations building and interviewing one of its officials, while another said that he would cross the street to avoid walking next to the building, implying that he would be struck dead at Armageddon otherwise. I'm wondering whether there is an unambiguous teaching regarding acceptable and unacceptable "associations" with the United Nations. Are telephone calls to the United Nations acceptable, or visits to its libraries? If the Watchtower can voluntarily register as a religious institution with the Internal Revenue Service to receive special treatment, what teaching makes it clear that it cannot voluntarily register with the Department of Public Information for special treatment?

  Can anyone provide excerpts from Awake! articles or other Watchtower publications that make clear what the policy is?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  JosephAlward

  Hawk,

  I wonder if you're seeing the same thing on your browser as I am on mine: Your copy of the Gillies' letter forces the text in the other posts to overflow the margins. Since I've already placed this letter on the record on page one of this thread, could you remove your copy, or shrink it down? It would make it a lot easier to read the posts on this thread.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  hawkaw

  Gillies letter has been squeezed for you.

  Zev's site provides the offical statement on "political neutrality"

  . http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/neutrality.html

  Of course Zev's site provides the WTS official response in 1995 on how they should treat the UN.

  . http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/50years.html

  Note don't confuse "respect" for governments with "support" for governments.

  I thought you got most of your stuff at Zev's site and Randy's site, so I don't know how you missed this.

  hawk