by gilwarrior 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals
No I meant a Watchtower letter From the Chairman's Committee of the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Branch Committees
dated November 1, 2001.
Sorry about the confusion. I am in on three different legal appeals today at work and I am one of the expert witnesses they are using - lots of statement writing.
I will edit my above post.
hawk
Gilwarrior:
What do you think is the real reason that the WTS decided associate themselves with the UN?Hartley:
who really cares why they affiliated?Answer: Obviously, Gilwarrior does.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
That's right Joseph, I do!
Joseph,
Sure you're not a JW? Like them you seem to have the art of selective quotation mastered rather well;
I said:
Alward, in this and his previous posts, misses the point - who really cares why they affiliated? That is a secondary issue. It is the requirements for affiliation - which they accepted - that makes this a scandal...It was a rhetorical question in the context not only of your previous posts, but also gilwarrior's follow up post in which he extended the scope of the discussion. Note that in my first reply I agreed about the library card.
I stated:
It is almost certainly true that the WTS affiliated out of convenience - mainly because they are so arrogant that they will sacrifice their published principles at the drop of a hat to get what they want in the most facile manner. After all, what are principles shed in comparison to lives wasted?So then it was time to move on. You know, Joseph, as in an evolving discussion?
Note that I refered to yr previous posts as well as to yr latest. You seem consistently to fail to appreciate that no matter what the reason they affiliated is, it is absolutely unacceptable and hypocritical and their explanation is a lie. The implication is that applying for a library card is a minor matter. It is. But they imply that by seeking affiliation they were only applying for a library card. They weren't. They didn't, in fact, even apply for a library card - they applied for affiliation as an NGO and a library card came as a result of that. Thus they did not apply for a library card. Got it yet?
As an example, just in case you are still grappling with the concept; if a man wants to use your school library and nothing more would it make sense for him to apply for a job there so that he could get the card? Would he, by applying for a faculty position be actually applying for a library card? Or would his application involve other responsibilities? So the WTS's insinuations, irrespective of the Society's real and/or stated motives, are false and ridiculous. That's the point where the discussion has moved to. One must judge them by what they did, not by what they say they did. Children often excuse their actions by claiming that their motives were pure - the GB often acts like children when it comes to thei rmistakes.
All along you have missed the point - all you're doing is stating the obvious over and over again: did the WTS want access to the UN's library. Of course! But to get access they actually applied for affiliation as an NGO. Whatever you and the WTS imply, and whatever motives you impute to the WTS, that is not the same thing as applying for a library card.
LPH
Hartley observes,
did the WTS want access to the UN's library. Of course! But to get access they actually applied for affiliation as an NGO.
So, it seems that Hartley and I both agree what the answer to Gilwarrior's question is: The Watchtower affiliated itself to get access to the main library. That was the topic of this thread, and unless others wish to offer documentation showing that the Watchtower expected and received political benefits because of their affiliation with the DPI, this should end it. I think Gilwarrior has gotten his money's worth, haven't you, Gil?
There are other questions Gil could have asked, but didn't, such as the question of the propriety of the affiliation, but these would perhaps be better addressed in a different thread.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,
I asked rhetorically if the WTS wanted access to the UN library. The answer, obviously, is that they did. I certainly do not agree with you that that is necessarily why they affiliated or that that is the sole reason for their affiliation. The explanation that the WTS supplied is a lie. They could have obtained a library card without affiliation. A library card comes as a benefit from affiliating, and, while affiliation implies a card, a card does not require affiliation as the WTS claimed. That is it is a sufficient but not a necessary requirement to obtain a card. The WTS stated that they were required to affiliate to get a card. That is not the case.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? We do not need to supply any evidence to show that the WTS received political benefits or anything else to dispute their claim that they applied soley to get a library card - again, affiliation is not a necessary requirement to get a card. So the WTS's explanation is bogus. The WTS clearly lied in the letter supplied by Gillies.
All we know for sure is that the WTS affiliated and that affiliation includes the promise to promote UN goals with which they, as an NGO, are supposed to agree. Thus, all one can say based on the facts, as opposed to speculation and demonstrably dishonest letters from Paul Gillies, is that the WTS affiliated for the purpose of advancing UN goals and principles in the area of Human Rights.
You are not bad as a WTS apologist, but that's all your arguments amount to - a repetition of Gillies' letter which the Guardian refused to publish since it was such an obvious lie and at substantial odds with the facts.
So, now Alward, what do you think of the propriety of such an affiliation - or do you consider that to be too far off topic?
LPH
Lionel Hartley writes:
The WTS stated that they were required to affiliate to get a cardReally? Where was such a thing stated?
If Hartley is referring to the Gillies letter, then he must only be half-remembering its contents, because nowhere in the Gillies’ letter does Gillies say or imply that the Watchtower was required to be affiliated in order to get a card. Below is the relevant excerpt from the letter (emphasis added):
In 1991 one of our legal corporations registered with the United Nations as a NGO (non-governmental organization) for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations.Perhaps Hartley confused “sole purpose” with “sole means.” Gillies said that the sole purpose of the affiliation was obtaining a card, not that the sole means of getting a card was affiliation.
There’s a big difference in meaning, of course; the first is the correct one; the latter one--the one Hartley chose--is the false one, and, not coincidently perhaps, is also the one which would make Gillies a liar if he had ever said it. Which he didn’t.
Incidentally, all of this has been gone over before by me with Hawkaw, who conceded that he had been misinterpreting Gillies' letter. Interested forum readers will find my comments to Hawkaw about this at * http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17010&site=3&page=3 beginning with my December 12 post at 11:01.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,
I see you have bought into JW doubletalk.
The WTS can say whatever it wants to say. Nevertheless, the facts show that it affiliated for the purposes spelled out in the rules for NGO/DPI affiliates. It is, therefore, deceitful to imply that one can affiliate for some private or single purpose. One cannot - an organization that affiliates agrees to a broad range of obligations and responsibilities and agrees to shared goals. Affiliation is not the same thing as an application for a library card which is how the WTS wants to portray things. In fact the November 2001 letter from the WTS headquarters stated that
" in 1991 it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access."That conflicts with your myopic view of this issue in that is states explicitly what Gillies implied - that the WTS claimed necessary to register to obtain a card. It wasn't. Even if you can't understand Gillies letter, the WTS kindly clarified what it meant in their letter from headquarters.
In the absense of any credible explanation from the WTS we have no facts to go on. You prefer to accept an obviously decitful explanation by the WTS as though it were a fact. Until the WTS provides a truthful explanation consistent with the known facts then I see no reason to believe them when they attempt to trivilaize the issue through deceitful means.
It may be that they did it only to get access to the library. Recall, however, that the Portuguese branch offered a different explanation.
Your posts are not helpful in trying to understand this complex issue. You seem most interested in proving a point which is unprovable because you have no facts. All of your posts are speculation and yet to push your point as though it were a fact and hinder legitimate discussion through what seems to me to be arrogant pedanticism designed to furthe the WTS's lies.
LPH
ps: Joseph I see also that you have learned the art of the straw man. You assumed that I was referring to Gillies' letter when you stated:
If Hartley is referring to the Gillies letter, then he must only be half-remembering its contents...and then you proceed to address this nonexistent argument by saying:
Perhaps Hartley confused “sole purpose” with “sole means.”The simple fact is that, as hawk showed earlier in this thread, and which I repeated the WTS stated in their Nov. letter:
" in 1991 it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access."Does this provide the answer to your earnest question? - reproduced here
: Lionel Hartley writes:
The WTS stated that they were required to affiliate to get a card: Really? Where was such a thing stated?
I'm separating this bit out a second time in case you missed it, given as you are to selective quotation - not a quality normally associated with an intellectually honest scholar.
LPH
" in 1991 it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access." (Emphasis added)
This is the statement many forum members believe is a documentable lie, but I’ve not yet seen incontrovertible evidence of this.
In 1991, the Dag Hammerskold Library evidently put in place more stringent entrance requirements. Entrance would be limited to those with a grounds pass, which is issued to three different categories of patrons: (1) UN staff members, (2) institutions whose applications documented a legitimate research interest, and (3) organizations which became affiliated with the Department of Public Information.
Thus, it evidently became “necessary” in 1991 for any organization to qualify in one of these three ways if it wished to have continued access to the main library. Thus, when the Watchtower says that it became "necessary" to affiliate itself with the DPI, it seems to be the truth, not a lie.
Careful readers will note that I twice used the word “evidently” in my comments above; I did so because I do not have any evidence that the requirements for admission to the library were changed in 1991, beyond the statement from the Watchtower. Nor do I have any evidence that they were not changed. Thus, given that the Watchtower is not making an extraordinary claim, and given that such a claim could easily be contradicted if it were false, I am assuming that the Watchtower’s statement about the requirements is accurate.
Accusers who claim that the Watchtower is lying about the requirements for entrance to the library being changed in 1991 are making an extraordinary claim, and therefore are required to come up with the extraordinary evidence to back up that extraordinary claim.
Does it exist?
Until someone can provide written documentation from the security officer in charge of the main library in 1991, or from any other official in a position to know what the entrance requirements were in 1991, that unambiguously shows that there were NO changes put in place in that year, then all the Watchtower accusers will have is their fervent hope--indeed, expectation--that the Watchtower is lying. However, hope and expectation cannot take the place of real evidence; until it is forthcoming, I think one should not be so quick to assume that just because the Watchtower has been deceitful in so many other matters, that it is being deceitful here. If the accusers are wrong and are publicly condemned as wrong, they will be painted by the Watchtower as overzealous apostates who wish to bring down the Watchtower at any cost, including lying, and the efforts of so many sincere former and current Jehovah’s Witnesses to bring about change will be set back immeasurably.
Will someone provide the written evidence showing that there definitely were no changes put in place in 1991? If that's provided, then I will be quick to agree that either the Watchtower was lying about the change in 1991, or else they are just hoping that that is what happened; either way, the Watchtower will look very bad indeed. On the other hand, if it's not provided, then forum members should stop accusing the Watchtower of lying about the requirements for entrance to the library.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
