OK, this is getting a bit confusing, because I've been discussing this UN issue with Hector by email, and some but not others of our responses have been posted on this thread. I'm going to offer the following as a summary of the discussion so far.
It started when I read Hector's article on his website about the UN issue, and that is found at: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/ngo.htm
My first email to him (already posted above in this thread, but being reproduced here for the sake of continuity) was:
Hello;I was just reading your article about the Watchtower and the United Nations NGO incident. There are several points you fail to mention or ignore in your dissertation.
You state that "there was nothing secret" about the Watchtower's NGO status and that "*after* they applied for NGO status there was a change in the language of the "Criteria for Association." When this was brought to their attention they *immediately* withdrew their participation." Unfortunately, these remarks do not reflect the truth. The Watchtower withdrew its membership as an NGO, not at the time that the Criteria were changed, but almost immediately after their participation was exposed via the internet. If their participation was not secret and there was nothing questionable about their membership, why did they withdraw as soon as they were exposed?
As I am sure you are aware, the Watchtower has for many years condemned the UN as the "image of the beast" and the "scarlet colored wild beast" of Revelation, as well as the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" spoken of by Daniel and Jesus. They have condemned all interaction of religious groups with governmental authorities as 'fornication with the kings of the earth,' continually proclaiming their own separateness from the world. Obviously, in the light of the NGO situation, these remarks are seen to be hypocritical at best. Obviously, they have been doing their own fornicating with the beast. I find it interesting that your article essentially denies this aspect of the issue, since it is their condemnation of the UN that makes their hidden association with it so reprehensible. If you are really unaware that the Watchtower has made such statements, I can provide citations in the publications.
Ask yourself this: as an individual JW, what would be the result if you were to join the YMCA solely for the purpose of using the swimming pool? Since the Watchtower condemns the YMCA as a false religious organization, we know that such membership would not be tolerated, even though it was maintained, not for any religious purpose, but simply in order to utilize their facilities. If you persisted in maintaining your membership, you would be disfellowshipped as an apostate. However, it appears that a different standard exists for the Watchtower leadership than for the rank and file. And, amazingly, many of the rank and file see no problem with this! But make no mistake - if the same standards were applied to the leadership that would normally be applied to rank and file members, then the governing body members who authorized and condoned the UN affiliation would need to be disfellowshipped, or, if repentant, at least be removed from all positions of responsibility. How great are the chances that that will happen?
I would be interested in reading your comments on these issues.
Tom
Hector's first response to me was:
Your comments are identical to another comment I recieved by someone else today...and here is what I sent him:There is not much to help me make a judgement on this. Certainly, all the available information is not available at the depository libraries, contrary to some opposers claims. Looking at the information, I notice that the Society did not say that they registered as an NGO just to get a library card for the "main library." They stated it was to get access to research material at the UN "library facilities" or the "extensive library of the UN." This library system includes more than just the Dag Hammarskjold library. It includes DPI photo, film and audio libraries. Access to the NGO Resource Center which offers current UN documents. Access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, conferences, film screenings, and language courses. Now do you have access to all these library resources with out an NGO pass?
I have thoroughly reviewed all these documents and they essentially confirm the WTS's statements regarding a change of wording. First, the 1992 Press Releases came out a year after the WTS applied for registration. They are irrelevant in determining what the WTS agreed to as they are clearly marked as "unofficial documents" and were written long after the WTS applied. They do clearly show a change in terminology from the *official* registration papers the WTS used. They instead use the phrases "support for UN...goals" and "support the charter." On the other hand, the letter from Paul Hoeffel more accurately transmits the original terminology: "support and respect of the *principles* of the Charter." Then in 1994 we find the informational brochure using language similar to the '92 press releases. Again, this is irrelevant since it does not change the official requirements the WTS agreed to.
Interestingly, this 1994 brochure gives evidence to the fact that there was beginning to be a change in the official requirements for participation and an NGO. On page six we find this statement: "A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities."
Then we find the current Criteria for Association of NGOs describing the work of NGOs using language that Witnesses clearly cannot agree with; encouraging political participation, strengthening and support of the UN System etc. Also, in the latest NGO brochure we find that there was in fact an official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs. (< http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm>;)
Quoting from the brochure: "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...Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed." etc.
So all the previous documentation clearly confirms exactly what the WTS has said: That *after* they applied for NGO status there was a change in the language of the Criteria for Association. When this was brought to their attention they *immediately* withdrew their participation.
Your YMCA analogy does not work, as the UN is not a religious organization, therefore the command to "Come out of her" does not apply.
To that, I next responded:
Hello;
Well, one thing that is obvious to me from your comments is that you very much want to believe whatever the Watchtower tells you. I thought Jehovah's Witnesses were supposed to be lovers of truth - real truth, that is, not "truth" as packaged and presented by an organization for its own benefit.
You spend an entire paragraph splitting hairs as to specifically what facilities were accessed through NGO affiliation. That is sidestepping the point. The issue is not what facilities they were trying to get access to. The issue is that the Watchtower has taught for decades that the UN is a satanic organization, the "image of the wild beast" and the "disgusting thing that causes desolation." As an individual JW, you would be expected to have nothing to do with such an organization - you would quickly be disfellowshipped if you associated yourself with it. Suppose the American Legion in your town had an excellent library - would it be permissible for you to become a member of that organization only in order to take advantage of its facilities? Or would you be told to "quit touching the unclean thing," regardless of the benefits you might gain by membership? Why is there a different standard for the JW leadership than there is for its members?
As far as the supposed change in NGO requirements, if I understand your assertions correctly, it occurred in 1996. Yet the Watchtower continued its affiliation for another five years beyond that time, under the new rules, until their NGO status became widely known via the internet. Are we to understand that for five years, no one affiliated with the Watchtower became aware of the more demanding requirements that had been levied? I find that very hard to believe. It seems obvious to me that the Watchtower leadership valued the benefits to be gained by NGO status more than their integrity to their own teachings. Unfortunately for them, they got caught with their pants down And, if there was nothing wrong with their affiliation, why did they renounce it at all, even after it became public knowledge?. Their lack of integrity has been further demonstrated in recent years by their joining with other religious organizations in conferences and associations, despite their strictly forbidding rank and file members to engage in any sort of interfaith activity.
Since you don't like the YMCA analogy, consider whether one of Jehovah's Witnesses could join the military reserve simply in order to gain the educational benefits that would be provided. If you are honest with yourself, you will have no choice but to admit that the organization has acted hypocritically and without integrity to its own teachings in this matter. Had their NGO status not been publicly exposed, you can be sure they would still be maintaining it.
Tom
This morning, I received the next answer from Hector:
>>Well, one thing that is obvious to me from your comments is that >>you very much want to believe whatever the Watchtower tells you.
We have an interesting dichotomy here, don't we? You accuse me of accepting anything the WTS says, but yet you stubbornly hold on to your beliefs to the contrary. Let us look at the above statement and break it apart.
The Watchtower NEVER told me anything regarding the UN, this, as is pretty much all the info on the 140 plus pages on my website, is Watchtower free.You came by this information because a man with an agenda told you this, and you accepted blindly, because you felt you needed to.
I received the same info, but came to an entirely different point of view. As was not sheepishly following one man.Now, I realize that you JW-haters desperately NEED your little illusion, and that is fine. It fills the void that you once experienced with truth. You need to believe as you do, as it also compensates for the guilt you feel of mucking things up as you have.
All these points are understandable. But this is a psychological problem, not an intellectual exercise.
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com"...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it,and carry on." -Churchill, Winston S.“But God has chosen what the world calls foolish to shame the wise; he has chosen what the world calls weak to shame the strong.” 1Cor 1:27 J.B. Phillips NT
And, just a few minutes ago, I sent off the following response:
So, as in your first response, you skillfully avoid all the issues raised. In your first response, however, you simply provided a non-response that danced around the issues without really addressing them. In this response, you took a much more simple approach - ignore the issues entirely, and launch an ad hominem attack on me and my motives. Such an approach does nothing to prove your argument and disprove mine, but it does cast doubt on your side of the issue, since a reasonable observer must conclude that if you could refute what I say, you would do so.
Yes, I do accuse you of "accepting anything the WTS says," and as proof, I offer the fact that you have created an entire website that does little except to parrot WTS positions on a variety of issues. I "stubbornly hold on to [my] beliefs to the contrary" only because you have offered no credible evidence to support your position.
You are certainly correct when you say, "The Watchtower NEVER told me anything regarding the UN," and they most likely never will, as it is their practice to cover up their dirty laundry, not to discuss it openly and to deal with it as Christians ought to.
You say to me, "You came by this information because a man with an agenda told you this, and you accepted blindly, because you felt you needed to." Well, not being God, I can't see everything that happens in the world at all times, and must often rely on reports from other humans to know what is happening. Unless you were in New York City on last September 11, you likely learned about the events at the World Trade Center from other humans. Does that mean that their reports are not credible? Would you therefore now go to New York and expect to see the towers still standing?
However, I emphatically deny that I have accepted anything blindly on this issue. Scans of many original documents have been posted on the web, and I have examined them all. They appear to be genuine, and they also appear to be very damning to the Watchtower. The evidence that has been provided is evry credible and convincing. If you can provide other evidence, just as credible and convincing, that would sway the argument in the Watchtower's direction, I would be more than willing to consider it. To this point, you have not done so.
There is no "void" on my part "that {I} once experienced with truth" that needs to be filled with illusion. Indeed, my only regret is that I gave such a large part of my life to an illusion, to a corrupt organization of men that claimed to be God's only truth. It was only when I examined matters with an honest mind that I realized what a lie it was. Of course, scripturally, "the truth" is not an organization anyway, it is a person, Jesus Christ, who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) I appeal to you to stop following men and come to the One who can really give eternal life.
Tom
And there you have the latest, up-to-the-minute account of this correspondence. I will await any further response from Hector, but I thought that some of you might find the reasonings on both sides to be informative.
Tom
"Gentlemen, he said, I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes, I've moved your mountains and marked your cards. But Eden is burning"
--Bob Dylan
