yeah... he takes the woe is us tack.
We are soooo innocent that someone would pick on us for this.
YEAH WELL HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE YOU DF'D FOR GOING TO THE YMCA FOR SIMPLY WORKING OUT YOU ASSHOLE!!!
JW's United Defend W.T.'s Relationship With U.N.
by Kenneson 52 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
EvilForce
-
Dino
What an excellent reference Kenneson!
I wish I could say more, but I see that HF's obfuscatory skills are as finely tuned as ever.
How maddening it is to read lies defended by half truths.
Thank you,
Dino
-
ezekiel3
What a laughable defense! Quoted from the site:
Use of the UN's Libraries
As the above quotes show, the Watch Tower Society maintains that its reason for obtaining NGO status was to have access to the United Nations' library facilities. It is also likely that they wanted to attend such things as press briefings, information seminars, etc, conducted by the UN. There can be no doubt that this would be helpful to the Writing Department.
True, UN sources are now saying that NGO status is not necessary to use the UN's libraries, and that it has, in fact, never been necessary. Even if it was not the UN's policy to require NGO registration in order to use the libraries, it is quite possible that a UN employee mistakenly told the Watch Tower representative that registration was required. Many people have had the experience of going to government departments and being told what documents are needed for a certain purpose, only to return with the necessary paperwork and find out that what they had been told originally was wrong, that they did not need all the papers that they had brought, or that they needed some other documents that they had not brought. This is a common experience when dealing with officialdom in all organizations.
In any case, the question of why the Watch Tower Society wanted NGO status is really a side issue, of lesser importance. This is so, because both the Watch Tower and its critics agree that it would be wrong to compromise ones principles in order to get access to a library. The reason why the Watch Tower Society mentions this reason is doubtless to explain that there is no need for a dark, suspicious motive to explain why they applied for NGO recognition.
Would the Governing Body Even Know?
Accusers seem to operate on the principle that an organization is like a person and that if any one person in an organization knew something, then that means that the organization "knew" it. Of course, strictly speaking, the Watch Tower Society does not "know" anything; it is the people who make it up that know things. This point, too, is crucial to understanding the situation in Brooklyn.
In any large organization, such as the Brooklyn Headquarters of the Watch Tower Society, a large amount of work is done by delegation. Whereas some of the writing is done by members of the Governing Body (although not all Governing Body members serve on the Writing Committee), a lot of it is done by other staff writers, located either in New York City or in other parts of the world.
It is quite possible, then, that the Governing Body were unaware that the Watch Tower Society had been registered as an NGO, and even if some of them did know, it is highly probable that they were not aware of all the terms and implications of such a membership.
Many employers have had the unpleasant experience of being embarrassed, compromised or even exposed to legal action because of an employee 'messed up' and mishandled an important matter. Could it be, then, that someone at Brooklyn Headquarters made a mistake and inadvertently involved the Watch Tower Society in pledging support to the UN? Of course, that is possible, although again nothing like that is proved by the information we have available. But even if that is what happened, that is a world away from the Watch Tower Society 'prostituting itself' and 'riding the beast' - as some apparently allege.
-
Oroborus21
thanks for the find.....
I wrote this guy an email here it is:
Greetings:
I found your website to be "fair and balanced" (to borrow from one media outlet) regarding the controversy over the Society's UN-NGO status.
I do have a few minor criticisms however.
First, you "challenge" those opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses (former Witnesses I assume) to post their names and congregations; however, I noticed that you did not do so yourselves.
While I totally agree that it is not hypocritical to print UN related stories or to cite the UN; I am not quite sure that I agree with your conclusion that the Society still believes and is promoting the notion that the UN is the Scarlet-colored Beast of Revelations. More recent references to the beast have failed to specifically cite the UN by name in prefence for a more "general military or political powers" word choice. I think that recent events over the past decade have shown that the UN is not the world-dominating military beast (and frankly it may never have been) so, although it is purely speculation on my part, I do believe the Society will eventually drop the teaching that the UN is the beast of Revelation.
Third, while there is as you suggest very little evidence that the Governing Body as a whole knew of the NGO status or if some did know that they didn't appreciate the nature of the relationship; however, even if only one or two or a few members knew, isn't it reasonable to think that it would be their duty to immediately investigate the situation and make a determination regarding it. Additionally, we are not talking about something where maybe they signed up one month, found out about it and then withdrew. This was a decade long situation.
Fourth, the timing of the Society's withdrawal is too coincidental to be viewed as a product of their own choice. Literally after the Guardian story broke and was picked up by the Internet community, the Society withdrew its NGO membership within the FOLLOWING DAY or two.
Now, assuming that the feeling is "this is something we really didn't know about or think about the appearances, but we are glad we found out and took the right step to withdraw" doesn't the Society OWE Steven Bates (the Guardian writer) and the Internet Community a huge "thank you".
Fifth, if the NGO was really not inappropriate and if the Society had no real intention of honoring the "NGO agreement" which calls for "supporting the UN's objectives" anyway, why be so secretive about the whole affair with the membership? Why not publish a simple page or two explaining everything and in fact, why cancel the NGO status at all?
-----
(the following is just a portion of something that i have written that sums up my take on this matter)
...As one can see from this letter and the Society?s ?official explanation? to the Branches, the major reason for NGO membership is asserted to be to gain access to the library. It has already been pointed out that alternative access to essentially the same information could be obtained via the UN?s Depository Libraries, but it is not known whether this was known to the Society?s staff or whether the Society desired access to information not available at a depository library.
As has already been pointed out, the argument that the Society didn?t know until recently that being an NGO meant being ?supportive? of the UN is untenable; but if true, it surely calls into question the academic ability and scholarship of the Society?s staff.
What is very disappointing is that if the Society truly believed that it had done nothing wrong, and had taken appropriate action of disassociating itself with the UN when the problem was ?brought to its attention,? then it should publicly admit its error, especially to the worldwide association of Jehovah?s Witnesses that believe and trust in it and the leadership of the Governing Body.
Having said that and the obvious errors above notwithstanding, this is not the MAJOR scandal that many have held it out to be. Certainly, among its faults, this affair with the UN is by no means the biggest of the Organization?s problems. An objective viewer can understand that what occurred was simply a lack of proper supervision and, perhaps, a significant amount of gross error on the part of the responsible parties in understanding the ?spiritual? implications that officially maintaining an NGO status would entail.
This ?association? as an NGO member does not truly constitute the type of ?immorality with the Scarlet Colored Beast? that the Society has so often accused other religions of doing but it is humorous, like someone whose pants have suddenly fallen down. But really, taken at face value, the Society?s conduct of using the library?s resources and association by NGO membership for 10 years is truly minor. (Certainly, there is no evidence that the Society ever did any of the activities that the UN expects of its NGOs ? and if anything the UN probably should have kicked the Society out for failing to meet the NGO requirements long ago. Obviously, no one at the UN was very familiar with the Society?s teachings or one wonders how it got accepted in the first place.)
Nevertheless, this was certainly a breakdown and a serious error in judgment on the part of someone. For even if we assume, that the ?Governing Body? wasn?t fully aware that being an NGO meant agreeing to support the UN?s mission, the fact is that someone had to be and that someone should have thought deeply about the ?appearance? that such association would have.
After all, every Witness knows that it can be grounds for disfellowshipping or reproof to even be seen GOING INTO A BROTHEL, ANOTHER CHURCH, or SPENDING THE NIGHT at the house of a single-person of the opposite sex. Thus is it any different ? was there no thought at all ? about the conscience of the friends if it was known that the brothers frequently visited the library of the UN?
There has always been a DOUBLE STANDARD in place for members of the Bethel research and writing staffs and other Jehovah?s Witnesses. What is forbidden to be read by other Jehovah?s Witnesses is studied in depth by the staff; although from the frequent failures in proper citations and missing of basic principles from the works often cited it is difficult to tell sometimes. Supposedly, these Bethel workers are ?rotated? and monitored so as not to become ?spiritually polluted? by such materials.
Perhaps, then it should not be too surprising that the same Organization that might punish a brother for membership at the YMCA would make allowances for its own Bethel staff to hold a ?UN library card.? But, though not surprising, it is dreadfully pitiful and a sad witness to the nations. The friends deserve a more forthright ?apology? from those responsible and from those that must take ultimate responsibility, the Governing Body.
------
sincerely,
Eduardo Leaton Jr.
formerly of University Congregation
Los Angeles, Calif. -
Heatmiser
http://www.angelfire.com/tn3/jehovah/index.html
Ok here is a guy that I found after going through the webring from the first thread. In study 5 he blasts the LoN/UN as being the wild beast that the harlot (babylon the great) is riding.
I sent him a gentle e-mail linking him to the first guys site. And asked him why this guy says it is ok that the JW's where part of the un for 10 years, and he condems the UN and all other churches that support it.
-
Aztec
" With regard to former Witnesses and religious opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses who are publicizing these allegations, we have to ask them: "What's it to you anyway?". After all, if they aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, presumably they don't believe that the UN is the 'disgusting thing' referred to in Matthew 24, or the 'image of the beast' of Revelation 13, but rather that it is a praiseworthy effort to bring peace to mankind. Well, if that is their position, then why are they finding fault with Jehovah's Witnesses for supporting it, as they claim? They should be congratulating the Witnesses for offering support to such a laudable objective! But of course they don't. There can be only one reason: mischief making. These opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses are possessed with such an unreasoning hatred for the organization which many of them formerly belonged to that they look for any pretext to cause trouble for them. "
First of all, is the author now saying that it was the Watchtower's objective to support the UN in their goals? On another page this person parrots the official response.
Also, why is finding logical inconsistancies of an organizations policies mischief making?
" Even if some of them are still active Jehovah's Witnesses, they are still guilty of deception. They know full well that by publicly attacking the Watch Tower Society, they forfeit their right to belong to the congregation. "
That cracked me up! Of course you can't criticize the Watchtower and still be an active member in good standing!
"The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are honest men, sincerely devoted to teaching the truth of the Bible throughout the world. They would never purposely do anything that would compromise Christian principles or displease Jehovah. Those who really love Jehovah and his word will co-operate with them in attaining this objective. If Jehovah trusts them, then so should we."
That's rather specious reasoning. *shrugs*
-
avishai
He does such a shitty job defending it that i'd say it's "black propaganda".
Black propaganda is propaganda that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. It contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared. The term is also sometimes used as a synonym for particularly malicious wartime propaganda or falsification of information that is captured by an enemy.
Black propaganda may be generated by altering genuine enemy propaganda in such a way as to distort its message. This is a particularly powerful tool if the target audience has a poor understanding of the language of the enemy.
-
EvilForce
I like how he uses the words "unknowingly, mistakenly, inadvertently, commonly". Let's see these GB are Jah's spokespeople how could they be duped so easily then?!? Also, since the UN is Satan's organization on Earth wouldn't they go out of their way to dot the i's and cross the t's since they could expect the UN to be devious like this?
No they are doddering old fools! And their recompense shall be great! -
Kenneson
"It is quite possible that the Governing Body was unaware that the Watch Tower Society had been registered as an NGO."
Barbara Anderson disagrees with that assessment.
-
DannyBear
If Jehovah trusts them, then so should we."
This type of rationalization has been used since Pastor Russell days. The Bible Students about the only majority within the ranks, to ever not exercise this cult like thinking.
At least they had the fortitude to leave the org when they saw the change of thinking. Today's jw does not stand a chance, to even develope one iota of independent thought...........even if the evidence is overwhelming, that they have indeed been lied to.
I can still hear my mother and father exusing every sort of bad conduct by the Judge, with the exact same words this idiot uses above.
Danny