JEHOVAHSJUDGMENTEXPOSED

The Watchtower is still involved in politics...

2010-04-20T12:05:00.000-07:00

Ok, so the Watchtower disassociated from the United Nations in 2001, so move on, this is old news. I've heard this "anthem" more than a few times from Jehovah's Witnesses. If this were to be the case, then yes, perhaps, we're just beating a dead horse here. However, there's much more yet to be revealed, concerning the Watchtower's involvement with the UN and other political bodies. Did the WBTS leave the political arena alone after 2001? No, they did not. The Govering Body now generally (not always) lists their press officers and other Bethelites as the NGO's instead of the official "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society". Some have said that this is done to make it appear as if the Governing Body, and the Society as a whole is not involved but rather a few isolated individuals, to relieve some "shock value". We can only speculate here.

In 2003, the Watchtower was found associating with another branch of the United Nations, the UNDP/IAPSO. Here's their website. It seems as if the WBTS was/is eager to buy and sell with the "beast". Below...

(page 30)

http://www.iapso.org/pdf/Review2 003.p df

The OSCE is another political organization that brings in quite a crowd of NGO's and countries. In fact, the OSCE is an “an ad hoc organization under the United Nations Charter (Chap. VIII)” according to Wikipedia. Here's the OSCE official website. Below is a picture of a typical OSCE meeting in session.

Yes, the Watchtower has been "hobnobbing" at these political conferences as well. Once you've clicked on the links below to view the various documents, in the search bar type in "Jehovah's Witnesses", and you'll see quite a list of Bethel branches that have been going to these conferences. The screen shot below is just a sample of the Bethel branches involved.

(2006 OSCE Conference)

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2006/10/21654_en.pdf

(2007 OSCE Conference)

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2007/09/26586_en.pdf

(2008 OSCE Conference)

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/10/34254_en.pdf

(2009 OSCE Conference)

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2009/07/38763_en.pdf

In 2009, the Watchtower was associating with yet another branch of the United Nations, the OHCHR. Here's their website. Here's a document showing the Watchtower's involvement with this branch. I guess the beat goes on.

In reality, the WBTS is so universally involved in politics, I don't have the time, energy, or space to mention all of it. If you would like to see more of their political dealings and locations, watch this video.

Chapter 13

2010-04-16T17:06:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

In the last chapter we brought up some of the propaganda techniques used by "3W" to sway his readers. In a continuation of that, we see yet another propaganda technique being used by him in this final chapter. He says We fully concur with this letter. Since there is no real proof of deceitfulness or lying on behalf of the Bethel, and the evidence supports their version of events, should we not, if we call ourselves Christians, give our brothers the benefit of the doubt and not impute or imply bad motives? If you wish to judge them in a condemnatory way that is your right, but be aware that you are insisting your brothers are lying — no matter what explanation they offer and even though, when examining the facts, it becomes clear that they are not lying after all. Emotions are a powerful thing and one of the most effective ways to sway people's opinion. In the 2000 Awake June 22nd page 6, it has this to say about using emotion as a propaganda technique:

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

I have witnessed this personally, so many times-Jehovah's Witnesses being ruled by emotion and not willing to accept the fact that the WBTS willingly joined a branch of the United Nations. I have been told by more than a few Jehovah's Witnesses, comments like "I know the WBTS wouldn't do such a thing, therefore I don't need to investigate it". It's amazing to me how such an emotional reasoning would override the curiosity to see the truth-one way or the other. This is the primary reason why I decided to make this blog in the first place. I have had scores of Jehovah's Witnesses share the "Jehovah's Judgment" website with me without studying it or any other research on the subject. So, for now on when they present me with that site, I can give them mine. Let the truth about the truth be known. Thanks for reading.

Chapter 12

2010-04-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

(John 8:37-39)

He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

You may be wondering why I started with a Bible verse and how this relates to this chapter, or any other chapter for that matter. One word. Red herring, ok that was two. In this chapter, "3W" does his best to sway his readers by setting up a smear campaign. He attacks the character of the people he's trying to refute, over the research and facts they present. This is what the Jews did against Jesus when they couldn't refute his words, they attacked his character hoping that this "demonization" would make his words not relevant. "3W" says Nowadays, most of those former brothers and sisters cannot lower themselves to attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, because there might be something “spiritually unclean” there — as they are far too oh-so holy to take part. Yet, amongst these supposedly spiritually pure “Christians”, is pure spiritual filth. To cite just one example, the sect's own webmaster and King's closest associate openly promotes the Trinity-based teaching that Jesus' name is Jehovah, and also talks about praying to Jesus. I'm curious if he's aware that generalizations (of people groups) are instruments of propaganda techniques. Even by the standards of the Watchtower. In the 2000 Awake June 22nd pages 4-8 it explains in detail some of the propaganda techniques that people use to get their message across. Under the "generalizations" section it says:

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. “Gypsies [or immigrants] are thieves” is, for instance, a phrase frequently heard in some European countries. But is that true?

He makes big assertions about former members, but has he personally talked to these people (every one) to know what their true motives for not going to the kingdom hall is? He then goes on to say Also, the sect members have been repeatedly known to lie (like theocratic warfare strategy?) and use abusive and foul language— especially to those who leave the sect. Interesting that he would bring that up. Has he used any abusive language against his opposition? Has he not called people "crackpot" individuals and "apostates" to belittle their cause? Is this not loaded language? Are these not labels to "poison the well" or "throw poop in the punch"? Now back to that Awake article. Another propaganda technique it mentions is "name calling". It says in part:

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

Isn't this what both "3W" and the WBTS have done to people that disagree with them, by calling them names? The WBTS has a history of name calling in order to succor their cause. The most famous word they love to use is "apostate". I can't tell you how many Jehovah's Witnesses I've talked that bring out this red herring "apostate" label when I share information with them from former members. In particular, former "Bethelites". I get the typical "oh he's an apostate, he lies etc" response. I've even had some say that about my own research without them knowing it was mine. They didn't realize that the "he" was me and the quotes were their own literature! For the record I never was a JW so how can I be an apostate? The WBTS has a clever tool to get its members to disregard revealing information that can be very damning. Demonize the person then the message is disregarded. Excellent for damage control I must say.

We are then told Interestingly, when the evidence presented in this work was first published on the Internet, Robert King banned all outside links on his discussion board. He claimed this was to “protect the flock” from links to possible harmful websites. In reality, this was a lie. Isn't this just what the WBTS does with its members too? Under the guise of "child protection" (which is a valid argument to an extent) the WBTS tells its members to use the internet sparingly. They highly control the information its members are to read so they won't be "stumbled". In reality, it's damage control to keep its members from finding out their checkered past. The Governing Body doesn't endorse websites that are not their own. Read below...

Could it be because:

Error always seeks the dark, while truth is always enhanced by light. Error never desires to be investigated. Light always courts a thorough and complete investigation (1920 Millions Now Living Will Never Die pg. 13)

Lastly, if we truly are to bring out character flaws as reasons to disregard a message, then lets examine "thirdwitness" and his debate tactics for a moment. When he was defending his site on "JWN", someone pointed out that his IP address was the same as his ONLY supporter "Oh Happy Day" on the discussion. His response was:

(To view the discussion CLICK HERE)

Sorry to disappoint everyone but I am not ohhappydays nor do I know ohhappyday nor has he or anyone used my computer today except me. I have PMed him and ask him why the ip address is the same. Look at his other posts and you will see how his ip address keeps on changing. This is obviously someone who has the ability to freak the system. Perhaps the administration knows. Or maybe this is a scheme to finally get rid of thirdwitness for his exposing the apostates.

Desperation indeed.

Chapter 11

2010-04-15T13:13:00.001-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

In this chapter "3W" presents his best defense and for that I applaud him. He addresses the most popular argument about the WBTS being hypocritical for joining the DPI. This argument is based on an article in the 1979 Watchtower January 1st pg. 30-31 and it says in part:

In joining the YMCA as a member a person accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. He is not simply paying for something he receives, such as when buying things being sold to the public at a store. (Compare 1 Corinthians 8:10; 10:25.) Nor is his membership merely an entry pass, as when a person buys a theater ticket. Membership means that one has become an integral part of this organization...

Many have compared this reasoning and applied it to the UN/WBTS association. The answer from "3W" on this is Is this a fair point? Not really, no. First of all, when you become a member of the YMCA — an interfaith “Christian” group — you are recognized as being “integral” to that organization, a little like when you get baptized and become part of Jehovah's Witnesses. Yes it's true that the two scenarios are slightly different, since one is in the political arena and the other is a religious institution. My question is this. Does the WBTS allow Jehovah's Witnesses to join a YMCA gym just for the use of their facilities, the same as what they did to use the DPI's facilities? After all, joining a YMCA gym itself is NOT joining the YMCA the same as joining the DPI is not joining the United Nations.

For a reminder of how the WBTS views anyone that joins an organization, whose objective is contrary to the Bible (1983 Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry pg. 151) CLICK HERE.

Chapter 10

2010-04-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

I must admit that at this juncture, I'm a little worn out of seeing the same rebuttal (and ignorance of facts) but in different packages. No matter how many times Rover chases his tail, guess what? He doesn't get it. I believe that "3W" doesn't want you to get it either, hence the runaround. He says As part of the alleged “secret deals” with the United Nations, the conspiracy theorists say, the Watchtower Society “agreed” to write “propaganda” for the UN. They claim a series of articles published in the Awake! during the 1990's were simply written to fulfill their NGO requirement — their “end of the bargain”. Is this a reasonable assessment of the evidence, or is it shallow circumstantial evidence for a crazy conspiracy theory? First, it's my position that this statement starts off with a red herring. I don't know of any alleged "secret deals" for the WBTS to promote the UN and it's ideals, charter, and achievements etc. This is expected of all it's associated NGO's to the DPI, as we've already seen in previous chapters. He brings up some 1990's Awake magazines that contain some dedicated time in speaking about the UN and it's activities, and in a very positive manner. To see an example of such articles CLICK HERE and HERE.

Although I can't claim that I have proof that the WBTS toned down such articles-in order to report them to the UN- but I can prove this. This was brought up to me from a JW associate of mine that has "been in" for over 30 years. When I first showed him a scan of the 1998 Awake November 22nd article, he laughed at me saying that the scans were a fraud. I asked him why he thought this and he told me because of the lack of Bible scriptures in the article. It is true that there is indeed a lack of scripture in these articles, which is an abnormality to be sure. We can only speculate why this is so. I'll let you make the judge why this is. Do you find it a coincidence that the same article in the links above, is mentioned on the UN's website? To see this, a screenshot of the UN website CLICK HERE.

"3W" goes on to say After all, the Society did say the only reason for becoming a DPI NGO was to have continued access to the DPI's vast international research materials, did they not? Well, according to the Portuguese Bethel, there was more in it for them than just research and library books. Perhaps we need to revisit Chapter 3. He asks us Do they (WBTS) promote the UN as a viable world government? Once again, this is yet another red herring. The WBTS doesn't have to promote the UN as a "viable world government" in order to promote them as they were required to under the DPI. Another sleight of hand if you ask me. It is my opinion that the WBTS was saying just enough to appease the UN's reporting requirements (positive articles that is) while at the same time maintaining their traditional stance against them.

"3W" tells us that The most reasonable deduction is that Society was making good use of the UN's extensive library facilities to write high-quality Awake! articles such as this, just as they claimed. I'm afraid I have to side with the Portuguese Bethel on this one. By being an associated member with the UN, the WBTS was privy to hearing information at the UN meetings/hearings that they wouldn't have had normally. This information would be useful to see how the Jehovah's Witnesses were being dealt with around the world by various governments. Allowing the Governing Body to adjust their preemptive strategies in order to protect their rights and freedoms, hence humanitarian aid. This is a valiant effort, really it is, but nevertheless it's not remaining politically neutral. I've talked to more than enough JW's about this subject and a decent amount bring this up to me as well, even before I tell them.

The last statement we'll address in this chapter is Should we really expect that every article about the UN should conclude with how the UN is the wild beast and will be ultimately destroyed by God’s Kingdom? That is absurd. Yet to be sure there were certainly a few articles during the decade of the 1990’s that did just that. This is a valid point and I like his reasoning, well kinda. The Watchtower has had a history of the classic "double speak" and this "double agent" stance with the UN is no different. Surely the WBTS wasn't going to submit their hateful UN articles to the DPI were they? If so, do you think they would've lasted 10 years in association with them?

Chapter 9

2010-04-13T13:11:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

The first comment I'd like to address in this chapter is Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world...If an apostate or other opposer doesn’t want to regard the United Nations as a government which comes under the “superior authorities”, then that is their businesses and their business alone. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not to be judged on the basis of someone else’s mistaken beliefs. Based on the Watchtower's writings pre 1992, they have not traditionally viewed the United Nations as a government or part of the superior authorities. The UN isn't a government but is made up of governments that give the power for it to exist, big difference. Now as far as it being included in the "superior authorities" category, lets have the 1988 "Insight" book (page 1045) answer that for us. We read:

SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES
"An expression at Romans 13:1 designating human governmental authorities...Since the governmental authorities render valuable services to ensure the safety, security, and welfare of their subjects, they are entitled to taxes and tribute in compensation for their services."

As we just read, the earmark of a "superior authority" is a governmental authority that is entitled taxes. Though the UN does have an amount of power in the world, it does not require direct taxes therefore it is not Caesar.

"3W" contends that there is indeed valid proof that the UN is one of the superior authorities. All one merely has to do is take a look at various sanctions imposed by it to see what can happen when a country defies the resolutions of the UN. If UN peace-keeping forces are in your country, try defying curfew or entering off-limit areas. You will quickly find out that the UN is indeed a superior authority. Though I agree with his reasoning to an extent, that is in another situation, but this scenario doesn't apply to Bethel New York as they willingly joined the publicity department of the UN. They were not pressured nor required to join, they did so on their own accord. Perhaps "3W" wants us to forget this fact. We can safely say that the two scenarios are apples and oranges. On a side note, the WBTS has flip flopped many times of who the superior authorities actually are. It took them awhile to decide if they're Jesus and Jehovah or human governments. To see an example of this flip flop CLICK HERE (scroll to page 24).

"3W" tells us Some claim that the Watchtower publications teach that the UN is ‘the unclean thing’ and that the scripture which says, “quit touching the unclean thing” at 2 Corinthians 6:17 has been applied to the UN by the publications. This is completely false. No publication has ever taught that the UN is “the unclean thing” as discussed at 2 Corinthians 6:17. Before we get into discussing this statement, I think it would be pertinent to bring up the 1960's "Malawi Massacre" and compare it to the Watchtower's associated status with the UN. Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole use their "politically neutral" stance as one of their defining factors of being the "true religion". They have maintained this throughout many decades, and in many of their writings. In one of their magazines (1968 Watchtower February 1st p. 17-19) they printed an article where scores of JW's were beaten, raped, and killed simply because they refused to buy a 25 cent Malawi Congress Party membership card. A card that they were required to buy but they weren't required to vote. To read the whole context of this article CLICK HERE. Scores of JW's lost their life because of the fact that they were taught to stay politically neutral, and at all cost. There was another Watchtower article (1976 Watchtower October 15th pages 632-636) that came out later and referenced this incident. A snippet from the article says:

As Jehovah's Witnesses they value their relationship to God and Christ above everything else. Were they to identify themselves as giving unquestioning support to any political arrangement... Any act on their part that would indicate otherwise, therefore, would be an act of disloyalty. Such an act would be taking away from God and Christ their rightful due and would be worship to the "wild beast." No matter how insignificant the act required may seem, a Christian's engaging in such worship would mean his being disloyal to God and Christ.

To view more commentary on this publication CLICK HERE

Now back to the statement of whether the WBTS views the UN as the "unclean thing". "3W" maintains that the WBTS has never specifically called the UN the "unclean clean", which is true in the strictest sense. However, the Watchtower has lumped worldly political, financial, and governmental agencies of the world into ONE category. Which category? Well, the unclean thing. Read the 1952 Watchtower January 15th page 54 below...

Besides, note the political, financial and moral corruption in the governments of the world. Particularly in recent months have investigations in Washington revealed a state of corruption that stinks to heaven. Why should Christians want to have anything to do with such an unclean organization? Counsel the Scriptures: “Get out from among them, and separate yourselves, . . . and quit touching the unclean thing.” Surely it would be folly for Christians to try to sew the new patch of Christian principles on that old garment of corrupt democracy. Christians, therefore, who understand God’s Word shun political ambassadors.

So if the UN is a government as "3W" has asserted in this chapter, then the WBTS does indeed need to "quit touching the unclean thing", which includes the United Nations.

Chapter 8

2010-04-13T11:21:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

Though I'm not too interested in an etymological discussion of the word "support", as I feel it's rather unnecessary, but I must address this chapter nevertheless. "3W" takes the liberty to quote a small portion of the UN's charter, which is rather large containing 19 chapters. Here's the portion he quotes:

“to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems."

In justification of supporting this he says Do we or do we not support and give “approval” to these principles? If you do not support those principles, what kind of person would you be? Indeed, if Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion did not support and approve of those principles above, what kind of horrible religion would we be members of? The question is, does the Watchtower support this part of the charter below?

(To read the full charter CLICK HERE)

"...to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest..."

I think we can safely say that the WBTS would not support the cause to take up arms in order to enforce these principals. "3W" tells us The UN has not yet attacked God's people and proved itself to be an enemy of God. Did not Paul appeal to Rome when he was being persecuted? Yes — did he not use the legal system of a government which later proved to be the foretold “disgusting thing”, to advance true worship? Interesting, ask any average JW if they believe that the UN is an enemy of God. I have and they usually say yes. Why is it that the WBTS calls the UN the "disgusting thing" or the "scarlet colored beast" if it's not an enemy of Jehovah God? To see an example of how the WBTS has viewed them read below...

*** dp 267-9 15 The Rival Kings Enter the 20th Century ***
‘THE DISGUSTING THING IS PUT IN PLACE’
23 When the end of the second world war was in sight, another development occurred, just as God’s angel had foretold. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) Jesus had also spoken of “the disgusting thing.” In the first century, it proved to be the Roman army that came to Jerusalem in 66 C.E. to put down Jewish rebellion.—Matthew 24:15; Daniel 9:27.
24 What “disgusting thing” has been “put in place” in modern times? Apparently, it is a “disgusting” counterfeit of God’s Kingdom. This was the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that went into the abyss, or ceased to exist as a world-peace organization, when World War II erupted. (Revelation 17:8) “The wild beast,” however, was “to ascend out of the abyss.” This it did when the United Nations, with 50 member nations including the former Soviet Union, was established on October 24, 1945. Thus “the disgusting thing” foretold by the angel—the United Nations—was put in place.

Also to note, "3W" talks about Paul using a "disgusting thing" to advance true worship? Really, can his situation be compared to the situation between the UN and the Watchtower? Does the WBTS use the UN to "advance true worship"?

"3W" goes on to say ...our brothers in Bethel, upon realizing the new wording of the UN’s criteria for association as a DPI NGO, and even though it may not be unscriptural to remain a DPI NGO, chose to withdraw membership rather than risk stumbling others. Is that not commendable and loving on their part? All me to address three points here:

1. They didn't suddenly realize anything after the Guardian article came out. They knew what they were doing.

2. If it's not unscriptural to be an associated NGO with the DPI, why did they leave?

3. It wasn't an issue of a loving act (by leaving) to keep from stumbling others. It was an "oh s***" moment, hence their swift retreat.

Chapter 7

2010-04-12T22:51:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

In all actuality, I would prefer not to even address this chapter as it's a redundant circular theme to so many other chapters. The more "3W" tells us that the WBTS didn't have to support the UN in their association, the more he hopes you'll believe it. But now he's taken his tactics to another level. It's been asserted that the chief of the DPI's NGO section Paul Hoeffel, he's the conspiracy theorist now, since he has so much to gain from lying about the situation. Ok maybe not. "3W" quotes from a portion of a 2004 letter from Paul and it says in part:

“4 March 2004

To Whom It May Concern,

Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992. By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities.”

"3W" had this to say about it...Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? I would like to revisit "JWN" and examine another exchange between "3W" and "cabasilas".

To read the full exchange CLICK HERE
"cabasilas": Thirdwitness claims the requirements for NGOs changed over the years. This press release from 1992 shows otherwise: (showing him the 1992 UN press release HERE)

"3W": This was a year ago but Mr. Hoeffel did not respond to my questions. I received several responses telling me to contact different peoples or offices for more information. I received no new information from any of the sources, which were several, that I contacted.

"cabasilas": So, you're publically accusing him of being misleading and trying to cover up "mistakes" and you had no input from Mr Hoeffel? Just because he did not reply to you does not mean there are no answers. He may have his reasons for ignoring questions on this subject from you.

Have you considered the possiblity that you may be bearing false witness against Mr Hoeffel?

There's just too much evidence to show what "3W" and the WBTS is saying, is false. The criteria for NGO association just did not change in 1991-2. For yet another example of this, read the 2002 UN letter below.

The last statement in this chapter we'll address is...Why does Mr Hoeffel not enclose a copy of the 1992 brochure, clearly showing that there was criteria to support the UN and it's charter in that year? Why did he not take the opportunity to confirm the point? Perhaps (guessing again?) it is because the 1992 brochure said nothing of the sort. We know the 1994 brochure does not say such a thing, and therefore have no basis for thinking it was in the 1992 brochure either, if one was even sent. Once again, Paul Hoeffel has his reasons why he did what he did. One main reason that I can see why Paul gave him the then current brochure is because nothing did change. I'm sure Paul is a busy guy and wasn't interested in hunting down an over a decade old document. On a side note, why does "3W" still contend, that in the 1994 DPI handbook, there was no criteria to support the UN or it's charter etc? For just a reminder what is says CLICK HERE

Chapter 6

2010-04-12T18:39:00.001-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

"3W" writes When The Guardian first published it's article about the NGO situation, the London Bethel wrote a letter to the Editor correcting the article and clarifying the situation. Critics, however, claim that Bethel's letters of explanation are a “cover-up”, and that Bethel have shown themselves to be “outright liars”. As we have already seen in a previous chapter, the story of London's Bethel doesn't line up with Portugal's Bethel. Someone is obviously lying here and I'll place my bet on London. Here's a letter response from the Guardian's Stephen Bates to the letter HERE of London Bethel's press officer Paul Gillies. Below...

Dear Mr Gillies,

I have just been shown your letter, submitted for publication two weeks after my initial article appeared in the Guardian.

I would be very grateful if you would allow me to circulate it to the thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses who have contacted me since the articles appeared because, if there was nothing secret about your association with the Scarlet-Coloured Beast, I am surprised that so many followers did not know of it, given the WTBTS's frequent condemnation of the UN in its publications.

This may account for the witnesses' feelings of betrayal and sense of hypocrisy over the whole affair. If it was not secret and was only done to obtain a library ticket, why did you not tell me when I spoke to you several days before the article appeared? Surely you would have known it or could have found out very easily — most press officers are able to do so.

And why did the WTBTS decide to disaffiliate only two days after the article appeared, when the WTBTS "learned about a situation" which was anyway not secret? Any organisation which affiliates to another surely must know that it has to ascribe to its basic principles, so to pretend that acceptance of the UN charter's aims has been suddenly sprung on you is being disengenuous at best.

As far as I can tell from your letter there are no factual inaccuracies in my reports for you have not pointed to any that you did not have the opportunity to explain to me when we spoke. I don't think the letter will be published. But then what would I know - I'm only bird seed in your demonology!

Best wishes,

Stephen Bates

Though I would like to address the library card smokescreen, I would prefer to address something more relevant. Ok, I'll address it briefly. When the WBTS says they wanted access to the extensive library of the United Nations, were the over 400 official UN depository libraries in 140 countries just not enough to conduct research on the UN and its activities? You don't have to join the DPI to use them. To see a complete list of them CLICK HERE. Below is a list of the ones in New York City.

New York State -- New York City

Columbia University (DL-173EX)
Arthur W. Diamond Law Library (Attn: Acquisitions Dept.)
435 West 116th St., Box A-6
New York, NY 10027-7297

Tel: +1 212 854 1411Fax: +1 212 854 3295
E-mail: ssahl@law.columbia.edu
Internet: http://www.library.law.columbia.edu

DL-173EX (Apr 1948)
Print Plus deposit: Publications and masthead documents in English

Council on Foreign Relations (DL-203EX)
Library
58 E. 68th St.
New York, NY 10021

Tel: +1 212 434 9592
Fax: +1 212 434 9824
E-mail: mbaute@@cfr.org
Internet: http://www.cfr.org

DL-203EX (Jun 1947)Regular deposit: Publications in English

New York Public Library (DL-175)
Science, Industry & Business Library
188 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016

Tel: +1 212 592 7000
Fax: +1 212 592 7233
E-mail: pbengston@nypl.org
Internet: http://www.nypl.org/research/sibl/

DL-175 (Jun 1947)
Regular deposit: Publications in English

New York University (DL-500)
Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, UN Collection
70 Washington Square South, 6th floor
New York, NY 10012-1091

Tel: +1 212 998 2610Fax: +1 212 995 4442
E-mail: intl.doc@nyu.edu
Internet: http://library.nyu.edu/research/un-govt/

DL-500 (Nov 1949)
Print Plus deposit: Publications and masthead documents in English

We are told that The Watchtower Society's researcher was apparently told he could no longer access certain areas or facilities without an NGO pass. Why? Perhaps the facilities were new, and reserved only for DPI NGOs. Perhaps existing facilities were now being reserved only for the use of DPI NGO representatives. Perhaps the brother wished to access certain documents which were off-limit to the general public. Or perhaps certain exhibitions or events were taking place that were DPI NGO-invitation only. Count how many guess words are in this paragraph. Do you see a pattern here? The more we read from "3W", the more his case crumbles around him. I want us to give him a fair chance but he simply hasn't given us much to consider---a paper boat with an iron sail.

"3W" goes on to tell us that Some have uncovered records of Watchtower representatives attending a conference on the holocaust for NGOs. They quote this as “proof” that Bethel was “lying” and that there was really more to their NGO membership that merely a “library card”...The idea that the Society signed up just for a “library card” is actually a phrase invented by apostates on the Internet...There's two points I would like to address about this statement:

1. London Bethel did in fact say that their sole purpose to join the UN's DPI was to use their library facilities.
2. Bethel could have been more clear by explaining that they were interested in using this associated status with the DPI in order to attend UN meetings. They lessened the shock value by not mentioning any of this, taking advantage of the average JW's lack of knowledge to the perks of an associated NGO to the DPI.

I would like to examine one last statement by "3W", he says that The last comment by Bethel concerning the forms is:

“Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs.”

Here's the million dollar question. Why doesn't the Watchtower show us a scanned copy of the original documents so we can compare what they signed, to the document that had "language that we cannot subscribe to"? Surely this proof would silence the critics, no?

Chapter 5

2010-04-12T14:13:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

In this chapter "3W" starts off by saying that the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) produces a special brochure for it's Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). This brochure acts as an introduction to new NGOs and stipulates the requirements of being an NGO. However, in a previous chapter he said The Society could not have agreed to meet any criteria because no such agreement existed since none was necessary. So which one are we to believe, did they agree to "special criteria" or did they not? Both statements can't be true. Well, we know from the DPI handbook there are requirements and we'll examine them shortly.

We're told that They (critics) claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true? We don't need to explain the principal purpose of the DPI/NGO relationship do we? CLICK HERE

"3W" quotes the 2005 DPI handbook saying:

“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles..."

Then he goes on to say Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. The main question to be asked is why did he quote page 6 of the 1994 DPI handbook and leave out page 7? What does page 7 say? Read below...

In all fairness, he does (reluctantly) quote page 7 further down in this chapter but the reality is that it took some coaxing on the part of others for him to even mention page 7. On the world's largest JW related forum (JWN) the poster "cabasilas" says this to "thirdwitness" back in 2006:

Thirdwitness, Your site said the 1994 brochure did not say anything about the need for associated NGOs to support the UN. I pointed out how you left out page 7 of that brochure and only cited page 6. Will you update your website to correct the error?
To read the full dialogue CLICK HERE

Though he responds with If this is an error yes it will be changed and updated. I will have to look at that, it took him over two years to even update his website. I took note of this back in 2008 (on the Topix forum) after his site went down. See below...

However, if you go to the "changelog" on his website, there's no mention of ANY updates being made in 2008, particularly September 9th. We're left to wonder what he changed but didn't want to mention. CLICK HERE and scroll to the bottom to view the "changelog". On a side note, concerning the word support (the United Nations) mentioned on page 7 of the 1994 DPI handbook, "3W" gives us a dictionary lesson of what the word means. Thank you sir, we needed that.

"3W" quotes the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations saying:

"...the United Nations has entered a new era in its relations with NGOs and other civil society actors. The Economic and Social Council recognized this changed relationship when it adopted resolution 1996/31. Many agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system have followed suit. The Secretariat, for its part, has tried to adapt to this new situation in creative and innovative ways and will pursue its efforts in this field. The United Nations is committed to seek the participation and contribution of NGOs in its work. New approaches, attitudes, methods and responses are required throughout the United Nations system if we are to meet this challenge effectively”

By bringing this to our attention, he's walked himself into a corner here. He uses this mid '90's resolution 1996/31 as proof that the WBTS didn't have to support the UN-since he says this was a later requirement for NGO's well after 1991-2-while at the same time claiming that association criteria had changed in 1991-2, the exact reason why the WBTS says they joined in the first place! You just can't have it both ways. To recap, the NGO association criteria stayed the same from 1968-1996. To verify CLICK HERE

There's a whole lot of guessing in this sentence...Perhaps receipt of this booklet (UN brochure) was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn't even receive one when their status was granted in 1992. Can one put much faith in such statements? I don't think so.

Chapter 4

2010-04-11T15:35:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

The whole premise of this chapter is rather interesting. Surely "3W" doesn't want us all to believe that to have a special security clearance ground pass which “grant a main and an alternate NGO representative access to all "open" meetings of UN bodies; to DPI photo, film and audio libraries; to the Dag Hammarskjold Library; and, as observers, to the meetings of some 22 NGO committees organized by the Conference of NGOs.”, doesn't require a signature? How many legal agreements, documents, or applications do you know of that don't require a signature on the form? Doesn't a signature legitimize the contract as a binding agreement to comply to the organization's standards?

We are told that some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply. They usually show a copy of a 2005 “Accreditation Form” for yearly status renewal — complete with a place for a signature and date at the bottom. The "Accreditation Form" issue that's brought up here is a clever way to detract from the real issue. Whether or not there is a yearly renewal form is irrelevant. As a reminder, the Watchtower willingly joined a branch of the UN, their publicity department. Perhaps he hopes we'll forget this reality?

Ok now lets take the bait and talk about the renewal process. "3W' quotes from a portion of the 2005 Accreditation Form saying that “In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI”, yet he doesn't delve into what that review process actually is. Why is that? He goes on to say the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO! Did this review process mean that a yearly renewal happened at this time (2002), as "3W" affirms? No it does not. When I called the resource center desk of NGO's (212) 963-7232, I spoke to a woman (Ashly) which happens to be one of the main persons dealing with Accreditation Forms, she told me that the yearly renewal process has been the same since the early 1990's, even earlier. If the NGO doesn't fill this form out they don't get their ground pass and it prevents them from maintaining their “good standing” status with the DPI. Well, there you have it. Who's misleading who?

If you look at the 2000 DPI NGO accreditation form, you'll see a deadline (before the new year) at the bottom of it on page two. The form needs to be turned in, by then, or you don't get in. See below...

Chapter 3

2010-04-10T15:31:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

We are told that Conspiracy theorists claim that the Watchtower Society agreed to meet special criteria to “become an NGO”. They say this was part of the application process and included the requirement that they must “print articles praising the UN” to “keep their NGO status”. Is this true? Did the Society have to do anything special or agree to do certain things, to be registered with the DPI? It's true that the WBTS didn't have to meet "special criteria" to become a NGO (non governmental organization) since they already were, but they did in order to become an associated NGO with the DPI. Before we address the answer by "3W, there's excerpts of a letter that I'd like us to examine. It's from Bethel to a friend of mine, who asked me to keep anonymous.

According to this letter, the DPI in fact did have reporting requirements for it's NGO's. This has a different meaning than NGO's just providing samples to the DPI to see if they meet criteria for association, then afterwards the DPI expecting nothing else. To see a scan from a UN directory that explains the ongoing reporting requirements read below...

Yes, the UN is keeping a close eye on it's associated NGO's to make sure they are actively supporting/promoting them and their achievements. A screenshot from their website below...

Even though the DPI ultimately decides which NGO's meet their criteria for association and which ones don't, this is still a mutual agreement between two parties. There's more to it than an NGO just having the right criteria and then walking right into UN facilities that require a security clearance ground pass, as "3W' would have us to believe. He comes off as confident in such a stance but his wording doesn't confirm it. He says Evidently, the DPI must have determined that Jehovah’s Witnesses did meet the criteria because of our support for human rights and freedom of religion. So, we could not have “agreed to meet the UN’s criteria” because it doesn’t work that way. It seems, in fact, that an NGO does not have to “agree” to do anything, because the DPI itself examines the NGO and decides whether they meet the criteria or not. With him using code words for "I'm guessing" such as "evidently" and "it seems", this choice of wording doesn't give me much assurance in his research. To guess that it seems that an NGO does not have to agree to do anything, this is not giving me any confidence at all actually.

"3W" says that Some conspiracy theorists say that the Watchtower Society’s “real motive” was to gain prominence in the eyes of the UN and other governments, particularly where there is persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, is it not a ridiculous idea that having DPI passes to access the UN’s research materials could have such a benefit? So, if it's "conspiracy theorists" that think this, then we can add the Portuguese Bethel to the list. They were the first Watchtower branch on public record to explain why the WBTS joined the DPI. This explanation was contradicted by the London Bethel just two days later and to the official story as told now by Bethel NYC. Below is the link to this explanation in the Portuguese newspaper the Público, written on Saturday, October 20, 2001.

CLICK HERE

Excerpts from the article:

«"The registry as NGO was made only to be able to give humanitarian help and defend the human rights in several countries of the world", said to [the newspaper] Público Pedro Candeias, spokesman of the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses [AJW] in Portugal. In Portugal, however, the disaffiliation from the registry is not yet officially known by the AJW, which represents nearly 50,000 believers.»
«This [JW] official says the religious group to which he belongs has had "an important role" in the help to populations of countries like Angola, Bosnia, Georgia, Rwanda and other African or Latin-American [countries]. "To reach those countries was complicated and, for that reason, it was necessary to registry" the WTBTS in the United Nations. But that registry, he says, does not compromise the Jehovah's Witnesses with "any political involvement" with the UNO.»
«"It is not a political maneuver", says the AJW spokesman, "because without the support of the UNO it would not be possible to distribute humanitarian help". And as the registry "does not violate the statutory precepts" of the JW, the criticisms to the registry in the DPI "do not have any basis", says Pedro Candeias.»

Compare this statement to the one that came out from the London Bethel just two days later. Below...

To conclude this chapter lets view the conflicting statements of why the WBTS joined the DPI:

***Humanitarian Aid***

(Portuguese Bethel)

The registry as NGO was made only to be able to give humanitarian help and defend the human rights in several countries of the world.

***Library Access***

(London Bethel)

...for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations.

Chapter 2

2010-04-10T00:59:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

Hopefully it will become apparent that after reading this chapter you'll see how fitting this picture is to what "3W" is doing--by comparing the ECOSOC consultative status NGO's and the DPI associated ones in regards to support of the UN. Before we divulge into the difference between the two, lets examine how the UN views ALL of their NGO's whether they have consultative status or not. They are viewed as partners in the "common quest for peace, democracy (through political means), and development." View the scan below...

(1994 DPI handbook page 1)

We are told that many websites and at least one book deliberately misleads their readers by quoting rules and stipulations to ECOSOC NGOs, and then pretending that those resolutions and rules apply to DPI NGOs, of which the Watchtower Society was one. No matter how deep we go into the forest trekking on the rabbit trails laid before us, we must keep one thing in mind at all times here. The Watchtower willingly joined a branch of the UN, their publicity department in effect. This reality cannot be disregarded as merely a door to something else, a house that the WBTS should not have been in, according to their politically neutral standards. "3W" gives us two quotes from the online Insight magazine explaining NGO's under the DPI and ones with consultative status via the ECOSOC.

DPI

“For an NGO to be recognized by the United Nations, however, there are requirements, and even two statuses for which an NGO might apply. The DPI status is under the authority of the U.N. Department of Public Information (UNDPI), which controls U.N. archives and research facilities...

ECOSOC

“The other status for which the NGOs may apply is ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) status. The U.N. Website says that to obtain ECOSOC standing an NGO must prove that its work is directly relevant to U.N. goals. With ECOSOC standing an NGO may enter into a formal consultative relationship with access to officials of U.N. member states and must provide useful or special information to the U.N. Economic and Social Council...”

It is stated correctly that ECOSOC NGOs have a “formal consultative relationship” with the United Nations, and it's work must be “directly relevant” to the UN's goals. In other words, the ECOSOC NGO consults with the UN on it's policies and helps it achieve it's political aims and direct it's policy-making. No one is going to deny that "ECOSOC NGO's" have some political clout in association with the UN, whereas the DPI associated ones do not. However, to claim that DPI associated NGO's are relegated to a "lesser support" since they don't have consultative status, is disingenuous. To me this is like saying that because the Los Angeles Dodger's "farm team" players (such as AA etc) don't play on the actual team (MLB), their support for the organization as a whole is less and insignificant. "I wasn't the shooter or the driver, just a casual passenger that observed the murder so leave me out of it". Surely we've all heard the term "guilty by association", right?

Lets view another document that shows how the UN views all of it's associated NGO's. Below...

The most crucial statement in this document is "The arrangements for NGO's at the United Nations as a whole were updated and adopted by ECOSOC resolution 1996/31." This reveals two main points:

All NGO's are subject to ECOSOC resolutions.
The NGO association criteria with the UN didn't change until 1996. Four years after the WBTS had joined.

We are told that...They (DPI) are to use NGOs to “to provide the public with information about the United Nations”. Thats it. It is not a resolution about NGOs supporting the charter of the UN. It is not a resolution about NGOs supporting the goals of the UN. There is not even a resolution that NGOs must share the ideals of the UN charter. There is no 1296 vs 1297 resolution issue, or any other resolution compartmentalization support for the UN. It's important to understand that there is plenty of documentation showing that the UN expects all of their associated NGO's to support them and their ideals/charter, regardless of their association status. Just one example of this is a 1992 press release from the year the Watchtower was granted association with the DPI. Read below...

"3W" makes it appear that DPI associated NGO's are not subject to or under any resolution--be it the 1296, 1297, or any other sort of formal mandate/agreement. He says If you carefully examine the forms, you will notice that it nowhere says that the Watchtower Society should (concerning the 1297 resolution) “bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296”. Why? Because as said, the instruction was to “the Secretary-General” — just as it says in the resolution — and not to the NGOs at all. The reality is that the same criteria used for NGO's to qualify for consultative status (1296 XLIV) is also used for for associative status (1297 XLIV). "3W" would have us to believe that all the criteria for NGO's to be associated with the DPI is on the application form. At least that's what he implies. Even most corporations have rule handbooks for their employees, why does "3W" expect us to believe that the UN is any different? We know there is a DPI handbook given to their associated NGO's as affirmed by this 2004 UN letter below. To read the full letter from the UN website CLICK HERE

Please be informed that it is the policy of the Department of Public Information of the United Nations to keep correspondence between the United Nations and NGOs associated with DPI confidential. However, please see below the paragraph included in all letters sent to NGOs approved for association in 1992:

“The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies. Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications. We are enclosing a brochure on the “The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations”, which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship.”

We'll discuss in a future chapter what the exact listed association criteria in this DPI handbook is.

Chapter 1

2010-04-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

It's rather interesting to see that the opening sentence of the "JJ" website attempts to "lesson the blow" of the Watchtower's association with the United Nations, claiming their mere "registration". Saying that the WBTS merely registered with the UN doesn't carry the same weight as having an approved association by process of application, a process that took six months for completion. If I contacted a charity and asked to be on their register, it would have a different meaning than asking for an application to associate with them. "Thirdwitness", whom I will call "3W" for now on, has used a convenient wordplay to set up his rebuttal. "3W" explains that once the Guardian newspaper (UK) "informed" them that all associated NGO's must support the UN, the WBTS thanked The Guardian for bringing the matter to their attention, then they immediately withdrew (within two days) their membership with the UN's DPI (Department of Public Information).

Was this pure gratitude from the WBTS that the Guardian reported on the matter or an "oh s*** we've been exposed" moment? Did it really take a newspaper to explain to the WBTS that their association with the UN was an illegitimate hypocrisy? At this moment was the WBTS just now informed that associating with the UN is supporting it? Is it valid to claim that one who joins an organization is not supporting that which they have joined? Did the NGO association requirements change in 1992? If I join only a division of the mafia, can I compartmentalize my support for them?

There's much to be said about the situation, but first lets examine three articles that Guardian wrote about the WBTS/UN association (below-click on images to enlarge them). The second article is the one referenced by "3W".

1. Jehovah's Witness link to UN queried- The Guardian Monday 8 October 2001

CLICK HERE

2. 'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon link with UN- The Guardian Monday October 15 2001
CLICK HERE

3. The Guardian October 18 2001

It's true that this issue has caused quite a stir among many sincere Jehovah's Witnesses, that is, once they have found out about this association. Many have left and are upset that their "Governing Body" joined a branch of the UN. Yes their GB joined, not just a few isolated JW's as some have claimed. The UN is an organization that the Society has adamantly condemned for many decades. Unfortunately, "3W" makes it hard for one discern the truth. He says that "opposers" and former JW's "have claimed that the NGO requirements never changed. This is a half-truth in reality. In all the years that I've discussed this subject with numerous people, I've never heard such a statement. What I have heard however, is that people talk about how the NGO association requirements didn't change in 1991-2 as the WBTS and "3W" claimed they have. We'll prove that in the near future.

"3W" says that Conspiracy theorists claim the Watchtower Society knew they were supporting the United Nations and kept it a “secret”. Though I wouldn't call this association an entire secret-partially because of the Guardian-but I find it odd that the WBTS hasn't mentioned any of this issue in any of its publications. On a random poll I've done with JW's, most I have interviewed have had no idea of it either. Most have refused to accept the reality of this association when brought to their attention, and only when they find out the truth, do they rationalize why it's ok. One may ask, if it's really ok anyways, then why was it such an issue to deny the fact? I believe the answer is rather obvious to some of us. On a side note, "3W" sets this up as an "us" against "them" scenario, blurring the lines of pure objective research from interested individuals.

He then goes on to say They even go so far as accusing the Watchtower Society of having deliberately distributed pro-UN propaganda in issues of the Awake! as “part of the deal” with the UN. Now would be a perfect time to explain the principle purpose of the NGO/DPI relationship. Read below...

This fact can be found on various UN letters written to concerned individuals, as well in their handbooks and on their website. Yes, the principle purpose for an NGO to associate with UN via the DPI is to distribute articles about the UN, to increase public understanding of the UN and its achievements etc. It's simple, you just don't join a publicity department (of an organization) and maintain that you're not interested in marketing or promotions. You'd have a better alibi if you went to work in the mail-room department instead.

The last statement I'd like to address in this chapter is ...we implore you to set aside all prejudice and any other emotions, to fairly and dispassionately consider the other side of the argument without any preconceived ideas, and be happy to change your views if necessary. It's interesting to me that he implores people to consider a fair investigation but yet he has not a single link to the opposition's research or websites. Sure he quotes "oppossers", but without any references, how can one get the full context of what was actually said? He asks us to lay aside emotions while at the same time employs his typical loaded hate language to tip the scales his way. "3W" demands fair research but yet nowhere do I see on his site a place for one to contact him and offer suggestions, or better yet, more documentation of what research he left out. I smell an ambush...

JEHOVAHSJUDGMENTEXPOSED

The Watchtower is still involved in politics...

More answers to more questions

Chapter 13

Chapter 12

Chapter 11

Chapter 10

Chapter 9

Chapter 8

Chapter 7

Chapter 6

Chapter 5

Chapter 4

Chapter 3

Chapter 2

Chapter 1