Thursday, September 08, 2005

The Watchtower and the United Nations

Many people have come across e-watchman's essays regarding the dealings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the United Nations. Of those people, (1)some had their faith dealt a death blow. (2)Others researched it and came to an understanding of its relation to prophecy. (3)Others disregard it as apostate poppycock.

I hope that catagories one and three mentioned above also came across 3rdwitness' essay, as it may restore their faith, at least for the time being. For that I am glad you wrote an essay that supports the Watchtower Society.

For the people in group one who want to find out more, yet rebuild their faith, as well as group two, I write this essay. Remain strong in the faith. Learn. But learn the whole story.

This is a rebuttal to 3rd witness' essay, which excuses the Watchtower's dealings with the United Nations. The text in orange are quotes from his essay, and the text in black is my reasoning on his statements.

This is not meant to be harsh criticism. It is just the facts as I see them laid out plainly. Any harshness in tone is not intential, for in the end, we are all brothers. We are trying to reach the same ends.

That being said, I do stand by my beliefs that this association between the Watchtower and the UN was a bad idea from the very beginning.




You quote a UN resolution that says NGOs purpose is “in order to increase their informational activities concerning economic and social affairs,”

Nothing wrong with that, at first glance. It is a good thing to be aware of the issues that exist in our society.

Again, “Recognizing the contribution of national and international non-governmental organizations to the dissemination of information about the United Nations

You will find throughout UN literature that an NGO’s purpose is to disseminate information. What is the purpose of this? It is to execute a public relations campaign. The UN is trying to make sure it controls the information that is released. They try to have their positive image relayed in publications that people naturally trust. For example, If a JW reads in the newspaper something regarding the UN, and then reads the opposite in the Watchtower, 99 out of 100 Jws would believe the Watchtower. The same would go for a Ba’hai when it comes to their publication. Spread this over 1300 membership organizations in the NGO Section. The percentages of acceptance may be different for each organization, but results are similar.

There are NGOs that register with the DPI and NGOs that register with the ECOSOC. The WT had registered with DPI (Department of Public Information). It is just what its title says it is: a department that supplies information. The other status for NGOs is a consultative status with the ECOSOC. There apparently is a difference. Lets examine the original articles and resolutions of the UN to confirm this.

ECOSOC is strictly for NGOs concerned with economic and social development. NGOs in association with DPI can apply to ECOSOC for consultative status, if that is their area of expertise.

First you say this “It would seem that this resolution in the strictest sense applies to NGOs with consultative status with the ECOSOC in which the WTS was not one. This is therefore not the resolution that would apply to the WTS since it was a NGO associated with the DPI and not the ECOSOC.” then you say this “You will note that the ECOSOC in number 6 is recommending that the Secretary-General (head of the DPI) “bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296.” So often this is quoted to show the obligation of the NGO but this is a recommendation not to the NGOs but to the DPI for signing NGOs. The DPI is the one with the responsibility for doing this. Did they follow the recommendation?

This is a resolution passed by the United Nations, not a recommendation, as you put it. In UN-speak, a resolution is a law. So, according to your sources, the DPI would have to follow “the letter of... Council resolution 1296.” Does this mean that when they approved the WT it was because the DPI believed that the society would support the UN? That is what the letter of the law says. And since they had many organizations that did not qualify (10 were rejected in 1992, the year the Society was accepted), they must have had some kind of standard.

The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redisemination 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

So, even by the quote given, the job of NGO’s is to disseminate information regarding the future 8th King of Revelation, who stands in opposition to Jehovah.


From all appearances, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the DPI apparently did not take to heart the recommendation of the ECOSOC in associating NGOs in the spirit of resolution 1296 which says “...shall undertake to support the work of the UN." You would think that somewhere on the application it might say something like this: ‘We hereby agree to support the UN and its charter.’ And then a signature would be required showing that the NGO agreed to do this. However, not only did the application not have any such wording, a signature was not even required on the application. Does this not demonstrate that the original application was perceived as being somewhat insignificant?

Again, it was not a recommendation, but a resolution that was passed.

Furthermore, the same website that you refer to says these items need to be included
“_ A completed Application Form for Non-Governmental Organizations

(Note: All responses must be typed. Handwritten responses will not be accepted.)

_ _ A completed Summary of Application

_ _ A copy of the organization's constitution/charter or by-laws

_ _ Official proof of non-profit status, issued by public authorities, and tax exemption status

(Note: The document should be on official letterhead and dated.)

_ _ A copy of the organization's most recent annual budget or financial statement

_ _ Evidence of an active information programme relevant to the United Nations:

at least six (6) samples of the organization's most recent information materials (e.g. newsletter, periodicals, tapes of radio or television programmes, conference reports)

(Note: Electronic materials, such as Web sites or periodicals, should be sent in hard copy form.)



_ _ Letters of recommendation of organizations (UN or others)

_ _ References (see question 21 in the application form) “

The application all of a sudden got a little complicated. Why would a summary be needed for a simple application? Of course not. Personally, when I am filling out an application for something, and it asks for my full financial statement, I find that quite invasive and somewhat complicated. You say this application seems somewhat insignificant. Hardly.

So the answer to the question becomes clear. Did the DPI follow the recommendation of the ECOSOC in associating NGOs in the “spirit of Council resolution 1296”? Not according to the application or letter that was sent out to NGOs. It was simply mentioned to disseminate information. That is exactly what the Office of Information was formed to do.

Also on a website that you have linked to we find a press release dated August 7th 1992. This was to notify of 44 new NGOs being accepted. Since the DPI wants NGOs to pass along information, and since the Watchtower was one of the 44 new NGOs that year, it is very likely that the Society received this release. It says “The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals.” Maybe that wasn’t clear enough. It again says “To be granted association status with DPI, NGO’s must be not-for-profit organizations with recognized national or international standing, support the Charter of the United Nations, ...” Sounds like DPI did take this ‘recommendation’ to heart. And the information was clearly in the public domain, in a press release.

They claim that the WTS had to renew their application every year and thus they would have known their obligation to support the Charter of the UN. Often times they give the link for the 2005 Accreditation form. Here is the link for this form:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:49DBLOf8n7AJ:www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/acconline2005.pdf+2005+accreditation+form+un&hl=en

However it must be pointed out that the WTS resigned prior to this review process. Please note the words under number 4 in the document:

Let’s separate these arguments. We’ll talk about reviews later. They did have to renew their application each year. This means that it was not a one time error, but something that had to continue on each year. This is just another argument against the theory that a lone wayward brother that was a writer got us into this arrangement. It was something that was ongoing.

“In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI.”

The fact is that this review process was not in place prior to 2002. This is also confirmed by a press release by the UN in December 2001. Here is the link for it:”

But that link also show what the UN is after. Another organization to talk about how great the UN is. This quote is from the same blog.

“4 December 2001. The newly associated organizations conform with the principles of the United Nations Charter, operate solely on a non-profit basis and demonstrate a long-standing involvement with United Nations issues. Most importantly, they have the information programme infrastructure in place to reach a broad audience about United Nations activities. This information dissemination capacity is a unique criterion for association with the DPI.”

Besides that, the review process is different than the renew process. You have to resubmit your application on a yearly basis, but the UN/DPI instituted a bi-annual review process in addition to that. Because of this, 251 NGO’s were disassociated in the first review because of not meeting requirements. If it were only for a library card, were the requirements solely literacy? Obviously not.

Often times those trying to discredit the WTS about this subject will quote information from this current version of the brochure from the UN showing the criteria of a NGO. In this way they try to demonstrate that the WTS had to know the requirement of a NGO was to support the UN. But it must be pointed out that this was certainly not the brochure in 1992 when the WT became an associated NGO. The brochure had no doubt been through changes before reaching the wording found in the current format. How do we know this?
Here are the links for the 1994 brochure

On the link you provided for the brochure it describes the events for the year, so of course it changes from year to year. It also says this “The Department [DPI] and its branch offices should actively assist and encourage national information services, educational institutions, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations of all kinds interested in spreading information about the United Nations. For this and other purposes, it should operate a fully equipped reference service, brief or supply lecturers, and make available its publications, documentary films, film strips, posters and other exhibits for use by these agencies and organizations.”

So the Department of Public Information is not in place for those who have questions regarding the UN. Its purpose is to actively propagandize this information, with the help of other groups. So the WT did use this information service, to keep us abreast of the doings of the 8th King?

Did the Society really have no responsibilities? From the same 1994 brochure.

“Other activities of the NGO section include orientation courses for new NGO representatives, workshops for editors of NGO publications, regular mailings of UN materials to NGOs, monitoring of UN coverage in NGO publications, surveys of activities and interests of NGOs, and assistance in securing grounds passes.”

So the library card/access pass was not a lie. DPI did indeed help with that. But at the price of having the Watchtower magazine monitored by the 8th King for its UN coverage.

You say that it doesn’t say that a requirement is to support the UN. Again from the 1994 brochure

“Who is eligible for association with DPI?...
-can prove, during the initial two years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring UN information in their publications and outreach activities.”

Apparently the society proved their support for the UN. That is tragic.

You also say “In comparing the 1994 brochure with the current brochure we find a major change. The current brochure has this quote: “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;” Whereas the 1994 brochure instead reads like this: “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;” The ideals of the UN charter are “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." Certainly those are noble and commendable ideals that we all share in common.

First of all, you totally omitted the part about proving support for the UN over a two year period from the 1994 brochure. As far as sharing the ideals of the charter, of course we want the same things. But the UN charter looks to man as a solution to these nagging issues. Jehovah’s Witnesses look to God. So no, we don’t share the ideals. We only share the goals.

You say “The above clearly confirms that after the WT obtained NGO status there was a clear change in the UN/NGO relationship.

What was that change? You didn’t say. Most of the changes listed on the website are of an organizational nature. The UN was asking “How do we do what we do better”. That is it. There was no change in their purpose.

Furthermore, there was a study report done in 1999 by the Secretary-General concerning the UN/NGO brochure confirming the need for a brochure to be sent to all NGOs. Here is the link for it:
http://www.un-ngls.org/UN-SG%20report-1999.doc

And a quote from it under section 24, ‘It was also proposed that each NGO should receive an orientation/welcome booklet and/or session upon obtaining formal status with the UN. The information should include specifics about the NGO liaison offices in the UN system, including names, contacts, locations. The booklet should reinforce mutual rights and responsibilities, as well as practical guidelines for the functioning of NGOs within physical structures and protocols of the UN, including how to follow debates and so forth.’“

The same section 24 opens by saying “Many NGOs found the section on institutional arrangements to be a valuable guide in itself and welcomed the clear outline of procedures which currently existed” So the information is not new, it ‘currently existed’. It is only the communication method that changed. You quoted the part “The booklet should reinforce mutual rights and responsibilities.” What was the Watchtower’s responsibilities? To disseminate information regarding the 8th King, at least according to the 1968 motion quoted at the beginning.

In conclusion the WT may well have not received a brochure when obtaining NGO status in 1992 as has been claimed by many. And for a certainty they did not receive the current brochure that is now being circulated and used to discredit the WT and their claims.

We cannot prove whether they received a brochure or not. So the point is moot, and hence irrelevant. But they still did put together a rather large package as an application. This was not something done on a whim. It would take considerable effort. And during their tenure as an NGO there was considerable publication of their responsibilities in regards to putting information in the Watchtower and Awake. And apparently they listened, because the information is in there.

That anyone could have access to the library materials. They quote statements that the Dag Hammarskjold library and depository libraries were accessible to everyone. But please note even in the 1994 brochure that “For NGOs associated with DPI, the United Nations provides: ... use of the Dag Hammarskjold Library.” This at least demonstrates that sometime before 1994 NGO status was apparently necessary to access that library.

Firstly, the depository libraries that you mention here are mirror libraries set up in various places so people can have easy access to the materials. Columbia University is one such library. It is also in New York. And entrance to that facility would not be hinged on having to prove your support for the UN over a two year period. The library contains almost everything that is in “the Dag” and if it is not immediately available, can easily be requisitioned from the main library. It is very similar to a city library system. One main library, with many branches, but every book is available at every location, whether it is physically there or not.

Secondly, the brochure merely states that access to ‘the Dag” is included in NGO membership. It does not state anywhere that it is “apparently necessary” the be an NGO to access that library.

But even if you disregard that, if you look closely you will see that the WTS did not say they registered as a NGO just to get a library card for the "main library." They also wanted to gain access to research material at the "extensive library of the United Nations" and at the UN “library facilities.” The extensive library facilities include more than just the Dag Hammarskjold library. It includes audio, film, and photo libraries, access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, conferences, film screenings, commemorations, concerts, language courses, and the NGO Resource Center that offers current UN documents.

Again to the city library analogy. Within our local library there is a video library, microfiche library, the stacks, periodical section, audio recording section, etc. These are not separate libraries, but all one. “The Dag” has many resources. As far as “access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, conferences, film screenings, commemorations, concerts, language courses, and the NGO Resource Center”, is that worth trading advertising space in the Watchtower for? Is it “Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom”, or shilling for the 8th King?

We had been using the library for many-years prior to 1991, but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access.

"In any case, we had been using the library facilities at the UN for many years prior to 1991. In that year, our researcher was advised by UN personnel that it would be necessary to register as and NGO to have continued access to the various libraries we were using."
The WTS here explains how their representative was told that he could not have access to a certain facility unless he had a NGO pass. Maybe it was an employee who was mistaken, as is sometimes the case with government employees or any employees for that matter. I'm sure most of us have had that same type of experience. If we are honest and have dealt with the government we know that different responses are sometimes given depending on whom you talk to. I, myself, have received different responses from IRS agents on the same question. This is not unheard of and is very plausible. On the other hand perhaps he was trying to use a facility that contained books or documents that was only for those with NGO status. At any rate, he was told he needed a NGO pass and therefore an application was requested.

Here we agree. Who knows what started the chain reaction that ultimately lead up to the application being submitted. Let’s stick to the facts, and what is provable. For the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume that this statement is truthful. But that does not excuse the end result.

The Global Policy Forum report from June 1999 confirms some of the confusion of the NGO/DPI and NGO/ECOSOC employees:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/docs99/gpfrep2.htm#9
Here are a few quotes. "The DPI office gets good marks for timely processing of pass requests and for overall courtesy and helpfulness. But its management of documents in the NGO Resource Center tends to be chaotic. Serious problems exist in both offices.”
"Many NGOs complain that some of the notoriously bureaucratic and unresponsive behaviour of the ECOSOC office in the past still persists. The office employs cumbersome and time-consuming procedures for issuing passes, it too often it loses accreditation letters, and its staff can be discourteous.”
"NGOs also find the application procedures for new accreditation in both offices tend to be bureaucratic and paper-bound. Staff have lost or mislaid accreditation folders and have been inflexible in applying rules for evaluation. The NGO world is changing very fast, in terms of activities and needs, and UN offices that relate to NGOs must be change-oriented and flexible. The offices should consider a streamlined, web-based application system.

Let’s focus on the last quotation. Earlier you mentioned that the application was simple, so inconsequential that it didn’t even need a signature. Yet here the quote says that “NGOs also find the application procedures for new accreditation in both offices tend to be bureaucratic and paper-bound.” Bureaucratic and paper-bound for simple applications? “Staff ...have been inflexible in applying rules for evaluation” So there was evaluations prior to 2002, which means that continuing criteria had to have been met. And the staff were not flexible in their application. Does that mean then, that the Society was not exempt from the rules. Evidently so.

“At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”

While it is hard to believe that an organization like the DPI would allow applications to be processed without signatures, it is nonetheless factual. We have already examined the application earlier and it clearly does not require a signature. Here is that link again:

The information that you have quoted above speaks of ‘rights and responsibilities’ of NGOs. If there are responsibilities, then there is a signature somewhere. It isn't a lie that “no signature was required on the form.” as the exact quote says. But it did not say “No signature was required.”

Secondly, your earlier link showed the yearly renewal form. The back of that same form requires a signature. If you have to sign just to renew, how much more likely is a signature required on the original application package. It may indeed not been “on the form.” but it would be somewhere.

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

In examining the application and the subsequent forms to fill out to confirm representatives for the future, we find this to be a factual statement. Nowhere on either form do we find statements that the NGO is agreeing to support the UN or the UN Charter. Here are the links again for those forms.

“Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs.” Carefully couched language so that the statement is truthful. Registration papers filed with the United Nations have no conflicting language. But what about the original intent for the NGOs? Here is a quote from the UN website describing the 1968 resolution that created the NGO system. In 1968, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), by resolution 1297 (XLIV) of 27 May, called on DPI to associate NGOs, bearing in mind the letter and spirit of its resolution 1296 (XLIV) of 23 May 1968, which stated that an NGO “...shall undertake to support the work of the UN and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities”

Support the work of the UN. Does that mean bring peace through man’s efforts? Promote knowledge of its principles and activities. Does that mean to become a shill for Satan’s counterfeit kingdom?

“Years later, unbe-known to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Nations published “Criteria for Association,” stipulating that affiliated NGO’s are required to support the goals of the United Nations.”

This is without a doubt true. We have showed previously above how the current brochure is revised and is different from the 1994 brochure and how the ‘Criteria for Association’ clearly took on a different meaning and thus the revision.

I have shown that the revisions were cosmetic, not substantial. Right from 1968 it was a requirement that the NGOs show support for the UN. The fact that it was recently re-published does not change the earlier requirement.

We have also shown how the 2005 Accreditation Form had drastically changed and alluded to the new review process enacted for the first time in 2002 whereas the earlier forms merely were to acknowledge who the representatives would be in the future so that they could obtain the NGO pass.

I have also shown that there was a previous method for reviewing and approving NGOs. Just because there was a change in the test does not mean that no test existed previously. There were requirements. They were measured (although perhaps not well, since the office was in chaos). The new accreditation form simply reflects the new method of testing. For example, a school district decides to institute a new standardized testing program to make sure that its students meet the minimum requirements for their age group. Just because they started a new method, does that automatically mean that the students had never been previously tested. To assume so would be folly.

Therefore it is a fact that both the brochure stating the ‘Criteria for Association’ and the Accreditation Form changed. The paper trail shows that it is true that the WTS had no forms in their files stating that they agreed to support the UN or its charter.

Just because it changed doesn’t mean it didn’t exist earlier. That is a straw man argument. What we can prove is that we don’t know what the forms said, because we haven’t been able to see them. So again, the point is moot.


“After learning of the situation, our membership as NGO was withdrawn and the ID card of the writer was returned.”

Again true. The WTS applied for NGO status to obtain a pass to the many facilities of the UN. After they had received this card or pass, the requirements for holding this card changed, therefore it was returned. Everything was done properly, despite what opposers say regarding the matter.

In my opinion, this is something the Society did do right. Once the error of their way was pointed out, they corrected the situation. But I have pointed out earlier, the requirement did not change. They perhaps just became aware of it.

In conclusion it is very clear from the evidence presented above that the letters were in accord with these facts and not full of deceitful lies and cover-up:

1. The original application on file did not require a signature, which seems to indicate, or at least gives the perception that the application for NGO status was merely a formality.

Not clear at all. You ignore the fact that it requires several other official forms, including a full financial statement. It was a process that was loaded with paperwork, not a mere formality.

2. The registration papers filed with the UN contained no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs

Again, this was not proven, only assumed. We have not seen the papers. But the original resolution does contain wording that does interfere with our beliefs. If we were to declare that we support the UN, at what point would it be prudent to pull our support? Presumable at some point before it becomes the 8th King and stands in opposition to Jehovah.

3. NGO status was necessary to get access to some facilities and documents and publications.

That was never in question. But the main resources would still be accessible through Columbia University. Is it reasonable to trade a little more access to libraries for ‘workshops for the editor’ of the Watchtower magazine?

4. NGOs are informed that "association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the UN system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status."

Then what about the conferences in Europe regarding religious freedoms, where JW NGOs attended? Was that not some level of privilege?



5. There was a changed relationship between the UN and NGOs and the applications, forms, and brochures of the UN also changed to reflect that fact.

There certainly have been changes, and that is not unusual. The brochures are different every year. Not a large issue. Nevertheless, the main criterion is that an NGO ‘have the means to conduct information programmes.’ That has not changed since the beginning of the NGO Section. Why would the only magazine that is “Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom” also need to be announcing the achievements of the counterfeit?

6. When they realized that the revised document had language that said NGOs would support the UN etc. they immediately withdrew membership.

This is a good move. But it is also coincidental to the same time as it became public. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt to brothers who just learned of the misstep and pressured other brothers into changing their course.

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.”

It must be mentioned here that these statements are made after the fact. Nowhere on the application or thereafter, the form for confirming representatives was it said that “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”.

The UN is not just letting organizations join willy-nilly. There are criteria, and always have been. The original resolution uses the word “support”. If these are researchers that are applying for a pass, surely a little research would have shown them the responsibilities.

‘Now he tells us!’ one might be inclined to exclaim. We have to wonder why this criterion did not appear on the original application or registration form or the letter sent out to new NGOs associated with the UN in 1992. We have to wonder if the DPI office is now trying to cover their own ineptness in not clearly stating the criteria and what the NGO was agreeing to at the time of the application. It is much like signing a contract with someone and then 10 years later saying, “Oh yeah, by the way, I forgot to put on the contract that you are also agreeing to such and such.” Why does not Mr. Hoeffel here inform us that the original application from the early 1990’s and the subsequent forms confirming the representatives did not state the criteria nor have a statement of acknowledgement as to what the NGO was agreeing to? Who is really being untrustworthy and is trying to hide the facts? Is it the WTS whose explanation is in accord with the paper trail of evidence or is it the DPI who is trying to insinuate that the criteria and agreement to support the UN as a NGO was clearly there on the original application for all to see when clearly it was not?

It was quite clear in the 1994 brochure that they had two years to show that they support the UN. That would have been during the time that the WTS was going through their ‘initiation.’ Also, you have not seen the letter sent to the NGOs in 1992, so you cannot say whether the requirements were listed or not.

“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.”
Notice that the letter sent out to NGOs in 1992 mentions only that “The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information…” Of course the WT was willing to abide by this since along with information about the UN they would be showing where the UN could not solve the problems of man but only God’s Kingdom could do so. Certainly a good witness would be given to any who read this dissemination of information.

The PRINCIPLE PURPOSE of association is to redisseminate information. That is exactly why they give NGOs access to the library. Their job is to write about what is in that library. Why? Because the UN is looking to build a groundswell of support, outside of the official government offices. So by raising awareness of UN issues we become involved in the process.

The ends do not justify the means. Regardless of whether a good witness is given because of including UN information, a pact was made that included support of the UN. That is not acceptable.

But it is quite interesting what is not said by the DPI in quoting the letter sent to NGOs in the early 1990’s. Surely if that original form letter sent out to all new NGOs stated that the criteria for the NGO was to support the UN and its Charter, then that would have here been quoted to give further proof that the newly associated WTS was aware of the commitment they were making. Instead, in a misleading way, that criteria is now being set forth in this 2004 letter as if it were set forth in the previous original letter.

It is irrelevant whether it was in the original letter or not. It was clearly in the resolution. That part was not changed recently. The thought process should have been, “Wow, they certainly ask for a lot of information for a grounds pass. Financial reports, incorporating documents, wow. And it’s going to take three to six months to get processed (according to the UN website). Maybe I should look to see what exactly this NGO means, especially since we believe this is Satan’s counterfeit kingdom. Let’s read the original resolution. .... Oh it says to support the UN ... We can’t do that.”

This brochure is yet to be found at the time of this writing and thus we are unable to examine it. There is some question as to whether this brochure was actually sent out at all....
So what exactly are the contents of this brochure of 1992 if it even does exist? We do not know for sure.

So just because you can’t find the brochure, now it may not even exist? Again, let’s stick to the facts of what can be proven. This point is moot.

But we do know what the 1994 brochure says and it has changed considerably from the current brochure.

Even the 1994 brochure says that an NGO must support the UN. So what if the current brochure is changed considerably, it was unacceptable as it was.

Of course the word support is such a general and broad term and may be taken in many different ways. The UN documents do not specifically define just what ‘support’ means. Here are some definitions of support: ‘uphold or defend as valid; to furnish corroborating evidence for; to act in a secondary or subordinate role to.’ What does it mean to support something using these definitions?

I will destroy this entire line of reasoning very quickly. The United Nations is clearly the 8th king in Revelation. It will be around a short while, before it is destroyed by Jehovah. We can assume the reason it is destroyed is because it stands in opposition to Him. Should we uphold or defend as valid this fraudulent opposer of Jehovah? Should we furnish corroborating evidence for a government that Jehovah has deemed worthy of destruction? Should we act in a secondary or subordinate role in opposition to the Almighty?

The final part of your essay speaks about the Awake! magazines many articles on UN issues. Even you agree that there are many articles that do so. They do point to God’s Kingdom, but they also fulfill their obligation to talk of UN issues. Does the Reader’s Digest contain as much information about the UN as the Awake does? How about the National Geographic? No. Yet the Awake is supposedly dedicated to Jehovah. And those other magazines tend to deal with more wider scope issues which would be suited to UN information programmes. Why the difference?

You will notice through my rebuttal of your essay, that I did not refer to any materials that you did not refer to. I solely used your web links as references. Through this it is easy to see that if you were to dig a little deeper, and be honest with yourself, you would be able to see the gravity of this situation.

Does this mean that now we can nit-pick the society’s dealings ad nauseam? No. This is still Jehovah’s organization on earth. This is where his people are gathered. Nevertheless, we do have to own up to mistakes that are made.

The Future Judgement View prescribes that the prophesies in the Hebrew scriptures point to a desolation of Jehovah’s people in the time of the end. That desolation is punishment for misdeeds. So we need to understand that mistakes are going to occur. BIG mistakes. Should that diminish our belief that we are among God’s people? Absolutely not. It should reinforce it.