The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and The United Nations

Documents and Articles Relevant to the NGO Scandal

2011-01-20T15:04:00.007-05:00

Worldwide letter sent to all the Branches of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Branch Letter

Letter sent to me about the association from the Watchtower Society.

Letter

Letter sent to me from Dag Hammarskjold Library on use of the library. This proves the Watchtower Society never needed to become an NGO to use the library.

Dag Hammarskjold Library email

Watchtower Society listed on a NGO brochure.

Brochure

Documents showing that an NGO can be disapproved for association and disassociated for not meeting the requirements or being inactive. This is the same year the Watchtower Society was approved.

Press Release

Page #2

Press Release

Paul Gillies letter to the Guardian News

Paul Gillies

Guardian News articles

Article #1

Article #2

A brothers logical heart felt letter of disassociation.

2006-07-17T10:12:00.000-05:00

I am republishing this letter because of the logical way it is written and the heart felt desire I see in this brother to not only serve his God with his whole heart, mind and soul but his desire to know the truth and be set free by it.

While this is a rather lengthy letter of disassociation that I will be turning in to the local body of elders shortly; it carefully lays out why I no longer believe this is the one sole truth on the earth today. This is not based on having some axe to grind with any particular people or specific experiences (though I have plenty of those too). Instead, my decision to leave is based solely on a reasonable, logical, carefully thought out foundation. One that may have been initiated by our position regarding blood transfusions. But as you can read, one that has since turned into so much more than just that.

All the best,
vinny

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to share with you the recent turn of events, which have caused some very significant changes in certain viewpoints that I hold to, and in my life altogether. I truly believe that I have always been a zealous person for Jehovah throughout my entire life in the truth. I have been baptized for over 15 years now, since June of 1990, with another three years of studying before baptism. My family and I have always been regular at the meetings (as you all well know), regular and active in service, always present at our assemblies and conventions. We've always participated in our Kingdom Hall cleaning and maintenance assignments. We auxiliary pioneered often. I have served as an Elder for many years. I served as a magazine assistant and then servant years ago, did the literature for a while, handled the territory for years, as well as a couple years doing the accounts. I never refused a privilege (that I can recall) and like many of you have given more talks than I can remember. I conducted book studies as well as the Theocratic Ministry School during my years as an elder. My life in, and appreciation for the truth has always been something I valued tremendously. I've also made it a point to have a regular family-study with my wife and kids. I always tried to make the studies enjoyable and somewhat entertaining. Whenever they did make mistakes or developed less-spiritual attitudes, I always counseled, encouraged and tried to help them. When they made serious mistakes, in addition to my own corrective and helpful measures, I helped them to see the need to also go forward by going to the elders and getting the necessary discipline and counsel. Nothing was ever to be hidden. We all regularly participated in the meetings as well. I always invited my family to try to share at least one comment at each meeting if at all possible. I almost always kept up with the day's text and weekly bible reading schedule too. We socialized extensively, with more sleepovers and get-togethers than can be remembered. We were often one of the last ones to leave the Kingdom Hall after meetings. There have never been any doubts about my love for Jehovah. He has always been very real to me. My relationship with him is now and has always been very special to me!

Recently however, I've had some issues come up into my life that have challenged these convictions, my core beliefs and even my explicit trust in the organization itself. I have always simply "trusted" what the faithful slave teaches us even if I did not necessarily understand particular viewpoints. Back in early 1990 for example, when I was going over my baptism questions, I remember not being fully convinced of the society's position regarding no blood transfusions. During that second set of questions at my house, the elder suggested that I just try to trust the Society's direction for now (since this was the only serious doubt that I had) and perhaps later on down the road I would begin to see our position on this issue more clearly. Well, I did just what he suggested. If the organization can be right about a paradise earth, condition of the dead, rejection of the Trinity etc etc, I figured it must be right about this issue as well. After all, we do believe this is the only organization Jehovah is truly using today. Trusting it was always easy for me. No questions asked!

Well, while keeping up with the news one day back in November, I noticed there was a very flattering article on the MSNBC News Website front page; the title of the article was "Jehovah's Roofing Service". It was about Jehovah's Witnesses volunteering to put on a new roof for a Hurricane Katrina victim. The article was so encouraging that I e-mailed it to many friends in the truth; something I rarely do if at all. At the bottom of that article however, I noticed people were publicly commenting about the article itself. After the first day there were perhaps some 30 comments. The next day there was over 100. After a few more days they finally capped the comments off with almost three hundred altogether. Some were critical, (mostly "the Witnesses only help their own" variety) a few were casual and nice, but most were from other Witnesses like us, defending the truth against these so-called "critics". In fact I too at one point sent in a comment defending the truth, though it was never posted since there were many others similar to it. There was one comment near the end however, that stopped to make me think several times throughout the next few weeks. It actually shook my faith a bit you might say. It presented negative comments about the truth that I had never heard of before. So much so, that I had to look up Watchtower and Awake articles to verify if these statements were in fact true. Well, after a little research, I found out that these comments were indeed true. One of the claims had to do with the Golden Age magazine (now the Awake) years ago saying that vaccinations were not allowed for Jehovah's Witnesses. The article said that accepting a vaccine was: "a crime, an outrage, and a delusion". It also said that the smallpox vaccination itself would: "cause syphilis, cancers, leprosy and many other loathsome diseases". For 21 years the Society did not allow vaccinations for Jehovah's Witnesses. I had never heard of this before. Even more of an issue for me from this same comment, was that I learned from 1967 to 1980, the Society also forbid Jehovah's Witnesses from accepting organ transplants. Going so far as calling it "cannibalism". The consequences for those accepting an organ transplant was disfellowshipping; complete shunning for those that did not follow this decree. After over 12 years, the society did finally reverse this, instead making it a "conscience matter". My immediate thoughts after learning about these two facts were; I wonder how many people died from following the Society's direction regarding these two medical procedures? This information bothered me quite a bit.

Since 1945 blood transfusions have been completely unacceptable for Jehovah's Witnesses. Since 1961, disfellowshipping was the consequence. This
position against blood transfusions has been well publicized with numerous articles throughout the years in many of the Society's publications. Transfusing certain "fractions of blood" has just recently become a "conscience matter", rather than forbidden. Storing our own blood for an operation, as well as donating our own to the world's blood supply have always been condemned as well. As I have already mentioned here, I have always been uneasy with this particular position by the society that blood transfusions (even as a last resort) are not allowed. However, like I also mentioned above, I have always simply taken the position to "trust the Society" with issues like this that I may not have agreed with nor fully understood. Realizing now however, from this newer information to me that the society has made incorrect stands in the past regarding vaccinations and organ transplants (and since reversed these), has caused an even greater sense of concern in my mind over this issue regarding blood transfusions today. After coming to learn about these things I have since dedicated enormous amounts of time and efforts to come to a better understanding of this position both in the eyes of the Society, as well as from the medical community during the last few months. I have researched and studied and compared notes from too many articles to list here. I have extensively compared scriptures from several bible translations to try to gain the fullest understanding possible. Because of the fact that people have died, and will continue to do so, it is imperative to me that I fully understand the reasons for our position. Though my children are now fully grown up and can make their own educated decisions, I still actively participate in the door-to-door ministry encouraging others to join us in worshiping Jehovah as his Witnesses. This position of abstaining from blood transfusions could very well affect those that I might happen to bring into the organization or their children. After many months now of continuous soul-searching, prayer, exhaustive research and meditation/reflection of this research, I have come to the firm conclusion that the society's position to abstain from blood transfusions is in error. Just like it was on vaccinations and organ transplants prior, which have since been reversed. I base this conclusion on many factors, which include:

*** A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die. A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.

*** The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: "blood must be drained out" and to, "abstain from... blood" were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be "poured out" rather than eaten or drank. This token act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement. By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application. In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A "living" donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another "living" individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what Jehovah wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?

*** We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life? In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: "And he said to them: "Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things." The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: "So they (Pharisees) asked him "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath." If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal's life despite this "work" being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!". Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal's life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious. Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper "respect" for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of "our own" to die due to such a strict stand by the society.

*** I've also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same "principle" of Jesus' valuing a person's life over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her "unclean", and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: "Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness...." Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed letter of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.

*** Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society's position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society's view-) reads: 28 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute, eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from "things sacrificed to idols" Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there says that the "eating of food sacrificed to idols" was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer "Gentile" Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these ones, this decree was given. This is also how bible scholars today understand these verses. Paul's words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 verify this since again, he there states that eating foods sacrificed to idols is a personal decision. The command to abstain from fornication is an absolute, eternal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures.

*** If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)

*** I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.

*** Another thing that now clouds the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood "fractions" are now permissible. Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes. Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common "fractions" still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a "concentrated" form of blood. These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood", since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world's blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah's Witnesses today? And two, if then, we as Jehovah's Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are we then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that we now are allowed to tap into? And, why are we still not allowed to store our own blood? The pouring of blood "back to the ground" was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence we are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws. It sure appears to me then, that we no longer abstain from blood, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet we are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can we store our own blood.

Another problem with "fractions" (for me) is that certain fractions such as "Albumin" ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not. "Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society. Another fraction, Blood "Platelets" are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That's not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society. I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this "approved" and "disapproved" list with no explanations anywhere. It's also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 97 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions. It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they're kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. "Hemopure" is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow's Blood. How can we as humans be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use our own blood, or that of another living human donor?

So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here; that blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the "eating or drinking" of animal blood that is forbidden (not transfusions). How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose. That Saul's men were not killed after eating blood. How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions. That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the "animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath" illustration he used, and the "Woman with a flow of blood" real-life example. How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need. That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands. And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say "fractions" of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though we can use cow's blood. It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society's position on blood transfusions today. In fact I believe it was an erroneous decision from the beginning, and has only been made even more confusing and unstable with the latest "fractions" adjustments.

So, what does one do then? I do love the truth, and certainly the friends in the truth. I have no problems at all with any people in the truth and have spent almost half of my life now in the organization. I believe I get along with about everybody. No exaggerating. This is solely a personal position, a conscience matter regarding organizational policies that I can no longer agree with and accept. If a person I brought into the truth allowed one of their own to die because of this stand, that I helped them to take, I would have a difficult time living with myself. Not only can I no longer support this blood position with a clear conscience, but after thoroughly investigating, I believe it is truly wrong. I can also no longer with a clear conscience bring other people into the organization, since blood is a very integral and well-known position of Jehovah's Witnesses. I cannot see a way around this. Even if the Society were to reverse itself entirely, how would anybody feel about losing a loved one during the last 60 years this has been in force, only to have the policy changed altogether? And what took them so long would be monumental issues in the eyes of many. Imagine how much work would be involved in overhauling all of the literature if this position were reversed. The Bible Topics for Discussion sections for example in the new world translation bibles would have to be changed, and many other things... too many to list here. So I cannot quite see this reversal happening anytime soon if at all. Though others feel a reversal is imminent.

What complicates this entire issue even further for me now, and adds another problem with the organization in my mind, is another entirely separate issue (which I also find greatly disturbing) that will follow my change of position here now. IF I cannot support this doctrine on blood any longer, and if I cannot with a clear conscience have my blood card signed to refuse blood transfusions, I would then be considered as having "disassociated" myself from the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses by this particular stand in and of itself. If another brother or sister were to ask me "why are you no longer going out in the ministry", or "what has happened to you spiritually", or things appear to have changed with you etc. etc.; if I were to reply to them by sharing my honest opinions about the organization's past mistakes, and my opinions disagreeing with the Watchtower Society, I would then be disfellowshipped for Apostasy. This fact in itself does not sit too well with me since I have done nothing wrong here. I still love Jehovah; I love my wife and family. I do not drink, nor practice anything the bible tells me not to. I pay my taxes, try to live honestly and remain a good influence for my family and others. I have not changed as a person at all here. Yet because of a "conscience" issue, and because I can no longer support the society on what I truly believe is a flawed issue, I will be cut-off from my all of my brothers and sisters throughout the organization. This policy too, is just wrong! The Watchtower Society has stated in print several times that it is not infallible; that they DO make mistakes. Yet even though it admits mistakes have been made, it still insists that we as publishers accept whatever it teaches as if it were coming from God himself. Those that do not agree with these teachings and share those opinions (even though nothing else bad or unscriptural has been done) are subsequently disfellowshipped. Your life, as you know it, is ripped apart. To disfellowship another simply because that person might disagree with a particular interpretation of a teaching is not right, just or fair. Past history fully supports the idea that the society has been wrong before and can be wrong now. Organ transplants, vaccinations, end of the world predictions and other doctrinal errors to name just a few. Clearly they were wrong about these issues. Lives have been and are now involved with the current policy on blood transfusions. To be expected to fully support this policy or be expelled is just unreasonable and not in harmony with what we know about Jehovah. To encourage other people we meet in the ministry to "examine their religion", yet at the same time to forbid us to do the same is nothing short of hypocritical. We are told that we can examine our faith, though this must be done "In-house". In other words, only through the society's publications can we examine our religion. Any other sources that are critical are considered apostate and dangerous. I consider this position by the organization to be very similar to my wanting to buy a new Nikon camera for example. Imagine if Nikon told me that I could ONLY use their-own reference material to gain information? Consumer Reports, Popular Photography or any other "Non-Partisan" publication would be completely off limits. And, if I did go to these "outside" sources, and shared any critical opinions/reviews with others, I would no longer be allowed to even buy their camera, plus other people who like Nikon cameras would have to now shun me altogether. How reasonable is this? This is exactly what the society is doing. Those that know me will tell you that whenever I make any type of serious purchase, I do my homework and extensive research. We just recently purchased a high-end scanner; I spent perhaps two months or more comparing scanners, reading reviews, learning as much as I possibly could about this piece of equipment before purchasing. If it is reasonable then to carefully "examine" the purchase of a piece of equipment, and it is reasonable to ask others in our ministry to carefully "examine" their own religion, why is it unreasonable then to carefully "examine" our own religion and means of worshiping God? And, if one does examine his faith and does find problems and then expresses these concerns about what he has learned, how can the "complete removal" of that person be considered anything but completely unfair?

This position also has nothing to do with my own son being disfellowshipped, though some I am sure will choose to believe otherwise. I will however add this information about this personal ordeal that brings to light another problem; After receiving a very emotional phone call from my disfellowshipped son thousands of miles away in September 2004, I was told by one of our elders that it was, "wrong for me to have accepted that phone call". Instead he said I should have told him to "locate the elders in his territory" and that "we need to tighten up things around here in our congregation". This was the most insensitive counsel that I have ever heard in my years in the truth. His mother had recently committed suicide just a couple of years before, he had just turned 18, was own his own for the first time in his life, disfellowshipped, was 5000 miles from home and felt extremely lonely, sad and despondent. Sure, I could have "turned down" that call all right. Who in his right frame of mind though would have done such a thing to their own son or daughter, in such a time of need? Then, nine months later, after discussing it with the rest of my family, we agreed to allow him to return to living in our house, from Maui. (This decision was due to his very deep depression, suicidal tendencies, a drug dependency problem, and having the ACL torn out in his knee...all at the same time). We agreed to allow him back home to get the help needed to get back on his feet, under very strict circumstances I might add (as the watchtower allows) which included his going to meetings, bringing no leaven into the home, turning his life back around by serving Jehovah, (which he did for six months by the way). I was then told by this same elder that my decision to allow him home was "cutting the hand of Jehovah short, and another big mistake", and because of this erroneous decision on my part, I as his father "might be the one destroyed at Armageddon". This same elder then took me off the watchtower reader's list for the first time in my eight years living on this island. (I had no problem with this, but felt I should at least be told about it) When I inquired as to whether it was just a coincidence or by design that I was missing from that list, he told me that it was by "choice" and that there would be "more where that came from". While this "list" of unreasonable responses about my helping my own son after his being disfellowshipped may seem completely unfair and far less than loving, the brother himself truly believed what he was doing was the correct thing. I will also add that there was very little personal resentment on either of our parts. He sincerely believed he was just doing what the society wanted. One of the things I cannot understand then, is how we as Jehovah's Witnesses can spend enormous amounts of time assisting other people in our ministry --people that are often depressed, fighting addictions, language issues, living at times as we know very ungodly lives--, to do better and we ultimately give these ones the help and assistance needed so they can serve God in an acceptable manner. However, if one of our very OWN people or family members has been disfellowshipped, and happens to fall into a similar dangerous pattern (one that often begs for loving assistance now more than ever) we have minimal provisions at all to help these ones of our own to get back onto their feet. They in fact must be "cut off" and completely shunned by all at a time when many will actually need help the most. The example of my son above illustrates this well. For someone to lose their mother at such a young age (15) via a gun in her mouth, and then spiral into a course of rebellion is not that uncommon. But to completely have to cut that person off, without any assistance whatsoever from the congregation, when help is MOST needed at this time, is contrary to what the scriptures teach us about Jehovah. He continued to ask the Israelites to come back to him over and over. Even assisting these former rebels to gain his favor once again. Now, because this same individual (my son) now moves out of my home, I too, as his father, am expected to cut off all ties and association with him. Even keeping business dealings to a minimum. There are downtimes in our lives when we need help and support and love, rather than just blindly cutting these ones off indefinitely. Where is the balance, the love and the help in such a policy as this today? Even if these disfellowshipped ones did turn their course of life around, and did become married, faithful, honest etc. By not agreeing to go back to the meetings for six months (minimum) or sometimes much longer in this shunned state, and then to go back in front of a judicial committee for judging whether they have truly repented, these people would remain disfellowshipped for the rest of their lives.

This letter here and my changes in position toward the organization itself are not based on this situation with my son, or any other "personal" problems. It is solely because of my making a reasonable, logical and careful examination about certain policies that we as Jehovah's Witnesses often blindly accept without questions. This change is not based on any personal problems or, my wanting to leave the organization. In fact leaving is the LAST thing I have even wanted to do. I have always valued the organization. After an exhaustive examination, that has taken many months to go through. And after coming to learn many things I did not know before when I was younger and much more naïve than now. There are four specific issues that have changed my opinions about and support for the Watchtower Society today.

1- For the many reasons clearly stated above, I am thoroughly convinced the position to abstain from blood transfusions is wrong. Lives, in my honest opinion, are needlessly lost because of this dangerously flawed doctrine. Allowing certain blood "fractions" since the year 2000 only complicates and muddies this position even further. Being allowed to USE some fractions from the world blood supply, but not being able to donate towards this same supply, nor store my own blood for medical use, only adds the additional element of hypocrisy to this stand that Jehovah's Witnesses are known the world over for taking. The lack of reasons why some fractions are allowed and other (though smaller) fractions are not allowed adds further to the quandary the society has found itself in today. This stand usually does not give a good witness nor leave a positive impression on people's minds at all.

2- The Society has a lengthy history of other doctrinal mistakes and medical blunders such as not allowing vaccinations and organ transplants in the not so distant past. These mandates were wrong when they first came off the presses and they were wrong many years later when finally reversed. To attribute these flip-flops to "the light getting brighter" is just irresponsible. Jehovah does not change his mind like this. He is a "God of truth"... "Who cannot lie". Imperfect men in positions of oversight have made these doctrinal decisions, which have caused lives to be cut short without justifiable reasons. There were no apologies made either. This poor historical record of mistakes only makes the current blood transfusion policy even more suspect. Implicit trust in an organization that has a track record of mistakes and errors like this is simply foolish, dangerous and irresponsible. Especially when we must force these policies on younger, inexperienced, helpless ones. To be forced into "practice sessions" with our young people so they can make a better stand against blood transfusions does not sound right either.

3- The number of times the Society has predicted the "end of the world" is surprisingly large. I never knew just how often this was the case. The end of the system was predicted, in writing, in these years: 1874, 1875, 1881, 1888, 1914, 1915, 1918, (could occur in 1920), 1925, ("resurrection of Princes" in 1929), 1932, 1940, ("any day now" in 1942), ("why not now" in 1951), 1975, and before the generation that was born in 1914 dies, which was dropped in 1996 after it was clearly another false prediction. Every one of these predictions, in writing, has proved false. People sold homes, gave up opportunities to start families, secure employment, gave up opportunities for an education and instead spread a message of doom that was simply untrue with each prediction made. All of these failed. We really are known the world over for these continuous false "end of the world" prophecies. When looking up information from secular (non-apostate, such as encyclopedia) sources, each authority said basically the same thing; that Jehovah's Witnesses are known the world over for our "many end of the world proclamations", that did not come true. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 pointedly states this: "However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: "How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.'"

4- Despite the numerous errors in doctrine, medical mistakes, end of the world false predictions and unscriptural blood transfusion bans that fill its pages of history, the society still demands full support of its policies and doctrines today. Notice this comment from a 5/1/72 WT (page 272): "That they [Jehovah's Witness] must adhere absolutely to the decisions and scriptural understandings of the Society because God has given it this authority over his people." If this is God's true and only channel, how then can they be so wrong, so often, on doctrine, medical issues, end of the world predictions, and yet still demand complete obedience from its members or face risk of complete shunning? If any baptized Witness *expresses* his thoughts (even if only as opinions) that are contrary to what is taught in the Society's publications right now, they will be disfellowshipped for disrupting unity. Squashed like a bug. This "squelching mechanism" that I like to call it keeps an unhealthy fear in its rank and file members to stay in line. Losing all contact with friends and family is just too much to bear for many. Life as you know it is gone. In addition, we are also told time and again not to even consider looking at outside sources. All of this "outside material" is called "apostate literature." The term "Apostate" applies based on one simple criterion; is it critical of the organization? Most sources critical of the organization are not apostate. They are secular; and they are often simply stating the facts about this organization. Facts, that the society does not want its members to know anything about. Our examining the society can ONLY be done, we are told, if it is done within the organization. So, by not being allowed to examine our own faith through outside sources, and by having the ever-present threat of disfellowshipping hovering over us if we were to speak critically of the organization, most Jehovah's Witnesses do not even know about these many issues that I have just posted above. As a nearly 20 year member, I too never knew many of these things (because we are told not to) until I finally decided to examine based on the unusual circumstances mentioned above about seeing an article on a national news website that allowed critical comments about the organization after the article. Comments that shook my faith so much I decided to investigate things further. Comments that I was not supposed to look at not even think about because they are called "Apostate".

Additionally, I have other (though perhaps less serious) issues that raise doubts in my mind as well. For example, many of the brothers are far more concerned about their "positions" than they are with the genuine well being of the PEOPLE in the congregations. Over and over I have seen this clearly demonstrated. It is sad to watch. Nowhere is it more obvious that when the circuit overseer visits twice each year. The manner in which many people change for these visits regarding their comments, showing up for service, finally arriving on time and being friendlier is remarkably transparent at times. Also, having to count our time each month and then turn in that time to the headquarters just seems to take away from the value of really wanting to talk to others. Service can at times just be about getting in our double-digit numbers rather than about truly helping people. The real meaning of witnessing can be lost. I know of many others that feel this way as well. There just seems at times to be so many rules if one wants to remain in good standing. Brothers cannot grow any type of beards. Cannot even work on military or church buildings if self-employed. We're not talking about worshiping there, but even performing a service in these places is forbidden. We cannot even go into another church for a funeral or wedding of another friend, family member or relative. Our children are not allowed to play any organized sports or join other clubs in or out of school. We are "not encouraged" to get pschycological help for those that really need it. Sisters have to wear dresses at all meetings, service, assemblies etc. I realize many of these are minor to some, but they just illustrate the point that we are governed, as an organization by a set of many rules and regulations that are not all scriptural. This list can just go on and on.

Any ONE of these many issues that are listed above could raise serious doubts in my mind about whether this religion is in fact the one and only truth. However, when I add up ALL these issues together (and many more things not even listed here), I cannot help but come to the inescapable conclusion in my mind, that this is not the sole truth on the earth today. That this is not the one single organization used by God that I had always believed it to be. This has been and will continue to be one of the most difficult things I have ever had to realize and accept. I do love the friends and have no ill feelings or animosity towards a single one. Not even one. This decision is not about people in this organization. I have many friends and have enjoyed my associations with all of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is instead about the "policies", the doctrinal policies that my conscience will no longer allow me to be a part of. Yes, I still see positive things being accomplished by this organization and have tried to balance it all out before making any definitive decisions. So I am not one-sided when it comes to evaluating the organization and my own subsequent position on what to do. I might compare this quandary I am in to something like driving a fancy sports car; there might be some truly "good" things it can do. Lots of power, great handling, maybe even a real beauty on the outside. But if you also knew it had these so-called "problems"; perhaps the brakes are known to just go out, or the gas tank explodes when hit from behind or has a lousy track record in terms of reliability, it would still be irresponsible in my sincere opinion to just disregard or "look the other way" when it comes to the apparent flaws that are obvious here... even though there is a measure of good too. The vehicle that I have chosen to use to worship God (this organization) is very flawed in my honest opinion. So much so, that I no longer find it acceptable to use to worship God. I am not trying to use some type of magnifying glass to intensify the negatives with the society in general or with regards to the blood transfusion position in particular. I am also not influenced by any so-called "apostate" propaganda. What I have written above here is entirely my own. How I personally feel, from my own evaluations, as carefully as I know how. These issues are real, and in my mind they are all very significant problems.

Because I am willing to share this research and information with those that may wish to ask why I no longer can support the organization today (as I'd hope others would do for me), I would soon be disfellowshipped from the organization by my local congregation. Disfellowshipped for simply sharing information that the organization does not want its members to find out on their own. Disfellowshipped for offering unbiased, reasonable, logical and well-researched opinions that are not supported by the Watchtower Society. I am therefore left with no other alternative that I can think of, but to disassociate myself from the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. It would hopefully be fair and reasonable to expect to be able to just go out into my own new direction while respecting each other's beliefs along the way. But instead, I will have to be treated as an outcast. Considered as one in the same light now as an unrepentant thief, murderer, drunkard, adulterer etc. Completely shunned, simply for disagreeing with the Watchtower Society's doctrine. Doctrine that has been proven to be wrong many times before. If anyone has another suggestion or idea that I have not already mentioned, or that might help, I am still open and willing to consider these as well. But I have already looked at all things as conscientiously and thoroughly as I am capable of doing for several months now. I sincerely appreciate those of you taking the time to of read all of this. At least you will know why I will no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I wish everybody in the organization only good things. I have very fond memories too.

My very best to each and every one of you,

VKT

The Ultimate Hypocrisy & Apostasy

2005-08-08T08:00:00.005-05:00

1/1/1979 Watchtower Pages 30-31 Questions from Readers, the Watchtower Society explains why the YMCA is so insidious. Laying down the law they with strong emphasis on even the tiniest of detail. In doing so they have set themselves up unknowingly as in many cases the internet has been the pathway to disclosure.

All things that were written by the men of the Watchtower over history does not coincide. Their own hypocrisy is relevant to apostasy. As Jesus said of the religious leaders of his day, they make up these ridiculously rules but don't abide by them. They expect the members to keep these commands but deny all evidence that is absolutely solid against them when caught doing the very things they teach the members not to do. Here is an example of how they tear down the YMCA making them out to be the evilest group, telling members not to even go there to work out for the day!

Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association)?

Yes, that is so. We have long recognized that the YMCA, though not being a church as such, is definitely aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith.

In September 1885 the Watch Tower took this position:

"Alas for the Bible-rearing practiced in the Y. M. C. Associations! They are completely under the control of the sectarians, by whom they are supported. Though professedly non-sectarian, professedly controlled by no creed but the Bible, they are more creed-bound than others, since they are bound by all the popular creeds."—P. 6.

Later the underlying religious purpose and interfaith efforts of the YMCA were mentioned in the September 1964 issue of Kingdom Ministry, used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in one of their meetings.

Many persons think of the "Y" simply as a social organization that offers various services, such as a swimming pool, facilities for athletic training and a place for clubs to meet. Commendable as some of these provisions may be, it is important to bear in mind that the YMCA was founded with a distinctly religious basis. This was set out at a World Alliance in Paris in 1855. The main part of that official statement (called the Paris Basis) reads:

"The Young Men’s Christian Associations seek to unite those young men, who, regarding Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour, according to the Holy Scriptures, desire to be His disciples in their faith and in their life, and to associate their efforts for the extension of His Kingdom amongst young men." (Italics added)

While in some countries churches may not be the YMCA’s main source of revenue and while membership is open to persons of all races, nationalities and religions, the fundamental religious objectives of the "Y" cannot be ignored.

‘But,’ some may sincerely wonder, ‘is religion or interfaith really an aspect of the YMCA?’ The answer must be "Yes." Though religious features may be de-emphasized in some branches of the YMCA, all local "Ys" are still expected to comply with the Paris Basis. Further, note comments from the 1975 YMCA publication Christian and Open:
Anza A. Lema, associate of the executive committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs, wrote:

"From its very foundation, it has always looked to the Bible for inspiration and guidance. In many ways its role in the world has tended to complement that of the church without claiming to be a congregation itself. . . .

"But it is more than just an instrument through which Christians put their moral ideals and teachings into practice as they serve society. Most supporters of the YMCA look at it as a place where real fellowship with one another through Jesus Christ is experienced. . . .

"In humbling itself and trying to relate its structures and services more directly to the community, it will be carrying out more effectively its role of service and priesthood for its neighbours. . . . "

Matthias Dannenmann, general secretary, National Council of YMCAs of Germany, said:

"From its very beginning the YMCA was no doubt meant to have only Christians as members and on the other hand there was the missionary obligation towards those members who could not yet profess Jesus Christ. . . .

"The YMCA is a big offer, but only in as far as Jesus Christ is working in it as Living Saviour. We should do our very best not to drive out this Lord but as we carry him in our name we should personally use every chance of meeting him in the YMCA and of continuously extending this possibility to other people."

Officials of the organization have pointed out that they feel that more attention needs to be given to the religious orientation of the YMCA. Dr. Paul M. Limbert, from 1952-1962 secretary-general of the YMCA’s World Alliance in Geneva, Switzerland, wrote:

"It may readily be granted that too few Y.M.C.A.s take full advantage of the opportunity for ecumenical education inherent in these informal contacts among Christians . . .

"When questions about different forms and beliefs arise among young people and adults, the wise leader takes advantage of the occasion to guide discussion from superficial argument to deeper dialogue. . . .

Leaders in both churches and Y.M.C.A.s need to recognize more clearly the essential nature of a lay ecumenical Christian movement. A Young Men’s Christian Association is not a church nor a substitute for a church.

. . . Yet the Faith and Order commission of the British Council of Churches declared in a carefully worded statement in 1959 that the Christian Associations are ‘valuable auxiliaries’ of the churches, organs of their own missionary activity."—The Christian Century, June 10, 1964.
And The Christian Century of August 29, 1969, in its article "Happy Birthday, Y.M.C.A.!", stated:

"Realizing that the Christian identity of the ‘Y’ has often been drowned in swimming pools, its leaders are engaged in recovery of theological awareness and ecumenical vigor. . . . It may be that the greatest challenge to the Y.M.C.A. is to reclaim its religious heritage for the robust assertion of a new ecumenism among laymen in local communities. The Y.M.C.A. just might be able to do things for the Christian churches which, in their parochial rigidities, they seem unable to do for themselves."

Consequently, there is ample evidence that the YMCA originated with religious objectives and continues to have such to this day.

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 founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called "Christian" association would amount to apostasy.

Some individuals have on occasion not become members but have paid a onetime admission fee, viewing this as simply paying for a commercial service available. Even in this regard it is wise to consider whether this course will adversely affect the consciences of others.—1 Cor. 8:11-13.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, appreciate a balanced amount of healthful exercise. The Bible says that "bodily training is beneficial for a little." Yet it adds that "godly devotion is beneficial for all things." (1 Tim. 4:8) That does not mean devotion to a triune God. The Bible does not teach that Jesus is "God" in a trinity, as is taught in many of Christendom’s churches and as is still included in the "Paris Basis" of the YMCA.—1 Cor. 11:3; John 17:3.

While interfaith efforts and ecumenism are popular today, they are not upheld by the true God, who told his servants: "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. . . . ‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves.’" (2 Cor. 6:14-17) Also, Jesus plainly said that the Almighty must be worshiped "with spirit and truth." (John 4:24) Most definitely that does not mean joining in a religious cause with persons holding beliefs contrary to what the Scriptures teach. (Rev. 18:4, 5) Thus, it is because of their understanding of what God expects of true worshipers, and of what the purposes and direction of the YMCA are, that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not become members of that organization.
Further, it is well to give thought to the fact that in virtually all the years of the YMCA’s existence, it has not acted in harmony with the spirit of Isaiah 2:2-4, as can be noted from the following historical facts:

"YMCA services to the armed forces began, in the United States, with the Civil War, and it continued giving service through all wars thereafter."—Encyclopædia Britannica, Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 835, 1976 ed.

"In the Civil War, only ten years after its beginning in Boston, and before there were buildings or secretaries or financial resources, a total of 4,859 ‘delegates’ were recruited and deployed and over six millions of donated funds used for the temporal and spiritual needs of soldiers. . . .

In World War I, the American Y.M.C.A. assumed an enormous responsibility for service at home and abroad for which a staff of 25,926 was required with expenditures of more than 167 million dollars. In World War II, the Y.M.C.A. became one of the organizations that founded the United Service Organizations [USO], joining as a group of private religious organizations from Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths in an agreement with the Federal government to provide civilian recreational, welfare, and religious services to men in uniform and to war-production workers in communities adjacent to military establishments."—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol. 36, pp. 13,467, 13,468, 1952 ed.

"YMCA activities for members of the armed forces began during the Civil War (1861-1865). These services increased with each later war and reached their fullest development during World War II (1939-1945). The YMCA maintained more than 450 clubs for the Allied armed forces."—
The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 21, p. 477, 1978 ed.

This kind of service under the name "Christian" was certainly not in fulfillment of Micah 4:3.

Copyright: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.

Take note of the bold phrases above and then consider the things presented below. Solid proof of the Watchtower using the facilities at the YMCA for years! Giving lectures, baptizing people in their pools, having conventions and using their lodging. If it is so wrong to join the YMCA just use the facilities or pay a onetime fee to use their facilities then why was it okay for the Watchtower to use them?

Notice these quotes from Watchtower Publications:

1977 Year book:

"An avid reader of The Watch Tower, Joseph learned that Brother Russell, while on a world tour during 1912, would visit India. Madras City was to be visited, so Joseph seized the opportunity to hear Russell and gain a personal interview. At Madras, Brother Russell lectured in the YMCA Hall and, though his schedule was full, he granted Joseph a personal interview lasting two hours"

"Our brothers lodged at the YMCA Hostel and worked the residential homes scattered about on the steep hillsides. Paths led zigzag-fashion up the mountainsides, making house-to-house work somewhat laborious. Skinner, being a little younger and having a more robust constitution than Wright, took the higher elevations. Meanwhile, Brother Wright, who had a poor heart condition, visited the lower slopes. Much literature was left in the homes of these people."

"We had our circuit assembly at the YMCA Hall in Chowringhee, where it was good for me to meet the Bengali-speaking brothers for my first time."

1991 year book:

"James said: "I read that a Japanese lecture would be given at the Nuuanu YMCA in Honolulu on the subject ‘Millions Now Living Will Never Die.’ This was something so different from what I had heard before, so I decided to attend. Since the advertisement invited us to bring our Bibles, I did so. I was very impressed with the speaker, who answered from the Bible all the questions asked. I filled out a slip of paper saying that I wanted to study the Bible." This led him to the group study of 12 persons that comprised all the Bible Students associating together in 1926. James Nako progressed quickly and was baptized in July 1927"

08/01/1957 Watchtower:

Inexorably, as with all assemblies, the final day of the Manila assembly arrived. A crowded day it was. Baptism was scheduled as the first thing in the morning. The questions directed to the candidates for baptism to determine their worthiness for it were asked in as many dialects as were spoken by the candidates, besides in English—in Tagalog, Ilocano, Cebu-Visayan, Hiligaynon-Visayan, Bicolano, Samareno, Pangasinan, Pampango, Zambel and Ibanag. In spite of the difference of language all were alike in being dedicated to the same God Jehovah and in understanding his kingdom truth. Accordingly, 279 were favored with baptism in the YMCA swimming pool, not far from the Rizal Stadium, where 6,572 had heard them answer the decisive questions affirmatively.

07/15/1951 Watchtower:

That afternoon we joined in a meeting with the publishers and people of good will. I started to talk at 2:15 and a brother interpreted in Indonesian. At 3:30 Brother Henschel spoke and his talk was interpreted in both Indonesian and Dutch. I then summed up for 45 minutes with two interpreters. The meetings were held at the YMCA, and 37 were present. Most of them were Chinese, but there were Indonesians and others present too. They expressed great appreciation following the meeting and then showed their desire to comply with all theocratic requirements.

As far back as 1885 the Watchtower recognized that the YMCA was "completely under the control of sectarians, by whom they are supported and long recognized the YMCA as promotors of interfaith." Yet they very blatantly used the facilities at the YMCA to give lectures, baptize people, have conventions and lodge in the rooms, at the same time demonizing them and anyone of their members that would associate with them in anyway.

I was a member of the YMCA before I became a witness. I was never required to accept or endorse their objectives or principles as a member. All I was required to do was pay a membership fee that is it! If I was to the join the YMCA as a baptized witness, it would be considered apostasy!

The Watchtower lays down these commands but does not abide by them, that is why they believed they could join the United Nations as an NGO just to have library access! In doing so they had to meet the requirements for becoming and remaining an NGO which means to publicly build support for the UN goals and programs which they indeed did as shown through the evidence on this blog and their own literature.

Excuses That Don't Add Up.

2005-05-01T18:16:00.010-05:00

An examination of the statements made by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society shows they are desperate to contain the situation. Each of these statements was made after the Guardian articles came out.

"We had been using the library for many years prior to 1991, but in that year UN personnel on duty at the time told our representative that it would be necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access." Link

Lets give them the benefit of doubt and say this is what happened. My question is now, did this happen every year for the next ten years of their association? Why do I ask this? Because an NGO must reapply every year for association. They are reviewed by the DPI as to how they are meeting the requirements for association and if they are continuing to support the United Nations by the having the commitment and the means to conduct effective information programmes, with its constituents and to a broader audience (about UN activities). They must fill out a yearly accreditation form in which they must list their representatives for the coming year, tell them their main areas of interest and it must be signed by the Chief Administrator or Executive Officer of the organization. link Link#2

If the reason the Watchtower Society had to join in association with the United Nations was because some guy on duty at the time said they must join in order to have continued library access then what about the next nine times they had to reapply and prove they were meeting the requirements? Was the same guy on duty? Did the United Nations make special concessions for the Watchtower Society so that they had no clue as to what was required of them until nine years later? Anyone with a reasoning mind could see that there is no way that could happen. An NGO must reapply every year and meet the requirements or they are disassociated. If fact, the year that the Watchtower Society applied for association many desiring to become an NGOs were not accepted. Also some were disassociated for not meeting the requirements or being inactive in their roll as an NGO. See this link .

One more thing to consider is the procedure for becoming a NGO. The Watchtower Society and the United Nations are both very big organizations with very thorough practices and procedures. The United Nations does not just accept everyone who applies but they must meet the criteria and prove they can!

"An NGO that meets the established criteria should send an official letter from its headquarters to the Chief of the NGO Section, Department of Public Information, expressing interest in association with DPI. The letter should state the reasons why the organization seeks such association and should briefly describe its information programmes. This letter should be accompanied by at least six samples of recent information materials produced by the applying organization. Letters of reference from UN Departments, UN Programmes and Specialized Agencies, and/or UN Information Centres and Services (UNICs and UNISs) will greatly enhance consideration of the application."

"Still, the criteria for association of NGOs...at least in their latest version...contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration." Link

In this next statement the Watchtower Society claims that somewhere along the line the criteria for association changed and that they were unaware of it until it was brought to their attention and that in the latest version of the criteria there is language that they cannot subscribe to. Can this statement stand up to scrutiny? According to the United Nations the requirements for association have not changed since 1991. Link

Another question that comes to mind is, what is the language that has changed that they cannot subscribe to? The Watchtower Society provides no answer but only makes the statement that it has changed. In my research I can find nothing in the language of the criteria that is different then in 1991. In fact as far back as 1968 NGOs were required to support the goals of the United Nations. Link

"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”.

What language has change even since 1968? Nothing!

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Renounces Their Christian Faith!

2005-03-21T10:41:00.003-05:00

According to a recent book release from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society a Christian can renounce his faith by certain actions. Here is the quote from the new book.

" Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote,"They went out from among us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us." 1John 2:19. For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgement by Jehovah God. If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation stating"{Name of person} is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The Presiding Overseer should approve this announcement."
( copyright WB&TS)

It would seem by their own words that the Society has renounced their faith and should not longer be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses. They did this by joining the United Nations as an NGO (non governmental organization) in association with the DPI. This relationship is clearly spelled out in the United Nations NGO brochure as I have shown on this blog. It is a political relationship and its objectives are clearly different then the Bibles and is not in harmony with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. The United Nations objectives is to create a peaceful world through man's efforts. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Christ Jesus kingdom is no part of this world and that his kingdom would be the only means peace would be accomplished on earth.

The Watchtower Society has taught for years that God's kingdom is the only way that peace would come to earth but now they have apostatized from that commitment by joining the United Nations in association with the DPI as an NGO. They have committed themselves to that cause and have used their resources to publish United Nations propaganda in The Watchtower and Awake magazines which are dedicated to the cause of announcing God's kingdom only through Christ! Now instead of announcing God's kingdom they are renouncing it by agreeing to the terms of their association with the DPI.

This is typical behavior for the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses the Watchtower leadership . Preach and teach one thing and do another. They expect complete devotion from their members and when members do not comply they are disciplined by shunning and ridicule, made to feel guilty and live in the fear of God. The leadership themselves take no responsibility for their actions of hypocrisy and apostasy. Humility is not in their character for they are the chosen of God and thus had no need of honesty, integrity and pure spirituality.

Comparing the requirements of an NGO with what the Watchtower has taught regarding the YMCA.

2004-10-01T10:53:00.002-05:00

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's article 01/01/79 Watchtower magazine this question was asked:

Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association)?

After a lengthy explanation of how the YMCA is interlocked with religion the Watchtower makes these statements. The choice of wording and the extreme nature of how they explain this is relevant to what they are saying in defense of their association which the Untied Nations Department of Public Information.

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 founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah's Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called "Christian" association would amount to apostasy.

Some individuals have on occasion not become members but have paid a onetime admission fee, viewing this as simply paying for a commercial service available. Even in this regard it is wise to consider whether this course will adversely affect the consciences of others. 1 Cor. 8:11-13.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches that if someone were to join the YMCA, that person
accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. Even if one just joined to use the facilities, that membership is not merely an entry pass. But by joining for whatever reason this person has become an integral part of this organization founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith which in turn would amount to apostasy!

This same reasoning does not apply to them in joining the United Nations even if it was just for library access! By joining the United Nation as an NGO they must accept and endorse the general objectives and principles of the organization as stated in the requirements for an NGO. Which is exactly what they did.

Statements from the NGO/DPI concerning the criteria for association match exactly to what they are saying one would have to do if you were to join the YMCA. Here are a few of the requirements. Pay attention to the particular wording.

The importance of working with and through NGOs as an integral part of United Nations information activities was recognized when the Department of Public Information was first established in 1946.

an NGO "...shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations 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".

How do NGOs and DPI cooperate? The Department of Public Information and NGOs cooperate regularly. NGOs associated with DPI disseminate information about the UN to their membership, thereby building knowledge of and support for the Organization at the grassroots level.

Reference link: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.asp

The Watchtower Society claims they only joined to get a mere entry pass to the library. Yet, by their own words, in doing so they have accepted and endorsed the general objectives and principles of the United nations organization, in turn, affecting the consciences and faith of many of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their action in joining the DPI amounts to apostasy.

United Nations Association is no secret!

2004-10-01T08:20:00.007-05:00

Paul Gillies letter

In this letter written by Paul Gillies press officer for the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses the same library access statement is made similar to the Branch letter that was sent out to all the branches of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. Gillies also states that this NGO relationship with the United Nations is no secret . If it was no secret then why did most of Jehovah's witnesses not know about it until the Guardian News published an article about it? If it is not a secret and there is nothing wrong with what they did, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses who know about the association being told not to say anything about it? Why have some been threatened or disfellowshipped for speaking about it?

Another unbelievable statement says that the initial application required no signature. This is not true. Who has ever applied for something and was not required to sign the application, especially something this involving? There is no way that this could be possible. In fact take a look at this document to see how an NGO had to sign an annual accreditation form showing who their representatives were going to be for that year. Page two of the document states that it must be signed by the Chief Administrative or Executive officer of the organization. If the Watchtower had to sign a paper saying who was going to represent them ever year they were associated which was for ten years, how is it that they did not sign the original application?

Page one
Yearly form
Page two
Yearly form

Next Gillies states: "Years later unbeknown to the Governing Body of Jehovah's witnesses, the UN published "Criteria for Association" stipulating that affiliated NGOs are required to support the goals of the United Nations". This statement is really unbelievable! It basically says they joined a huge organization like the United Nations and didn't have a clue for ten years what they were really about or what they required of them, that they were deceived into believing they could just use the library and did not understand what they had got themselves into. As pointed out before the criteria for association was established in 1946 and updated in 1968. The criteria has always stated that an NGO must support the goals of the UN.
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.asp

We have already established that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society had to have known the criteria from receiving the yearly brochures and that they had to sign a yearly accreditation form in which the executive officer of the organization had to sign. It has been proven without a doubt that they had to meet the criteria before they could be approved for association and in fact did meet the criteria by using the Awake and Watchtower magazines to cooperate with the information program. So the question is....Did the Guardian misrepresent the background to Jehovah's Witnesses registration with the United Nations? Decide for yourselves. Here are the two Guardian articles. The first one which came out before the Watchtower withdrew their association and the second after their withdrawal.

Guardian
Guardian#2

How did the Watchtower meet the critria?

2004-09-26T13:40:00.004-05:00

First for those who do not know what the criteria is here is a link.
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.asp

If you look at the first subheading, "What is an NGO?" you'll notice that being an NGO is very political. Statements like NGO's encourage political participation, help monitor and implement international agreements. Statements like these should have served as a warning to those who are no part of the world and don't get involved with politics as the Watchtower has stated.

The next subheading "How do NGOs and the DPI (Department of Public Information) cooperate? We see that the job of an NGO is to disseminate information about the UN to their membership to building knowledge of and support for the Organization at the grassroots level.

Did the Watchtower meet this part of the criteria? Yes they did. In fact a good example of how they did this is in the September 8th 1991 Awake magazine. This magazine had a three part series of articles on the UN.

What Is Happening at the United Nations?
Why the Need for a League Arose?
The United Nations—A Better Way?

What is particularly interesting about the articles is how in the last paragraph of the last article this statement is made.....

"Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the United Nations is going to play a major role in world events in the very near future. No doubt these developments will be very exciting. And the results will have a far-reaching impact on your life. We urge you to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses in your neighborhood for more details on this matter. The Bible clearly paints a picture showing that the United Nations will very shortly be given power and authority. The UN will then do some very astonishing things that may well amaze you. And you will be thrilled to learn that there is yet a better way near at hand that will surely bring eternal peace and security!"

If you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses you could read between the lines and see what is being hinted at here. If you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses the reader would be lead to believe that the United Nations is the better way near at hand that will bring peace and security. As a Jehovah's Witness you would know that God's Kingdom is the better way. The funny thing is the article does not go on to explain that nor does the rest of the magazine! So the reader is left with an assumption that the United Nations is the better way because no better way is mentioned. Instead they say you have to ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses to explain it to you.

This is strange until you realize the purpose of the article. Was this article written to promote God's Kingdom? If so why is there no mention of it? The fact is this article was written in order to meet the requirements of an NGO. For years the Watchtower has been denouncing the United Nations as Satan's anti-Kingdom of God, the scarlet colored wild beast of revelation. Why have they changed their tune? Why the need to join the United nations?

If the Watchtower were to write this denouncing article about the United Nations, do you think the United Nations would look upon it as acceptable! No way! This series of articles is so watered down that the UN could not find any problem with it. Thus by writing this article the Watchtower met the criteria for association.

Another series of articles that also met the criteria was the November 22 1998 Awake. Under the same subheading "How do NGOs and the DPI cooperate?" An NGO is to publicize UN activities on peace and security, Human rights, economic and social development and to promote UN observances and international years.

I believe the real reason they joined the United nations was for support in human rights in different countries where Jehovah's Witnesses are having troubles. Which would be a noble reason to join. The fact is you can not demonize they very thing that is trying to help you! They secretly went to the United Nations for support while demonizing them on the other hand. A reaping of what they sowed in soon to come.

He is two examples of the Watchtower Society lobbying for human rights!

Link

Link

March 4th 2004 press release.

2004-09-26T10:51:00.003-05:00

Press Release

This press release in March of 2004 was released because of the overwhelming inquiries from Jehovah's Witnesses and former Jehovah's Witnesses about the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society association with the United Nations as an NGO. Jehovah's Witnesses who found out about the association were stunned and in disbelief. The Watchtower Society's governing body for years has said the United Nations was the anti-kingdom of God, the scarlet colored beast of Revelation chapter seventeen under Satan's influence. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught from the bible that the kingdoms of the world are controlled by Satan. (Matt 4:8-11, Luke 4:5-6, James 4:4, 1 John 5:19) For our leaders to be involved with the United Nations in an alliance of any kind would amount to apostasy.

Since most Jehovah's Witnesses are in the dark about this issue, the Watchtower has tried to keep it under lock and key and perhaps for good reason knowing the rank and file members could be stumbled by this hypocrisy. Ever since the Guardian New Articles came out the United Nations has been overwhelmed with requests for more information.

In this devastating press release the United Nations DPI states that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society clearly knew the requirements for association and was approved for association in 1992. As shown on this blog they kept meeting those requirements for ten years until the relationship was exposed. Even with the overwhelming evidence levied against them they will stick to their original statements of being deceived by the DPI and being oblivious of the criteria for association.