Part 4

DPI association to gain political prominence?

Some conspiracy theorists say that the Watchtower Society’s “real motive” was to gain prominence in the eyes of the UN and other governments, particularly where there is persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, is it not a ridiculous idea that having DPI passes to access the UN’s research materials could have such a benefit?

Speculation that governments like that of France would stop persecuting our religion, because our staff have access to UN book, audio and film libraries in New York, is just crazy.

Besides, if we wanted to gain legal status and recognition, we would do it via the courts as we have successfully done for decades. Considering France again, exactly what legal baring would our registration with the UN’s public information office have on the dispute with interpretations of French tax laws? None!

The claim that the DPI association was to gain political influence is a laughable accusation – and usually spouted by persons on Internet message boards who obviously do not understand what NGOs are, and are not in a position to know any of the facts.

Part 5: This is what we believe happened in the Society’s application process:

The Watchtower Society wanted access passes to the full extent of the DPI’s library facilities. They thought, “Hey, we’re big publishers on UN-related issues, we could make good use of their full library facilities! Why shouldn't we have access when other publishing houses do?” So, they sent copies of their articles to the DPI and requested that the DPI put the Society on their register of associated NGOs.

Then, it was the DPI who determined whether the Society met the criteria. “Yes, it looks like these guys do write a lot about us, and could make good use of our facilities. Sometimes it’s negative, but that’s allowed. They’re not racist, they’re pro-human rights and pro-religious freedom, and they publish millions of magazines. They would really benefit from using all of our library facilities. After all, we want to make it easier for people to write about the UN to help educate the public about what we do here. I see no reason why they can’t be associated and be given access passes.” Thus, they decided the Society did fall within their criteria, and so issued an application form.

The Society read the form and saw that it had nothing on it which conflicts with our Christian beliefs. They completed and returned the form (which needed no signature) and was accepted, proving that complete agreement with the UN was obviously never a requirement.

The Society could not have signed any agreement to meet the criteria, because no such agreement existed. If the Society had chosen to stop printing articles on the UN (and hence stopped using the UN’s library facilities), the DPI would have simply removed us from the register, as they have done with other NGOs. “Hey, it looks like the Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t using our libraries any more. We might as well remove them from our register of associated NGOs.”

Hence, opposers who make the bizarre claim that we agreed to “write articles praising the UN” to keep our “NGO status” so we can gain “political influence”, are speaking out of total ignorance. These people are, in fact, teaching a paranoid conspiracy theory. –See the box “DPI association to gain political prominence?”

The truth is simple. If we made good use of the UN’s library facilities to write about the UN (including criticism of the UN), we could be on the DPI’s register of NGOs to get access passes. If we stopped writing about the UN, however, then there’s no point in us staying on the register, since we’re obviously not using our passes. No agreements, no “back room deals”, end of story.

At the start of this chapter we asked, “Did the Watchtower Society agree to meet any special criteria to become associated with the DPI?” The answer is no.

We now move on to a related important subject – the forms themselves. We mentioned earlier that the Society did have to complete an application form. What did that form say? Does it’s contents corroborate with the Watchtower Society’s version of events?
Summary

NGOs are just any organization that is not part of a government. NGOs are not just organizations linked to the UN. There are millions of NGOs.
Thus, the Watchtower Society has always been an “NGO”, it is now, and always will be.
There is no agreement for NGOs to meet the DPI’s criteria because...
...it is the DPI who determines if an NGO meets their criteria.
Only saying good things about the UN is not part of their criteria.
The Society could not have agreed to meet any criteria because no such agreement existed since none was necessary.
If the Society stopped publishing articles on the UN and stopped using their libraries, the DPI would determine that we no longer met the criteria, and the Society would be dropped from the register.

Part 6: Please Sign Nowhere

In the previous chapter, we showed how the Watchtower Society, as a UN Department of Public Information (DPI) Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), was not under the authority of the ECOSOC resolution which said NGOs should “support” the UN. The fact that the Watchtower Society was not under that resolution is reflected in the forms it completed in 1991.

No where on those forms is there anything which would compromise the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there was something there then we could read it on those forms ourselves — as some critics would expect — but instead there is simply nothing there. —See the original 1991 forms

You will also notice that there doesn't even seem to be a place to put a signature. This corroborates what the Watchtower Society itself said in it's letter to The Guardian newspaper, where the spokesman for the London Bethel explained, “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”

However, some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply. They usually show a copy of a 2005 “Accreditation Form” for yearly status renewal — complete with a place for a signature and date at the bottom. That form states that the NGO “must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. Therefore, they make the accusation that the Watchtower Society not only had to sign a new application every year, but were also well aware that they were supporting the United Nations because it was on the form. However, is this argument valid?
Yearly renewal?

No, the argument is not valid. In fact, the critics are being deliberately misleading and are hoping you won't notice. If we actually take the time to read through the 2005 “Accreditation Form”, yes the very document they present as “proof” that the Society renewed it's application each year, what do we find? We find that is says this:

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

That's right — the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO! This very fact is stated in the document apostates use a “proof” that the Society “renewed their application each year”! Evidently, the apostates just hope you will believe what they say and won't notice what's written in the text of the document. Amazing.

This fact is further confirmed by a United Nations Press Release in December of 2001, which says, in part:

"During the year the DPI has instituted a review process for the first time, in order to better measure the effectiveness of its liaison activities with associated NGOs.”

So the evidence shows that the Watchtower Society did not have to renew it's NGO status at any time during it's membership, nor did any other NGO associated with the DPI. Only between the end of 2001 to the beginning of 2002 did the process begin, months after the Society resigned as an NGO. That is when the Accreditation Form was changed to say NGOs must support he UN and when the form became a renewal application.

However, prior to that date the Society (and other NGOs) certainly did have to sign the previous version of the Accreditation Form every year. What did the previous version of the form say? Who signed it?
Yearly representatives and areas of interest

Each year, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI's extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.

Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI's facilities. The form itself clearly states:

“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”

The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:

“Please indicate your organization's main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”

Some apostates have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society's areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from year-to-year. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.

It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it's NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign annually, was simply to state who it's representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI's facilities.

It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.
Summary

No signature was required on the DPI NGO application form in 1991.
No DPI NGO renewal process was in place until 2001/2002 — after the Society resigned.
Before 2001/2002, the yearly accreditation form was for declaring who would be the NGOs representatives at DPI facilities.
The Watchtower Society did not sign anything that said Jehovah's Witnesses agree to support the UN.

skelewu, skelewu, skelewu

Part 7: The Changing World of NGOs
The United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) produces a special brochure for it's Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). This brochure acts as an introduction to new NGOs and stipulates the requirements of being an NGO.

To mislead their readers, many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses quote from the current version of the DPI's NGO brochure and falsely claim that those requirements are what the Watchtower Society originally signed up to in 1991. The requirements given by the brochure for the DPI's NGOs include the requirement that the NGO should support the UN. Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?

No. The critics are lying. They simply hope that you won't think too much about it, and that you won't delve a little deeper and discover the evidence that the NGO world has changed considerably since 1991. We do not have the brochure from 1991, but we do have a copy of the 1994 brochure, which is considerably different from the current version which the apostates quote.
A new relationship

In fact, the 1994 brochure even testifies to the very fact the requirements and expectations of the DPI's NGOs were changing. Page six of the 1994 document says this:

“A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities.”

Indeed, the above statement proved accurate. For if we compare the current (2005) brochure to the 1994 brochure, we see major changes. For example, the 2005 brochure says the following:

“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;”

Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:

“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals. Just what are those ideals?

“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."

Does the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses share those same ideals? They most certainly do — and have done so for years before the UN formed! It is understandable why NGOs should share these same ideals, for the UN would not want to assist or help any organization which promotes contrary ideas. For example, the resolution which gave the DPI power to associate NGOs elaborates on this desire:

“...the Secretary-General [should] ensure that the Office of Public Information [DPI], while reviewing the status of present organizations or considering new applications, excludes all those organizations whose aims or practices tend or contribute to the propagation of nazi ideology and racial and/or religious discrimination;”

We now have a better idea of why the 1994 requirements for being an NGO should stipulate that any associated organization should share the same ideals as the UN charter. They must share the same ideals of religious and racial tolerance and should not in any way promote contrary, racist or discriminatory ideas.
Support the UN by featuring UN information

Some have pointed to page 7 of the 1994 brochure where it states that the NGO must show that they “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 activity.”

However, take note that it does not say support the UN by supporting the principles and charter of the UN. Nor does it say to support the UN by supporting all their endeavors. The support spoken of is by writing articles about the UN. In other words, the word ‘support’ as defined in Websters Dictionary in this case means “to provide corroborating evidence or information”. —Read more about the word support in the chapter Principle Support
The 53rd General Assembly

Clearly, the requirements in 1994 were different than in 2005. There is further confirmation that the NGO world was changing. In 1998, the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations reflected this changing situation, and declared it was entering a “new era” in it's relationship with NGOs:

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

We now have two confirmed lines of evidence showing the United Nations relationships with NGOs (both ECOSOC and DPI) changed over the 1990's.
Changing very fast

In June 1999 the Global Policy Forum, a ECOSOC NGO organization which monitors policy making at the United Nations, published a report which stated:

“The [DPI & ECOSOC] 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.”

If the requirements and expectations of NGOs have not changed since 1991, as apostates claim, we wonder why the Global Policy Forum would make such a statement. Clearly it is because the critics are wrong, and that the NGO world really has changed “very fast” and the evidence proves it.
Proposing a booklet

In 1999 the Secretary-General published a report in which he stressed the need for a brochure to be sent to all NGOs:

“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.” — Section 24

We wonder why in 1999 the Secretary General should have “proposed” that each NGO should receive a welcome booklet or brochure including “specifics” about the UN system and “practical guidelines” and “protocols” for NGOs, if the NGOs were already receiving such a booklet prior to this.

Perhaps receipt of this booklet was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn't even receive one when their status was granted in 1992. What is certain, however, is that they certainly did not receive the 2005 brochure which opposers constantly quote from — the Society couldn't have possibly received that version 13 years earlier, for we know it's contents have changed. When opposers quote from the 2005 version as proof that the Watchtower Society supported the UN — they are simply wrong. Whatever was said in the 1991 brochure which the Society received — if they received one at all — it certainly did not say that. Further, when it is claimed the NGO requirements did not change, this is also clearly wrong for the UN has said they changed.

So far in this work we have shown how many claims of apostates have proved false. They do not distinguish between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs, misapplying ECOSOC's requirement to that of the DPI's NGOs. They have wrongly claimed the Society had to renew its application each year, when we can see from their own “proof” that they did not. They have also lied and stated that the 1991 NGO requirements remained unchanged when we can clearly see they did not. We are not stupid, we can see they have changed — as can the DPI department itself, the 53rd General Assembly, the Global Policy Forum, and the Secretary-General have all acknowledged on several occasions. If there was no change, we wonder why the forms are now so different and why all these people would say such things.

Now we have established these facts, we can move on to consider exactly how the Watchtower Society explained it's NGO relationship. Were the Society's letters of explanations truthful? Or are they full of lies and cover-ups, as many critics claim?
Summary

Apostates quote requirements from the 2005 brochure when it is clear from copies of earlier brochures that they have changed.
In 1994 the UN said a new relationship between the UN and its NGOs was being created.
In 1998 the General Assembly of the UN acknowledged that the NGO world was entering a new era.
In 1999 the Global Policy Forum said the NGO world is changing very fast.
It is clear that requirements and expectations for NGOs changed over the 1990s.

part 8:
Following it to the Letter

When The Guardian first published it's article about the NGO situation, the London Bethel wrote a letter to the Editor correcting the article and clarifying the situation.

Critics, however, claim that Bethel's letters of explanation are a “cover-up”, and that Bethel have shown themselves to be “outright liars”. Are these accusations valid? Does the evidence corroborate what Bethel stated, or does the evidence show them to be “liars” as some would have us believe? —See the three letters from Bethel here, here, and here.
Why become an NGO?

Let's examine what Bethel is claiming in the letters. First, concerning the reason for becoming a DPI NGO, in two of the letters from Bethel claims it was:

“...for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations. This enabled a writer who received an identification card, to enter their library for research purposes and to obtain information that has been used in writing articles in our journals about the United Nations.”

“Our purpose ... was to have access to research material available on health, ecological, and social problems at the United Nations library facilities.”

Some claim the above statements are lies. They claim that absolutely anyone could have accessed the libraries and that there was absolutely no need to gain NGO status. Bethel acknowledged that their explanation is not believed by the critics. They said:

“Although critics may claim that access to the libraries could have been obtained without the need to register as an NGO, that is not what our research personnel were told at the time. They found it necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas, which were off limits to the public.”

The critics often quote statements from the United Nations that the main library, the Dag Hammarskjold Library and it's depository libraries, were accessible to absolutely anyone prior to September 2001. You can read e-mails from the UN itself saying this exact thing.

However, if that is completely true we wonder why the 1994 NGO brochure stated that:

“For NGOs associated with DPI, the United Nations provides: ... use of the Dag Hammarskjold Library.”

If absolutely anyone could use the entire facilities, we wonder why the brochure advertises use of that library as a perk of being a DPI NGO. Of course, if we look carefully we can see that the Watchtower Society did not say they merely wanted access to the “main library”. Bethel said that it was “necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas”. Yes, Bethel never claimed it needed a pass to access the Library itself, but to “specific areas” of that library and specific “library facilities”. A quick investigation reveals that there is far, far, more to the United Nations libraries than simply a main library full of books — and far, far, more than simply the Dag Hammarskjold building.

The library facilities of the United Nations, under the Department of Public Information, includes the following:

books
film and audio libraries
photo libraries
access to meetings
language courses
briefings

seminars
conferences
film screenings
commemorations
concerts
the DPI NGO Resource Center

To access the full range of these facilities you need a DPI NGO pass. Prior to September 2001 you may have been able to simply walk into the Dag Hammarskjold Library as the opposers correctly say — but it is entirely misleading to say all the “library facilities” were available to anyone, because they were clearly not. An NGO pass was required to access everything — otherwise why would the 1994 brochure advertise full access to that library as an NGO privilege? There is only one logical reason: because around 1991 the DPI was making further facilities available at the library, but only to those with an NGO pass.
Did NGO status really become necessary?

Knowing about the full range of facilities offered by the DPI helps explain Bethel's other claim in it's letters:

“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 Watchtower Society's researcher was apparently told he could no longer access certain areas or facilities without an NGO pass. Why? Perhaps the facilities were new, and reserved only for DPI NGOs. Perhaps existing facilities were now being reserved only for the use of DPI NGO representatives. Perhaps the brother wished to access certain documents which were off-limit to the general public. Or perhaps certain exhibitions or events were taking place that were DPI NGO-invitation only. These possibilities are hinted at in one of Bethel's letters, where it states that a DPI NGO pass was necessary to access “specific areas”, presumably areas which were previously accessible. Whatever happened, the Watchtower Society researcher was told they needed an NGO pass to continue with the same level of access they previously enjoyed.

There is, of course, one other possibility: that the employee who advised of the need for an NGO pass was simply mistaken. How many of us can say we have not experienced some kind of incompetence or received some wrong advice from a government employee? If we are honest, we know that government agencies are often notorious for giving contradictory advice. In the UK's large welfare state, it is a running joke that you can call a government helpline and receive a different answer to the same question if you call twice.

The Global Policy Forum's report, which we quoted earlier, had this to say about the competence of both the DPI and ECOSOC NGO staff:

“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 behavior 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.”

We do not quote the above to try and “lay the blame” on the UN for the situation, but just to show that it is quite reasonable to consider whether a UN employee could have given incorrect advice to a visitor. Also, think how the above report is from 1999. Can you imagine how much more confusing the NGO situation must have been in the early 1990's — when the NGO world was still finding its feet? If they can lose papers and forms, then it is neither surprising nor unreasonable to wonder whether the brother was simply given wrong advice from the UN employee.

For whatever reason, the Watchtower Society researcher was informed that to continue his currently level of access, he needed to be a representative of a DPI NGO. Perhaps he tried to access “specific areas” which were now off-limits, or perhaps he was misinformed. We do not know. However, this part of Bethel's story is both plausible and believable. We can see that many facilities were only available to NGOs and therefore Bethel's explanation is entirely reasonable. Thus we have no basis to claim Bethel is lying whatsoever.
No signature?

The implications of the critic's claims is that the Watchtower Society was — in some way — heavily involved with the UN. Some even claim that there were secret back-room deals and negotiations, that the UN and the Society were working together in a conspiracy-like manner. However, all of this is just fantasy. In Bethel's letter they try to emphasize how such ideas are nonsense, and that the so-called “secret links with the Untied Nations” really amounted to an application form that didn't even require a signature. In the letter they correctly state:

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

We know this statement to be true, because we have copies of 1991 DPI NGO sign-up forms, and we notice a distinct lack of a place to put a signature (see the 1991 initial application form here). Bethel was not lying whatsoever, but showing how the “secret back-room deals” conspiracy theorists obviously do not know what they are talking about. These so called “secret back-room deals” amounted to completing a form to gain DPI passes which didn't even require a signature on this first application. It's incredible to think this, but we know it's true because we have the evidence.

On the other hand, consider the application that ECOSOC NGOs must complete (for consultative status). Their application, which the Watchtower Society never applied for, includes an agreement to outright support the United Nations – with a signature required. If all NGOs, even those with the DPI, signed such an application and agreement, it should be easily found ? and yet no such thing exists for DPI NGOs.

The first page says:

Application for Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council

The last page says:

I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to the best of my/our knowledge.

I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.

The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.

[signature]

This is the form for organizations wishing to become ECOSOC NGOs, but no form with similar requirements existed for DPI NGOs when the Watchtower Society was involved. This application can be found on the UN website at http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ (then click on “Forms and documents” and then “Application in English”).

Final Part:
There's more to it than a “library card”!

Some have uncovered records of Watchtower representatives attending a conference on the holocaust for NGOs. They quote this as “proof” that Bethel was “lying” and that there was really more to their NGO membership that merely a “library card”. On the contrary, such a conference is exactly the kind of facility requiring DPI NGO status. Conferences on subjects such as the holocaust are part of the “extensive library facilities” on offer by the DPI to representatives of it's NGOs. The idea that the Society signed up just for a “library card” is actually a phrase invented by apostates on the Internet, the Society did not coin the expression as it is misleading and inaccurate — which was probably the reason apostates invented it in the first place.

Concluding
No statements that conflict?

The last comment by Bethel concerning the forms is:

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

Again, after examining the initial application form (found here), and the subsequent forms to confirm the annual representatives (found here), we can see this is a factual statement. As we have already covered previously, there are “no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs” anywhere. There is nothing about supporting the UN, the UN charter, nor any mention of any ECOSOC resolution.

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

This is indeed a truthful quote. Perhaps this statement has been said many times by the UN, the DPI, and its representatives when discussing the NGO relationship. This was even confirmed by information officer Oleg Dzioubinski of the DPI. One opposer called the UN’s DPI and talked to Mr. Dzioubinski in the hope of gathering information against the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unfortunately it back-fired. Part of his admitted conversation was as follows:

“Question: What is an NGO and how does it relate to the UN?
Answer: NGOs have no status and are not part of the UN.”

The DPI NGO status was, after all, there to give interested organizations easy access to information, library resources, documents, and events. The idea that organizations with this association would be given “privileges, immunities, or special status” or be “incorporated into the United Nations”, or were in a “political partnership” is ridiculous. How really comical it is when critics on the Internet argue that the Watchtower Society’s DPI NGO status granted exactly those things! How bizarre are the accusations that DPI NGO status meant the Society became “part of the United Nations” or even “a United Nations member”! We know that DPI NGO status was nothing like that whatsoever, and any person who claims otherwise couldn't be more wrong.
Requirements Changed

Let's continue on to the next claim of Bethel's letters:

“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.”

We now know this statement is true. In an earlier chapter, we saw how the 1994 NGO brochure was changed. Also we saw how many have acknowledged the changing relationship between the UN and it's NGOs. Clearly the 'Criteria for Association' for NGOs took on a different meaning, thus the NGO brochure was revised, the Accreditation Form changed to become a renewal form, and the review process was initiated for the first time in 2001/2002. The requirements and expectations of DPI NGOs did change, just as Bethel said. We can see this for ourselves.

Therefore we can continue to appreciate how Bethel was telling the truth when it said it has no UN documents on file which “conflict with our Christian beliefs”. The paper trail shows that the Society could not have had any such conflicting documents, because they did not exist during those years.

“Still, the Criteria for Association of NGOs-at least in their latest version-contain language that we cannot subscribe to.”

This “latest version” that Bethel is talking about here was the current version in 2001, which it does not seem Bethel ever signed. This version, and subsequent versions (particularly 2005), are the ones constantly quoted by critics, falsely claiming that the Society somehow magically signed it 10 years before it was written.

“After learning of the situation, our membership as NGO was withdrawn and the ID card of the writer was returned. We are grateful that this matter was brought to our attention.”

This statement is certainly true. We know that in the years after the Society first applied for DPI NGO status and received DPI access passes, that the situation and requirements changed. When the Society learned of the changes in 2001, the passes were returned. The evidence we have considered seems to show that the Society did everything properly, despite what opposers say regarding the matter. They even thanked The Guardian for bringing the recent change to their attention — despite it being obvious that the article was riddled with errors and was nothing more than an effort to misrepresent and ridicule Jehovah's Witnesses.
In Conclusion

It seems clear from what we have thus far considered, that the letters from Bethel were perfectly in accord with the facts. They are hardly “lies” or “cover-ups”, as some grossly misinformed persons and the odd conspiracy theorist may believe. To claim that DPI NGO status to access DPI libraries and related research facilities can be part of some “back-room agreement” and “conspiracy” is just comical.

We know the original application on file did not need a signature. This confirms that DPI NGO status, at least in 1991, was a formality, and not some sort of special status or privilege, nor was it any sort of incorporation into the United Nations system — as the UN itself has said.
We know the registration papers did not contain any statements that conflict with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses because we can read such forms today.
We know that DPI NGO status was necessary to gain access to all the facilities, documents, publications, and events provided by the DPI.
We know that the relationship between the UN and it's DPI NGOs changed, as did the application, the forms, and the brochures which also changed to reflect that fact.
We know that in the very same year the UN documents were revised, that the Watchtower Society withdrew their status, and even thanked those bringing it to their attention.

There are no lies in the letters. There is no secret “cover-up”. The truth is that certain men are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, and some Jehovah's Witnesses have been caught up in the lies and the deceitful presentations by opposers and apostates.

Here is what we believe probably happened back in 1991. It is in agreement with all the evidence we have thus far presented:

Brother Aulicino from Bethel in New York went to the UN Headquarters on many occasions, and was permitted to use the library facilities. However, on this occasion in 1991 he was told by a UN employee that he could not use a certain facility without a DPI NGO pass. Perhaps the employee was mistaken, or maybe the brother was trying to access an area containing something now only for DPI NGO representatives. He therefore requested an application for a DPI NGO pass.

The application was completed and submitted with no signature. A few months later in 1992, the DPI NGO status was granted. The Society proceeded to use that status for the next 10 years to assist in research for Awake! articles, using the high quality — and highly authoritative — UN facilities. Later, in 2001, when apostates contacted The Guardian and it came forth with the story that the DPI NGO status was now inappropriate, the Society realized that they could not remain a NGO member if that was the criteria. They withdrew immediately. Inquiries were made, and letters were written answering the inquiries. The letters are not “lies”. They speak the truth and are in accord with all the evidence we can find.
Summary

DPI NGO status granted more than simple access to a main library.
Bethel's researcher evidently tried to access areas or facilities that were for DPI NGO representatives only.
In 1991 the application was a formality and not a guarantee of support for the UN or it's charter. It didn't even require a signature.
When the DPI NGO requirements changed and Bethel made aware of it, they withdrew the status and returned the DPI NGO passes.
The letters of explanation sent by Bethel are in full accord with the facts and paper-trail of evidence. Bethel has not lied even once about the matter.

LIKE PAULGRUNDY, All Hail to the UN Chief

After the Guardian story broke, the United Nations DPI was inundated with many requests for information on the matter, especially from former Jehovah's Witnesses. Hence, Paul Hoeffel, the chief of the DPI's NGO section wrote an open letter on the matter to anyone who is interested in the subject.

Many persons refer to this letter as further “proof” that the Society's NGO relationship was inappropriate, and that the Society lied about the situation. Is this true? What does the letter say, and just why is it important? Let us examine this letter closely and find out for ourselves.

It begins with:

“4 March 2004

To Whom It May Concern,

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

This seems like pretty damning evidence. However, we must remember that these statements were made in 2004 and after the fact. As we saw earlier, in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.

To illustrate, imagine you join a video-rental store, such as Blockbusters. The membership form you completed when you join is simple and straightforward, entitling you to access any of the videos you wish. Strangely, it doesn't even require a signature. Then, 10 years later, the video store turns around and says, “Oh, by the way, although it wasn't on your membership form, and you haven't signed anything to this effect, you have agreed to rent pornographic videos on a regular basis.” Say what? No, that cannot be. No one can turn around and say “you agreed to this, you agreed to that” a decade later — especially since you never signed any form stating such things. Yet this is the exact scenario with the Watchtower Society found itself in with the DPI and their changing requirements.

The chief of the DPI is being misleading — either by intentionally trying to cover his department's failings or from simply making an honest mistake. He is quoting the then-current 2004 requirements for a DPI NGO. Notice how he fails to say those were the requirements back in the early 1990's. Why does he not make it clear that the original applications said nothing about supporting the UN charter, as we can see for ourselves today? Who really is being untrustworthy and trying to “hide the facts”? Is it the Watchtower Society, whose explanation agrees with the 1991 evidence? Or is it not the DPI, who has wrongly insinuated that the criteria to support the UN as a DPI NGO was on the original application — when we know for a fact that it was not?
“redissemination of information”

Mr Hoeffel's letter continues:

“In October 2001, the Main Representative of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York to the United Nations, Giro Aulicino, requested termination of its association with DPI. Following this request, the DPI made a decision to disassociate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York as of 9 October 2001.

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

“The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies. Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications.””

Notice how he now quotes from 1992 requirements. He quotes the part that the “principle purpose of ... [DPI NGOs] is the re-dissemination of information in order to increase public understanding ... of the United Nations”. The Watchtower Society was already interested in doing exactly that — and had been doing so for decades, ever since the UN was formed.

During World War II the League of Nations had, for all intents and purposes, ceased to function in any practical or meaningful way. However, The Watchtower magazine reckoned on the re-emergence of the League of Nations in a new form, after interpreting the contents of the prophecies in Revelation. Yes — the Watchtower Society was interested in educating the public on the United Nations and how it will play a part in Bible prophecy — even before it was formed! Ultimately the Society has been interested in educating the public on how the UN, along with all other governments, will be replaced by God's Kingdom under the rule of Christ. Yet the UN and it's activities are still not very well-known by the General Public. Hence, the Society is very interested in educating the public about the “principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies.” Hence, we know the Society would be happy to continue to do something it was already doing.

As for the rest of this part of the letter, it is more interesting when we look at what it does not say — or what it should say if the critics were correct — rather than what it actually does say. What do we mean?

Mr Hoeffel is happy to quote that particular fact from the 1992 form, so why does he not quote from it more often? Why does he not quote from a part which says the DPI NGO application required support of the UN and it's charter? This would have been definitive proof that the Watchtower Society knew what they were doing. Yet he cannot make such a quote from the 1992 requirements because no such statement exists. Instead, he quotes from the 2004 requirements, then selectively quotes from the 1992 requirements afterwards. This gives the wrong impression that the current criteria was in place in 1992 — when we know it was not. Incidentally, we also notice that Mr Hoeffel got the name of Bethel's representative wrong.
The wrong brochure, the wrong requirements

Returning to the letter, we read:

“We are enclosing a brochure on the “The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations”, which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship.”

Why does Mr Hoeffel not enclose a copy of the 1992 brochure, clearly showing that there was criteria to support the UN and it's charter in that year? Why did he not take the opportunity to confirm the point? Perhaps it is because the 1992 brochure said nothing of the sort. We know the 1994 brochure does not say such a thing, and therefore have no basis for thinking it was in the 1992 brochure either, if one was even sent.

Finally, Mr Hoeffel outlines the criteria for organizations who wish to become DPI NGOs:

“In addition, the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include the following:

* that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;
* operate solely on a not-for-profit basis;
* have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach large or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
* have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting the cooperation of the media.

We expect that you will share this information with your concerned colleagues, as we are unable to address the scores of duplicate requests regarding the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that are being directed to our offices. Thank you for your interest in the work of the United Nations.

Sincerely,

Paul Hoeffel
Chief
NGO Section
Department of Public Information”

Much of the criteria listed above is, again, not found in the initial application, nor the annual forms for representative passes. In other words, not in anything we are aware that the Watchtower Society was sent or signed during it's DPI NGO tenure. So here we have another misleading statement from the DPI.

Notice the statement that the NGO must “share the ideals of the UN Charter”. We discussed this briefly in a previous chapter, however it might now be appropriate to again ask, ‘In what way can true Christians share the ideals of the UN charter, and if the Society did agree to support the UN, would that compromise our beliefs?’
Summary

The DPI's NGO chief quotes from the 2004 requirements, not the 1991/1992 requirements which the Watchtower Society has on file.
The Watchtower Society was granted DPI NGO status as they were already educating the public on the activities of the United Nations and it's Agencies.
The DPI provided a copy of the 2004 brochure, which we know had changed since 1992 and did not include the requirement that DPI NGOs must support the UN and it's charter.

paulGrundy:
The letter outlines that the Watchtower was an associated NGO and to become associated required the Watchtower to accept the following:

>that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;

1.have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach target or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
2.have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programs about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting cooperation of the media.

‘RIDE THE WILD BEAST’? MAYBE TO PAULGRUNDY

Some have argued that simply using the DPI’s facilities meant Jehovah’s Witnesses were “riding on the back of the wild beast”, in other words, going along with the United Nations just like many other religions. To support this argument apostates and other opposers e.g. PAULGRUNDY make the following assertions:

1. The WT publications have always told JWs have nothing to do with the UN.

2. By becoming an NGO registered with the DPI the WTS hypocritically disobeyed their own directive and rode the Beast.

Is point number one really true? What stance has the Society actually taken as regards the UN? Does it coincide with the claims of opposers? Have Watchtower publications condemned having any dealings whatsoever with the UN? What should be the Christian view of the UN according to Jehovah’s Witnesses own publications? Would you like to see what has really been written on the subject in the publications?
A Christian view of the United Nations

The Watchtower of October 1st, 1995 provides a clear description of how we should view the United Nations:

“In Bible prophecy, human governments are often symbolized by wild beasts. (Daniel 7:6, 12, 23; 8:20-22) Hence, for many decades the Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns.

“However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves.”—Romans 13:1, 2.

“Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are maintaining strict political neutrality, do not interfere with human governments. They never foment revolution or participate in acts of civil disobedience. Rather, they recognize that some form of government is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.—Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.—Acts 5:29.”

It is clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses view the UN as they do the other superior authorities. Respect and submission to these superior authorities is essential if we are to gain God's approval. However some make the extraordinary argument that the Watchtower Society only printed this information because they were a DPI-associated NGO at the time, and wanted to minimize that involvement “in case they were caught”.

This is entirely false. Jehovah’s Witnesses position on the United Nations has not changed. Even way back in 1962 the November 15th Watchtower declared that the United Nations was indeed one of the superior authorities:

“Under startling symbols the last book of the Bible has foretold the national groups or associations that are to exist during this “time of the end” from 1914 onward; for example, the Devil’s visible earthly organization, also the British-American dual world power, and the League of Nations and the United Nations. (Rev. 13:1 to 19:20) Jehovah God also foretold the destruction of these “superior authorities” ... The apostle Paul wrote his letter regarding these “superior authorities” ... “

So when some critics argue that the UN should not be regarded as one of the superior authorities that we are submit to, their argument is irrelevant. It is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach on the subject that is in dispute.

If an apostate or other opposer doesn’t want to regard the United Nations as a government which comes under the “superior authorities”, then that is their businesses and their business alone. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not to be judged on the basis of someone else’s mistaken beliefs. If a person is going to toss out the belief by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the UN is one of the superior authorities, then they might just as well throw out the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the UN is the scarlet colored wild beast also.

Even so, there is indeed valid proof that the UN is one of the superior authorities. All one merely has to do is take a look at various sanctions imposed by it to see what can happen when a country defies the resolutions of the UN. If UN peace-keeping forces are in your country, try defying curfew or entering off-limit areas. You will quickly find out that the UN is indeed a superior authority. It is also a fact that the International Bill of Rights proposed and ratified by the UN is legally binding in almost all nations of the world. The United Nations is most definitely one of the superior authorities. That is exactly what Watchtower publications say and what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Have Nothing to Do with the UN?

We have often times asked opposers to show us a single Watchtower publication telling Christians that they should have absolutely nothing to do with the UN. Surely they must be plentiful and such articles should easily be found. Such an article would, no doubt, go something like this:

“Since the UN is the disgusting thing or scarlet wild beast of Bible prophecy, Christians should have nothing to do with the UN. They should not tour its large complex. They should not be found perusing through its libraries. They should not be found accepting aid from the UN. They should not use the UN court system. They should not be employed by the UN in any possible way even if it is merely processing food rations or cutting the grass. Doing these things would constitute touching the disgusting thing and committing spiritual adultery.”

Yet, no one has ever managed to provide one single article similar to this, telling Jehovah’s Witnesses to have no dealings whatsoever with the UN. The reason being that no such article exists. Of course, once opposers realize that they cannot show proof of their claims they attempt to use other tactics.

Some claim that the Watchtower publications teach that the UN is ‘the unclean thing’ and that the scripture which says, “quit touching the unclean thing” at 2 Corinthians 6:17 has been applied to the UN by the publications. This is completely false. No publication has ever taught that the UN is “the unclean thing” as discussed at 2 Corinthians 6:17. —See the Miscellaneous Questions page

After that tactic is foiled, some critics try pointing to Watchtower articles that call the UN the “wild beast” and “the disgusting thing” in Bible prophecy. They point to articles which say the UN is an enemy of God's Kingdom because it fails to recognize God's sovereignty. Thus, they attempt to reason that since this is the case, Jehovah’s Witnesses should have nothing to do with such an organization that is disgusting in Jehovah’s sight. Of course, they deliberately don’t mention that all governments are likened to beasts in opposition to Jehovah’s Kingdom. The Anglo-American world power, for example, is represented by a two horned beast that speaks like a dragon, gives life to the UN beast, has blasphemous names, and unclean expressions coming out of its mouth.

So, would it be improper to mail letters since the postal system is run by the federal government? Would it be improper use the educational or judicial systems or even to become a teacher or lawyer since both the educational system and the judicial system are agents of the federal government? How about getting passes for the governmental libraries, getting financial or medical aid from the welfare system of the national government? Should a Christian work for the Internal Revenue Service collecting taxes, or as part of disaster relief efforts conducted by the national government? Who would make such ridiculous and foolish arguments that Christians should not avail themselves of the programs, facilities, and avenues made available by these governmental authorities? The Watchtower Society certainly has never done so.

paulGrundy:
The letter outlines that the Watchtower was an associated NGO and to become associated required the Watchtower to accept the following:

>that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;

1.have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach target or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
2.have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programs about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting cooperation of the media.

Since the United Nations 1945 formation, associated NGO’s have been required to “support the work of the United Nations”. This was reiterated at the 1968 Economic and Social Council.

“In 1968, the Economic and Social Council, 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 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”.” un.org (1 Jun 2010)

A copy of the 1991 application form that the Watchtower filled in shows that there was a yearly requirement to provide information to the United Nations. It states;

“provide us with proof of your organizations non-profit status and with an annual report on its activities related to United Nations.”

Opening paragraph of application form

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3
*link to the application forms active via http://jwfacts.mobi/watchtowers-united-nations-association/*

So what about the United Nations? Would the same reasoning apply? Should Christians use the UN programs offered for our benefit? Would this constitute spiritual adultery to do so? What have the Watchtower publications said on the subject?
So What About Using UN Programs?

Keeping in mind that we have already established that Jehovah’s Witnesses view the UN as they do other governments — as one of the superior authorities — take note of the following quotes from the Watchtower.

February 1, 1966 Watchtower: “Is it proper for a Christian to avail himself of government provisions of welfare or of relief supplies sent to disaster areas?... Yes;”

March 15, 1998 Watchtower: “the Witnesses show due respect for the role of governmental “superior authorities” and make proper use of legal means and provisions. (Romans 13:1; James 1:25) For instance, the Witnesses use the Watch Tower Society as a legal instrument—one of many in various lands—to enable them to accomplish their work of helping fellow humans, especially in spiritual ways.”

July 15, 1983 Watchtower: “In line with Romans 13:1, 4, the worldly “superior authorities” may set up certain peace-keeping agencies, such as police that are armed officially to protect citizens and property. Since such arrangements permitted by God are described as “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” it would be in order for the Christian to request and receive protection from such an agency.”

As we can see, it is proper for Christians to avail themselves of the programs offered by the governments or the superior authorities. This would include the United Nations as one of those superior authorities. Please also take note of this quote from the April 8, 1995 Awake, which specifically mentions using the UN and its agencies and programs for our benefit:

“To improve such ailing health care for the masses, WHO [the World Health Organization] has gradually shifted its work from disease control to health promotion ... Do these programs benefit you? One of them may have. Which one? EPI (Expanded Program on Immunization).”

The WHO and the EPI are both connected to the UN and benefitting from the programs offered by them is in no way condemned by the Watchtower Society.

It is just as stated by a letter written by Bethel to a brother:

“All these human governments, including the United Nations, provide human services for which taxes are paid, directly or indirectly, including such things as disease control, agricultural assistance, disaster and famine relief, and many others. Our brothers, especially in economically impoverished lands, benefit from many of these services. Some of our brothers are government employees, even of the United Nations, who provide such human benefits to others without violating their Christian neutrality.” —See Appendix D, Letter to Brant Jones
What It Really Means to “Ride the Wild Beast”

Opposers often point to articles that condemn other religions for praising the UN as man’s only hope for peace. They claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses have done the exact same thing by simply registering with the DPI to use their library facilities.

They claim that the Watchtower Society thus “climbed on the back of the beast” along with all the other religions of the world. However, what exactly constitutes riding the wild beast according to Jehovah’s Witnesses teachings? Is merely recognizing that the UN has commendable goals and has achieved some good constitute committing spiritual adultery? The December 1, 1976 Watchtower gives a thorough description of what it means to ride the wild beast.

“What about the world’s religious systems as a whole? Do they act like the harlot “Babylon the Great”? Have they looked to the United Nations as man’s only hope for peace and security and, hence, as needed for their own preservation? Do these religious systems, then, not depend upon the United Nations as does a rider upon his horse? The facts speak for themselves.

The Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, with a membership of over 250 churches, have repeatedly declared the United Nations to be “the chief temporal hope for world peace.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Recent pontiffs have stressed the necessity of international organization and the principles that should guide it, and have praised the UN for its purposes and various programs and accomplishments. The Holy See maintains a permanent observer at the UN and contributes financial as well as moral support to many of its economic, social, scientific, cultural, and humanitarian programs. It participates as a full member or observer in a number of Specialized Agencies and participates in diplomatic and other conferences called by the UN. Sixteen Catholic international organizations contribute formally to the work of ECOSOC and various Specialized Agencies through the medium of consultative status with these bodies, and Catholic groups and individuals in various countries contribute to the formation of national policy and action with regard to the UN.”—Vol. 14, p. 423.”

So what does it mean to ride the wild beast? Really it is pretty simple to reasoning persons. A rider of a horse, for example, tries to control the horse and direct it where he wants to go. The rider sees the horse as his only way to arrive at the desired destination. This person is riding on the back of the horse.

On the other hand, a person standing on the sideline reporting where the horse is going and what it is doing is not riding the horse. To do an honest and informative report, the reporter may need a pass to go to the stables to observe the condition of the horse. He may go out on the trail to witness the horses gallop to report the speed of the horse, the obstacles in the way of the horses path, etc. But he does not ride the horse.

Riding the UN means that religions extoll it as the last hope for man. Jehovah’s Witnesses have never done that. Riding the beast means influencing and directing it in accord with their political aims and goals. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do that. Riding the beast means becoming NGOs associated with the ECOSOC so that they can have consultative status with the UN. The Watchtower Society was never an NGO associated with the ECOSOC.

The Watchtower Society reports what the UN is doing and shows that it will not reach its desired goal of world peace — only God’s Kingdom can accomplish that. There is a huge difference in riding and in observing and reporting. In view of this, did Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society “ride the wild beast”? No, not at all.
Let’s look again...

In view of the foregoing, let’s look at the claims by the critics once again:

1. The WT publications have always told JWs have nothing to do with the UN.

Completely false. The Watchtower Society has never taught such a thing. On the contrary, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been specifically taught for decades that the UN is one of the “superior authorities”. This puts the UN in the same category as the United States or the United Kingdom, and Christians can utilize such governments in their personal lives and to advance true worship.

2. By becoming an NGO registered with the DPI the WTS hypocritically disobeyed their own directive and rode the Beast.

Since the first point has been proven to be untrue and inaccurate then this second point is thus made invalid. The Watchtower Society did not disobey their own directives and hypocritically ride the wild beast because no such directives exist.

Apostates simply pretend that the Society has a stance against the UN that they never really had. They then turn around, point at their made-up stance, and call hypocrisy, pretending the Society violated rules which they never, in fact, have ever had.

The truth is that because apostates have no evidence for their crackpot conspiracy theory, they are forced to lie and pretend the Watchtower Society taught things they never did, and hope that you, the reader, will not notice.

However, when the Society was a DPI-associated NGO, did the Society deliberately put forth extra effort to maintain their DPI-associated status? Did they deliberately write articles “praising” the UN and it’s accomplishments, as critics claim?

Summary

Jehovah’s Witnesses have viewed the United Nations as one of the “superior authorities” for decades.
Christians are permitted to use the superior authorities as employers, for disaster relief, disease control, etc, and to advance true worship.
Apostates lie and pretend the Watchtower teaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to have anything to do with the UN.
They simply hope you won’t find out the truth.

Jessicha:



you cant expect me to pay you to think . the level at which hatred is killing you ehn, Olorun nikan lo maa saanu e. the bold is a big LIE!!! LIAR.

themall:
busted
cc: PaulGrunchy, PaulGrundy and johnw74,5,6: please supply more of your aliases

uncontrolled anger, paranoia
are they God's people or satans? easy oooh

johnw74:








uncontrolled anger, paranoia
are they God's people or satans? easy oooh

busted pastor say christian is "uncontrolled anger, paranoia". meanwhile makes no one comment about all the debunked and discredited posts.

paulGrundy:
More importantly, there have been no changes to the requirement for NGO’s being required to agree to “support” the ideals of the United Nations. This is stated in the following letter to an enquirer in 2002 and also a press release from 1992.

paulGrundy:
Even if it were true that library status was a requirement to join the UN, the watchtower has NO EXCUSE for joining, because she made it clear to members that membership with any political association is NEVER JUSTIFIABLE.BERNIMORE watchtower society spokesman on nairaland where are you oh! One of your members is about to leave the watchtower please do something fast!!

Open a yooguyz, paulGrundy thread,

Crying baby. NO EXCUSE for joining

themall:
busted pastor say christian is "uncontrolled anger, paranoia". meanwhile makes no one comment about all the debunked and discredited posts.

duh, dumb paranoid jw doesn't know yet that I don't have discussions with fake jw
just show them where they are wrong
showed you plenty ay

neither of you are christian

johnw74:


duh, dumb paranoid jw doesn't know yet that I don't have discussions with fake jw
just show them where they are wrong
showed you plenty ay

neither of you are christian

Busted, clueless fake pastor, now don't want to have discussions with Christians and is now on the "show them" level

themall:


So what about the United Nations? Would the same reasoning apply? Should Christians use the UN programs offered for our benefit? Would this constitute spiritual adultery to do so? What have the Watchtower publications said on the subject?
So What About Using UN Programs?

Keeping in mind that we have already established that Jehovah’s Witnesses view the UN as they do other governments — as one of the superior authorities — take note of the following quotes from the Watchtower.

February 1, 1966 Watchtower: “Is it proper for a Christian to avail himself of government provisions of welfare or of relief supplies sent to disaster areas?... Yes;”

March 15, 1998 Watchtower: “the Witnesses show due respect for the role of governmental “superior authorities” and make proper use of legal means and provisions. (Romans 13:1; James 1:25) For instance, the Witnesses use the Watch Tower Society as a legal instrument—one of many in various lands—to enable them to accomplish their work of helping fellow humans, especially in spiritual ways.”

July 15, 1983 Watchtower: “In line with Romans 13:1, 4, the worldly “superior authorities” may set up certain peace-keeping agencies, such as police that are armed officially to protect citizens and property. Since such arrangements permitted by God are described as “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” it would be in order for the Christian to request and receive protection from such an agency.”

As we can see, it is proper for Christians to avail themselves of the programs offered by the governments or the superior authorities. This would include the United Nations as one of those superior authorities. Please also take note of this quote from the April 8, 1995 Awake, which specifically mentions using the UN and its agencies and programs for our benefit:

“To improve such ailing health care for the masses, WHO [the World Health Organization] has gradually shifted its work from disease control to health promotion ... Do these programs benefit you? One of them may have. Which one? EPI (Expanded Program on Immunization).”

The WHO and the EPI are both connected to the UN and benefitting from the programs offered by them is in no way condemned by the Watchtower Society.

It is just as stated by a letter written by Bethel to a brother:

“All these human governments, including the United Nations, provide human services for which taxes are paid, directly or indirectly, including such things as disease control, agricultural assistance, disaster and famine relief, and many others. Our brothers, especially in economically impoverished lands, benefit from many of these services. Some of our brothers are government employees, even of the United Nations, who provide such human benefits to others without violating their Christian neutrality.” —See Appendix D, Letter to Brant Jones
What It Really Means to “Ride the Wild Beast”

Opposers often point to articles that condemn other religions for praising the UN as man’s only hope for peace. They claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses have done the exact same thing by simply registering with the DPI to use their library facilities.

They claim that the Watchtower Society thus “climbed on the back of the beast” along with all the other religions of the world. However, what exactly constitutes riding the wild beast according to Jehovah’s Witnesses teachings? Is merely recognizing that the UN has commendable goals and has achieved some good constitute committing spiritual adultery? The December 1, 1976 Watchtower gives a thorough description of what it means to ride the wild beast.

“What about the world’s religious systems as a whole? Do they act like the harlot “Babylon the Great”? Have they looked to the United Nations as man’s only hope for peace and security and, hence, as needed for their own preservation? Do these religious systems, then, not depend upon the United Nations as does a rider upon his horse? The facts speak for themselves.

The Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, with a membership of over 250 churches, have repeatedly declared the United Nations to be “the chief temporal hope for world peace.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Recent pontiffs have stressed the necessity of international organization and the principles that should guide it, and have praised the UN for its purposes and various programs and accomplishments. The Holy See maintains a permanent observer at the UN and contributes financial as well as moral support to many of its economic, social, scientific, cultural, and humanitarian programs. It participates as a full member or observer in a number of Specialized Agencies and participates in diplomatic and other conferences called by the UN. Sixteen Catholic international organizations contribute formally to the work of ECOSOC and various Specialized Agencies through the medium of consultative status with these bodies, and Catholic groups and individuals in various countries contribute to the formation of national policy and action with regard to the UN.”—Vol. 14, p. 423.”

So what does it mean to ride the wild beast? Really it is pretty simple to reasoning persons. A rider of a horse, for example, tries to control the horse and direct it where he wants to go. The rider sees the horse as his only way to arrive at the desired destination. This person is riding on the back of the horse.

On the other hand, a person standing on the sideline reporting where the horse is going and what it is doing is not riding the horse. To do an honest and informative report, the reporter may need a pass to go to the stables to observe the condition of the horse. He may go out on the trail to witness the horses gallop to report the speed of the horse, the obstacles in the way of the horses path, etc. But he does not ride the horse.

Riding the UN means that religions extoll it as the last hope for man. Jehovah’s Witnesses have never done that. Riding the beast means influencing and directing it in accord with their political aims and goals. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do that. Riding the beast means becoming NGOs associated with the ECOSOC so that they can have consultative status with the UN. The Watchtower Society was never an NGO associated with the ECOSOC.

The Watchtower Society reports what the UN is doing and shows that it will not reach its desired goal of world peace — only God’s Kingdom can accomplish that. There is a huge difference in riding and in observing and reporting. In view of this, did Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society “ride the wild beast”? No, not at all.
Let’s look again...

In view of the foregoing, let’s look at the claims by the critics once again:

1. The WT publications have always told JWs have nothing to do with the UN.

Completely false. The Watchtower Society has never taught such a thing. On the contrary, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been specifically taught for decades that the UN is one of the “superior authorities”. This puts the UN in the same category as the United States or the United Kingdom, and Christians can utilize such governments in their personal lives and to advance true worship.

2. By becoming an NGO registered with the DPI the WTS hypocritically disobeyed their own directive and rode the Beast.

Since the first point has been proven to be untrue and inaccurate then this second point is thus made invalid. The Watchtower Society did not disobey their own directives and hypocritically ride the wild beast because no such directives exist.

Apostates simply pretend that the Society has a stance against the UN that they never really had. They then turn around, point at their made-up stance, and call hypocrisy, pretending the Society violated rules which they never, in fact, have ever had.

The truth is that because apostates have no evidence for their crackpot conspiracy theory, they are forced to lie and pretend the Watchtower Society taught things they never did, and hope that you, the reader, will not notice.

However, when the Society was a DPI-associated NGO, did the Society deliberately put forth extra effort to maintain their DPI-associated status? Did they deliberately write articles “praising” the UN and it’s accomplishments, as critics claim?

Summary

Jehovah’s Witnesses have viewed the United Nations as one of the “superior authorities” for decades.
Christians are permitted to use the superior authorities as employers, for disaster relief, disease control, etc, and to advance true worship.
Apostates lie and pretend the Watchtower teaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to have anything to do with the UN.
They simply hope you won’t find out the truth.

Please always put the source from which you copy and paste.

Jehovahsjudgement.co.uk

[size=19pt]still don't understand why you guys think its ok for the watchtower to have an NGO status with the UN, meanwhile JW's can get disfellowshiped for as little as attending another church or painting a church? JW's would rather die than join a political party? Political party which the watchtower classifys together with the UN as the beast?

Of course, when it comes to the governing body, different standards should apply, plain hypocrisy![/size]

The governing body HAS NO justification whatsoever for having NGO status with UN.

themall:

Busted, clueless fake pastor, now don't want to have discussions with Christians and is now on the "show them" level

I love to have discussions with Christians
not with evil supposed jw's

Amazing how fake jw love to lie on every point
and still believe they are Jehovah's people
that's delusion

now, not only do you have the fear of paranoia
but you have the fear of cowardice also
often calling me a pastor, a nigerian pastor
but you are scared to name that nigerian pastor, and his church

Who is behind the fear of paranoia
certinally not Jehovah's Holy Spirit of Love

so it's ultimately satan that inspires paranoia

the spirit in supposed jw's is satan's spirit of fear

of course every one knows it

johnw74:


I love to have discussions with Christians
not with evil supposed jw's

Amazing how fake jw love to lie on every point
and still believe they are Jehovah's people
that's delusion
now, not only do you have the fear of paranoia
but you have the fear of cowardice also
often calling me a pastor, a nigerian pastor
but you are scared to name that nigerian pastor

It is a super story .
Busted, clueless, fake plagiarizing pastor, avoiding comments on all of his debunked posts. Now on the scared to name that nigerian pastor level

johnw74:

Who is behind the fear of paranoia
certinally not Jehovah's Holy Spirit of Love

so it's ultimately satan that inspires paranoia

the spirit in supposed jw's is satan's spirit of fear

of course every one knows it

Busted, paranoid pastor, avoiding to make comments on his own debunked posts and now becoming an emergency advocate of "Jehovah's Holy Spirit of Love"

paulGrundy:


Please always put the source from which you copy and paste.

Jehovahsjudgement.co.uk

[size=19pt]still don't understand why you guys think its ok for the watchtower to have an NGO status with the UN, meanwhile JW's can get disfellowshiped for as little as attending another church or painting a church? JW's would rather die than join a political party? Political party which the watchtower classifys together with the UN as the beast?

Of course, when it comes to the governing body, different standards should apply, plain hypocrisy![/size]

The governing body HAS NO justification whatsoever for having NGO status with UN.

Hate the pope and the charismatic movement, hate the Illuminati, hate the Christ, hate Moslems, hate the greek orthodox church, hate the church of england, hate the lords chosen and hate the jehovists then continue to love your jwfacts.com

Busted, clueless, plagiarizing pastor not having a clue about the question "JW's would rather die than join a political party?"
Since you think you know the answer and are not asking, remain as you are

Busted, plagiarizing pastor angry about my well known cut and paste tactics

themall:
It is a super story .
Busted, clueless, fake plagiarizing pastor, avoiding comments on all of his debunked posts. Now on the scared to name that nigerian pastor level

themall:
Busted, paranoid pastor, avoiding to make comments on his own debunked posts and now becoming an emergency advocate of "Jehovah's Holy Spirit of Love"

phony paranoid jw themall cannot answer any of his lies, not a single one
and is reduced to this babel

paulGrundy:
Please always put the source from which you copy and paste.Jehovahsjudgement.co.uk [size=5pt]still don't understand why you guys think its ok for the watchtower to have an NGO status with the UN, meanwhile JW's can get disfellowshiped for as little as attending another church or painting a church? JW's would rather die than join a political party? [/b]Political party which the watchtower classifys together with the UN as the beast? [b]Of course, when it comes to the governing body, different standards should apply, plain hypocrisy![/size] The governing body HAS NO justification whatsoever for having NGO status with UN.

remember am a theologian too.

Busted. ya do well. see your request:
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/
JW's would rather die than join a political party?

Is conscription into the Mexican army same as buying a party card in MALAWI?
Oya fall inside the hole as usual? Busted pastor using the outdated, busted and degraded rhetoric of "would rather die" OR "would you rather die than accept a blood transfusion"

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Health

mental health

by Matt Slick

Please understand that this article is not mean as a put-down of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am simply displaying research information which raises serious questions about the Watchtower Organization.

It has always been a belief of mine that cult groups put an excessive burden of legalism upon their adherents--this is because they do not have a proper understanding of grace due to their lack of understanding of who God is and what He has done for us. Often these aberrant groups require substantial commitments of time and energy from their membership in order to maintain a good standing in the group. Since cults are typically short on grace and long on law (mixed with group obligations, guilt-inducing teachings, and isolationism), I have always assumed that this unnecessary difficulty would lead to emotional and mental problems.

A few years ago, I heard of an article in a mental health journal that documented the population percentages of Jehovah's Witnesses in mental wards. It took some effort, but I found it. Following are excerpts from that article. Judge for yourself if the Jehovah's Witness organization contributed to the demise of some of its members.

(The following quotes are taken from the British Journal of Psychiatry: the Journal of Mental Science. Published by authority of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Vol. 126, Ashford, Kent, Headley Brothers LTD, 1975. The author is John Spencer).

"During the period of 36 months from January 1971 to December 1973 there were 7,546 inpatient admissions to the West Australian Mental Health Service Psychiatric Hospitals. Of these 50 were reported to be active members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement" (p. 557).

"Of the 50 admitted 22 were diagnosed as schizophrenic, 17 as paranoid schizophrenic, 10 as neurotic and one as alcoholic" (p. 557-58).
Total admissions Annual rate per 1,000 population Jehovah's Witnesses admissions Annual rate per 1,000 population
All diagnoses 7,546 2.54 50 4.17
Schizophrenia (295) 1,826 .61 22 1.83
Paranoid schizophrenia (195.3) 1,154 .38 17 1.4
Neurosis (300) 1,182 .39 10 .76

"From the figures gathered in the Table it is clear that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement are over-represented in admissions to the Mental Health Services of this State. Furthermore, it is clear from the Table that the incidence of schizophrenia amongst them is about three times as high as for the rest of the general population, while the figure for paranoid schizophrenia is nearly four times that of the general population" (p. 558).

"The study does not shed light on the question of symptom or defense mechanism, but suggests that either the Jehovah's Witnesses sect tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis" (p. 558).

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-mental-health

johnw74:
phony paranoid jw themall cannot answer any of his lies, not a single one and is reduced to this babel

Busted babel pastor, avoiding comments on all 9 parts where his post (and impersonating shadow) were debunked, NOW in new single word desperate tactics

johnw74:

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Health

mental health

by Matt Slick

Please understand that this article is not mean as a put-down of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am simply displaying research information which raises serious questions about the Watchtower Organization.

It has always been a belief of mine that cult groups put an excessive burden of legalism upon their adherents--this is because they do not have a proper understanding of grace due to their lack of understanding of who God is and what He has done for us. Often these aberrant groups require substantial commitments of time and energy from their membership in order to maintain a good standing in the group. Since cults are typically short on grace and long on law (mixed with group obligations, guilt-inducing teachings, and isolationism), I have always assumed that this unnecessary difficulty would lead to emotional and mental problems.

A few years ago, I heard of an article in a mental health journal that documented the population percentages of Jehovah's Witnesses in mental wards. It took some effort, but I found it. Following are excerpts from that article. Judge for yourself if the Jehovah's Witness organization contributed to the demise of some of its members.

(The following quotes are taken from the British Journal of Psychiatry: the Journal of Mental Science. Published by authority of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Vol. 126, Ashford, Kent, Headley Brothers LTD, 1975. The author is John Spencer).

"During the period of 36 months from January 1971 to December 1973 there were 7,546 inpatient admissions to the West Australian Mental Health Service Psychiatric Hospitals. Of these 50 were reported to be active members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement" (p. 557).

"Of the 50 admitted 22 were diagnosed as schizophrenic, 17 as paranoid schizophrenic, 10 as neurotic and one as alcoholic" (p. 557-58).
Total admissions Annual rate per 1,000 population Jehovah's Witnesses admissions Annual rate per 1,000 population
All diagnoses 7,546 2.54 50 4.17
Schizophrenia (295) 1,826 .61 22 1.83
Paranoid schizophrenia (195.3) 1,154 .38 17 1.4
Neurosis (300) 1,182 .39 10 .76

"From the figures gathered in the Table it is clear that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement are over-represented in admissions to the Mental Health Services of this State. Furthermore, it is clear from the Table that the incidence of schizophrenia amongst them is about three times as high as for the rest of the general population, while the figure for paranoid schizophrenia is nearly four times that of the general population" (p. 558).

"The study does not shed light on the question of symptom or defense mechanism, but suggests that either the Jehovah's Witnesses sect tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis" (p. 558).

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-mental-health

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a higher rate of mental illness among their members or those who leave the organization as some claim? There is no published, peer-reviewed information conclusively demonstrating a higher rate of mental disorders or distress among Jehovah's Witnesses. Though there have been articles purporting to be "studies" that claim a high rate of mental disorders among Jehovah's Witnesses, but with no independent support.

In one article I found on the subject*, they gave no conclusive evidence and tried to make the positive statements made by one of only three studies it quotes look like negative statements where the study concluded that there was no reason to restrict Jehovah's Witness parents from raising children and espousing their beliefs to them. In fact, the study cited really wasn't about the prevalence of mental illness among Jehovah's Witnesses at all, but about whether Jehovah's Witnesses were fit parents. The second "study" it cited, rather just an article that claimed a high rate of mental illness among Jehovah's Witnesses without support, was claiming that a parent does not have a right to bring their child up in a limited view of the world. It didn't make any statistical claims regarding mental dysfunction among Jehovah's Witnesses at all. And the third of the three studies cited was so loaded with emotionally-laden words and vile disdain for Jehovah's Witnesses in general and their beliefs, showing a clear bias, that no scientist would give it any credence, so its unsupported conclusions could not be trusted in any sense.

The other studies the article mentioned, it summarized for the reader without references or quotations from the studies. These included mental health studies done by Swedish and U.S. militaries, in 1946 and 1949 respectively and another U.S. military Study from 1972 to 1976, these studies acquiring most of their information before drafting was done away with regarding Jehovah's Witnesses as conscientious objectors, claiming a high degree of mental illness; not exactly unbiased, especially when you consider the attitudes of the military against conscientious objectors in those days.

In fact, those three studies from militaries constitute the full extent of mental illness studies, which amount to "anyone that objects to the military is a nut case". The first three studies, those the article quoted, did not provide any information regarding mental disorders among Jehovah's Witnesses at all. The article also seems to suggest that "disillusionment" is a mental disorder. At the end of the article, it concludes with an admission that there just wasn't enough information to claim a higher rate of mental disorder among Jehovah's Witnesses. So the article trying to claim it ends up concluding otherwise.

MENTAL HEALTH - 2
In The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses, by John Spencer, Mr. Spencer gives a clear indication of bias, giving commentary about the legitimacy of Jehovah's Witness beliefs and stating that because it differs from orthodoxy, that the terms "psychotic" and "paranoid" would best be applied. Due to this bias, an impartial scientist would never give any credence to such consideration and would disregard the entire article on such grounds, and rightfully so.

In the publication, Social Compass, Vol. XXIV, 1977/1, Havor Montegue, in The Pessimistic Sects Influence on the Mental Health of its Members: the Case of Jehovah's Witnesses, claims a low value of life and a high murder rate among Jehovah's Witnesses without providing any supporting evidence to the claim. Despite providing a seemingly unbiased tone, Montegue goes on to use John Spencer's article above as his primary source of information, though itself is not an actual "study". So clearly, Montegue does not give consideration to the bias demonstrated by the articles he researches, nor does he rely impartially upon actual studies.

Ultimately, all the information in these articles all go back to the three biased studies done by the U.S. military concerning conscientious objectors. The conclusions of the majority amounts to 'religiosity is insanity; Jehovah's Witnesses are devoutly religious, therefore they are rife with mental illness.'

Though a claim was made by the above psychiatrist that there was a higher rate of suicidal inclinations, no support was given suggesting a higher rate of suicide among active members, though he tried very hard to imply it while dodging any actual claim to such.

MENTAL HEALTH - 3
I found one article done about the relationship between Jehovah's Witnesses and Schizophrenia by Michael Rand. In the article, he repeatedly refers to studies that make generalizations about belief systems and religion, as well as about immigrants, but make no direct connections to Jehovah's Witnesses. Instead, his article makes generalizations about Jehovah's Witnesses in an effort to confirm pre-existing biases and conclusions with studies that did not focus on Jehovah's Witnesses at all, despite his claims otherwise. In fact, the very purpose of his article is, "The hypothesis is that the practices and beliefs expressed by the Jehovah's Witnesses can be associated with the Schizophrenic Migration model by Drs. Selten, Cantor-Graae, & Kahn (Selten, Cantor-Graae, & Kahn, 2007) which could result in a higher risk of schizophrenia." That is, his intent is not to prove that Jehovah's Witnesses have a higher rate of schizophrenia, but that "Jehovah's Witnesses can be associated with" the article by Drs. Selten, Cantor-Graae and Kahn.

The article goes on to directly claim a distrust by Jehovah's Witnesses of psychological professions, yet, this is countered by the many articles by Jehovah's Witnesses on depression that very clearly recommend professional help if immediate resolution through application of Bible principles cannot be obtained. The article goes on to speculate about what Jehovah's Witnesses "might" or "may" believe regarding psychological professions, but gives no testimonial or study evidence. Thus, the article has a very clear bias against Jehovah's Witnesses.

The article claims without support, "This is compounded by the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not care for their own mental health often because they feel that Armageddon is just around the corner and as such it won't matter." It then states, "The solution to this issue is the same as it would be with any group of people: simply attempt to foster trust and understanding in order to achieve common ground." Yet the article it cites for support has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. Thus, it is an assumption, as all the studies cited in the article are applied in the same way, though none of the articles ever refer to Jehovah's Witnesses. It simply tries to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are like immigrants and are therefore affected by the same issues as immigrants. In reality, Michael Rand was, in fact, just a student at Walden University. The article is not actually endorsed by the University, nor is Michael actually a psychiatrist or psychologist.

But if these attempts at studies of mental illness among Jehovah's Witnesses were intent upon finding actual facts, they would abandon biases against doctrines, avoid poisoned wells and stick to impartial data from random sampling and careful research. Since the people performing these studies are incapable of being impartial, scientific and thorough, clearly there is no reason to give any credence to their efforts, no matter how monumental. Twisting a fact to suit one's agenda does not make it a new fact; it just turns it into a lie.

Spencer's report can not be accepted by the college of surgeons in Nigeria. Ask your physician

themall:
Busted babel pastor, avoiding comments on all 9 parts where his post (and impersonating shadow) were debunked, NOW in new single word desperate tactics

show me all the 9 parts of my post that you debunked
and I will show you how you love to lie time and time again