Ann O'Maly

Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I believe that Ann O'maly has stated the truth about the U.N. involvement about as well as anyone can. I know the brother who got the Society involved with the UN DPI/NGO, and have spoken to him several times since I left Bethel in the 1980's. I know that the paperwork was approved by others including a member of the GB (mentioned by Ann).
It was definitely a mistake. And it has definitely stumbled people. I'm not here to defend it, and I'm not here as one of those Witnesses who will claim that Jehovah has allowed certain mistakes just to filter out those who are disloyal, or those who are looking for an excuse to leave the Organization. People still say this about some of the mistakes of the past, and will likely say such things about mistakes made in the future.
I just searched through the jw-archive site, because I know that we have discussed this before, and I didn't want to just keep re-writing things "from scratch" over and over again -- which is something I have a tendency to always do. In fact, this is the very first time I will be quoting myself from a previous post: I'm no expert on this, and perhaps I don't have all the facts either, but the information is from people I trust.
 
A portion of the discussion from https://disqus.com/home/discussion/jwarchive/jw_archiveorg_by_the_jw_comic_strip_52/#comment-2009424381
(I made the UN joke because the timing was close to "Sternstorm." The WTS applied for the NGO status through their DPI (Dept of Public Info.) in 1991 and received it in 1992. I believe we requested disassociation in 2001, just after an investigative journalist exposed the NGO/DPI connection.)
If you are asking about the UN, then unfortunately, the answer is Yes. The Watchtower joined the UN as an NGO. I know the brother who spearheaded the effort, still in Writing (last I spoke to him), and also knew others who approved it at the time (now deceased). They meant no harm, but it proved to be an embarrassment. They didn't really need the NGO status, for the original purpose -- access to informational materials, but the status seems to have given them quicker information about conferences and events that could have even helped the Watchtower Society learn more about the behind-the-scenes political circumstances of our brothers in various countries. The most embarrassing part, of course, was getting "disfellowshipped" by the UN. (That really happened, but it happened just after the WTS requested it.) Also, for a while, the Watchtower Society was supposed to write one informational article per year that informed our audience of some of the work the UN was doing. (That's one of the ways the DPI works.) So while the Watchtower magazine bashed them negatively, a small piece here and there in the Awake! magazine was doing articles on UNICEF etc that were between neutral and positive.
...
I should also say that I don't think this started out as anything very big. But those who got involved should have realized that almost everything goes public and becomes searchable. For a while you could even search the U.N.'s site and see which Awake! articles had been submitted for NGO/DPI compliance.
My motto: If you think you'll have trouble defending it, just don't! (Don't start something you might have to defend later.)
But I have to say that even in 1976, I was doing some follow-up research on Mr. Banda, the president of Malawi who had allowed widespread persecution of the Witnesses for several years just prior. And it turns out that he made some anti-JW statements that blamed the Witnesses for their own troubles -- saying that the problem was not just the 25 cent political party card. I only found this info in some heavy encyclopedic U.N. publications that no one in Writing had seen or heard of -- although these publications were at a large university library. It's quite possible that, 15 years later, a couple brothers were convinced that this type of information, although available without the NGO/DPI connection, would become more accessible. (I don't know if that would really be true.) Or, even more likely, that if we could gain a respectable status with THEIR researchers, we could merely request things to be xeroxed and mailed to the WTS, rather than traveling over to DPI repositories, and hardly knowing where to start.
 
----- and in another place on jw-archive, it came up again ------
 
There is additional evidence or information that I'm sure you can find from others, but what I write below is based mostly on what I know personally and have seen with my own eyes. It is mixed with a few things I have learned from other trusted and current Witnesses.
A very interesting man in Bethel's Writing Department is best known for some of his non-outline talks that he has given in hundreds of congregations. You can find many of his recorded talks on the Internet. He is a good speaker with a "dramatic" personality. I know the man well, and still count him as a friend although we rarely speak. I have seen him outside Bethel, in NY, NJ, even PA, oddly enough, buying books for his own library and for the Bethel libraries. (I have been a book collector for 30 years, and still take on research work for authors, so we have often frequented the same places.)
From the time I first knew him, 1976, this brother was in the Service Department and finally moved to the Writing Department. He was quickly given a lot of autonomy under the supervision of Lloyd Barry because he did more research and book purchasing than pure Writing compared with most others in Writing.
The brother I am speaking about was very highly embarrassed over the fact that it was mostly his own idea that got this thing started. I have not talked about it with him. He began using the UN library regularly in 1990, then weekly in 1991, and initially signed up with the UN's "Department of Public Information" (DPI) in 1991 (and officially accepted 1992) for easier access to library materials, but in the process of accessing those materials he learned a lot about different types of access to conferences and areas of interest that aligned with the Society's interests outside of just the library resources. (It was thought that association might have made it easier to publicize JW human rights violations, learn more about what other religions were doing when they had similar issues with religious persecution in many countries. It made it easier to get information about international religious taxation issues, and Holocaust publicity, etc.)
Brother Barry agreed with him that these other areas of access were also valuable, and they continued the association as an "NGO" (non-governmental organization). The names of both of these brothers, including the GB member, and another direct report to a GB member from the Service Dept are still on some forms at the UN.
They also had to agree to produce articles that helped to promote the work of United Nations' initiatives. The first one was the September 8, 1991 Awake! One initiative that the WTS could most easily agree with was UNICEF. The December 8, 2000 Awake! for example prints out the entire UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child in a single issue that mentions UNICEF 10 times (in a positive context). I'll quote it below.
But first notice by using the 2014 Watchtower Library CD for example that in the 10 years that the WTS was associated with the UN it mentioned UNICEF about 75 times (from 1991-2001). After a leak by the Guardian, the WTS was disassociated from the UN in 2001 when it was exposed to the UN that the Watchtower was simultaneously speaking out AGAINST the UN at the same time the Awake! was speaking positively about it.
(UNICEF has been mentioned just 11 times in the much longer time period since 2001, and always just to quote negative statistics.)
I have seen a list that included articles that were presented to the UN/DPI as proof that the WTS was keeping it's agreement by publishing at least one positive article per year. I don't have a copy of it, and don't know if anyone else does. I forget whether it included the issue below from 2000. I wish I had kept a copy. As I recall, it had references to about 10 different issues of the Awake! over a period of several years.
*** g00 12/8 p. 5 An Ongoing Search for Solutions ***
The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
● The right to a name and nationality.
● The right to affection, love, and understanding and to material security.
● The right to adequate nutrition, housing, and medical services.
● The right to special care if disabled, be it physically, mentally, or socially.
● The right to be among the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances.
● The right to be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty, and exploitation.
● The right to full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity to free and compulsory education, to enable the child to develop his individual abilities and to become a useful member of society.
● The right to develop his full potential in conditions of freedom and dignity.
● The right to be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace, and universal brotherhood.
● The right to enjoy these rights regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and property, birth, or other status.
 
 
--------------
Back to your current post. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think we need to cover up anything. A mistake was made, and we ultimately resolved it. I don't see what it proves to keep bringing it up. It does not show that we supported the U.N.  It shows that we found areas of agreement. We used the relationship to our advantage and the "cost" to us was the need to write about ways in which another organization was also trying to resolve world problems. For all we know, we would have been writing about such things anyway. Personally, I think we ended up looking more reasonable by discussing what the world was trying to do, and how it was at times making progress. Even their limited progress still highlighted the need for a more comprehensive solution.
So it's not like any JWs really needed to take their focus off the Scriptural reasoning for resolving the world's problems. Perhaps it made us more sympathetic and knowledgeable about the viewpoint of others. In the more distant past, we often did nothing but show derision for such efforts. Surely we are better off now for such research. I don't see this whole thing as a one-sided proof of hypocrisy with no up-side. I believe the posts also show that (through the mistake) we discovered avenues and venues for involvement in human rights awareness that we were not aware of previously.
 

(Giannis, Robert King is disfellowshipped so it's unlikely that loyal JWs will read anything he says.)
I remember the controversy when it broke and researched the matter for myself at the time.
The issue wasn't so much that Watchtower became a NGO, but that it also became associated with the UN's Department of Public Information which required assenting to the UN Charter (read it to see what that involved) and promoting the UN's work, aims and values. Every year, as the rules stood, the Organization had to provide evidence to the DPI that it was doing that in order to continue association. This is why the articles in the Awakes during the 1990s softened their anti-UN stance and put the UN's accomplishments in a more positive light.
It's easy to minimize the Watchtower's involvement as the actions of one Bethelite, but he and the other named representative were high-up Bethelites. At least one GB member was aware because he was also listed as one of the representatives on the accreditation forms (W. [Lloyd] Barry). Not only that but, 
"Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed." - w87 3/1 p. 15 par. 18.
So any 'spiritual food' that promoted the UN's work (in contrast to the usual contempt about it) was checked and signed off by members of the GB. It would be those kinds of articles that were provided to the DPI so the Org. could continue its association.
Given that the UN has long been viewed as the 'disgusting thing' of Daniel and the 'scarlet wild beast' of Revelation, it's understandable why many would be stumbled by the Org's actions.

A knotty problem is whether religious belief should infringe on the freedoms of others, e.g. when men enjoy certain freedoms denied to women, as outlined in the article. 
Another problem is how animals are slaughtered and how to make this the most humane. It is alleged that Kosher and Halal methods fall short of the standards put forward by animal welfare advisory bodies.
Is there any sound religious basis to insist on certain practices? Or are those practices just traditions that could be changed without compromising foundational beliefs?

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who?
Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?
Where is there scriptural precedent for a congregational policy that has the person attending every meeting for a year or more, and all the while family and friends not conversing with him until the elders finally deem him repentant and reinstate him?
How do you know that the person seeking reinstatement is not putting on an elaborate act of repentance? Maybe the person just wants to be able to talk to/associate with their family again. Maybe it's part of the plan to have a new (adulterous) marriage accepted, given enough time (I know two cases where that happened). How can an elder body really know either way before making a decision?
We've been talking generally but you bring up abuse cases - crimes rather than sins. The way you framed the question suggests to me that you may not be aware of how an abuse case would be handled as a matter of course. As JW policy stands now, an alleged abuser can only be dealt with if there are two witnesses to the crime. If there aren't two witnesses to the crime, another child or young person would have to have been abused and come forward before the elders would do anything - like e.g. disfellowship the abuser.
If the abuser is disfellowshipped for child abuse, one would hope that he has also faced justice in the courts. If he has faced the courts and been convicted, he would then be put on the sex offenders' registry and monitored by the authorities. If he was then reinstated into the congregation, whether he was genuinely repentant or not, the elders and congregation members would be alerted to the fact that there is a convicted sexual predator in their midst and take precautions to protect their children from becoming another victim.
 
 

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

There are some weaknesses with the 'two destinies' idea, however.
If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' what changed?
Regarding the weaknesses that center on Rev. 7 ...
1. Rev. 7's numbers 12 x 12,000 are understood to be symbolic, but it is insisted that the total number 144,000 is literal. This is inconsistent.
2. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the 144k group are on earth; otherwise, why are the four angels told to hold back the destructive winds until the 144k are sealed? Cp. Rev. 9:4.
3. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the envisioned 'great crowd' is seen in the same heavenly location as the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders. On what contextual basis can we argue that the 'great crowd' is in a different location to the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders?
One viable interpretation is that the 144,000 and 'great crowd' is the same group seen from a different perspective. John hears a schematic number (7:4) but sees the reality (7:9). Cp. Rev 5:5, 6 (John hears a description of Jesus but sees Jesus' appearance).

I'm so glad she made it home, but it's heartbreaking to see her so ill. My thoughts are with her, her family and friends.

'Jehovah' is just the anglicized version of the Name which was adapted from the Latin version of it. Many other languages don't have the hard English 'J' sound anyway - they have a 'Y' (ya) sound instead (like the Hebrew letter 'yod'). The 'W' is from the Hebrew letter which is pronounced 'vav.'
Whether the original Hebrew Name consisted of two or three syllables, and which are the correct vowels ... that's for people with far better knowledge than I to debate. But what we have is an approximation.
Imho, sometimes people can become too obsessed with trying to figure out the 'correct' pronunciation. If pronouncing the Name 'just so' was that important, you'd think the method would have been preserved in the Bible for posterity.

If the Bible teaches that YHWH is God and God is our Father, is it appropriate to address Him with His name all the time? If I addressed my parents by their names, I would have been told off!

'Jehovah' is just the anglicized version of the Name which was adapted from the Latin version of it. Many other languages don't have the hard English 'J' sound anyway - they have a 'Y' (ya) sound instead (like the Hebrew letter 'yod'). The 'W' is from the Hebrew letter which is pronounced 'vav.'
Whether the original Hebrew Name consisted of two or three syllables, and which are the correct vowels ... that's for people with far better knowledge than I to debate. But what we have is an approximation.
Imho, sometimes people can become too obsessed with trying to figure out the 'correct' pronunciation. If pronouncing the Name 'just so' was that important, you'd think the method would have been preserved in the Bible for posterity.

Use up Earth's resources for commercial gain and then start on Mars? It doesn't sit right.

the-watch-tower-1865-edition.pdf
The Watch Tower 1865, published by J.F. Shaw & Co., for the proprietors of “The Watch Tower”, 158 Fleet Street, London.
Sold at all booksellers and railway book stores during the mid to late 1860′s. This volume of The Watch Tower was first published on March 29, 1865, for the benefit of learned members of the Anglican Church.
Some highlights include the poems “On The Watch Tower” (page 167) and “The Light-Bearers” (page 279). This volume was not published or produced by the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses/Bible Students) or any of their predecessors.
The Watch Tower volume of 1865 (417 pages) has been recently scanned into PDF by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online. The document comprises 417 pages in total. 

No. Because this:
https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/brien-foerster/
and this:
http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm-down-the-paracas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258
*Steps into the JW paradigm for a moment* Anyway, if they are 3000 years old, they post-date the Flood. Isn't official Org. teaching that the Nephilim were wiped out by the Flood? What were descendants of an extinct race from the Middle East doing in Peru?

That's rather careless of the journalist. The memo does not say to make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony (period) - which may suggest 'in harmony with each other' or some sort of evidence tampering. The full sentence is:
"Make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony with ks10 2:16, point 3, and 5:39." (See attached Watchtower memo.)
IOW, the records kept are to be in harmony with the instructions in the Elder's handbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, which stipulates that records relating to child molestation are to be kept indefinitely and are NOT to be destroyed.
Personal elders meeting or other personal notes on individuals are to be destroyed, however.
2015_Audit_Checklist-UK.pdf

That's rather careless of the journalist. The memo does not say to make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony (period) - which may suggest 'in harmony with each other' or some sort of evidence tampering. The full sentence is:
"Make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony with ks10 2:16, point 3, and 5:39." (See attached Watchtower memo.)
IOW, the records kept are to be in harmony with the instructions in the Elder's handbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, which stipulates that records relating to child molestation are to be kept indefinitely and are NOT to be destroyed.
Personal elders meeting or other personal notes on individuals are to be destroyed, however.
2015_Audit_Checklist-UK.pdf

The easiest solution is that Nehemiah was counting the Jewish way - Tishri to Tishri (Babylonians and Persians counted kings' reigns from Nisan to Nisan). So the Nisan in Neh. 2:1 didn't ring in a new regnal year (21st year) by Nehemiah's reckoning, but stayed within the Tishri-Tishri 20th year. This is the conclusion of some respected Bible scholars and chronologists, e.g. Edwin R. Thiele.
"Historical evidence points to 475 B.C.E. as the year of Artaxerxes’ ascension to the throne." [w06  2/1 p.8]
That's incorrect. Historical evidence points overwhelmingly to 465 BCE as Artaxerxes I's accession year. But that's a whole other discussion in itself. 
 
 

That's rather careless of the journalist. The memo does not say to make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony (period) - which may suggest 'in harmony with each other' or some sort of evidence tampering. The full sentence is:
"Make sure all records relating to child molestation are in harmony with ks10 2:16, point 3, and 5:39." (See attached Watchtower memo.)
IOW, the records kept are to be in harmony with the instructions in the Elder's handbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, which stipulates that records relating to child molestation are to be kept indefinitely and are NOT to be destroyed.
Personal elders meeting or other personal notes on individuals are to be destroyed, however.
2015_Audit_Checklist-UK.pdf