JW Insider

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.
I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

There are lots of better places to get the full explanation, but here goes another attempt. Here's our typical expectation of the range of dates involved.
*** km 12/76 p. 3 Announcements ***
For future reference, you may wish to keep a record of local sunset times for the period of March 22 through April 19, 1977, since Memorial always falls within this period.
It's actually possible for this range to be expanded from March 21 through April 21 (although the one time we celebrated on March 20, 1932 we were not using our own criteria correctly). The Watchtower has determined dates outside of the range (1976 km) on five different occasions.
In 1948, the Watchtower said:
"1948 Memorial Date -   The date for celebrating the annual Memorial of Christ's death . . . is Nisan 14. . . . The Watch Tower Society calculates this according to the first new moon that falls nearest to the spring equinox, whether before it or after it. We do not follow strictly the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period."
In reality, this is about the same thing as saying the first FULL moon AFTER the vernal equinox, because the closest new moon to March 20/21 will result in a full moon observed about 13 to 15 days later. Therefore, we use the following method:
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox.
For easy calculation, let's say the equinox is always on 3/20 or 3/21, and you are looking for the nearest NEW moon before or after. You could get a new moon on 3/7 it could be slightly closer to 3/20 (13 days) than if the new moon was on 4/3 (14 days) after the equinox. Therefore, adding about 14 days to 3/7 gives us the earliest possible Memorial 3/21. For the latest possible Memorial, let's assume the equinox is on 3/21 that year, and the nearest new moon was determined to be 4/5. Adding 15 days to 4/5 could result in about the latest Memorial on 4/20.
Although our range for Nisan 14 is therefore 3/21 to 4/20, the Jewish Passover (Nisan 15) is celebrated between 3/26 and 4/30. Adjusting the Jewish calendar's range to Nisan 14 would mean 3/25 to 4/29. But that is still a range of about 35 days instead of 30 days. The reason is the timing of the leap-month, Adar II, (second Adar or Ve-Adar). The 1948 Watchtower said that we do not strictly follow the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period.
Of course, we actually do add 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period, but we don't do it on the same schedule the Jewish calendar uses. We did this until 1929, not necessarily by calculating it ourselves, but by watching what they used and subtracting a day or two for Nisan 14. But since 1929, we follow the same schedule that is used for determining the Easter season.
Easter Sunday generally falls on the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (i.e., the first full moon of Spring in the northern hemisphere, or the first full moon occurring after the date of the vernal equinox).
In 1929, 1932, 1948, 1951, 1959, 1967, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1989, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2016 this method would result in being about 30 days ahead of the Jewish Passover season in each of those years. That's because the Jewish calendar added the leap-month in that very year, but we, in effect, followed a calendar that added it in the next year. This means that each of the years mentioned were the only years in that period where Easter and Passover were not aligned. Nisan 14 was 30 days earlier using the "Easter" calendar.
In every case, we followed the "Easter" calendar. (Not because it was "Easter" but because we use the same method.)
From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879, the only possible exceptions between Easter season and Passover season were in 1883, 1894, 1902, 1910, 1913, and 1921. (Easter and Passover were also about 30 days apart in those years.) In every one of those cases we did exactly the opposite. We always chose to follow the Jewish calendar for Passover.
In other words, in every year from 1880 to 1928 we always held Memorial within 3 days of the Jewish Passover. In every year from 1929 until now, including 2016 we have always held Memorial within the 8 day period prior to Easter.
 

Unwarranted acts often produce consequences that can't be fixed satisfactorily in this system. However, both sides can be humble and come to an agreement. Love conquer all things.

There are lots of better places to get the full explanation, but here goes another attempt. Here's our typical expectation of the range of dates involved.
*** km 12/76 p. 3 Announcements ***
For future reference, you may wish to keep a record of local sunset times for the period of March 22 through April 19, 1977, since Memorial always falls within this period.
It's actually possible for this range to be expanded from March 21 through April 21 (although the one time we celebrated on March 20, 1932 we were not using our own criteria correctly). The Watchtower has determined dates outside of the range (1976 km) on five different occasions.
In 1948, the Watchtower said:
"1948 Memorial Date -   The date for celebrating the annual Memorial of Christ's death . . . is Nisan 14. . . . The Watch Tower Society calculates this according to the first new moon that falls nearest to the spring equinox, whether before it or after it. We do not follow strictly the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period."
In reality, this is about the same thing as saying the first FULL moon AFTER the vernal equinox, because the closest new moon to March 20/21 will result in a full moon observed about 13 to 15 days later. Therefore, we use the following method:
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox.
For easy calculation, let's say the equinox is always on 3/20 or 3/21, and you are looking for the nearest NEW moon before or after. You could get a new moon on 3/7 it could be slightly closer to 3/20 (13 days) than if the new moon was on 4/3 (14 days) after the equinox. Therefore, adding about 14 days to 3/7 gives us the earliest possible Memorial 3/21. For the latest possible Memorial, let's assume the equinox is on 3/21 that year, and the nearest new moon was determined to be 4/5. Adding 15 days to 4/5 could result in about the latest Memorial on 4/20.
Although our range for Nisan 14 is therefore 3/21 to 4/20, the Jewish Passover (Nisan 15) is celebrated between 3/26 and 4/30. Adjusting the Jewish calendar's range to Nisan 14 would mean 3/25 to 4/29. But that is still a range of about 35 days instead of 30 days. The reason is the timing of the leap-month, Adar II, (second Adar or Ve-Adar). The 1948 Watchtower said that we do not strictly follow the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period.
Of course, we actually do add 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period, but we don't do it on the same schedule the Jewish calendar uses. We did this until 1929, not necessarily by calculating it ourselves, but by watching what they used and subtracting a day or two for Nisan 14. But since 1929, we follow the same schedule that is used for determining the Easter season.
Easter Sunday generally falls on the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (i.e., the first full moon of Spring in the northern hemisphere, or the first full moon occurring after the date of the vernal equinox).
In 1929, 1932, 1948, 1951, 1959, 1967, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1989, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2016 this method would result in being about 30 days ahead of the Jewish Passover season in each of those years. That's because the Jewish calendar added the leap-month in that very year, but we, in effect, followed a calendar that added it in the next year. This means that each of the years mentioned were the only years in that period where Easter and Passover were not aligned. Nisan 14 was 30 days earlier using the "Easter" calendar.
In every case, we followed the "Easter" calendar. (Not because it was "Easter" but because we use the same method.)
From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879, the only possible exceptions between Easter season and Passover season were in 1883, 1894, 1902, 1910, 1913, and 1921. (Easter and Passover were also about 30 days apart in those years.) In every one of those cases we did exactly the opposite. We always chose to follow the Jewish calendar for Passover.
In other words, in every year from 1880 to 1928 we always held Memorial within 3 days of the Jewish Passover. In every year from 1929 until now, including 2016 we have always held Memorial within the 8 day period prior to Easter.
 

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
*** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
 
The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
 

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
*** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
 
The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
 

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
*** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
 
The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
 

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
*** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
 
The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
 

*** w13 12/15 p. 23 ‘Do This in Remembrance of Me’ ***

MEMORIAL 2014

  "The moon circles our earth each month. In the course of each cycle, there is a moment when the moon lines up between the earth and the sun. This astronomical configuration is termed “new moon.” At that point, the moon is not visible from the earth nor will it be until 18 to 30 hours later.

  "During 2014, the new moon nearest the vernal (spring) equinox will be on March 30, at 8:45 p.m. (20:45), Jerusalem time. The following sunset in Jerusalem (March 31) will come about 21 hours later. It is doubtful that the first sliver of the moon will be visible then. More likely, the first sunset when the initial crescent of the moon can be seen in Jerusalem will be on April 1. By the method the ancient Jews used, that will be the day when the first month (Nisan 1) will start, at sunset.
 
"Hence, congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the earth have been informed that Nisan 14 will begin at sunset on Monday, April 14, 2014. That will be about the time of the full moon.—For more details on calculating the date, see The Watchtower of June 15, 1977, pages 383-384."
 
Part in blue: 
Correct date - new moon was on March 30.
Wrong time - new moon was at 21:45 Jerusalem time. The researcher hadn't factored in Daylight Saving Time that came in on March 28 for Israel.
Part in yellow:
Miscalculation of crescent visibility. Three astronomical programs calculated that the new crescent would be visible with the naked eye from Jerusalem on March 31. Granted, the crescent would be toward the limits of visibility criteria, but still would be theoretically possible to see according to,
the Planetary, Lunar and Stellar Visibility program (free download online) http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/moonwatch/index.html http://torahcalendar.com/MOON.asp?JDN=2457458&TDAY=1&MNFLG=0 Screenshots can be provided if you are that interested.
The Moon's crescent was indeed sighted in the vicinity of Jerusalem on March 31 as reported by this website.

Therefore, sunset March 31 was Nisan 1, and sunset April 13 (not 14) was Nisan 14. So JWs celebrated the 2014 Memorial on Nisan 15.
 

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now  Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away.
There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good.
Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.
I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.
At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.
1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.
2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.
3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.
4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")
These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:
At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:
(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.
What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.
I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.
At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.
1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.
2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.
3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.
4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")
These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:
At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:
(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.
What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This was a demonstration of how to use the phonographs. It was at the Columbus, Ohio convention in 1937. That's Grant Suiter in the center, who was the Secretary Treasurer. He was a member of the Governing Body, probably started at Bethel around 1928. Brother Suiter joined the administrative offices in Brooklyn in 1928, became a director in 1938 (the year after this picture) and became Secretary-Treasurer of the Watch Tower Society (PA & NY) in 1947.

Thanks, Anke. My first post over here. I like the idea of being able to highlight and use formatting. I didn't quite get it right, but I'll get better, I hope.

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now  Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away.
There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good.
Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.
 

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now  Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away.
There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good.
Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.
 

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now  Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away.
There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good.
Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.
 

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now  Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away.
There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good.
Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.