Identifying the True Religion - Neutrality

– posted by meleti
When reasoning in a potentially adversarial environment, the best tactic is to ask questions.  We see Jesus using this method over and over with great success.  In short, to get your point across: ASK, DON'T TELL.

Witnesses are trained to accept instruction from men in authority.  Elders, Circuit Overseers, and Governing Body members tell them what to do and they do it.  They are trained to put complete trust in these men, to the point where they entrust them with their very salvation.

The other sheep should never forget that their salvation depends on their active support of Christ’s anointed “brothers” still on earth.
(w12 3/15 p. 20 par. 2 Rejoicing in Our Hope)

In turn, we approach from a position of weakness in their eyes.  We have none of the authority they hold in such high esteem.  In this we are no different from our Lord.  He was a mere carpenter's son and came from a despised province.  His credentials could hardly have been poorer. (Mt 13:54-56; John 7:52) His apostles were fishermen and the like; unlettered men.  (John 7:48, 49; Acts 4:13) Notably, he experienced the least success in his home territory, prompting him to say:

“A prophet is not without honor except in his home territory and in his own house.” (Mt 13:57)

Similarly, we often find that those closest to us, parents, siblings and dear friends, will have the hardest time accepting what we say.  Like Jesus, we are overcoming years of indoctrination and the powerful influence of peer pressure.  With our words, we are challenging the biggest authority figures in their life.  Few will view what we have as pearls of such great value. (Mt 13:45, 46)

With so much stacked against us, let us do our best to reach hearts by speaking kindly and respectfully; by not pushing our newfound understandings on unreceptive ears; and by always endeavoring to find the right questions to help our loved ones to think and reason for themselves.  Our discussions should never become a contest of wills, but rather a cooperative search for truth.

With this in mind, let us tackle the first of the criteria points highlighted in the previous article in this series.

Political Neutrality

Getting the discussion going is always the hardest part.  There are many techniques that can be employed. For example, let us say you have been missing a lot of meetings.  You might say to a family member, "I guess you've noticed I haven't been at that many meetings lately.  I imagine there's a lot of speculation and gossip as to why, but I'd like to tell you the reason myself, so that you don't get the wrong idea."

You could then continue by saying that there are number of things that have caused you to be concerned. Without divulging more details, ask your friend or family member to read Revelation 20:4-6

“And I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given authority to judge. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had not worshipped the wild beast or its image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.” (Re 20:4-6)

Now ask him or her if the faithful and discreet slave is going to be part of these kings and priests.  That answer must be "Yes" since that is in line with what the Organization publishes.  Additionally, the Governing Body now teaches that it is the faithful slave, therefore it must be part of the ones Revelation 20:4 is referring to.
At some point, the person you're talking to is going to believe you're leading them up the garden path and may resist. They may even guess where you're going, and think you're just laying a trap. Don't deny that you are leading them to a conclusion.  We do not want to appear sly or conniving, so be up front and tell them that you just taking them on the same journey you traveled to arrive at your current understanding. If they put pressure on you to get the point, try to resist.  If they don't reason on all the facts, it will be easier for them to miss the implications.

Next ask who the image of the wild beast is.  They should know that off the top of their head.  Just in case they don't, here's the Organization's teaching:

“Since World War II, the image of the wild beast—now manifested as the United Nations organization—has already killed in a literal way.”
(re chap. 28 p. 195 par. 31 Contending With Two Ferocious Beasts

“An additional significant factor is that when Babylon the Great goes down under the devastating attack of the ten horns of the symbolic wild beast, her fall is mourned by her companions in fornication, the kings of the earth, and also by the merchants and shippers who dealt with her in supplying luxurious commodities and gorgeous fineries.”
(it-1 pp. 240-241 Babylon the Great)

Get your friend or family member to acknowledge that according to Revelation 20:4, the "kings and priests" have never committed spiritual fornication with the wild beast or its image, unlike Babylon the Great as depicted in the above image.

Now ask them if the Organization teaches that the Catholic Church is part of Babylon the Great.  Next read this extract from the June 1, 1991 Watchtower.

9...“If Christendom had sought peace with Jehovah’s King, Jesus Christ, then she would have avoided the coming flash flood.—Compare Luke 19:42-44.
10 However, she has not done so. Instead, in her quest for peace and security, she insinuates herself into the favor of the political leaders of the nations—this despite the Bible’s warning that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) Moreover, in 1919 she strongly advocated the League of Nations as man’s best hope for peace. Since 1945 she has put her hope in the United Nations. (Compare Revelation 17:3, 11.) How extensive is her involvement with this organization?
11 A recent book gives an idea when it states: “No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN.”
(w91 6/1 p. 17 pars. 9-11 Their Refuge—A Lie!)

“Some may take offense at the frankness of Jehovah’s Witnesses in proclaiming this. However, when they say that Christendom’s religious rulers have taken refuge in a lying arrangement, they merely relate what the Bible says. When they say that Christendom deserves punishment because she has become a part of the world, they merely report what God himself says in the Bible.”
(w91 6/1 p. 18 par. 16 Their Refuge—A Lie!)

Ask them if this article makes it clear that the 24 Catholic NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) constitute part of her spiritual fornication with the UN.  Would they then agree that the kings and priests of Revelation 20:4 would have never sanctioned membership in the UN as the Catholic Church did?

If your friends or family waffle at all by showing themselves unwilling to commit to any of these points, you might consider terminating the discussion.  If they are already in denial before you've even made your point, it doesn't bode well for the outcome.  It's not easy to know if you are casting your pearls before swine who will trample them and then turn on you, so use your best discretion.

On the other hand, if they are still with you, they may indeed be showing a love for truth.  So the next step would be to get them to a computer and have them google the following (sans quotes): “watchtower UN”.

The first returned link is likely to be this one to the UN FAQ site. It is important to tell your listeners that this is not an apostate web site. This is an official page on the United Nations web site.

Under Links & Files, the third link is DPI letter re Watchtower relations 2004.

Get them to read the entire letter.  This is important, so there’s no need to rush.

Notice that the application was made in 1991, the same year the June 1, 1991 Watchtower condemned the Catholic Church for having 24 NGOs or non-governmental organizations in the United Nations.  One hopes that the hypocrisy evident in this timing does not escape their notice.

Often, the first question they will ask after reading the letter is why would the Organization join the UN in the first place.

The "why" isn't really important.  It's like asking why a man committed adultery.  The fact is, he did and that's the problem. There can be no excuse that justifies the sin.  So instead of answering their question, ask one of your own:  “Is there any reason that would justify joining and supporting the image of the wild beast?”

Remember that part of the criteria for becoming an UN NGO is:

  • have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach large or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;

  • have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting the cooperation of the media.

If they say, "Well, maybe it was just a mistake", you can say that the Governing Body does not accept that this was a mistake. They’ve never apologized for it, nor admitted they did anything wrong.  We cannot call it a mistake if the Governing Body refuses to do so.  Besides, would a wife upon learning her husband had a 10-year affair with another women accept the excuse, "It was just a mistake, dear"?

So the facts are that they willingly maintained a full 10-year membership in the United Nations as an NGO, the highest form of membership outside of being a nation-state member.  They renewed it annually according to UN requirements. They had to sign an annual submission form.  The rules for joining did not change prior to nor after the term of their 10-year membership.  They renounced their membership only after an article in the U.K. newspaper, The Guardian, exposed it to the world.

Can any reason justify breaking their neutrality, and compromising the requirement to be separate from the world and its affairs, as detailed in chapter 15 of What Can the Bible Teach Us? and chapter 14 of The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life?

Here is the reason they have given for this transgression:

They claim in this letter that they joined the United Nations—the image of the wild beast—so as to gain access to its research library. That turns out to be untrue since citizens and organizations have always been able to gain access to the library by submitting a request.  There never has been a requirement that limits library access only to UN members.  However, even if that were the case, would that justify what the organization considers a sin worthy of disfellowshipping? Notice this excerpt from the current elders manual: Shepherd the Flock of God.

3. Actions that may indicate disassociation [disfellowshipping by another name] include the following:
Taking a course contrary to the neutral position of the Christian congregation. (Isa. 2:4; John 15:17-19; w99 11/1 pp. 28-29) If he joins a nonneutral organization, he has disassociated himself.

By its own rulebook, the Governing Body has disassociated itself from the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses by joining a nonneutral organization.  Admittedly, they don't come any more nonneutral than the Organization of the United Nations, the image of the wild beast of Revelation.

True, they are no longer members, but they've never apologized, repented, or even admitted that this was a mistake. When they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they excused themselves by lying about it, claiming they needed it for library access—which they didn't—and claiming they quit membership because the requirements had changed—which they hadn't.

I had one old friend challenge me on the issue of 'lack of repentance.'  His claim was that we cannot know if they repented.  He felt that they did not owe us an apology, and so didn't have to engage in some sort of public chest-beating display of repentance.  They could have privately asked God for forgiveness for all we know, he reasoned.

There are two arguments that prove this line of reasoning is not valid.  One is that in the case of a public instructor who has long taught his disciples to avoid a particular course of action, when caught committing the very offence he has denounced, has a responsibility to apologize to those he might otherwise mislead by his actions.  If no apology is evident, they might think that his actions speak louder than his words and imitate him by engaging in the same wrong conduct themselves.

The other reason that my friend's argument is not valid is the fact that the Governing Body publicly excused the action.  'They joined to access the library (a falsehood) and withdrew membership when the rules for membership were changed (another falsehood).'  One cannot repent unless one has sinned. If they do not acknowledge sin, they have nothing to repent for, do they?  So there could not have been any behind-closed-doors repentance.

The full story with all the documented evidence on the Watchtower UN scandal is to be found here.

Of course, if you point your family or friends to that site, they’ll likely cry 'apostasy.'  If so, then ask them what are they afraid of?  Learning the truth, or being deceived?  If the latter, then ask them if they think that they, after all the training they get every week at the meetings, are incapable of distinguishing between truth and fiction?   Then ask them if a brother were to compromise his neutrality and join a political organization, would you not consider him an apostate?  And if that apostate told you not to go to a web site that might prove his guilt, would you be afraid to go?

In Summary

A lover of truth will be appalled by the hypocrisy and duplicity of this scandal.  The lack of any repentance nor acknowledgement of wrongdoing is quite damning, as are the weak attempts to do damage control.

This episode proves the Organization has failed to meet one of the six requirements for a religion to be considered true and approved by God.  It's not enough that they are no longer members.  Until a sin is acknowledged before God and men and until sincere repentance has been demonstrated, it remains on the books.

According to Witness teaching, a religion must meet all six requirements.  A perfect score is required to get God's approval. So even if the other five criteria have been met, still loses due to this one abysmal, inexplicably stupid transgression.  Seriously, one can't help wonder at what they were hoping to achieve.

Unfortunately, for the majority of Witnesses, this will not be a major event at all. Most will enter a state of denial at this revelation.  They will excuse it away with the words, "Well, they're just imperfect men. We all make mistakes." If so-called Christians are willing to excuse a 10-year compromise of Christian neutrality as a simple mistake despite the words of Revelation 20:4, they clearly don't know or care what the word means.

Show me the next article in this series.

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

  • Comment by Identifying the True Religion | Beroean Pickets - Reviewer on 2017-03-04 10:22:02

    […] our next article, we will deal with the first criterion: True worshippers are separate from the world and its […]

    • Reply by John S on 2017-03-06 09:13:12

      Very well said, Meleti,

      Well spoken, Meleti,

      "With so much stacked against us, let us do our best to reach hearts by speaking kindly and respectfully; by not pushing our newfound understandings on unreceptive ears; and by always endeavoring to find the right questions to help our loved ones to think and reason for themselves. Our discussions should never become a contest of wills, but rather a cooperative search for truth."

      I go to churches now to try to tactfully teach truth to any who will listen. The very first and biggest issue is know....Trinity. A very hard nut to crack indeed. But showing the many scriptures where Jesus magnifies God, prays to him, glorifies his name; making it known, and then using the truth about God's name...well, some begin to see a little light at the end of a tunnel, and begin asking questions. The last church I taught at for a month ended when the preacher and I did get into a 'test of wills' you said truly will happen at times.

      Well, I planted quite a few seeds of truth, as well as a loving attitude toward the sheep there, which is genuine, and they know I love them (of utmost importance).

      So this last Sunday I began working at another lottle Pentecostal church where so many sweet-hearted people are doing their best to, "Praise Jesus!" And into the mix I go, with a heart full of love and a headfull of Bible truth-seeds to plant. I follow the true path of the original "Johnny Appleseed" of Southeast primitive America. A real-life hero of witnessing...not a fairy tale. I feel a most satisfying mission, love and mercy unlike I EVER felt witnessing as a JW. That was elementary school for me, but I am all grown up in Christ now....and doing his work with his help...and a clear conscience I have a truth that is the voice of the real shepherd of the sheep. (John 10)

      It is well to keep in mind the scripture where Jesus said many,....maybe not even God's chosen (from outward appearance...possibly even non Christians) will make it through the judgement of the earth at Armageddon. (see Luke 13:22-30)

      If we , as Christians, even, are not given the responsibility nor the ability to judge hearts, but Christ himself is Father's only judge, then by inference, NO RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY has the right to call anyone or any religion , "true worship", or say we must get under the JW umbrella to be saved from the GT wrath . Agreed?

      We must remember, as the Lord said, the truth will only grow in the heart-soil of searchers of truth and heart-workers who even CARE what truth is...not lazy-minded persons who just want to 'buy' a ticket to Paradise by showing up at meetings and token ministry.

      God and Christ say the truth will be hidden from the lazy, as Luke says: 'exert yourselves vigorously'.

      I know from working the churches for 8 years now, and previously trying for 2 years before that to help fellow JW-brothers see what I was shown....hardly anyone wants to burrow into these important scriptural goldmines because it requires two things; courage to put your face into the wind and trudge forward with God and Christ alone behind you. And effort to dig deeper to read and follow JESUS' TEACHINGS. It is an uphill battle all the way. And 2, eventually, all of us resign, or get kicked out. Or, bury the mina, and go back into the WT, and try to be a 'good Witness' by keeping their mouth shut. That , unfortunately leads to a very damaging mind/heart/conscience conflict.

      Your encouragement will come in this way mostly:

      Your only help and encouragement from people will come almost 100% from online, like this site, as those who love truth will search for others of like mindset. That means serious Bible truth lovers, as some JW's are...but not many.

      Matt. 13:10-15 . Here Jesus shows he really doesn't WANT everyone to 'get the sense of it'. Only honest, and good-hearted. He actually teaches in a way so as to hide the truth. And he knows Satan sets up 'operations of error' to gather up sheeplike ones. Fact.

      We are only looking for individuals who have a fire in their spirit, and the fire of the spirit cannot be put out he says. So...

      ....don't expect everyone, or even quite a few will respond to your efforts to teach/expose the truth. The main thing you will want to consider early on, is;

      What am I doing staying in religion of ANY kind that is not teaching the basic teachings of Christ correctly?


      "Where can I find true brothers and sisters of Christ who have received the "spirit of truth" (John 16), along with the "spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8)

      I will testify that after 10 years of working for the truth, I see this site as yet another place the truths Christ taught are now becoming known among good-hearted searchers.

      But take heart, this number grows daily.

      As Meleti says I say, must expect opposition from your family, friends, JW's, and everyone. Don't make the mistake of throwing precious pearls of truth to dogs, or swine, and get frustrated so you quit. Get some fresh air, by coming to associate with persons of high caliber who God has drawn to him to open their eyes to Bible treasures.

      And daily bless God and Christ for taking the scales off your eyes. Draw close to those Two, and their spirit will help you soar high as an eagle.

      Just knowing you are not alone in this will also help, as Peter said...the "whole association of your brothers in the world".

      The number is growing, but don't expect it to be huge, as these are candidates for the heavenly church of the firstborn, and they are not foretold to be a huge religious wave, but few.

      • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-07 17:21:25

        Your remark above touches on the Trinity, a topic that seems to never end. To me, one of the biggest sticking points is John 1:1. From what I have gathered, no reputable scholar (who really is one) believes the verse says "a god" but should be "the word was God". I believe they are correct. Yet in spite of that, I am convinced the Trinity is false, because it makes no sense. We are told in 1 Corinthians that Jesus died and was resurrected, and if we don't believe that are faith is in vain. But, if Jesus is God, and Jesus died, then God died. How can God die? And if he died, did he resurrect himself? Just doesn't make sense.

        Anyway, I have wondered for a long time if there were any way to reconcile the common understanding of John 1:1 and also disagree with the Trinity doctrine. And lo and behold, I found it.

        The key point is that 'in the beginning was the Word'. The beginning of WHAT? I believe this refers to the beginning of God's relationship with mankind. In the beginning of that relationship, God's only means of representing himself was His words - spoken by angels, by prophets or written on tablets. So, the sum total of what God "was" had been in the past entirely the result of these words. So, those "words" stood in place of God. Those words WERE God, for all intents and purposes.

        But, when Jesus arrived on the scene, the words of God now assumed human form. We have a hint of this in some of John's further writing, where he mentions John the Baptist coming out as God's "representative". John the Baptist was - for a brief time - the living personification of God's words, until Jesus was baptized. From that point on, Jesus was that Word.

        This is an "important" idea, but not one that is "extremely" important. That is, it's not on the same level as saying "God created the earth" or "Jesus is the Messiah". It's critical to understand that. Why?

        If John 1:1 really DID reveal a Trinity, it would be an extremely important piece of information. Later, John says that knowing God and His son means everlasting life. How could you "know" them if you didn't understand their true nature? That being so, why don't any other gospel writers say the word was God? The Bible holds out a standard of credibility: there should be two or three witnesses to a matter of importance. The Bible follows its own rule, by providing four gospels - four witnesses - to the momentous event of Jesus life and death. Why only ONE mention that the Word is God? Why would the Bible break its own rule on a matter of such extreme importance??

        The answer is that, while explaining Jesus' role as God's human representative is important, it is not THAT important, mainly because that role is implied by all the words of all the gospels and the rest of the Bible. John just made that fact explicit. What John did NOT do is provide evidence of a Trinity. Yes, in the beginning the word was God, but the "word" was not Jesus - in any form.

        WT changed the wording of John 1:1 because they were poor Bible scholars, because they were untrained and incompetent for the task of translating the Bible, and because fundamentally they had no faith. They were afraid that if they translated John 1:1 honestly, they would lack the biblical expertise to refute its seeming support for the Trinity. So, rather than acquiring that expertise, they corrupted the Bible's words to save their no-Trinity doctrine. In their minds, the end justified the means. But in doing that, they hide the true meaning of the passage - one that is beautiful and profound - in spite of the fact that at its base it really does not teach the Trinity at all.

        • Reply by Dajo on 2017-03-08 01:42:42

          I am amazed at that way of looking at it. I will be having a discussion with a fleshly brother who believes the trinity. I need just what you have explained! That reasoning on John 1:1 - well.. I think you have cracked it. Simply brilliant. Thanks.

          • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-08 09:00:02

            There is a paper I wrote that explains this in more detail (Microsoft word). If you could provide an email address, I can send you a copy.

            • Reply by Colette on 2017-03-08 13:29:52

              Hi Robert Can you get my email address from Meleti and send it to me too please?

              • Reply by John S on 2017-03-13 08:50:11

                Hello bros. and sisters, isn't this an important discussion? Jesus' role/place in the heavens above?

                Apostle John was the favorite, as stated in scripture. And we see he was favored with very important revelations. This is certainly apparent from reading John chapter 1.

                According to Phillips NT in Modern English, "In the beginning, God expressed himself."

                Now, Jesus also taught us that he is the very essence of God's knowledge, and doesn't that make sense? If God was to start creating, wouldn't he create someone who would be a suitable companion for himself? Someone he could love, admire, ...even stimulate his creativity, and bring him great joy? There would be success if he created someone just like himself. And this is what John 1, and Jesus taught also. "No one fully knows the Father, but the Son." And Jesus said no one knows the Father except whom Jesus wished to reveal to a person. And that is exactly why Jesus came to earth also, to reveal his Father and his will to anyone who wants to love him. His desire , in fact, is actually to lead all Christians to go to see and LIVE in his Father's House. And he went to prepare a place for us.

                We see Jesus doles out the spirit,(Acts 2), and we see from John, that Jesus actually created the universe, and all life. It is described that these are Jesus' belongings, in fact. (John 1:3 Col. 1)

                As many as receive him, he (Jesus) gives authority to become God's children. (a new spirit-being life). This great power Jesus had FROM THE BEGINNING, should not be under-emphasized, played down, as WT has done for decades. I believe they do this now with the motive of taking away from Jesus' role to bring Christians to heaven to himself and his Father, as their motivation/gospel is; slaves of WT who are second-class citizens, who only hope to achieve earthly service. Something Jesus certainly never taught; but enrollment into God's heavenly family, and meeting the Lord in the air upon his return to journey on into the heavens to join God as a newly adopted son and creature; a new creation made into the image of his Son.

                By reason of his creatorship alone, Jesus is a god, or 'God', as he made us. Also all things were made through him, and "for him".

                And that is , I believe, John's purpose here; to establish Jesus as the pre imminent person in all the universe alongside his Father; God, also. Look at how he refers to himself as a god, saying he is (singularly) 'God's Son.'John and others say he is the "only-begotten son, even "only-begotten God" (John 1:18)

                We WT students always had the hackles come up on our backs over John 1:1, because we were being fed the WT spirit.....'Jesus is only an angel'. But this is quite untrue, and debilitates Jesus' godship, and he certainly is not happy with this arrogant and actually blasphemous statement , which is contrary to facts, and the truth. (Col. 1:15-17)

                It may take some time for new truth seekers to begin switching their thinking of Jesus as an "archangel" to what he is, God, also.( not the very person of his Father though...quite separate) But, as Thomas said, "my Lord and my God". This is directly because of the false teaching we were fed by WT, certainly.

                The fact is, Jesus is God of this universe. But his Father is the Almighty, and we should worship both of them. Jesus is our God, and teacher, and even additionally purchased us out of death. He will judge resurrected mankind, and grant those he deems potential candidates with eternal life. He is a God in every aspect, but with all humility and love for his Father, and this humility, not praising himself as great, but only his Father , while he was on earth is the supreme example of his great love for his Father. He sets the perfect example for us. (John 10:27-36)

                His universe, is the Kingdom of Love, self sacrificing, humble, and devoted to the service of others.

                He deserves our praise and worship. Don't we all agree? (Heb. 1:6-14)

                • Reply by Dajo on 2017-03-13 23:13:06

                  Yes, I agree. Something twigged here when you said "If God was to start creating, wouldn’t he create someone who would be a suitable companion for himself? Someone he could love, admire, …even stimulate his creativity and bring him great joy..". A previous commenter said Jesus is in a class of his own. I'm going to ponder this thought - I feel very comfortable with it. Thanks.

                • Reply by Colette on 2017-03-14 02:08:43

                  There is an interesting debate on youtube

                  Trinity vs Unitarian. The argument to uphold the deity of Christ seems very sound and scriptural. Except of course that they get the last bit wrong. Jesus is not his Father. But he is a God.

            • Reply by Lois on 2017-03-08 19:28:16

              Hi Robert. I am very interested in this topic as well, if possible could you get my email address from Meleti an send that paper? Thx!

              • Reply by Lois on 2017-03-10 07:42:22

                I received it. Looking forward to reading it. Thanks!

            • Reply by Dajo on 2017-03-09 04:47:39

              I've asked Meleti to give you my email, or also... maybe you could make it a topic on DDT, It would be valuable to hear some other comments.

              • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-09 09:26:30

                I asked Meleti to send it to you, it should be in your email inbox by now. You have my permission to put this on DTT if you wish, but I don't involve myself in that site.

                (p.s. DTT is the web site; DDT is a bug spray :-))

                • Reply by Dajo on 2017-03-09 22:54:48

                  Yes, received it thanks.. came through virus and bug free.
                  I'm dissecting it now!

        • Reply by Yehorakam on 2017-03-10 10:47:05

          Hi Robert. Not sure if your prefer Robert or 6512. :) I'm happy for the insight you have contributed to this forum. My way of seeing things has been very similar. When humans were orphaned from God due to sin, God did not refuse to help them. In his love, he wanted to help them, but being holy, he would not have direct dealings with them. God's way of dealing, or better said "helping them" was always by transmitting his words through perfect angelic representatives. His perfect representatives could be referred to as Jehovah, God or Lord, and that was the case. When Abraham was visited by angels, he referred to them directly as Jehovah. Why? Because the words they transmitted were from God. (see Acts 7:51 & Gal 3:19). In fact, all the references in the Hebrew scriptures where it says "Jehovah's said to so-and-so", it really was always an angel speaking with the earthly servant of God. In most cases, it was Jesus. Daniel referred to Michael as the angel assigned as representative to the nation of Israel. This is the angel that the principal role to guide, protect and clean the nation. Some think it to be an angel other than Jesus. I believe it to be none other than Jesus, that he was the one principally used as the "word" before coming as a human and therefore representative of God himself. He became the "word" in the flesh, continuing as representative of God himself. If Moses could be referred to as 'Aaron's God,' then we can consider Jesus to be our God in a sense (Ex 4:16). Tomas called him my "God" and my "Lord." (Jn 20:28) This was not an "OMG, it's Jesus!" He was not talking about God and Jesus. He was only referring to Jesus. The problem is that any Witness or ex-Witness would have a hard time referring to Jesus as his God. They would never even think of asking Jesus for anything.

          In any case, the "word" of God in ancient times was considered to be representative of God himself. Finally, in the 1rst century, a perfect angelic representative of God actually became flesh, became a human. He didn't just take on a human body for the moment as other angels had done. As a human, he continued in the same role he had previously had with Israel, that of spokesman for God. So, you are correct to say what you did. John 1:1: "the word [or message of God] was [representative of] God [himself]. In my opinion, it would not be incorrect to say "a God" either. Jesus referred the angels as Gods. So, some might say that before Jesus, "the word [or message of God] was a God (an angel).

          There are different ways to understand it. Being that the case, if someone has a hard time understanding John 1:1, I suppose he could put it on shelf for a while. God has lovingly given us 100's of other verses that show that Jesus is God's son.

          May our Father and his Son continue to give you a spirit of understanding. I'd be interested in reading your article. Ask Meleti for my address. And thanks for your fine comment!

          Much love,

          • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-10 11:49:21

            Meleti has the document. Anyone who wishes a copy has my permission to ask him directly to email it.

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-10 12:52:37

            Hi Yehorakam,

            I must beg to differ with you in your understanding of Jesus' role prior to his birth. These Scriptures seem to indicate that Jehovah did not use his firstborn as you suggest.

            “. . .For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; 3 how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of holy spirit according to his will?” (Heb 2:2-4)

            In this passage, the writer is contrasting how the word was conveyed in pre-Christian times against the great power of the message from the Son.

            “. . .Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.” (Ga 3:19)

            “. . .Do not forget hospitality, for through it some, unknown to themselves, entertained angels.” (Heb 13:2)

            Clear evidence that Angels were involved in transmitting God's word in pre-Christian times. By comparison, there is no evidence that Jesus was used in that capacity during those times.

            • Reply by Yehorakam on 2017-03-10 14:15:24

              You make a good point. The scriptures do say that God's word was transmitted through angels. What is an angel? Some would like to say that it only means messenger. Angel does not just refer to a messengers, but to ALL spirit sons of God. I believe Jesus fits that description and is an angel, a spirit son of God even as they are. They were called his companions before his being anointed to a superior position. (Heb 1:9). Phil 2:8-10, Heb 1:3,4 and 1 Pet 3:22 indicate that after coming to earth, he was given a position above the angels. He wouldn't have been given a position he already had. For that reason when the scriptures say the Law was transmitted through angels, Jesus could definitely have been one of them. What was his exact role before being anointed and exalted to a superior position? The scriptures do not state clearly nor reveal when Jesus was used for certain tasks. I think he must have enjoyed a special position among the angels because God calls only him his only begotten and I think he was likely a more powerful angel. For that reason I don't doubt he was used by God in a special role. Those are only deductions. Truly where and when God used him in pre-Christian times is not stated and is only personal conjecture.

              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-10 17:49:39

                I have a number of problems with your position, Yehorakam, but rather than get into them now, I refer back to my previous comment which referred to Heb 2:2-4 as evidence that he could not have been an angel. If he were an angel, then Hebrews makes no sense since the purpose of the passage is to contrast the word spoken by angels versus that spoken by our Lord. If he is merely an angel, then this passage makes no sense.

                • Reply by Vox Ratio on 2017-03-11 03:00:16

                  Hi Meleti,

                  Personally, I'm undecided on this issue. Yet, I'm not sure the NT gives us a way to be completely dismissive of an angelomorphic Christology. For instance, it's possible that the prologue of Hebrews was written to address a particular Hebraic concern of the Jews at that time, namely the source and sanction of OT canon and prophecy (Heb. 1:1; 2:2f). In esteeming the revealing of Christ as something even greater than these, the author of Hebrews addresses precisely why Christ has become better than the angels; and the subsequent appeal is not ontological, but rather functional (Heb. 1:4). Specifically, Christ has inherited a name that is better than the angels, and as a result, his words ought to carry greater weight.

                  As to certain angelomorphic allusions to Christ in the NT consider Paul's epistle to the Galatians where he likens their acceptance of him as akin to an angel, even Christ Jesus (Gal. 4:14). Moreover, Revelation provides an insight into the presence of God whereby an angel officiates in what are palpably priestly – even high priestly – duties at the heavenly altar (Rev. 8:3f). Curiously, it seems this angel also acts a type of intercessor "through" whom the prayers of the saints are presented to God (cf. Eph. 3:12; 1 Pet. 2:5). To be sure, there are a number of commentators who identify this angel with Christ (Hawker, Henry, Clarke et al), so ascribing the aforementioned traits to Christ isn't anything particularly novel.

                  Contrariwise, there are also some (Stuckenbruck, Steyn) who think that it was precisely a type of angelology that the author of Hebrews was writing against. This is also a plausible theory, but whether these narrative overtures are correct is something that seems hard to glean from the preamble of Hebrews alone.

                  In sum, I don't think that the book of Hebrews perforce represents an objection to angelomorphism, since it is possible to read it both as a polemic against early angelology as well as one intended to counter the idealisation of the law and the prophets and the supremacy of their transmission.

              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-10 21:51:20

                Another thought is that the fact that Jesus was appointed over the angels, doesn't mean he was one of them and was "promoted from within". His role as the word of God was unique. However, it didn't include authority over the angels as they answered directly to God as the account of Job indicates. Only after he was tested could he be appointed to that authority. HOwever, not having that authority before he became the Son of Man doesn't mean he was an angel.

                I believe Jesus was in a class by himself.

          • Reply by Lois on 2017-03-10 19:52:01

            Hi Yehorakam, I always believed that Jesus was Michael the archangel too. However, recently discovered a thought in Dan. 10:13 that seems to indicate otherwise. It says Michael was one of the Chief princes. Are there any other angels with the same rank as Jesus? He is unique , as God's only begotten son and not like one of any other of the angels. So, that's why I don't believe Michael is Jesus. That was a new thought for me and I just wanted to share it.?

  • Comment by LVReyes on 2017-03-04 11:05:42

    Hi Meleti. I very much appreciated your presentation of the UN-NGO fiasco of the WT Society. It very clearly lays out the facts in logical order--for anyone interested in "truth" it is an undeniable fact that the WT Society/JW.0rg has proven itself a transgressor of its own organizational laws, and so exposing itself as fraught with human frailty and lack of Divine basis. They've set up their commands of men and are not able to meet their own requirements.

    (Matthew 23:4, 13) “They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger."
    "Hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in."

    So, indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ denounced the very attitude that the hierarchy of the WT Society/JW.0rg display in our day.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-04 11:43:00

      Yes, amazing how the words of our Lord continue to have force down to the present day. Truly he spoke with divine inspiration.

  • Comment by Maria on 2017-03-04 11:19:19

    Thank you for your clear explanation on this I was never aware of whist being a JW. Not ever heard they were part as NGO of the UN, not even a whisper.
    To have zeal for truth no matter what, will pull one through all that will be exposed. Have to learn still to season my words. When you heart burns it's difficult to apply.
    Love to all seekers of truth.

    • Reply by Candace on 2017-03-07 08:56:58

      Hello Willy thank you, your comment sums up my thoughts perfectly! 'Our discussions should never become a contest of wills, but rather a cooperative search for truth.' - this is so hard to apply and I haven't been able to do it very well. So ashamed to think how much I treasured the 'practical' articles in the Awake only to now find out they could all be to comply with UN requirements. So hypocritical.

      Of course there is zero chance I can even bring this subject up with any of my loved ones because they will just say I am being deceived by apostate material again. Knowing this brings tears to my eyes.

  • Comment by Colette on 2017-03-04 14:10:21

    I find it interesting that to be a UN NGO, the organization must "have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach large or specialized audiences" and would have the "means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables;" In other words, it appears to be incumbent on the NGO to disseminate UN information by means of publications and conferences (meetings and assemblies).

    How many of the articles in the Awake deal with UN issues, such as water, pollution, health issues etc? Was it really the holy spirit directing the "spiritual food", or were the articles not perhaps to fulfill an obligation of membership of the UN?

    Another glaring lack of neutrality is seen by the kingdom halls in Chile that fly the national flag once a year, at the kh, instead of paying a monetary fine for non-compliance.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2017-03-04 15:02:08

      Yes, and in particular the articles referenced in the JWfacts link that Meleti posted. You can see very clearly that the writing department were trying to fulfill this obligation to their membership status, while at the same time trying to keep a neutral tone to their JW readers.

      It was double-tongued and highly deceptive.

      To me this is the most damning evidence that they knew perfectly well what they were doing.

      I don't think the NGO thing in itself is really bad in the big scheme of things. I don't know why they did it. They didn't need it for access to the library, but it's just about plausible that they somehow didn't know that.

      It's the hypocrisy in publishing the Awake articles, and the lying to try and cover the whole thing up that is totally reprehensible. And when you follow the documentation trail it would be ridiculous to suggest that the articles lauding the efforts of the UN were just coincidental.

      • Reply by Colette on 2017-03-04 23:47:56

        Even while we were 'good' unsuspecting JW's, we were puzzled over the contents of the Awake as some magazines had virtually no biblical content. I have also heard that the org gets very big discounts on convention venues in exchange for putting 'advertising' into the Awake to promote the city. An example was an article on Sydney.

    • Reply by Amitafal on 2017-03-04 15:06:01

      Hi Colette - I didn't know about flying the flag by K Halls in Chile! The plot thickens.

      • Reply by Karen on 2017-03-19 22:00:21

        Hello Colette .... Unbelievable that adults should force children to remain silent or seated when their school song or national anthem is played exposing them to all sorts of ridicule and bullying.... All the while the adults of the GB fly their flags, are apart of the UN, bribe politicians to avoid military service (while others pay a deadly price for their stand on neutrality ....Malawi/Mexico double standards).... Yet another hypocrisy of this Borg (An alien species from Star Trek who assimilate others in order for them to become apart of their perfect collective/organisation)....

        How do we become whole again after working through all the lies and hypocrisies ....

        I have asked it before;
        'The earth shall stand to time indefinite'
        'To earth belongs to man'

        Is their that hope of life on earth??

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-20 07:52:43

          Paul said there would be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. (Acts 24:15) We know that the unrighteous cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens. (1Co 6:9) Therefore, the unrighteous will be resurrected to the earth. The purpose for the new creation which is the sons of God is to reconcile these unrighteous back into the family of God. (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Ro 8:18-25) I'm working on a article that will bring together the scriptures to better explain this process of human salvation. Unfortunately, I have to deal with some serious health issues first.

          Life is so much fun. ;)

        • Reply by Lois on 2017-03-21 07:27:42

          Hi Karen. Always remember the Lord's Prayer "Your Kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Mt 6:10. Jesus taught us to pray for this and it will happen. Our role as children of God may be different than we were taught as JW 's but we will still enjoy and be part of the restoration.

  • Comment by Amitafal on 2017-03-04 14:47:24

    Thank you Meleti . My husband discovered this a few months ago - one of our fellow brothers asked if this was true. I think he was given the link to see article. A sister also got wind of this too and she asked an elder who waffled some excuse about needing access to library. It's a shame the shutters come down - but you certainly have once again give us thoroughly researched material and help to help honest hearted ones. It's funny being on the 'inside' trying to witness- we cannot save others if not interested and just as in the famous house to house work of JWs we will be met with opposition.
    Thank you

  • Comment by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-05 14:22:32

    You noted, <>



    Actually, the reason why they could justify this decision (at least in their own minds) is very explicable. By being a UN NGO, it gave them access and credibility to make contacts with government officials around the world, in areas where WT was experiencing restrictions, bans and other problems, in order for them to influence laws and regulations in their favor. That goes far beyond merely "defending the good news", but ventures into explicit interference with politics for their own benefit.

    Can we imagine Jesus hobnobbing with the Roman Senate of the first century, trying to get a better deal for his disciples? Perhaps seeking tax breaks from the Roman tax collectors, or a lessening of persecution or harassment from the Roman armies?

    Because WT receives large amounts of contributed money, for them to turn around and approach governments as an NGO trying to influence laws and lawmakers, they would have made themselves paid lobbyists.

    Is being a paid lobbyist - and interfering in other governments - their idea of neutrality ?? No wonder they lied about this when they got caught red-handed by the Guardian.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-05 17:21:04

      Welcome, Robert-6512. You make an excellent point which I had not considered before. That makes sense.

    • Reply by Colette on 2017-03-06 00:40:39

      In our country, NGO's get paid to do their work. I wonder how much the UN pays NGO's, or if the fact that they are recognized by the UN used as leverage to get payments from elsewhere.

    • Reply by amoreomeara on 2017-03-06 15:16:45

      Hi Robert,

      When you said "That goes far beyond merely “defending the good news”, but ventures into explicit interference with politics for their own benefit."

      It reminded me of something I read about Rutherford writing to Hitler during the IIWW to say (paraphrase!) that most of Hitler's beliefs were similar to JWs, so he should cut them some slack. It didn't work.

      I hadn't really thought of this as being political before, but I guess it is.

      Thanks again Meleti! :-)

      • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-06 21:35:22

        There are web sites that contain a translation of the original document (which was in German), and if you have never seen it before, it's an eye opener. (Or, more likely, a jaw-dropping revelation.) The language used by Rutherford was stunningly anti-Semitic, and the terms he used to ingratiate himself and WT in the eyes of Hitler were shocking. It was a blatant case of Rutherford kissing Hitler's *** in order to curry favor with a brutal and genocidal dictator. If you read WT's later explanations of this later, they totally whitewash it - never really quoting from the letter directly but making vague references to it - in an attempt to minimize what was said and done.

        The tragedy is that when this tactic didn't work, Rutherford took all those German 'brothers' and threw them under the bus. He was quite content to turn them all into martyrs. Why? That too is easy to understand.

        Keep in mind that, in order to be a Christian, all that is necessary is to follow the example of Christ. It is not necessary to attack other religions (like the Catholics in Germany) or secular governments (like Hitler's) even if they were bad. They should have shown enough wisdom to realize it was a time of war, and a crazy person was in power. They should have followed that Proverb that says a wise person sees trouble coming and hides. But, instead of hiding from the rattlesnake, they poked it with a stick (writing scathing articles in the Golden Age about the evils of Nazism and the sins of the Catholics, who had allied themselves with Hitler). Rutherford simply had no concept of how and when it would have been the course of wisdom to shut up. He just couldn't stop talking, no matter how much trouble he brought upon his followers.

        Since the very beginning of Rutherford's reign, the Bible Students opposed him and basically were his enemies. Here, by antagonizing Hitler's regime, all of his enemies could be done away with, and he could claim innocence and blame the Nazis for it. Rutherford set them up, and (in my opinion) he has blood on his hands because of it. When the war was over, those Germans killed in the camps were held up as examples of faith, and served like a 'recruiting inducement' for new Witnesses.

        Does that seem far fetched? Consider: In 1931, WT adopted the name Jehovah's Witnesses for its people. Yet, 14 years later, in 1945, when the German camps were liberated, what were WT members in Germany - purportedly part of 'God's "unified" world-wide organization' calling themselves?? The German word for "Bible Students". Not JW's, but Bible Students. Rutherford wanted his Bible Student enemies done away with, and his wasn't all that fussy how it got done. Anything it took to seize and keep power over the WT organization.

        • Reply by amoreomeara on 2017-03-07 03:07:01

          Wow! That is some powerful stuff!

        • Reply by Maria on 2017-03-07 09:57:09

          Hi Robert, apart from the German brothers and sisters, Hitler went after all Biblestudents in whole occupied Europe., and Jews and Roman Gypsies.
          Love to all those victims who stood firm for their Heavenly Father and his Son. They are all within their memory.
          Love to all.

  • Comment by Dove on 2017-03-05 16:39:07

    Excellent summary. You put it so much better than I did with my husband years ago. I'm afraid I didn't put it nearly so well as you did and alienated him. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series!

    I've been talking to a dear longtime friend about the child abuse issues and it's absolutely amazing the mental gymnastics she will go through to try to justify the actions of the WTS. I love what you said about us being lovers of truth. I am a lover of truth above any organization! It's sad that most Witnesses aren't.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-05 17:18:01

      In my discussion last night with two dear, longtime friends, I made the point about loving the truth and he got upset with me because I was saying by implication that he didn't love it. I tried to soften the wording, but he wouldn't have it, so I told him frankly that if he truly loved truth, he'd be willing to discuss the issues with me using the Bible and if I was wrong, he could show me that himself from the Bible, but the fact was that he was unwilling even to discuss the issues I'd raised, so how does that reflect a love for truth. I even quoted James 5:19, 20 to him, but to know avail. They want to have their cake and eat it too. He avoided answering my questions directly, which is another common tactic used to avoid facing the truth.

  • Comment by Yehorakam on 2017-03-06 17:48:25

    I recall getting an inside scoop on this years ago. During the 90's, there were a lot of legal battles going on in Greece, eastern Europe, Asia, etc. In many of those countries, the only way to get legal status for the work was to appeal to the UN, stating that the country was not upholding it's member rules. When a country is a charter member, it is expected to uphold the charter. If for they example, they deny freedom of religion to their citizens, what can the citizens do? The only course is to appeal to the UN, showing that the country is in violation of the charter. Then, the UN being the ruling authority attempts to defend the cause, by putting pressure on the member country to comply. There is no way the UN would have helped the organization, especially because of the articles depicting it as a wild beast. The Witness organization felt that by becoming an NGO member and quietly avoiding publishing damning articles on the UN for years, they would then receive more support from the UN in the form of pressure on those countries in order to establish legal recognition in those countries. It had nothing to do with having a library card, and everything to do about trying to curry favour with a ruling body that could pressure it's member countries to give Witnesses what they wanted...freedom of worship and conscientious objection. When they were finally exposed, they realized they had bee unfaithful by putting their trust in nobles to try and get what they wanted. I suppose it was a bit like Israel going to Egypt to be helped, instead of turning to Jehovah.

    Of course, the UN being the wild beast of Revelation is a personal interpretation of the Witnesses. I would not use that as a point to emphasize neutrality because they might be wrong about that. My point would about neutrality would come straight from Cornelius. He was a military commander, and yet God listened to his prayers and he was anointed with Holy Spirit in that state. The Witnesses policies today say that if someone were to be pleasing to God, he would have to give up that job to be heard by God and approved (by men) for baptism. Otherwise, he would not be "neutral." They have all sorts of rules about what is neutral and what is not. Their view of what is neutral is skewed, for Cornelius did not resign in order to be baptized. He was anointed as a military officer. Obviously, killing is wrong. That is undisputable. And, I'm not encouraging military service, but it up to each person to determine what their involvement is. I'm sure that if as the Bible says, Cornelius was a god-fearing man and regularly gave gifts of mercy to those around him, he wasn't going around killing people. But the fact is, God and Christ had no problem approving this man as an anointed Christian in the state that he was. They had no objections about his job. So, this example shows that not all forms of military or police services would be wrong. Nor are they necessarily right. It is a matter of conscience. In addition, Witnesses are not the only ones who refuse military service. There are many other conscientious objectors. So, if the Witnesses' conscientious objection identifies them as the true religion, then if people of other religions object, that must mean they are true as well? No, it's only a personal decision. So, I don't see how a matter of conscience can be used as a means of identifying a true Christian.

    Of course, learning to kill, killing and directly supporting killing is not a matter of Christian conscience. So, when it comes to war or killing, those that prefer to be imprisoned or killed because they refuse to kill others identify themselves as Christians because of their self-sacrificing LOVE, not a matter of conscience. And love indeed is a means to identify Christians. So, I'm still tossing up whether neutrality is an easily identifiable mark of true Christians. Is neutrality even clearly spelled out in the scriptures, or is it something that each Christian conscientiously decides on? I have a hard time seeing that it should be a main point on the list. I suppose after all, it was the Witnesses who put in on the list...:)

    Just thinking further, Paul appealed to Caesar. Was that wrong? Satan is the ruler of this world, so you could make a point that he was appealing for help from someone under Satan's control. I suppose you could twist the scriptures to support any point. But, was it truly wrong to appeal to an established authority when there was a problem and a violation of basic rights? I think not. I believe Paul had God's spirit. So, in my opinion, the Witnesses membership in the UN was not in itself wrong. It simply revealed how hypocritical they were. With one side of their mouth, they condemn the UN, and with the other side they asked for help. Unfortunately, many of their decisions are based on double standards. This is only one of many.

    Much love,

    • Reply by Menrov on 2017-03-07 02:44:44

      Hi, you said: "So, I’m still tossing up whether neutrality is an easily identifiable mark of true Christians". So-called neutrality (what does this mean??) is not a view or measure found in the scriptures to identify a "true Christian" (what is a true Christian???). Actually, only LOVE is the identifying element for followers of Jesus (not for identifying so-called true Christians).
      All these so-called criteria are used by religious orgnisations to distinguish themselves from others, to show they are "better". Jesus never used any criteria in order to see if the person should receive His blessing or be cured by Him. Some suffered from having demons. Did Jesus ever ask them: what did you do ? Followed a bad life so demons got into you? Not enough field service? Not enough praying?
      No, nothing of that sort. To follow Jesus means to accept people and show love for them and do to them what you would like them to do to you. He is the Judge.

    • Reply by amoreomeara on 2017-03-07 03:12:09

      Hi Yehorakam,

      This actually explains alot. None of the other explanations really made that much sense to me. Thanks! :-)

    • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-07 10:20:37

      We can't emphasize enough the fact that the UN being the 'wild beast' is an interpretation. It is not well know, but in Russell's day, the interpretation was different. He believed the beast that went away and then came back was first the World Court in the Hague, and then the League of Nations that superseded it. Now, they say the League came first, then the UN, and all mention of their prior doctrine about the World Court is swept under the rug with the other 'old light'.

      I do believe that 'rug' has a big bulge in the middle from everything swept under it ...

    • Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-03-23 12:23:07

      Hi Yehorakam. Well constructed thoughts. Personally I was not bothered if the GB was a member of the UN for the reasons they stated. What worries me is this is yet another example of truth avoidance, where the existing stance is defended even when it is wrong. Maybe there are some repercussions if they admit they were in the wrong, yet it is what they expect from the R & F.

  • Comment by Menrov on 2017-03-07 03:00:09

    Funny how the WBTS uses their definition of neutrality as a means to distinguish its members from other organisations and at the same time make use of all the secular laws and organisations for their own benefit. To apply for tax exempt status: engage with governments. To apply for exempt from military service: make use of European Human Rights laws or UN related human right laws. To "protect or claim" their rights, the WBTS has no problem to call on secular laws and use their lawyers (paid by donations). But the WBTS is very reluctant to comply with secular laws when they do not like them and use donated money to pay for penalties.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-07 08:37:49

      Spot on, Menrov!

    • Reply by Candace on 2017-03-07 09:09:18

      Yup! Is it even possible to be an 'organisation' and to be no part of the world at the same time? It is such an awkward paradox. Jesus never registered to be in temple service or to be an official, he had nothing to do with the governments, he exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees but was free from hypocrisy himself. What an honour it is to do our best to follow Christ's footsteps. He really is our perfect teacher and example!

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-07 09:48:13

        Couldn't agree more, Candace!

  • Comment by Gogetter on 2017-03-07 14:25:07

    Thank you Meleti and all who have contributed to this great topic!
    These type of discussions give us who are still "in" good scriptural witnessing points when attempting to help our friends and families to wake up!
    The only way to do this is to be non-threatening and not appearing to be the dreaded apostate that we have all been indoctrinated to believe exist whenever a teaching or doctrine is challenged or proven false for that matter.
    When we are able to use the Bible and benign sources ( i.e. The Gaurdian or The ARC video) this is very effective and can't be classified as Apostate material,as well as utilizing the Organizations own literature/teachings from the past.
    I know I'm not the only one still attending meetings with the threat of loss of family and friends hanging on every word and action I take so I would like to suggest more of this type of analysis.
    I understand and respect the time it takes to do all that Meleti and many others do for this site and I'm a daily reader. But I would like to suggest that with the limited time you have, less focus put on the CLAM as we know the book study is just revisionist history and there's not much more to that meeting,and more focus be put on ways to wake up our brothers (like this WT analysis ) sort of our own Ministry school for awakening the flock!
    Everyone could even contribute with experiences that have yielded some success as this would help all.
    I honestly feel that Meleti is being guided by Jehavah's Spirit and he is doing his best to follow the Christ to help the many brothers and sisters who are trapped by the rogue GB and are looking for a way out. The major obstacle is to get them to this site with an open mind, but we know what the reaction will be if we simply refer them here. We need to lay the ground work first, may we all consider that those honest hearted ones trapped in the Org. be the focus our personal ministries to help show them the way.
    All to the glory of the Christ!

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-07 15:56:55

      I am grateful, Gogetter, that Tadua is now helping out with the CLAM review which frees me up to write other articles such as this current series.

  • Comment by Yehorakam on 2017-03-07 14:50:21

    Yes Robert, the bulge is now so big, the carpet doesn't cover all the garbage anymore. It's visible as it leaks out around the edges.

    Yes Menrov. Your point is what I was trying to get at. That's why I said that it was the Witnesses that put it on the list...with a smile (I wouldn't have put neutrality on the list). I have often thought of Daniel and his friends. They had the modern day positions of Ministers in Government. The President was a not so good king who destroyed Jerusalem, it's temple and enslaved God's people. I can't think of a more controversial job for a servant of God. Yet, our Father had no problem with it as long as they remained loyal. Working in government (a political entity) was not considered disloyalty. Bowing to another God was. As you rightfully say, the Witnesses claim to neutrality as an identifying mark of true Christians is wrong from the get go. They wish to establish their group as the only true one, and there is no true group. It's true individual Christians that are identified by their love of God, and their love of neighbor.

    Even then, we should be careful as we use this measuring stick on others for fear we are guilty of lacking those qualities at times.

    Meleti does well to highlight that as an organization, the Witnesses are not truly Christian, but there are individuals within that are...and they will eventually distance themselves from the organisation!

    Candace, wonderful to see how you are drawing your own conclusions, and many correct ones. Happy you should be that men are not convincing you of these things, but rather our Father in the heavens!

    Much love

  • Comment by Identifying the True Religion — Neutrality: Addendum | Beroean Pickets - Reviewer on 2017-03-07 17:39:46

    […] have been a number of thought provoking comments on the previous article in this series.  I’d like to address some of the points raised there.  In addition, I […]

  • Comment by 2017, March 20-26 – Our Christian Life and Ministry | Beroean Pickets - Reviewer on 2017-03-20 18:05:05

    […] sacred precepts—separation from the World and its beast-like political entities—by becoming a secret member of the United Nations for 10 years until they were discovered?  Are we proud that the stigma of […]

  • Comment by wild olive on 2017-05-08 22:50:34

    The points made on the UN membership are well made and pertinent,I would like to add a bit to the so called neutrality issue.
    On the world stage at the moment is a strong and visible push to blur the distinctions between men and women,there are even those that argue that male and female are nothing more than social constructs,and that there is no difference between the sexes.This is reflected in the amount of people who are transsexual,or just generally confused as to what gender they are. This is been done to "equalise" everyone,make them all the same.
    Now your probly thinking what's that got to do with theJW religion?
    The way that things are taught and the expectation that goes with it,as the previous comments show,is that JWs are almost clones of each other,there is no real use of ones conscience,unless it's complicit with "present truth". I came to this realisation that everything I believed has been someone else's idea or interpretation,nothing I believed was the result of been "taught by the spirit"( Joh 14:16,17&26 and1Joh 2:27-29) To have the teaching of the Spirit makes a person,spiritually armed and dangerous,it makes us the image of Christ,non of this suits the watchtower leadership,all they want is compliant clones who will sit,wait and donate,basically exactly what the world wants from its subjects,strange similarity.

  • Comment by Armageddon is Good News! - Beroean Pickets - Reviewer on 2019-11-03 12:33:21

    […] prostitute can be identified by reading and examining the proof supplied in the following article Identifying the True Religion – Neutrality on this […]

  • Comment by ajc on 2020-06-04 01:26:23

    I understand this article is about reasoning with others that the Organization was not neutral in aligning itself with the U.N. Does this also imply that Christians in general should not get involved in politics if we’re calling out the Organization for doing so? Given the climate over several weeks with regards to police brutality, protests, etc., I wonder why it would be wrong to voice an opinion about injustice and collaborate with those seeking reforms. Of course, no political sytem will be perfect, and no reforms will make everything right/make everyone happy, but as long as we have to live in this world, shouldn’t we do something to at least attempt to make it tolerable for living?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-06-04 09:25:59

      Christian neutrality is not the issue here. Hypocrisy is. The issue of Christians being no part of the world is a matter of conscience to a large degree, not entirely, but to a large degree. However, the issue here is we have a group of men who take a very clear stand and who will punish anyone for violating their position on neutrality. Yet, they violate their own rules with impunity. Whether their position on political neutrality is biblical or not is a side point. It is their hypocrisy that condemns them.

      • Reply by ajc on 2020-06-04 13:42:19

        I understand Christian neutrality is not the issue in this article, which is why I began my comment with a statement to that effect. I guess this is a site just to refute JW reasoning & beliefs only, not to have a Biblical discussion about issues that affect us as Christians and ex-JWs.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-06-04 17:05:22

          I guess we have both jumped to a wrong conclusion. Sorry.

          • Reply by ajc on 2020-06-05 02:52:26

            Hmm....I didn’t jump to any conclusions. I have been perusing this site for a few weeks, and as much as this website is about refuting JW teachings, I find it equally important to help those that have left the JW religion through conversations/topics such as the one I posed in my comment. Non-JW sites I’ve visited are all about bashing JW teachings, and I haven’t found one yet to help ex-JWs reason on the scriptures when it comes to things we were told we shouldn’t do as JWs. I know I can read the Bible for myself and make a decision based on my conscience, but as some of your topics have shown, the Bible isn’t always specific about certain things. Non-JWs don’t seem to be any better off leaving the religion if this is the type of information and attitudes we have to encounter when searching for truth and unbiased information.

  • Comment by "Guard What has Been Entrusted to You" Study 40/2020 - The Governing Body under the Spotlight on 2021-06-22 15:38:38

    […] ↑ […]

  • Comment by “Guard What Has Been Entrusted to You” - Study 2020/40 - Awaken JW's on 2021-12-12 05:01:22

    […] ↑ […]

  • Comment by “Guard What Has Been Entrusted to You” - Study 2020/40 - The Governing Body Under the Spotlight on 2022-03-30 14:18:38

    […] ↑ […]

Recent content

Hello everyone. This is the second to last video in this series on shunning. Thank you for your patience as it has taken a while to get to this point. For those of you who haven’t seen the previous videos on shunning as…

Hello, everyone. I have something truly bizarre to share with you this time. It comes from a rather innocuous place, the July 2024 letter from the Governing Body to all the elders in North America and, I assume, around…

Statement by Brother Joss Goodall To My Brother and Sisters, I am writing to you to bring to your attention some very serious concerns that have been troubling me since August of last year when I listened to a morning worship video by Kenneth…

Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him.” (John 4:23 BSB) Are you one of the people that God is seeking to worship Him? Maybe you’re thinking, “I…

In this video we will continue our analysis of the gaslighting methods used by the Governing Body to induce a hypnotic grip on the hearts and minds of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This time we’ll be covering a talk delivered by Gage Fleegle on called…

[This contributed letter does not necessarily reflect all the views of our community. We post it here as a service to those who seek to worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:20-24)] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES…