Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the beast of Revelation 17 where the harlot is riding is the United Nations. This belief was recorded in their book called “Isaiah’s Prophecy — Light for All Mankind“, vol. 1 p. 153.
“The harlot is riding a scarlet-colored wild beast that has seven heads and ten horns. (Revelations 17:3,5,7-12) The wild beast represents the United Nations organization… Thus the modern-day Assyrian (nations associated with the UN) will deal Christendom a mighty blow and will crush her out of her existence.
And in the book called “Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” God’s Kingdom Rules! states on pages 593-594:
“The Seventh World Power is the main promoter and supporter of the United Nations, the present form of the ‘image of the wild beast.’ …Destruction is what God’s angel predicted for this scarlet-colored wild beast by saying: ‘The wild beast that was but is not, it is also itself an eighth king, but springs form the seven, and it goes off into destruction.’ (Revelation 17:11) The United Nations of today contains as members the Seventh World Power and the national remnants of all the previous world powers. So it owes its existence to those seven world powers; it springs from them. As this modern scarlet-colored beast is an image of the leopard-spotted wild beast from the sea, which is a summation of all seven world powers, the beastly ‘image’ is also in itself a world power or ‘king,’ hence ‘an eighth king.’ It has put its own military police force into the field of action. Now that it has ascended out of the abyss and been out since 1945, the Bible shows that what next it will do is to go off into destruction.”
But look who’s speaking? For ten years, from 1991 until October of 2001, the Watchtower Organization was associated with the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).
- –
–
Witnesses believe that the beast where the harlot is riding represents the United Nations and that Jehovah God will punish this gigantic organization, including those who associated themselves with it. But for a very long time, the innocent members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were ignorant about the membership of their religion with what they called as “beast”. But when some curious members learned how their leaders compromised their own message, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society demand a rush disconnection of their organization from the United Nations. After the dismembership, Watch Tower blames the United Nations, particularly the head of the Department of Public Information for not telling the truth. According to their accusation, the chief of the DPI did not does he not make it clear that the original applications said nothing about supporting the UN charter. It is wondering how Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that before entering in such organization, the applicant must be aware of its charters before he proceed to the signing of documents. Concerning to the NGOs, the United Nations charter declared;
“The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals… To be granted association status with DPI, NGOs must …support the Charter of the United Nations …and possess the resources necessary for effective outreach.”
Feel free to read this document.
Press Release letter from the United Nations dated August 1992:
THE WATCHMAN'S CRY 
First of all i admire you for your wide research about us, But the information you posted are not accurate & we are not ignorant about this issue…
OUR RESPONSE…
Conspiracy theorists claim that the Watchtower Society agreed to meet special criteria to “become an NGO”. They say this was part of the application process and included the requirement that they must “print articles praising the UN” to “keep their NGO status”. Is this true? Did the Society have to do anything special or agree to do certain things, to be registered with the DPI?
First of all, because the accusers don’t really know what they’re talking about, we must clear up a mistake they all make. We did not agree to “become an NGO” because we already were an NGO. A Non-Governmental Organization (“NGO”) is simply a name for an organization which is not part of a government. The name “NGO” is not only used by the UN. It is a term used all over the world by many different governments. There are an estimated 2 million NGOs in the United States alone, for example. So the Watchtower Society was already an NGO, always has been an NGO, and always will be an NGO.
Therefore the accusation, when properly phrased, is: Did the Watchtower Society agree to meet any special criteria to become associated with the DPI?
The answer
The DPI website describes the application process for NGOs to become associated with their office. Must NGOs, like the Watchtower Society, agree to a special list of criteria? Let us see.
“Application Procedure
I. For NGOs that are currently NOT associated with DPI:
The association process takes three to six months. The DPI Committee on NGOs that decides on association and disassociation meets twice a year, in June/July and December. Interested NGOs that meet the criteria should follow the steps:
Send an official letter of request to be associated with DPI, provide a brief description of the organization and at least six samples of recent information materials.”
…upon receipt of [these] documents, [we] will determine whether the formal application process for association can proceed. If the NGO Section finds that the NGO meets the criteria, the application form… will be sent to the NGO.”
Notice that the first thing an NGO must do to be associated is surprising. They do not fill out an application form. No, the first thing they must do is send them “at least six samples of recent information materials”.
Next, the DPI examines the material and decides whether the NGO meets their criteria. In other words, no NGO can say “I agree to meet your criteria”, or “if we are allowed to be associated with you, we will sign a statement agreeing to your criteria.” They can’t, because no such agreement exists. That is not how the application process works.
Note that this is the process as of late 2007. So when the DPI has said in recent years that associated NGOs must “support the UN charter” or “share the ideals of the UN”, whether an NGO does this or not is determined by the DPI itself, and no one else. An NGO cannot state they agree to those terms, the DPI itself has the job of deciding if the NGO supports the same ideals as the UN and it’s charter, such as support for human rights, freedom of worship, etc.
Only if the DPI decides that the NGO falls within the DPI’s criteria, do they send out an application form and a list of other required materials (such as proof of non-profit status). Evidently, the DPI must have determined that Jehovah’s Witnesses did meet the criteria because of our support for human rights and freedom of religion. So, we could not have “agreed to meet the UN’s criteria” because it doesn’t work that way. It seems, in fact, that an NGO does not have to “agree” to do anything, because the DPI itself examines the NGO and decides whether they meet the criteria or not.
Therefore the accusation that the Society had made some sort of legal agreement to “write articles praising the UN” is nonsense. No such agreement exists, nor can it exist. Besides, we published balanced articles on the UN decades before we became DPI associated, and continue to do so, six years after ending the association (see the chapter Awake to Propaganda for more information). If Jehovah’s Witnesses had, for some reason, suddenly stopped writing anything about the UN, the DPI would simply have cancelled the association, like they have with other NGOs. In this case it would be because we would no longer be using the DPI’s facilities, and there would be no point in keeping us on the register.
Step by step
This is the association process as we understand it from looking at the DPI’s own website:
Step 1: An NGO sends copies of their printed articles to the DPI proving they are interested in UN issues and would make good use of their extensive library facilities to educate the public on UN issues.
Step 2: A few months later, the DPI will examine the articles and decide whether the NGO appears to share the ideals of the UN charter, that it isn’t racist, etc. They probably also decide whether the NGO is big and important enough to make good and proper use of their facilities, such as their conferences and film screenings, etc, which would be wasted resources on insignificant NGOs.
Step 3: Upon deciding that the NGO is suitable for association, the DPI sends the NGO an application form to complete and return, along with a list of any other materials they need.
Step 4: The NGO completes the application form. This did not require a signature back in 1991 when the Watchtower Society became associated, nor did it mention anything about “supporting the UN charter”, etc. (the scans sections has a copy of this form)
Step 5: The DPI receives the completed application form and related materials back (like proof of non-profit status, etc). Once processed, the DPI issues library access passes to the NGO’s representatives.
This completes the application process. There is no “agreement” or contract stipulating what the NGO has to do from that point onwards. Provided the NGO remains within the DPI’s guidelines for associated NGOs, then the association will continue. That is why no signature was needed on the old 1991 application form, nor on the old accreditation forms.
Later, however, it becomes time to complete a new accreditation form (a copy of this is in the scans section) and to supply articles to the UN as proof that they have indeed used the DPI’s facilities. If the NGO cannot produce any such proof, they would be removed from the DPI’s NGO association register due to lack of use. No agreement to do anything was necessary or required.
To illustrate…
We can compare this situation to a man applying for a job in a company. The company might have criteria that has to be met. For example, lets say the criteria states that the man must be married, between the ages of 21 and 35, be a law-abiding citizen, and have a valid drivers license.
So a man could submit his drivers license, birth certificate, marriage license, and whatever other documents are needed. The company then decides he meets their criteria. If they decide that he does meet the criteria, then an application is sent to him. He can’t say, “I agree to meet the criteria”, or “I am willing to sign a statement saying that I agree to meet the criteria.” The company determines if he meets their criteria or not.
The company may discover that he once received a speeding ticket, and decides that they cannot view him as “a law abiding citizen”, so he does not meet their criteria. On the other hand, the company might reason that even though he has received a speeding ticket in the past, they still consider him “a law abiding citizen”, and thus he does meet their criteria. Perhaps he is married, but in the process of getting a divorce. The company would have to then determine whether he still met the criteria based on that information. That is for the company to determine.
The DPI determined it
In our case, it was the DPI who determined that Jehovah’s Witnesses met their standards, or criteria. Why? Because we are non-profit. We are for civil liberties and religious freedom. We are not racist. We have the means to disseminate information to a wide audience, so we wouldn’t be time-wasters taking up their resources, we would be important researchers for popular international publications. The DPI is the one who determined all this.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society never said, “I agree to meet your criteria” because they could not. They never signed something saying “We will meet your criteria”, because no NGO can determine that for themselves, only the DPI office can. Further, we never agreed to publish articles praising the UN. That is just comical.
We have more proof of this. One opposer of Jehovah’s Witnesses was so determined to find damning evidence against us that he contacted the UN’s DPI via telephone. He talked to information officer Oleg Dzioubinski. Unfortunately for him, the conversation backfired on him and proved that Jehovah’s Witnesses are telling the truth. Here is part of his conversation which he admits:
Question: Some friends of mine are concerned over the Watchtower not saying nice things about the UN. Is this a problem?
Answer: You can criticize the UN. But, we would take offence if they were using the UN name to raise money or they were saying they were a UN organization when they really are not.
Clearly, complete agreement with the UN was never a requirement of DPI NGOs, and is not today. It was not part of their criteria. It is the DPI who decides whether NGOs meet their criteria based on what they say. Never does an NGO have to agree to only say good things about the UN, or publish articles praising the UN, or other such nonsense. No such “agreements” or “secret back room deals” (as one crackpot apostate tried to characterize it) have ever existed.
DPI association to gain political prominence?
Some conspiracy theorists say that the Watchtower Society’s “real motive” was to gain prominence in the eyes of the UN and other governments, particularly where there is persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, is it not a ridiculous idea that having DPI passes to access the UN’s research materials could have such a benefit?
Speculation that governments like that of France would stop persecuting our religion, because our staff have access to UN book, audio and film libraries in New York, is just crazy.
Besides, if we wanted to gain legal status and recognition, we would do it via the courts as we have successfully done for decades. Considering France again, exactly what legal baring would our registration with the UN’s public information office have on the dispute with interpretations of French tax laws? None!
The claim that the DPI association was to gain political influence is a laughable accusation – and usually spouted by persons on Internet message boards who obviously do not understand what NGOs are, and are not in a position to know any of the facts.
This is what we believe happened in the Society’s application process:
The Watchtower Society wanted access passes to the full extent of the DPI’s library facilities. They thought, “Hey, we’re big publishers on UN-related issues, we could make good use of their full library facilities! Why shouldn’t we have access when other publishing houses do?” So, they sent copies of their articles to the DPI and requested that the DPI put the Society on their register of associated NGOs.
Then, it was the DPI who determined whether the Society met the criteria. “Yes, it looks like these guys do write a lot about us, and could make good use of our facilities. Sometimes it’s negative, but that’s allowed. They’re not racist, they’re pro-human rights and pro-religious freedom, and they publish millions of magazines. They would really benefit from using all of our library facilities. After all, we want to make it easier for people to write about the UN to help educate the public about what we do here. I see no reason why they can’t be associated and be given access passes.” Thus, they decided the Society did fall within their criteria, and so issued an application form.
The Society read the form and saw that it had nothing on it which conflicts with our Christian beliefs. They completed and returned the form (which needed no signature) and was accepted, proving that complete agreement with the UN was obviously never a requirement.
The Society could not have signed any agreement to meet the criteria, because no such agreement existed. If the Society had chosen to stop printing articles on the UN (and hence stopped using the UN’s library facilities), the DPI would have simply removed us from the register, as they have done with other NGOs. “Hey, it looks like the Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t using our libraries any more. We might as well remove them from our register of associated NGOs.”
Hence, opposers who make the bizarre claim that we agreed to “write articles praising the UN” to keep our “NGO status” so we can gain “political influence”, are speaking out of total ignorance. These people are, in fact, teaching a paranoid conspiracy theory. –See the box “DPI association to gain political prominence?”
The truth is simple. If we made good use of the UN’s library facilities to write about the UN (including criticism of the UN), we could be on the DPI’s register of NGOs to get access passes. If we stopped writing about the UN, however, then there’s no point in us staying on the register, since we’re obviously not using our passes. No agreements, no “back room deals”, end of story.
At the start of this chapter we asked, “Did the Watchtower Society agree to meet any special criteria to become associated with the DPI?” The answer is no.
We now move on to a related important subject – the forms themselves. We mentioned earlier that the Society did have to complete an application form. What did that form say? Does it’s contents corroborate with the Watchtower Society’s version of events?
Summary
NGOs are just any organization that is not part of a government. NGOs are not just organizations linked to the UN. There are millions of NGOs.
Thus, the Watchtower Society has always been an “NGO”, it is now, and always will be.
There is no agreement for NGOs to meet the DPI’s criteria because…
…it is the DPI who determines if an NGO meets their criteria.
Only saying good things about the UN is not part of their criteria.
The Society could not have agreed to meet any criteria because no such agreement existed since none was necessary.
If the Society stopped publishing articles on the UN and stopped using their libraries, the DPI would determine that we no longer met the criteria, and the Society would be dropped from the register.
But the question remains the same… why associating your religion with what you called a “harlot”? I don’t care about who will determine whether he/she met the criteria, our concern is why associating with them? The articles that you posted never answered any of our query. So the fact remains that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is guilty of their own hypocrisy.
In the Beginning
In October 2001 The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom accused Jehovah’s Witnesses of hypocrisy for being registered with the United Nations’ (UN) Department of Public Information (DPI) as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). The newspaper claimed that all NGOs must support the United Nations, therefore Jehovah’s Witnesses were guilty of hypocrisy because of teaching the United Nations is the prophesied “disgusting thing” of Revelation.
The Watchtower Society, the legal corporation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, immediately withdrew the DPI NGO membership. They explained that the requirements for being a DPI NGO had changed since they first signed up in 1992, and they then thanked The Guardian for bringing the matter to their attention. —See the Letter from the Chairmans Committee
More to it?
However, since that time many former disgruntled Jehovah’s Witnesses and other opposers have claimed that the NGO requirements never changed. Conspiracy theorists claim the Watchtower Society knew they were supporting the United Nations and kept it a “secret”. They even go so far as accusing the Watchtower Society of having deliberately distributed pro-UN propaganda in issues of the Awake! as “part of the deal” with the UN.
One conspiracy theorist has gone a step further, declaring the Watchtower Society has turned “apostate” and committed “spiritual adultery”, and is now part of a global conspiracy to promote a totalitarian world government under the UN. They claim that the letters of explanation from the Bethel are full of “lies” and “cover-ups”.
An investigation
What really happened? Are these accusations based in fact? Does the paper-trail of evidence support these claims? Do the records held at the UN corroborate the Watchtower Society’s story? Furthermore, are the ones making these allegations trustworthy?
This work will demonstrate, using evidence directly from the United Nations records and the Watchtower Society’s publications, why we believe such accusations are without merit. We will endeavor to show that the “evidence” presented by conspiracy theorists is often highly selective, grossly misleading, and often has mistakes. Furthermore, we will also inform you about those who make these claims yet know full well that their arguments have serious flaws, and how they have openly tried to censor and cover-up this information.
If you have previously read the claims of such men, we implore you to set aside all prejudice and any other emotions, to fairly and dispassionately consider the other side of the argument without any preconceived ideas, and be happy to change your views if necessary. A judge in a court of law would not make a decision before considering the arguments of the defense, and neither should you. A truly humble person would do so.
I really like it whenever people get together and share views.
Great blog, continue the good work!