Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

Disclosure of UN affiliation

GermanWriter removed the statement: "The Watchtower Society did not inform members of Jehovah's Witnesses of its NGO status during the period of association, or after it was terminated", which I have restored. GermanWriter claimed that the statement was analogous to an omission of going to the moon. Unlike the irrelevant concept of going to the moon, failing to declare affiliation with the UN is an important part of the controversy regarding that association.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article I read they had no NGO status. So what do you speak about? On the other hand I don't understand why you prefer to write about something that maybe (sources?) never happened. In Wp. we write about what happened, what exists, no phantasy, no suspicions. As a result I have to remove it. --GermanWriter (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are denying that any NGO status ever happened? The fact that they had such status was on the UN website, and the UN DPI directly confirmed it to be true; a letter directly from the UN DPI states, in part: "Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." Therefore if 'the article you read' said otherwise, then it is wrong, and your allegation that such association may actually have never occured is not only irrelevant, but also absurd. Given the fact that they did have NGO status, their failure to tell JW members of that affiliation, when such presents a conflict of interest with what is taught to those members is a significant aspect of the controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with GermanWriter that the Watchtower Society's failure to inform members about its UN affilication is not relevant to this article???--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to GermanWriter's unnecessary question, the question "Did JW members know that their religion was affiliated with the UN in view of their view of that organisation?" is pertinent to the article, and it is appropriate to answer that question in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses and the UN.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

It seems to me that this article aims to make it seem as though JWs have a more negative view of the UN than they do, so as to help advance the theory that the WTS acted hypocritically in associating with the DPI. I was thinking of adding some more references showing a more positive view such as highlights from this one:

w95 10/1 p. 7 A World Without War—When? THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS In Bible prophecy, human governments are often symbolized by wild beasts. (Daniel 7:6, 12, 23; 8:20-22) Hence, for many decades the Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns. However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves.”—Romans 13:1, 2. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are maintaining strict political neutrality, do not interfere with human governments. They never foment revolution or participate in acts of civil disobedience. Rather, they recognize that some form of government is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.—Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.—Acts 5:29.

Of course, this would be added Wikipedia-style. Thoughts? StandFirm-JW (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My response is that you're digging a deeper hole here. Part of the NGO requirements that the WTBTS agreed to the ten times it renewed its United Nations membership is to print material favorable to the United Nation's goals and mission, which your example from 1995 exactly illustrates. Let's compare this quote to the Watchtower I grew up with (not to much earlier):

"No, the UN is not a blessing, even though the religious clergy of Christendom and the rabbis of Jewry pray heaven’s blessing upon that organization. It is really “the image of the wild beast,” the visible political, commercial organization of “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil. So the UN will soon be destroyed along with that beastly organization." Watchtower 1984 Sep 15 p.15

or

"Such dwellers on earth wondered admiringly at the revived scarlet wild beast. Much reliance was placed in its ability to be a power for world peace and security. Great expectations were held out for it, and it was given designations that were really blasphemous from the standpoint of the Holy Bible. How so? In that to this wild beast powers were ascribed and tasks were assigned that really belong to Gods kingdom and its Messiah or its Christ. Back in 1919 the scarlet League of Nations had been seriously called the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. And now the United Nations, the successor of that League, has been called the best means for peace, yes, even more than that, the last hope for peace. So today we can see in actuality what the apostle John saw in symbol, that that scarlet-colored wild beast is full of blasphemous names. Those expressions of admiration for it turn false religionists, not to the worship of Jehovah God the Creator, but to idolatry of a man-made creation, the worship of a political image, the worship of an international organization for world peace and security.Rev. 17:3." Watchtower 1963 Nov 15 p.697

or

"The United Nations is actually a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God and his dedicated Witnesses on earth." Watchtower 1987 Sep 1 p.20

or

"If Christendom had sought peace with Jehovahs 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 Bibles warning that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) Moreover, in 1919 she strongly advocated the League of Nations as mans 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. Several of the worlds religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths." Watchtower 1991 Jun 1 p.17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.73.31 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your selected quote only says that JWs are not involved in politics (though this is not strictly true as they frequently petition governments about their rights) and don't start a 'revolution' against the UN, but it doesn't indicate JW's beliefs about the UN. Elsewhere, JW literature does express its opinion of the UN.

• "Yes, the League of Nations, along with its successor, the United Nations, truly became an idol, a “disgusting thing” in the sight of God and of his people." The Watchtower 1 June 1996 p 17
• "the United Nations is the modern-day “disgusting thing that causes desolation” to Christendom in the coming “great tribulation.”" The Watchtower 15 January 1977
• "National entities inside and outside the United Nations are in reality lined up against the government of the “Prince of Peace.” As God views it, the United Nations is a colossal world conspiracy. Why? Because it declares itself set to gain the objectives that God has laid only upon his “Prince of Peace” to gain. And it calls upon the peoples of all nations to support it in establishing worldwide security by man’s efforts. It even proclaimed 1986 to be the “International Year of Peace.” It thus proves itself to be a conspiracy against the “Prince of Peace” and against Jehovah’s covenant with him for the everlasting Kingdom." The Watchtower 1 April 1987, p. 19
• "The United Nations is actually a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God and his dedicated Witnesses on earth. It is really a conspiracy, with the worldly nations getting their heads together and scheming up what they may do against the visible organization of Jehovah God on earth." The Watchtower 1 September 1987, p. 20
• "The UN is actually a blasphemous counterfeit of God’s Messianic Kingdom by his Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ—to whose princely rule there will be no end." Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand, p. 248
• "Since 1945 [Christendom] has put her hope in the United Nations. (Compare Revelation 17:3, 11.) How extensive is her involvement with this organization? A recent book gives an idea when it states: “No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN [as DPI-NGOs!!]. Several of the world’s religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths.”" The Watchtower 1 June 1991 p. 17

The last item has The Watchtower quoting Prayer and Mediation At The United Nations by Robert Muller (though The Watchtower article doesn't indicate its source). Immediately before the quoted section, the original publication stated, "All major world religions are accredited to the United Nations as non-governmental organizations"; this is the same form of association the Watch Tower Society had as a DPI-NGO.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is your POV. You claim that "Your selected quote only says that JWs are not involved in politics (though this is not strictly true as they frequently petition governments about their rights) and don't start a 'revolution' against the UN, but it doesn't indicate JW's beliefs about the UN. Elsewhere, JW literature does express its opinion of the UN."

Actually my quote states several things not as yet stated in this Wikipedia article. It says "this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials", applies Romans 13:1, 2 to the UN, and states that JWs "view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God." (Emphasis added.) None of this is stated in the other quotes here yet it is just as valid a part of the WTS position. The only reason one could have for not wanting it is to advance a false unencyclopedic version of JW beliefs to advance a POV that they were hypocritical which remember is only your opinion. StandFirm (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add, the NGO association the WTS criticized others for was an ECOSOC association, not one with the DPI, which is what they did. You cannot compare apples to oranges. StandFirm (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Contradictions Editors should not attempt to reconcile contradictory statements in JW publications, as this is original research. Simply state both statements, and allow the reader to determine how to reconcile them. For example: Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. While The Watchtower has often stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive Armageddon[1][2], it has also indicated that ...[3][4]."-WP:JW StandFirm (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I'd attempted to reconcile the contradictions. I simply provided additional information about what JW literature actually says about the UN to bring balance to your lengthy quote. I don't object to a statement to the effect of JWs not actively opposing the UN's general operations (and never said that I did). Similar wording already exists at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article title/associate membership

According to Wikipedia's naming policies, article's titles should avoid using "and" to connect not commonly combined topics:

"Titles containing 'and' are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of 'and' in ways that appear biased. (...) Avoid the use of 'and' to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources."

JW's view of UN is, as far as I can see, not a core belief, and it haven't been notable clashes or other significant incidences between JW and UN, so the article could maybe be merged with Jehovah's Witnesses and governments or another relevant article. It could also be renamed to "JW's view of UN", "JW-UN-relations", or similar. I can't see Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations should be a commonly combined topic in RS.

The article fails to explain the relation between JW and Watchtower, when it states "[t]he Watchtower Society became an Associate member of the United Nations Department of Public Information". Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The notability of the issue relates to the controversial nature of the association entered into by the Watch Tower Society with the United Nations Department of Public Information despite their purported beliefs about the UN. On its own, the belief is not especially notable, and the third party sources about the topic, including mainstream newspapers and the UN-DPI, address the controversy. It therefore wouldn't be appropriate to rename it to reflect the JWs' view of the UN to the exclusion of the actual source of notability.

However, I agree that it may be appropriate to rename it to something other than just the connective and, so long as the new title properly reflects the notability of the topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Being briefly mentioned in one newspaper, even Guardian, does not necessary makes a case notable at its own (a number of murder cases is deleted, despite some coverage even in major media). The guardian is retelling criticism from former members of JW, and former members of JWs criticizing Watchtower-related teachings and handlings is rather common and trivial than notable.

Jehovah's Witnesses is not equal Watchtower Society, and the United Nations is not equal the United Nations Department of Public Information. The article fails to point out the connection between JW and Watchtower Society (the articles topic isn't "Watchtower Society and the United Nations Department of Public Information"). Further, the article fails to point out what and who being criticized, and also who's criticizing. The "controversial nature" is constructed, it is not a widespread controversy. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society is staffed entirely by JWs, it is the primary official corporation used by JWs, and its operations are overseen by the ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses. If the controversy is not considered notable, then the article would otherwise lack any sufficient notability for a separate article on JW teachings about the UN.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I do pretty much agree to the latter. It is no major problems with the article, but I find the controversy, or "controversy", as I may think is more descriptive, to be without too much substance (some of the sources is at best of low quality, and includes a dead link and a letter without link or reference). It is pretty much blabla to include a small paragraph about an unclear controversy. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'dead' link was also cited separately as a separate ref. I have merged the refs so the archived copy is viewable from the first citation. The letter is from the UN which is hardly a 'low quality' source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you've right about the latter, it was presented in the refs as a letter from X to Y without further explanation. I won't demand a move or so, as the title isn't representing a pov-issue (nor JW neither UN are commonly considered terrorist organization or similar), though it is a somewhat weird combination. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

UN attacking JWs

An IP editor claiming to be a JW has asserted that it is not a JW belief that the United Nations will attack JWs after destroying all other religions.[1] The editor's claim is not consistent with JW beliefs. There are several problems with the IP editor's assertion. Firstly, there is no way of knowing the editor is actually a JW. Secondly, being a member of a group does not inherently make the person an expert on all areas of the subject (as demonstrated by the editor's error). Thirdly, and most importantly, the claim is immediately refuted by JW publications. The IP editor claims that "another military based group" will attack JWs. However, the cited source directly states that the "scarlet-colored wild beast", supposedly "urged by Satan", will concentrate its attack on "Jehovah's people". The JW source does not state that only the UN will attack them, but quite definitely includes it in its assertion that "the scarlet-colored wild beast" along with other national powers will supposedly attack the denomination. There is no ambiguity in JW belief regarding the identity of the 'scarlet-coloured wild beast' as the UN. For example: Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 248, paragraph 6: "The UN, then, is actually a revival of the scarlet-colored wild beast."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is persisting in being wrong, claiming that it is instead 'only' 'Gog of Magog' that will 'attack JWs'. However, the current JW view about 'Gog of Magog' is that it is a "coalition of nations" (The Watchtower, 15 May 2015, page 30), which does not even slightly preclude it from either referring to or including the UN, especially in view of the fact that The Watchtower (15 November 2015, page 20) further associated the attack of 'Gog of Magog' with the attack by the 10-horned beast (nations) under the authority of the 'scarlet-colored wild beast' (which JWs believe is the UN) at Revelation 17:14. The IP editor should probably get a better understanding of his religion's actual teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor is basing his change on the book God's Kingdom Rules! (published in 2014) where, in Chapter 21, pages 223-226 it states:

Who or what will carry out the attack against “Babylon the Great”? A “wild beast” with “ten horns.” The book of Revelation indicates that this wild beast refers to the United Nations (UN). The ten horns represent all present political powers that support this “scarlet-colored wild beast.” (Rev. 17:3, 5, 11, 12) How devastating will the attack be? The nations of the UN will plunder the prostitute’s wealth, devour her, and “completely burn her.”—Read Revelation 17:16...What will then happen on a global scale during the coming great tribulation? Jehovah, by means of our King, will “cut short” the United Nations’ attack on religion so that the true religion will not be destroyed with the false. Thus, while all false religious organizations will be torn down, the one true religion will survive. (Ps. 96:5) (italics mine).

As JW's believe themselves to be the "true religion", it appears that, as far as the IP editors claim of what the GKR! book says, he may be correct. It then goes on to explain that Gog of Magog, led by Satan, will attack the anointed ones and "those who are Kingdom supporters" (pg 227.) Notice the Kingdom in capital letters, as that clearly refers to JW's. Unless you can show where they have since definitively changed that teaching, I believe the IP's change, while it should have been handled much better and I have left him some advice on his talk page, is correct. Vyselink (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The source material in the 2014 book God's Kingdom Rules! is online at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014263, paragraphs 12 to 14. The list of revised beliefs at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/302016051 includes a 2015 revision of "Gog of Magog" and a hover link to http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015364#h=1:0-33:0.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not remotely clear how the quote provided by Vyselink supports the IP editor's position that it is not the UN that will supposedly 'attack JWs' after destroying 'false religion'. The quoted text explicitly states that "this wild beast refers to the United Nations", that it specifically "will plunder" 'false religion', and then explicitly adds that it is their view that God will prevent "the United Nations’ attack on religion so that the true religion will not be destroyed". The 2015 sources already provided also unambiguously stated that the current JW view of 'Gog of Magog' is that it is a "coalition of nations", which is the same as what the 2014 source says about "the United Nations' attack".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I fail to understand how it is "not remotely clear" of what the GKR! book says. It is actually rather straightfoward, from those pages. The UN will attack "false religion" (JW speak for anyone but themselves) and then Gog will attack the "anointed ones" and "faithful Kingdom supporters" (JW speak for themselves). I also fail to see how either of the above sources shows conclusively that was was stated in the GKR! book is now outdated. A "coalition of nations" need not be the UN, and the UN is in fact not mentioned by name in the 2015 sources. As JW's very rarely spare any attack they can make on the UN, were "Gog of Magog" currently associated with the UN I believe that it would be mentioned as such. From what I can see, with the GKR! and the sources above, JW's appear to have separated the UN from Gog. It appears to me that, according to the GKR! book, the UN will "plunder the prostitues wealth..." (i.e. all the "false" religions) and then that Gog of Magog will attack the remaining "true" religion. I am not stating that this is correct without question, but I am saying that what the IP editor claims can not be dismissed simply out of hand, as according to the GKR! book that he is using as evidence, he is correct. The sources so provided above do not disprove what is stated in GKR!. Indeed, it appears that the UN will specifically attack false religion, and then Gog will attack the JW's. At best it is ambiguous from the sources so far.

[Edit] Just in case anyone else can't find it, here's a link to the GKR! book and chapter under discussion. Vyselink (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The 9/15, 2012 Watchtower article "How This World Will Come To An End", subheadings "A Queen Who Miscalculates Her Chances" and "An Attack On God's People" (link here) specifically separates the two. While the attack on the faithful MAY include the UN along with the other parts of Gog, the JW's appear to be hedging their bets here. I believe this should be reflected in the article. Vyselink (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The 'GKR' source only says the 'attack' will be 'cut short' (not a new view) before any 'attack' on JWs is 'successful'. It does not suggest that someone else supposedly attacks JWs instead. The 'GKR' source confirms that their view is that the 'attacker' includes the UN. The 2015 sources further state that they now believe that the 'attack' by 'Gog of Magog' is the same event as the 'attack' by the 'wild beast' (indicated by citation to Revelation 17:14). The Watchtower, May 2015, page 29: "The Bible speaks not only of the attack by ‘Gog of Magog’ but also of the attack by “the king of the north” and of the attack by “the kings of the earth.” (Ezek. 38:2, 10-13; Dan. 11:40, 44, 45; Rev. 17:14; 19:19) Do these represent separate attacks? Not likely. The Bible is no doubt referring to the same attack under different names. Why can we draw that conclusion? Because the Scriptures tell us that all the nations of the earth will be involved in this final attack that prompts the war of Armageddon." You are right though that they are 'hedging their bets' by being ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree Jeffro. The GKR! book certainly does not "confirm" that the attacker of the JW's includes the UN. And indeed, specifically states that after God has stopped the UN from attacking them Satan and Gog will do it on their own (or at the least it does not mention the UN as being part of it specifically):

"However, at the time when all false religious organizations are gone and God’s people are seemingly living 'unprotected by walls, bars, or gates,' Satan will see a golden opportunity. He will incite his wicked enforcers to move in for an all-out attack on those who are Kingdom supporters."

And your 2015 sources do not say what you claim they do. Nowhere does it say, as I have already changed in the article, that "the wild beast", as it refers to the UN, will be the same event. In fact, the term "wild beast" is only used twice in that source, and is in direct reference to actual wild animals. And unless you can provide sources linking the "king of the north" and "kings of the earth" with the UN, that interpretation is wrong as well. That quote you have above in fact appears to substantiate my claim that they have made them two separate events, as while it combines Gog and the "king" attacks, it specifically does not mention the attack on false religion done by the UN. Vyselink (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't possibly imagine how the words "The Bible is no doubt referring to the same attack under different names" involving "all the nations of the earth" is supposed to refer to 'separate attacks that don't involve the UN'. However, I do support your recent edit, since it is probably a bit abstruse that the reference to the 'wild beast' (supposedly the UN in JW-land) is indicated in the source only based on the JW view of the context of the included citation to Revelation 17:14, rather than the source directly supporting specific reference to the UN. It is sufficient to retain reference to "a coalition of nations".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your query ("I can't possibly imagine how the words 'The Bible is no doubt referring to the same attack under different names' involving 'all the nations of the earth' is supposed to refer to 'separate attacks that don't involve the UN') it is because the question that is being answered does not involve the UN, and the UN is not brought it with the corresponding answer. It is specifically about Gog of Magog's attack on the JW's, and the question does not include any references to the attack on false religion, which is the UN. Thus you have two attacks: false religion (UN), Gog (may include UN but is not mentioned here, but definitely includes "kings"). You are essentially placing your UN beliefs into the article, when they don't exist as stated and the question does not ask about them. Vyselink (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not hold any religious or other superstitious beliefs about the UN whatsoever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if the 'attack' by 'Gog of Magog' doesn't include the UN (which is not supported by the latest JW interpretation of Revelation 17:12-14), it is still the case that in JW belief, the UN will supposedly turn its attack on JWs after destroying 'false religion', but that that attack will be 'prevented' by God. Your (and the IP editor's) confusion seems to stem from the recent changes about the JW view of Gog of Magog and its imagined 'attack on JWs'. But before, when JWs were told that 'Gog of Magog' is 'Satan', it was still their belief that the UN (the 'scarlet coloured beast') would turn its attention against JWs after destroying 'false religion', but that that attack would be prevented, and then 'Satan' as 'Gog of Magog' would attack JWs. Now it is the JW view that the UN will destroy false religion, then the UN will turn its attention against JWs, but that attack will be prevented, and then "a coalition of nations" (which may include the UN) will make a final attack on JWs. Hence, the JW view about the UN attacking JWs has not actually been abandoned, irrespective of the supposed identity of 'Gog of Magog'. The Watchtower, 15 July 2013: "Jesus also foretold: “Those days will be cut short.” In the initial fulfillment, this happened in 66 C.E. when the Roman army “cut short” its attack. Then, anointed Christians in Jerusalem and Judea fled, allowing for their ‘flesh, or life, to be saved.’ (Read Matthew 24:22; Mal. 3:17) So, what can we expect will happen during the coming great tribulation? Jehovah will “cut short” the attack of the United Nations on false religion, not allowing true religion to be destroyed with the false. This will ensure that God’s people will be saved."--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion?

To be honest this page seems unnecessary to me, at least as a separate page. Sources aren't the best, and are dominantly primary sources from the JW's. I think this article could be condensed to a couple paragraphs and inserted into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as a section on that page, or better yet expand the section that already exists at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Updated sources, such as Penton's third edition of Apocalypse Delayed talking about the UN registration issue, should also be added. Vyselink (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have raised an AfD to allow broader discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations (2nd nomination). Note that it was previously nominated for deletion in 2006.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

JWs' usage of UN organs

IMHO it was of encyclopedic interest to note briefly the use that JWs have made of the UN, despite their denouncing the organisation as a whole. This was removed by Jeffro as "irrelevant" and "undue weight". What's the opinion of other editors? – Fayenatic London 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

JWs appealing to the UN Human Rights Committee has no direct relationship to their theological beliefs about the UN. As already indicated[2], your addition has no relevance to the section you put it in. As the article currently stands, the only way the statement could be relevant would be to rename the last section to something like Jehovah's Witnesses interactions with the UN, reduce the 'exposé', and put your addition there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the heading as suggested, and re-added my one-liner there. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SS and historical over belief

User:Jeffro77 why the reverts? Per WP:SS " the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points" and you reverted it to ignore the entire section of the "Jehovah's Witnesses' interactions with the United Nations". Summary should not be only about the religious positions of the faith, but rather about the historical events as well. Similarly the ordering of the content is IMHO far more neutral if it is first about the historical events and then about the religious beliefs. I do not understand why do you view it as "less neutral presentation seeking to draw attention to a scandal"? I did no alterations to paint a scandal here. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving the section back where it was is hardly ‘ignoring it’. Wikipedia isn’t the place to draw attention to perceived ‘scandals’, especially in a manner that is not neutral. See also WP:SOAP. In any case, at this point you should wait for further input from other editors before attempting to reintroduce your changes.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a sentence that summarises the additional section without sensationalising the topic. I imagine this should be satisfactory?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What you have added is factually incorrect. The section does not discuss JW 'soughting the services of UN bodies' but rather WS being associated NGO of the UN/DPI - that's the factual core. I see it as a repetitive downplaying of the factual information in this article to whitewash the NGO. You repetitively hide try to hide facts by branding them as "sensationalising the topic", but what I'm talking about here is the information that was reported by the independent sources (see WP:SOURCE and WP:IS). Similarly attempts to keep this article focused on religious beliefs instead of factual information is IMHO grossly misguided. The facts, especially these reported by independent sources, should take an absolute precedence over the religious beliefs, especially when the entire sections are sources only with the first-party sources. Isn't that a breach of WP:PROMOTION? SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It is evident from your response that you do want it to be more of an exposé. My addition of one sentence without deleting any existing content isn’t hiding anything at all, and it is a fact that making use of the DPI and Human Rights bodies of the UN is reasonably summarised as ‘seeking services provided by the UN’. The significance of the JW association as an NGO exists only because of their doctrinal position. And no, whilst secondary sources are indeed preferred, the use of primary sources is neither forbidden nor automatically promotional, and in this specific case, the article content clearly is not endorsing the doctrinal position but simply stating it. I have attempted to meet you halfway by adding a sentence to the lead but at this point you should await additional comment from other editors.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)