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
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”.
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.