My response from the CCoJW inre UN/DPI

ringo5

I hope you're re-reading your Feb 2004 Watchtower RIGHT NOW!

jwfacts

It is easy to put a good spin on any situation, as the WTS has done in your letter.

At least this situation woke many people up to look a bit more closely at things and start to find out many other things that are unacceptable within the WTS.

outnfree

How does this compare with some earlier responses from the organization? Seems to me they've "refined" their response. Of course, they still use a lot of conditionals...

Wouldn't it have been nice just ONCE to have had them say, "We messed up. We shouldn't have joined (for TEN years!). We apologize for having stumbled anyone." But nooooo.... it is Satan who stumbles the weak members of the organization, and the WT never fails to squarely put all blame for its shortcomings on Satan or the poor publishers!

Thanks for sharing this, AuldSoul.

outnfree

Goldminer

The NGO must share the principles of the UN charter.And they didn't read those before joining??? Yeah right! And somebody had to point it out to them that maybe they didn't share the principles of the UN charter??? 10 years later??? oh,ok,I believe,so foolish of me to be so judgemental of the tower.

As for this wt04 2/15 article on deception,I wonder if this is a standard article they're giving to those of us who are identified as borderline apostates.I was "encouraged" to read that same article about 2 weeks ago when 2 elders came over to answer my questions.They didn't answer one question,opened their bibles only once and then one of them pulls out this little note about the wt04 2/15 article and passes it over to my wife.I hope they don't ask if I read it.

Goldminer

YoursChelbie

The tone of the letter is "we know we've been caught but we can explain." Then they want to shove a WT article at you like that is supposed to absolve them somehow.

This is supposed to be a church for the purpose of "religious activity."

Why would a church need a "media contact" or a "legal department" --- only if their public relations and their public image are more important than the preaching work.

YC

AuldSoul

I have given them 11 months to respond to my first letter in keeping with their own standards prior to posting this. In the meantime, I have sent a reply and the response came back through the BOE in the form of a letter they were instructed not to give to me.

I am a problem to be dealt with, apparently. I haven't attended a meeting for a full year (except the Memorial, what a strange compulsion, eh?) and have been inactive for the same period. I have told them I am not even going to consider coming back, and I am encouraging them to consider me as a sheep who has walked away. Not because of the shortcomings of the BOE, but due to the GB refusing to exemplify a Christian's response to rank hypocrisy.

I promised you that I would post my "See ya' later" letter once a decision was reached. I have decided to go ahead and post it, since a decision seems to be postponed. Here is my "un"association letter.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Marvin Shilmer

AuldSoul,

You know this is the standard boilerplate response the WTS is sending out these days, regarding its voluntary association with the UN that is. I suggest you write a second letter asking to have copies of what the WTS' letter describes as "papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file." After all, the WTS has advised us to put things in writing for sake of verification, and all you want to see is verification of the WTS' claim, and it should be easy enough to provide. You should include a check in your letter stating that the money is reimbursement for the expense of copying.

Marvin Shilmer

Dune

Took them 10 years to realize the terms of the contract huh...

AuldSoul

Marvin,

I called and requested, and so did my father. They refused to send a copy. They said it was confidential communication between themselves and the UN Department of Public Information. They read the entire application to my father over the phone, EXCEPT the title of the document ("Application to Associate..."). I know they can waive their rights to confidentiality and that the UN/DPI are not the ones who insist on confidentiality, but they have chosen not to in my case.

My concern is not the Criteria for Association, and I told them so in my first and second letters. My concern is that they joined the UN/DPI, an organization they say is under judgment by God. The Criteria for Association made it worse, but it isn't what made it wrong by their standards.

And for them to claim in one breath that they were registered and in another that they were somehow subject to the Criteria for Association (a requirement that ONLY applies to Associate members of the UN/DPI) is outright deception—anything but candor.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

My response from the CCoJW inre UN/DPI

Share this