by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Your site said the 1994 brochure did not say anything about the need for associated NGOs to support the UN. I pointed out how you left out page 7 of that brochure and only cited page 6. Will you update your website to correct the error?
If this is an error yes it will be changed and updated. I will have to look at that.
Third,
During World War II the League of Nations had, for all intents and purposes, ceased to function in any practical or meaningful way. However, The Watchtower magazine reckoned on the re-emergence of the League of Nations in a new form, after interpreting the contents of the prophecies in Revelation. Yes — the Watchtower Society was interested in educating the public on the United Nations and how it will play a part in Bible prophecy — even before it was formed!
You seem so proud of these insane opportunistic and always innacurate interpretations from the the WTS. Were you aware that they plaigerized in 1927 their 'interpretation' of one of Revelations Wild Beast's as representing the League of Nations from W.E.Vine, who years earlier had made this insane application himself?
Hold on a moment, I have told you that a number of times but for some reason you have chosen to ignore this fact.
Still, ignoring facts is your particular art, or would you like to join me in a debate about the credibility of the Bible where chronology and science is concerned and actually tackle some realities from which you have been hiding?
Are you courageous enough for such a debate or do you lack the faith enough to tackle it?.....lol It is easy to string out pages of nonesense to suit your agenda, but how about dealing in facts for a change? Are you game for such a debate, or like Scholar will you shuffle off into the shadows of your congregation where you can pretend to be an intellectual King?
HS
I have looked at the brochure on page 6 and 7 from 1994. The part that the essay was honing in on was how apostates use this statement in the current brochure claiming that the WTS agreed to support the UN's charter. It reads:
What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”
Rather than making this statement the 1994 brochure said: Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”
As for what the 1994 brochure says on page 7 it really doesn't matter.
1. We are not sure what the 1992 brochure says or if the WTS was even sent one. Rather than enclosing a 1992 brochure when addressing the issue Hoeffel refers to the current brochure. It would have been helpful if he would have provided the 1992 brochure instead.
2. Furthermore as we have shown the word support can mean many different things and in the case of the words in the 1994 brochure on page 7 it is evident that the word support means to furnish corroborating evidence. It is, after all, the purpose of the DPI to give information about the UN and its programs.
3. Whatever anyone says or pulls out of their hat doesn't matter. The WTS never signed an agreement to support the UN as the application clearly shows. They never went through the rigorous review process instituted after they withdrew. The only documents the WTS signed was the document showing who would be the representatives for the coming years and what fields they were interested in.
If you put in an application to receive a new car from a car dealer and they gave you a new car and simply said write something about us and you never signed anything saying how much you would pay for the car could they later come back and say, 'Hey, by the way, you owe us 30,000 dollars for that car.' Since you never signed a lease or bill of sale or any contract you could merely say, 'Wait a minute. I never agreed to that. Here's your car back.' It doesn't mean squat if the car dealer sent out brochures later or released press releases saying anyone accepting our cars and agreeing to write about us also agrees to support our charter and ideals. If you didn't sign anything you didn't agree to anything.
So the WTS is exhonerated of wrongdoing from many different angles.
Thirdwitness,
I have seen this form before. Although it purports to be from 1991, I have reservations. What proof is there that this is indeed from 1991? On the form, see No. 2 where it calls for Headquarters=mailing address, I note that it asks for E-mail and Web site. Doesn't internet e-mail date from 1993 and the world wide web from about 1991?
Kenneson,
CompuServe and one other service offered commercially available Internet email as early as 1989, I can't remember what the other service was at the moment. The popular use of email didn't really get started until AOL and Delphi started connecting their proprietary email systems to the Internet in 1993.
I wondered why email address would be requested prior to that being a common form of business communication, too.
It is no surprised that thirdwitness failed to address my recent posts on this thread.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
So the WTS is exhonerated of wrongdoing from many different angles.
But the WTS remains guilty of wrongdoing from many different angles, as well. Please answer my 6 questions on this post:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/117658/2112161/post.ashx#2112161
I don't expect you to do so, but they are mostly yes or no questions, except for a couple of questions that require nothing more than a different one word answer. They are not exonerated from that angle, are they sport?
If they are guilty, then there was wrongdoing. Right, sport?
If there was wrongdoing there should be works befitting repentance. Right, sport?
Since there aren't works befitting repentance, they are unrepentant wrongdoers. Right, sport?
When we get rid of all the clutter both the defenders and detractors sling into the air the stark reality STILL leaves us with unrepentant gross wrongdoing regarding an attachment to a secular organization that is under judgment by Jehovah God, and a voluntary choice to join those who are disapproved by God. Doesn't it, sport?
See, sport, when you look for the underlying reality, it isn't hard to find. It is just really hard to face, sometimes.
Your leaders are not just imperfect in a general sense, they are specifically imperfect. But they want to be perceived as perfect just as badly as you want to make them out to be perfect. I see that the clothes you are stitching up for them are woven from invisible threads. You have left them fully exposed.
Try again.
AuldSoul
I have looked at the brochure on page 6 and 7 from 1994. The part that the essay was honing in on was how apostates use this statement in the current brochure claiming that the WTS agreed to support the UN's charter. It reads:What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”
Rather than making this statement the 1994 brochure said: Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”
As for what the 1994 brochure says on page 7 it really doesn't matter.
Your presentation misrepresents what the UN brochure was saying. So you will continue to leave out page 7 from your presentation?
1. We are not sure what the 1992 brochure says or if the WTS was even sent one. Rather than enclosing a 1992 brochure when addressing the issue Hoeffel refers to the current brochure. It would have been helpful if he would have provided the 1992 brochure instead.
The press releases from 1992 are very clear. You have not commented on these also. You are, in effect, saying that the DPI/UN is engaged in some sort of conspiracy to either cover their "mistakes" or perhaps to embarrass the WT. Who is the greater conspiracy theorist?
2. Furthermore as we have shown the word support can mean many different things and in the case of the words in the 1994 brochure on page 7 it is evident that the word support means to furnish corroborating evidence. It is, after all, the purpose of the DPI to give information about the UN and its programs.
What kind of support was expected?
"Since the founding days of the United Nations in San Francisco, NGOs have made valuable contributions to the international community by drawing attention to issues, suggesting ideas and programmes, disseminating information and mobilizing public opinion in support of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Association with DPI constitutes a commitment to that effect. Associated NGOs are expected to devote a portion of their information programmes to promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities. They are also expected to keep the DPI/NGO Section abreast of their activities by regularly providing samples of information materials." (Emphasis added)
3. Whatever anyone says or pulls out of their hat doesn't matter. The WTS never signed an agreement to support the UN as the application clearly shows. They never went through the rigorous review process instituted after they withdrew. The only documents the WTS signed was the document showing who would be the representatives for the coming years and what fields they were interested in.
And to maintain their associated status with the DPI/UN they submitted articles from several Awake! issues. So, a signed form is not necessary to show that the WT Society agreed to "promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities" "mobilizing public opinion in support of the United Nations and its specialized agencies." The Society left enough evidence that they were following through on their end of the agreement in those Awake! articles.
True, those Awake! articles did point to God's Kingdom as the ultimate solution. But did ANY of those articles ever state that the UN was considered to be the "image of the wild beast"? Did ANY of those articles explain how God was going to use the UN to destroy religion and that God would destroy the United Nations?
3RD Witness ..I really don`t mean to be repeditive,but you are quite thick..Why don`t you understand The WBTS should have had nothing to to with the United Nations?..Why?..Nothing you say means anything.In JW world,WBTS makes the rules not you!..WBTS made rules they didn`t keep..You have no arguement,yet you argue.You are an Imbecile,a retard..Thats not an insult..It`s an observation..For you to defend the indefenceable,by the WBTS own rules,is absurd...OUTLAW
Thirdwitness,
Any NGO that associated with DPI beginning in 1991 had to fill out the same forms the Watchtower did. And none of them had any obligations towards the U.N. according to your assessment, since, according to you, it doesn't matter what the Press releases, brochures and Directories said? None of them really agreed to anything? So, filling out a few questions on a form was all that was required of them to become associates? I wonder if anyone here has the wherewithal to contact some of those NGOs that were shown associated with DPI in that 1992 press release and see whether they were under the same impression as is Thirdwitness.
Kenneson: So, filling out a few questions on a form was all that was required of them to become associates?
thirdwitness already knows that is not the case, Kenneson. He is gasping for air here, suffocating under the weight of facts that destroy his Web site's baseless arguments.
This is evident from the very fact that they applied in Novermber of 1991 and had to wait until February 1992 before the UN/DPI Committee on NGOs decided to accept their application. They also well as submit accompanying documentation regarding their information programs relative to educating the public on UN activities along with their application to associate with the UN/DPI, and as the form on thirdwitness Web site showed they had to annually apprise the UN/DPI Committee on NGOs of their ongoing dissemination efforts.
Poor thing. Every time he gets a second wind, we show how he's stuffed yet another of his seemingly innumerable feet down his own gullet.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
