Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  thirdwitness

  Lets take a look at the evolution of the apostates claims about the WT as an NGO with the DPI.

  1. The UN resolution 1296 says that NGO's must support the UN. The WTS agreed to do this.

  The facts show that there are two types of NGOs. The WTS was not an NGO with the ECOSOC which has consultative status and must support the UN under the resolution 1296. The WTS as an NGO with the DPI was not under that resolution. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  2. Yes but another resolution 1297 shows that the DPI should sign NGOs up in the spirit of that resolution so see they were under that resolution.

  The facts show that this resolution was instructions as to what the DPI officer should do. It was not a resolution for NGOs and their requirements. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  3. The WTS is lying when they said they did not sign anything that went against their beliefs.

  The facts showed that the application did not even require a signature nor did it say anything about supporting the UN. The accreditation form likewise said nothing about supporting the UN. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  4. The WTS had to go thru a review process every year. (Then they show the accreditation form produced by the DPI after 2001.

  The facts showed that the accreditation form before 2001 was not a rigorous review process but was merely a form to show who the representatives would be and what fields they were interested in. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  5. The WTS is lying about needing an NGO pass to access the library. The library was accessable to anyone before 2001. They did not need to be an NGO.

  The facts showed that one of the perks for becoming an NGO advertised by the DPI was access to all the library facilities which included more than just the main library. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  6. The brochure says that the criteria for becoming an associated NGO is that the NGO must support the UN therefore the WTS must have knew that.

  The facts show that the brochure that apostates quote from is a brochure that was released sometime after 1991. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  7. Well, they still agreed to support the UN.

  The facts show that the WTS never signed any document agreeing to support the UN. They only agreed to write articles about the UN's programs which they had always done and still continue to do. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  8. The WTS did so promote the UN by disseminating information about the UN. You can deny it if you like but look here where the UN lists an article from the Awake.

  It has never been claimed that the WTS did not agree to write articles about the UN. They did it before 1991 and they continue to do it after 2001. The Awake magazine does not promote the UN as the solution for man's problems but rather it promotes the God's kingdom as the solution. Poof! The apostates argument went up in smoke.

  And so not wanting to admit the misleading and deceitful tactics or mistakes used by apostates, many continue to look for new arguments to prove the WTS has engaged in spiritual adultery. How about doing the honest thing and admitting that you have been misled by falsehoods and false reasonings.
• 

  Kenneson

  Thirdwitness,

  You have never established that the U.N. is no different than a government. I see a big difference. No American (nor any other nationality) owes his/her allegiance to the U.N. I am not required to become a citizen of the U.N. to live in America (the U.N. doesn't have its own country nor its own government). No country is forced to become a member. Do you know of any laws that the U.N. made that you and I need to obey? None. It doesn't make laws.
• 

  stevenyc

  thirdwitnoid,
  
  So, was that a YES or NO?
  steve
• 

  ozziepost

  Again the question:

  Is it ok to be formally associated with the UN?
• 

  thirdwitness

  The answer to the question in big red letters:

  That is such a broad question. It depends on what that association involves. Just like association with any government depends on what is involved.
• 

  stevenyc

  So, is that a yes or no?
  steve
• 

  Kenneson

  Thirdwitness,

  You state that the Watchtower also periodically supplied articles they had written about the U.N. Did they supply those before 1991 or after 2001? Why not?
• 

  ozziepost

  Just like association with any government depends on what is involved.

  But this is NOT what the WTS asserts.

  For example, a Dub is not allowed to work as a tradesman on a secular job on a church building.

  The WTS' stance is that any association is bad.
• 

  bjc2read

  Hi cabasilas,

  That UN 1992 Press Release is tremendous!!!

  This Press Release unequivocally shows the Watchtower Society has been lying all along about the requirements changing for NGOs over the years leading up to 2001, without their knowledge.

  Great find!

  I wasn't aware this 1992 UN Press Release existed and was available on the net before now. Of course, this completely destroys "Thirdwitness" foolish assertions that the "rules" for NGOs changed without the Watchtower Society's knowledge.

  No question, you guys have proven it, over and over and over again...the Watchtower Society is guilty!

  Thanks again,

  bjc
• 

  cabasilas

  Thirdwitness,

  Your arguments have been that the criteria for association of the NGOs with the DPI/UN had changed over the years. But, the 1992 press releases show that they essentially had not changed. Similarly, with the 1995 brochure. Yet, you state on your website that Mr Hoeffel is trying to hide something and is misleading people. I think the facts show otherwise and you are bearing false witness against him. Will you change your website to remove the personal attack on Mr Hoeffel?

  Now you seem to be saying (I'm guessing here) that the Watchtower Society didn't know about these requirements. That's a totally different argument than what what your "changing world of NGOs" page says. (Remember how you don't show page 7 of the 1994 brochure making it appear the 1994 brochure said nothing about needing to support the UN?)

  Don't you think the WT Society got the notification of orientation that other new NGOs got (as is expressed in that press release)? Don't you think they took advantage of the accredited status to lobby for human rights for their members? And all this time they just never heard about the requirements for association of NGOs?

  Your website needs a bunch of work to remove the false accusations against Mr Hoeffel and the omission of key evidence like the 1992 press releases and page 7 of the 1994 brochure.