Alan's post sums it up for me. There is nothing left to prove. Watchtower signed on in 1991 and agreed to support the charter of the UN. They never once produced documents that show otherwise. They agreed to join the whore which is supposed to be false religion and ride this beast which is supposed to be the UN until people on this board exposed them for being the decietful bastards they are.
Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.
by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
stevenyc
Jayhawk1: Watchtower signed on in 1991 and agreed to support the charter of the UN
It's more than that. They had to supply evidence TWICE after 1991 as part of the standard associate NGO re-evaluation process, which they passed.
steve
-
jayhawk1
Steve you are absolutely right, I forgot to include that part. Watchtower signed on in 1991 and agreed to support the charter of the UN, and then Watchtower twice passed the UN's audit to keep their UN-NGO status. It is my belief that if it had not been for this discussion board, Watchtower would still have a formal relationship with the UN. So if it was okay to have such a status, why did Watchtower withdraw their formal relationship with the UN?
Bottom line, based on thier literature, they agreed to join the whore which is supposed to be false religion and ride this beast which is supposed to be the UN until people on this board exposed them for being the decietful bastards they are.
-
Gary1914
It's more than that. They had to supply evidence TWICE after 1991 as part of the standard associate NGO re-evaluation process, which they passed.
steve
Amen, Steve, Amen.....
-
fullofdoubtnow
I think this is a good picture depicting babylon the great riding the wild beast, especially between 1991 - 2001
-
Zico
Stevenyc,
Thanks for posting that quote about Malawi. I knew there was a quote like that, but I couldn't find it!
Thirdwitness, please can I ask that you to take that quote into account when you get round to answering my questions, that you failed to answer before? Thanks.
I also said this 'The Heil Hitler was clearly worship.' I think Heiling Hitler is worse than holding a Party Card, but I want to point out that this is still just a symbol, and did not necesarilly mean that EVERY person doing it worshipped Hitler. (Although many basically did, but that's going off the point.) -
Anomalous One
Having served as an elder in all service committee functions, I can't recall HOW MANY TIMES issues and judicial cases came up where there was no clear "Biblical" answer, and if the elder handbook didn't address it, it was one of many grey areas. The excuse of the circuit and district overseers, and the service desk at Bethel was "the principle of the matter is". That ruled my life for years, and when blatant hypocrisy in judicial meetings skewed rulings, I knew I'd had my fill of lies and coverups. The light got brighter for me.
3W - I admire your work to support your beliefs. Don't forget to be true to yourself and ask the tough questions that can only be answered by what YOU know to be right and wrong in YOUR heart. You appear to have a good moral compass. Not much can compare with the empty feeling of lost years serving what I thought was truth.
It is always easy to fall back on "the light getting brighter", and being an imperfect organization. If that is the case, why jump on every imperfection of every other religion and even the R & F?
When I recall the persuasions to follow principle only, even if it meant doing things that were correct and right in the moralest of eyes, I was told not to do so and stumble anyone; I even gave that talk at a convention.
Why don't the GB have respect for the sheep they shepherd to follow the same principled advice?
It appears to my simplistic logic that this principle is the foundation of this thread and rises above all of the excuses and dancing around the topic.
-
Kenneson
I think the following new thread, which has bearing on this one, ought to be linked here. Brant Jones was disfellowshipped over the UN/DPI fiasco and the links contain his letters to the Watchtower and Brochure.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/120099/1.ashx
Also go to
-
zagor
thirdwitness,
I've had an interesting conversation with a guy I've mentioned earlier (ya know, one who almost lost his head because of not wanting to accept help from UN personnel)
Well, his response to your explanation was very interesting, and goes something like this...
When you say that something is disgusting thing you don't even touch it, let along have formal relation with it. What thirdwitness is saying is that because of subtleties and technicalities he can explain away WTBS/UN union as something completely different from what other groups and people have when they equally join to UN; that excuses them in their eyes and therefore everyone else MUST see it that way. Well excuse me, to me it is like saying, look, it is true I've technically had a sex with a hooker, but look I've actually used a condom so I didn't touch, "disgusting thing", as it were, and technically it is not a sex.... would that excuse pass judicial committee?It goes on an on, but that is the gist of it. Any response to that thirdwitness?
-
Fisherman
Kenneson:
Thank you kindly for thr brant Jones Links that you have posted Very informative.