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

by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  thirdwitness

  What does it mean to 'support' the UN as used by the DPI in stating their criteria. Well, remember Oleg Dzioubinski, Information Officer of the DPI told us that Ngo's with the DPI 'can criticize the UN'. And remember Isolda Oca also of the DPI talked to an opposers of JWs and even the opposer admitted that "the gist of the conversation was... 1) It is not unusual for organizations that are in disagreements with the United Nations to become an NGO with them." We know this thanks to the efforts of a known apostate which many of you have relied on for you WT/NGO/DPI/UN information, Randy.

  But keep in mind, that all of the above is based on the 1994 brochure, not the 1991 or 1992 brochure if one does exist. There is evidence that NGOs were not always sent brochures. Did the WTS receive a brochure when registering with the DPI in 1991 or 1992?

  In 1999 the Secretary-General published a report in which he stressed the need for a brochure to be sent to all NGOs:

  “It was also proposed that each NGO should receive an orientation/welcome booklet and/or session upon obtaining formal status with the UN. The information should include specifics about the NGO liaison offices in the UN system, including names, contacts, locations. The booklet should reinforce mutual rights and responsibilities, as well as practical guidelines for the functioning of NGOs within physical structures and protocols of the UN, including how to follow debates and so forth.” — Section 24

  We wonder why in 1999 the Secretary General should have “proposed” that each NGO should receive a welcome booklet or brochure including “specifics” about the UN system and “practical guidelines” and “protocols” for NGOs, if the NGOs were already receiving such a booklet prior to this.

  Perhaps receipt of this booklet was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn't even receive one when their status was granted in 1992. What is certain, however, is that they certainly did not receive the 2005 brochure which opposers constantly quote from — the Society couldn't have possibly received that version 13 years earlier, for we know it's contents have changed. When opposers quote from the 2005 version as proof that the Watchtower Society supported the UN — they are simply wrong. Whatever was said in the 1991 brochure which the Society received — if they received one at all — it certainly did not say that. Further, when it is claimed the NGO requirements did not change, this is also clearly wrong for the UN has said they changed.
• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  3rd - Do you realize you are an apostate? Jehovah and his org do. Why don't you?
• 

  AlanF

  Thirdwitness, I've already addressed every one of your points, and I'm not going to do it again, except for this:

  The Society's November, 2001 Branch letter specifically admits that it knew the details of the application criteria back in 1991. This blows away all of your excuses. The fact that you ignore this crucial fact proves once again that you know you're lying when you make these excuses.

  AlanF
• 

  thirdwitness

  Continuing on with AlanF's comments which are in italics.

  Second, in various communications from U.N. official Paul Hoeffel, including and especially one dated 4-March-2004 ( http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/UN_Letter_4_Mar_2004.pdf ), Hoeffel explained the U.N.'s official stance regarding the Watchtower organization's acceptance for Associated NGO status with the DPI:
  
  
  By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities. . .

  This seems like pretty damning evidence, doesn't it. However, we must remember that these statements were made in 2004 and after the fact. As we saw earlier, in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms even though AlanF lies and says that he saw an original application signed by Lloyd Barry. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

  Why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did include such requirements and show us these requirements on those 1991 forms? Why does Mr. Hoeffel not supply us with the agreement used by his office in 1991 showing where the officer of the WTS would have signed agreeing to meet the criteria that he states? That would have been definitive proof. Why doesn't he send us the 1992 brochure instead of quoting information from a 2004 brochure? Can it be because the 1991 forms have no such agreement and that the 1992 brochure has no such criteria of 'supporting the principles and charter of the UN'? So far, that has proven to be the case for no one has brought forth those documents although AlanF lies and says that he saw an original application signed by Lloyd Barry.

  Who really is being untrustworthy and trying to “hide the facts”? Is it the Watchtower Society, whose explanation agrees with the 1991 evidence? Or is it not the DPI, and opposers like AlanF, who has wrongly insinuated that the criteria to support the UN as a DPI NGO was on the original application — when we know for a fact that it was not?Third, in its letter to Branch Committees of 1 November 2001, the Watchtower Society implicitly admits that it knew about the criteria for association:The Criteria for Association of NGOs -- at least in their latest version -- contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration.
  
  If the Society can compare the latest version of the "Criteria for Association of NGOs" with the supposedly different version that existed when it applied for association in 1991, and conclude that the new version contains "language that we cannot subscribe to" whereas the old version did not, then obviously the Society must have known exactly what those earlier criteria were.This, of course, immediately raises the question of why the Society has never produced a copy of the supposedly different earlier criteria so that people can check if it is telling the truth. But because various U.N. staffers and others have shown that the 1991 criteria remained essentially the same through 2001, the Society obviously does not want to contribute to another expose of its lying.

  The WTS has clearly answered these questions and have stated that they signed nothing that compromised their beliefs. They know exactly what was on the original forms and so yes they can accurately compare what they signed with the latest version of the criteria in the 2001 brochure. None of the forms say that the NGO 'must support the principles and charter of the UN'. That is not on the original application, that is not on the later accreditation forms, and that is not even in the 1994 brochure. The language did defnitely change as respects the criteria stated by the DPI.

  We have proof that it changed from 1994 to 2001. The 1994 brochure says: “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;” The 2001 brochure says: “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;” Did the language in the different brochures change or not? Why, yes, obviously it did. The WTS did not lie. And that is only comparing the 1994 brochure with the 2001 brochure. Much less the 1992 brochure if it even does exist.

  Can anyone show any forms that the WTS would have signed which showed that they agreed to support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN? No they cannot. How then can you call them a liar. Anyone who calls them a liar does so without any evidence and therefore they are either mistaken themselves or are exactly what they accuse the WTS of being, an outright liar.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  Perhaps receipt of this booklet was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn't even receive one when their status was granted in 1992.

  You use the word "perhaps" a lot there 3T. For sommeone who compiled a website about the wts involvement with the UN, you don't seem very certain of much. Or perhaps you are running out of arguments, not that you had much of an argument to start with, and getting a little desperate, which you seem to be judging by your last few posts.

  You started this thread, you have contributed more posts to it than anyone else, and so far you have said nothing convincing to support your assertion in the thread title. I have a feeling that's because you have nothing of any substance to offer, and are now clutching at straws in a bid to hoodwink us - you are not succeeding.
• 

  badboy

  3W,DON'T YOU THINK THAT any of yout fellow jws reading this will think you are being silly.
• 

  OHappyDay

  3W,DON'T YOU THINK THAT any of yout fellow jws reading this will think you are being silly.

  This one doesn't think he's being silly at all. On the contrary, his reasoned, detailed replies have set the matter straight for me and have convinced me that this whole issue is a nonentity, just more feeble hot air of bluster by those trying to blow the WT house down. Our ability to see through the issues demonstrates that JWs have more sense than you give us credit for. This is no scandal on the part of the WT. The only scandal is that opposers are throwing straws at the WT edifice that they think are bricks. Straws, folks. The scandal exists only in your own "gotta-stick-it-to-the-Watchtower" minds.
• 

  chappy

  Is there any excuse that the WTS would accept for a member of the rank and file joining the YMCA/YWCA?

  chappy
• 

  AlanF

  It just occurred to me, thirdwitness, that all of your defensive speculations could in principle be easily confirmed or disconfirmed if you did just one thing: Call Ciro Aulicino and Robert Johnson in Brooklyn, Bethel and have them confirm or disconfirm -- in writing -- the basics of what happened, as I listed in my above posts # 4772 and # 4766, as well as anything else you think is relevant from other peoples' posts, and also your own.

  In particular, read to Aulicino or send him a link to Barbara Anderson's description of how he came to write the articles in the September 8, 1991 Awake! that seemed to praise the U.N., and have him tell you whether her description is accurate, and if not, why not. Then run by him the following material from my post # 4766:

  Third, in its letter to Branch Committees of 1 November 2001, the Watchtower Society implicitly admits that it knew about the criteria for association:

  The Criteria for Association of NGOs -- at least in their latest version -- contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration.

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wts_branch_letter_01-nov-01.jpg

  If the Society can compare the latest version of the "Criteria for Association of NGOs" with the supposedly different version that existed when it applied for association in 1991, and conclude that the new version contains "language that we cannot subscribe to" whereas the old version did not, then obviously the Society must have known exactly what those earlier criteria were.

  This, of course, immediately raises the question of why the Society has never produced a copy of the supposedly different earlier criteria so that people can check if it is telling the truth. But because various U.N. staffers and others have shown that the 1991 criteria remained essentially the same through 2001, the Society obviously does not want to contribute to another expose of its lying.

  Obviously, the way to find out for sure about this is to ask Aulicino or Johnson to send you photocopies of whatever material is needed to put this baby to rest. Surely, as such a successful and vocal defender of the faith, you can get them to do this for you!

  But I must rain on this parade. Both Aulicino and Johnson know perfectly well that a real JW would never think to question the Society's word by actually asking for hard evidence. So, even if they would deign to talk to you -- which I consider a low probability -- they would refuse to send you any hard data, any more than the Society has abided by other JWs' requests for the same, and would simply tell you to accept what has already been published on the matter and forget about trying to defend the Society against those vile apostates.

  But you already know all this and I seriously doubt that you'd even try calling these guys. So you already know that it's not nice to question Mommy, and Mommy will hand you your head if you press it.

  AlanF
• 

  zev

  but if he or she does call, get it in writing, so you can post the evidence right here
  and settle this once and for all.