Posts by zound

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Also an interesting quote from a Portuguese newspaper after this broke. Translated a little rough.

"Registration as a Non Governmental Organization was only done because of being able to give humanitarian aid and defend human rights in countries around the world," says the PUBLIC Pedro Candeias, spokesman for the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal. In Portugal, however, the decoupling of the registration is not yet known officially by the KTA, which represents close to 50,000 believers.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Well I found a snippet of the 1994 brochure.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6VSXREhe9JE/S8O2P5i6kTI/AAAAAAAAAEY/8u0lkJ62NiQ/s1600/DPI+NGO+Brochure+1994+page+7x2.jpg

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Oh, I couldn't find anything by searching, but has anyone wrote the society and recieved a reply regarding Candice Conti?

In my letter I really laid into them regarding Conti's case and the Governing Body being found guilty in court of facilitating her abuser. Their reply was that they had no more information than what I had regarding the case - but they didn't refute anything I said or answer any of the moral questions I asked.

I'll post it here a little later.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Agree with data dog. When fighting watchtowers dirty little battle of words, you have to ensure you cross all your t's and dot all your i's. Same goes for helping JW's - of course they'll defend the watchtower, but if you can get them interested in looking into the whole picture, you'd better have every scrap of info 100% backed up and sourced (not just hearsay from apostate websites).

Watchtower have a habit of saying things by implication, so that if you ever get some info that proves they are lying they or the JW's can go "Well we never said that" - we worded it in a way that strongly implied we said that, but we technically didn't (b*stards!)

I recently sent a letter, and got a reply regarding the UN and Candice Conti. Yeh they sent me west wishes and warmest greetings also (how sincere).

RE: mindblown. Thanks I have that letter from the UN website. I was more interested in the other one you posted that plainly stated "the conditions haven't changed since 1991" - but it's addressed to a private inquiry, not on public record.

As we all know - it's not about the technicallity's - it's about the moral issue. But when it comes to JW's it becomes all about the technicallity's, trying to get watchtower to wiggle out of it - you have to address all of that first before they'll think about the moral implications.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Mindblown, that second letter is good - "#3 that the criteria has not changed since 1991."

It looks like it is addressed to a personal inquiry not a public letter that can be found on their website. Thus it could be a 'fake', concocted by apostates and thus would be discredited by the JWs I'm trying to present this info to. I've tried writing to the UN, but only got the standard public letter so far. I think I either need that info in a public letter or a letter addressed to me if it will float with the JW's.

Which is why I'm trying to track down that brochure as I'm sure it would be incriminating.

11

MEME CONTEST

by Watchtower-Free in

for this picture from the watchtower.

.

zound

"God's servants on earth will not need to defend themselves against aliens from another planet."

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/humour/250730/1/Quote-from-this-weeks-WT-study

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Thanks for the replies, good info. Not the exact thing I was after though (it may not be available, just thought I'd ask you guys)

Below is a quote from the standard public letter from the UN on inquiry:

"Please be informed that it is the policy of of DPI to keep correspndance between NGO's confidential...... However please see paragraph included in all letters sent to NGO's approved for association in 1992:

'The blablablablaba......... We are enclosing a brochure on the "The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations" , which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship.'"

So they sent the Watchtower Society a Brochure that goes into more detail about NGO status. I've seen some exerts of more recent brochures that are sent to NGO's, but not one circa 1991. Which the Watchtower society claims by inference that it 'contained no language that they could not adhere to'.

The excerts I read of the newer versions of course DO say about supporting the charter etc. I'd be interested to track down that brochure that was sent out during 1991-1992.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Thanks guys.

I've searched JWfacts but couldn't find that brochure.

Also, lots of those links in the best of don't work. I did find the answer to them not having to sign anything - which is probably true as the application form I looked at didn't have a signiture part.

But still looking for that grochure.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Oops, I put this in the wrong section. If a moderator wants to move it that would be great.

35

UN (again!)

by zound in

hi guys, i'm new to the site.. sorry to bring up an old topic.

but just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous un letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

this is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to").

zound

Hi guys, I'm new to the site.

Sorry to bring up an old topic. But just wondering if anyone knew if the brochure referred to in the infamous UN letter of 2004 is available to read anywhere?

This is the brochure of 1991 (before the supposed "changed language that we cannot subsribe to")

Also, the Watchtower claim in writing that they never had to sign anything - is this just an outright lie?