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

 

Oh my, this is rich!  The person who made this post "Oh Happy Day" has the same IP address as ThirdWitness.

Talk about desperation!  He is now answering his own posts!

ThirdWitness,

Checkmate I think.

HS

thirdwitness / OhHappyDay,

I see you've posted nothing new. All your arguments have been dealt with.

So, I ask again, would you consider discussing a topic not presented on your website?

steve

3W,A QUESTION;YOU SEEM TO INFER THAT IT WAS THE UN THAT INVITED THE WT TO JOIN DPI, how does DPI send invations to organisations to join?

THE WT SHOULD HAVE KNOW NEVER TO GET INVOLVED WITH ANYTHING U.N. RELATED. nothing more nothing less.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sKally

After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not.That is a separate issue. Both the UN/DPI and the NGO separately agree that NGO meets the acceptance criteria. Otherwise the NGO would not bother to apply -- unless, of course, the NGO was attempting to deceive the DPI into granting it Associated NGO status while knowing full well that it did not meet the criteria. You actually seem to be arguing that the Watchtower engaged in such deception of the DPI. Nevertheless, the DPI's issuance of a letter of acceptance constitutes its acceptance of the NGO's submitted evidence that it meets the criteria, and the NGO's acceptance of the acceptance letter constitutes its acceptance of the DPI's judgment that it meets the criteria.: The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.Nonsense.

You are partly correct.  If an NGO feels like it meets the criteria they ask for an application.  If the DPI determines that they do indeed meet their criteria then they send them an application.  It is the DPI that makes the final determination.  Thus in 1994 it was the DPI that made the determination as to what they themselves meant by 'sharing the ideals of the UN'. In 2001, after the language or wording had changed, they would have made the determination as to what they meant by 'supporting the principles and charter of the UN'.  In 1992 they would have made the determination based on the then criteria. 

Did they ever mean an NGO must agree with everything the UN does?  No, because as Oleg and the woman officer stated NGO's can criticize and even NGO's that dissagree with the UN have registered with the DPI.  Does it mean the NGO's must support the UN in everything they do?  No, they share their ideals in only the fields which are "in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.”  That is what the UN/ECOSOC has said.  The DPI has never said anything different and have apparently even accepted NGO's which dissagree with and criticize them.  They accepted the WTS didn't they?  The DPI apparently felt that since the WTS shares the ideals of human rights, liberties, and non-discrimination, that they met the criteria.  

I did not say that Barry signed a document specifically agreeing to support the U.N.

It is a good thing or you would have shown yourself to be even more of a liar.

I said that he signed an application document, the signing of which is an implicit agreement to support the U.N. Charter, according to all materials given to applicant NGOs by the DPI. 

Yes, you did say that and you have not provided that application document.  Are you a liar?  Where is this promised document?  AlanF, is it time to call you a liar.  Can you even show us an application that required a signature where Lloyd Barry would have signed his name?

But you know what?  I can provide an application for NGOs with the ECOSOC which the WTS did not fill out because they did not apply for association with the ECOSOC.  And on that application there is a place for a signature with an agreement of support.  Let me show you. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/  Click on forms and documents and  then click on application in English. 

The first page says:

United Nations Nations Unies

NGO SECTION, DESA

1 UN Plaza, Room DC1-1480, New York, NY 10017

tel: (212) 963-8652 / fax: (212) 963-9248

Application for Consultative Status

with the Economic and Social Council



The last page says:

I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to

the best of my/our knowledge.



I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act

in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC

resolution 1996/31.



The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.

(Signature)



Name(s) and position(s)

Surely if I can find the application for NGOs with the ECOSOC with this agreement on it you can find the application for NGOs with the DPI with the agreement on it.  Or at least the application with the place for Lloyd Barry's signature. You have an army of apostates desparately searching for it, don't you?  You said that you saw it.  Did you?  Or are you a bald-face liar?  In case anyone is wondering, here is the application for NGO's with the DPI in 1991 according to apostates:

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/1991application.html      

Where is the place for the signature where Lloyd Barry signed his name?

 This is part of your never ending stream of strawmen.Nevertheless, as of this writing I cannot find the document that Barry signed, but am working on it.

And AlanF you will never find an original application signed by Barry because it does not exist. You as usual are the one off to see the wizard with your scarecrow strawman.

In any case, both GB member Lloyd Barry and Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino are listed in the 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/alphalist334.jpg ) as the Watchtower Society's representatives. Furthermore, their names are listed in various earlier documents, along with one Robert Johnson, a high-ranking Service Department official. Where do you think the U.N. got those names?

No kidding.  Do you think the WTS has evern denied this.  Please take a look at this form and you will see why that is the case. http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/2000accreditationform.html  and then read this:

Periodically, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI's extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.

Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI's facilities. The form itself clearly states:

“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”

The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:

“Please indicate your organization's main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”

Some apostates have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society's areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from time to time. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.

It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it's NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign periodically, was simply to state who it's representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI's facilities.

It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.

 

More to come? I wait with bated breath.

3rd Witness..That AlanF,what a great guy eh?..He even showed you how to beat him in this debate..I can hardly wait till you post your evidence straight from WBTS Head Quarters..LOL!!.....WBTS should have had nothing to do with the United Nations.For every true and faithfull Jehovah`s Witness,that really is the point..You know it,we know it,every faithfull Jehovah`s Witness knows it..Once again hillary-step cuts through the crap with wit:"Checkmate"..LOL!!...OUTLAW

AlanF's words in italics.

The fact that the Society itself admits knowing the details of the 1991 application criteria, and the U.N. itself notified the Society that its acceptance of Associated NGO status constitutes accepting all of the acceptance criteria -- including agreeing to support the ideals of the U.N. Charter, proves my point. You are the liar.

No you, sir, are a liar.  The 1994 brochure does not say 'support the ideals of the UN Charter' as you just said.  So that was not the criteria in 1994 as set forth in the brochure much less 2 or 3 years earlier.  As I pointed out in a previous post yes the WTS knew the criteria when they registered as an NGO with the DPI and the wording clearly had changed by 2001 when they asked to be removed.  Again note:

Language used after 2001: “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;”

Language used in 1994: “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

Language used in 1992: Don't know and there is doubt that the WTS even received a brochure. 

How can you call the WTS a liar with no evidence.  In fact, the paper trail shows that they were telling the truth.  Ask yourself:  Did the language change between 1994 and 2001?

All of this was fully established nearly five years ago. My memory of the details of the application and accreditation forms is obviously imperfect.

Obviously.  We agree.  Thanks for the admission that you do not know the facts at all.  Can you imagine what AlanF would say to someone that made such a comment as this.  Let me translate this for you in the AlanF language: 

I, AlanF, am an idiotic, lying moron who doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about.

The fact is that Barry did sign the original application form and later yearly accreditation renewals. That constituted repeatedly agreeing to uphold the U.N. Charter.

The fact is that you have just made yourself out to be a clear and proven liar. Unless of course you will provide us with the original application signed by Lloyd Barry.  It is by no means a fact that Barry did sign the original application form.  The fact is that the original application did not even require a signature just as the WTS honestly and truthfully stated.  You have just proven yourself to be what you so loosely accuse anyone who dissagrees with you as being, a moronic liar.

Calling you a liar is a simple statement of fact. So is stating that I find such gross liars disgusting. You constantly use the pejorative term "apostate". Pot, kettle, black. Remove that term from your website and from future posts, and I will refrain from calling you disgusting.

You are an admitted apostate.  Not only are you an apostate from JWs.  But you have committed apostasy against the Bible by claiming that it is not the word of God.  And you have even committed apostasy against Jehovah by claiming he is some mere tribal god of the Jews no different from the false gods of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria etc. 

No honest hearted worshipper of Jehovah would ever listen to, much less believe, the likes of you.

Well spotted Gary. That is very devious of you t-wit, I thought for a minute there you actually had a supporter.

I still think this picture sums up the wts realationship with the UN very well.

 

 

thirdwitness,



You never answered any of my questions about the similarities between the Malawi issue, and the UN issue. You just picked up one point from a long post and spoke about Nazis. You completely ignored 98% of the rest of what I wrote.



For your convenience, I'll post it again:



Having a Party Card, does NOT mean that you support the Party.



You support a Party by VOTING for it, or doing other things that HELP the Party. The Witnesses in Malawi had to carry a Party Card by law. They did NOT have to vote for a party. There should be nothing wrong with this. As I already stated:



"I’m on the voting register, I’m eligible to vote, I’ve never voted though, as it doesn’t mean I have to vote, but credit card and loan companies may look at the voting register to help them decide whether or not they want to give you loans or cards, so it’s useful to be on there, and the Society don’t say that you can’t do this, I asked an elder if it was ok, and he said it was fine. In some countries you have enforced voting. The Society doesn’t tell you to go to prison and refuse to go to polling stations, they let you go to the polling stations, but ask that you don’t actually vote, just spoil the ballet or something, so why was a Party Card so bad?"



The Party Card was just a symbol. Similarly, a Heil Hitler is just a symbol. Every person who did it, did not necessarily support the Nazis.



I also said:



"A Party Card may have convinced the Party that they showed support for them, but it didn’t necessarily mean that the individual carrying the card supported them, as they didn’t vote for them. Similarly, the Society had to submit articles to the UN that had to convince them that they supported them. Even if this did not necessarily mean that did support the UN as you believe it didn’t, surely you can agree the purpose was to convince the UN that they supported them?



Do you realise that some Organisations have had applications to become DPI associates rejected? This isn’t a recent thing, this has been happening since 1991/2 when the Society joined. Why do you think they were rejected? There MUST be a reason. The UN/DPI aren’t just going to be picking the names out of a hat, if they are rejecting Organisations, it would seem like they would only want associates who they believe are going to be of benefit to them. So, surely the articles the Watchtower Society provided the UN/DPI with, convinced them that the Watchtower Society would help them to spread information about their charter, and thus be a support to them?" THIRDWITNESS - IF you do not agree that the UN/DPI rejected some applications from NGOs who they did not think were beneficial to them, then please could you offer another reason why the UN/DPI would reject some applications.



What did the Party Card actually mean? As Steve posted, a quote from a 1976 Watchtower said this about Malawi:



There all citizens have been required to become members of the country’s only existing political party, the "Malawi Congress Party." A membership card costing about twenty-five cents (U.S.) identifies the bearer as ‘acquiescing to the principles of the ruling political party,’ especially to the Life President, Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda. How are the people of Malawi to view the purchase of a "Party Card"? An official circular issued on August 27, 1975, says: "This is the one way in which we people of this country can show appreciation to our Life Leader, the Ngwazi [Dr. Banda] for developing this country of Malawi."



A membership card, like a library card, shows suggests that the members agree with the principles of the people who issued the card. If there was nothing wrong with the library card suggesting that they supported the UN, why was having a Party Card which suggested they supported the Party so wrong? If having a library card did not mean that the Society agreed to support the principles of the UN, why does having a Party Card?



Fact is that these issues are very similar. SO, the Society were either wrong to associate with the UN/DPI, they were wrong about how they dealt with the Malawi issues, or they were wrong about both. Which is it Thirdwitness?



Please could you address these issues. And can I also ask you why Witnesses in Mexico were not allowed to pray at or sing Kingdom songs at meetings, or use the bible in preaching work, at the same time Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi were being sent to prison or killed for refusing to buy a party card?



In fact Thirdwitness, once you are finished with the UN debate, I challenge you to get into a debate about the Mexico/Malawi issues. If you accept, I will start a thread about it, and you can post in there and try to defend how the Governing Body dealt with these issues, but I don't think you will, because, unless you are completely stupid, you will realise, that the Mexico/Malawi ordeal can NOT be defended.



Zico

How many times have the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ told us that the mere appearance of wrongdoing should keep us from certain paths of conduct lest we bring reproach on Jehovah’s name? I ask this, if this was completely innocent and yet the Society will not come forward with printed information to all the R & F, whose hands are the blood of the stumbled ones on? I think I recall something about a millstone.

thirdwitness / ohhappyday

Still nothing new !

Your arguments have already been dealt with by many people in this thread.

Try again.

steve

I agree with zico, for me as a witness Malawi case defined it where WTBS stands in terms of "neutrality" and as such MUST, simply MUST be explained in light of WTBS own reaction to not so dramatic situation of having to join formally to a political entity in order to get something out of it; or as they claim only access card to UN library. Either way, it was a compromise and WTBS dancing around the issue will just inflame more nerves then they will be able to heal. Eventually body dies.

 

To add:  Looking back I cannot believe that while still there I would have done the same thing even if it meant loosing my life.  I mean, WTBS representatives, whoever you are, if that is a trivial thing for you then that just show how, in reality, you little think of people under your care, hence no wonder you are loosing more and more of them.

 

 

Exposing the apostates???? Exposing them to what??? 

You have simply got to get over yourself.

No offense to any 80+ year old women out there...

I have not read all the posts on this topic. I am still "in" and am being completely up front. I am truly wondering why ----

1. If this is a non issue, but concerns many, why doesn't the WTS just explain, say, in a special needs part, why the controversy, why they connected themselves in any way with the UN, and why they dissasociated themselves if there was nothing wrong in the first place. ----If the fact that their name in any way was seen in the same place as Catholics and other religious groups on documents belonging to the UN, it is obviously a concern to many. Couldn't they just set the record straight, so that those who question would have answers?

2. If this is a non issue, why are some being reproved or even disfellowshipped for merely publicly stating the fact that the WT Society was indeed connected in some way with the UN organization? The decision to disfellowship is forwarded to the WT Society for APPROVAL.  At this point they could send back a reply to the congregation that the fact is true and to reverse the decision. They do not do this. Why?

3. As the one who started this post, do you have some special privelege to discuss this with others? How is it that you are not accused of apostacy for discussing this and others have been told they were influenced by Satan for merely reading about it?

Thirdwitness said several posts ago,If that was you last attempt, why do you continue to post?  Liar, liar... pants on fire!  Welcome to the Apostate Club!