United Nations reply letter

by HoChiMin 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Swan

  Why doesn't the UN just post these documents on their web site? They could put it as a sub-link to the NGO FAQ they have. They are probably getting that many requests because so many JWs doubt that these letters are official and were altered by apostates. People have to keep writing to get first hand proof from the UN. If the UN is getting flooded with these requests, perhaps having the documents on their official web site would help satisfy some of these doubters? Of course, some will see it on the UN website and still not believe, but some would. It would cut down on the UN mailing considerably, I should think.

  Tammy
• 

  Tashawaa

  Am I missing something... I'm anxious to read this letter, but this thread only has ERROR messages where the letter should be????
• 

  avengers

  Good job.

  Keep up the good work.
• 

  gcc2k

  It's natural to doubt. In my case I just asked the UN librarian to verify that the emails posted on the web were in fact of her writing.

  Playing JW advocate for a moment, is it possible that, since the above letter is dated January 1992, that the Society applied in 1991 under different guidelines, and became approved in 1992 but were grandfathered in under different guidelines?

  I'm not sure why most of the letters say "have not changed since 1991" since it appears that those guidelines go way back. What did change in 1991, if anything?

  To me, the problem is not if they used theocratic warfare to get something out of the UN, it's that they lied to the entire JW population by means of that circular letter.
• 

  Jourles

  I'm not sure why most of the letters say "have not changed since 1991" since it appears that the guidelines go way back.

  This is because the WTS applied for NGO status in 1991 and were not approved until 1992.
• 

  gcc2k

  So it must follow then the society's statement that "the guidelines contain language that, at least in their present form" bla bla (paraphrasing) can empirically be proven to be a lie?

  (I'm envisioning the conversation now. "You see? The Society lied to us." "Yes, I see. They lied. So what? Maybe Jehovah has his reasons")