by juni 18 Replies latest jw friends
A former JW friend of mine brought up to an active bro. about the WTS as an NGO and then discontinuing their
membership. This bro then asked an elder about it. Elder said that "yes" he had received a letter from the
Society, but only ONE person was involved. My question is DOES ANYONE HAVE ACCESS TO A COPY OF
THIS LETTER SENT TO THE ELDERS? Thank you all for your help. I really appreciate it. Juni
Sorry, I have no access to that letter. The comment brought to mind a scripture, though. I hope you don't mind my sharing it.
I Corinthians 5:6-8 KJV
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
In case you didn't have it yet, here is the open letter from the UN on the matter:
I believe this was their letter with the "offiial exuse":
http://www.randytv.com/secret/wtresponseun.htm
http://www.randytv.com/secret/wt11012001.jpg
More info here:
http://www.randytv.com/secret/unitednations.htm
That's part of the WTS new "spin" on it...kinda like the Clinton..."I didn't inhale" fiasco.
The WTS is trying to act like it wasn't "them" that joined...but a rogue brother who moved "ahead of J's organ-eye-zayshun"...
Ciro Alicino is no rogue...
u/d (of the maybe he shoulda just inhaled class)
"Elder said that "yes" he had received a letter from the Society, but only ONE person was involved"
What the hell does it matter if ONE or ONE MILLION people were involved? Is he saying that "that only one person" secretly did that without anybody at the headquarters knowing about it? What about a little leaven fermenting the whole lump? I guess it would do me no good to argue the double standards to anybody still in the org, especially to "those taking the lead" since it will only get you sent to the back room of the KH to have you thinking adjusted to their twisted legalistic logic or DF'd.
Still, 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.
A wise man or woman once said, tell one lie and you have to tell another and another...ect......
The criteria to be a NGO has never changed. This has been verified by the UN a few times. Second, ya they "immediately withdrew" the very next day following and expose by the Guardian newspaper.
Anyone know why it took The Guardian over 10 years to find out about the NGO affiliation?
It is a common misconception that news hounds are constantly on the search for corruption.
In reality, they don't have time for that. Besides, they don't have to. They usually wait for the news to come to them. There are hundreds, thousands of special interest groups who inundate them with stories. An xJW found a sympathetic news reporter, and the rest was history.
You will look negatively upon anything they do.
So why do you even bother to read that?
The claim by the Society that the requirements to support the Charter of the UN and be in conformity with the spirit and purposes of it were added after the Society joined the UN as a NGO is thus a false claim, as all verifiable evidence shows.
The WTS has claimed that "IT WAS UNAWARE" that the criteria to be a NGO member to the DPI included it support for the charter of the UN. However there were two press releases, dated Feb 14 and Aug 7 1992 that clearly spelled out what membership entailed, clearly stating, "These press releases can be located online, the 14 February 1992 Press Release has a file number "NGO/208 PI/775" and the 7 August 1992 Press Release has a file number "NGO/211 PI/770".
Perhaps disgruntled former members have infiltrated? Are those in charge at Bethel aware of this?
Apparently so, since the names of
Lloyd Barry (Governing Body),
Ciro Aulicino (Writing Dept.),
Robert Johnson (Service Dept.) appear in the registry. Barry passed away recently while giving a talk, but Aulicino and Johnson are still at Bethel.
A directory is sent out annually to all NGO members that outlines the responsibilities of the NGO and what membership entails. The Watchtower, Bible, & Tract Society is listed in the indexes and the criteria for association is clearly spelled out.
The UN, in a letter dated 03/04/04 acknowledged the 10 year relationship the WTS held with them, and EXACTLY what it entailed. (available for viewing at the United Nations website) *****Interestingly, the WTS withdrew its membership on 10/9/01... exactly 1 day after Guardian's article publicly exposed the WTS for its union with the UN.****
NOW then readers, to sum it up:
PLEASE NOTICE:
These rules for NGO membership to the DPI were reviewed by the General Assembly in 1968 in resolution 1296, which became the basis for establishing criteria for the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the United Nations, which remained in use for almost three decades.
So from 1968 until 1996~~~~EVERYTHING REMAINED THE SAME!!!~~~. In 1996 there was a review and arrangements for NGOs at the United Nations as a whole were updated and adopted by ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. This resolution is the current basis for partnership between NGOs and the United Nations.
So indeed if there were any changes, then they would have been made in 1996, FIVE FULL YEARS BEFORE the Watchtower claimed that there were changes taking place in 2001.!!!
So again we see, that there WERE no changes in criteria in 2001 when the Watchtower claimed that the United Nations had used language that they could not subscribe to. And in 1991 when they joined, the United Nations was still using the same criteria for NGOs as the criteria from 1968.
If the Watchtower, Bible, & Tract Society had any questions whatsoever as to what they were getting themselves into, they could have had consultation by a Member of the United Nations, if they had any doubts about the criteria, or the United Nations membership as a whole.
WE KNOW that the WTS is smarter than that!
Or.........IS it?
Or...is it just possible that the JWs are SO trusting in the GB, FDS and WTS---that they are WILLING to overlook the lies they have been told? You have GOT to realize that aything "signed, sealed and delivered" from ANY office of the WTS conglomerate, would have been scrutinized with a fine toothed comb! hey knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Still do. LOOK how many JWs believe the "story" that they handed out, well after the fact!!
Consider:
-If this alliance with the United Nations was not wrong to do, then why was it kept secret from all the rank and file membership of the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide?
-Why was it not until 2001, after the secret was leaked that the Watchtower all of sudden noticed "language that we cannot subscribe to" supposedly within the NGO requirements?
-If it was not secretive, why has Bethel never publicized their NGO status in any Watchtower Society publication?
-If it was not secretive, why was the Watchtower forced to issue an explanation to numerous inquiring branches that were contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world demanding answers?
Would YOU be a member of any religion that has LIED to you?
(reprinted in part from an article by Ken Carella)
Annie
