Is "jehovahsjudgment.co.uk" telling the truth?

A Mere Conspiracy Theory?


This website is dedicated to the examination of the Watchtower's 10 year membership with the United Nation's Department of Public Information (DPI). The DPI is the United Nation's publicity department. In particular, this site serves the purpose to examine the flagship rebuttal website of this WBTS/UN association, created by an individual that goes by the name "thirdwitness". To view his website CLICK HERE

From the onset, "thirdwitness" attempts to muddy the waters by using loaded language, red herrings, and calling upon emotion well before one has been given the chance to consider the evidence. On the homepage, he has already set the reader up to consider much of this issue a conspiracy theory formulated by "crackpot" individuals and "apostates". Count how many times you see such words used on his site. Perhaps these are colors to cloud the water? Regardless of one's feelings, the WBTS reminds us that "Reasonable persons agree that the only fair method (to see the truth) is to examine the evidence on both sides, both for and against a disputed theory (1973 Awake! October 22nd pg. 6). Please keep this statement in mind before you make your final decision on the truth of the matter.

As we examine the evidence, it's important to see how the WBTS views a person joining a secular organization whose objects are contrary to the Bible. Surely the UN fits into this category. Read below...

(1983 Organized To Accomplish Our Ministry pg. 151)





INVESTIGATING "JJ" PER CHAPTER


NOTE: After clicking the chapter you wish to view, scroll past the above "sticky" introduction post (also chapter index below) and read just below the map. Click on images to enlarge them.

CHAPTER 1"Introduction: In the Beginning" 


CHAPTER 2
"Know your NGOs!"


CHAPTER 3
"Did we agree to praise the UN?"


CHAPTER 4 "Please Sign Nowhere"


CHAPTER 5 "The changing world of NGOs"


CHAPTER 6 "Following it to the Letter"


CHAPTER 7 "Hail to the Chief"



CHAPTER 8 "Principle Support"



CHAPTER 9
"Did we hypocritically ‘ride the wild beast’?"


CHAPTER 10 "Awake to Propaganda?"


CHAPTER 11 "Self-condemnation?"


CHAPTER 12 "Consider the Source"

CHAPTER 13 "Conclusion: A Not-Guilty Verdict"

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Chapter 4


NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE

The whole premise of this chapter is rather interesting. Surely "3W" doesn't want us all to believe that to have a special security clearance ground pass which “grant a main and an alternate NGO representative access to all "open" meetings of UN bodies; to DPI photo, film and audio libraries; to the Dag Hammarskjold Library; and, as observers, to the meetings of some 22 NGO committees organized by the Conference of NGOs., doesn't require a signature? How many legal agreements, documents, or applications do you know of that don't require a signature on the form? Doesn't a signature legitimize the contract as a binding agreement to comply to the organization's standards?

We are told that some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply. They usually show a copy of a 2005 “Accreditation Form” for yearly status renewal — complete with a place for a signature and date at the bottom. The "Accreditation Form" issue that's brought up here is a clever way to detract from the real issue. Whether or not there is a yearly renewal form is irrelevant. As a reminder, the Watchtower willingly joined a branch of the UN, their publicity department. Perhaps he hopes we'll forget this reality?

Ok now lets take the bait and talk about the renewal process. "3W' quotes from a portion of the 2005 Accreditation Form saying that “In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI”, yet he doesn't delve into what that review process actually is. Why is that? He goes on to say the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO! Did this review process mean that a yearly renewal happened at this time (2002), as "3W" affirms? No it does not. When I called the resource center desk of NGO's (212) 963-7232, I spoke to a woman (Ashly) which happens to be one of the main persons dealing with Accreditation Forms, she told me that the yearly renewal process has been the same since the early 1990's, even earlier. If the NGO doesn't fill this form out they don't get their ground pass and it prevents them from maintaining their “good standing” status with the DPI. Well, there you have it. Who's misleading who?

If you look at the 2000 DPI NGO accreditation form, you'll see a deadline (before the new year) at the bottom of it on page two. The form needs to be turned in, by then, or you don't get in. See below...





1 comment:

  1. Uhm lol... sorry but did you even read the article at Jehovah's Judgment? I mean I'm reading both websites here and this is time consuming but it is clear you aren't doing that part of the work oddly enough. Or if you are, you are missing huge points. Forgive me if I am wrong here but I don't believe so:

    It isn't argued that the Accreditation Form wasn't filled out every year. He said: "The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application." Which is true, the AF form and the NGO renewal form are different things which until after the Watchtower left as an NGO, the UN combined it apparently.

    Calling "Ashly" was really a waste of time, she simply told you what was already noted on Jehovah's Judgment website. But apparently you still didn't understand where it fit into this chapter...

    You said that the "Accreditation Form issue..." was to "distract" from the real issue. That is also false, the chapter is ABOUT that because apostates HAVE tried to confuse readers with it, so it was good on the writer o address this too. Your website is actually the first time I've heard the expression "publicity department" to refer to the DPI department! Really the only distraction here is you bringing this up in this chapter.

    In fact this is a totally different point that if you want to use as an argument, deserves its own chapter.

    ReplyDelete