JW Insider

I felt sorry for a man that had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.
I felt sorry for a man who was paranoid, until I met a man who was paranoid and had no sense of humor.

We picked about as many bad apple-related puns as we did apples that day. That's because there's always a cornucopia of corny puns to cope with. They're like low-hanging fruit. I do remember one really dumb "pear" joke I made on the hayride when we passed up the rows of out-of-season pears, and I saw one still on a tree:  I started singing:  ". . . And a Bartlett in a pear tree."  [wrong crowd?]
But I made an unrelated but even odder "pair" joke on the way back home. Unfortunately, it was kind of an off-color joke, for my wife's ears only, that I shouldn't repeat here.
So here goes: 😮
It was based on an actual experience from a couple of days earlier when my wife didn't have the cash at the time to tip the nail salon people and she sent me back there with the tip a couple hours later. I was to find two people, Tina and Lee-Lee, the owner and the "nail-doer," respectively. It was my first time in a nail salon, surrounded by women, and I played up that part of the story when my wife asked me if I had found everyone OK. (Wives won't always admit it, but there is a certain kind of tension when they've just send their husbands into a bevy of women to represent them.)
So all that background of the story had almost nothing to do with the joke. Almost. I thought it would be fun to tell my wife about a certain woman I saw in the nail salon who was just finishing up getting intricate designs put on her nails by the same nail-doer, Lee-Lee, and I had to interrupt them. In excruciating detail I described to my wife how the woman getting her nails done had these extreme upper body elements that reminded me of when Dolly Parton once described her bra with the words, "It's like trying to put 100 pounds of mud in a 50-pound gunny sack." 
But I also mentioned to my wife that, waiting out in front of the salon, was another woman in a car who had almost exactly the same figure, and the same mode of displaying it with a lower-than-low-cut blouse. (Or maybe it was a dress; I don't remember looking.)
I said to myself: I bet that woman in the car is waiting for the same woman I just interrupted. And I'll bet she is going to get in the same car with her. And sure enough, as I was getting back to my own car, that other woman left the salon and got in the car with her, right there in front of the salon.
"How do you think that I was able to predict that this was going to happen?" I asked my by-now-thoroughly-exasperated wife.
 

Yesterday, I was at Wallkill and Warwick. And it wasn't what you might be thinking. It was to take the grandkids (ages 3 & 6) apple picking. When my own children were young, this was an easy thing to do. Load everyone in a car; drive at least 30 miles outside NYC; watch for signs; take your pick of places; end it with a simple hay-ride, and then take home your pick of apples. Now many of the farms that manage these things only take reservations for picking. They charge $40 for a half-bushel. The have expensive vendor stands creating a makeshift food court, a gift shop, a donut shop, a cider shop. The one we ended up at yesterday had about 500 cars when we arrived (and parking for only about 400). And live music. (?!?!)
Not quite the vibe I grew up with.

We picked about as many bad apple-related puns as we did apples that day. That's because there's always a cornucopia of corny puns to cope with. They're like low-hanging fruit. I do remember one really dumb "pear" joke I made on the hayride when we passed up the rows of out-of-season pears, and I saw one still on a tree:  I started singing:  ". . . And a Bartlett in a pear tree."  [wrong crowd?]
But I made an unrelated but even odder "pair" joke on the way back home. Unfortunately, it was kind of an off-color joke, for my wife's ears only, that I shouldn't repeat here.
So here goes: 😮
It was based on an actual experience from a couple of days earlier when my wife didn't have the cash at the time to tip the nail salon people and she sent me back there with the tip a couple hours later. I was to find two people, Tina and Lee-Lee, the owner and the "nail-doer," respectively. It was my first time in a nail salon, surrounded by women, and I played up that part of the story when my wife asked me if I had found everyone OK. (Wives won't always admit it, but there is a certain kind of tension when they've just send their husbands into a bevy of women to represent them.)
So all that background of the story had almost nothing to do with the joke. Almost. I thought it would be fun to tell my wife about a certain woman I saw in the nail salon who was just finishing up getting intricate designs put on her nails by the same nail-doer, Lee-Lee, and I had to interrupt them. In excruciating detail I described to my wife how the woman getting her nails done had these extreme upper body elements that reminded me of when Dolly Parton once described her bra with the words, "It's like trying to put 100 pounds of mud in a 50-pound gunny sack." 
But I also mentioned to my wife that, waiting out in front of the salon, was another woman in a car who had almost exactly the same figure, and the same mode of displaying it with a lower-than-low-cut blouse. (Or maybe it was a dress; I don't remember looking.)
I said to myself: I bet that woman in the car is waiting for the same woman I just interrupted. And I'll bet she is going to get in the same car with her. And sure enough, as I was getting back to my own car, that other woman left the salon and got in the car with her, right there in front of the salon.
"How do you think that I was able to predict that this was going to happen?" I asked my by-now-thoroughly-exasperated wife.
 

Mathematics is a very pessimistic exercise. Perhaps we should stop teaching it in schools. (If one reads some of those energy headlines you'd think that they already stopped teaching math in all schools that teach business or politics or social sciences.) 

Oh my, your not sacrificing enough of your stuff to the organization, shame on you;P

I only like to set up the cart in a nice clean place where there is very little car or foot traffic because I already have its dirty wheel marks all over my car's back seat.

Yes but every little bit helps.

We picked about as many bad apple-related puns as we did apples that day. That's because there's always a cornucopia of corny puns to cope with. They're like low-hanging fruit. I do remember one really dumb "pear" joke I made on the hayride when we passed up the rows of out-of-season pears, and I saw one still on a tree:  I started singing:  ". . . And a Bartlett in a pear tree."  [wrong crowd?]
But I made an unrelated but even odder "pair" joke on the way back home. Unfortunately, it was kind of an off-color joke, for my wife's ears only, that I shouldn't repeat here.
So here goes: 😮
It was based on an actual experience from a couple of days earlier when my wife didn't have the cash at the time to tip the nail salon people and she sent me back there with the tip a couple hours later. I was to find two people, Tina and Lee-Lee, the owner and the "nail-doer," respectively. It was my first time in a nail salon, surrounded by women, and I played up that part of the story when my wife asked me if I had found everyone OK. (Wives won't always admit it, but there is a certain kind of tension when they've just send their husbands into a bevy of women to represent them.)
So all that background of the story had almost nothing to do with the joke. Almost. I thought it would be fun to tell my wife about a certain woman I saw in the nail salon who was just finishing up getting intricate designs put on her nails by the same nail-doer, Lee-Lee, and I had to interrupt them. In excruciating detail I described to my wife how the woman getting her nails done had these extreme upper body elements that reminded me of when Dolly Parton once described her bra with the words, "It's like trying to put 100 pounds of mud in a 50-pound gunny sack." 
But I also mentioned to my wife that, waiting out in front of the salon, was another woman in a car who had almost exactly the same figure, and the same mode of displaying it with a lower-than-low-cut blouse. (Or maybe it was a dress; I don't remember looking.)
I said to myself: I bet that woman in the car is waiting for the same woman I just interrupted. And I'll bet she is going to get in the same car with her. And sure enough, as I was getting back to my own car, that other woman left the salon and got in the car with her, right there in front of the salon.
"How do you think that I was able to predict that this was going to happen?" I asked my by-now-thoroughly-exasperated wife.
 

I haven't seen Nicole on the forum in a long time. But I'm glad you noticed this 6 year old post. It seems that churches who believe they are on the true path (which I would think should be a given) must sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouth, when they try to endorse ecumenical movements.
The link where you quoted the footnote also says the following in the main paragraph:
In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term. As explicitly recognized in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council, “it is evident that the work of preparing and reconciling those individuals who desire full Catholic communion is of its nature distinct from ecumenical action, but there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God” ( https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html#_ftnref49 )
And, of course, it's nearly impossible to find the right "compromise" between two things so distinct, without noting the opposition between them.
Part of that Vatican "Decree" said the following, which shows the real problem in that ecumenism can also be a scandal, "damaging the holy cause," in that it makes the Christ "divided."
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

Thanks for the response. I'll be traveling for about two more weeks but will be happy to respond again to this topic when I get back.

Hey JW insider, thank you for the response. I'm interested in this topic(ecumenical dialogue, proselytism vs evangelism)  because I don't really fully understand what is our position as Jehovah's Witnesses(officially) based on what we do on the ministry and our current framework in regards to our dialogue with other religions. I see a few articles on the JW library that bring it up, more specifically Catholic ecumenical dialogue, but I wonder if perhaps those articles are based on a misunderstanding of the Catholic position or of what we do as Jehovah's witnesses in the ministry. I can't figure it out. Perhaps you and others can shed some light on it. Most likely is a misunderstanding on my part. Here's an explanation given by a catholic that clarifies somewhat your point about talking with both sides of their mouth. 
Two Ecumenicisms By Bryan Cross https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/two-ecumenicisms/  
"Proselytism connotes coercion, manipulation, a notches-in-one’s-belt approach that fails to respect persons as persons, and fails to affirm their freedom in love and authentic person-to-person friendship. It is, for example, inviting a person to an event portrayed in one way (e.g. a meal, or entertainment), but then springing a sermon on them trying to get them to make a decision for Christ, such that they feel tricked, deceived, coerced, or manipulated.
By contrast, evangelism is by attraction, to the truth in love, not by pressure, which is contrary to freedom, and contrary to love. Pope Francis talked about this in his address to catechists in September, saying, “Remember what Benedict XVI said: “The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others”. And what attracts is our witness.” He said something similar in May in his Message for World Mission Day, “The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing ….” He described it again in his address in Assisi in October, and also in his Scalfari interview in that same month. And Pope Francis quoted Pope Benedict XVI on this subject, in Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 15. If a person does not know the difference between proselytism and evangelism, then Pope Francis’s rejection of proselytism will seem like a rejection of evangelism. But nothing could be further from what he is saying, as is made clear by the fact that his rejections of proselytism are typically in the context of talking about evangelism, and the importance of evangelism."
In the Protestant paradigm there is very little conceptual distinction drawn between evangelism and proselytism. But in the Catholic paradigm, this distinction is prominent and explicit; the Church explicitly distinguishes, and does not confuse, proselytism on the one hand, and evangelism and conversion on the other. The Church condemns the former, but affirms the latter as a command of Christ. All persons, all Catholics included (and myself included) are called to daily conversion. Pope Francis speaks often of the need for all of us to undergo daily conversion.
So when he responds to people asking him if he wants to ‘convert’ them, he is (from the Catholic paradigm) understanding that they are (whether they themselves are aware of it or not) talking about proselytism, and he responds accordingly. He is not saying that he wants them to remain without the Eucharist, or to remain in a state of schism from the Church. Rather, he is saying that he wants them to draw near to Christ, and that he will not proselytize them. From a Catholic point of view, to draw near to Christ means necessarily, as an intrinsic theological implication, to draw near to the Church Christ founded (and thereby draw nearer to this Church those around oneself), because all the elements of salvation (including our shared baptism) come from the Church, have their fullness in the Church, and point back to the Church. So Pope Francis is simply focusing on the telos of ecumenism: union with Christ, as the shared goal, and warding off the worry that he will instrumentalize his conversation and relationship with these Protestants into a means of converting them.
I agree that for some, the gospel is best shared wordlessly. But I think (at least in my experience) in general what these persons find offensive is proselytism (as the sense defined above), not authentic, respectful, and mutually free communication of the truth about Christ and His Church. The call to repent requires that the hearers recognize both the authority, charity, and trustworthiness of the speaker. Apart from divine miracles, it takes time to establish one’s authority, charity, and credibility. The call to repent requires that the hearers recognize that there is such a thing as sin, and that they have sinned against God, and that the evangelist has the authority to speak on God’s behalf in calling them to repent. It requires that they see in this person God’s love, which leads us to repentance. Otherwise, it *is* offensive, because in such a case the person is presuming to speak on God’s behalf regarding our violation of divine commands, without even taking the time to learn what the other person knows or does not know about these things, whether he is sorry for his sin, etc., and thus he both elevate himself above the hearer, and engages in hortatory coercion. The natural response is the same given to Moses: Who made you ruler and judge over us?
Regarding proselytism, Pope Francis recently said, “The Lord does not proselytize; He gives love. And this love seeks you and waits for you, you who at this moment do not believe or are far away. And this is the love of God.” (source) On our being called to daily conversion, according to Pope Francis, see here. He spoke again about proselytism on November 7, 2014. At end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, in 2015, Pope Francis spoke again about proselytism, saying:
What Pope Francis is saying here has to do with the necessary personal dimension of authentic ecumenism, apart from which apologetics reduces to competitive debate. He’s not rejecting authentic apologetics, or the sort of dialogue in which we come together in personal respect and charity, having already recognized and affirmed our common ground, to evaluate evidence and argumentation by which to overcome what still divides us. In saying that we should “put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches,” he is speaking of an approach that is fundamentally defensive and polemical, rather than first and primarily relational. Catholic apologetics takes its rightful place only in a context of personal dialogue and the intersection of persons meeting as persons, not in the impersonal combat of ideologies.
When we approach Pope Francis’s comments with charity and in the hermeneutic of continuity, we can see clearly that it is impossible for Pope Francis to be prohibiting apologetics, or evangelization, especially given that he wrote an entire encyclical on evangelization. Instead, he is talking about “approaches.” And he is criticizing approaches that start from the combative or defensive stance, rather than by meeting first as persons, finding common ground, and building on that common ground. I have described this approach as one of “debate” (in contrast to that of dialogue) in my post titled “Virtue and Dialogue.” By contrast, Pope Francis is here teaching that the practice of Catholic apologetics takes place rightly in the context of the meeting of persons in the second-person (I-Thou) dimension, bonded by charity, and authentic dialogue. Combative approaches are uncharitable, and are in this way contrary to the gospel we are called to defend.
In my experience, Catholic priests and bishops, whatever else their weaknesses and flaws, are keenly aware of the distinction between proselytism and evangelism, and are very cautious to avoid proselytism, as something contrary to the Gospel itself. Protestant pastors (and Protestantism in general) tend to be less aware of this distinction. Without that distinction, however, some Protestants mistakenly attribute a Catholic leader’s rejection of proselytism, and public decision not to proselytize, as if it is a rejection of evangelism and conversion. But that’s often a misinterpretation of the situation, because of the paradigm difference. Pope Francis sees his every daily action (apart from his sins) as the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit and thus as living evangelism, as an incarnate call to union with Christ, and with His Church.
Some priests seek to make sure a person isn’t being coerced, and try to put on the brakes, to make sure a person really knows what he is doing. (Having worked in RCIA a number of years, there are people who show up claiming to be ready to become Catholic at that moment, and you have to slow them down, in order to make sure they know what they’re doing and have counted the costs. A good priest isn’t interested in “sheep-stealing,'” or adding notches to his belt. He is aware of his ecumenical relationships with the Protestant pastors in his community, and wants a person to become Catholic only for the right reasons, and only when properly understanding what he is doing. Sometimes the “active discouragement” is just to see how serious the person is. And sometimes it could be because of a faulty understanding of ecumenism, in which ecumenism leaves no legitimate place or role for evangelism, in large part because since Vatican II, the Catholic stance toward Protestants is consciously and explicitly distinct from the Catholic stance toward pagans, on account of our shared baptism. And possibly some priests have not yet figured out how that distinction works in practice, because since VII the performative stance toward inquiring Protestants has not yet been become standard, universal practice, balancing between the increased respect and rightly acknowledged elements of salvation existing in these communities on the one hand, and their continuing state of separation from full communion and from the fullness of the truth of the gospel and the full means of salvation deposited in the Catholic Church.
In my opinion, Pope Francis’s exhortation (EG) is exactly what the Church needed regarding evangelism, because it elevates in the mind of the whole Church the importance of evangelism, the essence of evangelism, and the compatibility of evangelism and ecumenism. That’s something we’ve needed for some time, I think. It would be easy to become focused on the economic sections, and miss the message of evangelization contained throughout the whole document."
 
-Juan

We picked about as many bad apple-related puns as we did apples that day. That's because there's always a cornucopia of corny puns to cope with. They're like low-hanging fruit. I do remember one really dumb "pear" joke I made on the hayride when we passed up the rows of out-of-season pears, and I saw one still on a tree:  I started singing:  ". . . And a Bartlett in a pear tree."  [wrong crowd?]
But I made an unrelated but even odder "pair" joke on the way back home. Unfortunately, it was kind of an off-color joke, for my wife's ears only, that I shouldn't repeat here.
So here goes: 😮
It was based on an actual experience from a couple of days earlier when my wife didn't have the cash at the time to tip the nail salon people and she sent me back there with the tip a couple hours later. I was to find two people, Tina and Lee-Lee, the owner and the "nail-doer," respectively. It was my first time in a nail salon, surrounded by women, and I played up that part of the story when my wife asked me if I had found everyone OK. (Wives won't always admit it, but there is a certain kind of tension when they've just send their husbands into a bevy of women to represent them.)
So all that background of the story had almost nothing to do with the joke. Almost. I thought it would be fun to tell my wife about a certain woman I saw in the nail salon who was just finishing up getting intricate designs put on her nails by the same nail-doer, Lee-Lee, and I had to interrupt them. In excruciating detail I described to my wife how the woman getting her nails done had these extreme upper body elements that reminded me of when Dolly Parton once described her bra with the words, "It's like trying to put 100 pounds of mud in a 50-pound gunny sack." 
But I also mentioned to my wife that, waiting out in front of the salon, was another woman in a car who had almost exactly the same figure, and the same mode of displaying it with a lower-than-low-cut blouse. (Or maybe it was a dress; I don't remember looking.)
I said to myself: I bet that woman in the car is waiting for the same woman I just interrupted. And I'll bet she is going to get in the same car with her. And sure enough, as I was getting back to my own car, that other woman left the salon and got in the car with her, right there in front of the salon.
"How do you think that I was able to predict that this was going to happen?" I asked my by-now-thoroughly-exasperated wife.
 

Oh, C’mon! Show a little backbone, why don’t you?
Next thing you know you’ll be agreeing with that anti-cult whack job Korelov who calls the United States “the spiritual garbage dump of humanity” and who paints Jehovah’s Witnesses foremost in advancing that cause. I distinctly remember in the 70s working with the tract “Jehovah’s Witnesses—Christians or Communists”—designed to counter just the opposite impression, that Witnesses were agents of Russian communism.
https://bitterwinter.org/russia-sensational-revelations-jehovahs-witnesses-prepare-an-anti-putin-coup/
 

I just realised this may sound like I was inferring that JWI is stupid. Of course I don't mean that. If you live in the USA, you don't have much choice, especially not if you don't live close to a gruff German grandma! 

The gruff German grandma down the road loaded me up with enough pairs from her tree to last weeks. I was just walking by with headphones on, the way I do, and greeted her as she was crossing the street. Turned out she had just returned from giving a load to people there, also. 
My greeting was enough. She pulled me into her yard and made me take some of her pairs. However many I took, it was not enough, and I left with a bag as heavy as I could carry. So I brought them to the congregation get-together where several young children who had never eaten pairs before dove into them, found them delicious, and probably had the runs for a week.
My wife has called on this women before in the course of her ministry. ‘I don’t think she’s interested,’ she says. ‘She’s gruff, but underneath pretty decent.’ So I told her my wife’s verdict, which I agree with. I’ve been back since for more pears and even some apples.
(I should have told her that city-slicker @JW Insiderwould pay her $40 a bag for whatever came off her trees, even $80 if she serenades him with an accordion band.)

I agree. Things that used to be simple, have been made ridiculously complicated and commercialized. That's why I like the former soviet countries, they haven't caught on to this rubbish yet, or at least they have bigger fish to fry for now.....OR they know they wouldn't get the customers because people aren't stupid enough, yet* 🤪😂 OR, these kind of enterprises are not the best type for money laundering
*they go to grandma's orchard and pick their free apples for free, or pick the apples that grow on trees lining country roads...
 

Yesterday, I was at Wallkill and Warwick. And it wasn't what you might be thinking. It was to take the grandkids (ages 3 & 6) apple picking. When my own children were young, this was an easy thing to do. Load everyone in a car; drive at least 30 miles outside NYC; watch for signs; take your pick of places; end it with a simple hay-ride, and then take home your pick of apples. Now many of the farms that manage these things only take reservations for picking. They charge $40 for a half-bushel. The have expensive vendor stands creating a makeshift food court, a gift shop, a donut shop, a cider shop. The one we ended up at yesterday had about 500 cars when we arrived (and parking for only about 400). And live music. (?!?!)
Not quite the vibe I grew up with.

Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I believe that Ann O'maly has stated the truth about the U.N. involvement about as well as anyone can. I know the brother who got the Society involved with the UN DPI/NGO, and have spoken to him several times since I left Bethel in the 1980's. I know that the paperwork was approved by others including a member of the GB (mentioned by Ann).
It was definitely a mistake. And it has definitely stumbled people. I'm not here to defend it, and I'm not here as one of those Witnesses who will claim that Jehovah has allowed certain mistakes just to filter out those who are disloyal, or those who are looking for an excuse to leave the Organization. People still say this about some of the mistakes of the past, and will likely say such things about mistakes made in the future.
I just searched through the jw-archive site, because I know that we have discussed this before, and I didn't want to just keep re-writing things "from scratch" over and over again -- which is something I have a tendency to always do. In fact, this is the very first time I will be quoting myself from a previous post: I'm no expert on this, and perhaps I don't have all the facts either, but the information is from people I trust.
 
A portion of the discussion from https://disqus.com/home/discussion/jwarchive/jw_archiveorg_by_the_jw_comic_strip_52/#comment-2009424381
(I made the UN joke because the timing was close to "Sternstorm." The WTS applied for the NGO status through their DPI (Dept of Public Info.) in 1991 and received it in 1992. I believe we requested disassociation in 2001, just after an investigative journalist exposed the NGO/DPI connection.)
If you are asking about the UN, then unfortunately, the answer is Yes. The Watchtower joined the UN as an NGO. I know the brother who spearheaded the effort, still in Writing (last I spoke to him), and also knew others who approved it at the time (now deceased). They meant no harm, but it proved to be an embarrassment. They didn't really need the NGO status, for the original purpose -- access to informational materials, but the status seems to have given them quicker information about conferences and events that could have even helped the Watchtower Society learn more about the behind-the-scenes political circumstances of our brothers in various countries. The most embarrassing part, of course, was getting "disfellowshipped" by the UN. (That really happened, but it happened just after the WTS requested it.) Also, for a while, the Watchtower Society was supposed to write one informational article per year that informed our audience of some of the work the UN was doing. (That's one of the ways the DPI works.) So while the Watchtower magazine bashed them negatively, a small piece here and there in the Awake! magazine was doing articles on UNICEF etc that were between neutral and positive.
...
I should also say that I don't think this started out as anything very big. But those who got involved should have realized that almost everything goes public and becomes searchable. For a while you could even search the U.N.'s site and see which Awake! articles had been submitted for NGO/DPI compliance.
My motto: If you think you'll have trouble defending it, just don't! (Don't start something you might have to defend later.)
But I have to say that even in 1976, I was doing some follow-up research on Mr. Banda, the president of Malawi who had allowed widespread persecution of the Witnesses for several years just prior. And it turns out that he made some anti-JW statements that blamed the Witnesses for their own troubles -- saying that the problem was not just the 25 cent political party card. I only found this info in some heavy encyclopedic U.N. publications that no one in Writing had seen or heard of -- although these publications were at a large university library. It's quite possible that, 15 years later, a couple brothers were convinced that this type of information, although available without the NGO/DPI connection, would become more accessible. (I don't know if that would really be true.) Or, even more likely, that if we could gain a respectable status with THEIR researchers, we could merely request things to be xeroxed and mailed to the WTS, rather than traveling over to DPI repositories, and hardly knowing where to start.
 
----- and in another place on jw-archive, it came up again ------
 
There is additional evidence or information that I'm sure you can find from others, but what I write below is based mostly on what I know personally and have seen with my own eyes. It is mixed with a few things I have learned from other trusted and current Witnesses.
A very interesting man in Bethel's Writing Department is best known for some of his non-outline talks that he has given in hundreds of congregations. You can find many of his recorded talks on the Internet. He is a good speaker with a "dramatic" personality. I know the man well, and still count him as a friend although we rarely speak. I have seen him outside Bethel, in NY, NJ, even PA, oddly enough, buying books for his own library and for the Bethel libraries. (I have been a book collector for 30 years, and still take on research work for authors, so we have often frequented the same places.)
From the time I first knew him, 1976, this brother was in the Service Department and finally moved to the Writing Department. He was quickly given a lot of autonomy under the supervision of Lloyd Barry because he did more research and book purchasing than pure Writing compared with most others in Writing.
The brother I am speaking about was very highly embarrassed over the fact that it was mostly his own idea that got this thing started. I have not talked about it with him. He began using the UN library regularly in 1990, then weekly in 1991, and initially signed up with the UN's "Department of Public Information" (DPI) in 1991 (and officially accepted 1992) for easier access to library materials, but in the process of accessing those materials he learned a lot about different types of access to conferences and areas of interest that aligned with the Society's interests outside of just the library resources. (It was thought that association might have made it easier to publicize JW human rights violations, learn more about what other religions were doing when they had similar issues with religious persecution in many countries. It made it easier to get information about international religious taxation issues, and Holocaust publicity, etc.)
Brother Barry agreed with him that these other areas of access were also valuable, and they continued the association as an "NGO" (non-governmental organization). The names of both of these brothers, including the GB member, and another direct report to a GB member from the Service Dept are still on some forms at the UN.
They also had to agree to produce articles that helped to promote the work of United Nations' initiatives. The first one was the September 8, 1991 Awake! One initiative that the WTS could most easily agree with was UNICEF. The December 8, 2000 Awake! for example prints out the entire UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child in a single issue that mentions UNICEF 10 times (in a positive context). I'll quote it below.
But first notice by using the 2014 Watchtower Library CD for example that in the 10 years that the WTS was associated with the UN it mentioned UNICEF about 75 times (from 1991-2001). After a leak by the Guardian, the WTS was disassociated from the UN in 2001 when it was exposed to the UN that the Watchtower was simultaneously speaking out AGAINST the UN at the same time the Awake! was speaking positively about it.
(UNICEF has been mentioned just 11 times in the much longer time period since 2001, and always just to quote negative statistics.)
I have seen a list that included articles that were presented to the UN/DPI as proof that the WTS was keeping it's agreement by publishing at least one positive article per year. I don't have a copy of it, and don't know if anyone else does. I forget whether it included the issue below from 2000. I wish I had kept a copy. As I recall, it had references to about 10 different issues of the Awake! over a period of several years.
*** g00 12/8 p. 5 An Ongoing Search for Solutions ***
The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
● The right to a name and nationality.
● The right to affection, love, and understanding and to material security.
● The right to adequate nutrition, housing, and medical services.
● The right to special care if disabled, be it physically, mentally, or socially.
● The right to be among the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances.
● The right to be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty, and exploitation.
● The right to full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity to free and compulsory education, to enable the child to develop his individual abilities and to become a useful member of society.
● The right to develop his full potential in conditions of freedom and dignity.
● The right to be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace, and universal brotherhood.
● The right to enjoy these rights regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and property, birth, or other status.
 
 
--------------
Back to your current post. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think we need to cover up anything. A mistake was made, and we ultimately resolved it. I don't see what it proves to keep bringing it up. It does not show that we supported the U.N.  It shows that we found areas of agreement. We used the relationship to our advantage and the "cost" to us was the need to write about ways in which another organization was also trying to resolve world problems. For all we know, we would have been writing about such things anyway. Personally, I think we ended up looking more reasonable by discussing what the world was trying to do, and how it was at times making progress. Even their limited progress still highlighted the need for a more comprehensive solution.
So it's not like any JWs really needed to take their focus off the Scriptural reasoning for resolving the world's problems. Perhaps it made us more sympathetic and knowledgeable about the viewpoint of others. In the more distant past, we often did nothing but show derision for such efforts. Surely we are better off now for such research. I don't see this whole thing as a one-sided proof of hypocrisy with no up-side. I believe the posts also show that (through the mistake) we discovered avenues and venues for involvement in human rights awareness that we were not aware of previously.
 

I don't follow the "Org," I appreciate the organization for how it has been instrumental in currently helping millions of people build their faith on a solid foundation: faith in Jehovah, Christ Jesus, and the words and teachings of the Bible. I appreciate that it very efficiently and effectively has been instrumental in teaching tens of millions more, and getting the word out to hundreds of millions. (I.e., setting an example for preaching and teaching "good news" about a time under the Kingdom when there will be no more war, no more divisive politics, no more racism, and a time when Jehovah's provisions will make all things new, returning heaven and earth to His original purpose.)
I don't believe we need worry too much about the history of an organization, as if that is what Jesus meant by building on a solid foundation. What the organization was back between, say, 1884 and 1935, or even between 1935 and 2021 is also not of such great concern to me. I'm interested in the history mostly to the extent that I want to make sure that what we currently teach about that history is accurate and not distorted.
I have other interests in history, more generally, because I find it fascinating. Not just religious history, but all kinds of history. I always learn about various mundane themes (sociology, class, leadership, politics, psychology) that seem relevant as historical situations tend to be repeated.
Also, my great-grandfather was a "Pilgrim" in the Chicago Bible Students who traveled with Russell to speak at conventions, and he continued on under Rutherford. He said that most of the Chicago Bible Students were "Russellites," as he himself had been, and most of them left under Rutherford. Some of his "brethren" had left even earlier. Some had left in 1909 over doctrinal issues (New Covenant, "The Vow") some in 1914 and 1915 over failed predictions and expectations. So I admit that some family stories and "artifacts" of the Bible Student era hold my interest for more mundane reasons, too.
Even if the original organization had been no more than another faction of Catholicism or Protestantism that didn't believe in Trinity, Hellfire or War, that would be more than enough of a good start. My only expectation, historically, is that it would continue to progress, to put off more and more false teachings. Then we should find some evidence of Jehovah's blessing as it should attract more people who are looking for a kind of Christianity with a reasonable core of Biblical values and therefore find a brotherhood that encourages and promotes Christian conduct and activities. But the foundation is Christ, not the Organization. 

The world has gone insane....
Mundane stuff is being commoditized as never before as people are trying to attribute value to every single small iota of life amidst the foundational cash being devalued like never before in generations.
Stay tuned for more absurdities I'm sure.
Soon we will be asked to post $ in order to make posts online in forums etc.

“And I heard a voice as if in the midst of the four living creatures say: “A quart of wheat for a de·narʹi·us, and three quarts of barley for a de·narʹi·us; and how do you like them apples?”

Yesterday, I was at Wallkill and Warwick. And it wasn't what you might be thinking. It was to take the grandkids (ages 3 & 6) apple picking. When my own children were young, this was an easy thing to do. Load everyone in a car; drive at least 30 miles outside NYC; watch for signs; take your pick of places; end it with a simple hay-ride, and then take home your pick of apples. Now many of the farms that manage these things only take reservations for picking. They charge $40 for a half-bushel. The have expensive vendor stands creating a makeshift food court, a gift shop, a donut shop, a cider shop. The one we ended up at yesterday had about 500 cars when we arrived (and parking for only about 400). And live music. (?!?!)
Not quite the vibe I grew up with.