Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης

I think the New World Translation 2013 page 1734 resolves the matter : "We simply don't know how God’s ancient servants pronounce this name".

I liked very much the http://healthandmedicine.org
Yes avgolemono in Greek and agristada in Ladino, I think is a Jewish sauce !

I think it's best to remember scriptures when approached by such an "arrangement".  
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”  1 Sam 16:7
And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.  Luke 16:7
It seems rather "worldly" to impress upon another how one should appear.  Would it be the lust of the earthly things by presenting a "beardless" image, instead of presenting the image of sincerity of each one's heart?
"Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. "  1 John 2:15-17
 
 

It's a good point that all Memorial dates are calculated in advance and are not based on actual observation ... which makes it more puzzling that the Org's choice of time for theoretical new crescent visibility is sometimes at variance with that of many (dare I say, 'most'?) other astronomical programs' calculations. And if anyone should know when the new lunar month ought to begin, it should be the Jews, right?
Also, picking full moon is no guarantee of hitting on the 14th day of the lunar month. Because of the nature of the Moon's orbit, full moon can occur any time from the 13th to 16th day. 

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
*** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
 
The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
 

But Giannis is asking why a person, who was disfellowshipped for having a kidney transplant, should repent of something that the Org. no longer believed was wrong. 

I cannot agree more with Joe Smith.
When The Almighty spoke through Jeremiah about the future covenant, He said: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts". If you want to keep a record of whom you visit and for how many hours is up to you. Now if you want to share this record with some earthly organization this is up to you too. But one thing is clear: Do not be good to others just because someone told you you must fill up some hours of visits. You must do it because the Law of the Almighty is in your heart not written in some paper.
If you ask my personal opinion ...  that is you can write this hours and every hour that glorifies JAH and His king our Lord Jesus.

Continue to do good and be blessed !

It makes me feel odd to invite tons of worldly people who are obviously fornicators and idolaters and then not be able to even show a little love such as a "hello" to a disfellowshipped brother or sister.
Does not compute mentally. Just sayin'
We should make the Memorial for baptized, active, approved members of JW.org in secret locations only. Less stress for me.
 
Jesus did not die for thier sins since they unrepentant and subsequently disfellowshipped.
 
How do you handle the disfellowshipped at the Memorial?
 
 

Fact is active jehovahs witnesses love seeing disfellowshipped ones. They love looking down on them from a high seat of judgement and prejudice. Regarding another human as "lesser than" is how afraid people feel empowered. All prejudice based groups embrace similar practices.

This is another topic in which the WBTS acts with double standards. If the higher education is to the benefit of the organization, it is embraced, but if it is in the benefit of the R&F, it is denied.......
 

Excellent!  Thank/you Ann. 

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

Legal Seminar: South African Bethel
 

 
The Legal Seminar
The seminar was a full day event held at the “residence hall.” I had come with my wheelchair bound friend, from the same congregation. We were a few minutes late, so as we rolled in into the foyer, we got handed our seminar pack, our bottled water, and lapel badges by two pretty ladies (hell yeah, I still remember that). This was the same residence hall that I had shook Anthony Morris’[3] hand a few weeks ago prior to his official Branch Visit talk in South Africa on Sunday, January 11, 2015, with his “sidekick” Anthony Griffin.
The seminar was split between matters that were strictly legal, and those that were more tax related; of course, there was an obvious overlap between the two as can be expected. The key speakers were select members of the Branch Committee, in-house legal counsel, and those from the accounts department. A lot was said about Europe, Africa, the U.S., Hayden Covington,[4] child custody, divorces, Advance Medical Directives (“blood cards”), alternative service, Road Accident Fund, legal battles here, legal battles there, tax etc. The bottom-line was this: There’s a lot going down, and we’d appreciate your assistance in these affairs.
It should be noted, however, that “these affairs” require tertiary qualifications… higher education.

South Africa Bethel - Tax and Legal Seminar Group Photo (Feb 28, 2015)
South Africa Bethel – Legal and Tax Seminar Group Photo (Feb 28, 2015). I’m on the bottom left, sporting a pair of shades on my head.
the Australian branch sent out a letter, dated November 18, 2015, to all Service Committees throughout the congregations of Australian. The letter was “confidentially” seeking for baptised members of the congregation who were “qualified as solicitors, barristers, certified practising accountants or chartered accountants.” But all of this exploration was to be done discreetly “without consulting the publisher” (I suppose this is how they canvass for potential seminar candidates). Now, let’s juxtapose these two events, the South African seminar and the Australian request letter, and contextualise them.

The Point
The organisation tells folks not to pursue higher education, in fact, if you are an appointed person – Elder, Ministerial Servant, pioneer – and you attend university, your (spiritual) qualifications automatically come under review. What does that tell you? That the organisation has a default disdain for higher education. But now, at the same time, they secretly sponsor select bethelites to obtain these very “worldly” qualifications, using funds donated by some of the simplest Witnesses, many of who have complied with this “mandamus” from the “Faithful and Discreet Slave.” But, then, per chance that you didn’t comply with this mandamus, and remain a Witness, they implore you to use your “worldly gifts” in service to God, namely, in furtherance of the organisation – to a large extent, free of charge.
What’s wrong with this picture?
And if you take the global downsizing that the organisation has been conducting lately, where veteran bethelites are sent home and special pioneers being sent up the creek without a paddle. Why? Because it’s now becoming too expensive to accommodate them. A burden. And, yet, many of these bethelites forfeited higher education in order to at the full time service, now you’re telling them to hamba kahle (“go well”)? C’mon, man, c’mon.
What is wrong with this picture, people
If the organisation was cool and was like, you know, “Go to university, don’t go to university, that your decision to make, as long as you are aware of the challenges.” That would be one thing. But what we’re seeing here is the constant badgering badgering badgering. There has to be some kind of accountability here. You can’t enjoy the assets of other people’s labour without taking ownership of the liabilities peculiar with that asset, as well. It’s immoral. This whole thing is just patently duplicitous. Scandalous. Why all these backdoor “transactions?” You say one thing on stage, but, then, em’va kwethu you do something else. Hai wethu.
Conclusion
Brimstone and humour aside, I personally don’t have a problem with the organisation seeking professional assistance from willing qualified Witnesses per se. It is the duplicity that irks me. It is the selfishness of their approach that vexes me. It is the ruination of people’s lives that ticks me off. It is the unconscionableness of their methods that pisses me off, treating genuine people as expendables and collateral damage for their own selfish gains, gains which they clothe as “divine service,” service to Jehovah.
If it were up to me, I’d have Governing Body pipe down on their take of higher education and to resist this laughable attempt at gaining some kind of moral high ground in this matter.
#LegalSeminarBethel
#ThinkingWitnesses
http://thinkingwitnesses.org/legal-seminar-south-africa-bethel/

"judicial committees" were held in the gates of the city and later in front of all the congregation."Since the local court was situated at the city gates, there was no question about the trial being public! (Deut. 16:18-20) No doubt the public trials helped influence the judges toward carefulness and justice, qualities that sometimes vanish in secret star-chamber hearings."  -Awake 1981 Jan 22 p.17
 

I think not only we will never have had problems with pedophiles but many other problems would be solved if trials were held in the front of the congregation.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/671901/jewish/When-is-Passover-in-2016-and-2017.htm

The Watchtower Society teaches that we must celebrate the Memorial of Jesus on the 14th of Nisan, but this year the date is March 23 which is the celebration of the Fast of Esther on the eve of Purim.
http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/month.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_of_Esther

There's another thread here too. It may give you some pointers:
 

OK.
I notice that you do not give specific references or quotes to support your point. This makes it harder to verify your claim. Perhaps you just threw out names hoping some might stick. It's appears you didn't bother to actually check what they said.
Barnes refers the reader of 2 John 7 to his notes on 1 John 4:2 where he says,
"It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the 'Docetae;' and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God."
Alford neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists in his commentary.
A.E. Brooks - The Johannine Epistles, I presume. While he questions whether John was specifically pinning down Docetism as the 'false teaching,' he does say that the "connection of the [first] Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite apparent" (p. xliii). He also acknowledges that the recognized connection between John's First and Second Epistles with Docetism has had a long history and, while he finds it unfortunate that the term 'Docetism' has both a "wider and narrower signification," he says it can be applied in a more popular sense,
"to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the Lord's humanity." (p. xliv) 
This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching.
"The team at Intervarsity Press" - too vague. 
W Hall Harris - Are you referring to his book, 1, 2, 3 John - Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis? P.211 - "There is no indisputable evidence for docetism in the Johannine letters." Well, that's one scholar so far.
The Pulpit Commentary:

"These seducers deny 'Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,' or they deny 'Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.' The present participle ἐρχόμενον seems to indicate exactly the position of some of the Gnostic teachers. ... The Gnostic denied that the Incarnation could take place: no such Person as the Christ coming in the flesh was possible; that the Infinite should become finite, that the Divine Word should become flesh, was inconceivable. The teacher who brings such doctrine as this 'is the deceiver and the antichrist' about whom the elder's children had been so frequently warned."
Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.
 
FB Hole neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea that John was targeting Docetists because he doesn't mention them. He applies John's words to 'Modernism.'
William Kelly -  neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists but talks in generalities.
J R Dummelow - his introduction to 2 John discusses the historical context of the letter and how the Docetist view, which denied Jesus' true nature, was a threat to the Christianity that John held dear. No disagreement from Drummelow.
Leon Morris - did he do a discussion of John's letters? I cannot find one among his listed works.
James Macknight -  A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. To which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul, Vol VI - an old 18th century commentary. MacKnight says that the purpose of the 2nd epistle to John was 
"to confute the error of Basilides and his followers, who affirmed that Christ was not a real man, but only a man in appearance; consequently, that he neither did nor suffered what he appeared to do and suffer." (P. 134)
MacKnight was mistaken in attributing the heresy to Basilides as he lived after John's letter was supposed to have been written, but it's clear that MacKnight thought John was targeting Gnostic heresy.
Coffman's commentaries:
"The heresy of the false deceivers was that of denying the Incarnation. Various scholars have identified such teachers as Docetists, Cerinthians, and Gnostics."
Nah. Your "most scholars" that "disagree" John was targeting the Docetic heresy amount to ... let me get my calculator ... a grand total of ... one.

Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
I have noted your references and the arguments made by the various critics you recommend. The observations are interesting and informative where factual. The conclusions and assertions made remain the perception of those critics however, and I do not find them in the least convincing. For me, they remain simply, allegations.
I can see in the scriptural record similarities to the many ways in which God's servants in the past were assisted by secular authorities in the carrying out of Jehovah's purposes. Ezra and Nehemiah's relationship to the authorities in their day being classic examples. (I would submit both books in their entirety as references here).
This record(for me) serves simply to demonstrate the inability of Satan to thwart Jehovah in that the very organisations representing his (Satan's) rulership are used, when required, to accomplish Jehovah's purposes. 
The passage of scripture in Matthew 12:22-30 fits well for me in response to these allegations.
 
 

(Giannis, Robert King is disfellowshipped so it's unlikely that loyal JWs will read anything he says.)
I remember the controversy when it broke and researched the matter for myself at the time.
The issue wasn't so much that Watchtower became a NGO, but that it also became associated with the UN's Department of Public Information which required assenting to the UN Charter (read it to see what that involved) and promoting the UN's work, aims and values. Every year, as the rules stood, the Organization had to provide evidence to the DPI that it was doing that in order to continue association. This is why the articles in the Awakes during the 1990s softened their anti-UN stance and put the UN's accomplishments in a more positive light.
It's easy to minimize the Watchtower's involvement as the actions of one Bethelite, but he and the other named representative were high-up Bethelites. At least one GB member was aware because he was also listed as one of the representatives on the accreditation forms (W. [Lloyd] Barry). Not only that but, 
"Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed." - w87 3/1 p. 15 par. 18.
So any 'spiritual food' that promoted the UN's work (in contrast to the usual contempt about it) was checked and signed off by members of the GB. It would be those kinds of articles that were provided to the DPI so the Org. could continue its association.
Given that the UN has long been viewed as the 'disgusting thing' of Daniel and the 'scarlet wild beast' of Revelation, it's understandable why many would be stumbled by the Org's actions.

Me too. I was going to mention it in my post but, like you, I didn't keep a copy, my memory was too vague on it, and the list has gone into cyber-oblivion.
Yes, signing up was a mistake in view of the Org's true opinion of the UN. Despite writing more positively about the UN's work, which was refreshing to see on the one hand, it also meant that the Org. was being two-faced. In addition, it made it appear like the 'disgusting thing' was having a say in what kind of 'spiritual food' was to be produced. I don't know why nobody at the top picked up on the inconsistency.
 

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.
 

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who?
Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?
Where is there scriptural precedent for a congregational policy that has the person attending every meeting for a year or more, and all the while family and friends not conversing with him until the elders finally deem him repentant and reinstate him?
How do you know that the person seeking reinstatement is not putting on an elaborate act of repentance? Maybe the person just wants to be able to talk to/associate with their family again. Maybe it's part of the plan to have a new (adulterous) marriage accepted, given enough time (I know two cases where that happened). How can an elder body really know either way before making a decision?
We've been talking generally but you bring up abuse cases - crimes rather than sins. The way you framed the question suggests to me that you may not be aware of how an abuse case would be handled as a matter of course. As JW policy stands now, an alleged abuser can only be dealt with if there are two witnesses to the crime. If there aren't two witnesses to the crime, another child or young person would have to have been abused and come forward before the elders would do anything - like e.g. disfellowship the abuser.
If the abuser is disfellowshipped for child abuse, one would hope that he has also faced justice in the courts. If he has faced the courts and been convicted, he would then be put on the sex offenders' registry and monitored by the authorities. If he was then reinstated into the congregation, whether he was genuinely repentant or not, the elders and congregation members would be alerted to the fact that there is a convicted sexual predator in their midst and take precautions to protect their children from becoming another victim.
 
 

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.
I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.
At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.
1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.
2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.
3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.
4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")
These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:
At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:
(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.
What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound.