I was just thinking of something I read recently, a thread about the district convention talk, that mentioned how 'apostates' are always picking at 'the organization'. I just had a thought about that.
Pick up any copy of The Watchtower or Awake! or any other publication the Watchtower Society publishes, and more than likely, in every single one of them, there will be several statements made against all other Christian religions, all religions in general, or the scientific community so far as it conflicts with Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines. They often quote from other religions' publications or scientific journals in the process. But the common theme is emphasizing their superiority over all other religions, contrasting themselves and their beliefs with the 'false' beliefs of everyone on the outside. The Russian government has recognized this as a recurring pattern and as part of the reason the Society's literature was labeled as 'extremist' in that country. Even if that label weren't deserved, at the very least, such literature would come across as anti-Christendom, anti-most-other-religions, and anti-science-so-far-as-it's-not-WTS-approved.
So the question is, how is this not 'picking at' everybody else?
The bottom line with this is, Jehovah's Witnesses just don't like it when they get a taste of their own medicine. They reveal their insecurities when they cry persecution if someone points out their very real faults, contradictions, falsehoods, abusive speech, and missteps. Rarely do they consider the possibility that constructive criticism might be worth listening to and acting on. It's easier to plug up the ears and pretend that the organization can do no wrong than it is to be willing to make meaningful adjustments that might actually help people and not merely adjustments that help minimize legal liability, give more power to the Governing Body (or at least make them seem all-important to the divine purpose), or create yet another conveniently non-specific timetable for when the end will arrive.
An organization that claims its members are 'in the truth' ought to be a lot more open to facing all forms of truth, especially the uncomfortable ones, wouldn't you think?
--sd-7