Mature people are not overly sensitive to criticism -- they recognise their own limitations, and the possible wider experience or knowledge of others.
But, (and reading this board for over 4 months now) it seems to me, that the tougher approach of the GB to differing opinions since the 1980's, is indicative of a social immaturity and sensitivity to criticism.
somehow in their relationship with each other, there is a lack of confidence in what they believe. ( in any case, "truth" is established only by a vote of the GB - there is no modern day urim and thummim - so on the GB opinions can be held - even if NOT taught)
if you have a lot of confidence in your beliefs, if it's well researched and tested, if you are above all seeking truth -- then you are relaxed about your beliefs.. and there is no need to exclude and shun dissenters. if you lack confidence in your beliefs, then it will be the opposite.
I am, of course, sitting on the outside -- never anywhere near the holy halls of power in NY bethel and df'ed for over 13 years --
but, i draw the conclusion that the events of the early 1980's, the pursuit of ray franz, their clear "need" to get rid of him, and all other dissenters is evidence of the "shakiness" of belief at the highest level (more than anyone, they will be aware of alternatives).. then, we have with the fading of the GB due to age, and the development of a sub-class of guardians of the holy writ a situation that will make most of them intolerant to critiscism, and exclusive of dissent (that is the role of a guardian).
This is a very dangerous situation for any organisation.
this permeates the whole organisation.... from the GB, down to the "guardian" class down to the BoE's and their "need " to investigate every possible incident of apostacy and df/ds anyone with any thought that indicates dissent.. down to the publishers and down to weaker (of understanding) and the resultant yelling and screaming that so many here mention when trying to discuss a variation of belief with "in" relatives.
{b} what is your take on this?? [/b} ..
Jws have long maintained that their biblical education program has produced a trained elite of ministers ...
my experience is as follows:
in the average congregation... there will be --
about 5% who understand the doctrines well in biblical terms....
another 10% who have a "good" understanding in the bible..
another 30% who can handle the bible well,
and the rest have only a vague idea of how to prove their beliefs, with a "few" favourite scriptures that they can find and know.
Most, therefore cannot prove their beliefs from the bible -- attendance at the 5 meetings per week has not produced in most, the deep understanding of the bible -that the GB has tried to inculcate.
those of you who have conducted the WT study or a book study, will appreciate (i am sure) - how few understand the material being studied ( unless it's on the level of the paradise book - or similar.
hence -- a state of panic, when a belief is challenged - and the need to react by "cutting of" the dissenters
of course, it's not just the jws that have reacted this way -- lots of other christian groups are almost as paranoid. ( and john calvin's treatment of michael servetus is an outstanding example of the intolerance bred by christianity)
there is something about institutionalised christianity that makes it prone to this immaturity of conduct. faith is OK up to a point, but in the end, it's facts (proof) that makes us confident in our beliefs and tolerance that makes us reasonable in their application. and in faith based organisations - facts are hard things to come up... and therefore the greater the need to remian calm, mature and tolerant -- the very things that seem to be fast disappearing in dub city.