One of the most common "defences" of JW organization is that "the brothers" are imperfect yet still strive to follow God's Word.
"Sure, they make mistakes," so the argument goes, "but so did God's people in the past, including in Bible times." The key point is their readiness to keep studying God's Word and learning from their mistakes."
Nice and elegant argument. Who can argue with that disarming line?
The more it becomes obvious that there's something not quite right with JW doctrine (e.g., the 1914 "generation" and the literal 144,000), the more the rank and file resort to the "imperfect" argument.
This "argument" stifles the motivation for discussion: When sincere but imperfect men are trying their best, criticizing their attempts to better apply God's Word appears harsh and unkind. It is as if the admission of GB (and, by extension, elders) "imperfection" absolves the rank and file from 'making sure of all things' because no matter what the GB says, they are sincere and doing their best to follow God's Word. No need for discussion - or argument. Or if you do try to argue the point, you are seen as weak or proud or both.
This is literally what JW organization has "come to": The "imperfect-men" argument is little more than a flaccid defense of the indefensible. At every turn, out comes the "We're imperfect men" line.
It is also a highly hypocritical line: Imagine if members of the churches, upon hearing JWs' rote criticism of Christendom, replied, "Our ministers are not perfect but they remain sincere men of God."
Even if the JW did not challenge churchgoers on this defense, he or she would have lots of inner judgements about the irrelevance of the argument. A doctrine is either true or false - it has nothing to do with men's "imperfection".
JWs of bygone years would not have tolerated the "Imperfection" defense of their organization. Take Chapter 3 of the old "Truth" book, "Why It Is Wise To Examine Your Religion". It presents a compelling argument - although shrewdly directed at people in other religions - If you have the truth, you have nothing to fear from examining your religion; on the other hand, if you don't have the truth, you owe it to yourself to examine your religion.
It appears that JW publications seldom use that argument anymore because they know it could be re-directed at their own doctrines and teachings - and frankly those doctrines and teachings cannot stand examination. So, out come the deflecting arguments, of which the Imperfect-men defense is the commonest.
From Chuck Russell's outspokenness against Christendom's falsehoods, through Rutherford's amplified and more brazen outspokenness through to the current feeble defences of JW organization which reflects an organization that has painted itself into a corner.