Jehovah's Witness - Is it more important to agree with your leadership's teaching or with the truth?

This question is reminiscent in its structure and intent, to one of the questions Jesus asked the religious leaders at Matthew 21:25:

"The baptism by John, from what source was it? From heaven or from men?”"

The religious leaders didn't dare give Jesus a direct answer with one of the options presented in the question because they couldn't stomach the implications of either option. They didn't dare deny that John was sent by God for fear of how they would look in the eyes of the people; nor could they admit that he was commissioned by God for that would expose them as refusing to believe a prophet sent by God since they fail to accept Jesus whom John bore witness to as being the lamb of God. The religious leaders evade choosing either option by saying they didn't know the answer.

As you can see, your question is having the same kind of effect on JWs (only, unlike the religious leaders, the JWs are too arrogant to say they don't know.) The JWs answering your question don't dare give a direct response with one of the options provided in your question as to which is more important to agree with - the leadership's teaching or with the truth.

You see, if they say it's more important to agree with the leadership's teaching - which is effectively true when you decipher the result of their insistence on speaking in agreement (i.e. in agreement with their leadership's teachings) coupled with their vacuous platitude of "waiting on Jehovah" (i.e. waiting on the leadership to change or "clarify" its teachings) when they cannot accept or understand a particular Watchtower teaching that seems in error - then they effectively admit to being mandatory followers of men at the cost of disregarding truth. (they look bad in the eyes of others)

But if they say it's more important to agree with the truth then it amounts to an implicit admission that the leadership does not always teach the truth. Such an admission amounts to a criticism of the JW organization - something JWs are programmed to loathe doing, seeing it as an act of independent thinking, disloyalty, murmuring and/or even apostasy. A JW poster on here who chooses this option in his answer risks being viewed with suspicion by other JW posters, not to mention feelings of guilt or dread that he has spoken against "Jehovah's Organization". He may find himself being marginalized by other JWs on here as being one with apostate leanings and possibly blocked by a few of the ultra-paranoid uber-JWs.

Questions like these reveal the ugliness of the indoctrination spell that JWs are under. They are so indoctrinated to be blindly loyal to an organization of men at all costs that they cannot bring themselves to openly and directly admit to what is obviously the truth - that conforming to what is true is more important that conforming to the teachings of the men at the helm of their organization.

It's important to agree with what is in the scriptures. Now who is teaching what's in the scriptures? Does it happen to be Jehovah's Organization... Yup! The same way he organized his people back then is the same now. Jehovah is a God of order not disorder and he wants us to follow him in spirit and in truth.

I am not a JW, but for the sake of argument, they're puppets being controlled by the JW's GB. I truly feel sorry for them.

My leadership's teaching IS the truth... beep beep... I am a mindless robot, a sheep... baaa, baaa, blind faith is a virtue... using my brain is a sin...

Truth reins supreme, believe in truth.

The leaders are jehovah himself.