Many Miles

Yes. I agree with that. And, people can debate the veracity of an interpretation. But once someone (anyone!) asserts an interpretation of a given text then they have no choice but to accept that interpretation equally and not pick-and-choose where and when they want that interpretation to apply. That is, if they want to use that interpretation rationally.
Here's an example of one such interpretation:
"So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her."
Short version:
There was only ONE THING in all the garden that was forbidden to Eve.
Among other things, that would mean:
Eve was not forbidden to eat meat, or blood.
Oh. Wait. That would interfere with a pet teaching, wouldn't it.

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

Yes. I agree with that. And, people can debate the veracity of an interpretation. But once someone (anyone!) asserts an interpretation of a given text then they have no choice but to accept that interpretation equally and not pick-and-choose where and when they want that interpretation to apply. That is, if they want to use that interpretation rationally.
Here's an example of one such interpretation:
"So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her."
Short version:
There was only ONE THING in all the garden that was forbidden to Eve.
Among other things, that would mean:
Eve was not forbidden to eat meat, or blood.
Oh. Wait. That would interfere with a pet teaching, wouldn't it.

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

Never could figure it out

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

In the end God will look at our life and answer the question of whether we fear (respect) Him and work righteousness to the best of our knowledge and honestly. I think we must both agree on that.
 

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Because above you write:
"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]
Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:
We should believe teaching "x" because:
[______] it's rational.
[______] the society says so.
[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Because above you write:
"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]
Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:
We should believe teaching "x" because:
[______] it's rational.
[______] the society says so.
[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Good company is definitely a bonus. But if we put poison on our plate that's going to be a real bummer.

And that might be a blind spot for some of us, including me. Perhaps there are more people than we realize who're just looking for a base to call home, while they're left alone to live their life, which is their real worship. I don't know. But I know I was once in Chicago and witnessed a street prostitute fervently praying for a homeless man. I'm telling you, that woman's prayer was real! As real as it gets! Was I supposed to feel judgemental toward her, or for her having the audacity to think her prayer might be heard by the Almighty? There is a witness somewhere that once said God is a there for those who have no helper.
So, maybe there's something we miss if we're looking through rose colored glasses. That's why we need vision that is not dependent on our own biases, whatever those biases might be.
Don't let what's on your plate be the result of personal taste (preference). Let it be the result of sound reason. Regardless of the subject, apply sound reason, and listen to the result.

Good company is definitely a bonus. But if we put poison on our plate that's going to be a real bummer.

And that might be a blind spot for some of us, including me. Perhaps there are more people than we realize who're just looking for a base to call home, while they're left alone to live their life, which is their real worship. I don't know. But I know I was once in Chicago and witnessed a street prostitute fervently praying for a homeless man. I'm telling you, that woman's prayer was real! As real as it gets! Was I supposed to feel judgemental toward her, or for her having the audacity to think her prayer might be heard by the Almighty? There is a witness somewhere that once said God is a there for those who have no helper.
So, maybe there's something we miss if we're looking through rose colored glasses. That's why we need vision that is not dependent on our own biases, whatever those biases might be.
Don't let what's on your plate be the result of personal taste (preference). Let it be the result of sound reason. Regardless of the subject, apply sound reason, and listen to the result.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.
I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.
The hurt does not come from the fact of mistakes. The hurt comes when religious leaders pound an idea of basis-of-teaching that is then ignored by the same leaders to preserve a preferential position. Take, for example, the basis of 'soundly reasoning from the scriptures'.(1) That implies teachings will conform to rational conclusions. As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".
But the notion that a thing is not itself when it's decomposed is not treated equally across all teachings, even ones related to the subject of "soul".
1. "Reason from the Scriptures in a way that is convincing. Using heartfelt entreaty and sound logic, Paul convincingly ‘reasoned with others from the Scriptures.’" (Underlining added) (Ref https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20100215/Skillfully-Wield-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit/
 

Is there something in particular you're looking for in that book. I can look it up and share it.

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible.
The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’
Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child.
Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.
So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.
I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.
The hurt does not come from the fact of mistakes. The hurt comes when religious leaders pound an idea of basis-of-teaching that is then ignored by the same leaders to preserve a preferential position. Take, for example, the basis of 'soundly reasoning from the scriptures'.(1) That implies teachings will conform to rational conclusions. As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".
But the notion that a thing is not itself when it's decomposed is not treated equally across all teachings, even ones related to the subject of "soul".
1. "Reason from the Scriptures in a way that is convincing. Using heartfelt entreaty and sound logic, Paul convincingly ‘reasoned with others from the Scriptures.’" (Underlining added) (Ref https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20100215/Skillfully-Wield-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit/
 

Anyone today claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is uniformed. For instance, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method.
That said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It just tends to have low veracity because though a particular experience may be accurately shared there could be more reasons for the experiential outcome than the individual realizes. I'd dare say that a majority of today's medical therapeutics began as anecdotal evidence used to form a hypothesis to help advance medical treatment. It is one thing to point out the weakness of anecdotal evidence, but no self-respecting scientific researcher would dismiss it out of hand, that is unless the claim has already been thoroughly refuted by systematic review and experimentation.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?
I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.
When Justice Jackson rendered the Courts opinion he recited the alternate pledge of allegiance offered. It reads:
“I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray. I respect the flag of the United States and acknowledge it as a symbol of freedom and justice to all. I pledge allegiance and obedience to all the laws of the United States that are consistent with God's law, as set forth in the Bible.”
One can only wonder why the society felt the need for that alternative pledge of allegiance when they could have just told JWs they could pledge the same oath of allegiance sworn by all the society's top men, which reads like this:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion; So help me God."
Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

Of course. That is the way it should be. That’s why we bother to put information and questions into the public realm. Readers can see it all and make of it what they will. That’s a good thing. Don’t you agree? 

Alas! I’ve no interest in controlling you, or anyone else. I’ve just asked a question.
Readers can see the question.
Readers can see your response.
Let readers make of it what they will, which is as it should be. 

I've not asked, and never would I ask, JWs to swear loyalty to the GB. That's a red herring.
What I did do was ask a question, which you just completely ignored. I'm not the one who offered a Wikipedia article saying "all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary" regarding the issue of the society's offer of an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.
So here's the question again:
What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?
I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.