Chris:
I don’t like to load a discussion with presuppositions about what is or is not ‘Satanically-inspired’, in the sense of direct, supernatural inspiration by the Father of Lies. My guess is that the founding members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses–specifically Charles Russell and Judge Rutherford–adopted a methodology which presupposed that Christian symbols and practices were overladen with Pagan interpolations. The early Witnesses were strongly motivated to challenge anything which looked as if it was based more upon Christian tradition than upon clear evidence from the Bible. This led them to question EVERY symbol commonly by Christians historically. Cross-like symbols ARE found in some pagan religions, and this rendered the Christian cross suspect. The idea that the Crucifixion might have taken place on a pole or a stake seemed plausible. It has long been conceded that we don’t actually know the true shape of the Cross on which Christ died–He could have been crucified on an “X” shaped cross, a “T” shaped cross, a “+” shaped crossor even and “I” shaped cross, as the Witnesses proposed. The evidence from Scripture most strongly supports the traditional idea of a “+”, but one could make a case for any of the other forms.
Remember that Jehovah’s Witness doctrine was being developed in a time when liberal scholarship held sway and there was a widespread belief that all kinds of traditional ideas about the Christian Faith were about to be shattered. Not a few people honestly believed that all religious beliefs would be shown to be based largely or entirely upon myths, and that Christianity would be ‘relegated to the dustbin of history’ as one thinker put it. A lot of the so-called ‘cults’, as well as movements such as Fundamentalism, came into being as a reaction to that idea, as an attempt to rescue Christianity from becoming intellectually marginalised. The Mormons chose to do this by establishing a new system of revelation. The Christian Scientists tried to do it by restoring the practice of healing. The Fudnamentalists made a four-square stand to defend the historic Christian Faith insofar as they could prove it directly from the Scriptures. And the Witnesses began to indulge in theological minimalism–they tried to expunge everything not clearly practiced in the very very earliest days of the Christian faith or clearly taught within the Scriptures.
I do think there is a social-psychological explanation for a lot of the practices of the Witnesses and similar groups. It increased the level of internal control over the membership. By rejecting some of the most cherished practices and beliefs of other Christian groups, they isolated themselves from others. This made members ever more dependent upon the Organization for social support, and ever less-likely to look outside of that Organization. I don’t know that Russell or Rutherford deliberately made their beliefs eccentric just for this reason, but it is one of the payoffs of allowing it to happen. Even if a member becomes disillusioned about the way the Society is operated, it will be very difficult for them to leave the Watchtower organization if they are fully convinced that crosses are unscriptural, the Trinity is a pagan idea, blood transfusions are immoral, etcetera. If faith remains in even a few of these peculiar notions of the JW’s, they will find themselves unable to find a spiritual ‘home’ in any other religious body. They would be cut-off from any association with Witnesses and would see themselves having no recourse to other Christians either. Very few people can tolerate the loneliness which would ensue.
There is something ‘Satanic’ about that: it makes the JW ideology a trap, a snare that is difficult to escape. But that is about as far as I’d be willing to speculate along those lines.
