wannabefree, Thank you for your kind words.
WontLeave, Thank you for that information and suggestion.
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer 137 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
djeggnog
@the pharmer:
I haven't read your entire post (but I will later). Just got to the part where you couldn't follow my Minor vs. Major explanation, so I will simplify it.
Ok.
Using "chords" to clarify...an "A" chord consisting of a triad (3 notes) has an A, C, and E in it. The A-major triad (chord) consists of A (natural), C# (sharp), and E (natural); whereas an A minor triad consists of A (natural), C (natural...not sharp), and an E (natural). If you know a piece of music is in the key of "A", but you have C-naturals all over the place, it is going to sound as a Minor tonality. Play C#'s in place of all the C-naturals, and it will sound as a Major tonality.
You didn't say a thing about chords in your previous post. In your previous post you spoke about playing or singing in "the key of 'A,'" did you not? I cannot read your mind or know what you may have intended to write. Quite frankly, music is a language all its own, and you talk funny: An A-minor chord always includes a C, whereas an A-major chord always includes a C#. I did use "C-natural" in my previous post, because you had used it, but when discussing the notes in the key of A -- notice that I didn't write "the key of A-major" since "the key of A-major" is what is meant when we say, "the key of A" -- there is never going to be a C, only a C#.
Simplified further...find a piano and play A-natural, C-natural, and E-natural all at the same time...hear the minor quality. Then raise the C-natural by a half step to a C-sharp but leave the A and E where they are (as naturals)...hear the major quality.
Again, you talk funny: You say "play A-natural, C-natural, and E-natural all at the same time" instead of saying "play an A-minor chord." You then say, "raise the C-natural by a half step to a C-sharp but leave the A and E where they are (as naturals)," instead of saying "play an A chord." I never describe a minor or a major chord as having "quality"; they just are what they are.
@djeggnog wrote:
A Major has three sharps, so if I were to play (or sing) A Major with a C-natural, as you suggest, then how could my doing this error alone be mistaken for an A Minor, which also has the F# and the G#? Both a Natural A Minor and a Harmonic A Minor do have a C-natural in them, but both of these differ from A Major in that the sixth note in both are lowered a half step, whereas the seventh note in the Natural A Minor (G#) is lowered a half step (to G) as well. It might require me to think about what it is I am playing because it isn't natural to include a C-natural when playing something in A Major, but I don't think anyone would think that the piece was being played in A minor at all, but you.
@the pharmer wrote:
I never said this piece of music consisted of any F's or G's of any type...so you can't assume. Want more music theory? There's also a melodic minor you missed, lol, j/k...anyway, you might know that all minor scales have the 3rd lowered 1/2 step when compared to their major form. You mention the F# and the G#, which is true, but I never said it was a given that this piece of music had those notes in it.
Of course you did. When you say to a musician, "the key of A-Major (not minor)" or just "the key of A and not A-minor," which means exactly the same thing, again, there are three sharps, C#, F# and G#. You say here, "I never said this piece of music consisted of any F's or G's of any type, but I am bilingual when it comes to music; I will always interpret "the key of A" to mean three sharps, C#, F# and G#. I don't need you to say a thing.
So, to help keep you on track, assume this piece of music I speak of only consists of the first 5 notes of an A scale -- i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. Based on these first 5 notes of the A scale, how could you know if it is minor or major??? :) It all depends on the type of "C". If it is a C# it sounds as a Major progression, if it is a C-natural it sounds as a Minor progression.
I'm sorry, but no. You're wrong. I would never make the assumption that we are talking about A-major if the notes should be "A, B, C, D, and E." Why is that? Because if I don't hear you say "C#," then I'm going to assume that you are talking about A-minor, for there are no sharps in the A-minor scale. It doesn't depend at all upon the type of "C." If this kind of thinking works for you, fine, but every name in music -- whether were are talking about keys on a major scale, on a minor scale, major sevenths or minor sevenths -- has a meaning, and we don't have to think about it: It is, period.
Besides, if you think the fact that a key signature has 3 sharps in it (F#, C#, and G#) automatically makes it A-major, you would be mistaken, it could be it's relative minor key of f# minor (same 3 sharps present). We digress :)
I cannot agree with what you say here about F# having the "same 3 sharps present"; if were talking about the key of F#, then there are six sharps, F#, G#, A#, C#, D#, E#; if we're talking about the key of F#-minor instead, then in this case there are definitely three sharps, F#, G#, C#. The key of F#-minor will always have three sharps, but as for the key of A, this, too, will always consist of F#, G#, C#. A song in the key of F# does not at all sound the same as a song in the key of A, however, so what was your point?
But above you said "chord," didn't you? So if we're talking about an F# chord, then this would consist of F#, Bb and Eb, but for purposes of this discussion, we'll call these keys F#, A# and D#. If we're talking about an F#-minor chord, then this would consist of F#, A and Eb, but for purposes of this discussion, we'll call these keys F#, A and D#. What was your point?
But in your previous post, you specifically wrote the following:
If this was music, and it was written in the key of "A", and you insisted on singing/playing every "C" as a C-natural, it would sound like the piece is in a Minor key -- i.e. A-Minor.
Like I wrote in my previous post, the key of A consists of three sharps: F#, C#, G#. You didn't know this, but you are talking to a former musician, so when you wrote, "the key of 'A,'" I understood what other musicians would have understood you to be saying, F#, C#, G#.
Try not to read into things any further than what my point is, which I thought was clear, but maybe not. As applied to your higher powers example, the point was, in the key of "A", I was playing C# (the way it was written) and it sounded as a Major key. The WT (in your example of higher powers) was playing a C-natural, making it sound as a Minor key....when in fact, the composer who wrote the piece of music wrote it as A-Major. Now the WT/JWs are playing a C#, just as was intended by the composer (apparently).
Got it??
No. What's your point?
I am quite certain that my statement above is correct, but I will review and make sure before I say more.
Thanks Djeggnog, I look forward to reading the rest of your post when I can devote more attention to it.
Why not read the part of my post on which you just commented before resting the rest of it, @the pharmer. It is evident to me that you didn't read the first part of it at all. Hopefully you will re-read what you wrote in the previous message so that you might know how I understood what it was you did write, instead of what you did not write.
I realize you didn't know that I play alto sax (Eb), trombone (Bb) and keyboards (organ and synthesizer). A little background: I'm a former pre-Disco era R&B musician, who, along with a tenor saxophonist, that also played the soprano sax and the flute; an alto saxophonist; and a trumpeter -- we four -- were the brass section of a nine-man band with a three-man (actually a one-man and two-woman) singing group that would sing for one of our 40-minute sets as part of our ensemble.
I actually still play the alto, but that's just for me, but I don't do so professionally any longer, and I will sometimes tickle the ivories on my iPad (there's an app for that!) if I should be curious about some chord, or if I'm looking for a song on a CD, it's sometimes easier for me to just tap out the melody on my iPad for the store clerk.
Apart from this music-related analogy that you've been using here, which, as I indicated above, I don't understand, did any of the things I stated in my previous post not clear up your misunderstanding of the following:
(@the pharmer:)
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
(@djeggnog:)
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.
If not, maybe it isn't possible for me to articulate an answer to your opening question.
Play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on the piano in the key of A-Major. Hint: you must start on the 3rd of the scale (C#).
Notice how it is a MAJOR key. (CORRECT VERSION -- i.e. my interpretation)
C#-B-A-B-C#-C#-C#-B-B-B-C#-E-E-C#-B-A-B-C#-C#-C#-C#-B-B-C#-B-A
Now replace all the C#'s with C-naturals.
Notice how it is now in a minor key. (INCORRECT VERSION -- i.e. WT interpretation prior to 1960's (or whenever you said))
C-B-A-B-C-C-C-B-B-B-C-E-E-C-B-A-B-C-C-C-C-B-B-C-B-A
No one would play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in the key of A in the manner that you describe. This is not the melody I learned when I was a kid and played this tune on the violin. I played it on my iPad, but I don't need to imagine that the song will sound flat whenever a C is played instead of a C#. Again, there is no C in the key of A-Major, there is only a C# (and a F# and G#).
@djeggnog wrote:
Jehovah's Witnesses do you try to prop up a wrong viewpoint to make it appear that we did not change our viewpoint. When we are wrong, we abandon our wrong viewpoint as a body and embrace the right viewpoint as a body. Even if we might think one of our viewpoints on some matter is wrong, Jehovah's Witnesses must all "speak in agreement." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
@the pharmer wrote:
If that’s not enough to prove my point, how about using me as a non-JW in the example with the higher powers issue, but this time make me a JW with my same correct view-point which opposed the majority?
Are you with me now?
You will have to tell me: I was obviously referring in the above to someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, since only we are commanded in the Bible as a body to "speak in agreement." Someone that is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses would not be concerned over whether he or she is speaking in agreement with us or not. Using the "higher powers" analogy used earlier in this thread as an example, if one of Jehovah's Witnesses "before the early 1960s" should believe that we -- Jehovah's Witnesses -- are mistaken in our view that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" mentioned by the apostle Paul at Romans 13:1 refers to Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ, he or she should bring this matter and the reasoning associated with concluding that we might be in error to the attention of someone that can forward the question off to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who will farm this question out to responsible men in other congregations will be asked to opine on the matter.
These comments are reviewed by the governing body and a decision is made one way or the other. If the decision cannot be decided by the governing body, then the question is tabled for later discussion, but it will eventually be decided. In the meantime, the individual that submitted the question would not begin teaching that these "higher powers" refer to the governmental authorities, knowing that their doing so could cause dissension in our ranks, but would wait for a decision on the matter to me made. If the decision is in the individual's favor, ok, but if the matter is not decided in his or her favor, the individual is told why the consensus was not weighted is his or her favor, and they might be requested to provide more persuasive reasons to them even as others that may have thought an adjustment should be made will be requested to provide more persuasive reasons as well.
The same thing is true in principle were this individual to be someone that is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Many God-fearing men and women read our magazines and other literature despite the fact that they aren't Jehovah's Witnesses. Since such an individual is not commanded to "speak in agreement," he or she may write his concerns or questions to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and say whatever it is he or she wishes to say, for what such an individual says will have no effect on the body of Christians as would be the case were one of Jehovah's Witnesses to start teaching about the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" being the governmental authorities. Yet, consideration will be given to the question once received by the governing body, and responsible men in other congregations will be asked to opine on the matter just as described above.
Our not speaking in agreement can cause confusion and even cause new ones to stumble, but Jehovah's Witnesses are always conscious of the possibility that something we say could be a cause of stumbling to others, for we are counseled in God's word against our doing so.
@the pharmer:
What you've told me, djeggnog, is that as a JW, I would have had to reject an actual truth...and worse, knowingly teach a falsehood...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body', even though 'the body' had detached itself from 'the head'.
@djeggnog wrote:
I didn't say this. Jehovah's Witnesses at no time believe that what we are teaching isn't true. Only in hindsight might we come to realize that someone in our ranks or someone that isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses had come to the right conclusion about a matter.
@the pharmer:
[W]hat about those who don’t understand or don’t agree with the WT position…you said, even if they are correct, they must speak in harmony with ‘the body’ – i.e. they must speak incorrectly.
I didn't say this. Those that might not agree with the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on a particular issue know that they cannot unilaterally decide to start teaching things according to their own beliefs, so they will point out when teaching others that this is what the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is as far as the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" is concerned, which is not a lie, and doesn't require anyone to say anything that they do not believe, for it is not a lie that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses before the early 1950s was that the "higher powers" were Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now none of this means that the individual must believe something that they do not believe or that he or she won't have doubts as to the veracity of one of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the very reason why he or she wrote the governing body! The commandment to which all mature Christians must adhere is this:
Keep from becoming causes for stumbling ... to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved. (1Corinthians 10:32, 33)
Why get bent all out of shape over one, two or three doctrinal matters that you might feel pretty sure will eventually be changed? As a rule, if Jehovah's Witnesses aren't sure, they don't make any adjustments in doctrine until they are sure that what we are teaching at that time is in error. Once this decision is made, an adjustment will immediately be forthcoming.
@the pharmer wrote:
Yet at the same time you said that no one who is interested in pursuing the truth about a matter is going to want to hold a viewpoint that is incorrect. Conflict!
@djeggnog wrote:
Ok.
@the pharmer wrote:
I guess that means you understand.
No. "Ok" means that I'm "ok" with your having a contrary viewpoint than mine. "Ok" typically means that I do not feel any need to restate the point that I have already made, that I accept that we may have to agree to disagree. I'm never going to change my position (which is what your questions are seeking), so when I write "Ok," this signals that I have reached a point in our discussion where I can acknowledge what you have said, but cannot agree with what you have said.
@the pharmer:
Then you gave a "navigational" example.
@djeggnog wrote:
The majority of those folks whose viewpoint turned out to be incorrect would need to adjust their viewpoint since we will readily acknowledge as a body that there are going to be times when the minority viewpoint will be the correct one. You see, no one that is interested in pursuing the truth about a matter is going to want to hold a viewpoint, an opinion, that turns out to be incorrect, and this is why some of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe will be abandoned tomorrow. It is just as were you travelling south on some road thinking that you would reach your destination if you were to stay the course, only to realize that you have been driving for 15 minutes when you were told that your destination was only ten minutes away from where you began, you might (that is to say, some folks might) pull into a gas station and ask whether your heading was correct; if you were told that you need to drive north for about ten minutes, and then to make a left at a particular intersection and travel west for four blocks to reach your destination, you could, of course, decide to hold onto what you believe and keep travelling south, or you can make an adjustment in your viewpoint, go north and then west to reach your destination.
Ok.
@the pharmer wrote:
But what you've also said in all of this is, anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong view point along with 'the body' of JWs, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@djeggnog wrote:
When did I say this? While you clearly understood me to have said this, I did not say this.
@the pharmer wrote:
You have definitely communicated this in several ways. One of them being:
(djeggnog:)
The point is not to claim to be teaching what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching while teaching something else altogether than what Jehovah's Witnesses are officially teaching others. This last is the very definition of apostasy.
Do you need any other clarifications?
No. While I have said, and do say, that anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong viewpoint along with 'the body' of JWs, or rather, anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to accept what might be an incorrect viewpoint for the time being until an adjustment is made and beings to official teach something else altogether different than what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others at that time, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. "Speaking in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10) is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, is a tenet of the faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses, is a tenet of my faith.
@djeggnog
-
jgnat
djeggnog: "a tenet of my faith"
Boy, it would be helpful if the Jehovah's Witnesses came out with a short list of tenets. I've tried to nail them down a few times, with no success. Without the "short list", a Jehovah's Witness is required to understand and believe everything that is taught by the WTBTS; from head coverings to the condition of the dead. No wonder regular study of the Watchtower materials is included in the eighty baptism questions.
Orthodox Christianity, by comparison, has come up with a short list. Believe these tenets, and you are Christian. Don't, and you are something else. This allows denominations to worship in many various forms (consider the many ways communion/memorial is celebrated), while at the core be alike.
The closest to a short list of tenets for the WTBTS might be:
Another candidate may be four distinguishing characteristics published in the July 15, 2011 Watchtower:
(1) God's name and its meaning, (Introduced in 1931)
(2) God's purpose for the earth,
(3) condition of the dead, and
(4) hope of resurrection (Introduced in 1925)
Interesting that (1) and (4) were later introductions (weren't taught by the original Bible Students). Also interesting that Christ and his sacrifice doesn't make the short list.
-
the pharmer
Really djeggnog?
I really meant my music example to be simplified, but I see your hangup.
Also...You're wrong. When someone says "Key of A", it does not imply Major or Minor...it simply indicates that the music is based on an "A" scale. But the key signature (and accidentals within the music) gives us the clue as to what quality or kind of key of "A" it is in...and that is why I "talked funny". Just because you're not familiar with talking about minor and major having a quality does not mean it is a foreign way of describing it...it's just foreign to those who aren't familiar with it. Try not to let your unfamiliarity hang you up.
You didn't know this, but you are talking to a current musician...Key of A does not imply 3 sharps....Key of A-major does. Perhaps you didn't get far enough in your musical studies to understand that. Knowing your background, though, I can see why you think if someone says "play this piece in the Key of A", you already would have known if it was a minor key or major key based on the title of the piece. If you were ready to play a piece that was written in G minor, you would have to assume if someone said "let's play this in the key of A" that they mean to play it in "a-minor".
Hopefully that's all cleared up. Wow, sorry I caused so much confusion.
I see that, for your sake, I should have not just addressed C# and C-natural (btw- I specified "natural" so the contrast between sharp and natural would be obvious...I never know what kind of music background people might have) but I should have addressed the whole key signature.
I see now that I should have just said...the composer wrote in the key of A and the key signature was 3 sharps, so it had to be A-major. But the conductor of the WT ensemble ignored or didn't see the key signature, and played everything natural -- i.e. all the F's, C's, and G's.
Same thing with the Mary Had a Little Lamb example. You almost understood that one! Your comments indicate that. I'll post about that seperately.
You're right, you can't read my mind, and I should have known there was potential for you to read too far into my example; so far that you missed the point entirely.
Please accept my apologies.
-
the pharmer
As regards "Mary Had a Little Lamb"
djeggnog, you said,
No one would play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in the key of A in the manner that you describe. This is not the melody I learned when I was a kid and played this tune on the violin.
:) Exactly...it seems it would be obvious that, to play it in a minor key would be wrong. That's how I feel about your higher powers example; it seems obvious that the higher powers interpretation should have been in a major key as opposed to the old WT view of it in a minor key. Perhaps their conductor wasn't familiar with that particular tune and they failed to see or adhere to the key signature.
I played it on my iPad, but I don't need to imagine that the song will sound flat whenever a C is played instead of a C#.
LOL, when you say "the song will sound flat", do you mean to say it has a minor quality to it? You talk funny. ;) j/k
Again, there is no C in the key of A-Major, there is only a C# (and a F# and G#).
BINGO! (btw- there is a type of "C" in every kind of A scale -- major and minor -- and I like to make sure it's clear as to what kind of "C" it is -- #, b, or natural. But I understand what you mean.)
So now you understand that, when playing Mary Had a Little Lamb in the key of "A", if you didn't play a C# every time a "C" came along, it would sound minor instead of the way the composer wrote it (major).
Now just plug in me as the one playing it in the major key, and the WT ensemble playing it in the minor key...and voila...you understand my example and how it applies the "higher powers" example!
Got it now?
-
the pharmer
I'm sorry, but no. You're wrong. I would never make the assumption that we are talking about A-major if the notes should be "A, B, C, D, and E." Why is that? Because if I don't hear you say "C#," then I'm going to assume that you are talking about A-minor, for there are no sharps in the A-minor scale
djeggnog,
Just an fyi, the "F" and "G" in the A-melodic minor scale are sharp when ascending and natural when descending. Sorry, you're wrong.
And, you really didn't understand what I said when I said:
Besides, if you think the fact that a key signature has 3 sharps in it (F#, C#, and G#) automatically makes it A-major, you would be mistaken, it could be it's relative minor key of f# minor (same 3 sharps present). We digress :)
If a piece of unfamiliar music is in front of you, and the key signature has 3 sharps...djeggnog, what key is it in? If you can't answer that question without looking at the notes on the page in order to find the 'tonic' or 'root' of the piece, then you've gotten my point. If you think you can tell me if it is major or minor based on the key signature alone, you are mistaken.
-
the pharmer
W]hat about those who don’t understand or don’t agree with the WT position…you said, even if they are correct, they must speak in harmony with ‘the body’ – i.e. they must speak incorrectly.
I didn't say this.
Djeggnog, uhmm, yes you essentially did, even with your “politically correct” explanation that followed.
Those that might not agree with the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on a particular issue know that they cannot unilaterally decide to start teaching things according to their own beliefs, so they will point out when teaching others that this is what the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is as far as the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" is concerned, which is not a lie, and doesn't require anyone to say anything that they do not believe, for it is not a lie that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses before the early 1950s was that the "higher powers" were Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
You’re being deceptive here djeggnog, and I’ll show you just how.
If a JW comes to me and shares the official position of the WT on a matter, it is implied that that JW believes that to be true, but you admit that they might not agree with that view themselves personally. You’ve given a fine example of that. You say it’s still not a lie for them to present the WT view, but regardless of what you want to call it, they are implying that they agree with the things they present.
So my statement above stands.
You ask:
Why get bent all out of shape over one, two or three doctrinal matters that you might feel pretty sure will eventually be changed?
Why get bent out of shape over whether a “C” is sharp or natural in ‘mary had a little lamb’? It’s just one note! Play it the way the conductor likes, even if you don’t agree…that’s just your opinion…; if it’s wrong, he will let us know immediately after he realizes it. Until then, just play it.
-
the pharmer
Djeggnog, you said:
I'm never going to change my position (which is what your questions are seeking), so when I write "Ok," this signals that I have reached a point in our discussion where I can acknowledge what you have said, but cannot agree with what you have said.
You are wrong, I am not seeking for you to change your position, but rather I am seeking (if I am in fact wrong on weighing the evidence you’ve provided me) for you to simply show me exactly why and how I am wrong. “OK” simply tells me that you are unable to do so. That is fine though, I’ll accept that as evidence that needs to be weighed in the same way as all your other evidence.
While I have said, and do say, that anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong viewpoint along with 'the body' of JWs, or rather, anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to accept what might be an incorrect viewpoint for the time being until an adjustment is made and beings to official teach something else altogether different than what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others at that time, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
At least you’re able to admit that.
I have appreciated your time and efforts.
-
OUTLAW
While I have said, and do say, that anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong viewpoint along with 'the body' of JWs, or rather,
anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to accept what might be an incorrect viewpoint for the time being until an adjustment is made
and beings to official teach something else altogether different than what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching
others at that time, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.....DjEggNogg
LOL!!..
What do JW`s eat for Dinner In Watchtower World?
Our Favorite!..
WatchTarded BullShit!!..
.....................;-)...OUTLAW
-
the pharmer
So if we're talking about an F# chord, then this would consist of F#, Bb and Eb, but for purposes of this discussion, we'll call these keys F#, A# and D#.
Sorry, I can't let this go...
An F# chord would never contain flats...only sharps and naturals. The Bb and Eb are what is known as enharmonic equivalents...and although they are the same pitch and fingerings as A# and D# respectively, to write them as flats in musical notation in an F# chord would be flat out wrong. (pun intended). Your latter statement is accurate and should always be used. The former view is an elementary mistake.
