Posts by the pharmer

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

wannabefree, Thank you for your kind words.

WontLeave, Thank you for that information and suggestion.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

Last one (whew).

djeggnog, I had said:

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.

And you said:

When did I say this? While you clearly understood me to have said this, I did not say this.

You have definitely communicated this in several ways. One of them being:

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.

Take that, along with what I have already shown using the evidence you provided -- that at times JWs are officially teaching an incorrect view (see higher powers example). At those times, there are some who might actually know what the correct point of view ought to be, but, if those JWs (however few they may be) are unwilling to accept the current (incorrect) point of view along with ‘the body’ (see higher powers example), they then cannot be one of JWs – i.e. they fit the very definition of JW apostasy.

Another way of putting this, is:

By following ‘the head’ correctly, instead of ‘the body’ incorrectly, they have apostatized from JW’s organization – i.e. ‘the body’ (the ensemble under the direction of a mistaken conductor) – but they remain in contact with ‘the head’ (the composer – Jesus Christ).

Do you need any other clarifications?

If I am wrong, please show me exactly why and how. I am only using the information you’ve provided me.

(Thank you to those who patiently survived and put up with my wordiness, I am not the most succinct person. I will try not to let this get out of hand again.)

Sincerely,

Pharmer

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

You've told me that, as a JW I would have to keep following 'the body' south, even though I see 'the head' is in a different [direction]...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body' (not the head). Conflict!

And you replied:

When did I say this? Again, it is evident that you understood me to have said this, but I do not say this at all.

You did communicate this, and I will show you just how.

You at one point had said:

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.

Then you gave a “navigational” example.

You concluded the example with this statement:

…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.

Now, from the information you have given me, we can also use your example along with what happened in the higher powers example:

In that case, if I was a JW who had realized we should have turned around and headed a different direction (towards ‘the head’), yet ‘the body’ was still years away from coming to that point of view, as a JW, I would have had to keep following ‘the body’ south, even though I see ‘the head’ is in a different direction…all for the sake of harmonizing with ‘the body’…regardless of ‘the head’ (because we’ve already proven that ‘the head’ in the higher powers example was in a different direction while JWs headed south prior to 1965 or whenever).

Incidentally, this wrong point of view could be required and remain uncorrected for years (in spite of the fact that some people might recognize the error in it immediately), so to say that an incorrect viewpoint is changed immediately is misleading and cannot be assumed.

Coming up next,

The last clarification you needed was this statement of mine:

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.

And you said:

When did I say this? While you clearly understood me to have said this, I did not say this.

Until then.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

This next statement of mine you seem to have understood.

I said:

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!

You said:

Ok

I guess that means you understand.

The next one I will clarify is where I stated:

You've told me that, as a JW I would have to keep following 'the body' south, even though I see 'the head' is in a different [direction]...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body' (not the head). Conflict!

And you replied:

When did I say this? Again, it is evident that you understood me to have said this, but I do not say this at all.

Until then.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

(hopefully these get shorter...sorry)

The next statement I will clarify is:

You've told me that, even if I would want to pursue and hold onto the truth, as a JW I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect -- a non-truth -- in order to sound in harmony...even though it would be in the wrong key.

…and you said:

When did I say this? Evidently, you understood me to have said this, but I did not say this.

You djeggnog, have in fact communicated this very conflict. You at one point had said:

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…

Yet I have shown just how, in the higher powers example, I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect, even against what I believed to be true and what JWs now hold as true.

Therefore I can correctly summarize:

You’ve told me that, even if I really did want to pursue and hold onto actual truth, at times, as a JW, I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect – a non-truth – in order to sound in harmony with the ‘body’.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

Back on track. :)

I'm sorry to say this, but djeggnog, these statements contradict what you're saying I would have had to do as a JW in the context of this discussion.

I don’t think so, but ok.

It’s not okay if you don’t at least understand, so let me go through it and you can show me just exactly where I have it wrong.

I had said:

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'. I thought the idea was to follow the head -- the truth -- no matter who had it. Conflict!

You said:

I didn't say this. Jehovah's Witnesses at no time believe that what we are teaching isn't true.

Even though you deny having “said” this, you have communicated this, and I will show you how.

What do you think this means when you say:

Even if we might think one of our viewpoints on some matter is wrong, Jehovah's Witnesses must all "speak in agreement

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 responded:

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.

Of course it will be in hindsight…but what 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.

You go on to use a “thief” example, and then you say:

Jehovah's Witnesses do not knowingly teach falsehoods, so when we realize that something we have been teaching is false, we abandon that teaching immediately and embrace the truth.

You indicated that even if some JWs think the body’s viewpoint as a whole is incorrect, they still must speak that incorrect view in order to be in harmony with 'the body'. My point is that in the higher powers example which you introduced, you pointed out that the JWs 'body' did in fact have an incorrect view according to their now corrected and current understanding – i.e. your hindsight. You see, they may have been in harmony with each other (and the WT GB), but they were all playing in the wrong key.

You used your thief example one way, but if it is true, then the contrapositive of it is also true. Therefore, using your “thief” example in the same way as the higher power example, we can put the JWs in as the people accusing this innocent person of thievery. Now, according to what you’ve said (I mean, according to what you’ve communicated) even if there was a JW who knew that the dog ate the items, they could not immediately abandon the body’s incorrect view…but instead, they would have to hold fast to what is false and wait for the entire ‘body’ to receive directions from the conductor to change to the correct view.

I understand why you say this must happen; it is for the sake of harmonizing or uniformity; so that you don’t have JWs playing in different keys all at the same time.

But I will say it again, and hopefully you can now see it.

You have essentially told me that, as a JW in these cases, I would have had to reject an actual truth (which I correctly understood as opposed to others who didn’t…especially ‘the conductor’ who leads and directs the ensemble)…and worse, I would have had to knowingly teach a falsehood…all for the sake of harmonizing with ‘the body’, even though the ‘body’ had detached itself (even if only momentarily) from ‘the head’. That, my friend, conflicts with your statement that I should follow the truth, no matter who had it.

See it now?

(I’ll send each of these ideas separately so you can address them one at a time. I think it will be clearer this way, and last chance of me getting off on a tangent.)

This was #1 of …lol, I don’t know how many you have, I haven’t gotten past this one yet. :)

The next statement I will clarify is:

You've told me that, even if I would want to pursue and hold onto the truth, as a JW I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect -- a non-truth -- in order to sound in harmony...even though it would be in the wrong key.

…and you said:

When did I say this? Evidently, you understood me to have said this, but I did not say this.

Until then.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

Okay, I just read my post, and perhaps it isn't as clear as I had hoped...so one FINAL music explanation that is simple, simple!

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

Tah Dah!

Sorry, no encore.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

(sorry about the musical tangent, it's a weakness of mine...or is it a strength?) :)

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

djeggnog, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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 :)

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??

Let me know if you need that cleared up further.

I will pick up from what follows when I have more time.

I had said:

I'm sorry to say this, but djeggnog, these statements contradict what you're saying I would have had to do as a JW in the context of this discussion.

To which you said:

I don't think so, but ok.

This is where I will begin later. 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.

Until then.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

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)?

the pharmer

djeggnog,

In your mind I would have had a mistaken view that needed to be adjusted back then, right?

Yes.

...who was it that was mistaken (given the evidence which you provided) and who was it that had their mistaken view adjusted...

The majority of those folks whose viewpoint turned out to be incorrect would need to adjust their viewpoint...When we are wrong, we abandon our wrong viewpoint as a body and embrace the right viewpoint as a body...We are all one body in connection with Christ Jesus and no member of the body is greater than another member of the body, for we are all "harmoniously joined together."

So you've essentially said to me:

As a non-JW, your correct view which opposed the JW incorrect view would have had to be thought of and taught as being an incorrect view (on the basis that it opposed the JW view) until the JWs, as a body, were allowed to embrace your correct view. That way, when we are wrong, we are all wrong together -- yet we are in harmony with each other.

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. If everyone sang/played "C" as a natural, it might sound correct -- i.e. in harmony with each other -- but if the composer (Jesus Christ) intended it to be in the key of A-Major (not minor), every "C" should actually be sung/played as a C-sharp instead of C-natural, thus making it a Major key. Huge difference! The ensemble, by playing C-natural, are in harmony with each other, but they are deceiving themselves if they think they are in connection with the composer. On the other hand, if there were musicians that insist on playing a C-sharp as it was intended (even if only a minority of them), sure they might sound wrong compared to the rest of the ensemble, but they would be the only ones following the composer's instructions, and the conductor of the ensemble would be forced into having to make a decision. If the conductor insists on the ensemble playing pieces in the wrong key, perhaps the conductor ought to be fired.

You see, djeggnog, I had asked you to show me just how and why conflicting statements of yours don't conflict. You weren't actually able to show me how they don't conflict -- in fact, everything you said kept reinforcing just how they doconflict -- but, you were able to show mewhy you are alright with them conflicting. I do appreciate your explanations.

Unfortunately, you have created more harmonizing problems by having made the following comments as well:

The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?

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

…you could, of course, decide to hold onto what you believe and keep travelling south, or you can make an adjustment in your viewpoint…

I'm sorry to say this, but djeggnog, these statements contradict what you're saying I would have had to do as a JW in the context of this discussion.

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'. I thought the idea was to follow the head -- the truth -- no matter who had it. Conflict!

You've told me that, even if I would want to pursue and hold onto the truth, as a JW I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect -- a non-truth -- in order to sound in harmony...even though it would be in the wrong key. 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!

You've told me that, as a JW I would have to keep following 'the body' south, even though I see 'the head' is in a different dirrection...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body' (not the head). Conflict!

In your last statement, you said:

Anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to abandon a wrong viewpoint along with the body cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

But what you've also said in all of this is, anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong view pointalong with 'the body' of JWs, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

All of this creates a lot of conflict.

In this discussion, djeggnog, your information clearly supports what jgnat has stated -- uniformity is valued over accuracy.