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)?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.