@the pharmer:
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.
What you write here sounds rather ambiguous and confusing, so I'd rather remove this ambiguity in order to avoid any confusion:
If the view of a non-JW should be in conflict with the JW view, it will be viewed as incorrect , even if later it should turn out to have been the correct view after all, until JWs, as a body, should conclude the non-JW view to be correct. In this way, we are all either right together or wrong together, because we are speaking in agreement and not one other here espousing this view and one other there espousing a different view.
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.
How so? 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'm sorry, but I'm sure that I've missed your point here.
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.
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 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. Now what if you were told, for example, by someone you trust that such-and-such is a thief, so that you being to report to everyone you know that 'whenever such-and-such comes to your home, you need to watch that guy like a hawk because he's an equal-opportunity thief and doesn't discriminate from whom he steals, as three other people had to learn the hard way'?
Then you find our a week later, after you have disparaged the guy in the minds of everyone you accordingly warned, that this man's dog had to be taken to the vet, where a diamond ring, a gold ring, and several gold and silver coins had to be removed from the dog's stomach, and that he was presently calling around asking people if they had recently discovered that they were missing some rings or coins? Poor guy, huh?
For the next five or six months, people keep popping up that you had never gotten around to telling about your warning being a mistake, as well as the people to whom these people you told repeated your "truth" according to your false report, all of them talking about this guy that you had disparaged and mistakenly thought to have been a thief, people that really don't know the truth at all about this man, but only thought they did.
Well, there are other people besides yourself that have also come to know the truth, including this man, who are all of them helping those who believed your false report to understand the truth and make the necessary adjustments so that they might abandon what they thought to have been the truth and embrace what is the truth: This man is not a thief. His dog was the real "thief" here.
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'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.
When did I say this? Evidently, you understood me to have said this, but I did not say this. Let me repeat: 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.
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!
Ok.
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!
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. The guy at the gas station pointed the guy who had been travelling south to the truth, and he made the necessary adjustment to reach his destination. This is what I recall saying.
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.
And this is true.
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.
When did I say this? While you clearly understood me to have said this, I did not say this.
All of this creates a lot of conflict.
Ok.
In this discussion, djeggnog, your information clearly supports what jgnat has stated -- uniformity is valued over accuracy.
Ok.
@djeggnog