[OBW]

I was reading through an older thread and some of it reminded me of the discussion surrounding the RecV (LSM's so-called "gold bar"). While not directly on topic, I thought it was enlightening. Here are some things from posts there:

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989.

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Witness Lee only knew how to check with himself. He had no peers to check him and challenge his biases. So of course he couldn't find anything to correct. And any system built up around this kind of ministry is also going to be unable to correct itself.

Originally Posted by Igzy

What strikes me about this is how it has nothing to do with anything that is real.

The recovery doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't exist as a quantifiable standard that is objectively measurable. It's an artificial construct that only existed in the minds of those in the movement, and then probably not in the same form.

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a remarkably revealing quotation with respect to WL's character. Since he is the MOTA, the ultimate authority on everything pertaining to God on this planet, if he was unaware of deviation, there must not be any. As God's emissary to us, he was more than an autonomous dictator. Please give a complete citation of the source of the quote so that it can be independently verified.

Originally Posted by aron

The quote is from JI's STTIL, on this website. The older and experienced brothers tried to be an independent counsel of peers, and an objective set of "eyes" and "ears" to what was happening on the ground. JI wrote that when a number of brothers from various areas including S. Cal and the Southeast presented their concerns, WL didn't have a heart to listen to anything. Then JI quoted this speaking from San Diego to verify that WL wasn't going to take any external input as a basis of his judgment.

JI also wrote that WL's take-home message from the late '80s storm was that "older brothers" couldn't handle the "new way". That was the real problem; end of discussion. The oracle had spoken.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well actually, Witness Lee did have peers. He had the elders in Anaheim. He had leading brothers throughout the country who had been with him a quarter century. They had a lot to say, but he would not listen. Many wrote articles delineating the deviations. You couldn't find anything? John Ingalls met with you a dozen times. Here Lee was not being at all sincere or honest.

It was said that Lee never like to hear bad news about his ministry. To carefully listen to all news, especially when it comes from long-time associates, is real honesty and sincerity. Lee, however, only surrounded himself with cheerleaders. Ed Marks quickly rose in the ranks because his belly was filled with footnotes. Other brothers, whose consciences were protesting the abuses at LSM, were quickly silenced. They were "checking" not with "themselves," but with scripture.

Originally Posted by OBW

Thanks for the quote, aron. But when I read it, I saw something a little different than what it seems others have.
Since Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery, he is the source of all data concerning it. Even if he were to claim to have discovered it within scripture, it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.

Then, if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject. The analysis then becomes a classic begging of the question. Or maybe more correctly a classic case of circular reasoning.

You ask the one who defined something based on his own analysis whether he is still holding to his analysis. It will not matter whether his definition has morphed over time and you think you see that current actions are contrary to older definitions. Such a person will declare that the definition is what it currently is and that he must (by definition) be consistent with it.

And that is the way with virtually everything that is learned by reference to Lee. "Brother Lee once said that . . ." is all that is required to make something "true." It is what he says, so it is true.

And if you think he is not acting consistent with his statements, then you don't understand the statements. The fault is never with Lee.

Originally Posted by aron

"Brother Lee, there is concern that we have deviated from the path of recovery"

"Whose definition of recovery? Mine? We haven't deviated from it at all."

Even if we call it "The Lord's recovery", it is the Lord's recovery as defined by WL. And that definition isn't what JI thought that he bought into, at one time. It's the definition that WL held onto until the end, and never deviated from.

And when you consider that everything about the translation of the RecV, and especially everything about the footnotes was strictly from Lee, it is a closed system ripe for error. (I realize that there are many things in the footnotes that were not original with Lee, but first, he mostly did not provide attribution, thereby making seem to be his own, and second, he included only things that were consistent with the theological construct that he has built.)