Your husband bringing that up the way he did was sorta "cute" doncha think?
Since we here in Scottsdale were once affiliated with the LC (30+ years ago) there are still a few here who read the RV without footnotes. But it is less and less over time. I too used the Recovery Version for years. Up until a few years ago, I used a RV of the New Testament without footnotes, because I liked how easy it was to carry and read with the clear print. But more recently I decided to go with a complete NAS Bible, so as to have the whole enchilada with me. (and the NT RV w/o notes traditionally had weak binding which failed after a couple years usage, or sooner)
To me, the RV footnotes became a BIG distraction as I was reading. And they definitely colored my thinking on particular passages and verses. I much rather have the Holy Spirit speaking fresh to me than Witness Lee (or any man). It's not that WL's footnotes were so much in error or anything, I just don't think I need man's speaking right alongside with scripture. If I want to consult a commentary, then I want that separate. To me, WL's notes are just another commentary to look at. I don't feel threatened or "tossed about" by what he presents (good, bad or ugly theology). I certainly don't agree with some of his things, but then again I don't know that I agree 100% with anybody's!
So overall, the RV is not a bad translation and does a decent job at the least (but I'd dump the notes). (FYI - I find that even very literal translations like the NAS don't always do a perfect job. None of them is 100% in my humble estimation, that's why checking different translations is always a good practice.)