"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The CWWN by LSM is replete with references to brothers who later disavowed Witness Lee and his work, including many references to... wait for it... Stephen Kaung. The reverse is not true. Books like CFP's "Revive Thy Work" carefully edit out references to Witness Lee and sections spoken by Witness Lee. So, is this a fair comparison? I am not sure I understand your point in relation to my comment about CFP and LSM's edition of Watchman Nee.

My point was that LSM has a history of revising/modifying their publications to suit their agenda, so their version of things should not be completely trusted. That's not to say it's less "accurate" than CFP. If CFP edits out references to WL, then that would lead to the conclusion that they also have an agenda to promote someone else (perhaps Stephen Kaung). We actually just had a very similar discussion in the Orthopraxy thread (See posts #111-120). Here is what Ohio and rayiotta said in that thread:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's how I understand it.

Except for a few books which he actually wrote, most of Nee's books were written from the personal notes of attendees, since no actual recordings existed. If you have ever been in a meeting or a lecture, then you know that one's notes can differ greatly from another. Secondarily, these hand-written notes needed to be translated into English. Hence, another layer of subjectivity is introduced.

This is why two or three books by various publishers may exist based on the same spoken messages by Nee. Lee, of course, claimed his were the best, and all others were subject to error. Since he claimed that he alone was "Nee's closest and most faithful co-worker," we complied by canning all other books and buying LSM's bound blue volumes.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As a kid I was told that CFP altered and/or added to Nee's messages to fit their own doctrinal agenda. That was the warning that only LSM's published versions of Nee should be trusted.

Troy Books, on the other hand, has claimed that LSM did the same thing. But I don't know if Troy Brooks is a particularly reliable source...

Unregistered, it sounds like you don't trust the CFP version of Nee, and you are asking if the LSM version is any more trustworthy. Maybe it is. They have gone through all the trouble to publish their Collected Works of Watchman Nee, so I have no doubt that they had the intention to make most/all his works available. My hesitation with both LSM and CFP is that both Lee and Kaung used Nee as their claim to fame. Why wouldn't Lee and Kaung "color" Nee to suit their own agendas?

With Lee's biography of Nee: Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, isn't the purpose of a book like that to turn Nee into some type of larger than life figure? That's really the big danger in the LSM version of Nee, he is viewed as someone whose words take higher precedence over any other Christian teacher. I have read some of Nee's writings that I feel need to be taken with a grain of salt. That is why I started the thread titled "The lesser known ministry of Watchman Nee". Also, in the LSM version of Nee, they emphasize things that suit their agenda. One example that comes to mind is his teaching on Deputy Authority. Steve Isitt recently posted a writing on Nee, which addresses Nee's excommunication from the Shanghai Assembly. That is something I have never seen fully addressed in LSM's Nee books and I presume it also isn't addressed in CFP's books. Why? Because that view of Nee doesn't help support the agenda of either publishing house.