"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How do you know which editions are more accurate?

I cannot speak for CFP, because I haven't seen their version of Nee books, but I would strongly warn you against the LSM version of anything, if you're concerned about accuracy. On another thread, I recently posted a comparison of the same passage from one of the Life-Study Messages, first the printed version and then the online "revised" version. Here it is:

Let me tell you the secret to being solidly perfected to be a strong pillar for the Lord's move. Brothers like Benson Phillips and John So have been perfected because they have had no concepts of their own. Recently, Brother Benson declared strongly declared strongly that he only knows to follow the ministry of Brother Lee. When John So stayed with us in Los Angeles, he knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry… Life Study of Genesis, Message 88 - Print Version

Let me now tell you the secret to being solidly perfected to be a strong pillar for the Lord's move. Certain brothers have been perfected because they have had no concepts of their own. Recently, one brother declared strongly that he only knows to follow the ministry of Brother Lee and to absorb everything of this ministry... Life Study of Genesis, Message 88 - Current Online Version

Notice how the original printed states "When John So stayed with us in Los Angeles, he knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry...". The "revised" version says "one brother declared strongly that he only knows to follow the ministry of Brother Lee and to absorb everything of this ministry. So according to the online version, the same brother said that he knows "only to follow the ministry" and "absorb everything of the ministry". In the original version, it is clear that Lee attributed the first statement to Benson and the second statement to John So, not both statements to the same person.

Why am I so picky???? Well, I don't really care that much, I think it is just a clear example of why not to trust anything that LSM publishes. The LSM considered John So to be "rebellious", and thus they erased his name from history. Should someone's name be erased from history because they express a dissenting view? This type of thinking would require removing Martin Luther's name from history because he "rebelled" against the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I cannot speak for CFP, because I haven't seen their version of Nee books, but I would strongly warn you against the LSM version of anything, if you're concerned about accuracy. On another thread, I recently posted a comparison of the same passage from one of the Life-Study Messages, first the printed version and then the online "revised" version. Here it is: ...

Why am I so picky???? Well, I don't really care that much, I think it is just a clear example of why not to trust anything that LSM publishes. The LSM considered John So to be "rebellious", and thus they erased his name from history. Should someone's name be erased from history because they express a dissenting view? This type of thinking would require removing Martin Luther's name from history because he "rebelled" against the Catholic Church.

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.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Great points Freedom.

It was a real eye-opener for me when I carefully read Nee's LC classic The Normal Christian Church Life. Lee and LSM had promoted that book since Lee first came to the USA. Now leaving aside whether the book matches the scripture or not, I just could not believe how much that book was at odds with LSM. Did no one at LSM ever read that book? That book was at odds with every practice at LSM. From what I have read about LC history in China, it seemed Nee and Lee did not practice it either.

There was a brother in Anaheim back in the 80's who did exactly as I did with TNCCL. He compared the book with LSM's practices. He went directly to Witness Lee with his most serious "concerns" as btw the scripture instructs us. Lee's arrogant response was quite telling, "Don't tell me about that book, I was there!"

The REAL apostles did not respond in this way. When Paul rebuked Peter in Antioch, Peter did NOT reply, "Don't tell me about eating with Gentiles, I was there!"