LSM's Plagiarism - An Initial Inquiry

[aron]

Originally Posted by Hope

Unfortunately, those in the LSM/LC had a myth about the brother. He was excellent in all things period. No problems were ever addressed. Thus his flesh developed.

That's a strong statement by someone who saw him up close. I was on the fringes but what I saw was in agreement, and I'd challenge our readers: did anyone ever see a problem with Witness Lee successfully get addressed? Ever?

If not, either he really was perfected, or else the system that he ran was rotten.

[aron]

"A Question about Plagiarism"

Liao suggests that one of Nee's major sources for his tripartite anthropolgy might well be J.B. Heard's The Tripartite Nature of Man: Spirit, Soul, and Body, which Nee "failed to give credit to". Leung also surmises that Nee perhaps copied much from some of his sources. I believe, however, that such assertions to possible plagiarism are not doing justice to Nee. For one thing, Nee himself in the preface to The Spiritual Man acknowledged that he was not the originator of the teaching (on the difference between the spirit and the soul), as well as noting that "I have freely quoted" the writings of certain authors and "because there are so many places where I have referenced them, I have not made specific reference to the sources."

For another thing, the notions about plagiarism and presumption to originality are very much products of contemporary Western culture, which are probably not commensurable in many Asian contexts, especially not in the first half of twentieth-century China and particularly not for non-academic writings.

From: Understanding Watchman Nee: Spirituality, Knowledge and Formation, by Dongsheng John Wu. p.79

Not sure if Nee made this admission after his book became widely popular, or before. My memory says that the publisher acknowledged Nee cribbing sources wholesale, without attribution, in subsequent editions, not the first printing. But I don't remember where I read that.

Also interesting that differences in culture may result in different perceptions vis-a-vis acknowledging one's sources. But if we're inclined to give Nee a pass, here, I doubt Lee also gets one. Lee was fully immersed in Western culture. Unless he felt that he was above the law, like Nee before him. "We don't care about right and wrong, just about life", etc etc.

Perhaps Nee really was operating on a higher plane from everyone else. He wrote from the perspective of his mystical union with Christ. Therefore dry, objective, scholarly stuff wasn't his oeuvre. Instead, as Witness Lee put it, "So subjective is my Christ to me, real in me, and rich and sweet. . . " Who cares about untidy things like facts?

This Christ was so subjective to Nee and Lee that citations weren't necessary. Eventually with Lee, even the Bible wasn't needed, because of the immensity of his "God's economy" revelation. He could take those parts of scripture that lined up with the revelation, and toss the rest. And who needs to listen to the people from the "cemeteries", anyway? You know, the ones who actually can read the Greek and the Hebrew? Lee already had a trained cadre of yes-men. He was all set.

"So subjective, is my Christ to me. . . . "

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

"I have freely quoted" the writings of certain authors and "because there are so many places where I have referenced them, I have not made specific reference to the sources."

Imagine if someone, say a college student, was caught plagerizing. When asked to explain their actions, they give Nee's excuse that there are just too many works referenced to bother with citing anything. Yeah that would go over really well.