LSM's Plagiarism - An Initial Inquiry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading a review once of something that was passed off as original research, where the reviewer said, "There is much here that is new, and much that is true, but what is new is not true and what is true is not new." I am feeling this way about Lee, mostly.

Yeah, I hear ya, and I'm just trying to say that the later, distorted LSM prism is not the primary way we should view Lee's work as a minister and Christian author. I don't think we should ignore or discount the tragedy of what came to be at a certain point but as far as I recall, Lee hadn't made a single "oracle" claim prior to "putting down his pen" at the conclusion of the footnotes in Acts. Until that time, it was widely recognized, and as someone else stated, even boasted of, that Lee's ministry was based upon the "best of the best" and that he "stood on the shoulders" of so many others, of course mostly meaning Watchman Nee and the acknowledged persons in the "recovery" line, but not excluding the contributions of other Christian authors.

I think it's an enormous mistake to build an other-side-of-the-mirror distorted anti-LSM prism in order to interpret Lee's legacy, such as it is, in the context of historic Christianity. It's obviously necessary to debunk the mythology of Witness Lee that might afflict us and the more recent and prevailing mythology is probably the more urgent need. But I truly don't understand the benefit of saying "Lee was merely derivative" when, if nothing else, he benefited so many merely by the synthesis and fresh presentation of often neglected writings of others. Alford is long out of print, and if you have any benefit from brother Alford's ministry, it is most likely due to Lee (even if you don't realize that it originated with Alford.)

Honestly, in a discussion about giving credit where credit is due, I really don't think there should be the need to explain this repeatedly but there's at least a trace of inconsistency around the periphery. I hate being cast in a role of "defender of Lee" because I think ultimately his work will stand or fall on its own, but among you, my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and before those saints in the Local Church who would happen here upon our musings and discussions and historical reflection, SOMEONE has to be "devil's advocate" to say repeatedly that THE GUY JUST WASN'T AS BAD AS ALL THAT.

So, let me retort that your quoted clever and poetic critical quip could well be a mere short circuit to rational thought on the topic. The synthesis and harmonizing of older material is in fact "new" and I'd hope you could find it within yourself to begrudgingly admit that.

And I really wish there were a true LSM representative here to do the hard work of really combing through Lee's copious materials and presenting to us what was in fact Lee's own new light.

I concur that the insufficient attribution issue casts a shadow over anything which might be claimed to be Lee's contribution, to the extent that anyone really cares to uphold it and say "This is of Lee." But I have to testify that studying the Bible in conjunction with Lee's ministry, I learned it better and faster and know it more thoroughly today than associates who got saved around the same time and that's a phenomenon that I've seen and heard repeated. I think some of the folks around here are probably a product of that themselves.

The footnotes and cross references in the RcV, even if not properly attributed, were put together by a religious teacher in such a way as to be extremely helpful to a young believer hungry and thirsty to know Christ. Not as pure as the driven snow as the modern LSM might wish to portray it. But even if all Lee did was quote Alford and Vincent in the same sentence, that counts as "new," even under copyright law.

Grace to all today.

[Cal]

I understand your point, YP, and mostly agree.The problem I have is that I have little doubt that LSM would like for Lee to be seen as as much of an oracle as possible, and if this means giving as little credit as possible then so be it. This seems to be a tactic of theirs. They seem less interested in his teachings becoming mainstream than they are in persuading everyone to recognize him as a special apostle.

Calvinists don't talk about Calvin near as much as Leeists talk about Lee. Why is that? I believe because with them it's really an authority thing. They see the ideal as everyone lining up under Lee, which by conveyance mean them.

In other words, they want Lee to get as much credit as possible, but are much less interested in others getting credit.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand your point, YP, and mostly agree.The problem I have is that I have little doubt that LSM would like for Lee to be seen as as much of an oracle as possible, and if this means giving as little credit as possible then so be it. This seems to be a tactic of theirs. They seem less interested in his teachings becoming mainstream than they are in persuading everyone to recognize him as a special apostle.

Calvinists don't talk about Calvin near as much as Leeists talk about Lee. Why is that? I believe because with them it's really an authority thing. They see the ideal as everyone lining up under Lee, which by conveyance mean them.

It's absolutely an authority thing.

Hope and I may disagree about which came first, The Work or The Universal Church, but the misshapen concept of authority is what binds those two notions together and give a rather solid foundation to those who want to build the genuinely awful into the thoroughly evil.

No arguments from me there.

And I guess that's why I'm posting on this topic.

They claim to basically own Lee because they are "of" Lee but they no more own him than they do Watchman Nee at the end of the da.y In rejecting their claims of exclusivity and superiority, I can say - I receive Lee's ministry, as much as any believer rightly should, and no, he's not an Acting God or any such nonsense. He was a Bible teacher, like many others, maybe better than some.

The mythology at the root is probably that only the LC saints are guaranteed overcomers.
(Even though no one has ever said that expressly, let's just admit what we all know....)

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

1. I don't understand the benefit of saying "Lee was merely derivative" when, if nothing else, he benefited so many merely by the synthesis and fresh presentation of often neglected writings of others. Alford is long out of print, and if you have any benefit from brother Alford's ministry, it is most likely due to Lee (even if you don't realize that it originated with Alford.)

2... your quoted clever and poetic critical quip could well be a mere short circuit to rational thought on the topic. The synthesis and harmonizing of older material is in fact "new" and I'd hope you could find it within yourself to begrudgingly admit that.

3. I concur that the insufficient attribution issue casts a shadow over anything which might be claimed to be Lee's contribution, to the extent that anyone really cares to uphold it and say "This is of Lee." But I have to testify that studying the Bible in conjunction with Lee's ministry, I learned it better and faster and know it more thoroughly today than associates who got saved around the same time and that's a phenomenon that I've seen and heard repeated. I think some of the folks around here are probably a product of that themselves.

1. We are all derivative, post "Revelation". We have a closed canon, by universal acceptance. We are all commenting on earlier works. We often use earlier commentaries as the basis of our own. But Lee was quite possessive about "his" light. I remember him repeatedly stressing, "I invented this", this term, or saying, or synthesis, or interpretation. Evidently some of what we thought was "his" writing was in fact not his. Fine, I am willing to leave it at that. He was far sloppier with his scholarship than I would care to be.

2. I am a fan of quips because they occasionally help me to cut to the point, and they often help me organize and remember trains of thought. But I often misapply them. Shoot first, aim later. Or mea culpa later, as in this case. I am willing to do so without begrudging (I have to smile, often, at the reaction I get... I always expect, "Brilliant, aron! Brilliant!", and often see something less effusive. I guess I forget that being clever and being intelligent are not always synonymous).

3. I am enormously grateful for my time under the aegis of Mssrs Lee & Co. Eventually it became somewhat restrictive, not in a good way but an uncomfortable way ("We will do all your thinking for you") so I cast my eyes afield. But I remain grateful for my early experiences there. Occasionally the "root of bitterness" springs up, but eventually I always have to confront that as my own creation, and not look to someone else.

The "defenders of Lee" are so zealous, and sometimes unbalanced, that those who attempt to restore balance may themselves inadvertantly lean the wrong way. I certainly have been guilty of that many, many times. I always appreciate a whiff of moderation when I sense it (Maybe moderation is one of the manifestations of "grace"...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

The footnotes and cross references in the RcV, even if not properly attributed, were put together by a religious teacher in such a way as to be extremely helpful to a young believer hungry and thirsty to know Christ. Not as pure as the driven snow as the modern LSM might wish to portray it. But even if all Lee did was quote Alford and Vincent in the same sentence, that counts as "new," even under copyright law.

Grace to all today.

And Grace and Divine Favor be upon you and everyone here too YP!
I don't know I agree completely...maybe somewhat YP0..
Here's the problem I see:

Some of Lee's footnotes are HIS interpretation and HIS opinion. Not God's. That's why imho, the crossreference and footnotes are NOT helpful to a new believer. On the contrary, they could end up confusing him, like it did ME!

He may have claimed certain topics were 'Revelation' straight from the throne, when they weren't. But how is a person to know if a person never studied anyone else's teachings but Lee's or those sanctioned by Lee?

Then..when a person (Like me...) disagrees with his viewpoint on a topic because I've done my RESEARCH, I don't have the liberty to voice my findingsto them, without being labeled 'divisive'...no matter how compelling the research was.

Take For example, the Outerdarkness viewpoint presented by Lee. When I got saved, I had no biblical background whatsoever. So everything I read in the life study messages, I blindly believed because he wrote and the LC believed it and that settled it.

Well, I didn't know other biblical scholars did not subscribe to his viewpoint. In recent years, I've discovered there are other viewpoints with compelling scriptural references why Lee's viewpoint is wrong.

WHAT??? Lee WRONG??!...no...the other scholars were WRONG, I thought. Even after years of leaving the LC, I held close to my heart the teachings of Lee on certain subject matters. Lee thought speaking in tongues was a thing of the past and not for today..and those that speak in tongues must be carnal because the Corinthians spoke in tongues and they were carnal...Oh how so many dear saints have been robbed from the Truth.

But I was CLOSED to the thought of speaking in tongues. Music w/instruments especially electric guitars and drums...carnal again..of the flesh.. Lee said it... it must be true.

That said, some of crossreferences and footnotes might be helpful. The gospel messages probably are..but you know YP, I study a LOT and I pray a Lot..I read a lot. When I began my quest to read and research, I always checked to see if the works by other authors matched that of Lee's. In the beginning, I would side with Lee's views and remember I was out of the LC with virtually no fellowship with Christians for 25 yrs.

It has not been That long I began to do indepth studies. There are several views I find myself now disagreeing with Lee's views. I don't disagree w/Lee simply because I'm a former LCr...an 'opposer'. I've done my research and continue researching. I want to be sure I haven't missed something.

OSAS is one viewpoint, I've come to see differently than the way Lee taught it. (Once saved always saved.) The Outerdarkness message another..the 4 riders in Revelation (White, Red, Black and Pale are one unit but not according to Lee) to name some.

I don't even have a problem with Lee believing what he did but when it feels like he imposed his views on everyone (which he did)...that's where the problem lies and that's why the RcV imho is not a good reference bible to use.

IMHO, the best bible(s) for a new believer to use is a KJV alongside an NASB AND an AMPLIFIED bible. Amplified is very wordy but very descriptive.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Some of Lee's footnotes are HIS interpretation and HIS opinion. Not God's. That's why imho, the crossreference and footnotes are NOT helpful to a new believer. On the contrary, they could end up confusing him, like it did ME!

He may have claimed certain topics were 'Revelation' straight from the throne, when they weren't. But how is a person to know if a person never studied anyone else's teachings but Lee's or those sanctioned by Lee?

Then..when a person (Like me...) disagrees with his viewpoint on a topic because I've done my RESEARCH, I don't have the liberty to voice my findingsto them, without being labeled 'divisive'...no matter how compelling the research was.

Well, I'll decline to get into the specific doctrinal points you raise because I think that Lee's interpretations on those is at least potentially as valid as any others. However, I've got a couple of different areas where I would decline to accept Lee's interpretations and I arrived there by checking things just as you have, so I agree with your principle.

But let me share a quick example of what I still find very helpful:

Romans 8:4, note 2 (RcV 1985)
The requirements that we must fulfill for the law of the Spirit of life (which has already been installed in us) to work are: 1) to walk according to spirit (v.4); 2) to mind the things of the Spirit - to set the mind on the spirit (vv. 5-6); 3) to put to death, by the Spirit, the practices of the body (v. 13); 4) to be led by the Spirit as sons of God (v.14); 5) to cry to the Father in the spirit of sonship (v.15); 6) to witness that we are the children of God (v.16); and 7) to groan for the full sonship, the redemption of our body (v.23).

There may be some unknown original source for this explanation of Lee's - I don't know. And I might not personally say this in just this way. But I do think that this is "extremely helpful to a young believer hungry and thirsty to know Christ." You, of course, may disagree with me if you wish, but I think people could do a lot worse than be exposed to this sort of teaching.

While I'll agree with you that the cross-references and footnotes are Lee's and not God's, that's kind of a given in my view because it says so just inside the front cover. No man has ever produced anything that is purely "God's opinion" on a topic and the myth that Lee bore such an enlightenment is a large part of why we're all here today. But as I've said before on this forum, one of the things I most enjoy doing with the RcV is finding the places where Lee had nothing to say whatsoever. Wherever the footnotes get thin or superficial, Lee obviously was short of insight. (Frequently happens around the word "love" for instance.) So, in a healthy environment, that should indicate fertile land for working in the Word, even for those who treasure Lee's every comment.

Finally, though, I'll wholeheartedly endorse your complaint about needing the freedom to voice your findings. Whenever we come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation, and all things should be done for the building up. An environment where really only one has anything cannot be a genuine assembly of the saints. I'm not really sure what that is but it seems to be at best a denomination like any other. We need all the portions of all the saints in order to apprehend the breadth and length and height and depth.

Your portion is not just your mouth and your strong "amen."

Well if it is indeed true that most of the Recovery Version notes come from established and respected Christian authors, I would suppose that criticism of the contents of the notes should end.

And Lee several times rebukes believers in Christianity for passing his ministry off as their own. I can't find the portion at the moment, but I clearly remember them.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And Lee several times rebukes believers in Christianity for passing his ministry off as their own. I can't find the portion at the moment, but I clearly remember them.

I have heard the opposite. Lee using notes from messages Theodore Austin Sparks gave, and passing it off as his own.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And Lee several times rebukes believers in Christianity for passing his ministry off as their own. I can't find the portion at the moment, but I clearly remember them.

I remember watching a video where Lee talked about giving a confernce in Latin America and a preacher from that region attended. Later he (Lee) heard that the man was passing Lee's content out as his own.

Lee had some cheek, to tell us stuff like that, while he was simultaneously cribbing from others.

[Nell]

I'm bringing this "oldie" to the top as a reference for the "putting to test" thread. The first test of any Christian publication should be to test the integrity of the author/s.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well if it is indeed true that most of the Recovery Version notes come from established and respected Christian authors, I would suppose that criticism of the contents of the notes should end.

I think that the above comment was made sincerely, and if so shows the extent that defenders of Lee will go to "see no evil." If Lee trashed 'Christianity', in toto, as deformed, fallen, as daughters of the harlot of Revelation 17, so be it - let the chips fall where they may. Lee just called it like he saw it - a straight shooter. Too bad if you got offended.

But if anyone sees anything against Lee's ministry, hey, nobody's perfect, right? Quit harping.

Again and again, it comes back to "when Lee does it, it's okay"; a thought-system based on unquestioned, culturally-derived assumptions. That's how you get into his thought-world: don't think, don't ask, don't question. If he criticized someone that was his perogative as MOTA. We on the other hand, should know better than to lift our hands against God's anointed apostle.

Originally Posted by Hope

I knew Witness Lee personally. He was like an older brother and friend. He gave me good personal advice on more than one occasion. 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. As we mature in age, if we are not under the daily experience of the cross our natural tendencies will grow more prominent and we will become stronger in the works of our flesh.

Eventually his self promoting reached an extreme level. One of the manifestations of this was his inability to take from other Christian teachers and feel no compulsion to acknowledge them. Yet, he zealously guarded his own work and always sought recognition for his work and contributions.

It is possible to have great gifts and to be entrusted with much and have a bad ending. Look at Sampson. What a failure!! And the entire nation suffered as he did not lead the tribe of Dan against the Philistines. Look at Solomon. Is he not perhaps the greatest failure in the Bible? He built the temple but the nation was divided because of his life.

Lee's work was sloppy scholarship, frankly, yet had his work been subject to the pruning forces of the market-place of ideas, there might have been some good from it. Certainly the man had talents, and his enthusiasm and energy were nearly limitless (from a human perspective). But as the years wore on, and the corrective voices were expelled, one by one, and the sycophants and cheerleaders crowded round, and told the Great Man what he wanted to hear, the tendency to imagine himself unassailable, and all others wrong, became even more pronounced. Any pretense of modesty or reticence was abandoned. As Hope put it, "Thus his flesh developed". Indeed.

When we find that he was cribbing sources, unattributed, the apologist says, "This shows that his doctrines were sound!" Yeah, I guess we could see it that way; if we really, really wanted to.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that the above comment was made sincerely, and if so shows the extent that defenders of Lee will go to "see no evil." If Lee trashed 'Christianity', in toto, as deformed, fallen, as daughters of the harlot of Revelation 17, so be it - let the chips fall where they may. Lee just called it like he saw it - a straight shooter. Too bad if you got offended.

But if anyone sees anything against Lee's ministry, hey, nobody's perfect, right? Quit harping.

Again and again, it comes back to "when Lee does it, it's okay"; a thought-system based on unquestioned, culturally-derived assumptions. That's how you get into his thought-world: don't think, don't ask, don't question. If he criticized someone that was his perogative as MOTA. We on the other hand, should know better than to lift our hands against God's anointed apostle.

I find it amusing that someone would use the fact that Lee plagerized in attempt to argue that the RcV notes are legitimate. Is that how far they are willing to go to defend Lee? Apparently so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I find it amusing that someone would use the fact that Lee plagerized in attempt to argue that the RcV notes are legitimate. Is that how far they are willing to go to defend Lee? Apparently so.

The old line about, "standing on their shoulders."

Works every time.