Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ding! I understand now. Thanks.

I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?

Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Ok Trapped... thanks for the clarification.

Prior to this conversation, I never considered there to be a perceived contradiction between the ministry and the Lord's recovery.... because in my mind they are related but not synonyms. When I hear the ministry I think of the work of the gifts to the Body.. and when I think about the Lord's recovery I think about the actions that God has directed in various era's to recover His original purpose to establish His kingdom on earth, that is to bring the Lord back and depose the evil powers and take over the earth with His saints.

Therefore, I see your point in what appears like an obvious contradiction... the wording appears to be contradictory right on the surface. However, I see no substantive contradiction...so I'll explain my thoughts using the document itself... since that is the point of this thread.

Therefore, we have two seeming contradictory statements:

1) I'll use one from your list which should cover most of the similar statements since this one sounds most contradictory: 4. "sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lord’s recovery today."

2) And this one near the end: " The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

The reason I labored on the point about both statements being in the letter is because if they weren't then it could easily be understood that the authors inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lee's statement and in so doing showed they would have not been expressing his thoughts on the matter... and as has been said many times in this forum the blended brothers are faithful to Brother Lee's word to them.

So, with the two statements above there are four possibilities of what the authors intended to mean by including both statements:

First, they may have intended the reader to understand that the first statement (penned by the authors) was their meaning but not the second. That is not logical.... why include the second statement at all then.

Or secondly, they may have intended the reader to understand that the second statement (by Brother Lee) was their intended meaning but not the first. That is even less sensible because they are the authors of the first statement!

Third option is that the authors did not mean either statements to be their intended meaning. That would be ridiculous.

Fourth then and lastly , the authors included both statements because they believed that both statements are the intended meaning. This really is the only logical choice. If the one publication had been penned and released by a single author then it might be reasoned that the author was out of touch ... but since it was probably at least 8, 10, or a dozen brothers reviewing and agreeing on the release of this document, its content, and its intended meaning, then it is of a surety that they meant both seemingly contradictory statements to be true... and they were perfectly comfortable juxtaposing them for public consumption.

If that is the case, and the logic favors that view, then the only question is how two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact not contradictory in the minds of the authors?

I'll pause here before providing my own point of view on that last question.

thanks
Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

(to save forum space I won't quote Drake's post)

I agree that it was probably a number of brothers who wrote/reviewed/edited/agreed on the document. Having said that, I personally think it is a very clunky, repetitive, unclear, undefined, bloated, meandering piece of work which could have used several additional months of refining, revising, consolidating, and clarifying. And I say that without a derisive tone.....to me it really is a clunky manatee that isn't up to the normally stringent standards of editing and clarity that LSM holds itself to.

The cynical side of me actually thinks that the letter is that way by design - when something like this is this long and wandering and repeatedly uses undefined nebulous phrases like "the one trumpeting" then that is one tactic that can be used to impose a particular impression without being on the hook to explicitly state it.

My own view on the contradictory statements, which is going to sound cynical again, is that you are giving the authors too much credit that it was intentional to include both statements and hold them as not contradictory. My view is simply that they threw in the quote in question so they could point to it when the inevitable accusation would come that LSM is issuing an edict to all the churches that they can only use LSM materials. The quote in question allows them to say "see, the ministry is not a requirement of a genuine local church" and "see, we aren't restricting the recovery, just the ministry". Even though the rest of the letter says it clearly, there is a portion they can wave on high to try to convince those who disagree otherwise.

Interested in your point of view!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

... very clunky, repetitive, unclear, undefined, bloated, meandering piece of work.

Wow, Trapped...you just described the "ministry" of one brother Witness Lee! Well maybe this explains just how and why these follows came up with something so clunky, repetitive, unclear, undefined, bloated and meandering...they had been absorbing Witness Lee so long that anything they ever produced was bound to come out just like one of those "Life Studies". And By Golly Gee Whiz if these guys didn't disappoint. The One Publication "is what it is". The first time I read it I thought it was actually written directly by Lee. Of course most of us know that it pretty much was written by Witness Lee. There is nothing in the One Publication declaration that did not come straight from Witness Lee's lips at one time or another.

The cynical side of me actually thinks that the letter is that way by design - when something like this is this long and wandering and repeatedly uses undefined nebulous phrases like "the one trumpeting" then that is one tactic that can be used to impose a particular impression without being on the hook to explicitly state it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree that it was probably a number of brothers who wrote/reviewed/edited/agreed on the document. Having said that, I personally think it is a very clunky, repetitive, unclear, undefined, bloated, meandering piece of work which could have used several additional months of refining, revising, consolidating, and clarifying. And I say that without a derisive tone.....to me it really is a clunky manatee that isn't up to the normally stringent standards of editing and clarity that LSM holds itself to.

The cynical side of me actually thinks that the letter is that way by design - when something like this is this long and wandering and repeatedly uses undefined nebulous phrases like "the one trumpeting" then that is one tactic that can be used to impose a particular impression without being on the hook to explicitly state it.

My own view on the contradictory statements, which is going to sound cynical again, is that you are giving the authors too much credit that it was intentional to include both statements and hold them as not contradictory. My view is simply that they threw in the quote in question so they could point to it when the inevitable accusation would come that LSM is issuing an edict to all the churches that they can only use LSM materials. The quote in question allows them to say "see, the ministry is not a requirement of a genuine local church" and "see, we aren't restricting the recovery, just the ministry". Even though the rest of the letter says it clearly, there is a portion they can wave on high to try to convince those who disagree otherwise.

Interested in your point of view!

Trapped,

This post is a masterpiece of breaking down “the ministry of doublespeak”. Well done, bro.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Trapped,
This post is a masterpiece of breaking down “the ministry of doublespeak”. Well done, bro.

Well said, Nell.

Spiritualized legalese by the masters.

Reminds me of all the "new" teachings the Exclusive Brethren came up with after every excommunication and division they instigated. That's the beauty of being in the "recovery."

[awareness]

While y'all go on about particulars, I must point out that One Publication is the same thing as The People's Republic of China declaring that there will be only one internet provider in China.

Then LSM becomes the gatekeeper mainly of Nee (they have copyright on Lee - and non-Recovery Christians like Nee). It's just LSM trying to eliminate all competition. It's a corporation holding to the bottom-line at any cost. It's about mammon. It's the only business Lee could pull off. Another of his business scams ... like Daystar ... and his history of ripping off saints.

But it's working. After all, how many other publishers of Nee do we have left today?

[Ohio]

A number of great papers were written on this subject of One Publication.

Here is a brief response by Professor and Brother Nigel Tomes to Benson Philips, President of LSM, who instituted this disastrous policy which later divided all the LC's:

Nigel Tomes, "If One Publication is causing Division, How Many Publications will create Oneness?" - A Rejoinder to Bro. Benson Phillips.

A number of other articles are published on the Concerned Brothers site such as these:

• Nigel Tomes' "PUBLICATION WORK IN THE LORD’S RECOVERY” – ANALYSIS & RESPONSE - Response and Fellowship to LSM's Booklet on One Publication. (English)
• Nigel Tomes' Letter to the Letter from Southern California Coworkers. (English)
  
• Nigel Tomes, "The Bible: Our Only Standard" (English)
• Nigel Tomes, "Honesty in History - Aginst Historical Revisionism" (English)
• Nigel Tomes, "The One Publication Campaign" (English)
• Nigel Tomes, "LSM’s Eisegesis - How Not To Interpret the Bible!" (English)

[awareness]

“The Scriptural Basis of One Publication” – According to the LSM-brothers
The LSM-brothers assert that ‘One Publication’
“is solidly based on many fundamental
Scriptural principles, including the following:

1. the uniqueness of the teaching and fellowship of the apostles,
2. the apostles teaching the same thing in every church,
3. the Lord's speaking to one church being His speaking to all of the churches,
4. the oneness of the Body of Christ,
5. the one accord,
6. thinking the same thing,
7. speaking the same thing,
8. the one ministry of the New Testament,
9. the one work with one goal, and
10. serving in the one flow of the Lord's move.”

Sounds like The One Publican in the local church is tantamount to The Book of Mormon to the LDS ... minus Moroni and the golden plates ... but with Nee and Lee as their idols.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Fourth then and lastly , the authors included both statements because they believed that both statements are the intended meaning. This really is the only logical choice. If the one publication had been penned and released by a single author then it might be reasoned that the author was out of touch ... but since it was probably at least 8, 10, or a dozen brothers reviewing and agreeing on the release of this document, its content, and its intended meaning, then it is of a surety that they meant both seemingly contradictory statements to be true... and they were perfectly comfortable juxtaposing them for public consumption.

If that is the case, and the logic favors that view, then the only question is how two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact not contradictory in the minds of the authors?

I'll pause here before providing my own point of view on that last question.

thanks
Drake

Hi Drake,

If you are still interested in providing your point of view on this, I am also still interested to hear it. Hope the cynical bents communicated in my view didn't turn you off.

Thanks,

Trapped