My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church - Dr. Hsu

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by OBW

I noticed this somewhere in this testimony.
Is this referring to translating into Chinese? I presume so. Was this then later published in the US in the Chinese language as well?

Just trying to make sense of some of this testimony.

The chronology which is being presented is as follows

Foxe's Book of Martyrs was published in English in 1563

The Chinese Translation was started sometime after 1963 when Xu Feili's status was changed to an employee. It was finished between 1979-80 towards the end of his 20 years in the Camp. Because the printing technique was mimeo graphic (a process which is almost identical to the process used on the original 16th century book by Foxe) the pages could be produced one at a time and distributed in that way. I don't precisely know when the work was started but I am assuming when Xu Feili and his wife Zhang Xiangchen (3rd Daughter of Zhang Yuzhi) got married in 1972 some of the translation work was already done and the remainder followed after they were forced apart. His wife went back to Shanghai with his daughter and the bulk of the work was cairned out over the next ten years whilst they were separated.

The original translation from English to Chinese was done by Xu Feili and proofed by his wife Zhang Xiangchen. The original prints were done using wax paper as a stencil or plate. The Japanese version would have been a more professional steele plate production.

The significance of the link with Japan is the printing technique itself. Mimeographs are plate pressings done by pressure with ink through a stencil. It is a process which lends itself to hieroglyphic texts, such as Chinese and Japanese.

The Big Book of Martyrs was published in 1997 in the USA by John Wagner. It is a direct production from the original Foxe's Book of Martyrs done in cartoon format. I don't believe there is a connection between the Chinese version and the Cartoon version.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I noticed this somewhere in this testimony.
Is this referring to translating into Chinese? I presume so. Was this then later published in the US in the Chinese language as well?

Just trying to make sense of some of this testimony.

I overlooked the Book of Martyrs remarks as not germane to topic.

What I'd like to make sense of is the last paragraph in Xu Feili's testimony:

"In the Eliminating the Hidden Counter-revolutionary Movement in 1955, the true believers were distinguished from the fake believers, and people willing to suffer for God were made visible.
In order to avoid suffering, Xu Mei Li became the Judas and gave up her belief of 24 years. She has never repented of her sins sincerely, and today she is still undermining the work of the church, especially the reconstruction of the local church initiated by brother Nee. Only God knows everything."

Feili obviously has an ax to grind against Li and wishes to discredit her entirely.

She is: "today she is still undermining the work of the church ...
especially the reconstruction of the local church initiated by brother Nee.

Reconstruction of what? the Recovery? Now we have a Reconstruction Movement? Are you part of the Reconstruction Movement bro Andrew?

The local church initiated by brother Nee? What does the local church have to do with Nee? Nee either moral or immoral has nothing to do with the local church.

Unless the local church is a personality cult ... requiring Nee to be pristine ,,, and supernaturally human (not human like the rest of us).

Other than that a good testimony ... as testimonies go.

[amrkelly]

My suffering was nothing compared with what my father-in-law had suffered. He was released from the labor camp in Qinghai Province in 1962 and return to his hometown, the countryside in Lanxi, Zhejiang Province. Later on he was permitted to visit his wife and four daughters in Shanghai. But as a condition, he had to investigate what Watchman Nee and other co-workers thought about the government, and to find out whether they were still complaining and confronting the government. Of course my father-in-law refused to betray the brothers and sisters. That was the chief reason for his death penalty. From the Testimony of Xu Feili

I have waited until I could post the testimony of Xu Feili in order to continue where I am going with these postings.

Xu Feili's father in law was of course Zhang Yuzhi.

Dr Hsu says

The struggle over the detachment from “Three-Self” was a breaking away from the bondage of Nee. In December 1950, Nee submitted a copy of the signature list of 32,782 members of Local Churches to “Three-Self” supporting the “Christian Manifesto.” It was a friendly and supportive expression, but did not mean joining Three-Self because the official organization of TPSM had not been established. After the arrest of Nee in April 1952, the SCA leaders did not wish to continue their friendly relationship with TSPM.

In October 1952, Coworker Zhang Yuzhi was sent to Beijing to visit Wang Mingdao, a famous preacher holding strong and clear-cut principle of refusing to join “Three-Self.”

The Communist Government was not established until October 1, 1949 and hostilities didn't fully end in China until May 1950. Therefore when Nee went to the Beijing Conference in July 1950 as an observer the Communist Government had been in place for less than nine months and hostilities in China had ended less than two months previously.

The meeting in Beijing was chaired by Wu Yaozong (Y. T. Wu), a representative of the National Council of the Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association. The purpose was to discuss the three self initiative which of course meant no more than discussing what Nee had already been practising from the beginning of his ministry. In this sense three self was the term used to describe the process by which churches in China would remove themselves from dependancy on foreign mission societies.

The agenda for this meeting was as follows:

1. The Christian Church should obey the new government and assume responsibility to help with the construction of the New China.

2. The Christian Church should cut herself off from any ties with Western imperialism, not to be used as reactionary forces within China.

3. The Christian church must work towards the establishment of a truly indigenous Christianity in China, working to realise the "Three Self Principles", namely "self government', 'Self Support' and 'Self Propagation'.

There is nothing in this agenda which contradicted what Nee had always believed, with one subtle difference. Nee had not previously believed in a sociopolitical aspect to the gospel as a definite work of the church. In this regard Nee did have a change of heart. Yet this change of heart did not materialise until 1951 in Nee's “How Did I Turned Around?” speech.

The relevance of making these points is to challenge Dr Hsu claim that Nee submitted the Gu Ling Land Reform Exemption list directly to Wu Yaozong at his office in Beijing. Dr Hsu provided a speculative rationale for making this claim but in truth she provides no evidence whatsoever which proves that it is true. In finality she says 'that no one dare to make such a decision but Nee". The fact is however she doesn't know.

Another point I am making is that Dr Hsu places some considerable importance to Nee attending this Beijing conference in 1950. She actually says that it is proof of his cowardice and complicity with the Communist Government. She also mentions the visit by Zhang Yuzhi (Xu Feili's father in law) to Beijing in 1952 (after Nee had been arrested) to visit Wang Mingdao. She draws attention to an entry in Wang Mingdao's diary to establish this point.

10/20/1952: Zhang Yuzhi accompanied with Yan Jiale visited, asking in which way that today’s churches should go. I pointed out the mistake of the Local Church. They had to repent with humiliation and ask for God’s mercy. Do not go down to Egypt for help.

10/28/52: Zhang realised that God’s work in the world today is not to revive huge churches, but calling small numbers of faithful overcomers He said, by realizing this, the standard of work could be then defined.(1)

The foot note (1) Reads, '王明道 ,《王明道日記》 , p. 421'

Also one needs to tie in the comment by Roberts in his book The Mysteries of Watchman Nee which I quoted earlier and made the point that Roberts had only found one reference to Nee which "brought his character into question".

Recently a book published in Hong Kong called into question the character of Watchman Nee himself. What is most troubling is that it comes from the personal diaries of one of China’s greatest Christians, Wang Ming Dao. Roberts, D. (2005). Secrets of Watchman Nee (p. 30). Orlando, FL: Bridge-Logos.

I said that Roberts didn't say where he was deriving his meaning from, or what that meaning really was. Here it is then! 王明道 ,《王明道日記》page 421

Dr Hsu also says, 'a significant reason for stumbling into the Communist “People’s Viewpoint” was Nee’s supportive speech on “How Did I Turned Around?” This speech was made by Nee in 1951. Hsu is so determined to press the idea that Nee was such an influence on the whole church that in reality no one had any true biblical knowledge. She says 'The typical example was the unanimous acceptance of Nee’s speech of “How Did I Turned Around?” in 1951. Nobody saw through and corrected the serious mistakes of Nee’s speech.'

In that passage in the book Hsu is directly driving at the teaching about spirit, soul and body. She says, 'In fact, it is risky to read the Bible only with man’s “spirit” and searching for “revelation and light,” without studying and honouring the Bible with your heart and mind (soul) Sic.' Although this kind of reasoning falls down completely, as it is counter intuitive and twisted spiritually Hsu is trying to argue that a more human understanding of the Communist takeover would have had a more human outlook and Nee's super spirituality would not have ruled the day. It is convoluted and ridiculous but then Hsu is a medical doctor and not a minister of God's word.

Remembering that it is Roberts who is also at the back of this book from 2005/6 quoting from him more extensively will make my point very well.

Recently a book published in Hong Kong called into question the character of Watchman Nee himself. What is most troubling is that it comes from the personal diaries of one of China’s greatest Christians, Wang Ming Dao. Back in 1981, I heard allegations that Watchman Nee’s absence from the ministry was not about being busy with business. There were rumors of adultery. When I asked an elder Chinese Christian who had attended his church about the allegations, his answer was a vague, “There were problems.” It was an uncomfortable subject for those inside and outside his movement. If it happened, the people who know the truth are dead now. It may or may not be true.

It’s not the first time that a great, spiritual leader has been entangled in the world. It seems that every time there’s someone we see as spiritual and a great leader, he has a downfall. The leader must accept responsibility. Christians must avoid becoming gossip mongers. Christians must also stop exalting a member of the body of Christ as “a seer,” “the man of the hour,” “the greatest” or anything else.

In the divine plan, Paul was greater than Watchman Nee. Yet, the exorbitant praise by the people of Lystra was unspiritual:

“Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them” (Acts 14:15–18).

In the church at Corinth was too much praise for the Super Apostles. Paul had to remind them of something quite simple: the power of God:

p 31 “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let him who boasts boast in the Lord’” (1 Cor. 1:26–31).

Of course, there is King David. In a sermon given by Paul, he says, “After removing Saul, he made David their king. He [God] testified concerning him: I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.” You know who David was: an adulterer and a murderer.

The language in the Angus Kinnear’s biography and even more so in Witness Lee’s account is so spiritual that Watchman Nee appears angelic and unnatural. Can you imagine what it is like to be such a Super Christian? You can’t make mistakes as Moses did. You always have to have a spiritual answer. You can’t answer a question with an honest, “Gee, I don’t know.” You can’t yawn when someone speaks. Friendship must always look “spiritual.” You can’t have any personal, natural choices or favorites in the categories of people, children, foods, dogs, or cats.

If you are married, your wife and children are likely to be skeptical or distant. Everything you do is a spiritual lesson. Under such a fishbowl life, many great pastors turn to a secret life to feel happy and human. It’s as though they are so exalted that they have to get down in the mud to feel fully human.

It’s hard to believe, but two of the evangelical churches where I once worshipped had pastors who were secret alcoholics and transvestites. Both churches regarded these fallen men as the “most anointed pastors they had ever had.”


Roberts, D. (2005). Secrets of Watchman Nee (pp. 30–31). Orlando, FL: Bridge-Logos.

I will spare you my thoughts on this kind of nonsense. Suffice it to say that it is rational, intellectual and totally devoid of spiritual meaning.

Also I will repost something I posted before because I realise most of what I have said is being dismissed out of hand as the rantings of a Nee follower. You have all made it clear enough on that score. This quote may make some sense now.

But there is another interpretation. It is an interpretation more favored by people whose studies focus on understanding how the Bible was understood in the biblical era. They don’t try to decide how biblical Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Watchman Nee, or C. S. Lewis is. They try to understand how the Bible was understood in Bible times. They study Greek and Hebrew cultures. They study the various ways Greek and Hebrew words were used.

The Third view sees both the dichotomous and the trichotomous as too Greek and less biblical. The Greeks gave us the word, atom, the smallest part of the earth. They gave us the words, anatomical and analysis. The Greek idea was to dissect everything down into parts. The person is made of two parts or three parts. But to the Hebrew mind, you are a whole person, a living soul. People are either alive or dead. It is God’s breath or Spirit that makes us alive. You have to have both a body and a spirit to be alive. The word, spirit, means “the whole man.” Soul means “the whole man.” But the former word reminds us that we need God to live. The whole man is spiritual. Gifts from God are spiritual. God’s law is spiritual because God’s will and power descend and work through them. Carnal or soulical is the whole man setting his life upon what is terminal and in a state of decay.

To live or act a life apart from God is to be carnal. It is also foolish. If the branch removes itself from the vine, its future is only death and decay. Christians have been saved p 94 by the most spiritual event in history. It is not something worldly, done without God’s help. Christians have every reason to walk in the Spirit. We have been immersed/baptized in the Holy Spirit. Our new life is eternally connected to Christ the vine. Yet, as Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians that though we are spiritual, we can act in a carnal or worldly manner.


Roberts, D. (2005). Secrets of Watchman Nee (pp. 93–94). Orlando, FL: Bridge-Logos.

In the light of all this, Hsu's comment, which I opened with, may also makes more sense.

The struggle over the detachment from “Three-Self” was a breaking away from the bondage of Nee. In December 1950, Nee submitted a copy of the signature list of 32,782 members of Local Churches to “Three-Self” supporting the “Christian Manifesto.” It was a friendly and supportive expression, but did not mean joining Three-Self because the official organization of TPSM had not been established. After the arrest of Nee in April 1952, the SCA leaders did not wish to continue their friendly relationship with TSPM.

In October 1952, Coworker Zhang Yuzhi was sent to Beijing to visit Wang Mingdao, a famous preacher holding strong and clear-cut principle of refusing to join “Three-Self.”

The simple reality of this book is that it really is intended to address the totality of Nee and not an issue of immorality. The immorality part is a personal emotional justification for Hsu to explain her treachery in 1955/6 when she provided the impetus for the arrest of more than thirty people in Shanghai. Angus Kinnear says in his book 'Against The Tide' that more than 1000 people were arrested immediately after this incident in the Shanghai church from across the Little Flock churches in China. In seeking every avenue of possibility to blame Nee for her own cowardice at that time, there are no lengths that she will not go to make her point. That included using the name of a man who gave his life for the gospel to protect his brothers and sisters. That man was Zhang Yuzhi. Yet Zhang Yuzhi's daughter and son in law take a very different position from Hsu. I will post Zhang Yuzhi's daughters testimony when I have it and his widow Li Li Ying's testimony as well.

When Hsu (Roberts) draws attention to the visit of Zhang Yuzhi to see Wang Mingdao in 1952 they fail to draw attention to either who Wang Mingdao was in context of Beijing as well as the fact that Nee was under arrest and so Zhang Yuzhi was in effect the senior co-worker in the Little Flock movement, albeit he was based by this time in Shanghai. Everything has context including Wang Mingdao, both personal to the man himself, his experience in Beijing for the previous three years of Communist Rule, as well as his historical position during the Sino Japanese war and the church in Beijing. Also to compare an action by Nee in 1950 and to attribute to him a meaning in 1951, then link a comment of another man altogether in 1952 is what is known as twisted reason. Without context you could say absolutely anything at all.

If Hsu wanted to demonstrate a deeper meaning, that Wang Mingdao was a wiser man than Nee in this regard it would have been a simple matter of pointing to his direct experience of the Communist Government and drawing upon already published works which prove the point about the wisdom of Wang Mingdao beyond any doubt. For example Hsu and Roberts could have spoken of the 17th September 1979 when in the memorial address of the death of Yaozong Wu, where Bishop Ting took over the presidency of the TSPM. Ting reported an extraordinary conversation he had had with Yaozong Wu at the World Peace Council in Czechoslovakia May 1949. Ting raised a question to Wu, asking: "Will you support the new government in China even if it would abolish religion in the country?" Wu responded by saying: "Even in the eventuality that religion will be harassed by the new government, I will still love my country and my government. (Chinese Christianity: An Interplay Between Global and Local Perspectives p. 212)

Which finally brings me to the point at which I will post the most damning evidence of the correlation between the claims of Hsu and Roberts and the links between the TSMP (Bishop Ting) and the former chief of the BRA East China Division, Luo Zhufeng. How the claims of Hsu (Roberts) correlate almost perfectly with the communist position on Nee, long before Hsu and Roberts had any access to these allegations is something needing explanation in itself.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by awareness

I overlooked the Book of Martyrs remarks as not germane to topic.

What I'd like to make sense of is the last paragraph in Xu Feili's testimony:

"In the Eliminating the Hidden Counter-revolutionary Movement in 1955, the true believers were distinguished from the fake believers, and people willing to suffer for God were made visible.
In order to avoid suffering, Xu Mei Li became the Judas and gave up her belief of 24 years. She has never repented of her sins sincerely, and today she is still undermining the work of the church, especially the reconstruction of the local church initiated by brother Nee. Only God knows everything."

Feili obviously has an ax to grind against Li and wishes to discredit her entirely.

She is: "today she is still undermining the work of the church ...
especially the reconstruction of the local church initiated by brother Nee.

Reconstruction of what? the Recovery? Now we have a Reconstruction Movement? Are you part of the Reconstruction Movement bro Andrew?

The local church initiated by brother Nee? What does the local church have to do with Nee? Nee either moral or immoral has nothing to do with the local church.

Unless the local church is a personality cult ... requiring Nee to be pristine ,,, and supernaturally human (not human like the rest of us).

Other than that a good testimony ... as testimonies go.

So far as the terms "reconstruction" and 'fake' are concerned Harold the meaning lays in the ability to discern what a sincere believer would intend in context of their lives. Of course that cannot form the basis for changing a word. Given that this testimony is written out of the USA (Pasadena) it wouldn't be difficult to realise that Xu Feili is writing from a belief in the original meaning of the work in China itself. The term 'reconstruction' therefore may simply mean 'recovery' as you would know it. Also the term 'fake' carries a meaning which is similar to pseudo it means not of the true part, but a copy, or else a true part which has moved away from its original meaning. The term apostate includes both elements. You cannot have fallen away from something unless you have first embraced that something.

In any event the translation is a proof and not the final document and it may well be that these two words will be changed to 'recovery' and 'pseudo' as the original Chinese version is gone through by a proof-reader to test the integrity of the English translation.

In the same way the term 'Judas" may not be name calling, it may actually mean in the original intention 'betrayed'. Like it or not there is a massive disparity between how the Chinese in China use 'religious' words and how we in the West understand them. The TSMP has systematical shaped religious thinking in China both within its own ranks but also in the general population. The translators I am using all have to refer to dictionaries on religion to check their meanings and in doing so they are finding that our old friend Luo Zhufeng has spent the last 40 years rewriting the meaning of Chinese words.

The Hanyu Da Cidian (Chinese: 漢語大詞典/汉语大词典; pinyin: Hànyǔ Dà Cídiǎn; literally "Comprehensive Chinese Word Dictionary") is the most inclusive available Chinese dictionary. Lexicographically comparable to the Oxford English Dictionary, it has diachronic coverage of the Chinese language, and traces usage over three millennia from Chinese classic texts to modern slang. The chief editor Luo Zhufeng 羅竹風 (1911-1996), along with a team of over 300 scholars and lexicographers, started the enormous task of compilation in 1979. Publication of the thirteen volumes began in 1986 and finished in 1993.

This is what we are up against Harold. Serpents and devils.

Note the date Harold when this work was started. 1979 was a vintage year for the apostate men of China.

[bearbear]

I read through Hsu's book a few weeks ago and found her account to make sense. I think she is trying to help and gains nothing by slandering Nee. She comes across as a woman who fears God and takes pains to get the facts right. Among those who she considers as her spiritual benefactors, she mentioned that she still considered Watchman Nee as one of the writers who has helped her. I got the impression she is trying to be fair as possible, while documenting the spiritual recovery she made through her ordeal.

Recently an event transpired in my life that has been the source of much bitterness and what I feel is testing from the Lord. I'm going through this book now: "Bait of Satan" by John Bevere on recommendation of my elder. So far it's been helping me a lot. I hope it can also to those of you who are experiencing bitterness from what went on in the LCs and also hurtful words that were said during discussion here:

http://www.salvationtoday.net/The%20...n%20Bevere.pdf

[awareness]

You are a hard worker bro Andrew. Your posts are hard work for the reader too.

I suppose we're dealing with so many witnesses, and such great amount of data, that it's impossible to address this topic in brief compact posts.

The truly interested will hang in there. Thanks for your efforts Andrew. You're doing the heavy lifting and leg work, so to speak.

Originally Posted by amrkelly

This is what we are up against Harold. Serpents and devils.

And what are these serpents and devils trying to accomplish? What are they trying to stop?

Are they trying to accomplish the discrediting of Nee, by bring him down from his exulted position, in the minds of his followers?

Are they trying to stop Nee's movement?

I've tried, and maybe failed, to make it clear that my concern is not so much if Nee was moral or not, but that Nee's movement deeply and total affects people's lives. I and everyone I knew was "all in" into Nee's movement. It framed my life from that point on. And here I am, decades later, prolly neurotically, still dealing with it. And I long ago let go of Nee. My interest in this is to completely understand what I was really giving my life to.

And all of these local church discussions, here and elsewhere, have revealed that there was a dark hidden side of the movement I was giving my whole life to. If I had I known about that dark side, it would have caused me to think twice about giving my life to it.

So I read Dr. Lily Hsu's book and it sounded like a sound testimony concerning Watchman Nee. That's how it struck me. I, and others I know, that have read Hsu's book walked away with that impression. Some were shocked by it, and some said, "Of course. To be expected."

The book did its job, of un-exulting Nee for me, and for others I know.

And it will continue to do that job in the minds of readers, even if you, Andrew, totally trash her book, and disprove every word.

And I think stopping Nee's movement is a worthy job. Cuz to me if Nee needs to be exulted for his movement to continue then, his movement is a personality cult, and needs to be stopped, even if by shifty and crafty communist atheists, or by inept historians, seeking to show Nee's human side.

[Igzy]

The simple reality of this book is that it really is intended to address the totality of Nee and not an issue of immorality. The immorality part is a personal emotional justification for Hsu to explain her treachery in 1955/6 when she provided the impetus for the arrest of more than thirty people in Shanghai. Angus Kinnear says in his book 'Against The Tide' that more than 1000 people were arrested immediately after this incident in the Shanghai church from across the Little Flock churches in China. In seeking every avenue of possibility to blame Nee for her own cowardice at that time, there are no lengths that she will not go to make her point.

It's statements like this which cause me to dismiss you, kelly. And there are a lot of them in your posts, interspersed with padding which do not support these "conclusions."

You have not shown yourself on this board to have anything approaching the character needed to have the discernment necessary to make such statements, and which you blithely expect us to believe you have.

Good grief, you insult the Americans on this board and then, without apology, after promising to leave (I predicted you wouldn't), come back and preach to us. Give me a break.

I believe Hsu more than you, in part because she mounts a better argument, and at the very least is able to fake a better character than you think is necessary to even try to fake.

Harold is a saint to humor you. If you are an example of the type of person produced by following Nee, then you are an argument against him, not for him. My dad used to talk about a certain family member of whom you remind me. He would say, "She wants to be known as an intellectual snob. Unfortunately, she's only half-qualified."

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him. Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory.” (Ephesians 3:1–13, NASB95)

Megalomaniacs who would listen to one of them!

Apart from that Igzy your argument and detail is simply breathtaking brother. I can scare get my head around it.

Hsu's account clearly shows that the Minister of the Age principle started with Nee, not Lee. Nee need not use the term to imply the same idea. His teachings on authority, submission and how God moves amount His people all added up to a supreme minister who no one could question. Lee assumed he was next in line and assumed the mantle. No, neither of them probably ever said, "I am the Minister of the Age." But they implied it eight ways from Sunday and their faux humility about it was self-serving.

Paul the Apostle claimed to have great revelation. He defended the integrity of his ministry and his qualifications. But he never suggested that everyone needed to submit to him, or that his ministry trumped all others. However, this presumption we see with Lee and the seeds of it are in Nee.

For all your book knowledge, kelly, your experience of directly dealing with this kind of thing doesn't seem to exist. If you knew of the abuses caused and justified by this MOTA attitude, you might be happy with Nee being taken down a notch, instead of being so willing to slant the facts in Nee's favor. I think it is very possible that Nee had some sexual failings, because such things generally go hand-in-hand with abuses of power, and he was clearly guilty of that. I would require more proof that he serially visited prostitutes. But I have little problem believing he had a fling here or there, especially since Hsu says she heard the personal confession of one of the women involved.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's statements like this which cause me to dismiss you, kelly. And there are a lot of them in your posts, interspersed with padding which do not support these "conclusions."

You have not shown yourself on this board to have anything approaching the character needed to have the discernment necessary to make such statements, and which you blithely expect us to believe you have.

Good grief, you insult the Americans on this board and then, without apology, after promising to leave (I predicted you wouldn't), come back and preach to us. Give me a break.

I believe Hsu more than you, in part because she mounts a better argument, and at the very least is able to fake a better character than you think is necessary to even try to fake.

Harold is a saint to humor you. If you are an example of the type of person produced by following Nee, then you are an argument against him, not for him. My dad used to talk about a certain family member of whom you remind me. He would say, "She wants to be known as an intellectual snob. Unfortunately, she's only half-qualified."

It would be a simple matter of supporting this conclusion by just repeating what Dr Hsu has said herself. It takes no great intellect. You may have missed it but I said when I first came on this board that if Nee was guilty of the things which Hsu claims he is guilty of, then he was more than a mere man, he had become a devil. That claim stands now. You may have also missed the fact that I went to a school for children with learning difficulties. Everything I have in my mind today came by faith in Christ Jesus and many years of hard work and effort. I have made no claims to being an intellectual at all. I couldn't care less about intellect if that is claimed to mean something which surpasses real discernment. Dr Hsu on the other hand is an intellectual and the fact of it is stated in the commendation section for her book at the front. By all means say whatever you are minded to say. It is of no concern to me at all. I have also said that plainly as well. As for the insults against American! I have a piece off furniture that is older than the United States of America and it is better built as well. Now that Igzy is an insult.

Saying that someone is assassinating a persons whole character is either evidential or it is an opinion. Would you like me to list the whole range of things Hsu claims about Nee or are we all talk as usual.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by awareness

You are a hard worker bro Andrew. Your posts are hard work for the reader too.

I suppose we're dealing with so many witnesses, and such great amount of data, that it's impossible to address this topic in brief compact posts.

The truly interested will hang in there. Thanks for your efforts Andrew. You're doing the heavy lifting and leg work, so to speak.


And what are these serpents and devils trying to accomplish? What are they trying to stop?

Are they trying to accomplish the discrediting of Nee, by bring him down from his exulted position, in the minds of his followers?

Are they trying to stop Nee's movement?

I've tried, and maybe failed, to make it clear that my concern is not so much if Nee was moral or not, but that Nee's movement deeply and total affects people's lives. I and everyone I knew was "all in" into Nee's movement. It framed my life from that point on. And here I am, decades later, prolly neurotically, still dealing with it. And I long ago let go of Nee. My interest in this is to completely understand what I was really giving my life to.

And all of these local church discussions, here and elsewhere, have revealed that there was a dark hidden side of the movement I was giving my whole life to. If I had I known about that dark side, it would have caused me to think twice about giving my life to it.

So I read Dr. Lily Hsu's book and it sounded like a sound testimony concerning Watchman Nee. That's how it struck me. I, and others I know, that have read Hsu's book walked away with that impression. Some were shocked by it, and some said, "Of course. To be expected."

The book did its job, of un-exulting Nee for me, and for others I know.

And it will continue to do that job in the minds of readers, even if you, Andrew, totally trash her book, and disprove every word.

And I think stopping Nee's movement is a worthy job. Cuz to me if Nee needs to be exulted for his movement to continue then, his movement is a personality cult, and needs to be stopped, even if by shifty and crafty communist atheists, or by inept historians, seeking to show Nee's human side.

I can see that looking beyond the end of our noses is a difficult thing for people to do. What makes me laugh in all of this is that some of us have experienced more real abuse than others are even capable of comprehending. But we still believe that bringing people down is the best solution for our offences. The issue of what happens in all of this will rest firmly in the Lord's hands and will have little to do with what we think about it. Nevertheless I am going to take this book to pieces, line by line, word by word and demonstrate exactly what it represents, if it takes me five years to do it. Make of that what you will but I have no interest in small talk Harold.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hsu's account clearly shows that the Minister of the Age principle started with Nee, not Lee. Nee need not use the term to imply the same idea. His teachings on authority, submission and how God moves amount His people all added up to a supreme minister who no one could question. Lee assumed he was next in line and assumed the mantle. No, neither of them probably ever said, "I am the Minister of the Age." But they implied it eight ways from Sunday and their faux humility about it was self-serving.

Paul the Apostle claimed to have great revelation. He defended the integrity of his ministry and his qualifications. But he never suggested that everyone needed to submit to him, or that his ministry trumped all others. However, this presumption we see with Lee and the seeds of it are in Nee.

For all your book knowledge, kelly, your experience of directly dealing with this kind of thing doesn't seem to exist. If you knew of the abuses caused and justified by this MOTA attitude, you might be happy with Nee being taken down a notch, instead of being so willing to slant the facts in Nee's favor. I think it is very possible that Nee had some sexual failings, because such things generally go hand-in-hand with abuses of power, and he was clearly guilty of that. I would require more proof that he serially visited prostitutes. But I have little problem believing he had a fling here or there, especially since Hsu says she heard the personal confession of one of the women involved.

Been on holiday Igzy?

Can I suggest something Igzy. Go and read what Dr Hsu actually said. Not the subtle or less subtle inference which are interlaced throughout the book. Read the very words which address Hsu's visit to the elderly sister and read them very carefully. Then if you can actually see in those very words Igzy, not your imagination, that the elder sister actually says NEE raped me I will give you £1000. That Igzy is a contract made in a public place. And just in case you missed it Igzy Dr Hsu doesn't say Nee had a 'sexual failing' with Miao Yunchun. Hsu says he raped Miao Yunchun. Now call me old fashioned if you must but in the minds or ordinary people the difference between sexual failings and rape may just be the difference between being a beast and being a man! Next time someone is laying hands on you for a blessing and they say they had a fling with someone you might look twice. If they say they raped someone you will probably requires some explanation and withdraw your head from the block.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

It would be a simple matter of supporting this conclusion by just repeating what Dr Hsu has said herself. It takes no great intellect. You may have missed it but I said when I first came on this board that if Nee was guilty of the things which Hsu claims he is guilty of, then he was more than a mere man, he had become a devil. That claim stands now.

So Hsu must be wrong because if she is right Nee is a "devil" and Nee could not be a devil therefore she is wrong? That's simply stilted and convoluted logic. Besides, having sexual weaknesses does not make one a devil. Nee could have been a little too insistent for sex and the shamed sister recounted it as "rape."

The point is that are a lot more reasonable explanations to why these stories exist than that Hsu is trying to cover up something that she did sixty years ago. That explanation makes the least sense, yet is the one you embrace. All she would have to do if that were the case is not mention anything at all.

Nee was a good and spiritual man in many ways. But he was just a man. Sexual sin has been the bane of many a servant of God, including Solomon and St. Augustine. I'm not making light of serious problems, but the point is the idea of Nee as a person who struggled with temptations and even at times fell is far more believable than the mythology that surrounds him--a mythology that has bolstered the hero worship that results in doctrines like the MOTA and, apparently, your fervor.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Can I suggest something Igzy. Go and read what Dr Hsu actually said.

I read the whole already book, kelly. Yes, I can picture someone claiming Nee raped her. Do I get a 1000 pounds now? I didn't think so, but nevermind.

Hsu did not accuse Nee of rape. She recounted the stories of others accusing him. There is a big difference. I have Kindle cloud reader and have found every reference to rape in the book. Each time she is talking about what someone else said.

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Been on holiday Igzy?

You said you were leaving the board. I thought the debate was over.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Make of that what you will but I have no interest in small talk Harold.

Oh I've noticed that you aren't much with the social graces.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

It would be a simple matter of supporting this conclusion by just repeating what Dr Hsu has said herself. It takes no great intellect. You may have missed it but I said when I first came on this board that if Nee was guilty of the things which Hsu claims he is guilty of, then he was more than a mere man, he had become a devil.

No he's become just an ordinary human being. If that's the devil to you, well you are one, and so is everybody else. We're all devils ... especially, as you are fond to say, are we Americans.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

. Nevertheless I am going to take this book to pieces, line by line, word by word and demonstrate exactly what it represents, if it takes me five years to do it.

Don't miss the forest for the windmills, Don Quixote.

By the way, how about producing a half-way plausible idea of what the book "represents?" And better make it a good one or all your deconstruction work for the next five years will be as vain as so-called "higher criticism" of the Bible.

No motive, no crime. Why did Hsu choose to dredge all this stuff up sixty years later? It wasn't to defend herself. No one in her circle knew or cared she was involved with Nee's movement. If she wanted to protect her reputation, she just would not have mentioned anything. No one writes a book of lies at the end of her life to set the record straight about a story no one in her life knows or cares about anyway.

Also, if Hsu was that treacherous, to throw Nee under the bus by falsely accusing him of rape, then she wouldn't bother to act humble and sorry for anything else. Such brazenness would be hard to conceal in a book this long. Her true colors would peak out. Even so, she probably would not attempt to take such a tack if she were guilty. She would probably just thump her chest, act defiant and proclaim everyone was an idiot but her (like someone else I know). She does not. Her humility and sincerity would be very hard to fake.

If she was guilty, the most likely thing she would do at this late date would be either confess it, or take it to her grave. What she did do is the least likely, not to mention most difficult, thing of all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I read the whole already book, kelly. Yes, I can picture someone claiming Nee raped her. Do I get a 1000 pounds now? I didn't think so, but nevermind.

.

And here I was thinking that God had answered UntoHim's prayer for the software upgrade.

Only to receive more false promises from that guy who counts his money as pounds and not dollars.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by awareness

No he's become just an ordinary human being. If that's the devil to you, well you are one, and so is everybody else. We're all devils ... especially, as you are fond to say, are we Americans.

Originally Posted by awareness

No he's become just an ordinary human being. If that's the devil to you, well you are one, and so is everybody else. We're all devils ... especially, as you are fond to say, are we Americans.

Harold I can scarcely believe what I am reading. An ordinary human being?

Rape, fornication, fraud, tax evasion, egotism, lying, deceiving, megalomania, spiritual abuse, attempted genocide, profiteering, greed, falsehood and cowardice. I don't think that is the whole list but if that is ordinary for someone who was running a ministry involving upwards of 80,000 people then I have no idea what to say really.

Just to show you Harold that despite appearances I am normal and this beautiful video of my daughters wedding may help to allay fears that you are all dealing with a devil on this man.

Just for you Harold:

http://youtu.be/opWNhnR2_58

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I read the whole already book, kelly. Yes, I can picture someone claiming Nee raped her. Do I get a 1000 pounds now? I didn't think so, but nevermind.

Hsu did not accuse Nee of rape. She recounted the stories of others accusing him. There is a big difference. I have Kindle cloud reader and have found every reference to rape in the book. Each time she is talking about what someone else said.

You said you were leaving the board. I thought the debate was over.

What you said Igzy was

But I have little problem believing he had a fling here or there, especially since Hsu says she heard the personal confession of one of the women involved

I don't expect anyone to be accurate. It has been clear from the outset that accuracy is not the strong suite of some poster here at least. Your's Igzy is very much in that ball park. Why do you even bother to post the words 'especially since Hsu says she heard the personal confession of one of the women involved'. To make the emphasis and to fail to remember you made it seems likely to point to a lack of intelligence I shouldn't wonder!

So here is my public offer to give you Igzy or whosoever you nominate as your beneficiary £1000 if you can show me in the words of Miao Yunchun that Nee either raped her or had an affair with her or any sexual physical contact with her whatsoever.

You said Hsu received a personal confession from Miao Yunchun. It has to be Miao Yunchun because this is the only sister Hsu claims to have visited with another brother, whom she does not name in 1956. She was the secretary to the BRA appointed Study Committee. Just in case you missed it this is the committee set up under the CEC process of which Hsu was a trusted member. It was the committee set up to run the Shanghai Church after all the elders and senior co-workers had been arrested and imprisoned (all thirty of them). Read it and show me where Miao Yunchun with her own mouth says Nee had sex with me. How easy do you want it? Go and read it. You will find that no such words appear from the mouth of Miao Yunchun. They are all from the mouth of Hsu. It is a clever game of words. Just like your words only not too clever in your case.

Just in case you are having difficult with this profound idea what we are looking for are words in which Hsu claims to be repeating verbatim the words of Miao Yunchun as a confession of sexual intercourse or rape. Find them and claim the money. I am a man of my word and I never make light of money. So find them.

Then when you have looked ask yourself why Hsu cannot actually claim that Miao Yunchun told her than Nee raped her. Or why Dr Hsu cannot actually say that Miao Yunchun told her that Nee had an affair with her?

Then if you are as humble as you imagine yourself to be explain the meaning of your words.

especially since Hsu says she heard the personal confession of one of the women involved'

Just to help you here is the section from the book.

That event happened at Wuxi. Brother Nee called me by phone that he would come to see me. He drove his car and picked me up. I just followed him without a thought ... He took the picture while I was naked. I asked him why he wanted to take the picture. His answer was: “I want to keep this as a souvenir since we would not have much chance to see each other in the future."I had asked him multiple times to destroy it and he promised. I don’t know why he has kept it so long. For this reason, he was afraid to attend the Lord’s Table. Whenever there was special meeting, he always wrote to me for confession.

These are the words spoken by Miao Yunchun.

According to Hsu she and the 'other brother' did not speak a single word. That fact is carefully emphasised with some physiological descriptions thrown in to give it plausibility. So if the 'event' is rape or even sexual intercourse on the basis of consent, why does Hsu not say Miao Yunchun said to me that Nee raped her, or that Nee had sex with her? Hsu's cleverness is very telling because she then goes on to add her personal comments and speculations as to whether the taking of the photograph (the event) was done with consent or not. Very clever indeed! Tie in the term 'consent' with a supposed proof of rape and speak about the taking of a photograph and forget to mention the rape. Very clever indeed! It reminds me of some of the devilish publications of the TSMP theologians such as Bishop Ting the former chairman of the TSPM. The way these men play with words of righteousness adding words of deception and falsehood to make it all seem as one thing is a real skill.

A paragraph later Hsu puts what I suppose she imagines is the icing on the cake. Hsu tells us that another brother (no name) went to see Miao Yunchun.

In the same year, she also responded to a young brother who came up to question her. She added, “It is because I have been at this side of the Cross and not that side, so now I can tell you the truth without bitterness. That is a warning for you.”(6)

I suppose the truth here must have been taking a photograph of the naked sister then?

You also need to realise that far from Hsu quoting others regarding the allegation of rape she herself asserts it no less than six of the nine times 'rape' or 'raped' is used in the book. Hsu herself assert it twice for every time she alleges others used the same word.

Hsu did not accuse Nee of rape. She recounted the stories of others accusing him. There is a big difference. I have Kindle cloud reader and have found every reference to rape in the book. Each time she is talking about what someone else said.

The first time the word rape is used is in connection with Nee's trial confession. This is the one Xu Feili the senior co-worker of Nee from 1949 says was not written in his hand writing style. The second time Hsu is reading from the Excommunication announcement published after the trial in 1956. The third is a quotation allegedly made by Zhang Qinian in 1942. The six other uses of the term are made by Hsu in the first person diction. So Lets see then. Nee confessed to rape and the lovely guards wrote the confession for him. The church excommunicated Nee for rape based on the court conviction which didn't actually include rape or any sexual crime at all. Zhang Qinian accused Nee of rape nearly ten years after it was alleged to have happen with no details, no circumstance, nothing. All other instances are Hsu herself. Boy that's convincing then!

This is the church elders appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the church for them after they had imprisoned all the elders and co-workers. Nee confessed after four years in prison by an antagonistic Chinese Government and a sister in anger allegedly claims Nee raped her eight or nine years earlier. Strong case then! I really think you must have been on holiday after all.

As for leaving the board I will resist commenting. As for a debate you are not capable of having one. I tried already but you all keep sulking and spitting your dummies out. The only reason I answer these meaningless comments is because it amuses me. My real posts are for others and not for you or any of the regulars on this site.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I read the whole already book, kelly. Yes, I can picture someone claiming Nee raped her. Do I get a 1000 pounds now?

You said you were leaving the board. I thought the debate was over.

Kelly promised us he would leave. Then he promised us £1000 money.

He can't keep even the simplest of promises, so how are we supposed to believe anything else he writes about this topic.

I think amrKelly should redeem himself and restore his credibility by forwarding this money to UntoHim, our sick and benevolent brother, to upgrade the forum software.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kelly promised us he would leave. Then he promised us £1000 money.

He can't keep even the simplest of promises, so how are we supposed to believe anything else he writes about this topic.

I think amrKelly should redeem himself and restore his credibility by forwarding this money to UntoHim, our sick and benevolent brother, to upgrade the forum software.

Nice try Mr Ohio but I have been dealing with antagonists all my life and I have no fear of men. I say what I mean and if I do change my mind regarding a simple matter then I change my mind. The offer of the money stands Mr Ohio. I am a wealthy man and have no need for anyone to hold my hand as far as money is concerned. Go your way Mr Ohio and do some research yourself before you make any more stupid remarks.

Let Igzy put his brain where his mouth is. I didn't promise any money I offered a fee to find the evidence which he claimed was so convincing in the words of an alleged rape victim. That's my advice Mr Ohio and its free.

[Igzy]

Hoo boy. Another nut case. Let's see, Troy, Steward, what was his name, "baby elephant seals," or something? Then Kirk Frazer. Oh, well. That's the internet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hoo boy. Another nut case. Let's see, Troy, Steward, what was his name, "baby elephant seals," or something? Then Kirk Frazer. Oh, well. That's the internet.

He's just a troll. I think we ought to shut him down until he pays his dues.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hoo boy. Another nut case. Let's see, Troy, Steward, what was his name, "baby elephant seals," or something? Then Kirk Frazer. Oh, well. That's the internet.

Therein lies your problem. You simply have no idea that what I have said I mean to the letter. You Yanks are so dumb and cynical with your world of fantastical self flattering garbage you have simply no idea as to what is real anymore. You are pathetic beyond words. Don't you understand anything. Its all a show with you isn't it. Nothing has to be real, say what you want, because in your silly minds you can be what you want. No limit, no end to the possibilities and guess what. In the end no substance! Do both of us a favour don't respond to my posts but if you do, expect more of the same.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He's just a troll. I think we ought to shut him down until he pays his dues.

And you are a sad old man. You have no authority over me and I will say this very plainly because you need it. Now Ohio test this with you pathetic belief that you can mock and deride everyone who you feel like. I have cursed many things over the years in the Lord's name. I have seen building fall down and internet sites disappear and the content never to return. So you want to support your benevolent UntoHim and this forum.

Just to be clear Ohio unlike yourself I want to be really understood. I have nothing against anyone here but you clearly think that you can do as you please and say what you want. Keep up your nonsense and I will deal with this in prayer. If you don't find a way to draw your ignorant head in then I will bring this to and end in a way which everyone will comprehend clearly. I am not a troll my name is Andrew and I am a servant of the Lord Jesus. Play the game old man if you must but you are the one here who is making certain the outcome, not by having the authority to do it, but because you are a fool.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

And you are a sad old man. You have no authority over me and I will say this very plainly because you need it. Now Ohio test this with you pathetic belief that you can mock and deride everyone who you feel like. I have cursed many things over the years in the Lord's name. I have seen building fall down and internet sites disappear and the content never to return. So you want to support your benevolent UntoHim and this forum.

Just to be clear Ohio unlike yourself I want to be really understood. I have nothing against anyone here but you clearly think that you can do as you please and say what you want. Keep up your nonsense and I will deal with this in prayer. If you don't find a way to draw your ignorant head in then I will bring this to and end in a way which everyone will comprehend clearly. I am not a troll my name is Andrew and I am a servant of the Lord Jesus. Play the game old man if you must but you are the one here who is making certain the outcome, not by having the authority to do it, but because you are a fool.

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

I only say this so you can repent for the sake of your soul. Actually everyone here should also repent! We should be gentle with one another. This does not glorify God. Fits of anger, malice and wrath are listed in Galatians 5:19-22 as conditions for not inheriting the kingdom of God!

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

That just about sums things up really doesn't it. Dead quotes and no substance. I mean what I have said. If you cannot see it then that is how it is.

As an addition bearbear so that you see that I am not against what you have said. I read your post earlier and you made your point and you made it clear. I didn't post against it or you. What you have said I have no doubt you meant. Love believes all things. So how pleasant it is when we can find that which is lovely in that which is vile. My calling has to do with that which is vile. I save the loveliness for those who receive loveliness. I am not interested in what anyone thinks. I will never enter into the falsehood of agreeing with anyone simply to make a stand. What I do I do plainly and openly.

This matter is a simple one. For those who detest my posts they can simply ignore them. If they do not then they can only receive a real response. Agreement for the sake of it is no agreement in truth it is agreement in falsehood. Ohio and Igzy and anyone else can simply ignore me it is as simple as that. If they insist on doing otherwise then they have made a choice as well and will have to go with their choice.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

That just about sums things up really doesn't it. Dead quotes and no substance. I mean what I have said. If you cannot see it then that is how it is.

I think you should reconsider. Would you be comfortable saying this in the throne room of God?

Jesus taught us to pray for and love our enemies, not to curse them and revile them.

Hating another brother is very serious because the bible likens it to murder and not having eternal life and this goes for all of us here if we have hatred, myself included.

1 John 3:15
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I think you should reconsider. Would you be comfortable saying this in the throne room of God?

Jesus taught us to pray for and love our enemies, not to curse them and revile them.

Hating another brother is very serious because the bible likens it to murder and not having eternal life and this goes for all of us here if we have hatred, myself included.

1 John 3:15
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Ohio is not my enemy. Its as simple as that. If he were my enemy then I would be held to a different account. I said what I intended to say and I have said it plainly.

[bearbear]

What Hsu wrote made sense to me because it's what you'd expect from any pastor who solely preaches but lacks an actual church life. No one is above meeting with the saints. We need others to hold us accountable because absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems to be a documented fact that Nee did not attend bread breaking meetings for a significant period of time and was rather aloof. I remember reading this as well in Lee's biography of Nee and finding it strange at the time. What Hsu describes was the consequence of such a lifestyle is no surprise to me.

It also doesn't surprise me that Nee could write so many spiritual books yet live the opposite. I'm continually astounded at the wisdom found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, yet Solomon, who wrote such awesome works fell so hard later in life, even helping to create altars for Baal and Asherah in the high places. Yet it doesn't make what Solomon wrote bad, his books are still inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Yet Fearfully, Christianity isn't about words but it's also about living our faith with actions, love and righteousness. May God have mercy on us all to practice what we preach, escpecially myself.

[bearbear]

Hsu also described how the culture of the LCs was to respect and never question authority. This is how I was raised up in the LCs and it was to never make issues and never question or disrespect elders. This is also the impression I got of how other saints I grew up around generally behaved.

So whenever a turmoil does happen in the LCs as Hsu describes in the SCA, you know some serious stuff really went down! Because I think the threshold for how much iniquity will result in an LCer willing to break cultural norms and risk his whole reputation and relationships to make an issue out of something is *really* high.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by bearbear

What Hsu wrote made sense to me because it's what you'd expect from any pastor who solely preaches but lacks an actual church life. No one is above meeting with the saints. We need others to hold us accountable because absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems to be a documented fact that Nee did not attend bread breaking meetings and was rather aloof. I remember reading this as well in Lee's biography of Nee and finding it strange at the time. What Hsu describes was the consequence of such a lifestyle is no surprise to me.

It also doesn't surprise me that Nee could write so many spiritual books yet live the opposite. I'm continually astounded at the wisdom found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, yet Solomon, who wrote such awesome works fell so hard later in life, even helping to create altars for Baal and Asherah in the high places.

Fearfully, Christianity isn't about words but it's also about living our faith with actions, love and righteousness. May God have mercy on us all to practice what we preach, escpecially myself.

There are a number of realities in this book which I hope will be of benefit in the end. One of them may well be what you have just spoken of. There are others as well.

However we are not children and we do not play games with words. We have to mean all of what we say or we have to repent of what we say when we are wrong and false. Simply believing that something is true is insufficient reason to say it. You have to show it in a proper and true manner.

This book goes way beyond the simplicity of establishing a few realities. Not least because the breadth of the claims being made go right back to the very beginning of Nee's walk with the Lord. It is simply not acceptable to say childish things about such a contorted effort to destroy the ministry of a man. In the world there are literally millions of people who have put Nee's teachings into actions and have benefitted from them precisely because they are true. Many of these people will not be surprised to hear of a man who once promised to marry a girl and then later on changed his mind because his first choice came to know the Lord, thereby causing her to stumble. The bitterness of having made such a promise even with the likelihood of some sin on both their parts in that promise, has a reality of its own.

Just last night a young friend of mine who is ministering in our own works for the Lord, drove over 700 miles to speak with me on a point very nearly the same as this business of Nee's early relationship with Miao Yunchun. The book itself speaks about a time when others thought Nee was going to marry her. We need more wisdom in what we receive and what it means. In the end it is of little consequence if we accept that in finality it is the Lord who will judge these things.

Dr Hsu and Dana Roberts along with Joshua Yu and others have set about to completely destroy the testimony, ministry and witness of a man. It is not as simple as seeking to understand how men fall. That is complete rubbish. We all know how men fall, including those who break bread as regular as clockwork. The sins in this book go back to at least 1927, perhaps even 1923 they extend to 1955. Those are the claims off the book. Then it is said that in the last ten years of his ministry Nee did not break bread. Who really knows what that means? Dr Hsu certainly doesn't. She knew Nee for no more than a three year period of her life when she was an 18 year old pre-medical student. Dana Roberts does not know Nee at all, Joshua Yu was the same age as Hsu.

The book is full of falsehood because it is essentially based on a rational presentation itself grounded in a Communist Process to destroy Nee personally. If others on this site or in any other place can simply overlook these blatant contradiction (and there are many of them in this book) then that is a matter for them. I have no intention of doing so. So Ohio, Igzy and others can either learn to live with it or else do some meaningful research themselves and show how the book is true. Making simplistic and shallow comments to someone who is doing that is simply ignorant and pointless.

Waving the magic wand of Scriptures is for sorcerers and wizards. I have more of an interest in what lies at the heart of things and not how they are made to appear outwardly.

[bearbear]

This book also addressed my question of how the Watchman Nee could join the patriotic three self movement. Almost all the serious Chinese Christians I've read about have rejected it because it's figurehead was a liberal theologian who did not believe the scriptures were divinely inspired. They also paid dearly for their refusal to join PTSM with their lives and long prison sentences.

I also always wondered about what Wang Mingdao thought of Nee and if they ever had contact. Hsu's accounts of their correspondences were very interesting indeed.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by bearbear

This book also addressed my question of how the Watchman Nee could join the patriotic three self movement. Almost all the serious Chinese Christians I've read about have rejected it because it's figurehead was a liberal theologian who did not believe the scriptures were divinely inspired. They also paid dearly for it with their lives and long prison sentences.

I also always wondered about what Wang Mingdao thought of Nee and if they ever had contact. Hsu's accounts of their correspondences were very interesting indeed.

Watchman Nee didn't join the patriotic three self movement. The PTSM didn't even exist until 1955. The principle efforts prior to that were based on a known deception by the apostates involved, but Nee's principle reason for attending the conference in Beijing in 1950 is clearly stated in his speech of 1951. There is no need to speculate and make mystery of that which is evidentially clear. If we insists in separating out the bits we think are proven we will find in the end that it will all become 'proven'. Truth cannot be found at the end of a pen. It has to be sought out in the mind of reason. If you take Hsu at her word Nee was a complete dog. No amount of placation and false assertions about anything else positively will cover the dog which returns to the vomit. Hsu knows exactly what she is doing. All the talk is just talk.

As for Wang Mingdao I have made the research already. I know what he actually said about Nee personally and what he really said about the Little Flock movement. You may be surprised to know that Wang Mingdao believed that God had called him to bring a new work to China from a young age. The point in saying this is a simple one. Mingdao believed in small fellowships, autonomous flocks and his sole comments about the Little Flocks stem from a conversation with Zhang Yuzhi who was the senior co-worker in the Little flocks after Lee went to Malaysia and Nee went to prison. Who knows what transpired in that conversation. One single diary entry in a ministry spanning more than 70 years does not make for a great substance unless you know the context. Anyone can take a few words and make of them what they will. Satan has been doing it for millennia. That wicked one even did it with the Lord Himself.

There is no physical and meaningful evidence that Nee sent the Gu Ling signature list to anyone. Again you would have to read Hsu's comments and weed out her personal rhetoric from the supposed proven facts to see that.

No one will do that. Why is that?

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Therein lies your problem. You simply have no idea that what I have said I mean to the letter. You Yanks are so dumb and cynical with your world of fantastical self flattering garbage you have simply no idea as to what is real anymore. You are pathetic beyond words. Don't you understand anything. Its all a show with you isn't it. Nothing has to be real, say what you want, because in your silly minds you can be what you want. No limit, no end to the possibilities and guess what. In the end no substance! Do both of us a favour don't respond to my posts but if you do, expect more of the same.

The problem is not my comprehension. The problem is your inability to state your premise clearly and show that all the factoids you dump support it. You are right, I don't understand half of what you say, but it's not because I'm dumb, it's because you don't make a clear case. And in general, your negative demeanor makes me suspicious of you.

But that's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Abuse of other members is a violation of forum rules. I used to be a moderator and would have shut you down myself if I was still one. The current mod has been a little busy and probably has not looked in lately. I have sent him a message informing him of your abuse.

For myself, life is too short to spend it discussing things with people who have no common decency. Especially ones who claim to be Christians. The fact is, if you were really concerned before the Lord about Nee's reputation you would have approached this whole issue here with humility, patience and charity. Your demeanor is your downfall. No one here, or in any other Christian circle is going to tolerate you long enough to find out if you have anything useful to say. Sorry to inconvenience your big ego, but that's the way things work. Call us "dumb" for it if you like.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem is not my comprehension. The problem is your inability to state your premise clearly and show that all the factoids you dump support it. You are right, I don't understand half of what you say, but it's not because I'm dumb, it's because you don't make a clear case. And in general, your negative demeanor makes me suspicious of you.

But that's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Abuse of other members is a violation of forum rules. I used to be a moderator and would have shut you down myself if I was still one. The current mod has been a little busy and probably has not looked in lately. I have sent him a message informing him of your abuse.

For myself, life is too short to spend it discussing things with people who have no common decency. Especially ones who claim to be Christians.

No doubt you have Igzy. But that's just par for the course. You don't know the meaning of the term abuse obviously. No substance and no reality! I don't want to play anymore. It is always that way Igzy with most people. They want to insult and offend others efforts and intelligence but they don't want to take responsibility or give an account for their claims and misdirections. If anyone want's me to leave this forum all they have to do is ask me I will happily leave any time. You say you don't understand but you make such emphatic assertions about what I have said. Get over yourself man I couldn't care less what you think of me or who you inform. Neither is appearance of any value either. All platitudes and waffle.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Therein lies your problem. You simply have no idea that what I have said I mean to the letter. You Yanks are so dumb and cynical with your world of fantastical self flattering garbage you have simply no idea as to what is real anymore. You are pathetic beyond words. Don't you understand anything. Its all a show with you isn't it. Nothing has to be real, say what you want, because in your silly minds you can be what you want. No limit, no end to the possibilities and guess what. In the end no substance! Do both of us a favour don't respond to my posts but if you do, expect more of the same.

There are enough ad hominems in just this one post towards our occasional acting moderator to have disciplined any other poster.

How long will this character be allowed to insult each and every poster who disagrees with him?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are enough ad hominems in just this one post towards our occasional acting moderator to have disciplined any other poster.

How long will this character be allowed to insult each and every poster who disagrees with him?

Mr Ohio do you want me to go through the last several hundred posts and show you where you yourself provoked situations by your own hand? Take responsibility for yourself and let others take responsibility for themselves. The difference between us is a simple one Mr Ohio. I speak plainly and direct my comments for the most part in generalities of nations. You on the other hand make personal snide and insidious comments which are self evidently calculated to antagonise and provoke me by name. I can show that too if you have the stomach for it. But we both know you don't want to have to be genuinely plain, you want to be able to say what you mean in such a way that it may just fall on the side of doubt. That is generally called hypocrisy in most places.

It is really simple Mr Ohio leave me alone and stop making snide and insidious remarks. This is a public forum and there are now over 400 posts made in this thread since I joined and most of my 138 posts have been factual and without personal rancour or direction. The viewing stats have gone from 18,500 six weeks ago to the present 28,100 today. Everyone who reads these things are capable of making their own minds up. No one needs a helping hand from someone who only plays descent if it appears not to be clearly wrong. I am very happy to make no personal comments whatsoever. When I do follow that course, after a very short while someone makes a post which stands against what I am saying, as in the case of bearbear, this time round. I accept their comment because it is clearly perfectly reasonable and it has no more direction that their clear disagreement with some of my own comments. Then you lovely boys see the opportunity and wade in with personal comments which are intentional and directed as personal and antagonistic.

Leave me alone Mr Ohio. No one is making you read anything and no one is required to comment. If they do, including myself, no doubt it ought to be above personal acrimony, to nations or individuals. Why don't you leave it at that? I can and have done several times. Read the record Mr Ohio it is not hidden it is plain for all to see.

Finally what I say about Dr Hsu is relevant to this thread. I am posting in no other threads and do not intend to do so. If Dr Hsu can tell the world that Nee was a multiple rapist then I have the same right to say that when Dr Hsu became fearful of the consequences of her faith in China in 1955/56 she exercised cowardice and betrayed her brethren unto death. If you can't take it Mr Ohio don't read it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

You simply have no idea that what I have said I mean to the letter. You Yanks are so dumb and cynical with your world of fantastical self flattering garbage you have simply no idea as to what is real anymore. You are pathetic beyond words.

Rather incendiary words. However, I must side with Mr Kelly here. This whole thing started with Hsu/Roberts' assertions about the behavior of Mr. Nee. Kelly said, "Show me facts." I also read through the Hsu/Roberts account and don't believe that any of it would stand in court of law.

"I saw pictures". Okay, taken by whom? By Mr. Nee? Who said? Oh, the Chinese Government said so? That fountain of objective, unbiased facts?

Now, it may be that Mr. Nee did all of these things, which are claimed. It may be that he did some of them. It may be that he did things beyond what is claimed, even worse. But the book, of itself, in my mind advances nothing. Why get excited about hearsay? You are simply believing what you want to believe, to justify your own rancor.

And as Kelly points out the book advances judgment, not facts. It has decided that Nee was a worm and no man, then produces the material to confirm this. Just cobwebs, to be blown away with a puff of breath.

I stress that there may be truth there. There may be much truth there. But the book of itself, and uncorroborated, merely becomes a provocation for turmoil, confusion, and argument. As Mr Kelly said, 29,000 views and counting, and for what?

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

If anyone want's me to leave this forum all they have to do is ask me I will happily leave any time.

Yes, I would like you to leave now. Please be true to your pledge in the quote above. Thank you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Rather incendiary words. However, I must side with Mr Kelly here. This whole thing started with Hsu/Roberts' assertions about the behavior of Mr. Nee. Kelly said, "Show me facts." I also read through the Hsu/Roberts account and don't believe that any of it would stand in court of law.

aron, this recent round of obnoxious posts by Kelly has nothing to do with Hsu's book. How do you side with Kelly when he so freely insults every poster who happens to disagree with him.

Isn't it interesting that those with so little self-control always blame others for "provoking them." Every time Kelly is asked to behave himself, he launches into a tirade about "you stupid, pathetic yanks ..."

You mentioned how this book would never stand up in a court of law, which is beside the point anyway, but my contention all along was not to agree with Hsu's claims, but to disagree with Lee's version of history, and honor the elders' decision of the SCA.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

Rather incendiary words. However, I must side with Mr Kelly here. This whole thing started with Hsu/Roberts' assertions about the behavior of Mr. Nee. Kelly said, "Show me facts." I also read through the Hsu/Roberts account and don't believe that any of it would stand in court of law.

"I saw pictures". Okay, taken by whom? By Mr. Nee? Who said? Oh, the Chinese Government said so? That fountain of objective, unbiased facts?

Now, it may be that Mr. Nee did all of these things, which are claimed. It may be that he did some of them. It may be that he did things beyond what is claimed, even worse. But the book, of itself, in my mind advances nothing. Why get excited about hearsay? You are simply believing what you want to believe, to justify your own rancor.

And as Kelly points out the book advances judgment, not facts. It has decided that Nee was a worm and no man, then produces the material to confirm this. Just cobwebs, to be blown away with a puff of breath.

I stress that there may be truth there. There may be much truth there. But the book of itself, and uncorroborated, merely becomes a provocation for turmoil, confusion, and argument. As Mr Kelly said, 29,000 views and counting, and for what?

Because it makes no sense that Hsu would write such a book if there weren't something to it. No sense at all.

Kelly has produced a lot of details, but none of them trump Hsu's book nor do they explain her motivations. Having seen the fruit of Nee's movement, the abuses by Lee, the hiding of sexual scandal, the grandiose self-assessment by the leaders, I see the mirror of it in the Little Flock movement. That's all I need to know.

Everyone is making hay about the sex side of it. To me she could have left all that out and the evidence against Nee as a leader would still be there. He was the source of all this MOTA nonsense. His view on authority were ultimately self-serving. That in itself makes Hsu's book important. The only other explanation other than it is factual is that she studied Lee's movement and retrofit the things she saw onto Nee's movement to make it look like Lee's. Do you believe that?

[Igzy]

kelly attempted to do to Hsu exactly what he wanted everyone to believe Hsu was doing to Nee. He wanted to totally smear her to destroy her reputation and story. He threw out a lot of details and tried to pretend they proved something. They didn't. He said Hsu was trying to cover up her own cowardice at the time. How would he know that?

I asked point blank if all that is in the past and few in her life know or care about her involvement in the movement why she would go to all the trouble to make all this up? No answer. Secondly, her tone in the book does not expose that kind of arrogance. Hsu clearly believes what she is writing. She might be mistaken on some things, but the overall picture she paints is one of dysfunctional leadership and group dynamics. Surprise! Exactly what we have seen in the American Recovery movement. I just don't think she could have faked the parallels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Watchman Nee didn't join the patriotic three self movement. The PTSM didn't even exist until 1955.

So okay about the TSPM. But what do you make of the "People's Standpoint" speech by Nee:

“How Did I Turn around?
Nee was very nervous after the Beijing Convention. He called for special meetings at SCA on August 20, 21, and September 12, 1951. He released his speech, “How did I turn around?” (See Appendix 2) There were more than a hundred attendees for each meeting. I attended each meeting. Nee’s main theme was to promote “The People’s Standpoint.” At first, he talked about the significant change in his own thoughts. He admitted his previous viewpoint of “aloof from politics” was wrong. He called us to accuse imperialism by standing on the “People’s Standpoint.” He said, “If we stand from the religious viewpoint, we cannot see clearly. If we stand upon the political viewpoint (the people’s viewpoint,) it would become completely clear.
This switch in Nee’s mind, especially his emphasis on the “People’s Standpoint,” had a long-term impact upon the church leaders, the Christians at SCA, and other Local Churches.
The Deep Impact of Nee’s Speech
According to Nee’s speech, we should be submissive to the government and accuse missionaries as American imperialists. We should “follow the government and firmly hold the standpoint of the people.” Nee’s speech was transcribed immediately and distributed to all of the Local Churches in China.”

(Kindle Location 1379)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

kelly attempted to do to Hsu exactly what he wanted everyone to believe Hsu was doing to Nee. He wanted to totally smear her to destroy her reputation and story. He threw out a lot of details and tried to pretend they proved something. They didn't. He said Hsu was trying to cover up her own cowardice at the time. How would he know that?

I asked point blank if all that is in the past and few in her life know or care about her involvement in the movement why she would go to all the trouble to make all this up? No answer. Secondly, her tone in the book does not expose that kind of arrogance. Hsu clearly believes what she is writing. She might be mistaken on some things, but the overall picture she paints is one of dysfunctional leadership and group dynamics. Surprise! Exactly what we have seen in the American Recovery movement. I just don't think she could have faked the parallels.

Yes, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Once again I must point out the our brother Andrew sees Nee only in the abstract, from Nee's slanted and sanitized publications, and not from actually being in Nee's movement, to see its fruits.

My tagline says it : Lee and his son's brought the whole Nee to America.

Lee's son's brought the sexual side of Nee. Lee brought Deputy Authority, which produces a personality cult ... just as it did in Shanghai with Nee being deified.

[Igzy]

Okay, so this elderly Chinese woman, sixty years after she was involved in the Little Flock Movement led by Watchman Nee in China decides after all these years to write a book about her experiences. She has made a new life for herself in America. She has a solid reputation as a physician and a life which has nothing to do with her previous life, other than she is a Christian. But for some reason she dredges up her past. Why?

The theory posed here by some is that she is trying to cover up her own failure at the time. But why would she try to cover up something no one in her present life who is important to her knows or cares about? It was already covered up.

Second, she writes her story, and it reveals a dysfunctional culture and attitude so strikingly similar to Lee's Recovery Movement that those of who were in it know it cannot be a coincidence. This shows us plainly the dysfunction did not start with Lee, but with his predecessor, Nee, or someone before him. Only there is no one before Nee with his status in the movement. It started with Nee, though perhaps he was influenced by others, most likely the Brethren.

So Hsu is plainly accurately recounting the culture of Little Flock, because she could not have by coincidence made it so similar to Lee's Recovery.

So some would have us believe that, for some reason, Hsu would accurately recount the culture of the movement, but inaccurately recount Nee's behavior and character. The $64,000 question is, For what reason?

I see parallels between Hsu and those of us on this board. Years after the experience, we are writing about it. Why? Because we want people to know the truth as we saw it and see it, and the process of doing it is cathartic and liberating.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I see parallels between Hsu and those of us on this board. Years after the experience, we are writing about it. Why? Because we want people to know the truth as we saw it and see it, and the process of doing it is cathartic.

And this is why Hsu's book is so believable to us exLCers. We see so much of what we experienced while in Nee's movement in her book. And why Andrew can't see Hsu's book as believable.

And why we see Andrew's position as loony and Andrew as being irrationally obsessive.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

kelly attempted to do to Hsu exactly what he wanted everyone to believe Hsu was doing to Nee. He wanted to totally smear her to destroy her reputation and story. He threw out a lot of details and tried to pretend they proved something. They didn't. He said Hsu was trying to cover up her own cowardice at the time. How would he know that?

I asked point blank if all that is in the past and few in her life know or care about her involvement in the movement why she would go to all the trouble to make all this up? No answer. Secondly, her tone in the book does not expose that kind of arrogance. Hsu clearly believes what she is writing. She might be mistaken on some things, but the overall picture she paints is one of dysfunctional leadership and group dynamics. Surprise! Exactly what we have seen in the American Recovery movement. I just don't think she could have faked the parallels.

Dr Hsu has done what she has done in her own words they don't need any elaboration from me. She has made all of these assertions and they amount to something which goes way beyond what anyone here seems to realise. Is this simply selective ignorance?

Asking questions which necessitate a personal opinion on why Dr Hsu has written this book with all of its contents is simply pointless. That really does make for a personal judgement. Saying that she betrayed her fellow brethren is saying no more than she herself acknowledges. The only real difference is the context and the presentation of that acknowledgement. What Hsu calls a Study Committee was in reality an organisational wilful and cruel purging process involving torture, physical and mental abuse, separation of families for life in many instances. Women and children cast aside and abandoned to wander, starvation and public continuous humiliation.

These are not my opinions. They are material facts. Dr Hsu, seditiously and in my view falsely glosses over reality to such an extent that she is offensive. Dr Hsu was a coward. She betrayed her brethren even unto death. That is a fact. If she was not a coward then why did she capitulate so quickly. In her words it is all because of Nee. His rapes, his long sexual deviancy, his megalomania, his falsehoods, his political crimes, his manipulation of the realities of the Scripture, and so on.The list is massive. Where does reality begin and fantasy end? Hsu given one personal acknowledgement in all of this "I was young and I was angry. Nee had betrayed me". That is not a sound way to explain your actions which of necessity included the destruction of families and led to the death of those you previously claim to have loved.

It is complete fiction.

He wanted to totally smear her to destroy her reputation and story. He threw out a lot of details and tried to pretend they proved something. They didn't. He said Hsu was trying to cover up her own cowardice at the time. How would he know that?

How does anyone know anything which requires a subjective judgement of another person? You say I have thrown out most of the facts. I have posted more facts on this thread than any other single poster by a long way. If I have posted just a few 'facts' it is because it is not possible post them all. The book is riddled with contradictions. It uses sources which are ethically and intellectually unreliable. It is personal, subjective and completely unbalanced. I haven't even begun to address it. Just six week that's all! In six months you will most likely completely hate me.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by awareness

And this is why Hsu's book is so believable to us exLCers. We see so much of what we experienced while in Nee's movement in her book. And why Andrew can't see Hsu's book as believable.

And why we see Andrew's position as loony and irrationally obsessive.

Your whole premise Harold is based on your subjective experience. When I came onto this site I acknowledged that I would not be able to speak into the LC situation and that therefore I would confine myself to the book itself. I also identified that my ministry is a ministry which has to do with dealing with cults and the consequences of cult situations. I said, 'it happens everywhere". The fact that I clearly was not against Nee and equally was not willing to address the offence most here feel, simply made me a target for nonsense and irrational comments with no objective or meaningful substance, relevant to the book. You may have missed it but this thread is about the book not your offences. UntoHim asked us all to keep on the topic. That is good advice. The MOTA issue is not an issue here is it? The issue is this book and nothing more than that.

The horrors Harold, which are hidden in the folds of Hsu's book, which she glossing over cannot in the end be hidden. There is no loony or obsessive anything on my part. The issue lays in all of your inability to actually comprehend the scale of what this book represents. Every time you all come back to the MOTO doctrine and why? Because that is all you understand. You will understand nothing more than that if you do not move on and see what life is really like for those who actually have suffered for the gospel. Dr Hsu was not one of them. She chose to reject suffering and embrace safety. For that choice she blames Nee in every part.

There is no opinion in saying this it is evidential and visible by the fact that she wasn't persecuted for her faith. When she did have some discomfort during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution is was as nothing compared with how those she betrayed suffered. Yet she has the astonishing arrogance to say that she realises that those who were in the Camps suffered, but she suffered also.

If she was unknown as Igzy claims in the USA then she would have been better to have remained that way. Fact is however Angus Kinnear named her in his last update of 'Against the Tide'. Most things are only a matter of time brethren then we reap what we have sown.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

It is complete fiction.

Are you talking about your pledge to leave if anyone asked you?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are you talking about your pledge to leave if anyone asked you?

I presume you are able to comprehend that the only person who can actually ask me to leave is the moderator. I suppose in that sense Igzy you can take the term 'anyone' to mean anyone except you.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

I presume you are able to comprehend that the only person who can actually ask me to leave is the moderator. I suppose in that sense Igzy you can take the term 'anyone' to mean anyone except you.

I think UntoHim would make me a mod again if I volunteered. I wouldn't ban you, or ask you to leave. But I would keep you on a short leash. If you want to use this board to spread your beliefs about Nee and Hsu I suggest you behave. Because if you keep it up, I will volunteer. My advice would be, now, and in the future;

(1) Find some humility somewhere.
(2) Stop acting as if your opinions are facts.
(3) Try to see the other posters' points of view.
(4) Read a book on emotional intelligence. You are a smart man, but your emotional intelligence is next to zero. You have little concern for the feelings of others. You think this makes you objective and honest, but actually it just makes you callously clueless on how to discuss things with people who disagree with you. Classic symptoms of someone with low emotional intelligence.

[Ohio]

anyone who disagrees with your opinions provokes you to rude, insulting, and obnoxious behavior. You just can't handle disagreement. Then your deep-seated hatred of all Americans takes over.

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Mr Ohio do you want me to go through the last several hundred posts and show you where you yourself provoked situations by your own hand? Take responsibility for yourself and let others take responsibility for themselves.

You need to leave, like now.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think UntoHim would make me a mod again if I volunteered. I wouldn't ban you, or ask you to leave. But I would keep you on a short leash. If you want to use this board to spread your beliefs about Nee and Hsu I suggest you behave. Because if you keep it up, I will volunteer. My advice would be, now, and in the future;

(1) Find some humility somewhere.
(2) Stop acting as if your opinions are facts.
(3) Try to see the other posters' points of view.
(4) Read a book on emotional intelligence. You are a smart man, but your emotional intelligence is next to zero. You have little concern for the feelings of others. You think this makes you objective and honest, but actually it just makes you callously clueless on how to discuss things with people who disagree with you. Classic symptoms of someone with low emotional intelligence.

No doubt Igzy you will see this comment as even more evidence of what constitutes a lack of emotional intelligence as you have called it. But here it is anyway.

What is emotional intelligence?

In the 1980's I read a degree in Psychology, Criminology and Theoretical Sociology. Long before that I was abused physically, mentally, sexually and emotionally for ten years by those who were unable to do otherwise. Their actions and their lack of emotional intelligence would and is correctly called a mental illness. In my mothers case it was Schizophrenia with sadistic tendencies. When I got saved I asked the Lord why He had allowed me to suffer so much as a child. The Lord told me in plain words that He wanted me the way He found me. In other words He wanted me the way life experience made me. How is that possible? It cannot mean that the Lord wanted me in a state of emotional and mental turmoil.

Not much of an answer when you consider that I wept in my sleep until I was aged 16 years of age. Yet the reality of knowing the love of God in Christ Jesus crucified for sin, overwhelmed and delivered me from those things (from myself) and I have wept no more for myself.

So where does emotional intelligence lie then?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with psychology of emotions. It has nothing to do with experience. It has nothing to do with who you are in fact, not even your mind or your body. True emotions are not those things which we are able to feel in our bodies or our minds of emotion. It is what you can know in your spirit. Without that balance all we would ever do is speak of our offences and in doing that we would have served others no more than an unbeliever can do when they empathise with how others have suffered.

If you want a competent insight into what emotions are, where they reside and what they mean naturally speaking then go and read these articles.

https://blog.ichabod.eu/sorcerers/sorcerers-physiology/

Everything which can be applied to the sorcerer can be applied to the man who is able to empathise with others. The greatest harm which is done in the churches does not come from the failings of men and women. It comes from men and women failing to see that a true release from their own bodies and natural minds comes by Christ Himself indwelling us. This is what Dana Roberts cannot stomach. He has never suffered himself other than that which is ordinary to all men. Dr Hsu is a medical doctor. She is contained intellectually with the same need to reject the true and proper remedy for men.

Only those who have really suffered beyond what is ordinary to all men (and there are sadly many such people) know what it means to lay hold of Christ so as to comprehend Him and in that they no longer are willing to see themselves. There is no healing in this. It is the cross unto death daily. Psychology and empathy seem like reasonable instruments to know men and how to serve them. In the end all these things do is draw men to themselves and in that away from Christ.

The link is the second of seven articles and it sets out the neurophysiological basis for an understanding of emotion and it's bearing on the mind and body.We however, if we truly believe into Christ are called to be more than mere men. That is not arrogance it is spiritual truth. Tell men the full truth and let them weep once. In that they will comprehend that all of their needs are met in Christ Jesus.

If you wish to become a moderator again Igzy then that is a matter for you. But I will remain the same man regardless.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

The book is riddled with contradictions. It uses sources which are ethically and intellectually unreliable. It is personal, subjective and completely unbalanced. I haven't even begun to address it. Just six week that's all! In six months you will most likely completely hate me.

LoL ... at least you have a sense of humor. You mean we're not done hating you ... there's way more to come? Yippee!

But, way before that, we'll bore of chewing you up and spitting you out.

Face it bro Andrew, 6 weeks and so far all you've really been able to produce is big talk.

And I'm not saying there's not holes and failures in Hsu's testimony/book. Or that you can't manage, by nitpickin prolly, to completely discredit her.

Hsu is like Nee : human ; like you and me, and everyone else. And her testimony is human. That's what makes her believable.

Maybe the reason we lift up someone, like Nee was lifted up, is because we need a perfect ideal to reach for, and we need it in the flesh, in a living human being. Cuz Jesus doesn't meet those requirements, and we can't possibly ever be Jesus like (we're not born of a virgin) ... but there's a remote possibility that we can be like our ideal of Nee, a man.

And then we find out that the person we lifted up -- in this case the ideal Nee -- has the same weaknesses as we do, and is every bit as human as we are, and we're so shocked by it that, some of us go berserk.

Just like many in Shanghai that excommunicated Nee, twice ... that were so shocked by Nee's double life, and so let down that, they walked away from God ...

Like Liliy Hsu. Who eventually came back to God ... and had to tell her unforgettable memories of Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Local Church.

[Igzy]

kelly, I'm very sorry for the terrible things that happened to you as a child. I pray the Lord completely saves you from those things and their effects.

But you've got the wrong idea about emotional intelligence. It's not some obscure psychological theory. It really is almost common sense. But those of us who are highly intelligent, but emotionally compromised, tend to be clueless about it and not understand. Trust me, I've been one of them. I am very thankful to the Lord for opening my eyes to this simple principle. It has had an amazingly positive effect on my relationships.

I used to think the key to understanding people, even getting close to them, was understanding what they were thinking. Actually, as far as relationships go, it is much more important to understand what they are feeling.

Emotional intelligence is really just four simple things:

(1) The ability know and understand what you yourself are feeling and why.
(2) The ability to manage those feelings for the sake of yourself and others.
(3) The ability know and understand what others are feeling.
(4) The ability to manage your reaction to their feelings for the sake of relationships.

Like I said, it's pretty much common sense. Only highly cerebral people often are clueless about it. This is why they are so often socially awkward. Becoming emotionally intelligent is really just a matter of adjusting your focus when dealing with people, and giving more importance to their feelings.

To put it simply, people don't care about what you know until they know that you care. People are basically very simple. Really, what they are feeling is the most important or at least the most immediate thing at any given moment. Just try it. When you get with others, try to focus on what they are feeling.

What I see in you is a person who is very much concerned with facts, but clueless, even dismissive, of other's feelings. It's also inconsistent with Christian love. Jesus was extremely emotionally intelligent. Which was why he could go to the heart of an issue with a person right away, yet without sounding arrogant or dismissive.

That's why I suggested, read a book about it. You won't regret doing it.

[Igzy]

Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude. 1 Peter 3:8

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Everything which can be applied to the sorcerer can be applied to the man who is able to empathise with others.

This is a very weird statement. Are you saying empathy is demonic?

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Psychology and empathy seem like reasonable instruments to know men and how to serve them. In the end all these things do is draw men to themselves and in that away from Christ.

Psychology is simply an understanding of how people behave. Empathy is simply the ability to put yourself in someone else's place. Neither of these things is bad in itself, although anything case be misapplied. An understanding of human behavior is essential to getting along with other people, as is an ability to appreciate how they feel. Where you ever got the idea these things were essentially bad is beyond me. But it certainly would explain your odd behavior. Certainly we need the Spirit, but the idea that the Spirit is always contrary to human psychologological tendencies implies that we are really not in the image of God in any way, shape or form.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I asked point blank if all that is in the past and few in her life know or care about her involvement in the movement why she would go to all the trouble to make all this up? No answer. Secondly, her tone in the book does not expose that kind of arrogance. Hsu clearly believes what she is writing. She might be mistaken on some things, but the overall picture she paints is one of dysfunctional leadership and group dynamics. Surprise! Exactly what we have seen in the American Recovery movement. I just don't think she could have faked the parallels.

Let me get this straight. Hsu, while a young woman barely out of her teens, was shown a nude photo by a Communist de-programmer and told that it was the posession, and creation, of a Mr. Watchman Nee. She, reeling, exited the movement, and her faith. Years later she tried to make sense of it all and this book resulted.

Did she actually see anything that would today count as evidence?

Where is the source of all this? The Communist government clearly is not happy with the exalted status of Nee. You don't see ulterior motives here? Hsu was a confused young woman, thrust into turmoil, Roberts is her dupe here, either witting or unwitting, and both are PERHAPS fed information by others who want to see Nee come down. Can't we at least see this possibility before we pronounce judgment?

I am no fan of Nee but on other terms. Hsu/Roberts, to me, adds only smoke and confusion. What bothers me about the account is that it comes across not as "Here is what happened to me", but "Here is what happened to me, and therefore here is the definitive characterization of the ministry of Watchman Nee." Excuse me?

Let me put it another way. If someone comes up to me and says Obama is a Muslim terrorist, what are the facts here? The only fact is that they say something. That is it. Or, on the other hand, that George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney were behind the World Trade Center bombings and Pentagon attack in 2001. Please. Where is the evidence? That your cousin told you, or you saw a Youtube video, or read a web site does not constitute objective, admissable evidence.

I am no fan of GW Bush, but when someone once tried to show me one of those cheesy conspiracy videos on Youtube I laughed with disgust and walked out of the room. I just couldn't sit there and take this stuff. I found it insulting and demeaning of my capacity as a rational human.

Hsu's characterizations of Nee, based on what she presents, are only slightly better than that video I watched. You really, really have to sift this stuff to hold anything. I don't have the resources nor the stomach for that. I at least give Mr. Kelly credit for trying. The fact that he is a prickly guy is beside the point. It should be fairly easy to separate the two issues here.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me get this straight. Hsu, while a young woman barely out of her teens, was shown a nude photo by a Communist de-programmer and told that it was the posession, and creation, of a Mr. Watchman Nee. She, reeling, exited the movement, and her faith. Years later she tried to make sense of it all and this book resulted.

Did she actually see anything that would today count as evidence?

Where is the source of all this? The Communist government clearly is not happy with the exalted status of Nee. You don't see ulterior motives here?

You don't sound like you read the book. Hsu personally witnessed Nee confessing to the sexual matters in a trial. Read Chapter 11. Yes, I'm not stupid. I do see possible ulterior motives. But why are you characterizing the evidence as just Hsu seeing a picture? The most devastating thing to her, she says, was Nee's confession, not that she saw a picture. Would a public confession be considered evidence?

From Chapter 11:

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is a very weird statement. Are you saying empathy is demonic?

A sorcerer can see you from a great distance even when you have not yet comprehended he is watching you. When you do see him he will seem to you like a friend and he will convince you in an instant that you can both trust him and that your heart is safe with him. How does a Sorcerer know these things about you from a great distance that he may be your friend when you join company with him?

In common parlance it is called empathy. The irony for me is that whilst I don't doubt your sincerity in seeking to make me aware of what you call emotional intelligence I already know what you mean and did even from my childhood. This has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack of it. It is entirely grounded in the principle of fully expressing oneself in the flesh of the mind and body. Simply knowing how someone feels is too abstract. The real question is how do people know how others feel?

You say that Jesus Himself had emotional intelligence. Saying this presupposes that we do in fact understand that emotional intelligence, as you mean that term to be understood, is as you say common sense. Common sense on the other hand is nothing more than that which we immediately recognise in our own minds and bodies the moment we do in fact understand something. What is common is not the understanding, it is the ability we all have to understand the same thing. By that we can say for certain that all flesh of men is the same flesh. It is the Old Man.

I am not even certain why the distinction being made here is so easily missed or else neglected. But empathy or the ability to know what someone is feeling is not a spiritual activity. It is a natural activity.

In the case of a true sorcerer this would almost certainly go beyond what is natural in that immediate sense of the word, and would include a demonic element. Then again Jesus said of Judas that he was a devil. That was before Satan entered into him. Is it really likely that a demonic spirit went about with Judas, called an apostle and in the company of the Son of Man, and yet was able to hide and remain hidden? Men themselves can become devils. James spoke of wisdom as being heavenly, from above, or natural, from below. That which is natural James called earthbound, natural and demonic.

The true sorcerer may well have no proper comprehension that he is labouring in the benefit and power of an unclean spirit, but he does comprehend that he himself is of the same mind as that which his trade speaks of.

It is the manipulation and control of others. We do it quiet reasonably as parents and our ambition in it is reasonable and natural. A great deal of what passes between people is natural and demonic. Not unclean spirits of the air, but men and women pressing themselves onto others to their own ends.

The simple reality is that anyone can behave demonically to such an extent that they themselves become demonic in their thinking. Judas lent himself to that process and in the end he did that which he could not bear to comprehend and took his own life as a response. Yet his manner and conduct in the Lord's presence cannot have been less than acceptable to all the apostles. When Jesus spoke of who would betray Him even Judas himself was not fully aware if his intentions were the basis for the saying.

Empathy is natural. It is the flesh. It is that which when it is entered into seems common and acceptable and reasonable. It may well be all of these things, but it can also be the Sorcerer looking from a distance in the instrument of his own body and mind in order that he might be your friend.

I have witnessed these things and understood them before they have happened. How one deals with such a man will in the end come down to how the one who will lose by his activity responds to the call to repent from their own sorceries of the flesh, in order that they may be spared a more wicked man who is come to devour them. You may think this is all words Igzy. I care not really. I am writing of that which I know to be true and real.

None of this matters really. This forum is not about these things, though if they were understood better there would be more wisdom.

Please don't think that I don't know the value of what you have shared with me Igzy. I know it well enough in the terms you have described from my infancy. Yet when I came to Christ I saw something far better than the issues of the relationship between the flesh of men with the flesh of men. How lovely it is when men dwell together in peace. Does that mean empathy and friendships? I believe it speaks of spirit and truth. It is the peace of Christ and not peace between men.

Satan is quiet capable of coming as an angel of light. That can hardly speak of anything less than as a friend with a skill to deceive us by reasonable means. Unless we remove ourselves from that which is natural and common to all men, (if they understand it), we will not provide the evidence of what true spiritual life means. It is Christ and not I.

There is no pretence here brother. I know what manner of man I can be and I have shown it in a trivial way on this forum. In the end I minister to men who are Sorcerers, Witches, Spiritual Abusers and so on. None of these are in the world, They are all in the churches. The branches of the tree are full of the birds of the air. It is the tree under which we take our refuge in this world. It is a tree full of demons, both men and spirits.

I don't worry about these things. Let each man serve according to his calling and obedience. Unfortunately empathy is the prelude to wickedness. It is of the nature of the very world we live in because it is the mind of the Prince of the Power of the Air. Only Christ was able to say, "behold the ruler of this world cometh, and he has nothing in Me". You and I cannot say it at all, nor any man born according to the lineage of Adam. Only in the spirit are we free from this reality. In the mind if we are renewed in our thinking that we might prove that perfect and acceptable will of the Lord. In the body if we deny its lusts and passions and bear it up to the death of Christ daily.

The distinction being made here is at the very heart of this book. In time it will become apparent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Hsu's characterizations of Nee, based on what she presents, are only slightly better than that video I watched. You really, really have to sift this stuff to hold anything. I don't have the resources nor the stomach for that. I at least give Mr. Kelly credit for trying. The fact that he is a prickly guy is beside the point. It should be fairly easy to separate the two issues here.

aron, then I would also conclude that Kelly's characterization of Hsu is worse than the video you watched.

You say Kelly is just a "prickly guy," but his chief argument is that basically Hsu is stupid and anyone who supports her account, is more stupid, and let me tell you about it in great detail. It is not easy to separate the issues here, as you say. The only time Kelly is plainly intelligible is when he is insulting or threatening another poster, and the rest of the time he is insulting Hsu in obscure wordings.

Kelly says he has all the facts, but in reality they are clouded in his anger and vengeful spirit. It is said that tact is to make a point without making an enemy. Kelly has no tact whatsoever, which Igzy has pointed out as "emotional intelligence." Unfortunately, whether Kelly is an intelligent guy who is right in his positions about Hsu's book may never be known since no poster has been able to get past Kelly's prideful arrogance and abusive spirit.

It grieves me to read his testimony of life experiences, except for his wonderful story of salvation by the Saviour's loving visitation. Unfortunately, Kelly feels justified in treating others the same way he was treated. In this regard the old Christian maxim is worth considering: "Our loving Father loves us just the way we are, but He loves us too much to allow us to remain the way we are."

The story of Joyce Meyers comes to mind. She too was horribly molested and abused as a child, but when one listens to her ministry today, it seems her bitterness has been all swallowed by grace. Hence, she has been so helpful to millions of Christians. Kelly's message, however good and from God, gets completely lost in the way he treats others, as evidenced on this forum.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You don't sound like you read the book. Hsu personally witnessed Nee confessing to the sexual matters in a trial. Read Chapter 11. Yes, I'm not stupid. I do see possible ulterior motives. But why are you characterizing the evidence as just Hsu seeing a picture? The most devastating thing to her, she says, was Nee's confession, not that she saw a picture. Would a public confession be considered evidence?

From Chapter 11:

That is Dr Hsu's word for it. Others have seen the court transcript and they have said differently. I am well aware what Dr Hsu has said. I can read as well as anyone can. I just do not believe her. By the way Igzy Aron is perfectly correct in his comment about the photograph. Just remember where constancy lies in Hsu's account. The CEC process came directly to her medical college in 1955. Dr Hsu began cooperating directly after she was given a private viewing of the so-called evidence of Nee in December 1955. The CEC program came to the SCA in the march of 1956. The trial which this page speaks off took place in June 1956. Therefore Dr Hsu had already decided to cooperate with the Communist Government to denounce Nee in late 1955. She took part in that denunciation in January through to March 1956. The trial didn't have anything to do with her decision. Moreover this trial was the only part of the process which took place in closed session. Albeit that Hsu says there were 100 people there it was a closed session. No one took part other than to witness the process. Those who did so witness the process were those who were already against Nee. He was surrounded on all sides by his enemies.

[Igzy]

RE: Empathy. Suffice it to say, kelly, that I don't think you know what you are talking about, and your non-Christian behavior here does not give testimony to me that I should reconsider that conclusion. In fact, the way you have behaved tells me to run the other way from most everything you've said. Sorry. That's what I see. Call me clueless if you like. But I think you are so far out in the weeds it would take a brigade of John Deere tractors to find you.

Let's move on.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

RE: Empathy. Suffice it to say, kelly, that I don't think you know what you are talking about, and your non-Christian behavior here does not give testimony to me that I should reconsider that conclusion. In fact, the way you have behaved tells me to run the other way from most everything you've said. Sorry. That's what I see. Call me clueless if you like. But I think you are so far out in the weeds it would take a brigade of John Deere tractors to find you.

Let's move on.

And your own conduct Igzy! Is that just a thing to be held aloof? That by the way that is the third time you have called my mental health into question. But then you do it so nicely it cannot possibly be meaningful right! That must be that American way I keep speaking of then! Insulting people behind the charade of cynicism disguised as border line humour. You are right on only one count my insults cannot be misunderstood can they!

[awareness]

I like brother Andrew ... prickly and all ... but not fond of his prejudice concerning Hsu's book. His prejudice disqualifies his scholarly trashing of Hsu. And he knows better.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

And your own conduct Igzy! Is that just a thing to be held aloof? That by the way is the third time you have called my mental health into question. But then you do it so nicely it cannot possibly be meaningful right! That must be that American way I keep speaking of then! Insulting people behind the charade of cynicism disguised as border line humour. You are right on only one count my comments cannot be misunderstood can they!

What I have seen in you is someone dismissing basic human decency as some kind of weakness and a blockade to "spirituality" I asked you simply to consider human feelings and you go off on a tirade about empathy being sorcery to excuse your own callousness. That's plain nutty denial. No other way of putting it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

And your own conduct Igzy! Is that just a thing to be held aloof? That by the way that is the third time you have called my mental health into question. But then you do it so nicely it cannot possibly be meaningful right! That must be that American way I keep speaking of then! Insulting people behind the charade of cynicism disguised as border line humour. You are right on only one count my insults cannot be misunderstood can they!

And your own conduct Kelly!

Who are you to address others' conduct. Just because you have attacked others does not mean that any of your attacks are true. Well has Paul described the self-righteous, "You are inexcusable man, for in what you judge others you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things."

No one has called your own mental health into question. What we keep addressing, and what you keep refusing to acknowledge, is your disrespectful way of treating others. Perhaps you are just unable to hear it. Then you resort to snide quips about American mannerisms, "disguised as border line humour." I don't see anyone else here lowering themselves to this same manner of insults.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What I have seen in you is someone dismissing basic human decency as some kind of weakness and a blockade to "spirituality" I asked you simply to consider human feelings and you go off on a tirade about empathy being sorcery to excuse your own callousness. That's plain nutty denial. No other way of putting it.

Sorry to press the point Igzy but what you said in conclusion was this:

What I see in you is a person who is very much concerned with facts, but clueless, even dismissive, of other's feelings. It's also inconsistent with Christian love. Jesus was extremely emotionally intelligent. Which was why he could go to the heart of an issue with a person right away, yet without sounding arrogant or dismissive.

My somewhat esoteric post answered all of these point clearly and straight forwardly. But that's just fine of course.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I am no fan of GW Bush.

But I bet you liked his tax cuts and refund checks.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And your own conduct Kelly!

Who are you to address others' conduct. Just because you have attacked others does not mean that any of your attacks are true. Well has Paul described the self-righteous, "You are inexcusable man, for in what you judge others you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things."

No one has called your own mental health into question. What we keep addressing, and what you keep refusing to acknowledge, is your disrespectful way of treating others. Perhaps you are just unable to hear it. Then you resort to snide quips about American mannerisms, "disguised as border line humour." I don't see anyone else here lowering themselves to this same manner of insults.

Accepting that the premise of your argument Mr Ohio is true I don't see anyone descending to the same manner of insults to which I have lowered myself. You have lowered yourself to those kind of insults which is customary in American Culture. My insults in Yorkshire where I grew up would be disregarded as plain speech. Do I hold onto that fact? Not likely!

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

My somewhat esoteric post answered all of these point clearly and straight forwardly. But that's just fine of course.

What you did was elevate "spirituality" to such an abstract level that you diminished kindness as a work of the flesh. I call that an extreme, even nutty position, particularly since the fruits of the Spirit are severely lacking in your behavior.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What you did was elevate "spirituality" to such an abstract level that you diminished kindness as a work of the flesh. I call that an extreme, even nutty position, particularly since the fruits of the Spirit are severely lacking in your behavior.

Thank you Igzy for your kindness. In one afternoon I have achieved the status of being counted worthy of the very same insult that Dr Hsu levelled against the venerable Nee. That emotional intellect stuff really works after all.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

That is Dr Hsu's word for it. Others have seen the court transcript and they have said differently. I am well aware what Dr Hsu has said. I can read as well as anyone can. I just do not believe her. By the way Igzy Aron is perfectly correct in his comment about the photograph. Just remember where constancy lies in Hsu's account. The CEC process came directly to her medical college in 1955. Dr Hsu began cooperating directly after she was given a private viewing of the so-called evidence of Nee in December 1955. The CEC program came to the SCA in the march of 1956. The trial which this page speaks off took place in June 1956. Therefore Dr Hsu had already decided to cooperate with the Communist Government to denounce Nee in late 1955. She took part in that denunciation in January through to March 1956. The trial didn't have anything to do with her decision. Moreover this trial was the only part of the process which took place in closed session. Albeit that Hsu says there were 100 people there it was a closed session. No one took part other than to witness the process. Those who did so witness the process were those who were already against Nee. He was surrounded on all sides by his enemies.

My point was that aron made it sound like all Hsu ever saw was one photograph, and that is what made her write the book. My point is she saw more than that, and more than just sexual evidence, there were other issues as well. aron made it sound like someone showed her a photo and that alone drove to write a book. According to her account, there were other evidences and issues as well, including her growing discomfort with Nee's dominance of the movement.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Thank you Igzy for your kindness. In one afternoon I have achieved the status of being counted worthy of the very same insult that Dr Hsu levelled against the venerable Nee. That emotional intellect stuff really works after all.

The Lord knows my heart. I really am trying to help you. By all evidence I doubt you really have anyone to speak into your life. I know Ohio's heart, too. He really cares. This is a community to you, whether you like it or not. That's the way the church works.

[Igzy]

See, kelly. I used to be more like you. I was a fan of Nee, and Lee and high spirituality and all this deep, esoteric theory and speculation. It inflated my head. Then I actually joined a church community. Guess what? They didn't care about my theories. They just wanted me to be Christ-like. Boy, is that a humbling, when you realize that much of your claim to fame isn't worth the paper it's printed on. You shouldn't be so dismissive of simple kindness. It's more valuable that you think. Harder, too. Which is one reason we like to theorize instead.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Lord knows my heart. I really am trying to help you. By all evidence I doubt you really have anyone to speak into your life. I know Ohio's heart, too. He really cares. This is a community to you, whether you like it or not. That's the way the church works.

Igzy if you really want to help me desist with the psychological clap trap. I don't need it. You may not realise this but my son Daniel has cerebral palsy and severe brain damage. He is 27 years old and has the mind of a small child. I spend most of my time with him at the moment. Every day it is a necessity for me to place myself in his way physically, emotionally and in other ways. Of necessity and by the hand of the Lord! It is not a choice it is a matter of his very well being. Stop telling me I don't understand emotional realities. My son is a shining example of emotional reality. Everyone who meets him is astonished at his manner and emotional balance. It has been a labour of obedience for 27 years. Stop telling me I need help. I know what it means to identify with a persons inner needs. But I still say to you Igzy such things have nothing whatsoever to do with Spirit and Truth. It is the flesh. No more and certainly not less than!

With that you either desist with your attempts to help me or I will have no choice but to simply ignore you altogether. Thank you for your concern Igzy but I am really just fine.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

II know what it means to identify with a persons inner needs. But I still say to you Igzy such things have nothing whatsoever to do with Spirit and Truth. It is the flesh. No more and certainly not less than!

I say you are dead wrong. And the evidence of it is how your beliefs affect your behavior here. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. You've dismissed empathy as the flesh and the result is you have become callous. That's obvious to everyone but you.

With that you either desist with your attempts to help me or I will have no choice but to simply ignore you altogether. Thank you for your concern Igzy but I am really just fine.

"And if he will not hear you, bring one or two more..."

Well, it may come to that. But for now...

I am concerned about you. But the reason I brought it up is because your extremely goofy idea that kindness is a work of the flesh and callousness is a spiritual virtue is affecting this board. I hope you heed what I'm saying because I know UntoHim would agree with me. If you can't treat people with respect, find another place to roam.

I trust you are smart enough to follow this short post. Let's get back to the discussion.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I say you are dead wrong. And the evidence of it is how your beliefs affect your behavior here. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. You've dismissed empathy as the flesh and the result is you have become callous. That's obvious to everyone but you.



"And if he will not hear your, bring one or two more..."

Well, it may come to that. But for now...

I'm am concerned about you. But the reason I brought it up is because your extremely goofy idea that kindness is a work of the flesh and callousness is a spiritual virtue is affecting this board. I hope you heed what I'm saying because I know UntoHim would agree with me. If you can't treat people with respect, find another place to roam.

I trust you are smart enough to follow this short post. Let's get back to the discussion.

Then let UntoHim speak for himself Igzy.

You didn't speak of kindness Igzy. Kindness is a simple matter in life. You spoke of a philosophy which has gained ground over the last 100 years or so. It is rooted in humanistic reasoning and it is evident in all walks of life. Communities of every kind and type have embraced it and even wicked and perverse men and women who are literally hell bent on drawing others into their evil ways, practise it too.

In the churches it has had divesting effects and made room for every kind of perversity imaginable to thrive and flourish. The thing which is divested of, is truth. It is called psychological humanism. Do you imagine that somehow no one understands the simplicity of what you have promoted to me here today.

Have you actually taken a good look at the churches in the USA. I have and the level of perversity and debauchery is astonishing. The same thing is now happening in the UK because we have embraced the same insane philosophy of self as the centre of the meaning of life.

I am posting into a single thread here which has to do with a book. Despite my responding to these many posts my concern lays there. I am well aware that there is an extreme form of legalism which arises from all teachings which press for a deeper meaning. It also gives ground to pride and many other things.

Bring on the witnesses Igzy what possible purpose would it serve when I am more than willing to acknowledge my own faults. You and Ohio seem to think you are somehow absent from it's meaning. Excommunicate me. What possible meaning can it have in truth when the posts speak for themselves?

My behaviour here Igzy is more honest than you are accustomed to. Where is your authority to instruct and threaten anyone with anything. If you can throw me of then do it or else be silent.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

You didn't speak of kindness Igzy. Kindness is a simple matter in life. You spoke of a philosophy which has gained ground over the last 100 years or so.

I did not. I spoke of a simple human principle that is much help to being at peace with yourself and others. That is, understanding and acknowledging your feelings and theirs. There is nothing insidious about it, and it in no way conflicts with Biblical principles. In fact, it meshes with them. Peter told us to sympathize and be likeminded. That implies understanding your thoughts and feelings and those of others. Like I said, you should try it, instead of looking for boogy men behind every rock.

You are the one who cast empathy as some kind of work of the devil. Empathy to me is a form of kindness. But in fact I never mentioned the word first. You did. Sympathy would do for me.

And would you please stop with the chest thumping. It's gotten old.

[Igzy]

I've seen no evidence that the proper application of valid psychological and emotional principles are responsible for problems in the Church today. In fact, I've observed that the opposite is true. One of my pastors is a family counselor, and I've seen how his expertise has helped others.

Proper principles in relationships and family are a help. We are spiritual beings, but we are also psychological beings. Claiming that everything must be "spiritual" and that psychology has no place is not only folly, it's hypocritical, because we all apply psychology every day, whether we admit it or not. And the Bible actually supports this (Phil 4:8; Prov 23:7).

I will agree that trying to rely on these things without help from the Spirit, or making self the center of life are big errors. But an understanding of psychological and emotional principles in subordination to spiritual ones is in fact an understanding of ourselves.

[UntoHim]

Sorry that I had not been able to follow this discussion recently. As a general rule, I do not like to see threads wander off too far from the general subject of this forum, and I think that has happened to some extent here lately.

Also, I don't like to see things become so personal, though I know this is a very easy thing when we are discussing such matters as we cover on this forum.

All this being said, I think amrkelly is coming on a bit too strong. Maybe just take it down a few decibels and try to refrain from making such definitive and dogmatic statements such as "Dr. Hsu was a coward" and "it is complete fiction". I understand you are "on the defense" for Watchman Nee....no problem with that at all. There have been plenty of folks here on this forum who have been on the defense for Nee and Lee, and for the most part we have been able to keep the discussions civil. Let's try to not "talk past each other" if you know what I mean. Also let's not go out of our way to misunderstand somebody on purpose. Maybe take a few extra minutes (or maybe hours) before making a response.

Thanks,
UntoHim

[Igzy]

Thanks, UntoHim. Sorry for my part in going off topic. Could you move the posts about psychology to a new thread?

Continuing this discussion, I have still not heard a believable motive posited by anyone for why, at the end of her life and knowing as a professsing Christian that she will soon have to stand before the Lord and answer for every loose word, she would write brazen, bald-faced lies about Nee. You guys that think she is lying need to produce a motive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Continuing this discussion, I have still not heard a believable motive posited by anyone for why, at the end of her life and knowing as a professsing Christian that she will soon have to stand before the Lord and answer for every loose word, she would write brazen, bald-faced lies about Nee. You guys that think she is lying need to produce a motive.

For what it's worth, or matters at all, I like brother Andrew but don't have to agree with him. As far as I'm concerned our brother is being a cult apologist.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've seen no evidence that the proper application of valid psychological and emotional principles are responsible for problems in the Church today. In fact, I've observed that the opposite is true. One of my pastors is a family counselor, and I've seen how his expertise has helped others.

Proper principles in relationships and family are a help. We are spiritual beings, but we are also psychological beings. Claiming that everything must be "spiritual" and that psychology has no place is not only folly, it's hypocritical, because we all apply psychology every day, whether we admit it or not. And the Bible actually supports this (Phil 4:8; Prov 23:7).

I will agree that trying to rely on these things without help from the Spirit, or making self the center of life are big errors. But an understanding of psychological and emotional principles in subordination to spiritual ones is in fact an understanding of ourselves.

Mindful that UntoHim has once again brought our attention to the relevance of keeping to the subject of the thread I am bound to have to make this my last comment on the subject of psychology in genera. I do believe however that Hsu's book contains a good deal more psychological substance than may be easily seen.

I am seriously taken by your remark that psychological and emotional principles can have a proper application.

You say that Phillippians 4:8 and Proverbs 23:7 are in some way evidence of your claim.

There is no easier way to understand psychology as a philosophical, academic, clinical and applied subject area than to understand the men and women, as well as the circumstances in which the vast theoretical paradigms which make up psychological schools of thought have come into existence. Yet that is clearly a massive ask of anyone let alone someone who has no formal reading into the subject.

Psychology in truth means a great many things. So that if you talk of principles then you have to both know what those principles are in relationship to their roots of origination as well as the people who developed those particular ideas. There are some basic tenets of understanding which have merit in psychology but the reality is that these ideas or theories can be studied in high school.

Psychology in its philosophical roots really means no more than the study of the soul. Historically 600 BC the broad roots of the philosophical understanding which have informed the development of the study of the soul, lay in the world of the occult. What is called psychology today in fact represents no more than a single thread of an idea which finds its origination after 1859 and the publication of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The specific elements of the prevailing psychological theory of Behaviourism are no more than 80 years old. Before this time it was not possible for anyone to make a meaningful connection between the physiological and the psychological. Even now there is no actual real theory which meaningfully explains the relationship between the body itself and the soul.

To address that relationship it is necessary to move into psychoanalytical theories. When you look into those theories you find that the explanation is without doubt an occult and demonic explanation. The research which informs these theories does not confine itself to physical realities, it also draws from shamanism and sorcery. The biblical sorcery of Galatians 5:20 is not a sorcery of demonic familiarity, it is the sorcery of chemistry. The greek work used in that passage of scripture is the same greek work from which we derive the term chemistry. Yet in all translations of the bible the english word is either sorcery or magic.

One of the rational consequences of modern scientific development of instruments for measuring physical pathology, both of the brain itself, but also of the body as well, has given rise to a belief amongst many christians that Behaviourism is s safe science. The reality is far different. What behaviourism seeks to achieve, with its physical science is a way of explaining behaviour in terms of physical observational science. This can be many things from controlled observational studies, to CT scans of the brains electro chemical activity, as well as subjective participation of the subject. It all sound quiet safe. However when you consider that the Scriptures in the first instance tells us that sorcery is an investment in the physical fleshy body, we cannot help but see that behavioural psychology is in truth no more than a measure of the body itself. It is no more than the sum of physical experiences translated into a behavioural outcome and or consequence.

Dr Hsu made this point in the book when she spoke of the neuro stimulant which Nee was manufacturing for the nationalist government. A neuro stimulant is the fastest root to a sorceric or occult experience. Dr Hsu was more concerned with telling us that amphetamine is a controlled drug in the USA. So it is, but it is also manufactured in the USA under licence as well as in many countries. The reason why the use of a neuro stimulant is a fast track to a sorceric experience is because the very thing which is being stimulated are the neurons of the brain, spinal column and oesophagus. It is the stimulation of the pharmakia of all the nervous systems of the physical body. The pharmakia of Galatians 5:20 is the same meaning. It is the nervous systems of the body through which we express our very souls.

By removing the soul itself from psychology all we are left with is the biblical factory of sorcery. What we call emotions are expressed in the body itself. When we cry for ourselves it is our shoulders which shake. When we weep for others in the spirit, our bodies have no part in it and we can remain quiet calm physically. Righteous anger in the spirit does not produce a physical compulsion. The anger which is expressed through the body always produces a physical compulsion. One is the spirit the other is the soul. Unless we can make that distinction when we council others and really understand that what we call physical and emotional principles really means nothing more than the ideas which have been developed by observing the body itself, we will have no comprehension that we are being informed by the very thing which constitutes the basis for witchcraft, sorcery and magic.

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:8–9, NASB95)

“For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, “Eat and drink!” But his heart is not with you.” (Proverbs 23:7, NASB95)

How either of these scriptures reflects the modern day perception and practise of Behavioural Psychology I have no idea whatsoever.

I do know without any doubt, both scientifically and spiritually that modern psychology may have moved from its ancient roots in the occult in 600 BC Greek thinking, as well as rejecting the Freudian or Jungian subjectivism, but it has moved to the very central ground of the reality of what constitutes the physical basis for biblical sorcery, magic and witchcraft.

Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning are two seeming realities of physical and behavioural causality and effect. Yet at the very heart of both of them lies a factory of chemistry which lends itself to wickedness. You don't have to believe a word I am saying here. The introduction of a physical, material and observational science developed less than 100 years ago, forms the basis for much of what informs modern day counselling theories. Psychology is far from an innocent thing. It is the very sinful body itself. If psychology ever does speak of the emotional mind it is the emotional mind which is trapped in and comprehended through the same physical reality of the body as well. Psychology is not what you believe it is because the body itself is not what you believe it is.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by awareness

For what it's worth, or matters at all, I like brother Andrew but don't have to agree with him. As far as I'm concerned our brother is being a cult apologist.

You like everyone, Harold. I call it the gift of friendliness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

You didn't speak of kindness Igzy. Kindness is a simple matter in life. You spoke of a philosophy which has gained ground over the last 100 years or so. It is rooted in humanistic reasoning and it is evident in all walks of life.

And you are deluded into thinking that because you can call it a phlosophy and some evil people can actually appear to do it at times that it is not worth a plug nickel.

And if you think so highly of kindness, then maybe you should display a little.

Or maybe what you have been showing us is the type of kindness that you think is required. If so, that is a philisophy that is not even sort of like something in the Bible. It is straight from the pit of Hell.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by OBW

And you are deluded into thinking that because you can call it a phlosophy and some evil people can actually appear to do it at times that it is not worth a plug nickel.

And if you think so highly of kindness, then maybe you should display a little.

Or maybe what you have been showing us is the type of kindness that you think is required. If so, that is a philisophy that is not even sort of like something in the Bible. It is straight from the pit of Hell.

Just because someone says it is a dog doesn't make it a dog. It may be a chicken! I doubt you have even the remotest idea as to what I actually said. But once again thanks for your smooth example of what constitutes love. You hypocrite.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Just because someone says it is a dog doesn't make it a dog. It may be a chicken! I doubt you have even the remotest idea as to what I actually said. But once again thanks for your smooth example of what constitutes love. You hypocrite.

I doubt you have any idea what I was responding to. But I do understand what you were saying. When you get out of "attack those who attack Nee" mode you prove that you are at least marginally sane. And relatively intelligent.

But after all that long discussion about psychology and philosophy, you really didn't address the issues. Just waste a lot of electrons pontificating (finally in acceptable English — your so-called superior English has been missing for quite a few posts, if it ever existed).

But when it comes to the tirades of venom you have spewed, it looks very much like you have no idea about much of anything except to see if a bull in the china closet would achieve the desired result. You clearly are a follower of Nee. And you clearly need to keep him propped-up to carry on. There is no other explanation for the outright childish behavior of someone as old as you claim to be.

You lose credibility because of the constant stomping of the metaphorical feet. The name calling. The hurling of insults. You have the kind of arrogant "I'm superior to you" demeanor that would seem to have been Nee's

BTW. Did you actually know Nee? I mean really know him? Or were you at least in the same room with him on more than one occasion? And I mean a rather small room in which it is reasonable that you could have had a direct discussion with him and not just be listening to him speak from afar in some conference? Just curious because someone has been characterizing you as someone who knew Nee.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by OBW

I doubt you have any idea what I was responding to. But I do understand what you were saying. When you get out of "attack those who attack Nee" mode you prove that you are at least marginally sane. And relatively intelligent.

But after all that long discussion about psychology and philosophy, you really didn't address the issues. Just waste a lot of electrons pontificating (finally in acceptable English — your so-called superior English has been missing for quite a few posts, if it ever existed).

But when it comes to the tirades of venom you have spewed, it looks very much like you have no idea about much of anything except to see if a bull in the china closet would achieve the desired result. You clearly are a follower of Nee. And you clearly need to keep him propped-up to carry on. There is no other explanation for the outright childish behavior of someone as old as you claim to be.

You lose credibility because of the constant stomping of the metaphorical feet. The name calling. The hurling of insults. You have the kind of arrogant "I'm superior to you" demeanor that would seem to have been Nee's

BTW. Did you actually know Nee? I mean really know him? Or were you at least in the same room with him on more than one occasion? And I mean a rather small room in which it is reasonable that you could have had a direct discussion with him and not just be listening to him speak from afar in some conference? Just curious because someone has been characterizing you as someone who knew Nee.

It would have been difficult not to have known what you were responding to OBW. The word 'kindness' was a clue. So I say it again OBW I sincerely doubt that you have even understood what I was saying. If you had you would stop chasing a dog and start preparing the pot for a chicken.

Perhaps you missed my one single post some weeks ago about the English language. British English and American English are further apart than you may realise. They are certainly further apart than I am prepared to make allowances for. It doesn't matter but British English is the language I am writing in. In that sense the meaning of things appears to be easily lost. Does it matter any? No not a bit does it matter OBW. Of necessity I am at odds with at least three of you gentlemen. When do you suppose you will finally leave me alone to do what I came to do OBW?

I have no expectation that my posts will be responded to beyond the possibility of disagreement. That at least is comforting in the circumstance as it means I don't actually have to flatter anyone. Team hug boys!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You like everyone, Harold. I call it the gift of friendliness.

Yes and I roll with the punches I'm inclined to incite.

But I have to be careful with the hillbillies in my neck of these woods. They've been known to drop their Christianity long enough to actually clean your clock.

[Igzy]

The psychology subject is off-topic. I might chime in when UntoHim creates an alternate thread.

In the meantime, I'll stick to my guns. I don't know if Hsu is lying or telling the truth about Nee. But I do know this. Given the entire situation, I can much easier imagine that it is true than it is a bald-face lie. I can see her motivation for going to the trouble of writing such a book if she thinks it is true, I cannot see it if she knows it is false. So the only other plausible explanation is she is deluded. But she thinks she's telling the truth. There is no reason for her to lie--none at least that I can see that would cause her to go to all this trouble.

Jane Anderson also wrote a book about her LC experience. Years after it happened. She told the truth in it the best she could. People also accused her of lying. I can to some extent see a man writing a book of lies, because men have big egos and often desperately want to prove something (ahem). Women generally don't. It seems to me if a woman writes a book at the end of her life, it's because she has some truth to tell, or thinks she does. I know that is a generalization. But I'm looking at everything.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, UntoHim. Sorry for my part in going off topic. Could you move the posts about psychology to a new thread?

Continuing this discussion, I have still not heard a believable motive posited by anyone for why, at the end of her life and knowing as a professsing Christian that she will soon have to stand before the Lord and answer for every loose word, she would write brazen, bald-faced lies about Nee. You guys that think she is lying need to produce a motive.

Who knows her motives? Maybe she had an early bird coupon at Xulon Press, maybe she's getting over some horrible events in her past, maybe she's telling everything honestly and exactly as she remembers it - it doesn't change the fact that this book contains serious rape allegations with no substance, references or proof to back them up. A forced confession, and some gossipy hearsay, perhaps spawned by the confession itself, that's all. Chaff in the wind.

We have to prove nothing of Hsu's motive, Igzy, to see there are problems with this. Her motive would only come into play if Nee was alive, if a libel case was brought and she was found guilty - then her motive would affect sentencing. If found malicious intent, she may well go to jail, if just innocently passing along gossip, she'd be looking at big settlement. But motive is irrelevant in establishing the facts about Nee.

The reaction on this forum has surprised me - I know many people here are ready to hate on Nee at the slightest provocation, but the mob has lost its way. Andrew Kelly is really the only one here talking any sense on the subject.

Some have said, well it's not about the rape. Well it should be. You can't argue that the rape accusation wasn't the point of the story. An injustice to Nee and to the men and women of the Shanghai church has been perpetrated here and it shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed.

Some have said along the lines of: well, it's not surprising, therefore it must be true. The LC is a horrible painful place, therefore it must be true. Nee's teachings are off, therefore it must be true. Or "he didn't break bread, it's not surprising"….. seriously if you think this, then why are there not 5 billion non-Christians in the world out committing rape? Nobody should be safe under that premise.

Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? It does not seem to apply in this forum - the flimsiest of accusations has people pointing the finger with glee.

I had a problem with Hsu's book from a very early point, where she said something like "Nee was a gifted student". He wasn't a gifted student, at least not according to family sources, he was average and unremarkable (and I heard this independently unrelated to Hsu's book). Why would that be a problem, surely it's good she would flatter him like this? Because it shows she is writing about Nee the Myth, not Nee the human. She has obviously heard on some grapevine, chattering gossips, that Nee was an excellent gifted student, the sort of thing cults do when they are inflating their leader, and she has included it in her book to set the scene. In my opinion, it shows the whole book up to be something about the church and its culture, with the Mythical Nee as its demonic figurehead, not about the man himself who was simply one of us.

The Hsu team (Hsu and Roberts) could do a lot of good by either working on a proof to back up the claims of rape, launch a proper investigation; or admit it is wrong to make these accusations in a published work, even one self-published by Xulon Press, and remove those few words from the book. The half-hearted "there, we said it, it's now a historical fact, get over it" is just ugly. It doesn't help the victims, if there were victims; and it doesn't support a culture of respect for women in the church. Can a women who is abused now come forward and tell a friend in confidence? Perhaps it will end up in a book as gossip… better keep quiet.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by james73

Who knows her motives? Maybe she had an early bird coupon at Xulon Press, maybe she's getting over some horrible events in her past, maybe she's telling everything honestly and exactly as she remembers it - it doesn't change the fact that this book contains serious rape allegations with no substance, references or proof to back them up. A forced confession, and some gossipy hearsay, perhaps spawned by the confession itself, that's all. Chaff in the wind.

I don't buy this argument. Because where would the proof be 60 years later? There would be no way to produce proof about much of anything. So if she believes she is right, but has no proof, then you are saying she should be quiet anyway. Is that it? Now would you do that? If you had seen what she claims to have seen but had no proof?

Yes, Hsu's words are Hsu's words only. They are proof of nothing. But then neither is any other account of those times. Including Lee's and the ones Kelly has trotted out. It's all hearsay. So, I guess the thing to do is not listen to anything but benign stories about historical figures.

I also think your assessment that Kelly is the only one talking sense is absolutely ridiculous. Most of what Kelly has said about most things makes no sense. At least none I can follow. I might not be the smartest writer in the world, but at least I know how to frame an essay to make it readable.

[Igzy]

Proof is good to have, but proof is harder to come by than many people admit. This is especially true of anything having to do with the LC, or any other closed society. So the next thing to do is ask, barring proof, is the story and storyteller believable.

Hsu's story, however hard it is to believe, simply doesn't make sense as a bald-faced lie. Her demeanor is not one of a liar.

Let me put it this way. All I know from Hsu and Kelly are their writings. Comparing the two, Hsu comes across as the more honest person. Kelly seems to me like someone who would assault the character of his own grandmother if it furthered his cause. He seems to have few principles, just an agenda. He clearly cares for no one on this board but himself, and being told so he mocked us about it. For my money, Hsu comes across the more Christian of the two. Does that mean her story is true? No. It just means I lean toward her on the character side.

It's like Witness Lee and John Ingalls and the books they each wrote about the 80s "rebellion." Lee was highminded and caustic and wrote with a lot of condemning hyperbole. Ingalls was much more humble and earnest in his book. As much as I'd been trained to believe Lee, Ingalls just seemed more sincere. In the same way, Hsu comes across as more humble and believable, while Kelly stomps around, pronounces from on high and viciously insults anyone who gets in his way. Which should I take as more sincere?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by james73

Who knows her motives? Maybe she had an early bird coupon at Xulon Press, maybe she's getting over some horrible events in her past, maybe she's telling everything honestly and exactly as she remembers it - it doesn't change the fact that this book contains serious rape allegations with no substance, references or proof to back them up. A forced confession, and some gossipy hearsay, perhaps spawned by the confession itself, that's all. Chaff in the wind.

We have to prove nothing of Hsu's motive, Igzy, to see there are problems with this. Her motive would only come into play if Nee was alive, if a libel case was brought and she was found guilty - then her motive would affect sentencing. If found malicious intent, she may well go to jail, if just innocently passing along gossip, she'd be looking at big settlement. But motive is irrelevant in establishing the facts about Nee.

The reaction on this forum has surprised me - I know many people here are ready to hate on Nee at the slightest provocation, but the mob has lost its way. Andrew Kelly is really the only one here talking any sense on the subject.

Some have said, well it's not about the rape. Well it should be. You can't argue that the rape accusation wasn't the point of the story. An injustice to Nee and to the men and women of the Shanghai church has been perpetrated here and it shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed.

Some have said along the lines of: well, it's not surprising, therefore it must be true. The LC is a horrible painful place, therefore it must be true. Nee's teachings are off, therefore it must be true. Or "he didn't break bread, it's not surprising"….. seriously if you think this, then why are there not 5 billion non-Christians in the world out committing rape? Nobody should be safe under that premise.

Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? It does not seem to apply in this forum - the flimsiest of accusations has people pointing the finger with glee.

I had a problem with Hsu's book from a very early point, where she said something like "Nee was a gifted student". He wasn't a gifted student, at least not according to family sources, he was average and unremarkable (and I heard this independently unrelated to Hsu's book). Why would that be a problem, surely it's good she would flatter him like this? Because it shows she is writing about Nee the Myth, not Nee the human. She has obviously heard on some grapevine, chattering gossips, that Nee was an excellent gifted student, the sort of thing cults do when they are inflating their leader, and she has included it in her book to set the scene. In my opinion, it shows the whole book up to be something about the church and its culture, with the Mythical Nee as its demonic figurehead, not about the man himself who was simply one of us.

The Hsu team (Hsu and Roberts) could do a lot of good by either working on a proof to back up the claims of rape, launch a proper investigation; or admit it is wrong to make these accusations in a published work, even one self-published by Xulon Press, and remove those few words from the book. The half-hearted "there, we said it, it's now a historical fact, get over it" is just ugly. It doesn't help the victims, if there were victims; and it doesn't support a culture of respect for women in the church. Can a women who is abused now come forward and tell a friend in confidence? Perhaps it will end up in a book as gossip… better keep quiet.

I have focused a great deal on the allegation of multiple rapes. Many times I went back and forth in my mind trying to convince myself that the term was used in a cultural translatorial sense and had more to do with the problem of language. I knew early on that the comments about Miao Yunchun (MYC) were clearly set in the context of a forced rape. It is stated in those terms. Even then I sought to dismiss this as a simple reflection of the fact that Dr Hsu was not saying this herself directly but simply reporting it as a known event. Namely that this sister had said it and clearly others will have know this fact. It is not unreasonable to say something if the grounds for saying it are clearly in context.

When I realised that this claim regarding what Miao Yunchun (MYC) is alleged to have said was sourced to Joshua Yu I obviously had to ask myself who Joshua Yu was. Then the second alleged rape of Nee's housemaid (Adopted Daughter) is also cited as having its origin in the person of Joshua Yu. I also began to ask myself why the term 'Adopted Daughter' was used rather than housemaid. Why use the term 'rape' and 'adopted daughter' in the same context. The only way you could have realised that 'adopted daughter' means housemaid would have been to look in the foot note.

The alleged third rape of Zhang Qinian (Phoebe Chang) (ZQN) is entirely down to Dr Hsu herself. Yet in her evidence for how she claims this fact is established, there is no mention of rape at all. There is just a reference abstractly presented in careful language which absolves Zhang Qinian of a culpable role and sets Nee in the role of a predator. Even then it may be possible to overlook this linguistically directed influence until you read the way that the issue of the photograph is dealt with. Dr Hsu is playing back and forth with innocent or guilty. It is a deliberate use of language to set a subliminal stage to enforce an idea which cannot be otherwise supported. Hsu asks the question rhetorically as to whether Zhang Qinian consented to the taking of the photograph, not in a direct way but inferentially by placing the force of the subliminal meaning before the question which is asked. Then she goes on to directly ask the question, against the backdrop of the inferential meaning, in a rhetorical presence 'did Zhang consent'.

That is completely perverse and in my view it deals an almost certain death blow to extracting any true meaning from the report.

By the time I had realised all of this I started to ask myself how Dr Hsu could herself be convinced that Nee raped these women forcefully. It is obvious that in other places Hsu does appear to be saying that this is not forceful rape, but rape in the political feminist sense of an abuse of authority, to use those women who emotionally trusted him, and therefore became vulnerable to his physical need of them. That is not an unusual occurrence by any means. Even then to use the word rape is still too strong unless you are deliberately intending to send a feminist message. I dismissed the feminist message idea on two counts.

Firstly I take it that Dr Hsu is in some terrible way convinced that Nee did have a sexual predatory relationship with these three women.

Secondly Dr Hsu tells us of two occasions how she was forgiven, in her return to faith. The first was in China at the hands of the wife of a medical professor. The second is in the company of Joshua Yu. It is clear that both of these events represent two very different circumstances and meanings, yet in reading them they appear to be the same. The difference between them is essentially that the first account with the professors wife is a return to the Lord, and the second event, a few years later, is with Joshua Yu and represents a dealing with the offence of his imprisonment for 23 years. Yet Joshua Yu was imprisoned 18 months at least after Hsu left the Study Committee in Shanghai and fell away from her faith.

In all of this context the term rape therefore has to have some significance which runs deeper than an attempt at a political posturing and an appeal to political feminism to reach a Western gender sensitive audience.

In the end I had no choice but to ask myself if Dr Hsu was not presenting another perspective altogether and in her own way believing that she was in fact justified by what she heard and saw in the evidence which she says so convinced her of Nee's guilt. Again Dr Hsu goes to some length to emphasise the power and effect of the evidence presented by the BRA on other sisters who she names, including Nee's eldest sister. It carries the meaning that not only was she convinced but so are others as well.

Then quiet by chance, it would seem, I came across a Chinese publication dated 1987 which to my amazement carried an almost identical list of Nee's crimes, including the charge of being aloof and 'mysterious'. Yet this is an official Chinese government funded and sponsored publication with an introduction from the former chief of the BRA in East China Division and the chairman of the TSPM, Bishop Ting. Having looked through so many sources to find evidence or even a hint that Nee raped anyone, and having found no trace of such an accusation or allegation whatsoever, I had to ask myself if it was possible that Hsu really did believe the evidence presented at the time when she was given a private viewing of the material. As regards that evidence, the only part which could have provided such a convincing proof of rape is Nee's confession in which Hsu tells us Nee confessed to raping two of his co-workers. As far as rape is concerned this evidence of Nee's confession was sufficient to persuade Hsu to bear witness against him at the public accusation trials which lasted 12 days between the 18th and the 30th January 1956.

The exposition part of Nee's public trial process both preceded and proceeded this 12 day event. Then there was a closed trial in the courts which finalised the sentence having established the charges on the perverse basis of 12 men and women accusing him of his crimes in the presence of the people, as well as the physical presentation of the material evidence for several months. The exposition was held in a medical training hospital in Shanghai where the BRA had already done it work of CEC patriotic cleansing and 'turning around'. That process essentially formalised in 1955, nine months before the closed trial of Nee in June 1956.

It was and is an irresistible reality that Dr Hsu absolutely and fully intends to mean rape by force when speaking of Nee. I have found that realisation more difficult to reconcile than anything else. I now know that the Chinese Government started to proliferate a list of Nee's crimes, including rape, in 1987, at a time when it became possible to pass that information across from East to West in a way which is almost genius in its proficiency. Incredible as it seems, an English translation of the Chinese publication has been listed in the Library of Congress Cataloging in the Publication of Data listing since 1990.

There is no doubt in my own mind that Hsu's book is seriously doubtful, but only in the sense that to believe the issue of rape it is necessary to believe Hsu on the one hand and then to ask how and why Joshua Yu came to have such a definitive and trustworthy source himself to be able to lend his name to the emphatic claim that Nee forcibly raped two of the three women. This is especially important because as Xu Feili testified in his statement Joshua Yu was threatening to write against Nee for many years before he participated in this book with Hsu. That statement was written just a few months ago and it was in direct response to this book.

Despite how it may have seemed to you sensitive souls out there in ciber space I actually want to believe Dr Hsu is innocent of wilful deception. My best guess is that she is somehow or other the victim yet again of a few less than good men who have hidden their part rather well and have let her take the full weight of credit. If I were to resist guessing I would have to confess that I believe in my conscience that Dr Hsu has as much a part to play as has Joshua Yu and Dana Roberts. Her use of words and the complexity of ideas and the sheer scope of the attack on Nee is simply too well done and too broad to put down to a possible vulnerability to her own emotions and needs.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Proof is good to have, but proof is harder to come by than many people admit. This is especially true of anything having to do with the LC, or any other closed society. So the next thing to do is ask, barring proof, is the story and storyteller believable.

Hsu's story, however hard it is to believe, simply doesn't make sense as a bald-faced lie. Her demeanor is not one of a liar.

Let me put it this way. All I know from Hsu and Kelly are their writings. Comparing the two, Hsu comes across as the more honest person. Kelly seems to me like someone who would assault the character of his own grandmother if it furthered his cause. He seems to have few principles, just an agenda. He clearly cares for no one on this board but himself, and being told so he mocked us about it. For my money, Hsu comes across the more Christian of the two. Does that mean her story is true? No. It just means I lean toward her on the character side.

It's like Witness Lee and John Ingalls and the books they each wrote about the 80s "rebellion." Lee was highminded and caustic and wrote with a lot of condemning hyperbole. Ingalls was much more humble and earnest in his book. As much as I'd been trained to believe Lee, Ingalls just seemed more sincere. In the same way, Hsu comes across as more humble and believable, while Kelly stomps around, pronounces from on high and viciously insults anyone who gets in his way. Which should I take as more sincere?

You just don't know when to stop do you?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't buy this argument. Because where would the proof be 60 years later? There would be no way to produce proof about much of anything. So if she believes she is right, but has no proof, then you are saying she should be quiet anyway. Is that it? Now would you do that? If you had seen what she claims to have seen but had no proof?

Yes, Hsu's words are Hsu's words only. They are proof of nothing. But then neither is any other account of those times. Including Lee's and the ones Kelly has trotted out. It's all hearsay. So, I guess the thing to do is not listen to anything but benign stories about historical figures.

I also think your assessment that Kelly is the only one talking sense is absolutely ridiculous. Most of what Kelly has said about most things makes no sense. At least none I can follow. I might not be the smartest writer in the world, but at least I know how to frame an essay to make it readable.

Believe me Igzy when I want to make sense you will be the very first to know it. If you cannot understand me it may be because I am not writing for you at all. Did you give that some thought Igzy. I am tempted to say what I really mean but alas the fish saw the hook this time at least Igzy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by james73

I had a problem with Hsu's book from a very early point, where she said something like "Nee was a gifted student". He wasn't a gifted student, at least not according to family sources, he was average and unremarkable (and I heard this independently unrelated to Hsu's book).

I guess great leaders aren't great men until the mythographers get finished with him.

I heard Witness Lee tell a story on Nee. That he could read a chemistry book in one night and the next day you could open the book to any page and ask him what it said and he could read it off from his photographic memory.

This is just as fantastical as anything Hsu has claimed to the other extreme.

Except rape is a crime.

If the raped sisters had brought it to the authorities when it happened Nee would have been in prison much earlier.

And Lee wouldn't have had anything to bring to America except clothing to sell.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Proof is good to have, but proof is harder to come by than many people admit. This is especially true of anything having to do with the LC, or any other closed society. So the next thing to do is ask, barring proof, is the story and storyteller believable.

Proof is in the quality and character of the eyewitness and his account.

What Kelly likes to forget is that the elders of the SCA looked into this matter and acted accordingly, disciplining Née who accepted it without protest.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, Hsu's words are Hsu's words only. They are proof of nothing. But then neither is any other account of those times. Including Lee's and the ones Kelly has trotted out. It's all hearsay. So, I guess the thing to do is not listen to anything but benign stories about historical figures.

No, the thing to do is to think critically. Don't accept people's accounts of history on face value. That is all I am saying.

Earlier I mentioned Hsu writing that as a young girl, barely out of her teens, seeing a pornographic photo which she is told belonged to Nee. No corroboration was given to support this assertion, that I can tell, but nonetheless she exited her Christian walk and her Christian faith.

Later, she tell us she sat in a courtroom (I guess as one of the prosecutorial witnesses, since she was cooperating in testifying against Nee & others?) and heard Nee confess in detail to the same line of charges. For the sake of argument let's accept her account as it stands; let's accept it at 'face value'.

Now, Hsu was at that time a naive young woman, but is she still so naive? Does she mention how many people confessed in detail their crimes, at those trials, merely because to protest innocence would make it worse? Did anyone go into that system of 'justice' and present a defense in their case, before an impartial judge or jury, and be acquitted? Did anyone at all? Was that system in any way what we today would think of as justice? No? Then why doesn't she mention this, decades later? Why doesn't Roberts the supposed scholar mention this?

Unfortunately I am not a careful reader. Hsu and Roberts may have brought this caveat to the discussion, but if they did it would be the exception to the presentation that I did read.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Proof is good to have, but proof is harder to come by than many people admit. This is especially true of anything having to do with the LC, or any other closed society. So the next thing to do is ask, barring proof, is the story and storyteller believable.

Hsu's story, however hard it is to believe, simply doesn't make sense as a bald-faced lie. Her demeanor is not one of a liar.

I simply find this line of reasoning to be incredible. Did Paul say anything like this? Did Paul write, "Against an elder do not accept accusations from one witness only, but rather by two or three witnesses, unless you find one witness whose demeanor is not of a liar"?

Please, let's try to do a little better here, shall we?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

It would have been difficult not to have known what you were responding to OBW. The word 'kindness' was a clue. So I say it again OBW I sincerely doubt that you have even understood what I was saying. If you had you would stop chasing a dog and start preparing the pot for a chicken.

Perhaps you missed my one single post some weeks ago about the English language. British English and American English are further apart than you may realise. They are certainly further apart than I am prepared to make allowances for. It doesn't matter but British English is the language I am writing in. In that sense the meaning of things appears to be easily lost. Does it matter any? No not a bit does it matter OBW. Of necessity I am at odds with at least three of you gentlemen. When do you suppose you will finally leave me alone to do what I came to do OBW?

I have no expectation that my posts will be responded to beyond the possibility of disagreement. That at least is comforting in the circumstance as it means I don't actually have to flatter anyone. Team hug boys!

First, I guess your answer is "No."

I did not miss your claim to superior English. The very thought that the British version is somehow superior is really very funny. It truly is different. But that is the most that you can say about it. It is one of the minority dialects of the genre, and as such, has little to recommend it other than its claim to history.

Besides, mastering the language — any version of it — does not give the things that are said with it any weight. Unless you think we are all cows and will simply fall in line because you said it better than someone else would.

I'm laughing at superior language.

Of course, having this conversation with someone who is a follower of the creator of a somewhat heretical Christian sect that similarly claims vast spiritual superiority is quite unsurprising.

And no matter what you think, we are not some club of like minds coming together for group hugs. That you would say so shows your ignorance. Your positions are just too hard to fail to see through. We don't have to agree on much to see through you.

[aron]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

... Dr Hsu has as much a part to play as has Joshua Yu and Dana Roberts. Her use of words and the complexity of ideas and the sheer scope of the attack on Nee is simply too well done and too broad to put down to a possible vulnerability to her own emotions and needs.

The scope of the attack on Nee here is indeed well done and broad in scope, but in all of its depth and scope it somehow misses anything which could be independently verified or corroborated. Whether you grasp at one straw or fifteen or fifty-six you are still grasping at straws unless something is shown to be solid, real, and tangible. So my suspicions as to the source of all this are not allayed but rather intensified.

And Roberts the so-called scholar would by now have understood that scholarship entails presenting both arguments and counter-arguments. Both weaknesses and strengths. What is there and what is missing. Where to be certain and where to be tentative. Roberts the so-called scholar does none of this.

So the whole thing seems to me, like what james73 said, is a carefully disguised appeal to the mob. Get a few feeble minds stirred up, and then others will be swayed by the passion of the unstable ones, and so forth. Everybody is convinced because everybody else is passionately convinced. Nobody bothers to take the trouble to examine the presentation critically. If you do the whole thing collapses in a heap.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The scope of the attack on Nee here is indeed well done and broad in scope, but in all of its depth and scope it somehow misses anything which could be independently verified or corroborated. Whether you grasp at one straw or fifteen or fifty-six you are still grasping at straws unless something is shown to be solid, real, and tangible. So my suspicions as to the source of all this are not allayed but rather intensified.

Let me give an example, by way of parable. Suppose, 50 years hence, I write a memoir entitled "My unforgettable memories of 9/11: an eyewitness account of George Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the terrorist attacks on the WTC and Pentagon". And it turns out the whole 'eyewitness' is that I watched Youtube videos. So it is, indeed, an unforgettable memory. And indeed on the video I saw images of President George W. Bush et al. But really what does my memoir add? What did I witness that of itself adds any value? What subsequent assessment of what occurred on Sept 11, 2001 can be helped by my account?

Or, is the title misleading and deceptive? Designed to capture the attention of the gullible and unschooled? "I watched the video and was crushed, heartbroken. How could Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have done such a thing? My faith in the U.S. Government was destroyed". etc etc.

Yes, I was indeed an eyewitness. But of what? And what does the presentation of my account (i.e. my reaction to watching the video; subsequently piling on things to justify my reaction) testify to except some strange mixture of naivete and deception? (All this, of course, assumes that Hsu's 'eyewitness' part itself can be verified.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me give an example, by way of parable. Suppose, 50 years hence, I write a memoir entitled "My unforgettable memories of 9/11: an eyewitness account of George Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the terrorist attacks on the WTC and Pentagon". And it turns out the whole 'eyewitness' is that I watched Youtube videos. So it is, indeed, an unforgettable memory. And indeed on the video I saw images of President George W. Bush et al. But really what does my memoir add? What did I witness that of itself adds any value? What subsequent assessment of what occurred on Sept 11, 2001 can be helped by my account?

Or, is the title misleading and deceptive? Designed to capture the attention of the gullible and unschooled? "I watched the video and was crushed, heartbroken. How could Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have done such a thing? My faith in the U.S. Government was destroyed". etc etc.

Yes, I was indeed an eyewitness. But of what? And what does the presentation of my account (i.e. my reaction to watching the video; subsequently piling on things to justify my reaction) testify to except some strange mixture of naivete and deception? (All this, of course, assumes that Hsu's 'eyewitness' part itself can be verified.)

Not a very good analogy. To use your imagery, she may have needed to talk to a few people who managed to parachute out of the planes that did the damage. And talk to the few who managed to run out of the buildings before they collapsed. But she was on the plaza beneath the twin towers as they were hit.

She was actually in Shanghai. She, even though young, was there. She was raised on, or at least brought into, the thing that was the church in Shanghai during these times. She was a follower of Nee. She was damaged greatly by what was discovered.

And for all those who say that the trial was some kind of railroading, why would Nee admit to what he was charged with? Why would he admit openly that he was doing so many immoral things if it was not true? If it was a lie, then surely the man who thought only of the church would have refused to cause it to suffer under the notion that he was really an immoral person. To cause many to lose faith over it.

And this comment the other day about the handwriting that was said to not be Nee's, what matter does it make who wrote it down if there are those who heard him say it with their own ears? If it is true, then haggling over who wrote it down is a smokescreen. It is a distraction from the truth that Nee was immoral and not fit to teach Sunday School. And he knew it.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

No, the thing to do is to think critically. Don't accept people's accounts of history on face value. That is all I am saying.

I am trying to think critically. Which is why I'm not trying to sweep her under the rug just yet. To me a very important question is, what's her motive? I've asked this simple question and no one has offered a reasonable answer. James73 brushed the question off with a flip answer. Which precisely made my point.

Earlier I mentioned Hsu writing that as a young girl, barely out of her teens, seeing a pornographic photo which she is told belonged to Nee. No corroboration was given to support this assertion, that I can tell, but nonetheless she exited her Christian walk and her Christian faith.

As I said, it wasn't just this. It was a accumulation of things she had seen with Nee and the movement which disillusioned her. I relate it to many who left the LC. They keep up the effort to be all for Lee, because it's all they know. Then one day the dam breaks and their perspective changes and they walk out and start writing on message boards. We've seen that many times, haven't we?

Now, Hsu was at that time a naive young woman, but is she still so naive? Does she mention how many people confessed in detail their crimes, at those trials, merely because to protest innocence would make it worse? Did anyone go into that system of 'justice' and present a defense in their case, before an impartial judge or jury, and be acquitted? Did anyone at all? Was that system in any way what we today would think of as justice? No? Then why doesn't she mention this, decades later? Why doesn't Roberts the supposed scholar mention this?

I believe she does mention this. She talks about the fact that the communists planted evidence and forced confessions, and she struggles with deciding whether Nee is really guilty. For some reason, she decides for herself he is. Sixty years later she writes a book about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And Roberts the so-called scholar would by now have understood that scholarship entails presenting both arguments and counter-arguments. Both weaknesses and strengths. What is there and what is missing. Where to be certain and where to be tentative. Roberts the so-called scholar does none of this.

There's plenty of counter-arguments offered by Nee's, and by extension Lee's, local churches. In fact the counter-arguments are the majority. Go to the Wiki on Nee if you need counter-arguments. Hsu's book is one voice ... against 10s of thousands, if not more. Andrew calls Hsu a coward. In fact she's very brave to stand against so many.

Originally Posted by aron

So the whole thing seems to me, like what james73 said, is a carefully disguised appeal to the mob. Get a few feeble minds stirred up, and then others will be swayed by the passion of the unstable ones, and so forth. Everybody is convinced because everybody else is passionately convinced. Nobody bothers to take the trouble to examine the presentation critically. If you do the whole thing collapses in a heap.

Sounds like the local church to me. As those in the local church are very weak on critical thinking ... and so they are a stirred up mob of feeble minds.

Thank God Dr. Hsu's book will perchance prevent others from joining the local church personality cult.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

I simply find this line of reasoning to be incredible. Did Paul say anything like this? Did Paul write, "Against an elder do not accept accusations from one witness only, but rather by two or three witnesses, unless you find one witness whose demeanor is not of a liar"?

Please, let's try to do a little better here, shall we?

By this logic we should ignore anyone who has no corroborating witnesses, which includes most rape victims. Is that what you are suggesting? I don't believe that's what the Bible is telling us. Obviously we have to be more careful with little corroboration, but I don't think ignoring the person is valid.

However, if it is, then you've solved the problem and ended the discussion! She has no corroboration, witnesses have died or didn't exist, so Nee's off the hook, and we can move on and pretend the book was never written, except as a reminder to ignore other people like her.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, aron. In another post I'll talk again why much of the book rings true to me and is still important.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Believe me Igzy when I want to make sense you will be the very first to know it. If you cannot understand me it may be because I am not writing for you at all. Did you give that some thought Igzy. I am tempted to say what I really mean but alas the fish saw the hook this time at least Igzy.

Like I said, most of what you write makes no sense and the above is no exception. It sounds like you've taken too much of some kind of medication.

Can anyone tell me what he means?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like I said, most of what you write makes no sense and the above is no exception. It sounds like you've taken too much of some kind of medication.

Can anyone tell me what he means?

Like Jimmy Buffett says, "It's 5 o'clock somewhere."

[Igzy]

Let me, however, say this about Kelly. He is good at citing details. He's just not great at coming to a conclusion about what the details mean.

But he does raise an important idea which I thought of intuitively when I read the book. That "rape" may mean something different to Hsu than we think it does. Yet, Kelly says, Roberts knowing this, still let the translation run with the word and possibly misled Western audiences. Why? It's an important question.

I'll throw that out with this troublesome thought. If Nee used his spiritual authority to push a woman into having sex with him, could that be considered rape? Would Chinese Christian women consider it rape? Maybe, if it means "abuse of authority," as Kelly said.

We think of rape as physically forcing someone to have sex. But suppose someone just said, "I am the MOTA. You should serve the cause by submitting to me." She does, but later feels like she was raped.

This would fit the whole scenario much better. Not to mention the fact that powerful men have used this ploy with women subordinates, even in religious settings, down through the ages.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I am trying to think critically. Which is why I'm not trying to sweep her under the rug just yet. To me a very important question is, what's her motive?

As I said, it wasn't just this. It was a accumulation of things she had seen with Nee and the movement which disillusioned her. I relate it to many who left the LC. They keep up the effort to be all for Lee, because it's all they know. Then one day the dam breaks and their perspective changes and they walk out and start writing on message boards. We've seen that many times, haven't we?

Think critically? C'mon aron! That's the thing we never did when Lee gave us his own versions of history.

Motive? Igzy, she is just like us trying to set the record straight.

Hsu comes along with Dana and attempts to expose the mythology surrounding Nee, and for the first time the excommunication of Nee makes sense.

[Igzy]

I recall a story about President Lyndon Baines Johnson (who grew up in Central Texas where I live). LBJ as president was known to have young women brought into his bedroom. They would be laying there under the covers in the dark waiting for him. He would come into the room, slide under the covers, and say in his Texas drawl, "Move over, darlin'. This is yor President."

Like I said, many powerful men abuse their power to sample the cookie jar. That doesn't make Nee guilty. But that, plus Hsu's story, plus the excommunication of Nee, plus the toleration of Philip Lee's sexual dalliances at the highest levels of LSM, make you wonder.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We think of rape as physically forcing someone to have sex. But suppose someone just said, "I am the MOTA. You should serve the cause by submitting to me." She does, but later feels like she was raped.

This would fit the whole scenario much better. Not to mention the fact that powerful men have used this ploy with women subordinates, even in religious settings, down through the ages.

I'm not concluding anything here about Nee's morality, but with the stature he once enjoyed in the Little Flock, Nee doesn't have to say anything about who he is, just being in the same room with him disarms a girl. Obviously rape can be psychological manipulation, but perhaps the word rape should never have been used. Perhaps only after years of reflection, the young girl began to "think critically" and concluded that she was indeed taken advantage of, though at the time was a willing participant.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by aron

No, the thing to do is to think critically. Don't accept people's accounts of history on face value. That is all I am saying.

Earlier I mentioned Hsu writing that as a young girl, barely out of her teens, seeing a pornographic photo which she is told belonged to Nee. No corroboration was given to support this assertion, that I can tell, but nonetheless she exited her Christian walk and her Christian faith.

Later, she tell us she sat in a courtroom (I guess as one of the prosecutorial witnesses, since she was cooperating in testifying against Nee & others?) and heard Nee confess in detail to the same line of charges. For the sake of argument let's accept her account as it stands; let's accept it at 'face value'.

Now, Hsu was at that time a naive young woman, but is she still so naive? Does she mention how many people confessed in detail their crimes, at those trials, merely because to protest innocence would make it worse? Did anyone go into that system of 'justice' and present a defense in their case, before an impartial judge or jury, and be acquitted? Did anyone at all? Was that system in any way what we today would think of as justice? No? Then why doesn't she mention this, decades later? Why doesn't Roberts the supposed scholar mention this?

Unfortunately I am not a careful reader. Hsu and Roberts may have brought this caveat to the discussion, but if they did it would be the exception to the presentation that I did read.

Under the heading "A Bolt From The Blue" Dr Hsu gives a very impassioned account of the moment that she was taken to the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Religious Affairs (BRA) on Jiangxi Road.This is early December 1955. Her account is a retelling of the evidence she was shown by the officials at the Bureau. In that passage, Hsu says she saw part of a motion picture of a naked girl. She then speaks of a picture of a naked girl as a separate matter. And then she speaks of Nee's alleged confession. This was the sum of what Hsu says she was shown at that moment. Hsu also says that she was told that Nee was a filthy person.

Even in this account there are difficulties. It is inferentially implicit that there are three pieces of evidence. (1) part of a motion picture, (2) a photograph and (3) a witness statement. In other parts of the book, for example when she says she visited Zhang Qinian in July 1956, only one single piece of this evidence is specifically addressed which is the photograph. Later in the closed trial account of June 1956 Hsu tells us that there were two motion pictures. One which Nee had allegedly shot himself, and another which Nee had allegedly bought in England some many years earlier. Yet there is no mention of a photograph at the trial. Nor is there a mention of the photograph at the exposition of Nee's evidence between January 1956 and March 1956. In fact this is why I personally believe this book has all the hallmarks of a deception about it, which is essentially intended to support a larger agenda than would be clear at a casual glance. Repeatedly, when I have looked into Hsu's account of event, they waver between being very clear and very specific to being seemingly ambiguous and confused.

I realise that on a forum like this such a statement simply gives the fish a chance to swim up and take a bite at this and say, "she can't be expected to remember everything" or "circumstances change. The photo wasn't in the end the most damning piece of evidence it was the motion picture", and so on. So there you go boys I said it for you even if it is a pointless statement.

The thing is Dr Hsu was not a naive young girl at the time. She was a fully qualified Medical Doctor. Her very profession demanded attention to great detail of enormous complexity. The simple fact of the matter is this. There was no photograph. The 'photograph' was a single piece of negative film which would have been played and not viewed. But this kind of clever confusion of ideas makes this book extremely difficult to make sense of unless you simply follow along in the school of narrative simplicity. If you do that then Hsu's account is more weighty than you could believe possible. There is no cloudiness or ambiguity when it comes to Hsu's personal narrative. She clearly and unequivocally holds Nee responsible for every part of the suffering she endured, and she reinforces it again and again in what sometimes becomes offensive in the extreme, given that this is a false way to prove anything. Remember this book is supposed to be the definitive piece of evidence on Nee.

Which brings me to the original point I was making.

Given that there was in fact no photograph (positive image) then when Dr Hsu says:

Originally I thought of myself as an experienced and fearless warrior that I would be able to see through all kinds of tricks; yet I was completely defeated by this huge blow! All of a sudden, my brain felt totally empty and could not function at all. The piercing pain in my heart was intolerable. My mind and body were totally paralyzed. It was even difficult for me to take a step. I was in such a weak stupor as if in a vegetative state. I felt like I could not live on because I always highly honored Watchman Nee. He became a part of my faith. Now I really did not know how to live. Nee and SCA had always been my strength to stand firm that I could even face death unflinchingly; but now I lost my life support. I could not find God. I felt so ashamed as if I had I felt so ashamed as if I had committed those filthy acts. As I walked, I looked down at the ground with a deep, heartfelt shame. I did not want people to look at me. I was speechless for several days with bitterness in my heart.

And Two weeks Later:

I was saddened to know I had been cheated by Nee for so long and I could see or grab on nothing. I only felt my heart and faith sinking down into a deep vortex. My heart now then rose in anger. I lost my peace with God. O, God, who should I turn to? Who could I trust? Who could give me an answer? I cried to God with no response. I was left alone in a deep pit. It seemed that the only thing I could hold on: the “People’s standpoint.”

.....she is in effect telling us that she lost her faith completely as a result of seeing a negative 'torn part' of a motion picture and a statement by Nee.

That is the sum of chronological facts which you can derive from this book at that time Of course you can go into the whole book and you will find randomly scattered throughout the book seeming consistencies of narrative, but when you look into them they are misleading and actually create a sense of confusion. In the end you are forced to rely on the narrative part which simply points you to Hsu's intentions in writing this book. Namely that Nee was a complete dog of a man, he had been her god and now he was less than a man.

Notice the use of medical terminology in Hsu explanation of her reaction to this overwhelming evidence. What Hsu is presenting here is a picture of someone in a virtual state of catatonic shock. That is quiet something coming from a medical doctor and written ages 80+ years of age.

There is nothing naive and girly about Dr Hsu and that is a fact.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not concluding anything here about Nee's morality, but with the stature he once enjoyed in the Little Flock, Nee doesn't have to say anything about who he is, just being in the same room with him disarms a girl. Obviously rape can be psychological manipulation, but perhaps the word rape should never have been used. Perhaps only after years of reflection, the young girl began to "think critically" and concluded that she was indeed taken advantage of, though at the time was a willing participant.

Exactly. I doubt Nee, if he did such a thing, was as blunt as my example. I was just trying to make my point clear.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

There is nothing naive and girly about Dr Hsu and that is a fact.

You don't know what Little Flockers/Local Churchers are like. An LCer could have a master's degree and be as unsophisticated as a high schooler. I had two college degrees and was that way. We lived very sheltered lives and were extremely naive to the ways of the world. I can only imagine the Little Flock was more extreme in this regard.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously rape can be psychological manipulation,

Rape is not a sexual conquest as much as a power conquest. This follows smoothly with Nee's mindset revealed in his Delegated/Deputy Authority views, doctrine, and teachings.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Rape is not a sexual conquest as much as a power conquest. This follows smoothly with Nee's mindset revealed in his Delegated/Deputy Authority views, doctrine, and teachings.

Lee taught, which I figure he got from Nee, that a woman has no authority and needs to be "covered" by a man. He even said that single women, since they have no husband, should find a man to submit to, preferably an elder.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

So, Nee taught a system where single women needed to directly submit to some elder. I saw this kind of thing trying to be worked out in the LC and it was very awkward. Single women, usually a bit older, going up to elders seeking advice and permission like they were "under" them. I could see even as a naive kid that this was awkward and compromising.

Now, how many young women decided they should be "under" Nee? (I'm not being cute, but it is tempting.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this kind of culture could lead.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not concluding anything here about Nee's morality, but with the stature he once enjoyed in the Little Flock, Nee doesn't have to say anything about who he is, just being in the same room with him disarms a girl. Obviously rape can be psychological manipulation, but perhaps the word rape should never have been used. Perhaps only after years of reflection, the young girl began to "think critically" and concluded that she was indeed taken advantage of, though at the time was a willing participant.

You are simply repeating the mantra of psychological rape from a Feminist Perspective. There is no such thing as psychological rape in law.

Apart from that Mr Ohio you need to exercise a more critical faculty if you are going to make any real meaning.

The alleged rapes of Nee's two co-workers were said to have happened between 1926 and 1934. Nee was just 22 in 1926 and he was therefore 29 in 1934. Have you asked yourself how old the two co-workers were at this time? If you had you might be rather surprised. And in that alone, using words like 'girl' is a political naiveté on your part to say the least of to. Why don't you all stop the conspiracy theorising and start looking at the facts. They are all in the book. We are not talking about the facts of something else or another place. The 'facts' are all in the book Mr Ohio.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

You are simply repeating the mantra of psychological rape from a Feminist Perspective. There is no such thing as psychological rape in law.

Apart from that Mr Ohio you need to exercise a more critical faculty if you are going to make any real meaning.

The alleged rapes of Nee's two co-workers were said to have happened between 1926 and 1934. Nee was just 22 in 1926 and he was therefore 29 in 1934. Have you asked yourself how old the two co-workers were at this time? If you had you might be rather surprised. And in that alone, using words like 'girl' is a political naiveté on your part to say the least of to. Why don't you all stop the conspiracy theorising and start looking at the facts. They are all in the book. We are not talking about the facts of something else or another place the 'facts' are all in the book Mr Ohio.

Again, you do not appreciate the power Nee had. Age had little to do with it in his case. He was a "star" from the beginning. His views on spiritual authority were formed very early. He wrote "The Spiritual Man" when he was like 26. He had no peers, which is why he eventually decided he was the MOTA.

Again, rape could simply mean that Nee abused his authority to get sex. Is that such a far fetched idea?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee taught, which I figure he got from Nee, that a woman has no authority and needs to be "covered" by a man. He even said that single women, since they have no husband, should find a man to submit to, preferably an elder.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

So, Nee taught a system where single women needed to directly submit to some elder. I saw this kind of thing trying to be worked out in the LC and it was very awkward. Single women, usually a bit older, going up to elders seeking advice and permission like they were "under" them. I could see even as a naive kid that this was awkward and compromising.

Now, how many young women decided they should be "under" Nee? (I'm not being cute, but it is tempting.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this kind of culture could lead.

Yes Igzy you are easily tempted to roll in the mud. The only thing I can say to you in this regard is that you have been doing it for so long you don't realise that you are in the mud. Psychological clap trap does not make for a legal case of anything Igzy. I saw that you ran away from a real discussion on Psychology. I understand of course. Political life in the sociopolitical sense, in the USA, is overwhelmed with this garbage. I did try to tell you this but obviously Uncle Sam things he knows best!

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Yes Igzy you are easily tempted to roll in the mud. The only thing I can say to you in this regard is that you have been doing it for so long you don't realise that you are in the mud. Psychological clap trap does not make for a legal case of anything Igzy. I saw that you ran away from a real discussion on Psychology. I understand of course. Political life in the sociopolitical sense in the USA is overwhelmed with this garbage. I did try to tell you this but obvious Uncle Sam things he knows best!

Okay, you defenders of Kelly. Can you defend this?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, you do not appreciate the power Nee had. Age had little to do with it in his case. He was a "star" from the beginning. His views on spiritual authority were formed very early. He wrote "The Spiritual Man" when he was like 26. He had no peers, which is why he eventually decided he was the MOTA.

Again, rape could simply mean that Nee abused his authority to get sex. Is that such a far fetched idea?

Don't talk rubbish man. Did you know Nee personally? Then how on earth can you speak of his 'power'. You are just a fish swimming in a school of other fish. You think that you have developed some critical faculty, but you are simply watching the effluence from your fellow mates floating past your watery eyes. Get real and do some real factual critical analysis and stop this sociopsychological posturing.

[Elden1971]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You don't know what Little Flockers/Local Churchers are like. An LCer could have a master's degree and be as unsophisticated as a high schooler. I had two college degrees and was that way. We lived very sheltered lives and were extremely naive to the ways of the world. I can only imagine the Little Flock was more extreme in this regard.

This reminded me of my first visit to a LC meeting in Taiwan where I walked in at sat down in the first seat I found. Immediately Brothers came rushing to pull me to another seat. I Had sat down on the Sisters side! It reminded me of an orthodox Jewish synagogue. Complete separation.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, you defenders of Kelly. Can you defend this?

It doesn't need anyone to defend it Igzy. Are you blind and completely ignorant of your own offences Igzy. Apart from insinuating me in very nearly every post you make, the last time you actually found the courage to speak more plainly you brought my Grand Mother into the discussion. Stop being a hypocrite and start showing some real honesty. I don't need anyone to defend me IGZY. I am very capable of defending myself if I have to do so.

Stop the games Igzy and start some real work on explaining this book if it really interests you that much. Otherwise it is you who will not be taken seriously.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Don't talk rubbish man. Did you know Nee personally? Then how on earth can you speak of his 'power'.

Because I was in the movement he started. I have firsthand experience of the culture that has its origins with him. Witness Lee never submitted to anyone in his life but Nee. And when Nee went away Lee expected everyone in the world to submit to him. He thought he was Nee's successor and that meant to him he was the Minister of the Age to the entire Church in the world. I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

And Hsu's book told without a doubt that it started with Nee. Why? Because the culture she describes is so similar to the one I knew firsthand that it couldn't be a coincidence.

[Igzy]

Gee, Kelly. I tossed you a bone earlier. Where's your gratitude?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because I was in the movement he started. I have firsthand experience of the culture that has its origins with him. Witness Lee never submitted to anyone in his life but Nee. And when Nee went away Lee expected everyone in the world to submit to him. He thought he was Nee's successor and that meant to him he was the Minister of the Age to the entire Church in the world. I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

And Hsu's book told without a doubt that it started with Nee. Why? Because the culture she describes is so similar to the one I knew firsthand that it couldn't be a coincidence.

Movements generally do not advocate raping their members. Even the worst cults actually cover this kind of thing up. The facts Igzy are really simple. When Hsu tells us that Li Yuanru reported Nee to the elders in 1942 for the alleged forcible rape of a co-worker some eight years previously, Nee was at the time of the alleged rape, 29 years old. His co-worker was!!! Do you know Igzy?

As for the Minister of the Age issue. Its a red herring Igzy. Just a red herring. Stop chasing the dog Igzy and start preparing the pot for a chicken.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gee, Kelly. I tossed you a bone earlier. Where's your gratitude?

There is no gratitude Igzy from me. I am not filled by your sentimental approach to truth. You should just keep your trousers on and the belt fastened Igzy. I don't want you bones.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Movements generally do not advocate raping their members. Even the worst cults actually cover this kind of thing up.

Yeah, well, they covered it up. Duh!

I wish I had £100 for every religious movement down through history where a powerful, unquestioned founder or leader expected to be able to sample the sexual cookie jar. I could fly out to see you and stay a couple of weeks. We could go the pub, have a pint and maybe then slap some sense into each other. Or we could just put on the gloves and have a good old Irish bout. Either way it would be fun!

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

As for the Minister of the Age issue. Its a red herring Igzy. Just a red herring.

I completely disagree with that. I think it is very relevant, because it is a potential factor encouraging abuse of power.

[Elden1971]

I must admit I have enjoyed the postings by amrkelly and others. This has taken me back more the 50 years to my university debating days. I never lost a debate because I learned to be thorough in examining and researching both sides of an issue because you never knew which side you would be called upon to defend. Of course the more research one did the more convinced of the merits of one side over the other one would become. Obviously one preferred to defend the side that had the most merit. Nee and Lee were both flawed men and their teachings and practices reflect that. Thirty five years of research has clearly proven that to me. How easy it is to be distracted away from Christ. How grateful I am that at the lowest point of my life I was shown that nothing could separate me from the Love of God in Christ Jesus. I have rarely discussed Nee and Lee because I prefer to discuss Christ. God said it best " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased....Hear Ye Him!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Don't talk rubbish man. Did you know Nee personally? Then how on earth can you speak of his 'power'. You are just a fish swimming in a school of other fish. You think that you have developed some critical faculty, but you are simply watching the effluence from your fellow mates floating past your watery eyes. Get real and do some real factual critical analysis and stop this sociopsychological posturing.

Igzy, look how nasty he gets when you start explaining motive and opportunity like a prosecutor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

Don't talk rubbish man. Did you know Nee personally? Then how on earth can you speak of his 'power'. You are just a fish swimming in a school of other fish. You think that you have developed some critical faculty, but you are simply watching the effluence from your fellow mates floating past your watery eyes. Get real and do some real factual critical analysis and stop this sociopsychological posturing.

Here's Kelly exercising his critical faculty ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, well, they covered it up. Duh!

I wish I had £100 for every religious movement down through history where a powerful, unquestioned founder or leader expected to be able to sample the sexual cookie jar. I could fly out to see you and stay a couple of weeks. We could go the pub, have a pint and maybe then slap some sense into each other. Or we could just put on the gloves and have a good old Irish bout. Either way it would be fun!

Finally, someone is talking sense on this thread!

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by Elden1971

I must admit I have enjoyed the postings by amrkelly and others. This has taken me back more the 50 years to my university debating days. I never lost a debate because I learned to be thorough in examining and researching both sides of an issue because you never knew which side you would be called upon to defend. Of course the more research one did the more convinced of the merits of one side over the other one would become. Obviously one preferred to defend the side that had the most merit. Nee and Lee were both flawed men and their teachings and practices reflect that. Thirty five years of research has clearly proven that to me. How easy it is to be distracted away from Christ. How grateful I am that at the lowest point of my life I was shown that nothing could separate me from the Love of God in Christ Jesus. I have rarely discussed Nee and Lee because I prefer to discuss Christ. God said it best " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased....Hear Ye Him!"

Amen, Elden! I appreciate you, brother.


Here's another point, everyone.

In light of the fact that the biggest objection to Hsu's book is that she alleges rape, if Hsu just wanted to take Nee down and is making all this up, why go for the fences (that's a baseball term, Kelly) with the rape charge? Why not just say Nee had a bunch of sexual affairs and was immoral? Wouldn't that do the job well enough? Plus it would have been easier to believe, and would have done the damage that her detractors say she is trying to do. So why bother with the rape claims?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think critically? C'mon aron! That's the thing we never did when Lee gave us his own versions of history.

Right. And now we aren't doing it years and even decades later after exiting Lee's church system. Have we learned nothing in the interim? Has all our sad and painful experience brought us no wisdom at all? Going from duped by Lee to duped by Roberts/Hsu?

And you wonder where Kelly's epithet of "stupid Yanks" comes from... I don't like his bluntness either but if the shoe fits, what can I say?

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. And now we aren't doing it years and even decades later after exiting Lee's church system. Have we learned nothing in the interim? Has all our sad and painful experience brought us no wisdom at all? Going from duped by Lee to duped by Roberts/Hsu?

And you wonder where Kelly's epithet of "stupid Yanks" comes from... I don't like his bluntness either but if the shoe fits, what can I say?

Speak for yourself. You haven't shown me where my thinking is non-critical. All you've shown is you disagree with me. I know you are a critical thinker, aron. Please give me the same courtesy. Telling me that Hsu is only a single witness is pretty thin gruel.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not a very good analogy. To use your imagery, she may have needed to talk to a few people who managed to parachute out of the planes that did the damage. And talk to the few who managed to run out of the buildings before they collapsed. But she was on the plaza beneath the twin towers as they were hit.

She was actually in Shanghai. She, even though young, was there. She was raised on, or at least brought into, the thing that was the church in Shanghai during these times. She was a follower of Nee. She was damaged greatly by what was discovered.

And for all those who say that the trial was some kind of railroading, why would Nee admit to what he was charged with? Why would he admit openly that he was doing so many immoral things if it was not true? If it was a lie, then surely the man who thought only of the church would have refused to cause it to suffer under the notion that he was really an immoral person. To cause many to lose faith over it.

And this comment the other day about the handwriting that was said to not be Nee's, what matter does it make who wrote it down if there are those who heard him say it with their own ears? If it is true, then haggling over who wrote it down is a smokescreen. It is a distraction from the truth that Nee was immoral and not fit to teach Sunday School. And he knew it.

The only thing Hsu was an eyewitness to was the sham Chinese judicial process, and the hysteria that followed it. Period.

It's like saying that I was an eyewitness of the crowd chanting, "Crucify! Crucify! We have no king but Caesar!" Does that mean that I can now prove that Jesus was guilty as charged? Wake up. I can see why Kelly is so exasperated with this conversation. The book is a farce and so is this thread.

Here is an idea. Consider how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people were charged with crimes in China in the 1950s. Okay? Now, consider how many pled innocent, fought the charges successfully in court and got released. How many? Maybe someone can please come up with some numbers here. That would be very interesting to see.

Did Nee get subjected to anything even remotely resembling a fair trial? No? Then why all the hysteria and hoopla? Maybe because we like hysteria and hoopla? I really don't know.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Speak for yourself.

I was speaking to Ohio saying that I was trying to get him to think critically. Even if he was joking. I was not addressing you in particular.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You haven't shown me where my thinking is non-critical. All you've shown is you disagree with me. I know you are a critical thinker, aron. Please give me the same courtesy. Telling me that Hsu is only a single witness is pretty thin gruel.

You said that even if Hsu is only a single witness, that is okay because her demeanor seems good. I say that is not what Paul counseled Timothy.

It's pretty easy for a witness to disqualify themselves, by spinning yarn after yarn. "Uncle Witness Lee's story time" comes to mind. But it is harder, or should be, for some witness by their seeming placid demeanor, and because you can't immediately see glaring motives for them to lie, to overturn Paul's advice to Timothy on listening to multiple witnesses (and Paul was quoting Moses' Deuteronomy; he wasn't extemporizing) before coming to a decision.

And if I see this vapid reasoning repeating itself again and again under various guises I will call you on it. Or try to. And I understand I also am occasionally (often?) guilty of the same.

That we can err makes it all the more important, to me, to be certain before we pronounce judgment.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

As for the Minister of the Age issue. Its a red herring Igzy. Just a red herring.

It strikes you as a red herring only because even tho you've gone all in on Nee's publications, you've never gone all in into Nee's movement. You are an outsider bro Andrew ... Nee looks different from the inside of his movement. And being an outsider you are blind to much of Nee.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

The only thing Hsu was an eyewitness to was the sham Chinese judicial process, and the hysteria that followed it. Period.

False. She personally heard the confession of a sister who had an affair with Nee. She uses the word "rape" when talking about the sex. Plus there was Nee's excommunication years earlier, which was tied to this event.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by aron

I was speaking to Ohio saying that I was trying to get him to think critically. Even if he was joking. I was not addressing you in particular.

You said that even if Hsu is only a single witness, that is okay because her demeanor seems good. I say that is not what Paul counseled Timothy.

It's pretty easy for a witness to disqualify themselves, by spinning yarn after yarn. "Uncle Witness' story time" comes to mind. But it is harder, or should be, for some witness by their seeming placid demeanor, and because you can't immediately see glaring motives for them to lie, to overturn Paul's advice to Timothy on listening to witnesses (and Paul was quoting Moses' Deuteronomy; he wasn't extemporizing).

If I see this vapid reasoning repeating itself again and again under various guises I will call you on it. Or try to. And I understand I also am occasionally (often?) guilty of the same.

That we can err makes it all the more important, to me, to be certain before we pronounce judgment.

Well, you didn't say I wasn't Biblical, you said my thinking was not critical.

I haven't pronounced judgment on anyone. I'm saying the allegations are not as farfetched as some are building their defense on. I'm pointing out why the story can make sense.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

That we can err makes it all the more important, to me, to be certain before we pronounce judgment.

Right you are bro aron. But now we're stuck. Cuz even if we doubt Dr. Hsu we now have to live with doubting Watchman Nee too.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Amen, Elden! I appreciate you, brother.


Here's another point, everyone.

In light of the fact that the biggest objection to Hsu's book is that she alleges rape, if Hsu just wanted to take Nee down and is making all this up, why go for the fences (that's a baseball term, Kelly) with the rape charge? Why not just say Nee had a bunch of sexual affairs and was immoral? Wouldn't that do the job well enough? Plus it would have been easier to believe, and would have done the damage that her detractors say she is trying to do. So why bother with the rape claims?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I completely disagree with that. I think it is very relevant, because it is a potential factor encouraging abuse of power.

The fact that you disagree with it Igzy is unsurprising. That is the whole relevance of making proper contextual and factual analysis before you go on to apply the more religious dynamic of why or how it happened. No one really wants to do that. You have mostly made your minds up and then on that basis you have skipped to the end of the book.

Dr Hsu hasn't used the term rape lightly. She intends it to mean forcible rape. Li Yuanru did not report that Nee has seduced his co-worker she reported that Nee forcibly raped his co-worker. It cannot mean anything other than what it sounds like. That is the testimony of Hsu and she says that Joshua Yu is the source of that evidence.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

False. She personally heard the confession of a sister who had an affair with Nee. She uses the word "rape" when talking about the sex. Plus there was Nee's excommunication years earlier, which was tied to this event.

That is a plain lie Igzy. I made this very point yesterday. Why not do the research for yourself if you don't believe me when I tell you that Dr Hsu does not cite any words which amount to a reasonable basis for saying nee raped that particular sister? The sister does not say that Nee raped her, she does not even say that Nee had a sexual relationship with her. All she is recorded as having said is that Nee took the picture of her naked. Hsu herself says it only because she claims that Nee confessed to it. Yet in that account of having read Nee's so-called confession, Hsu uses two words. One is 'affair' and the other is her narrative of what she read, and she asserts 'raped'. You can plead ignorance if you want to IGZY but you are wilfully refusing to use your mind. Dr Hsu claims that the statement itself says Nee had 'affairs' with two-coworkers, but when she comes to describing her reaction or feelings about that divesting piece of information she says Nee 'raped' two co-workers. That Igzy is an utterly false presentation by any standard.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

The fact that you disagree with it Igzy is unsurprising. That is the whole relevance of making proper contextual and factual analysis before you go on to apply the more religious dynamic of why or how it happened. No one really wants to do that. You have mostly made your minds up and then on that basis you have skipped to the end of the book.

Dr Hsu hasn't used the term rape lightly. She intends it to mean forcible rape. Li Yuanru did not report that Nee has seduced his co-worker she reported that Nee forcibly raped his co-worker. It cannot mean anything other than what it sounds like. That is the testimony of Hsu and she says that Joshua Yu is the source of that evidence.

The impetus of your objection to Hsu is based on the fact that you don't like the allegation of rape. You've made that clear. But, whether you like the term or not tells us nothing about the story. It just means that the idea that Nee raped anyone offends you. You are basically saying you don't think Nee could have raped anyone and that is the basis of your defense. Okay, fine. But it's not enough for me.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

That is a plain lie Igzy. I made this very point yesterday. Why not do the research for yourself if you don't believe men when I tell you that Dr Hsu does not cite any words which amount to a reasonable basis for saying nee raped that particular sister. The sister does not say and Hsu herself says it only because she claims that Nee confessed to it. Yet in that account of having read Nee's so-called confession Hsu uses two words. One is 'affair' and the other in her narrative to what she read asserts rape. You can plead ignorance if you want to IGZY but you are wilfully refusing to use your mind.

So what does that prove? Do you believe her that a sister came to her with stories of sex with Nee, but you don't believe that it was a rape? Or are you saying because she is inconsistent that the book should be thrown out completely?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The impetus of your objection to Hsu is based on the fact that you don't like allegation of rape. You've made that clear. But, whether you like the term or not tells us nothing about the story. It just means that the idea that Nee raped anyone offends you. You are basically saying you don't think Nee could have raped anyone and that is the basis of your defense. Okay, fine. But it's not enough for me.

If I received a phone call tomorrow telling me that Igzy is asking for you and you told me that you had been accused of rape I would not turn away from you. I would ask you to try to be honest with me. Then I would defend you to the fullest possible measure. The term rape does not offend me it is when men are accused of rape which offends me if I have reasonable grounds to believe it is a false accusation. I am not even offended by rape itself. It happens countless numbers of times across the world on a daily basis. It is men and it is the flesh of men.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what does that prove? Do you believe her that a sister came to her with stories of sex with Nee, but you don't believe that it was a rape? Or are you saying because she is inconsistent that the book should be thrown out completely?

I am saying I can prove that it was the Chinese Government who has promoted the term rape in connection with Nee long before Hsu even dreamt of proving the possibility of anything, let alone rape.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

I am saying I can prove that it was the Chinese Government who has promoted the term rape in connection with Nee long before Hsu even dreamt of proving the possibility of anything let alone rape.

So you don't believe that a sister confessed to Hsu that she had sex with Nee?

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

I am saying I can prove that it was the Chinese Government who has promoted the term rape in connection with Nee long before Hsu even dreamt of proving the possibility of anything let alone rape.

Let me get this straight. You can prove that Hsu got the idea that Nee raped (someone) from the Chinese Government, not from any other source? Is that what you are saying?

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you don't believe that a sister confessed to Hsu that she had sex with Nee?

I am saying Igzy that Dr Hsu herself doesn't say that a sister confessed to anything more than the journey to the hotel and the taking of a photograph. What I think really happened is irrelevant. Until we move beyond conspiracy theories and establish the material facts as set out by Dr Hsu we are not even in a position to challenge those facts. Facts Igzy in this sense have to be divided between the narrative (story telling first person) and the claims of what constitutes facts, in the third person narrative diction and that by means of a name, a reference or page number, paragraph, and line, and or by citation to a third party source. So in the case of Rape this would be Joshua Yu on two counts of rape and Dr Lilly Hsu on one count of rape. Nee is the third party by reason of his own confession. What rape, where raped, how raped, not why raped.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me get this straight. You can prove that Hsu got the idea that Nee raped (someone) from the Chinese Government, not from any other source? Is that what you are saying?

You may as well either ignore me Igzy or else start reading what I actually say. I am not a story teller, nor a gossip. Sometimes I do stray into personal vitriol, but assuming that much at least is easily recognised, the things that I am saying, are said from a forensic position.

What I said Igzy, is that I can prove that the Chinese Government itself initiated the accusations of rape and this pre-dates any other reference in either China or the Western world claiming that Nee raped women. That includes anything which Dr Hsu had either written or claimed herself.

What I am not saying because it would be subjective presumption, is that Dr Hsu took that claim of rape from the Communist publication I am making reference to.

The fact of the matter is very simple. Did anyone anywhere accuse Nee of rape before 1987 either in China or the Western world. I can prove by publication and Congress Registry Book record that the Chinese government appointed 6 researchers to study the religious situation in Shanghai in 1983 just after Bishop Ting came to his office of the TSMP movement. The publication is supported by the words and encouragement of the man who presided at Nee's denunciation hearing in January 1956. He was the then chief of the BRA. His name is Luo Zhufeng.

Only one man and one church is singled out in this official publication, for special attention, and that is Ni Tuoshen and the Shanghai Christian Assembly. I am not making a doubtful claim am I Igzy it is clear, precise and cannot be retracted can it?

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

I am saying Igzy that Dr Hsu herself doesn't say that a sister confessed to anything more than the journey to the hotel and the taking of a photograph.

You left out the part about her being naked. So you think she got naked for him and they were't having a sexual relationship? He took the picture "while I was naked" implies she got naked for something other than the picture.

I think you are squinting too hard to try to blur the picture the book paints. Put the book at arms length and tell me what you see.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You left out the part about her being naked. So you think she got naked for him and they were't having a sexual relationship? He took the picture "while I was naked" implies she got naked for something other than the picture.

I think you are squinting too hard to try to blur the picture the book paints. Put the book at arms length and tell me what you see.

I see a great ocean that separates me from an ugly man squinting at me with a book in his hand.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

What I said Igzy is that I can prove that the Chinese Government itself initiated the accusations of rape and this pre-dates any other reference in either China or the Western world claiming that Nee raped women. That includes anything which Dr Hsu had either written or claimed herself.

Well, sure. But I would have believed that even if you didn't prove it. But I think it indicates less than you might think.

Why? Because again you need to know the LF/LC culture. They didn't use words like rape. Or even sex. They took seriously even talking about such things, especially in regards to their own being involved in illicit things. They avoided the subject and only talked in very sanitized terms.

Example? John Ingall's book, Speaking the Truth in Love, where he talks about the discoveries of Witness Lee's son Philip being sexually involved with LC sisters, even married ones. When you read it, Ingalls never uses the word sex in the whole book. The worst term I think he uses is "acts of immorality." He doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about what these acts were, even though PL was caught redhanded doing them and being more graphic would have probably strengthened his argument. (I only learned graphic detail later from individuals on the Internet). That was just the culture. LCers took seriously the verse "it's a shame to even speak of the things done by them in secret." I remember getting frustrated reading Ingalls' book because he would never speak clearly what happened.

So it doesn't surprise me that you cannot find any mention of rape or even sex before the Communists used the terms. But that in itself probably demonstrates less than you think.

[Igzy]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

I see a great ocean that separates me from an ugly man squinting at me with a book in his hand.

Careful, Kelly. I can still jump on a plane and come over there and whup your butt. I'm from Texas, you know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. And now we aren't doing it years and even decades later after exiting Lee's church system. Have we learned nothing in the interim? Has all our sad and painful experience brought us no wisdom at all? Going from duped by Lee to duped by Roberts/Hsu?

And you wonder where Kelly's epithet of "stupid Yanks" comes from... I don't like his bluntness either but if the shoe fits, what can I say?

I'm looking for explanations. One that fits the facts. Where have any of been duped by Hsu? What kind of glass slipper do you have?

Methinks it is you who have gone to extremes, how else can you justify anyone as rude and obnoxious as Kelly? Call that blunt? Puleeeeeeease.

[amrkelly]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, sure. But I would have believed that even if you didn't prove it. But I think it indicates less than you might think.

Why? Because again you need to know the LF/LC culture. They didn't use words like rape. Or even sex. They took seriously even talking about such things, especially in regards to their own being involved in illicit things. They avoided the subject and only talked in very sanitized terms.

Example? John Ingall's book, Speaking the Truth in Love, where he talks about the discoveries of Witness Lee's son Philip being sexually involved with LC sisters, even married ones. When you read it, Ingalls never uses the word sex in the whole book. The worst term I think he uses is "acts of immorality." He doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about what these acts were, even though PL was caught redhanded doing them and being more graphic would have probably strengthened his argument. (I only learned graphic detail later from individuals on the Internet ). That was just the culture. LCers took seriously the verse "it's a shame to even speak of the things done by them in secret." I remember getting frustrated reading Ingalls book because he would never speak clearly what happened.

So it doesn't surprise me that you cannot find any mention of rape or even sex before the Communists used the terms. But that in itself probably demonstrates less than you think.

The culture of events which happened in the Local Churches in the USA may well have a bearing on just about anything. Not least the people who were directly involved in their physical bodies. But Nee wasn't directly involved in the USA in his physical body. To keep arguing that his teachings, even if we adopt the popular meaning of those teachings, is relevant before the fact, in this instance rape, is completely nonsensical. It presupposes that Nee was guilty of either rape or at least of sexual indiscretions amounting to gross misconduct.

You are missing the point Igzy. Dr Hsu is a medical doctor and a very well educated women. It is absolutely clear that her intention is to use the word rape. She does it no less that six times in the first person narrative diction. The other three times the term is used, it is in connection with third party quotations. But in all these instances she uses the world rape or raped. She wrote the book and she is clearly not inhibited by any cultural restraints whatsoever.

In legal parlance the FACT is rape, and the EVIDENCE is whatever it proven to be admissible, whether it is proven to be true or not. To argue a form of guilt before establishing the FACT or else to change the FACT is to pervert the EVIDENCE, and amounts to attempting to pervert the course of justice. Such a manoeuvre in a Court of Law would provoke a judge to throw the case out of court and to dismiss it altogether as unproven by reason no EVIDENCE being offered. You either withdraw the charge or else seek for a lesser charge. What you do not do is to introduce a charge of rape in order to prove something else.

Nee didn't get a fair trial. He was denounced by 12 men and women for crimes against the state. They were political crimes. The sexual 'evidence' has been challenged in your sight in the past few days by the statement of Xu Feili who was a medical student at the same time as Xu Mei Li. He met her and knows who she was at that time. Xu Mei Li (Dr Hsu) contacted Xu Feili in the USA in the early 1990s whilst he was living in Pasadena to encourage him to support her in a process of further denouncing Watchman Nee. He refused and stated to her that he did not believe that her endeavours would bring a blessing and approval from God in heaven.

Xu Feili testifies that Xu Mei Li perjured herself by falsely seeking to assert that the negative film clearly showed who the naked lady was. He said the film was unrecognisable and that the lady was without a head. He also stated that he heard in Shanghai at that time of a political prisoner, Chen Pixian, the First Secretary of East China Bureau, now fallen out of favour, who was similarly accused with the crime of licentiousness by means of the same piece of film evidence.

The only other source of ordinary evidence in this instance of Xu Mei Li's book represents the efforts of Joshua Yu, Xu Mei Li and Dana Roberts over a period spanning nearly 20 years. It stands to reason that it is this evidence which must be more thoroughly tested for consistency, integrity and a clear point of origination. I have said it before but this fact is indirectly acknowledged in the endorsements of the book by no less than thirteen men. The majority of these men make the claim that the book is well researched and therefore therein lies its strength. The preface is written by Joshua Yu and he also makes the very same argument in support of the book. In doing what I am doing I can only be proving the substance of their claim.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by amrkelly

she reported that Nee forcibly raped his co-worker. It cannot mean anything other than what it sounds like.

And it could be so. It might have actually happened. But we can't know for certain. So it might not have happen. There's no legal record of it. It's all circumstantial to us.

But as Dylan said:

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters ..."