Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

Doyle is a scholar and expert on Chinese culture, religion, and history. Check out his credentials. Such a person knows how to do research and knows the standard of scholarly acceptance. Why would he "simply repeat" anything? What possible motive would he have to want to take down Nee?

Lee and the BBs, on the other hand, have no credentials, and a history of lies, bombast and conspiracies to take down whomever got in their way, not to mention expecting everyone to "simply repeat" what they say!

My question is why would you choose to believe and simply repeat them?

[Cal]

New name for the BBs. The Bombastic Brothers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee and the BBs, on the other hand, have no credentials, and a history of lies, bombast and conspiracies to take down whomever got in their way, not to mention expecting everyone to "simply repeat" what they say!

LSM Standard Rebuttal #1: You are taking things out of context

LSM Standard Rebuttal #2: You are simply repeating others' lies.

For a ministry so obsessed with training their young people to become "Witness Lee Tape Recorders," it's a little hypocritical to condemn others for what you alone are doing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM Standard Rebuttal #1: You are taking things out of context.

LSM's standard procedure is to take things out of context.

WL: "Christianity believes that... etc". Okay: who in Christianity? There are literally millions of Christians out there, saying and writing all kinds of things. But from WL all we got was "Christians teach that...". No quote; no representative sample. Just a generalization.

No due diligence. No research. No quotes. No context. Just a blanket statement. A generalization that is supposed to contain all of "Christianity".

And then they say that others are taking them out of context?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

LSM's standard procedure is to take things out of context.

WL: "Christianity believes that... etc". Okay: who in Christianity? There are literally millions of Christians out there, saying and writing all kinds of things. But from WL all we got was "Christians teach that...". No quote; no representative sample. Just a generalization.

No due diligence. No research. No quotes. No context. Just a blanket statement. A generalization that is supposed to contain all of "Christianity".

And then they say that others are taking them out of context?

Lee would always compare the best of the Recovery and the worst of "Christianity." He even had a hard time saying anything nice about Billy Graham, even though hundreds (maybe thousands?) in the Recovery were saved thru his ministry.

The more I read about Witness Lee and his ministry the more I see a plethora of perfect parallels with the Pharisees of old.

[Cal]

Nee's guilt or innocence in regard to the allegations by Hsu and others is unclear.

However, LSM's categorical rejection of such allegations clearly indicates a lack of sobriety and willingness to objectively weight evidence and clues, and hence dismisses them as serious thinkers. They have stated plainly that anyone who questions the character of Nee has ill motives. But how would they know? None of them knew Nee. Everything they know about him is based largely on what Witness Lee said.

But given the fact that Lee displayed a clear pattern of slanting history in his favor, as evidenced by his character assassination of anyone who stood in his way, doesn't it stand to reason that he might prop up the reputation of someone if doing so would lend him credibility? If he would throw T.A. Sparks, John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon and many others under the bus, wouldn't he also place Nee on a pedestal if it fit his goals?

That doesn't mean he did that. But anyone who states categorically that Lee wouldn't do such a thing, or that those who question Lee or Nee have ill motives, does not possess a state of mind which can objectively assess reality. What they possess is a fanatical closed-mindedness.

LSMers are free to weigh evidence and come to their own conclusions. The problem is they don't do this. They categorically reject any evidence which doesn't support the conclusions they like. They should not be considered serious participants in any discussion for which they refuse to adopt the objectivity and humility requisite to be taken seriously.

Again, Nee may be guilty or innocent. Anyone who states flatly that guilt is not possible cannot be in possession of a sober mind.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

However, LSM's categorical rejection of such allegations clearly indicates a lack of sobriety and willingness to objectively weight evidence and clues, and hence dismisses them as serious thinkers.

Absolutely! Any history of the LC system/Little Flock coming out of LSM cannot be taken seriously. It is promotional marketing material.

Originally Posted by Igzy

...given the fact that Lee displayed a clear pattern of slanting history in his favor, as evidenced by his character assassination of anyone who stood in his way, doesn't it stand to reason that he might prop up the reputation of someone if doing so would lend him credibility? If he would throw T.A. Sparks, John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon and many others under the bus, wouldn't he also place Nee on a pedestal if it fit his goals?

Yes he would!

Witness Lee had a certain historical narrative he wanted his followers to blindly accept: Watchman Nee was the MOTA who appointed Witness Lee as his sole successor to be the next MOTA. And this transfer took place when Lee left the Mainland and went to Taiwan. To perpetuate this kind of narrative he had to effectively do two things:

1. Cover up anything negative about himself and Nee.

2. Remove those along the way who would question the validity of such a narrative.

Continuing this narrative the BB ousted Titus Chu because they consider themselves the sole successor of Witness Lee i.e. the MOTA by committee.

Just as Witness Lee needed a sanitized version of Nee to lend himself credibility so the BB need such a version of Lee (and to a lessor extent Nee). But at least it can be said of Lee that he came up with some of his own content apart from Nee. The BB not only need Witness Lee for credibility they are mere tape recorders of his material. IMHO that's a sad commentary on Lee's ability to equip others for real ministry!

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Absolutely! Any history of the LC system/Little Flock coming out of LSM cannot be taken seriously. It is promotional marketing material.

1. Cover up anything negative about himself and Nee.

2. Remove those along the way who would question the validity of such a narrative.

Alas, we have found the motive for Lee writing the biography of Nee! This is a significant discovery! In a court of law, motive is crucial. It proves (or provides evidence) that the defendant is guilty of premeditated crime.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee had a certain historical narrative he wanted his followers to blindly accept: Watchman Nee was the MOTA who appointed Witness Lee as his sole successor to be the next MOTA. And this transfer took place when Lee left the Mainland and went to Taiwan. To perpetuate this kind of narrative he had to effectively do two things:

1. Cover up anything negative about himself and Nee.

Kind of like this conversation back in 1973 -- "Sure Mr. Ford you can be president, just as long as you provide Mr. Nixon with a complete pardon."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM Standard Rebuttal #1: You are taking things out of context

LSM Standard Rebuttal #2: You are simply repeating others' lies.

Ironically Ohio, your post here indicates practices in the LC/LSM

1. Taking things out of context-when quoting one verse from the Bible they take out of context what the context of that passage is.

2. Repeating others lies- when referring to brothers who had left the LC/LSM. When confronted about the lies, one can expect to hear an out clause spoken: "honoring the feeling of the Body"