My Thoughts On The "Split"..

[sentipente]

Sigh--sigh--there is no problem understanding English on my part. But I will NOT get a racial thing going in this forum as some seem to what to.

The split in Conferences had nothing to do with skin color--it had to do with 'worship styles'. And that is much of the case today. And please--do NOT make the mistake of calling this an "insult to African-American"--it is not.

Honor, you need to study Adventist denominational history before you make statements like this that are completely negated by the facts.

 

[moicherie]

Sigh--sigh--there is no problem understanding English on my part. But I will NOT get a racial thing going in this forum as some seem to what to.

The split in Conferences had nothing to do with skin color--it had to do with 'worship styles'. And that is much of the case today. And please--do NOT make the mistake of calling this an "insult to African-American"--it is not.

And so--with that said--I am done with this racial topic.

Fair enough , but historical facts are far removed from what your want to think happened. Being a person of colour I have more interest in not seeing revisionist history aka lies being spread about my church's dismal race relations record.
A book called 'We have tomorrow' will tell the ignorant all about what really happened back in the 1940's.

 

[StormyOne]

Sigh--sigh--there is no problem understanding English on my part. But I will NOT get a racial thing going in this forum as some seem to what to.

The split in Conferences had nothing to do with skin color--it had to do with 'worship styles'. And that is much of the case today. And please--do NOT make the mistake of calling this an "insult to African-American"--it is not.

And so--with that said--I am done with this racial topic.

Because you are wrong... we told you 2 years ago that you were wrong about how the conferences were split and you still cling to that lie.... the split was cause because white adventist men in power did not want to promote black leaders so they suggested and implemented the concept of "regional conferences."

The sad thing about your comment is that you hold yourself out to be a "traditional adventist" and you have NO clue as to how the church has operated historically or now.... you don't even know the traditions of the church, yet you cling to the label....

 

[StormyOne]

From an eyewitness who is now 93, but was at the very first meeting. She said the following:

Iwas 31 years old in 1944 at the time of
the organization of the first of the
Regional conferences. I was living in
Inkster, Michigan, rearing my family. I
had taken the teacher’s training course at
Oakwood Junior College, and had completed
that course several years earlier.
You might wonder how I happened to have been at the
occasion of the announcement of Regional conferences,
which took place in Chicago, Illinois, at the Stevenson Hotel.
At the time, my husband was doing colporteur work. The conference
had said that anyone who sold $1,000 worth of books
that month would get a trip to this particular meeting. And by
virtue of the fact that I was his wife, he took me along; so I was
able to be in on the proceedings.
Who’s on First?
I would say neither Black clergy nor laypersons actually
pushed the start of Regional conferences. To be exact, the
meeting at the Stevenson Hotel was called by the White leaders.
Most of the Black ministers and workers in North America
were asked to attend. For the most part, they didn’t even
know why they were being invited or what this meeting was
all about. So I cannot say that either laypersons or clergy were
pushing the start of Regional conferences. They did not know
that the Regional conferences were going to be organized
when they went to that meeting in Chicago. Regional conferences
were introduced by the General Conference, not the
Black brethren at the time.

 

[moicherie]

From an eyewitness who is now 93, but was at the very first meeting. She said the following:

Thanks for this. I now hope the lie that 'you people wanted it' and 'it was about worship styles' rests in the Hades where it belongs.

Ok back to your scheduled programme folks.

 

[sentipente]

Thanks for this. I now hope the lie that 'you people wanted it' and 'it was about worship styles' rests in the Hades where it belongs.

Hope springs eternal.

 

[StormyOne]

Thanks for this. I now hope the lie that 'you people wanted it' and 'it was about worship styles' rests in the Hades where it belongs.

Ok back to your scheduled programme folks.

Probably not, but if anyone doubts what I have posted PM I will give you the name and number of the person who was an eyewitness and you can contact them yourself, hear it from her own lips.... the truth doesn't have to hide.... revisionist history is laughable.....

 

[SpeakNow]

If you were to have asked my late grandmother where the blame for the division was to lie, you'd get a totally different story than the one StormyOne posted.

It's all in perspective.

This forum did not have a problem with racism, but I think they're experiencing one now, in the reverse. Why bring this in here? Is there not enough strife already?

You're just proving further that we are not able to get over something that happened over 60 years ago. Most of us were not alive then and the people in this forum are not the ones you need to take this matter up with.

You're spouting a message of hatred for the church instead of the people responsible or not responsible for a division long before you and I were even born.

This isn't about racism and you know it, but you're trying to make it that way now.

I will not engage in this conversation any longer, it is a waste of good typing.

Honorthesabbath, you are being baited into a debate you cannot win. If they want to believe anyone in here is responsible for what happened 60 years ago, let them feel that way.

Personally I think they're going to have a really hard time adhering to any new rules about personal attacks, so I'm surprised they voted for that option.

Progress...live up to your self-given name and overcome and PROGRESS.

 

[sentipente]

SpeakNow, what are you on about? No one is blaming anyone here for what happened 60 years ago. No one is making racism an issue here. It seems you are the one who would like to introduce it.

 

[StormyOne]

If you were to have asked my late grandmother where the blame for the division was to lie, you'd get a totally different story than the one StormyOne posted.

It's all in perspective.

This forum did not have a problem with racism, but I think they're experiencing one now, in the reverse. Why bring this in here? Is there not enough strife already?

You're just proving further that we are not able to get over something that happened over 60 years ago. Most of us were not alive then and the people in this forum are not the ones you need to take this matter up with.

You're spouting a message of hatred for the church instead of the people responsible or not responsible for a division long before you and I were even born.

This isn't about racism and you know it, but you're trying to make it that way now.

I will not engage in this conversation any longer, it is a waste of good typing.

Honorthesabbath, you are being baited into a debate you cannot win. If they want to believe anyone in here is responsible for what happened 60 years ago, let them feel that way.

Personally I think they're going to have a really hard time adhering to any new rules about personal attacks, so I'm surprised they voted for that option.

Progress...live up to your self-given name and overcome and PROGRESS.

well since your late grandmother cannot provide testimony, then I will have to listen to the LIVING witnesses... which include E.E. Cleveland, Frank Hale Jr, Charles Dudley, Alice Brantley, C.D. Brooks, among others... so according to you they are all lying? I think not....

As for this place, I have never said there was racism here... I have said that people don't know what they are talking about, that people belong to a church and have no idea about its history, and that would include you Speak Now.... that's all I am saying....

 

[SpeakNow]

I will not engage in anymore conversations with you Sentipente, because it has proven to be a waste of my typing skills. However, there wasn't a whisper about racism until everyone came over here from BSDA.

Now that it's here, I won't be a part of it. I do not feel discriminated against by the people in this forum.

 

[StormyOne]

I will not engage in anymore conversations with you Sentipente, because it has proven to be a waste of my typing skills. However, there wasn't a whisper about racism until everyone came over here from BSDA.

Now that it's here, I won't be a part of it. I do not feel discriminated against by the people in this forum.

well duh... how many black folks were here 2 yrs ago before some from bsda came here? Of course there was no racism (not saying there is now), if there were no people of color here and that fact was known.....

 

[SpeakNow]

Stormy, then why stay a member in a church with such a horrible past? If you really thought it was a problem today, you wouldn't stick around and I think you know that.

As it stands now there are a list of fundamental beliefs that the organized church stresses. If someone has a problem with that, they need to go to the proper people about it.

It isn't going to get changed on a MESSAGE BOARD.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[sentipente]

I will not engage in anymore conversations with you Sentipente, because it has proven to be a waste of my typing skills. However, there wasn't a whisper about racism until everyone came over here from BSDA.

You are the one who raised the spectre of racism. Moicherie referenced the church's racial division as an example of our tendency to divide ourselves. You then pounced on that and decided to form a debate around an innocent incidental remark.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, then why stay a member in a church with such a horrible past? If you really thought it was a problem today, you wouldn't stick around and I think you know that.

As it stands now there are a list of fundamental beliefs that the organized church stresses. If someone has a problem with that, they need to go to the proper people about it.

It isn't going to get changed on a MESSAGE BOARD.

I'm done with this thread.

that is a tired argument and a tired question..... America has a checkered past but no one is talking about moving to another country.... besides you are attempting to shift the discussion, we are talking about the reason for the historical split 60 years ago. It was simple and the truth is there... now why are you trying to deny or minimize it is the question....

 

[moicherie]

Ok Speaknow go back and read what I actually posted. Does it say there is racism on this board? No. Does it mention race as an example (we do know what an example is right?) of Adventist separating? Yes
So those of you who brought up the 'there is no racism here' no one said there was so stop getting your Victoria's Secret all twisted.....Pleaze!

 

[honorthesabbath]

I told you ALL that I refuse to play the race card and I mean. It's totally stupid.

 

[Mankin]

Are you talking about me? Mankin.

Of course I am talking about you. Maybe if you could get over the fact that age has nothing to do with intelligence of polls. Never mind. I have no need to introduce another argument into this thread.

 

[Mankin]

How has this thread gotten to the topic of racism? Man, we Adventists want to argue about everything.

 

[awesumtenor]

Christians are good at splitting up hence so many denominations. Adventists are no different we even had to split based on race rather than learn to appreciate a darker looking skin... For shame!

Actually, this is not true... we did not *have* to split... and those who desired inclusion did not seek to split... unfortunately it was those who insisted on exclusion who made the call...

Some things, it seems, never change.

In His service,
Mr. J