Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The following is just a portion of what is available at:
http://h0bbes.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/the-beginning-of-regional-conferences-in-the-us-iii/
Check it out for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
"In October 1928, W. H. Greenthe Colored Secretary of the General Conference (GC)died. His position was not filled immediately as many Black ministers felt that the only way to improve the work among Negroes of the country is to organize colored conferences, whereby the colored people may handle their own money, employ their own workers and so develop administrative ability and all cultural lines of work to organize Negro conferences that would function in exactly the same relation to the General Conference as white conferences. (Quoted in Jacob Justiss Angels in Ebony p46.)
After discussion, the GC appointed a commission of eleven Whites and five Blacks to study the issue. J. K. Humphrey had been one of the Black ministers calling for Black Conferences and was one of those appointed to the commission. Humphrey later accused the White members of the committee of meeting separately and asking the Black members of the committee to rubber-stamp their decision that Black Conferences were not appropriate. Humphrey later left the SDA Church and formed the United Sabbath Day Adventist Church.
By 1944 however, the situation had changedthe Black membership of the church had grown considerably and Black members were better educated and more confident than in the past. This lead a group of Black SDA laity to form the National Association for the Advancement of World-wide Work Among Colored Seventh-day Adventists on October 16, 1943. The group was chaired by Joseph T. Dodson, other members included Eva B. Dykesone of the first Black American woman to receive a PhD, while the Corresponding Secretary was Valarie Justissthe second SDA Black woman to receive a PhD."
Jim,Thanks MVA, I appreciate your research on this. I guess my main question for today is why do they continue to have two separate conferences? I could understand it if they were in another country but to me having two separate conferences right here in the good ole U.S.A. is unnecessary. Just my opinion.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Senti,You also did not read it carefully because you were more interested in defending your position than in finding the truth.
I am not questioning your interest nor am I talking down to you.Senti,
You over step your bounds. If I wasn't interested why would I spend any time reading over the link that Stormy posted?
Why don't you go talk down to some one else.
That much is true. It is obvious that the black ministers were frustrated at the way they were being treated. The powers could have corrected whatever it was that made the ministers suggest colored conferences. They chose to maintain the status quo and separate. The ball was in their court and they dropped it.. From the three different things that I have read it sounds like some confusing times.
My fault - I was in the heat of the moment mode.I am not questioning your interest nor am I talking down to you.
I am put off when someone makes a contribution without carefully considering its relevance to the discussion because I have to take time to read what is submitted.
We are talking about a very short quotation that was entirely made up of problematic information. It is not as if it was hidden in several paragraphs of material.
BLACK SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
AND CHURCH LOYALTY
by Charles E. Bradford, D.D.
J. L. McElhany, General Conference president; W. H.
Branson, GC general vice president; and J. J. Nether-y, pres-
ident of the Lake Union, became change agents. African-
American pastors may have initially brought up the idea of
colored conferences in 1929, but in 1944 it was placed on
the agenda by the most powerful leaders in the denomina-
tion. At the Spring Meeting of the GC Committee, held in
Chicago, Illinois, in 1944, the question was put first to a
special delegation of African-American leaders, many of
whom were skeptical as to the reason for the rumored es-
tablishment of Black conferences.
http://www.oakwood.edu/ocgoldmine/ldoc/perspectives/perspective1.pdf
This quote is towards the end of the document. From the three different things that I have read it sounds like some confusing times.
It is a human problem The irony is Christ's followers have no desire to fulfill his prayer of John 17I am especially ashamed of our colleges for not allowing black's into programs like nursing or medical schools back then. I think you are right it was a confusing time. We can't change the past but we can do something to make a wrong right now. I see now the real cause of our black conferences. So why don't they take steps to correct the past mistakes now? There's absolutely no reason now or ever in the past to have separate conferences. God is no repector of persons so why should we be?
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Confusing for who? Not the General Conference they knew what they wanted and they got it. Did you know the GC practised Jim Crow? Yes the remnat church looking to heaven endorsed the American version of aparthied, the South African conference endorsed it to. Our church's history in race relations is a disgrace.BLACK SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTSAND CHURCH LOYALTY
by Charles E. Bradford, D.D.
J. L. McElhany, General Conference president; W. H.
Branson, GC general vice president; and J. J. Nether-y, pres-
ident of the Lake Union, became change agents. African-
American pastors may have initially brought up the idea of
“colored conferences” in 1929, but in 1944 it was placed on
the agenda by the most powerful leaders in the denomina-
tion. At the Spring Meeting of the GC Committee, held in
Chicago, Illinois, in 1944, the question was put first to a
special delegation of African-American leaders, many of
whom were skeptical as to the reason for the rumored es-
tablishment of Black conferences.
http://www.oakwood.edu/ocgoldmine/ldoc/perspectives/perspective1.pdf
This quote is towards the end of the document. From the three different things that I have read it sounds like some confusing times.
And what would you suggest we do?Confusing for who? Not the General Conference they knew what they wanted and they got it. Did you know the GC practised Jim Crow? Yes the remnat church looking to heaven endorsed the American version of aparthied, the South African conference endorsed it to. Our church's history in race relations is a disgrace.
The first thing is to admit the truth instead of obfuscating matters by suggesting that blacks are to blame for the continued state of affairs. Whatever truth there is to that statement the result is a diversion from the real problem.And what would you suggest we do?
The first step to dealing with a problem is admitting there is one. At the moment the church is living near De Nile.And what would you suggest we do?
Well--welcome to the 'club' MVA!Every person's experience with the police is unique.
I am definitely interested in intelligent, honest discussion.
I am not the only one here that has come defending a point of view.
Both you and moicherie have essentially called me a racist because of my comments.
Amen Jim--very true. Can you say Don Imus?I think there is a lot of validity to what you say. For instance my daughter who is sixteen likes to listen to rap. I never have liked rap just from a personal taste of the way it sounded but after I actually listened to what some of these charcters were saying in these rap albums I forbid her to listen to it at all. These guys are putting out some of the most vulgar, obscene and disrespectful narratives I've heard in a long time. Especially some of the things they say about women is off the chart bad. I think she is still listening to it behind my back but not in our home. I used to listen to Elvis Presly, the Everly Brothers and many more at the time when I was a kid and my dad didn't like them either but at least Elvis and the others didn't use the "N" word in their songs or talk about "F"ing this and that or disrespect women.
Anyway if it had been a white boy saying the things that this black boy was saying on this so called "song" they would probably have him nailed to a wall some place.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
You're right mva. And why would we take anything personally here? I'm sure that if everyone who posts here were to get together I would know some of you personally. But since we're all fairly anonymous here and don't 'know' each other personally, why in God's green earth would we choose to be personally offended with the comments of anonymous posters??? It wouldn't make sense.I'm glad I don't take things too personally. I might get my feelings hurt.
Don Imus comments were way out of line he was no innocent.....and if Don King had said em he would be way out of line as well.Amen Jim--very true. Can you say Don Imus?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?