Greetings all! This may seem like a basic question, but how does a person go about finding the MM or possible MM's that ancestors may have attended? My ancestors seemed to have lived in Northumberland Co, PA, Greenwood Township possibly (now Columbia Co?) and townships nearby. Thanks for your help. Cheers! Colin

Greetings all! This may seem like a basic question, but how does a person go about finding the MM or possible MM's that ancestors may have attended? My ancestors seemed to have lived in Northumberland Co, PA, Greenwood Township possibly (now Columbia Co?) and townships nearby. Thanks for your help. Cheers! Colin

"mcd." = "Marriage contrary to discipline." Quaker practice generally required a couple wishing to marry to first go before the meeting to request approval. The meeting would then establish a committee to verify the fitness of the couple for marriage, e.g.: - whether the bride and groom were both members of the Society, - whether they had the approval of both sets of parents, - whether--if one was a member of different monthly meeting--they had the approval of that meeting, - etc. The committee would then report back to the monthly meeting which would authorize (or not authorize) the marriage. "Marriage Contrary to Discipline" denoted the failure of the couple to comply with the prescribed procedure for any reason. It typically indicated a marriage service performed by a non-Quaker clergyman or civil official. It might also indicate a couple unwilling to wait through the time consuming process due to their hurry to marry due to a pregnancy. A subset of "Marriage Contrary to Discipline" was "Marriage Out of Unity" (or "mou."). Some abstractors would denote a case of Marriage Out of Unity as "mcd." rather than "mou". Jeff Palmer [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Q-R] dismissed member I have an ancestor who was dismissed in 1825 and Mcd was written after it. What did that mean? Ginny in Texas

I was looking at Canadian Ontario quaker records from that time and it appears that when the 1829 split occurred the orthodox meetings continued to have the Hicksite members children "under the care of their meeting" The famiies I was looking at also had Orthodox and Hicksite Quakers marrying in a church ceremony but then later were again active Quakers. They were certainly isolated but seemed to travel to MMs Brylin On 12/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, Colin Kenneday wrote: > Hello all! > > I am following this thread with interest. I am also new to this list > and new to research on the Quaker religion. I have ancestors who are > registered on censuses as "Quaker" yet other family members are > listed as "Methodist" or even "Christian". I have instances where > even the husband and wife are not both listed as Quaker. Now how > would this relate to disownment? How could one family member retain > ties to the Quaker community while a spouse or children are > affiliated elsewhere? This is in Upper Canada in the mid 1800's (now > Ontario), perhaps well away from easily accessible MM's? Thoughts? > > Cheers! > Colin > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Our family records indicate that John Champion (1705-06 NJ to 14 Aug 1765 NJ) married as his second wife a lady named Elizabeth Boone (1706? - 1765 NJ). The marriage was at First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia on May 22, 1740, and we are told that John Champion was disowned by the Quakers for marrying out of unity. His family was at Tuckahoe, NJ. Family tradition says that his parents applauded the marriage despite its lack of approval by the Quakers. My mother's people tie into the line of Nathaniel Champion, s/o John & Elizabeth. John is s/o Thomas Champion Sr (1675-1730). We have no name for his mother. Nor do we have parents for Elizabeth Boone. I don't know whether her Boones are related to the more famous Boones (of which my granddaughter-in-law is a direct descendant). Squire & Sarah Morgan Boone's family had land in Bucks County, whether or not they lived there. I know that the Boones were at least nominally Quaker but had problems with their Friends group at Exeter. Two of Daniel's siblings married out of unity. Sarah Boone married John Willcoxson, a non-Quaker, in 1742, when she was already pregnant. Her brother Israel married a non-Quaker lady named Martha. Brethren tradition says that these Boones were closely associated with the Dunkards (German Baptist Brethren now Church of the Brethren), and I think one of Daniel's brothers became a Brethren pastor. It's easy to find information on Dan'l Boone and his family, perhaps too much information. It is harder to find out about the Boones to whom Elizabeth Boone Champion belonged. I presume there would be information in the records of the Tuckahoe meetings but haven't any idea how to go about looking in those. Can somebody suggest where and how to look? Of course, I'm stuck here in the middle of Missouri. Jan T **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

Thanks for all the replies much appreciated. As I am having a scroll at my own wedding soon it is interesting to note what my ancestors may have done. regards Trish

It's possible that 'disownment' ended in 1850, but the practice of ending membership for breaking rules did not, at least for my grandfather. A birthright Friend in Waynesville, Ohio, he was 'dropped from the rolls' of his hometown meeting when he married my grandmother around 1913, in another state. I was told that he was dropped because my grandmother had been married previously and that marriage had been annulled, which was considered the same as divorce. This, at least, is the story as my mother understood it. The fact that he had moved away and was not attending a meeting anywhere else may have played a role but it was not the stated reason. He is, however, buried in the family plot in the local cemetery, along with his parents and brothers and sisters, all Friends to the end. Karen On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:16:17 -0700, [email protected] said: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: disownment etc ([email protected]) > 2. Re: Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > ([email protected]) > 3. Re: Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's > will/NantucketHistorical Society (Sarah McCray) > 4. Re: Peter Folger of Nantucket - Ancestor of Benjamin Franklin > (DAVID BROWN) > 5. Re: Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:10:45 -0600 (CST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Q-R] disownment etc > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]et> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > It's important to look at the actual paperwork. I won't say that a > father > couldn't be disowned by some meeting for failing to control his adult > children, but it doesn't strike me as typical. Based on what I've > seen and > read, I think it more likely that Sarah Boone's father was disowned > for some > action he took to help his daughter marry out of unity. If he > attended the > wedding, for instance, that might have been frowned upon. But check > the > meeting records to confirm the specific actions that led to the > disownment. > > > > It strikes me that some posters admire people who defied their > meetings. > That's in keeping with the modern sensibility that satisfying the > needs/wants of the individual is more important than adhering to group > rules. We can argue about whether the specific actions merited > disownment. > (Personally, I think the crusade against marrying out went too far.) > But > it's worth remembering that church discipline is what allowed the > Quakers to > make a remarkable impact on the world -- most notably in the work for > women's rights and anti-slavery. > > > > Mark > > Whan Daniel Boone's oldest sister, Sarah, married out her father was > disowned. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:28:43 EST > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > In a message dated 1/11/2009 1:59:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a > Quaker > Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life > time. > > Gordon Trueblood > > > > I believe that the practice of disownment stopped sometime around 1850. > I have been told that the Quakers realized that they could loose most of > the > membership if a solution wasn't found. > Another change that happened around 1850 is that the Quakers began to > mark > graves. > > Sndtenterprises > Genealogical and Historical Research > **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 > easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De > cemailfooterNO62) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:12:35 -0500 > From: "Sarah McCray" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's > will/NantucketHistorical Society > To: "Violet O. Guy" <[email protected]>, "'Sue Maxwell'" > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I have found Google Books Online to be a great source of history. A > person > will find books on History of towns, people, you name it. I do searches > on > individuals and come up with a lot of references. If the book is listed > as > Full View it means you can download it in pdf format to your computer. > Just > make sure you have lots of free space on your computer. > > Although the book mentioned, "The History of Nantucket County, Island and > Town including Genealogies of First Settlers" by Alexander Starbuck is > not a > Full View book it is mentioned and it lists other similar works. I found > Genealogy of the Macy Family into which Shubael Swain married. I won't > guarantee that's the one but I would suggest everyone take a look and do > some searches on Google Books Online. There are a lot of genealogies on > individuals if you take the time to do a search. You'll end up like me, > and > really get carried away. > > There are many books on Ancestry.com about Nantucket a person can access > if > they have a Ancestry.com subscription. I found one that contains the > Vital > Records of Nantucket up to the year 1850. > > Sarah > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Violet O. Guy" <[email protected]> > To: "'Sue Maxwell'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's > will/NantucketHistorical Society > > > > > > Sue Maxwell: > > > > > > > > Try: > > > > "The History of Nantucket County, Island and Town including Genealaogies > > of > > First Settlers" by Alexander Starbuck. > > Alexander Starbuck is also author of the "History of the American Whale > > Fishery, etc." > > (There are genealogies in my book; and includes those for the SWAIN > > Family. > > > > > > Contact: > > Higginson Book Company > > 148 Washington Street, Post Office Box 778 > > Salem, Massachussetts 01970 > > Phone 978/745-7170 > > > > www.higginsonbooks.com > > > > Remember that Nantucket is known for its whaling industry! Much of this > > type of information may be found in this book; and here you will find such > > information as "died at sea"! There are long lists of names of men or > > specific vessels. > > > > Page 668: > > "What maybe, perhaps not inaptly, termed the clannishness of the > > descendents > > of the First Purchasers, is illustrated by a title doggerel written by > > some > > one who had no fear of tribal displeasure nor any respect for the family > > pride of those he lampoons. * > > It appeared in two stanzas, published about 1834 and the irreverent writer > > thus characheerized his victims: > > > > "The Rays and Russels, coopers are, > > The knowing Folgers lazy, > > A lying Coleman very rare, > > An scarce a learned Hussey. > > > > > > The Coffins noisey, fractious, loud. > > The silent Gardens plodding, > > The Mitchells good, the Barkers proud, > > The Macys eat th pudding." > > > > As though that was not enough, some supper-reckless individ- > > Ual added the following for good measure: > > > > "The Swains are swinish, clownish called, > > The Barnards very civil, > > The Starbucks they are loud to bawl, > > Anc Pindhans beat tge devuk,"! > > > > > > > > In a large part of the ealy history if the Iskland the rule has > > To follow the dates as shown by the Records. Those, after so > > Large a number of the residents had become Friends, followed the > > Custom of the Friends in using numerals to express months. > > > > **** > > > > Violet Moore Guy > > [email protected] > > 01/11/2009 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sue Maxwell > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:21 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's will/ > > NantucketHistorical > > Society > > > > The Nantucket Hist Soc. won't talk to me about the subject anymore. They > > have the Barney Collections and they insist it is absolutely correct. I > > have > > read those and the William Folger collections- both just say "died at sea" > > and I don't know how that was determined. That is what is bugging me. > > > > > > > > Who are some of your Swains. Mine moved from Mass to NYC and one son to > > Ohio. Shubael two known sons and daughter and has two unknown daughters. > > The > > knowns are Shubael Edgar ( my gg) Valentine, (moved to Ohio and his sons > > moved out west) Sarah Anne, who lived in Brooklyn and married Isaac > > Leggett. > > SE, after marriage lived in Jersey City and was a prominent NYC lawyer. > > His > > son Edgar is my g grandfather and his daughter married William VanVorst, > > but > > died after childbirth. I am sure they had relatives in other states. My > > grandmother, Eva Swain ( daughter of Edgar) was the first American girl to > > be the premiere danseuse at the Met and was the youngest in the world. > > There > > are articles in her scrapbook from other states, so I am suspicious that > > there were relatives around. I am co-authoring a book about her life and > > the > > ancestors will be the background for the book. That is why I want to crack > > this brick wall, although it is not crucial. Isaac Leggett was a Quaker > > but > > must have changed as he and Sarah were married in a Methodist Church. His > > twin brother remained Quaker, though- Abraham Leggett. Sue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: > 1/10/2009 > 6:01 PM > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST) > From: DAVID BROWN <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Peter Folger of Nantucket - Ancestor of Benjamin > Franklin > To: "Violet O. Guy" <[email protected]>, "'Sue Maxwell'" > <[email protected]>, [email protected], Sarah McCray > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > <http://genforum.genealogy.com/folger/messages/3.html> > http://genforum.genealogy.com/folger/messages/3.html > ? > Abiah was the yougest child of Nantucket co-founder Peter Folger. Here's > what I have on them: > FOLGER NOTES > Peter Folger (1617/18 - 1690) was the only known son of John Folger (ca. > 1590/95 - 1664/65), of Flemish decent, who was the first to bear the > surname in America.1,2 He was born in England and arrived at age 18 in > Massachusetts from Norwich, County Norfolk, England, in 1635 on the ship > Abigail with his father and his mother Meribah (also Merible, Meribell, > Myrable) Gibbs Folger (d.> 1664).1,3 John Folger was from the village of > Diss, about 20 miles from Norwich, and Meribah Gibbs was from nearby > Freyn. She was the daughter of yeoman John Gibbs. The family moved first > to Dedham, then Watertown, then to Martha's Vineyard, before finally > settling in Nantucket. Peter had two sisters, Ruth and Joanna.1 > In 1642, John Folger and his family were living in Watertown and owned > six acres of land.4 In the same year, they accompanied Rev. Thomas > Mayhew, Jr. to Martha's Vineyard, were they bought a house and land. John > Folger died about 1660. His wife Meribell was still living in 1664.4 > Peter Folger (who spelled his name "ffoulger") married Mary Morrill of > Salem in 1644.1,2 She was an indentured servant in the household of Rev. > Hugh Peters (who came to America in the same ship as the Folgers). It is > said that he paid her service debt of 20? to Rev. Peters to secure her > freedom.7 Peter Folger was a deciphel of Puritan Thomas Mayhew, Jr., > following him to Martha's Vineyard, where he served as Mayhew's > accountant and general overseer.2 Peter Folger was a preacher, surveyor, > miller, and blacksmith.3 While living on Martha's Vineyard, he became a > prominent citizen of Edgartown, serving as a town commissioner and > schoolmaster. He was also employed by the Commissioners of the United > Colonies to teach English and Christianity to Indian children.5 He was a > staunch Anabaptist (now Baptist). > At a meeting of the proprietors of Nantucket Island held in Salisbury in > late 1660, Peter was chosen as one of five men to lay out the land, which > was to be purchased from Mayhew.4 The previous year, he had accompanied > Tristram Coffin and others to Nantucket to view the potential purchase.4 > Peter surveyed the Island during 1661-1662, and on 4 July 1663 was > granted half a share. He moved his home to Nantucket in 1663, and there, > as he did on Martha's Vineyard, Peter Folger served as an interpreter > between the Indians and the English. On 21 July 1673, he was elected > clerk of the courts in Nantucket.4,5 He died in 1690 and his widow died > in 1704.4 > Peter and his wife had at least nine children, all but the youngest born > on Martha's Vineyard.1,3,4,6 They were: Joanna, m. John Coleman, son of > Thomas; Bethiah (d. 6 June 1669), m. 26 Feb. 1668 John Barnard (d. 6 June > 1669), son of Robert - both drowned; Dorcas, m. 12 Feb. 1675 Joseph Pratt > of Charlestown; Eleazur (1648-1716), m. 1671 Sarah Gardner, daughter of > Richard and Sarah, Bathshua, m. Joseph Pope, son of Joseph of Salem; > Patience, m. Ebenezer Harker; John (b. 1659), m. Mary Barnard, daughter > of Nathaniel Barnard; Experience, m. John Swain, Jr.; and Abiah (15 Aug. > 1667- 1752), m. ca. 1690 Josiah Franklin of Boston (23 Dec. 1657 - 16 > Jan. 1744/5, emigrated to England ca. 1685 - Abiah was his second wife). > On November 25, 1689, Abiah Folger, who was an aunt of Ebenezer Harker, > became the second wife of Josiah Franklin (1652 - 1745) of Boston. Josiah > was the son of Thomas Franklin and Jane White, and had been previously > married to Anne Child (in ca. 1675).6 One of the children of Josiah and > Abiah was Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), who became our famous American > statesman.1,2 An historical marker stands on Nantucket Island today. It > reads: This Tablet is Erected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in > Commemoration of Abiah Folger Franklin Daughter of Peter Folger Wife of > Josiah Franklin and Mother of Benjamin Franklin. She was Born August 15, > 1667, in a House Which Stood 225 Feet North Fifty-two Degrees West from > this Spot and Died in Boston in 1752.2 > Abiah Folger and Josiah Franklin had issue4: John (b. 7 Dec. 1690), m. > Gooch ? one son, lost at sea; Peter (22 Nov. 1692 - 1 Jul. 1766), m. Mary > , no issue; Mary (b. 26 Sept. 1694), m. Robert Homes, two children; James > (4 Feb. 1696 - Feb. 1735), m. Anne (d. 19 Apr. 1763), four children; > Sarah (9 Jan. 1699 - 23 May 1733), m. Joseph Davenport, children; > Ebenezer (b. 20 Feb. 1701), drown as child; Thomas (b. 7 Dec. 1703, died > young; Benjamin (6 Jan. 1706 - 17 Apr. 1790), m. 1 Sept. 1701 Deborah > Read (d. 19 Dec. 1774); Lydia (b. 8 Aug. 1708), m. 1731 Robert Scott; and > Jane (27 March 1712 - 1795), m. 27 Jul. 1727Edward Mecom. > REFERENCES > 1. James E. Banks, The History of Martha's Vineyard, Vol. III, Dukes > County Historical Society, Edgartown, Mass., 1966. > 2. Florence B. Anderson, A Grandfather for Benjamin Franklin, Meador > Publishing Co., Boston, Mass., 1940. > 3. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Vital Records of Nantucket, > Massachusetts to the Year 1850, Boston, 1926, Vols. I and V. > 4. William C. Folger, "The Folger Family," New England Historical and > Genealogical Register, Vol. XVI, New England Historic-Genealogical > Society, Albany, NY, 1862, pp. 269-279. > 5. Henry B. Worth, Nantucket Lands and Land Owners, Heritage Books, > Bowie, Maryland, 1992. > 6. James Savage, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New > England, Vol. II, 1860 (Republished by Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., > Baltimore, Maryland, 1994). > 7. Thelma P. Simpson and Rebecca W. Sanders, ?Kith and Kin' of Eastern > Carteret County, Carteret County Historicl Society, Morehead City, N.C., > 1983. > > > > ? > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:16:04 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > To: "Gordon Trueblood" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > This is an interesting question. We need to keep a couple of things in > mind. > > First, most disownments tended to be of young people between 20 and 30, > the majority for marrying out of meeting. They were members not because > of their own action, but because of birthright membership--they were > Quakers because their parents were Quakers, not because of an decision > they had made themselves. My sense is that many of these young people > did > not want to be Quakers, and rather enjoyed rebelling. Losing membership > that they didn't value wasn't a big thing. > > There were exceptions, of course. Some Friends who were disowned did > leave accounts which show that it could be a very painful experience. > Those I've seen tend to involve Friends who were on the losing side of > theological controversies. > > Until the late nineteenth century, divorce was an offense against the > Discipline of Friends as much as marriage out of a meeting. Marriage was > binding no matter whether it took place in meeting or not. Disowned > Friends were free to attend meetings for worship, and, if they were > willing to acknowledge that they had violated the rules and regretted it, > they could regain membership. Spouses could be become members at request > as well. > > Disownment rules changed gradually between 1860 and 1900 among different > groups of Friends. By the 1890s, only the most traditionalist groups > still made it an offense to marry out of meeting. Disownment was > reserved > for serious moral lapses, such as adultery or theft, etc. Today, most > Quaker groups, to my knowledge, still reserve the right to expel members, > but I've only heard of one such case in the last two decades. It got > attention because it was so unusual. Really disaffected members tend to > leave voluntarily. > > Tom Hamm > > > What is harsh is probably in the eye of the beholder. For Quaker's who > > married out of unity, they knew the consequences. Perhaps it was not so > > harsh to them as having to not marry the person he/she loved and being > > obliged to search for someone else, possibly of less attraction. > > > > Disownment as punishment suggests that there is room for improvement. In > > the case of marrying out of unity, was there an expectation that the > > disowned Quaker would seek a divorce and return to unity? Disownment was > > removal from membership. Disowned Quakers could no longer be involved in > > the decisions and actions of the Meeting. To some, disownment may have > > seemed like punishment, but judging from the number of disowned Quakers > > who > > apparently did not seek to return unity, I wonder if disownment was > > liberating? Interesting, too, most disowned Quakers did not seek to have > > their children attend Meeting. > > > > When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a > > Quaker > > Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life > > time. > > > > Gordon Trueblood > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:55 AM > > Subject: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > > > > > >> > >> Let's not get too loosey-goosey here. Disownment was a punishment, > >> the > >> most > >> severe the society could mete out. It was a club, in every sense of > >> the > >> word. Do X and you will be disowned, i.e., expelled. Expulsion can't > >> be > >> seen as anything less than a punishment. The fact that it was not > >> accompanied by church-compelled shunning or disinheritance doesn't > >> mean > >> that > >> it wasn't punishment. > >> > >> > >> > >> Disownment was the tool Friends used to compel adherence to its basic > >> principles. Most people who know anything of the Religious Society of > >> Friends know that, when slavery was legal, it forbade its members to > >> own > >> slaves. Well, the tool of disownment is how it enforced that policy. > >> Meetings did expel members who refused to free their slaves as > >> directed. > >> Earlier in the history of the society, members -- and, I believe, > >> entire > >> meetings -- were expelled from the larger body when they refused to > >> set > >> up > >> separate women's meetings. (Women's meetings were held to be > >> essential > >> mechanisms with which to empower the female half of the membership to > >> be > >> potential instruments of Divine will.) > >> > >> > >> > >> The idea of disownment scares modern Quakers because they have, as a > >> whole, > >> embraced the sort of flabby "I'm OK; You're OK" philosophy common in > >> U.S. > >> churches. Dietrich Bonhoffer called it cheap grace, which accepts > >> everything and everyone as they are. Our Quaker predecessors expected > >> more > >> from their religion. > >> > >> > >> > >> Mark > >> Jan 11, 2009 09:40:23 AM, [1][email protected] wrote: > >> > >> I believe Jean Leeper's analogy is much closer to reality. > >> "Disownment" > >> was > >> not "banishment". Quakers who were disowned were still permitted to > >> attend > >> Meetings, they just no longer had a vote or voice in the actions and > >> decisions of the Meeting. It may be true that after "disownment" > >> they > >> transferred membership to another church, especially if they married > >> out > >> of > >> unity (as was often the case in my part of the country). If they > >> left > >> the > >> Meeting, it was the decision of the individual, not the Meeting. > >> Many > >> did > >> remain with the Meeting. We see in the minutes that some disowned > >> members > >> were restored to unity. > >> Gordon Trueblood > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jean Leeper" <[2][email protected]> > >> To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[3][email protected]> > >> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:53 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Leaving the Society (disownment) > >> > Forget the word disownment. By today's definition it is a little > >> > harsh and in most cases it was not a harsh action. Think of a > >> current > >> > church you know, don't they periodically remove members from their > >> > rolls because they join another society/church, moved away and > >> once > >> > and awhile because of their behavior with the church? Yes, there > >> were > >> > some issues like marrying contrary to discipline, fighting, gram > >> > drinking, fighting in a war; they were disowned for, but they > >> could > >> > always write a letter to the meeting asking to be forgiven and > >> become > >> > a member again. Today churches have rules some are enforced and > >> some > >> > are not. When tracing one of my husband's ancestor, where early > >> 1800 > >> > records of a Primitive Baptist Church still exist, members were > >> > removed from the church rolls for many of the same reasons, the > >> > Quakers were. They just did not use the word disownment. > >> > > >> > When looking at the records of Salem MM in Iowa; the meeting there > >> > disowned ca 50 people over slavery but the interesting thing was > >> the > >> > majority had already left and were attending the anti-slavery > >> meeting > >> > so they were officially purging their names from the rolls. There > >> > were a few actions of hatred related to some of those leaving and > >> > maybe some who never spoke to each other again like human nature > >> is > >> > today and probably some family splits like happens sometimes > >> today. > >> > In a few years many who left over slavery started offering a > >> letter > >> of > >> > apology and were accepted back and became leaders in the meeting > >> > again. Forgiveness is the key as to whether families stayed > >> together > >> > or the person was accepted back. How are we each doing on > >> forgiveness? > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > > >> > Jean Leeper > >> > > >> > [4][email protected] or [5][email protected] > >> > > >> > [6]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > >> > > >> > LQM: [7]http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > >> > > >> > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: > >> > [8]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > >> > > >> > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: > >> > [9]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Bridget Rorem wrote: > >> > > >> >> Please remember that being disowned is not the same thing as > >> being > >> >> excommunicated, either. Disownment refers to one's relationship > >> >> with the > >> >> Meeting, not one's relationship with God. Quakers do not make > >> >> judgments > >> >> concerning an individual's relationship to God. > >> >> > >> >> Bridget Rorem > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard > >> Time, > >> >>> [10][email protected] writes: > >> >>> > >> >>> But there are many instances in my Townsend Quakers where > >> >>> individuals > >> >>> married outside of > >> >>> the Quaker Faith (their spouse was of another faith), and were > >> >>> disowned from > >> >>> being a Quaker; they were not given a certificate to transfer, > >> and > >> >>> that > >> >>> meant they couldn't go anywhere else (Quaker) > >> >>> without showing they had transferred from another meeting. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Kim, > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm sure there were differences in practice from one Yearly > >> Meeting > >> >>> to > >> >>> another. But I don't think "disowning" meant ostracism. The > >> >>> reasoning (in > >> >>> many > >> >>> Quaker communities, anyway) was that if you were not willing to > >> >>> conform to > >> >>> the > >> >>> accepted practices of Quakerism you should not be considered a > >> >>> member of the > >> >>> Society, to participate in the business of the Monthly Meeting > >> or > >> >>> present > >> >>> yourself to the rest of the community as a Quaker. This did not > >> >>> mean you > >> >>> were > >> >>> disowned by your family, and I'm quite sure you could attend > >> >>> Quaker worship > >> >>> if you chose to. Some of the signers of Quaker marriage > >> >>> certificates were > >> >>> not > >> >>> members of the Society. > >> >>> > >> >>> Again, practices and individual attitudes would vary from group > >> to > >> >>> group. > >> >>> > >> >>> Dolly > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is > >> >>> making > >> >>> headlines. ([11]http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > >> >>> > >> >>> ------------------------------- > >> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> >>> [12][email protected] with the word > >> 'unsubscribe' > >> >>> without the > >> >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> >> [13][email protected] > >> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > >> >> the body of the message > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> > [14][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > >> without the > >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [15][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > >> without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> References > >> > >> 1. mailto:[email protected] > >> 2. mailto:[email protected] > >> 3. mailto:[email protected] > >> 4. mailto:[email protected] > >> 5. mailto:[email protected] > >> 6. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > >> 7. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > >> 8. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > >> 9. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > >> 10. mailto:[email protected] > >> 11. http://news.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002 > >> 12. mailto:[email protected] > >> 13. mailto:[email protected] > >> 14. mailto:[email protected] > >> 15. mailto:[email protected] > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > >> the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the QUAKER-ROOTS list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the QUAKER-ROOTS mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the > body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of QUAKER-ROOTS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 11 > *******************************************

I have an ancestor who was dismissed in 1825 and Mcd was written after it. What did that mean? Ginny in Texas **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

In a message dated 1/10/09 3:53:27 PM, [email protected] writes: > Hi, > > Here is the somewhat annotated transcription of the marriage of my ggg  > grandparents Abram Marshill and Martha Doane at Cane Creek MM, then Orange > Co.  > (now Alamance) NC 1795.   I descend via their youngest child, Thomas  > Marshall > who married Elizabeth Fortner, then their daughter Ruth Elizabeth  Marshall > who > married Joseph Alexander Sexton.  Elizabeth migrated to  Lawrence Co > Missouri > near the Dade Co. border, with or after several of her  Fortner brothers and > their families. -- Where they lived awfully close to the  Penns who were on > the > county line in Dade..  Also a group of Hinshaws and  others with NC Quaker > backgrounds. > > I didn't transcribe this, but somewhere I have the original. > > Best Regards, Janet Hunter > > MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE > ABRHAM MARSHILL & MARTHA  DOAN > Note: > Whereas Abram Marshill, son of John and Ruth Marshill and  Martha Doan, > daughter of John and Elizabeth Doan each of Chatham County in the  State of > North > Carolina having declared their intent of marriage with each other  before > several Monthly Meetings of the people called Quakers at Cane Creek  > Meetinghouse > in the county of Orange and the State aforesaid. And according to  the good > o....................[something missing here, Janet Hunter  note] > Next then having the consent of parents and parties concerned their  said > proposals of marriage were allowed by the said meeting.Now these are to  > certify > whome it may concern that for the full accomplishing their intentions of  > marriage this tenth day of the ninth month in the  year of our Lord one  > thousand > seven hundred ninety and five. > > They, the said Abram Marshill and Martha Doan appeared in a public  meeting > at Cane Creek Meeting House above said and the said Abram Marshill  taking > the > said Martha Doan by the hand did in a solemn manner openly did say  that he > took the said Martha to be his wife promising with Divine Assistance to  be > unto > her a true and faithful husband until death should separate them or  words > to > the same effect. And then in the same assembly the said Martha Doan in  like > manner openly declare that she took him the said Abram to be her husband  > promising with divine assistance to be unto him a true and faithful wife > until  > death should separate them or words to the same purpose. And moreover the > said  > Abram Marshill and Martha Doan according to the custom of marriage assuming > the  name of her husband as a further confirmation thereof did then and > there to > those present seal their hands. And we whose names are underneath subscribed > being present at the solemnized of said marriage do as witness also > subscribe be  our names the day and year above written. > Abraham Marshill, Martha Marshill,  John Doan, Elizabeth Doan, William > Marshill, Ruth Marshill, Jacob Marshill,  Margret Marshill, Benjamin > Marshill, Peter > Stout, jr. > , Hannah Stout, John  Allen, Rachel Allen, Rachael Allen, Ebenezer Doan, > John > Davis, Mary Davis, John  Stout, Anna Stout, Jesee Hinshaw. > **************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > > Thanks, the mentioned witnesses Allens, Stouts and Davis's are all either my own ancestors/cousins or my wife's. Always good to hear their names a involved. Howard W Cook ************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)

In a message dated 1/11/09 4:13:19 AM, [email protected] writes: > Thanks for all the replies much appreciated. As I am having a scroll at > my own wedding soon it is interesting to note what my ancestors may have > done. > regards > Trish > > Trish, My wife and I had a self conducted Quaker wedding in Orlando two years ago. Florida recognizes Quaker weddings. A cousin who is a Notary signed the license. No bridesmaids or bridgrooms, The attendees witnessed the wedding. We developed our own prearrange vows to each other. I read excerpts from the "Song of Solomon". The Notary Cousin pronounced the Wedding valid under the laws of Florida and asked the attendees to hold hands and observe a Quaker traditional quiet period. This was so much better, in our opinion than having some stranger pastor or official conduct the wedding. Hope you get some ideas from our experience. Howard Cook ************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgI D=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62)

This is an interesting question. We need to keep a couple of things in mind. First, most disownments tended to be of young people between 20 and 30, the majority for marrying out of meeting. They were members not because of their own action, but because of birthright membership--they were Quakers because their parents were Quakers, not because of an decision they had made themselves. My sense is that many of these young people did not want to be Quakers, and rather enjoyed rebelling. Losing membership that they didn't value wasn't a big thing. There were exceptions, of course. Some Friends who were disowned did leave accounts which show that it could be a very painful experience. Those I've seen tend to involve Friends who were on the losing side of theological controversies. Until the late nineteenth century, divorce was an offense against the Discipline of Friends as much as marriage out of a meeting. Marriage was binding no matter whether it took place in meeting or not. Disowned Friends were free to attend meetings for worship, and, if they were willing to acknowledge that they had violated the rules and regretted it, they could regain membership. Spouses could be become members at request as well. Disownment rules changed gradually between 1860 and 1900 among different groups of Friends. By the 1890s, only the most traditionalist groups still made it an offense to marry out of meeting. Disownment was reserved for serious moral lapses, such as adultery or theft, etc. Today, most Quaker groups, to my knowledge, still reserve the right to expel members, but I've only heard of one such case in the last two decades. It got attention because it was so unusual. Really disaffected members tend to leave voluntarily. Tom Hamm What is harsh is probably in the eye of the beholder. For Quaker's who > married out of unity, they knew the consequences. Perhaps it was not so > harsh to them as having to not marry the person he/she loved and being > obliged to search for someone else, possibly of less attraction. > > Disownment as punishment suggests that there is room for improvement. In > the case of marrying out of unity, was there an expectation that the > disowned Quaker would seek a divorce and return to unity? Disownment was > removal from membership. Disowned Quakers could no longer be involved in > the decisions and actions of the Meeting. To some, disownment may have > seemed like punishment, but judging from the number of disowned Quakers > who > apparently did not seek to return unity, I wonder if disownment was > liberating? Interesting, too, most disowned Quakers did not seek to have > their children attend Meeting. > > When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a > Quaker > Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life > time. > > Gordon Trueblood > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:55 AM > Subject: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > > >> >> Let's not get too loosey-goosey here. Disownment was a punishment, >> the >> most >> severe the society could mete out. It was a club, in every sense of >> the >> word. Do X and you will be disowned, i.e., expelled. Expulsion can't >> be >> seen as anything less than a punishment. The fact that it was not >> accompanied by church-compelled shunning or disinheritance doesn't >> mean >> that >> it wasn't punishment. >> >> >> >> Disownment was the tool Friends used to compel adherence to its basic >> principles. Most people who know anything of the Religious Society of >> Friends know that, when slavery was legal, it forbade its members to >> own >> slaves. Well, the tool of disownment is how it enforced that policy. >> Meetings did expel members who refused to free their slaves as >> directed. >> Earlier in the history of the society, members -- and, I believe, >> entire >> meetings -- were expelled from the larger body when they refused to >> set >> up >> separate women's meetings. (Women's meetings were held to be >> essential >> mechanisms with which to empower the female half of the membership to >> be >> potential instruments of Divine will.) >> >> >> >> The idea of disownment scares modern Quakers because they have, as a >> whole, >> embraced the sort of flabby "I'm OK; You're OK" philosophy common in >> U.S. >> churches. Dietrich Bonhoffer called it cheap grace, which accepts >> everything and everyone as they are. Our Quaker predecessors expected >> more >> from their religion. >> >> >> >> Mark >> Jan 11, 2009 09:40:23 AM, [1][email protected] wrote: >> >> I believe Jean Leeper's analogy is much closer to reality. >> "Disownment" >> was >> not "banishment". Quakers who were disowned were still permitted to >> attend >> Meetings, they just no longer had a vote or voice in the actions and >> decisions of the Meeting. It may be true that after "disownment" >> they >> transferred membership to another church, especially if they married >> out >> of >> unity (as was often the case in my part of the country). If they >> left >> the >> Meeting, it was the decision of the individual, not the Meeting. >> Many >> did >> remain with the Meeting. We see in the minutes that some disowned >> members >> were restored to unity. >> Gordon Trueblood >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jean Leeper" <[2][email protected]> >> To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[3][email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:53 AM >> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Leaving the Society (disownment) >> > Forget the word disownment. By today's definition it is a little >> > harsh and in most cases it was not a harsh action. Think of a >> current >> > church you know, don't they periodically remove members from their >> > rolls because they join another society/church, moved away and >> once >> > and awhile because of their behavior with the church? Yes, there >> were >> > some issues like marrying contrary to discipline, fighting, gram >> > drinking, fighting in a war; they were disowned for, but they >> could >> > always write a letter to the meeting asking to be forgiven and >> become >> > a member again. Today churches have rules some are enforced and >> some >> > are not. When tracing one of my husband's ancestor, where early >> 1800 >> > records of a Primitive Baptist Church still exist, members were >> > removed from the church rolls for many of the same reasons, the >> > Quakers were. They just did not use the word disownment. >> > >> > When looking at the records of Salem MM in Iowa; the meeting there >> > disowned ca 50 people over slavery but the interesting thing was >> the >> > majority had already left and were attending the anti-slavery >> meeting >> > so they were officially purging their names from the rolls. There >> > were a few actions of hatred related to some of those leaving and >> > maybe some who never spoke to each other again like human nature >> is >> > today and probably some family splits like happens sometimes >> today. >> > In a few years many who left over slavery started offering a >> letter >> of >> > apology and were accepted back and became leaders in the meeting >> > again. Forgiveness is the key as to whether families stayed >> together >> > or the person was accepted back. How are we each doing on >> forgiveness? >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > Jean Leeper >> > >> > [4][email protected] or [5][email protected] >> > >> > [6]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee >> > >> > LQM: [7]http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm >> > >> > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: >> > [8]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm >> > >> > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: >> > [9]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Bridget Rorem wrote: >> > >> >> Please remember that being disowned is not the same thing as >> being >> >> excommunicated, either. Disownment refers to one's relationship >> >> with the >> >> Meeting, not one's relationship with God. Quakers do not make >> >> judgments >> >> concerning an individual's relationship to God. >> >> >> >> Bridget Rorem >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard >> Time, >> >>> [10][email protected] writes: >> >>> >> >>> But there are many instances in my Townsend Quakers where >> >>> individuals >> >>> married outside of >> >>> the Quaker Faith (their spouse was of another faith), and were >> >>> disowned from >> >>> being a Quaker; they were not given a certificate to transfer, >> and >> >>> that >> >>> meant they couldn't go anywhere else (Quaker) >> >>> without showing they had transferred from another meeting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kim, >> >>> >> >>> I'm sure there were differences in practice from one Yearly >> Meeting >> >>> to >> >>> another. But I don't think "disowning" meant ostracism. The >> >>> reasoning (in >> >>> many >> >>> Quaker communities, anyway) was that if you were not willing to >> >>> conform to >> >>> the >> >>> accepted practices of Quakerism you should not be considered a >> >>> member of the >> >>> Society, to participate in the business of the Monthly Meeting >> or >> >>> present >> >>> yourself to the rest of the community as a Quaker. This did not >> >>> mean you >> >>> were >> >>> disowned by your family, and I'm quite sure you could attend >> >>> Quaker worship >> >>> if you chose to. Some of the signers of Quaker marriage >> >>> certificates were >> >>> not >> >>> members of the Society. >> >>> >> >>> Again, practices and individual attitudes would vary from group >> to >> >>> group. >> >>> >> >>> Dolly >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is >> >>> making >> >>> headlines. ([11]http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> >>> [12][email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' >> >>> without the >> >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> >> [13][email protected] >> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> >> the body of the message >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > [14][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [15][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> References >> >> 1. mailto:[email protected] >> 2. mailto:[email protected] >> 3. mailto:[email protected] >> 4. mailto:[email protected] >> 5. mailto:[email protected] >> 6. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee >> 7. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm >> 8. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm >> 9. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm >> 10. mailto:[email protected] >> 11. http://news.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002 >> 12. mailto:[email protected] >> 13. mailto:[email protected] >> 14. mailto:[email protected] >> 15. mailto:[email protected] >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Argh! Sometimes it would be handy if there was a rubber band attached to these message so you could pull it back quickly and make corrections. Originally sent just to Tom, when I intended for it to go to the list. And sign my name. Alice Allen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice Allen <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) To: [email protected] And something that was explained to me years ago on this list, was that they could still retain their membership, or regain it if they were disowned, if a sincere apology was proffered. Of course, it was tricky to acknowledge that one made a mistake in marrying out without also saying they regretted whom they married <g> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an interesting question. We need to keep a couple of things in mind. > <snip> > > Until the late nineteenth century, divorce was an offense against the > Discipline of Friends as much as marriage out of a meeting. Marriage was > binding no matter whether it took place in meeting or not. Disowned > Friends were free to attend meetings for worship, and, if they were > willing to acknowledge that they had violated the rules and regretted it, > they could regain membership. Spouses could be become members at request > as well. ><snip>

I have found Google Books Online to be a great source of history. A person will find books on History of towns, people, you name it. I do searches on individuals and come up with a lot of references. If the book is listed as Full View it means you can download it in pdf format to your computer. Just make sure you have lots of free space on your computer. Although the book mentioned, "The History of Nantucket County, Island and Town including Genealogies of First Settlers" by Alexander Starbuck is not a Full View book it is mentioned and it lists other similar works. I found Genealogy of the Macy Family into which Shubael Swain married. I won't guarantee that's the one but I would suggest everyone take a look and do some searches on Google Books Online. There are a lot of genealogies on individuals if you take the time to do a search. You'll end up like me, and really get carried away. There are many books on Ancestry.com about Nantucket a person can access if they have a Ancestry.com subscription. I found one that contains the Vital Records of Nantucket up to the year 1850. Sarah ----- Original Message ----- From: "Violet O. Guy" <[email protected]> To: "'Sue Maxwell'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's will/NantucketHistorical Society > > Sue Maxwell: > > > > Try: > > "The History of Nantucket County, Island and Town including Genealaogies > of > First Settlers" by Alexander Starbuck. > Alexander Starbuck is also author of the "History of the American Whale > Fishery, etc." > (There are genealogies in my book; and includes those for the SWAIN > Family. > > > Contact: > Higginson Book Company > 148 Washington Street, Post Office Box 778 > Salem, Massachussetts 01970 > Phone 978/745-7170 > > www.higginsonbooks.com > > Remember that Nantucket is known for its whaling industry! Much of this > type of information may be found in this book; and here you will find such > information as "died at sea"! There are long lists of names of men or > specific vessels. > > Page 668: > "What maybe, perhaps not inaptly, termed the clannishness of the > descendents > of the First Purchasers, is illustrated by a title doggerel written by > some > one who had no fear of tribal displeasure nor any respect for the family > pride of those he lampoons. * > It appeared in two stanzas, published about 1834 and the irreverent writer > thus characheerized his victims: > > "The Rays and Russels, coopers are, > The knowing Folgers lazy, > A lying Coleman very rare, > An scarce a learned Hussey. > > > The Coffins noisey, fractious, loud. > The silent Gardens plodding, > The Mitchells good, the Barkers proud, > The Macys eat th pudding." > > As though that was not enough, some supper-reckless individ- > Ual added the following for good measure: > > "The Swains are swinish, clownish called, > The Barnards very civil, > The Starbucks they are loud to bawl, > Anc Pindhans beat tge devuk,"! > > > > In a large part of the ealy history if the Iskland the rule has > To follow the dates as shown by the Records. Those, after so > Large a number of the residents had become Friends, followed the > Custom of the Friends in using numerals to express months. > > **** > > Violet Moore Guy > [email protected] > 01/11/2009 > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sue Maxwell > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's will/ > NantucketHistorical > Society > > The Nantucket Hist Soc. won't talk to me about the subject anymore. They > have the Barney Collections and they insist it is absolutely correct. I > have > read those and the William Folger collections- both just say "died at sea" > and I don't know how that was determined. That is what is bugging me. > > > > Who are some of your Swains. Mine moved from Mass to NYC and one son to > Ohio. Shubael two known sons and daughter and has two unknown daughters. > The > knowns are Shubael Edgar ( my gg) Valentine, (moved to Ohio and his sons > moved out west) Sarah Anne, who lived in Brooklyn and married Isaac > Leggett. > SE, after marriage lived in Jersey City and was a prominent NYC lawyer. > His > son Edgar is my g grandfather and his daughter married William VanVorst, > but > died after childbirth. I am sure they had relatives in other states. My > grandmother, Eva Swain ( daughter of Edgar) was the first American girl to > be the premiere danseuse at the Met and was the youngest in the world. > There > are articles in her scrapbook from other states, so I am suspicious that > there were relatives around. I am co-authoring a book about her life and > the > ancestors will be the background for the book. That is why I want to crack > this brick wall, although it is not crucial. Isaac Leggett was a Quaker > but > must have changed as he and Sarah were married in a Methodist Church. His > twin brother remained Quaker, though- Abraham Leggett. Sue > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009 6:01 PM

In a message dated 1/11/2009 1:59:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a Quaker Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life time. Gordon Trueblood I believe that the practice of disownment stopped sometime around 1850. I have been told that the Quakers realized that they could loose most of the membership if a solution wasn't found. Another change that happened around 1850 is that the Quakers began to mark graves. Sndtenterprises Genealogical and Historical Research **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)

My own Quaker marriage certificate(1972) has "We having been present at the above marriage have also subscribed our names as witnesses the day and year above written" which was on the standard UK Quaker certificate that was obtained from Friends House London UK. The language used currently will be in the current Church Government. Brylin On 11/01/2009, at 10:29 AM, Trish Wilson wrote: > Has any one got a transcript of a Friends wedding where the people > that > attended were listed. I would like to know the wording that was > used before > the peoples names were listed. I know my Wilson family from Hawick in > Scotland had those present listeted but did not record the exact > wording > before the names and would be interested to know what general form > this > took. > Trish > New Zealand > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: > 8/01/2009 6:05 p.m. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

<http://genforum.genealogy.com/folger/messages/3.html> http://genforum.genealogy.com/folger/messages/3.html   Abiah was the yougest child of Nantucket co-founder Peter Folger. Here's what I have on them: FOLGER NOTES Peter Folger (1617/18 - 1690) was the only known son of John Folger (ca. 1590/95 - 1664/65), of Flemish decent, who was the first to bear the surname in America.1,2 He was born in England and arrived at age 18 in Massachusetts from Norwich, County Norfolk, England, in 1635 on the ship Abigail with his father and his mother Meribah (also Merible, Meribell, Myrable) Gibbs Folger (d.> 1664).1,3 John Folger was from the village of Diss, about 20 miles from Norwich, and Meribah Gibbs was from nearby Freyn. She was the daughter of yeoman John Gibbs. The family moved first to Dedham, then Watertown, then to Martha's Vineyard, before finally settling in Nantucket. Peter had two sisters, Ruth and Joanna.1 In 1642, John Folger and his family were living in Watertown and owned six acres of land.4 In the same year, they accompanied Rev. Thomas Mayhew, Jr. to Martha's Vineyard, were they bought a house and land. John Folger died about 1660. His wife Meribell was still living in 1664.4 Peter Folger (who spelled his name "ffoulger") married Mary Morrill of Salem in 1644.1,2 She was an indentured servant in the household of Rev. Hugh Peters (who came to America in the same ship as the Folgers). It is said that he paid her service debt of 20£ to Rev. Peters to secure her freedom.7 Peter Folger was a deciphel of Puritan Thomas Mayhew, Jr., following him to Martha's Vineyard, where he served as Mayhew's accountant and general overseer.2 Peter Folger was a preacher, surveyor, miller, and blacksmith.3 While living on Martha's Vineyard, he became a prominent citizen of Edgartown, serving as a town commissioner and schoolmaster. He was also employed by the Commissioners of the United Colonies to teach English and Christianity to Indian children.5 He was a staunch Anabaptist (now Baptist). At a meeting of the proprietors of Nantucket Island held in Salisbury in late 1660, Peter was chosen as one of five men to lay out the land, which was to be purchased from Mayhew.4 The previous year, he had accompanied Tristram Coffin and others to Nantucket to view the potential purchase.4 Peter surveyed the Island during 1661-1662, and on 4 July 1663 was granted half a share. He moved his home to Nantucket in 1663, and there, as he did on Martha's Vineyard, Peter Folger served as an interpreter between the Indians and the English. On 21 July 1673, he was elected clerk of the courts in Nantucket.4,5 He died in 1690 and his widow died in 1704.4 Peter and his wife had at least nine children, all but the youngest born on Martha's Vineyard.1,3,4,6 They were: Joanna, m. John Coleman, son of Thomas; Bethiah (d. 6 June 1669), m. 26 Feb. 1668 John Barnard (d. 6 June 1669), son of Robert - both drowned; Dorcas, m. 12 Feb. 1675 Joseph Pratt of Charlestown; Eleazur (1648-1716), m. 1671 Sarah Gardner, daughter of Richard and Sarah, Bathshua, m. Joseph Pope, son of Joseph of Salem; Patience, m. Ebenezer Harker; John (b. 1659), m. Mary Barnard, daughter of Nathaniel Barnard; Experience, m. John Swain, Jr.; and Abiah (15 Aug. 1667- 1752), m. ca. 1690 Josiah Franklin of Boston (23 Dec. 1657 - 16 Jan. 1744/5, emigrated to England ca. 1685 - Abiah was his second wife). On November 25, 1689, Abiah Folger, who was an aunt of Ebenezer Harker, became the second wife of Josiah Franklin (1652 - 1745) of Boston. Josiah was the son of Thomas Franklin and Jane White, and had been previously married to Anne Child (in ca. 1675).6 One of the children of Josiah and Abiah was Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), who became our famous American statesman.1,2 An historical marker stands on Nantucket Island today. It reads: This Tablet is Erected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Commemoration of Abiah Folger Franklin Daughter of Peter Folger Wife of Josiah Franklin and Mother of Benjamin Franklin. She was Born August 15, 1667, in a House Which Stood 225 Feet North Fifty-two Degrees West from this Spot and Died in Boston in 1752.2 Abiah Folger and Josiah Franklin had issue4: John (b. 7 Dec. 1690), m. Gooch — one son, lost at sea; Peter (22 Nov. 1692 - 1 Jul. 1766), m. Mary , no issue; Mary (b. 26 Sept. 1694), m. Robert Homes, two children; James (4 Feb. 1696 - Feb. 1735), m. Anne (d. 19 Apr. 1763), four children; Sarah (9 Jan. 1699 - 23 May 1733), m. Joseph Davenport, children; Ebenezer (b. 20 Feb. 1701), drown as child; Thomas (b. 7 Dec. 1703, died young; Benjamin (6 Jan. 1706 - 17 Apr. 1790), m. 1 Sept. 1701 Deborah Read (d. 19 Dec. 1774); Lydia (b. 8 Aug. 1708), m. 1731 Robert Scott; and Jane (27 March 1712 - 1795), m. 27 Jul. 1727Edward Mecom. REFERENCES 1. James E. Banks, The History of Martha's Vineyard, Vol. III, Dukes County Historical Society, Edgartown, Mass., 1966. 2. Florence B. Anderson, A Grandfather for Benjamin Franklin, Meador Publishing Co., Boston, Mass., 1940. 3. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Vital Records of Nantucket, Massachusetts to the Year 1850, Boston, 1926, Vols. I and V. 4. William C. Folger, "The Folger Family," New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. XVI, New England Historic-Genealogical Society, Albany, NY, 1862, pp. 269-279. 5. Henry B. Worth, Nantucket Lands and Land Owners, Heritage Books, Bowie, Maryland, 1992. 6. James Savage, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. II, 1860 (Republished by Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, 1994). 7. Thelma P. Simpson and Rebecca W. Sanders, ‘Kith and Kin' of Eastern Carteret County, Carteret County Historicl Society, Morehead City, N.C., 1983.  

What is harsh is probably in the eye of the beholder. For Quaker's who married out of unity, they knew the consequences. Perhaps it was not so harsh to them as having to not marry the person he/she loved and being obliged to search for someone else, possibly of less attraction. Disownment as punishment suggests that there is room for improvement. In the case of marrying out of unity, was there an expectation that the disowned Quaker would seek a divorce and return to unity? Disownment was removal from membership. Disowned Quakers could no longer be involved in the decisions and actions of the Meeting. To some, disownment may have seemed like punishment, but judging from the number of disowned Quakers who apparently did not seek to return unity, I wonder if disownment was liberating? Interesting, too, most disowned Quakers did not seek to have their children attend Meeting. When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a Quaker Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life time. Gordon Trueblood ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:55 AM Subject: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > > Let's not get too loosey-goosey here. Disownment was a punishment, the > most > severe the society could mete out. It was a club, in every sense of the > word. Do X and you will be disowned, i.e., expelled. Expulsion can't > be > seen as anything less than a punishment. The fact that it was not > accompanied by church-compelled shunning or disinheritance doesn't mean > that > it wasn't punishment. > > > > Disownment was the tool Friends used to compel adherence to its basic > principles. Most people who know anything of the Religious Society of > Friends know that, when slavery was legal, it forbade its members to own > slaves. Well, the tool of disownment is how it enforced that policy. > Meetings did expel members who refused to free their slaves as directed. > Earlier in the history of the society, members -- and, I believe, entire > meetings -- were expelled from the larger body when they refused to set > up > separate women's meetings. (Women's meetings were held to be essential > mechanisms with which to empower the female half of the membership to be > potential instruments of Divine will.) > > > > The idea of disownment scares modern Quakers because they have, as a > whole, > embraced the sort of flabby "I'm OK; You're OK" philosophy common in > U.S. > churches. Dietrich Bonhoffer called it cheap grace, which accepts > everything and everyone as they are. Our Quaker predecessors expected > more > from their religion. > > > > Mark > Jan 11, 2009 09:40:23 AM, [1][email protected] wrote: > > I believe Jean Leeper's analogy is much closer to reality. > "Disownment" > was > not "banishment". Quakers who were disowned were still permitted to > attend > Meetings, they just no longer had a vote or voice in the actions and > decisions of the Meeting. It may be true that after "disownment" they > transferred membership to another church, especially if they married > out > of > unity (as was often the case in my part of the country). If they left > the > Meeting, it was the decision of the individual, not the Meeting. Many > did > remain with the Meeting. We see in the minutes that some disowned > members > were restored to unity. > Gordon Trueblood > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean Leeper" <[2][email protected]> > To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[3][email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Leaving the Society (disownment) > > Forget the word disownment. By today's definition it is a little > > harsh and in most cases it was not a harsh action. Think of a > current > > church you know, don't they periodically remove members from their > > rolls because they join another society/church, moved away and once > > and awhile because of their behavior with the church? Yes, there > were > > some issues like marrying contrary to discipline, fighting, gram > > drinking, fighting in a war; they were disowned for, but they could > > always write a letter to the meeting asking to be forgiven and > become > > a member again. Today churches have rules some are enforced and some > > are not. When tracing one of my husband's ancestor, where early 1800 > > records of a Primitive Baptist Church still exist, members were > > removed from the church rolls for many of the same reasons, the > > Quakers were. They just did not use the word disownment. > > > > When looking at the records of Salem MM in Iowa; the meeting there > > disowned ca 50 people over slavery but the interesting thing was the > > majority had already left and were attending the anti-slavery > meeting > > so they were officially purging their names from the rolls. There > > were a few actions of hatred related to some of those leaving and > > maybe some who never spoke to each other again like human nature is > > today and probably some family splits like happens sometimes today. > > In a few years many who left over slavery started offering a letter > of > > apology and were accepted back and became leaders in the meeting > > again. Forgiveness is the key as to whether families stayed together > > or the person was accepted back. How are we each doing on > forgiveness? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jean Leeper > > > > [4][email protected] or [5][email protected] > > > > [6]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > > > > LQM: [7]http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > > > > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: > > [8]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > > > > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: > > [9]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Bridget Rorem wrote: > > > >> Please remember that being disowned is not the same thing as being > >> excommunicated, either. Disownment refers to one's relationship > >> with the > >> Meeting, not one's relationship with God. Quakers do not make > >> judgments > >> concerning an individual's relationship to God. > >> > >> Bridget Rorem > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > >>> [10][email protected] writes: > >>> > >>> But there are many instances in my Townsend Quakers where > >>> individuals > >>> married outside of > >>> the Quaker Faith (their spouse was of another faith), and were > >>> disowned from > >>> being a Quaker; they were not given a certificate to transfer, and > >>> that > >>> meant they couldn't go anywhere else (Quaker) > >>> without showing they had transferred from another meeting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kim, > >>> > >>> I'm sure there were differences in practice from one Yearly > Meeting > >>> to > >>> another. But I don't think "disowning" meant ostracism. The > >>> reasoning (in > >>> many > >>> Quaker communities, anyway) was that if you were not willing to > >>> conform to > >>> the > >>> accepted practices of Quakerism you should not be considered a > >>> member of the > >>> Society, to participate in the business of the Monthly Meeting or > >>> present > >>> yourself to the rest of the community as a Quaker. This did not > >>> mean you > >>> were > >>> disowned by your family, and I'm quite sure you could attend > >>> Quaker worship > >>> if you chose to. Some of the signers of Quaker marriage > >>> certificates were > >>> not > >>> members of the Society. > >>> > >>> Again, practices and individual attitudes would vary from group to > >>> group. > >>> > >>> Dolly > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is > >>> making > >>> headlines. ([11]http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>> [12][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > >>> without the > >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [13][email protected] > >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > >> the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [14][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [15][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. mailto:[email protected] > 4. mailto:[email protected] > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > 7. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > 8. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > 9. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > 10. mailto:[email protected] > 11. http://news.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002 > 12. mailto:[email protected] > 13. mailto:[email protected] > 14. mailto:[email protected] > 15. mailto:[email protected] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's important to look at the actual paperwork. I won't say that a father couldn't be disowned by some meeting for failing to control his adult children, but it doesn't strike me as typical. Based on what I've seen and read, I think it more likely that Sarah Boone's father was disowned for some action he took to help his daughter marry out of unity. If he attended the wedding, for instance, that might have been frowned upon. But check the meeting records to confirm the specific actions that led to the disownment. It strikes me that some posters admire people who defied their meetings. That's in keeping with the modern sensibility that satisfying the needs/wants of the individual is more important than adhering to group rules. We can argue about whether the specific actions merited disownment. (Personally, I think the crusade against marrying out went too far.) But it's worth remembering that church discipline is what allowed the Quakers to make a remarkable impact on the world -- most notably in the work for women's rights and anti-slavery. Mark Whan Daniel Boone's oldest sister, Sarah, married out her father was disowned.

Sue Maxwell: Try: "The History of Nantucket County, Island and Town including Genealaogies of First Settlers" by Alexander Starbuck. Alexander Starbuck is also author of the "History of the American Whale Fishery, etc." (There are genealogies in my book; and includes those for the SWAIN Family. Contact: Higginson Book Company 148 Washington Street, Post Office Box 778 Salem, Massachussetts 01970 Phone 978/745-7170 www.higginsonbooks.com Remember that Nantucket is known for its whaling industry! Much of this type of information may be found in this book; and here you will find such information as "died at sea"! There are long lists of names of men or specific vessels. Page 668: "What maybe, perhaps not inaptly, termed the clannishness of the descendents of the First Purchasers, is illustrated by a title doggerel written by some one who had no fear of tribal displeasure nor any respect for the family pride of those he lampoons. * It appeared in two stanzas, published about 1834 and the irreverent writer thus characheerized his victims: "The Rays and Russels, coopers are, The knowing Folgers lazy, A lying Coleman very rare, An scarce a learned Hussey. The Coffins noisey, fractious, loud. The silent Gardens plodding, The Mitchells good, the Barkers proud, The Macys eat th pudding." As though that was not enough, some supper-reckless individ- Ual added the following for good measure: "The Swains are swinish, clownish called, The Barnards very civil, The Starbucks they are loud to bawl, Anc Pindhans beat tge devuk,"! In a large part of the ealy history if the Iskland the rule has To follow the dates as shown by the Records. Those, after so Large a number of the residents had become Friends, followed the Custom of the Friends in using numerals to express months. **** Violet Moore Guy [email protected] 01/11/2009 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sue Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Q-R] Shubael Swain- Ebenezer and Lydia's will/ NantucketHistorical Society The Nantucket Hist Soc. won't talk to me about the subject anymore. They have the Barney Collections and they insist it is absolutely correct. I have read those and the William Folger collections- both just say "died at sea" and I don't know how that was determined. That is what is bugging me. Who are some of your Swains. Mine moved from Mass to NYC and one son to Ohio. Shubael two known sons and daughter and has two unknown daughters. The knowns are Shubael Edgar ( my gg) Valentine, (moved to Ohio and his sons moved out west) Sarah Anne, who lived in Brooklyn and married Isaac Leggett. SE, after marriage lived in Jersey City and was a prominent NYC lawyer. His son Edgar is my g grandfather and his daughter married William VanVorst, but died after childbirth. I am sure they had relatives in other states. My grandmother, Eva Swain ( daughter of Edgar) was the first American girl to be the premiere danseuse at the Met and was the youngest in the world. There are articles in her scrapbook from other states, so I am suspicious that there were relatives around. I am co-authoring a book about her life and the ancestors will be the background for the book. That is why I want to crack this brick wall, although it is not crucial. Isaac Leggett was a Quaker but must have changed as he and Sarah were married in a Methodist Church. His twin brother remained Quaker, though- Abraham Leggett. Sue ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The same way everyone else does. As kids, my two siblings and I were dragged to a Presbyterian church. Now, one is Methodist, one Congregational and one belongs to an unprogrammed Friends meeting. My parents, disgusted with organized religion, eventually quit the Presbyterian church. (I seem to be following their insightful lead.) The Friends' original model was a family in which husband and wife were on the same page about religion -- the better to raise little Quaker children. Hence, the prohibition to marrying out. (Most other churches were the same way.) Working against that goal was the process of disownment. Erring members had to be disciplined. However, their relatives could not be disciplined for others' offenses, or for the mere fact of being relatives. So, we ended up with the checkboard you describe. Mark How could one family member retain ties to the Quaker community while a spouse or children are affiliated elsewhere?