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

My Quaker ancestor got drunk at his brother wedding Disown by the Quaker and his father Father died before he could chance is mind Janet -------Original Message------- From: [email protected] Date: 1/11/2009 10:58:44 AM To: [email protected] 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 .

I, too, have many Quaker ancestors. I am not a Quaker because many of my ancestors were read out of meeting. As far as I can tell, they were fine and most of them became Methodists and that is the religion that I was baptized into.. Sndtenterprises Genealogical and Historical Research In a message dated 1/11/2009 10:34:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Hello I have many Quaker ancestors. I would prefer to say the truth. To wrench one out of a community of faith for marrying out of unity was a profoundly violent act that caused many severe psychological consequences among the not so strong. I can point to an ancestor and her story. Kate Ro **************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)

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]

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" <[email protected]> To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[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 > > [email protected] or [email protected] > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > > LQM: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: > 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, >>> [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. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 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

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.

When I was first beginning my Quaker research, that "disowned" stood out to me as rather harsh. But in reading the transcribed records--not just the abstracts--I discovered that disownment wasn't an automatic happening if someone married out, or had done something else contrary to Quaker standards. Members were assigned to visit with the person who had done something they shouldn't have, in order to get them to see the error of their ways and send a letter to the MM apologizing for their "sin." So, if you see a notice of disownment in an abstract, be aware that there was probably months of visiting with the disowned person before the decision was made to disown them. Alice Allen On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Gordon Trueblood <[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 >

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 [email protected] or [email protected] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee LQM: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm Cedar Creek Book Update Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: 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, >> [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. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Hello I have many Quaker ancestors. I would prefer to say the truth. To wrench one out of a community of faith for marrying out of unity was a profoundly violent act that caused many severe psychological consequences among the not so strong. I can point to an ancestor and her story. Kate Ross

In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [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. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

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, > [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. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > > ------------------------------- > 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

Don't forget that there were many disownments due to the division of the Hicksites and Gurneyites. I'm sure some families must have divided during this seperation. -- Forrest Plumstead [email protected] PLUMSTEAD-L List master http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/surname/p/plumstead.html Plumstead and Associated Families: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fplum/<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Efplum/> Military Kool Lynx: http://geocities.com/fplum/ Ham Radio WB5HQO http://forrest.3h.com/main.html Photos: http://myspace.com/fplum7755

Disownment due to division-Don't forget that there were many disownments due to the division of the Hicksites and Gurneyites. I'm sure some families must have divided during this separation. Forrest, That is something I'd like to know more about. I have an ancestor who was disowned for MAU although he had been married for 30+ years and had 4 children. <Mitchell Thomas ack DeRuyter mou; see also pg 182 1832 5 30 D 453 1.1 185 236293> The wife and children had been disowned in 1729 for what I assume was the Hicksite division since they chose to follow that movement. <Mitchel Elizabeth dis Poughkeepsie 1829 5 20 P 655 2.1 13 122316> <Mitchell Rodmond dis Bulls Head-Oswego 1830 6 16 B 855 1.1 41> <Mitchell William T com Bulls Head-Oswego Dismissed; not a mbr. See also pg 136 1834 7 16 B 855 1.1 141 225763> <Mitchel Bula dis Poughkeepsie 1829 5 20 P 655 2.1 13 122315 (and for good measure) Mitchell Bulah dis Bulls Head-Oswego See also pg 295 1834 2 19 B 855 2.2 297 225755> <Mitchel Hannah dis Poughkeepsie 1829 5 20 P 655 2.1 14 122317> The wife and 3 children must have resolved the difficulties since their deaths were later listed in Friends records. I've not found further record of the husband. Does it follow that Thomas' disownment may have been because his family followed Hicksite, please? Thanks, Judy

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)

> then names of all witnesses signed below in two or three columns. Although, when the calligrapher handed me the form the day before my wedding -- with the three columns outlined lightly in pencil so it could be erased later to leave three neat columns of names -- I divided the spaces available by the guest list and realized they wouldn't all fit. I was up late that night erasing the three penciled columns and replacing them with FOUR (smaller) penciled columns so everyone's name would fit on the front. Mark

Trish, The following wording is common to all the certificates I have seen. Wonderful data for genealogists! "Whereas Abner Wickersham son of James Wickersham of East Marlborough Chester County and province of Pennsylvania And Mary Taylor Daughter of Joseph Taylor Late of West Bradford In the County and province affs Deceased. Having Declared their Intentions of Marriage with Each other Before Several Monthly Meettings of the people called Quakers (i.e.) at the Grove And at New Garden, in the County afforesaid, according to the good order used among them, and having Consent of parents, Guardians, and parties concerned, Their said proposal of Marriage was Allowed of by the said Meetting Now these are to Certify to whom it may Concern that for the full Accomplishing their Said Intentions this Nineteenth Day of the Fourth Month in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty One They the Said Abner Wickersham and Mary Taylor Appeared in a Publick Meeting of the people at their Meeting house in Kennet in the said County affs. And the said Abner Wickersham [taking] the said Mary Taylor by the hand Did in Solemn manner Openly Declare that he took her the said Mary Taylor to be his Wife promising through Divine Assistance to be unto her a faithful and Loving Husband until Death Separate them. And then and there in the said Assembly the said Mary Taylor did in like manner Openly Declare that she took the said Abner Wickersham to be her Husband promising through Divine Assistance to be unto him a faithful and Loving Wife until Death Separate them (or words to that Effect) And moreover they the said Abner Wickersham AND Mary Taylor, She According to the Custom of Marriage assuming the Name of her Husband as further Confirmation thereof did then and there to these presents set their Hands. And we Whose Names are underwritten also being present at the Solemnization Of said Marriage and Subscription have as witnesses thereunto set our hands The Day and Year above Written. Abner Wickersham Mary Wickersham" then names of all witnesses signed below in two or three columns. Judy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trish Wilson Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Q-R] Marriage ceremony witnesses 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I am sure I have explained what I am searching for. My g g g grandfather's name was Shubael Swain. I am fairly certain that he was born in Nantucket and then moved to NYC where he worked as a ship captain from 1803 until retirement and then was Deputy Keeper of Bridewell Prison. As far as I know, his wife was Sarah Turner. When she died, he moved to Ohio to be with another son, and died there. Now, knowing that most Shubael Swains come from Nantucket, and he is definitely from Mass, I know that most were Quakers. I did not see his name in the Quaker Encyclopedia. One daughter married Isaac Leggett, a twin of Abraham Leggett, and they were Quakers, but he and she married in a Methodist Church. My brick wall is his childhood family. I know a great deal about him after he arrived in NYC, but nothing from before then. He was born about 1777 and died in 1849. The only family I can find that he fits, as far as year of birth, is Ebenezer Swain and Lydia Ellis. So many factors point to this family, but their Shubael is recorded in the Barney Collections and the William C Folger Collections as "died at sea" in 1808 - New York- with brother Valentine. Their Shubael married "Sally of NY" ( close to Sarah). So many people that lived around him were from Nantucket and even an Ebenezer Swain's family moved into his family's house and he moved to another, at one point. Died at sea is so vague. I was looking at a book on Nantucket that actually records whaling voyages and return information. Since this is supposed to have happened out of NY it would not be in this book, but the recordings are very interesting in that some are unknown as to their whereabouts when not returning. Someone found an abstract of a will for Ebenezer and Lydia, which only includes two children and two grandchildren. That would coincided with the recorded death dates ( Ebenezer Jr being the only one with no recorded death date and having married in NY). So this is my brick wall. All sorts of possibilities for many of the recorded factors. The book that the abstract came from says that the records of Nantucket wills are incomplete. The Nantucket Historical Society says the Barney Collection is dead right, and the Nantucket Vital Records warn that the information on this family, which comes from William Folger Collections, has errors and did not all take place in Nantucket. So there you have it. I will have some experts helping me, but it will be a tough wall to crack! Thanks for all of your input. I did read about the trouble the Quakers had during the Revolution, in a Nantucket book I found yesterday, but havn't read all yet. Thanks for your input- Sue Maxwell

In a message dated 1/10/2009 12:16:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: If a son of a Quaker family chose to leave the Society, what would happen to his family associations? Would he be dead to the family, as in some religions? If the family made a will, would he be excluded from that will? Sue Unlike some other religious societies, the Quakers did not "shun" those who chose another denomination (or no denomination). Quaker Meetings were generally open to anyone who wished to attend, regardless of actual membership in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Of course, it would depend on the reasons for leaving the Society. If it was just a difference of opinion the family relationships would generally not be affected too much. If there were actions deemed unacceptable, that would be different. I have family stories of a relative who preferred the nearby Baptist church to the Friends Meeting her family attended. Her father would not take her to the Baptist church so she walked to that church while the rest of the family went to Meeting. She married a young man from the Baptists and they lived happily for a number of years, and in apparently good relations with both families. On the other hand, another of my ancestors left his wife and several children and moved to another state where he remarried (I don't know if there was ever a legal divorce) and had another family. Not surprisingly, he was disowned by his original Meeting and did not join another, though some of his descendants from his second marriage did. I descend from his second marriage. Dolly **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

Quakers who lost their membership were not shunned or anything like that in fact many still attended regular meeting and may be readmitted at some later date. My great grandparents John White and Jane Lydia Newlin were dropped from membership for misconduct at their Marriage and they later are charter members of a new meeting Middle River Meeting in Iowa. James Lawton 505 Beech St. Box 80 Boxholm, IA (515) 846-6221 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:01 AM To: Sue Maxwell Cc: Quaker-Roots mailing list Subject: Re: [Q-R] Disowned Children and Their Parents No, Friends did not require parents to cut off ties with children who had lost their membership. I have seen one case recorded in the journal of a New Work minister, Eleazar Haviland, in the early 1820s of a father who refused to speak to a son who had married out of meeting. Eleazar felt led to visit the father and try to convince him that he was wrong. A parent could choose to leave a child out of the will for any reason, but that was not a Quaker requirement. Tom Hamm If a son of a Quaker family chose to leave the Society, what would happen > to > his family associations? Would he be dead to the family, as in some > religions? If the family made a will, would he be excluded from that will? > 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

On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:51 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Unlike some other religious societies, the Quakers did not "shun" > those who > chose another denomination (or no denomination). HI! I don't want to speak up too quickly here, because most of you know much more than I about the Quaker faith. 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 Townsend Spangrude