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]