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 >