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 > *******************************************