QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 2000-02 > 0949514981


From: "Jerry Richmond" <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Marriage Customs - Part 2
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:09:41 -0600


As always, Alan's observations are on the money. My wording
on this was perhaps not as instructive as it might have been. The
critical point was that the Overseers did count months for people
married in meeting whilst they did not count months at all if the
couple married in civil ceremony & came right away & voluntarily
made an offering of condemnation of their actions. There was
apparently less "red tape" involved with the latter course of action,
as opposed to being charged after the fact with "unchastity" by the
Overseers. It would be on this basis that a young man's best friend
or a wise old uncle might privately advise a man whose girlfriend was
in trouble that he would do better visiting the Justice of the Peace
rather that trying to "Pass the Meeting" knowing he would pay the
consequences later.

Regards, Jerry Richmond

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Crosman <>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Marriage Customs - Part 2


Jerry,

Thank you for your detailed responses to the list. I have only a couple of
minor nits to pic:

You Wrote:



[1] If the intended bride were pregnant and the couple did manage to
"Pass the Mtg" and married in mtg, and if a child were born 7 or 8
months later, both husband and wife were summarily disowned. In
some cases the reason is suppressed in Hinshaw. Where it is given
it would be "unchastity" as I recall.

--> In the few examples I have seen with this situation, the process was
the same as for other discipline - the couple was visited with concern and
if they did not acknowledge their improper behavior to the meeting they
were disowned. I recall both an example of acknowledgement where the
couple remained in the meeting and another of being disowned. Rarely was an
action taken without some effort being made to get the individual involved
to acknowledge his or her misbehavior, and if they made appology to be
forgiven.

<snip,snip>

This thread: