Curiosity about a record (Quaker Meeting)

+3 votes
277 views
I am going to transcribe a record from a Quaker Meeting I just read.  (From the 18th century)  I get most of it, but.....

"Esther Wilson is to give Sarah Wilson to understand that testimony is to go out against her scandalous actions they having commited uncleaness and, afterwards, imposing themselves on us in marriage."

Is that another way to say affair????

Sorry adding another, does this mean Esther is being kicked out of the church?

"Women friends inform that Sarah Wilkins, Hannah Thorn, Hope Braddock and Esther Wilson have each been served with a copy of her Disunion and informed of her Privilege of Appeal."

These notes are taken in New Jersey but added to the Philadelphia church.  (Headquarters as it were, I guess)

Haven't really read many of these.  Kinda sound like mini-KGB back then, or other "Big Brother" types.
in The Tree House by Betty Tindle G2G6 Mach 7 (70.8k points)
edited by Betty Tindle
Maybe she married someone who was not a Quaker, thereby imposing her marriage on them, and possibly there was a little premarital something something going on.

Just a guess.
Jeanie Roberts, OHHH I did not even think of that.  That makes perfect sense to me.  Thank you so much.
If she married someone who was not a Quaker, she likely would have been “dismissed for marriage out of unity.”
Thank you, George.  I am really wondering now tho, as both spouses were Quaker.  Not sure what is going on with them. ;)
One of my ancestors was dismissed for marrying out of meeting although records show her spouse in the same meeting.  Then the mother, grandfather and greatgrandfather of the bride were dismissed

Two of their children married a brother and sister of Mennonite descent with one wedding out of meeting on Christmas day the other in meeting. My grandmother and stepgrandmother are from this family

1 Answer

+4 votes
First, it appears to me that Esther Wilson is being delegated to “elder” Sarah Wilson in the matter. I would guess that Sarah may have become pregnant pre-marriage, hence the “scandalous behavior.” I would judge that Sarah then asked the meeting to legitimize the relationship through marriage— hence “imposing herself on them” — the gist is that they didn’t want her to think that by condoning the marriage they were in any way condoning her behavior. Being found in disunion or “out of unity” with meeting could mean she was being “kicked out,” but I believe it was commonplace for folks who were found out of unity to merely apologize and be accepted into fellowship again — at least, I had ancestors who were thus disunited but who continued to appear in Quaker records thereafter.
by
Hi Al,

Since reading a few more of the Quaker records I have found that they would apologize and accepted to fellowship again.  The records sure give great insight to their lives, don't they?
Susan, thank you very much! :)
This sounds like a very plausible answer.  You should search records for the next number of meetings to see if they were ever "acknowledged".  It would basically mean that they apologized, accepted responsibility for their actions and committed to not doing it again.  I have many ancestors who were disowned for marrying out only to be acknowledged months later, usually if their new spouse joined the society.

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
1 answer
92 views asked Nov 29, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Patricia Roche G2G6 Pilot (428k points)
+2 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
2 answers
82 views asked Nov 24, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Karen Raichle G2G6 Mach 7 (74.1k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...