HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbear@donald.uoregon.edu (Richard Bear)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Quakerism
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: donald.16NOV199213004611
Organization: University of Oregon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov16.155635.20608@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Sean.P.Donahue
 writes...
>Peace and simplicity are inseperable.

Agreed.

The following quote from the memoirs of Mary Penington (1625-1682) is offered
as an instance of how Quakerism was perceived in the seventeenth century. The
view of some Friends that seventeenth-century testimony is hopelessly out of
date is not shared by all. Some have had the same experience as described by
Mary Penington, and hope that others may come to experience the same joy. In
this way, a testimony for peace need not spring from anger toward the
authorities but from a peaceful heart.

  My relations made this cross [1] very heavy, but as at length 
  I happily gave up, divested of reasonings, not consulting how to provide 
  for the flesh, I received strength to attend the meeting of these despised 
  people which I never intended to meddle with, but found truly of the Lord, 
  and my heart owned them. I longed to be one of them, and minded not the 
  cost or pain; but judged it would be well worth my utmost cost and pain to 
  witness such a change as I saw in them--such power over their corruptions. 
  I had heard objected against them, that they wrought not miracles; but I 
  said that they did great miracles, in that they turned them that were in 
  the world and the fellowship of it, from all such things. Thus, by taking 
  up the cross, I received strength against many things which I had thought 
  impossible to deny; but many tears did I shed, and bitterness of soul did I 
  experience, before I came thither; and often cried out: "I shall one day 
  fall by the overpowering of the enemy." But Oh! the joy that filled my soul 
  in the first meeting ever held in our house at Chalfont. To this day I have 
  a fresh remembrance of it. It was then the Lord enabled me to worship him 
  in that which was undoubtedly his own, and give up my whole strength, yea, 
  to swim in the life which overcame me that day. Oh! long had I desired to 
  worship him with acceptation, and lift up my hands without doubting, which 
  I witnessed that day in that assembly. I acknowledged his great mercy and 
  wonderful kindness; for I could say, "This is it which I have longed and 
  waited for, and feared I should never have experienced." 

[1] The taking up of Friends testimonies (which could lead to arrest and
imprisonment and confiscation of all one's property) on peace, simplicity,
plain speaking, and nonpayment of compulsory tithes.

rbear@oregon.uoregon.edu *not speaking for UO*
From: benh@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Ben Harrison)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Simple Gifts (was Re: Shakers vs. Quakers)
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:20:29 GMT
Organization: /home/benh/.organization
In-reply-to: andyrose@netcom.com's message of 5 Nov 92 18:46:21 GMT

>Any other Onas grads out there?

Well, yes, but I'm a "grad" of the Young Friend portion of Camp Onas,
not the Camp portion.  You see, every year, after all the campers
leave in late August, the Young Friends (i.e. 14-19 year olds
with connections to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting) of PYM take over
Camp Onas for the last week of August.  We spend 7 days doing stuff
of a more-or-less Quaker nature.

I'm surprised not to have seen any postings yet from Young Friends,
as I know at least 20 of us from PYM have net access...  Are there
any Young Friends (present or past) out there?  Do any Friends
Meetings have similar Youth Groups with different names?

And I must comment that as a Quaker it is amazing how often I get
asked if it's true that Quakers can't have sex (confusing us with
Shakers), why I'm not wearing black (confusing us with Quakers
of yesteryear), or what connection I have to the Quaker Oats man.
It's very amusing how uneducated about Quakers people are here in
Pennsylvania, which after all is the state most obviously associated
with Quakerism...

--- Ben Harrison ---
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Conscience
Date: 23 Nov 1992 16:41:14 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

Thank you for your response.  You knew exactly the question
I was asking and your answer clearly shows me that Quakerism
is not for me.  It is a shame, because the Society of Friends
truly was my last hope in trying to find a group of people
who shared my beliefs.  You see, I do not suffer from the
Protestant Dilemma.  It is not anarchy that we need fear.
What we need fear is someone, or some group that thinks that
it has the right to impose it's will on any person.  Obviously
it does not matter whether this coercion arises from the Monthly
Meetings or the Yearly Meetings.  Coercion is coercion no matter
what its source.  The overriding of the individual conscience is
the only sin there is.
 
This coercion is particularly scary when the group thinks that
its coercion is the will of God.  Only the truly gullible are
unable to see through the false authority of the Pope or the
Protestant leaders.   But by working toward a consensus, you
all truly believe in your coercion.  This is even more insidious
than the brainwashed masses who chanted their love of Big Brother.
 
I do believe in an absolute moral authority, i.e.
Christ.  However, I believe, that neither I, nor a group
of people can ever have anything BUT moral judgement that is
relative to Christ.  I thought I had an ego problem.  Sure we
can percieve bits, and pieces of the Light, but none of us alone,
nor a group can ever comprehend Love in all it's fullness.  You
far underrate Love, and overrate yourselves.
 
No not only are the Friends not for me, but if power were granted
to the Friends they would be the the most dangerous evil the world
has known.  With Friends like these, who needs enemies?
 
Glenn  (Mr. Popularity)                   glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Conscience
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:59:00 GMT
Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

This posting only addresses the question of how to achieve
non-relativistic moral judgement, NOT the anciliary question of punishment.

This requires a longer post than I currently have time for, but I
THINK, glenn, that you are missing a fundamental point about Friends
(forgive me if I've misunderstood).  This point is my nominee for the
thing which sets us apart more than anything else.  It is our solution
to what I know as 'The Protestant Dilemma', namely, the source of
authority in any church which rejects the Apostolic Succession and
holds with Luther and all Protestants since the Reformation, that each
individual has direct and unmediated access to God's truth and love.
Historically, protecting against anarchy in a church has required some
form of qualification to the individual empowerment which appears to
follow from this view.

Virtually all the other Protestant churches adopt one of two
approaches:  Fake it (some form of Episcopal authority, w/o the
Apostolic Succession), or be democratic (some form of Presbyterian
authority, with a wide variation in determining who is enfranchised).

Quakers take neither of these roads.

Leaving out lots of intermediate steps (James Nayler being the seed,
George Fox, . . .) the Friends' insight is to require the individual
to submit his/her leadings to the oversight of the Meeting for
Worship.  No INDIVIDUAL Friend is entitled to impose his/her will on
anyone, or to make a moral judgement that is anything other than
personal.  The achievement of a 'majority' among some body of Friends
does not suffice either.  But one of the fundamental commitments we
make when we join the Religious Society of Friends is to the principle
that an agreed minute from a Meeting for Worship for Business has a
unique and special status, because it records a non-individual
perspective ratified by the Spirit.  Such a minute DOES carry moral
authority, and could, in the unlikely event a Meeting actually had the
power (probably not actually the case since 18th century
Pennsylvania), serve as the legitimate basis for compelling someone's
behaviour in a particular way, even against their will.

I'd welcome other contributions on the extent to which present-day
Friends agree with this account, and in particular whether they agree
that decisions of their Yearly Meeting (in my case London) are binding
on them.
--
  Henry Thompson, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh
       2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 31 650-4440
    Fax: (44) 31 650-4587 ARPA: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk  JANET: ht@uk.ac.ed.cogsci
                  UUCP: ...!uunet!mcsun!uknet!cogsci!ht
From: emigh@unity.ncsu.edu (Ted Emigh)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Conscience
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:38:18 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center

In article <HT.92Nov22225900@barclay.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
>
>I'd welcome other contributions on the extent to which present-day
>Friends agree with this account, and in particular whether they agree
>that decisions of their Yearly Meeting (in my case London) are binding
>on them.

  No, I do not agree.  This may be the perspective of a Friend from the
United States, but I do not see a Yearly Meeting deciding anything
unless it has already been decided (at the Monthly Meeting level).  I
realize that FUM and FA Friends view their Yearly Meeting in a more
Protestant way. In my opinion this the way many of the FGC and various
conservative Yearly Meetings view things.  Notice that John Woolman did
not try to convince a Yearly Meeting gathering that slavery was wrong.
Instead, he took the much slower route of convincing individual Friends
and Monthly Meetings that slavery was wrong.
  If a Yearly Meeting came out with a minute against abortions, for
example, I do not feel that many Friends would feel compelled by it.
However, if a large number of Monthly Meetings came out with minutes
against abortions, then it came up to Yearly Meeting, I feel that the
Yearly Meeting minute would have some standing.

  These views are from a Friend out in the sticks, so to speak, of
unprogrammed Quakerdom.  It may be that we are much more flexible out
here than in the more traditional Friends areas.
-- 
Ted H. Emigh                                 emigh@ncsu.edu
Department of Genetics
NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: What price should a Quaker merchant charge?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:04:53 GMT

In article <721943400snx@crynwr.com> nelson@crynwr.com (Russell
Nelson) writes:

   I have the barest leading on this question, maybe some discussion
   could help.  What price should a Quaker merchant charge for goods?
   $49.95 or $50.00?  $.99 or $1.00?

To me, this is one of a class of problems that seem to depend upon
motivation, rather than on a single "right" answer.  To charge $.99
instead of $1.00 with an intent to deceive the buyer that the item is
cheaper than it is is wrong.  To charge $1.00 in order to "look like"
a proper Quaker merchant is also wrong.  To charge either $.99 or
$1.00 because of whatever mechanism you use to set price (usually cost
plus overhead plus a farily standard profit, sometimes market driven)
seems fine with me.

In other words: consult your heart, and the light within that heart,
then act as honestly as you can.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: Sean.P.Donahue@dartmouth.edu (Sean P. Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Quakerism
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:56:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <gf1c28i00Vo9Mjx1hq@andrew.cmu.edu>
js06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Lee Smith) writes:

> Has the idea of Peace begun to outweigh the idea of Simplicity for most
> Quakers? And has the idea of World Peace (or rather, as I believe many
> people view it, the complete removal from power of all people who
> disagree with us because we're right and they aren't)  begun to outweigh
> the idea of Inner Peace.

Not for me at least (though I'm only an attender.)  World peace can't
exist without inner peace, because nations are just collections of
people.  The movement towards peace has to begin with a simple, sincere
turn towards love in one's own heart before it can become an outward
movement.  I learned this the hard way after many years of working on
national peace issues while being far from peaceful to the people
immediately around me. When William Penn said "Force subdues, love
gains,"  it seems to me he was talking about a very personal vision of
pacifism.  Peace and simplicity are inseperable.

in peace,
Sean Donahue
(sean.p.donahue@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Quaker Book Service?
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 21 Nov 1992 10:47:49 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I am not a member of the Friends, but for many years one of my favorite
books which I return to over and over again is _Quaker Spirituality_,
an anthology of selections which is part of the Classics of Western
Spirituality series of the Paulist Press.

I would like to find some other books by Quaker writers.

Is there a Quaker book service or store from which I might get a catalog
and order by mail?

Jack Carroll

Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: briggs@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Allen `NoExpose' Briggs)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Conscience
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:01:31 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

In article <1eoh5mINN36o@uwm.edu> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>I have a question.  Why is it that a Friend is supposed to have
>a right to be true to his conscience, but that a person who most
>people deem not to have an adequate conscience are not allowed
>this freedom?

Friends do not have a monopoly on the i.l. or on conscience.  By a long
shot.  The cases I've seen brought up so far are those involving persons
who have damaged others.  This is where my respect for their freedom and
their conscience is tempered by a respect for the victim's.

As for those people who do not harm me or anyone else, I try not to
judge them or their actions.  Being human, this isn't always possible,
but also being human I usually (;-) have control over what I say, so I
reserve these opinions as my own.

BTW, I've noticed a number of people using "thee" and "thou" on this
newsgroup.  Why?  Does it make you feel closer to the i.l. or to Fox?
I'm curious as I've not heard those words used in the meetings I've
been to (Southern Appalachian YM, unprogrammed--fairly liberal for a
gross overgeneralization).

-allen
-- 
Allen Briggs          \ Raindrops falling
briggs@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | Everything breathes
Computer Science            \ Hear the voices of the land
Virginia Tech                  \ -- M. Brennan & I. Parker.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: andyrose@netcom.com (San Francisco Fractal Factory)
Subject: Men and Women together
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:45:05 GMT

Do not segregate men from women in prison.

-- 
Andrew Rose andyrose@netcom.com FAX   end killing
 
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: hankins@cs.swarthmore.edu (Luke Hankins)
Subject: Re: Yong Friendses
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:43:18 GMT

In article <BENH.92Nov20202029@linc.cis.upenn.edu>, benh@linc.cis.upenn.edu
(Ben Harrison) said:

>I'm surprised not to have seen any postings yet from Young Friends,
>as I know at least 20 of us from PYM have net access...  Are there
>any Young Friends (present or past) out there?  Do any Friends
>Meetings have similar Youth Groups with different names?

	Baltimore YM has a YF group as well. (But then you already knew
that... *grin*) But, yea, I'm sure that have to be _some_ other YF's out
there somewhere.

		-l
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Luke Hankins hankins@cs.swarthmore.edu |"Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison
for(MyAge=0;!Dead;EnjoyLife);          |   ne connait point" -Blaise Pascal
While not (EndOfLife) do Havefun(me);  |"...stay sane inside insanity..." -RHPS
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: Mark Preece <mark@cambridge.apple.com>
Subject: Re: One last word about the Shakers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:18:51 GMT
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 11:17:34 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG

In article <1992Nov12.184626.7893@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com> Max Stern
310-524-6152, lms@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com writes:
>National Geographic Magazine for September, 1989 had a fine article
>about the Shakers, including both their history and a profile of life
>in the remaining communities.  An interesting map sidebar lists a total
>of 24 Shaker communities in nine states, plus scattered Shaker
>presences in a handful of towns and cities.  Six communities are
>preserved as restorations or museums, and two -- Sabbathday Lake, Maine
>and Canterbury, New Hampshire -- are listed as still functioning.

I believe the last member of the Canterbury community died a few months
ago (they stopped accepting new members some years ago.) The Shakers in
Maine are still going, though.

-Mark Preece
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: enute11@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eric J. Nuteq)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Conscience
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:13:14 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College

In article <1992Nov23.033818.21893@ncsu.edu>, emigh@unity.ncsu.edu (Ted
Emigh) writes:
 
>   No, I do not agree.  This may be the perspective of a Friend from the
> United States, but I do not see a Yearly Meeting deciding anything
> unless it has already been decided (at the Monthly Meeting level). 
> Ted H. Emigh                                 emigh@ncsu.edu
> Department of Genetics
> NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
> 
> 

I was under the general impression that the Yearly Meeting was not some
higher authority, rather it was made of Monthly Meetings (and Quarterly
Meetings), and that Monthly Meetings would send individuals who agreed with
the consenus of the Meeting.  Hence, a YM decision would only be made if
a consenus of a consenus could be reached.  

BTW, I do agree with the statement that the Meeting for Worship/ Meeting
for business is supposed to be lead by the moving spirit, and that such a
meeting, when it reaches a consenus, has a better idea of what God wants. 
They have a better idea than an individual.

Eric J. Nute
From: ST102172@brownvm.brown.edu (Eric deRiel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Yong Friendses
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:22:10 EST
Organization: Central Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <BENH.92Nov20202029@linc.cis.upenn.edu>, benh@linc.cis.upenn.edu
(Ben Harrison) said:

>I'm surprised not to have seen any postings yet from Young Friends,
>as I know at least 20 of us from PYM have net access...  Are there
>any Young Friends (present or past) out there?  Do any Friends
>Meetings have similar Youth Groups with different names?

Well, I'm from PYM, and I'm out here (you already knew that, though)...  As
far as other meetings having active youth group-type-things, here in Providence
New England Yearly Meeting just had a weekend Young Friends (same name)
gathering a few weeks ago.  I didn't go, but Lucy Herschel was a friendly
presence and found the atmosphere to be similar to what we remember from PYM,
if a bit smaller in size...  It's my understanding that NEYM has a Young Adult
friends organization as well, although I haven't had much to do with it (yet?).

e
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: mchijio1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Mary Ellen Chijioke)
Subject: Re: Burnout
Organization: Friends Historical Library of S.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:27:35 GMT

Michael Wagner and Joel Sax have both commented on Quaker burn-out,
especially from a plethora of good causes.  Most modern Quakers are aught
up in the "Protestant work ethic," espcially if the personal profit will be
minimal!  It is worth noting that one of John Woolman's basic
justifications for minimal personal consumption and against slavery is that
too much work is bad for any person, keeping him or her from the important
concerns of life.  I try to remember this myself as I try to juggle job,
home, family, studies, meeting committees, and social action/service
responsibilities.

Mary Ellen C.
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Conscience
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:48:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1eoh5mINN36o
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I have a question.  Why is it that a Friend is supposed to have
a right to be true to his conscience, but that a person who most
people deem not to have an adequate conscience are not allowed
this freedom?
 
The kindest suggestion I have seen so far, is to lock someone up
and try to rehabilitate them rather than punish them.  This
suggestion is not acceptable.  The whole point of conscience is
that it has to come from within, not without.  The key is that
the person has to WANT to be helped.
 
Can't you all see that moral judgement is based upon one's
perspective?  Or are all of you trying to tell me that you have
a monopoly on the Light, and anything that comes from your
conscience is pure and perfect?    According to my conscience,
ALL that I have heard from on this newsgroup are morally deficient.
Does that mean I should try to lock you all up in a cell, and try
to "help" you all to see things my way?  Ahh, only if my view were
the majority view, and I had the power to lock you all up, then
I would be in the right, because according to you all, it seems,
conscience is a matter of who has the power, not free will.
 
I still hold onto the possiblity that there are some Friends
who do believe that everyone's freedom to live according
to their conscience should be respected, not just those
who think they are closer to the Light.  If such a Friend
exists, I would like to hear from them.  I hold out the
hope that there is a lamb among the wolves.
 
Glenn                              glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu