Hour of Silence
Tom Atwater
which everyone is silent, broken occasionally by those who are moved
to share their insights with the assembly.
Would anyone who has experienced this care to talk about it, either
in general or to relate specific memorable instances?
Malcolm Humes
One that I recall as a teen was an older woman who got up to talk about
a problem she had with compulsive shoplifting. She knew it was wrong and
she kept getting caught and was distraut over the embarrasment it was
causing her daughter and juts wanted to open up and talk about it, to
get it off her chest and to ask for some help in dealing with it.
Other than that it was mostly sort of statents that were intended to be
inspiring, or so it seemed.
- Malcolm
Marc Harold Baber
I have enjoyed many Friends' short speeches and sayings during meeting
for worship. We Quakers believe that there is "that of God" within
everyone, sometimes called "the light within". When one speaks during
meeting it is intended to be an outward expression of that inner light.
My favorite anecdote is of two people who attended the Multnomah monthly
meeting a couple of years ago. One Friend had a dying grandmother who
spoke only Estonian and appealed to the meeting for any leads to someone
to translate a final conversation. Another Friend, who hadn't attended
for some time stood and said "That's me". She spoke Estonian. She wasn't
going to attend meeting, but felt drawn to that day and that now she know
why-- she was needed in a very practical way. Coincidence? Maybe, but
I choose to treasure these stories for what they *might* indicate.
Back to the silence,
Marc Baber
ma...@cs.uoregon.edu
D. R. Bosart @ DSD x2015
I am not a Quaker but have attended the silent meetings of
Quakers in the past. I found them to be largely pleasant
and rewarding. On occasions someone who spoke rambled or
was not on target it seemed but for the most part this form
of worship has a certain appeal to me. Our lives these days
seem to be so full that an hour of silence really seems to
help reset the soul.
Unfortunately, going to meeting is a lot like trying to
start exercising -- the more you do it the easier it is to
continue doing it, but the initial starting threshold is
somewhat steep for me.
Maybe this group will rekindle my interest... Now if I could
just start exercising... :-)
cs331333
I know a Quaker at my university that has started Quaker meetings
on campus in which they do the hour of silence. I asked him about it, and
I didn't quite understand it, (he's very 'pretentious', though nice, but it
makes it difficult to get straight up answers), but supposedly it does enable
one to become more aware of ones self. As to why doing it in a room full of
other people would be beneficial, I'm not quite sure. I'm not sure if one
communicates with the silent others, or not.
I was quite excited to see this conference, and I was hoping we would
have some interesting discussions. Quakers were generally very progressive
as far as slavery and other issues, I felt their conceptions are 'good', and
there is less hypocracy involved within this 'religion' then others perhaps.
(William Penn's predecessors gave up government in Pennsylvania rather than
be corrupted or have to sacrifice what they thought right.)
It is also interesting to note, that the Quakers, are desendents of
the Medieval sect the Albineges. (I think it's them.)
Joe
Bruce Tindall
indistinguishable from other mainstream protestant denominations'
services: hymns, prayers led by a clergyperson (full-time,
salaried) or others, a sermon, etc., plus a brief quiet time
when worshippers can speak as the Spirit moves them. One such
meeting is in Greensboro, N.C. Piedmont North Carolina has a
large concentration of Quakers. I don't know how many meetings
are "white-bread Protestant" like that one, but there are also
more traditional meetings (such as the one in Chapel Hill).
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Rudy Zalesak
> It is also interesting to note, that the Quakers, are desendents of
>the Medieval sect the Albineges. (I think it's them.)
I have never heard this before. This can't be true literally, since Friends
communities didn't exist before George Fox. Can you tell us more about
the Albineges? -- Rudy
Josh Hayes
Well, it's already been pointed out that there are programmed meetings
as well, though apparently no one in this group feels competent to
describe them (certainly I do not) - Indiana, for example, has a
fairly large number of pastoral meetings but also some unprogrammed
meetings as well (Earlham College, in Richmond, is a Quaker school).
So not all services have that long period, I suppose.
I attend meeting sporadically, and can tell you how I approach it.
I am not a Christian, really, by which I mean I don't believe that
Christ was the son of God and all that. I don't disbelieve, I just
find myself unable to believe, either. I have come to believe in
something outside ourselves, however, and that is largely due to
attending meeting. Things happen there.
A few months ago, my grandfather died. I went to meeting that Sunday,
thinking that I might feel moved to speak about it, but I was so
muddled up with questions about what I should have done before he
died, I was unable to reach any crystallization of thought, and
someone stood up across the room and began to talk about people
dying and how we deal with the questions they leave behind. His
words echoed in my head. There is a saying in some meetings, when
someone says something that strikes a chord, "That friend speaks
my mind". It happens far more often that I would think it would,
like we really ARE all sitting there and listening to the same
still, small voice. I don't know, and I probably never will know,
but I'll keep picking at it.
Now, remember, meetings are bunches of people, and some people just
cannot stand silence. They feel compelled to jump up and say
something, ANYTHING, just to push back the silence. Some meetings,
people say something, someone jumps up to rebut them, they jump
up and rebut the rebuttal....I call these "popcorn meetings",
because they resemble what goes on in a popcorn popper....there will
be those people who speak but are not MOVED to speak...no meeting
will be perfectly and purely in touch with the overmind, or the
Spirit, or whatever it is, but there will be moments of sublime
peace, when one is, as C.S. Lewis put it, "surprised by joy".
I don't know if this answers your question.
Josh Hayes
--
Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
jo...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu 206 543-5004
Don't you know that it's different for girls?
Matthew Wall
(cs331333) wrote:
>
> on campus in which they do the hour of silence. I asked him about it, and
> I didn't quite understand it, (he's very 'pretentious', though nice, but it
> makes it difficult to get straight up answers), but supposedly it does enable
> one to become more aware of ones self. As to why doing it in a room full of
> other people would be beneficial, I'm not quite sure. I'm not sure if one
> communicates with the silent others, or not.
At the risk of being kind of vague, Joe, it's borderline indescribable -
you have to really try it to see what it's like. I thought it sounded sort
of loony, and then I went to a meeting with a girlfriend in college. There
are deep complexities to the silent meeting...
not trying to be evangelical, you understand 8-)...but it is more an
experiential thing.
- matt
"I don't think I want to live in a country where George Bush gets to go to
the all-star game and Cecil Fielder doesn't." - R Rappaport
Charles Ellis
>
>> It is also interesting to note, that the Quakers, are desendents of
>>the Medieval sect the Albineges. (I think it's them.)
>
>I have never heard this before. This can't be true literally, since Friends
>communities didn't exist before George Fox. Can you tell us more about
>the Albineges? -- Rudy
As a lifelong Friend, I'd never heard of this either. I have looked up
Albigenses in the Encyclopedia Britannica. They were a group of 12-13th
Century heretics in mainland Europe who seem to have been particularly
singled out for extermination by the Inquisition. No close theological
similarity to Quakerism at all.
George Fox started it all in the mid 1600's in England, from the Church
of England. Quakers suffered persecution at local British hands until
the passage of the Toleration Act in 1689 (Quakers weren't the only
non-conformists who needed this protection).
----
Charles Ellis - Biology Dept. - Northeastern University - Boston MA
cel...@lynx.northeastern.edu or el...@nuhub.northeastern.edu
----
Dave McLane
>In article <1992Oct29.1...@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> to...@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Atwater) writes:
>>I understand a Quaker service consists in part of a long period in
>>which everyone is silent, broken occasionally by those who are moved
>>to share their insights with the assembly.
>>
>>Would anyone who has experienced this care to talk about it, either
>>in general or to relate specific memorable instances?
>>
>>
>I have attended various Friends meetings sporadically for about 6 years.
>I have enjoyed many Friends' short speeches and sayings during meeting
>for worship. We Quakers believe that there is "that of God" within
>everyone, sometimes called "the light within". When one speaks during
>meeting it is intended to be an outward expression of that inner light.
....
I'm not a Quaker but my daughter Devon and her husband go to Friends
meetings in Whittier CA which was originally settled by Quakers.
I've only been to meeting a couple of times, but the silence lasted
only maybe a few minutes at most before another somebody started
speaking again.
The most memorable part was when everybody stood up ("Must be time
to sing again," I guessed) and turned around and said hello to the
people around them. Me too! "Hi, you must be Devon's dad. We're glad
you could come." and things like that. Pleasingly surprising!
Dave
--
Dave McLane
JUNET: dav...@aegis.or.jp (ONLY within Japan: post otherwise)
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087
cs331333
>In article <1992Oct30....@samba.oit.unc.edu> Rudy.Z...@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rudy Zalesak) writes:
>>
>>> It is also interesting to note, that the Quakers, are desendents of
>>>the Medieval sect the Albineges. (I think it's them.)
>>
>>I have never heard this before. This can't be true literally, since Friends
>>communities didn't exist before George Fox. Can you tell us more about
>>the Albineges? -- Rudy
>
>As a lifelong Friend, I'd never heard of this either. I have looked up
>Albigenses in the Encyclopedia Britannica. They were a group of 12-13th
>Century heretics in mainland Europe who seem to have been particularly
>singled out for extermination by the Inquisition. No close theological
>similarity to Quakerism at all.
>
>George Fox started it all in the mid 1600's in England, from the Church
>of England. Quakers suffered persecution at local British hands until
>the passage of the Toleration Act in 1689 (Quakers weren't the only
>non-conformists who needed this protection).
I'm am the one who originally posted this article about the
Albiginses. I would probably agree, my source was a half remembered
fact out of a medieval history or History of Christianity book,
and though I'm pretty sure, that's what it said, it was only one line
in the whole book, and other references that people have been kind
enough to send to me, dispute this.
Unfortunately, that book is at my home, and I probably won't get
a chance to look in it till Thanksgiving break, when I do though, I'll
append my corrections to this conference.
Joe
mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>
>> It is also interesting to note, that the Quakers, are desendents of
>>the Medieval sect the Albineges. (I think it's them.)
>
> I have never heard this before. This can't be true literally, since Friends
> communities didn't exist before George Fox. Can you tell us more about
> the Albineges? -- Rudy
The Albigenses or Albigensians were a 12th & 13th-century Christian
sect in Southern France. Apparently they were Manichaeans. When I
was a kid I decided that everybody and his brother were descendants of
the Albigensians, and of the Anabaptists as well, because my then
church, the Seventh-Day Adventist church, regarded both groups as part
of a line of "true" Christians that had always existed in opposition
to the Roman church. It may be that all spiritual descendants of the
more radical factions of the Protestant Reformation are in a sense
descendants of whatever groups ever opposed Rome.
I do not know, however, what attitude Quakers have toward this notion
of an unbroken tradition, or whether they have ever claimed any kind
of descent, spiritual or other, from the Albigensians. If anyone can
enlighten me...
--
-Ken <mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> {Sometimes you have to look reality straight
OPINIONS ARE MY OWN {in the eye, and deny it. - G. Keillor
Rick Banghart, IPTV
Sure. I have had the privelege
Sure. I have had the privilege of attending Quaker meeting in
two very different meeting houses with two very different
groups of people.
In Ann Arbor, MI, the meeting house is a fairly modern looking
building, and the room has a fairly institutional look to it.
The 'pews' are arranged on all four sides of the room, all
facing the center. There is no pulpit. The 'service' consists
entirely of silent meditation, interrupted only by 'messages'
received by those in meditation. I had read some in "Faith and
Practice" (a book describing Quaker life), and was aware that
these messages were supposed to emerge from the silence of
meditation, and specifically were not to reflect personal
concerns and issues. This was clearly not the case in Ann Arbor
on the day I attended. The messages were political in nature,
and other people's messages responded directly to them.
In contrast, I attended meeting one Sunday at Abbington Friends
Meeting outside of Philadelphia. This was a meeting house
that had been standing, (as a Quaker meeting), for more than
200 years! Again, the 'pews' were arranged the same as in
Ann Arbor, but beyond that the buildings had no similarity.
As I recall, meeting was scheduled to begin at 10:00 am. People
started arriving at about 9:30, and met and talked in a comfortable,
carpeted room, before service. A little before 10:00 people
started drifting into the meeting room, where there was complete
silence. By 10:00 all were in the meeting room, where we sat
silently for about 20 minutes before someone rose, spoke for
about 15 seconds (I don't remember what he/she said, but it was
clearly sincere and seemed divinely inspired.). Then we sat in
silence for another 10 or 15 minutes. Another message.
After about an hour, the 'meeting closer' shook hands with
the person next to him. We all shook hands with one another.
The meeting closer then rose, and read about 3 or 4 minutes
worth of announcements about various committee meetings that
were scheduled, members who needed help, etc.
I was particularly impressed by reliance on the individual
to find his/her own contact with God (or whatever you choose
to call It). I also noted that on the book table in that
comfortable room where we met before and after meeting, were
books about avoiding military service, accepting homosexuality,
and other views that I have rarely seen expressed in conservative
religions.
Rick
John Taber
of the meeting can occur. Good meetings for worship (IMHO) happen
when one of the speakers starts a theme which weaves its way
through several speakers. There is the feeling of being part of
a group which is focusing on the same idea. It depends alot on whether
the attenders of the meeting are there by choice. I was raised
as a Quaker and went to a Quaker boarding school (Westtown) near
Philadelphia. At boarding school we were required to attend
meeting twice a week. The feeling in the weekday meetings (when just the
students and teachers were there) was mainly that of a bunch of
high school kids wanting to be somewhere else, whereas the
Sunday meetings, which had members of the local community and
fewer students, were more likely to feel like a meeting.
Meetings where no one speaks for the entire hour have often
seemed incomplete to me, but while I was raised as a Quaker, I
haven't been a frequent attender of meetings as an adult, so I
can't speak for "real" Quakers.
John Taber Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
ta...@gphs.vuw.ac.nz P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand
"I've tried life in the fast lane but I seem to be more of an
off-road vehicle."
John W. Linville
very strange to me. I thought that I was raised as a Quaker. At least, the
Friends Meeting that I attended as a youth (and sometimes still attend) claimed
to be a Quaker church and to practice Quaker doctrine. I suppose it is not
quite the same. In our church, there is some hymn singing, and a preacher
who gives a sermon, but there is also a short (10-15 min) period of meditation
where those who want to do so can speak their hearts. Also, the military is
certainly not encouraged, but it is not discourage either. For that matter,
our preacher served as an infantryman during WWII. I guess, if anything, we
are a sort of 'reformed' Quaker church. There is certainly no talk of
accepting homosexuality.
Maybe I'm just way out. Is there anyone else out there who considers
him/herself a Quaker, but whose experiences are closer to mine?
John W. Linville
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John W. Linville Amateur radio: KD4KHC |
| #include "std_disclaimer.h" E-mail: linv...@catt.ncsu.edu |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jay Lepreau
The question is, then, what do other people find to be the situation
vis a vis homosexual marriage ... in their meeting?
A couple of years ago our Meeting (note, in conservative Utah), went
through a debate for a few months and ended up sponsoring a homosexual
marriage under care of the Meeting. I was not really involved with the
process but think everyone was quite comfortable by the end.
p.s. The wedding was lovely, and the couple divorced a year later. (Of
course, in the last four years some three other couples in the meeting
have also divorced, myself included. Now THAT'S an interesting problem
in a small Meeting!)
Josh Hayes
meeting, first in Rochester NY and later in Buffalo NY, and returned
to meeting when I got my first post-doc, in Oxford OH. The issue
of homosexual marriage was, and I believe still is, a hot topic
in the Oxford meeting, because the national organization is trying
to reach the point where it can issue a minute on the matter. It
is interesting, because our meeting belonged to two quarterly meetings
at once, one of which spanned southeastern Indiana, where the meetings
are often of the pastoral variety and quite conservative. There was,
not surprisingly, some vigorous discussion on the matter.
Our monthly meeting came to the realization that we were bound to
recognize the ties that bind people together. Clearly, it is not
required that children be produced, or that they can be - would
we turn away elderly heterosexual couples because they cannot have
children? Or younger couples who, for various reasons, cannot? Of
course not. It is the love between them that counts, the respect,
the honor, the light within. We could not see that there was any
less of that in homosexual couples. It took us two years to reach
that conclusion, and it required a great deal of soul-searching.
I do not know what has happened at the national level; we are not
particularly happy with the Seattle meetings and do not attend
frequently...I guess we got used to the intimacy of a small (about
fifteen people, usually) meeting, and the larger meeting (a couple
hundred) just doesn't feel right. Yet. Maybe it will.
The question is, then, what do other people find to be the situation
vis a vis homosexual marriage - and, I guess, homosexuality in
general - in their meetings? What should it be? Do you see conflicts
between old testament scripture and new testament prescriptions of
tolerance?
Anne Barschall
I have been attending Quaker "Meetings" of this type for about 15 years.
I am not sure that this kind of thing can be accurately described. The
religious experience is not a verbal one. Some, who are into the right
brain/left brain dichotomy, characterize this as a right brain experience.
Certainly, it is an experience most enjoyed by those who enjoy silence.
Others, who do not like silence, intensely dislike attending Quaker meetings.
I would submit that you cannot know what a silent meeting is like for you
unless you go to one.
Russell Nelson
In article <1992Oct29.1...@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, to...@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Atwater) writes...
>I understand a Quaker service consists in part of a long period in
>which everyone is silent, broken occasionally by those who are moved
>to share their insights with the assembly.
>
>Would anyone who has experienced this care to talk about it, either
>in general or to relate specific memorable instances?
In Ann Arbor, MI, the meeting house is a fairly modern looking
building, and the room has a fairly institutional look to it.
Right. A Quaker meetinghouse is not a consecrated building. I'm
sure that many older meetinghouses had a fairly institutional look to
them at the time they were built.
The 'pews' are arranged on all four sides of the room, all facing the
^^^^ benches is a better term.
center. There is no pulpit. The 'service' consists entirely of
The service begins when the meeting ends, or so goes the usual quip. :)
silent meditation, interrupted only by 'messages' received by
those in meditation. I had read some in "Faith and Practice" (a
book describing Quaker life), and was aware that these messages
were supposed to emerge from the silence of meditation, and
specifically were not to reflect personal concerns and issues.
There exist multiple Faith and Practice publications. I, myself,
would not presume to decide which of God's leadings were acceptable
in meeting.
This was clearly not the case in Ann Arbor on the day I attended.
The messages were political in nature, and other people's messages
responded directly to them.
Um yes, that can happen. More typically (in my meeting anyway) the
first person to speak will set the tone of the meeting.
In contrast, I attended meeting one Sunday at Abbington Friends
Meeting outside of Philadelphia. This was a meeting house
that had been standing, (as a Quaker meeting), for more than
200 years! Again, the 'pews' were arranged the same as in
Ann Arbor, but beyond that the buildings had no similarity.
As I recall, meeting was scheduled to begin at 10:00 am. People
started arriving at about 9:30, and met and talked in a comfortable,
carpeted room, before service. A little before 10:00 people
started drifting into the meeting room, where there was complete
silence. By 10:00 all were in the meeting room, where we sat
silently for about 20 minutes before someone rose, spoke for
about 15 seconds (I don't remember what he/she said, but it was
clearly sincere and seemed divinely inspired.). Then we sat in
silence for another 10 or 15 minutes. Another message.
After about an hour, the 'meeting closer' shook hands with
the person next to him. We all shook hands with one another.
The meeting closer then rose, and read about 3 or 4 minutes
worth of announcements about various committee meetings that
were scheduled, members who needed help, etc.
This is what happens commonly in our meeting, and in other meetings I
have attended. Other times we will be silent for the whole meeting.
I was particularly impressed by reliance on the individual
to find his/her own contact with God (or whatever you choose
to call It). I also noted that on the book table in that
comfortable room where we met before and after meeting, were
books about avoiding military service, accepting homosexuality,
and other views that I have rarely seen expressed in conservative
religions.
That, too, sounds familiar. Quakers tend to value Christ's love of
his fellow man over the laws of Leviticus, e.g. I am wearing
cotton/polyester blended sweatpants without the least trickle of
guilt. :)
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice | LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX | the harm software patents do.
B.A. Davis-Howe
>I would submit that you cannot know what a silent meeting is like for you
>unless you go to one.
I would go one step further and say that after attending that one Meeting for
Worship, one will only know what *that* Meeting for Worship was like for you.
Every week is a slightly different experience, and some are *very* different
experiences. Also, each local Meeting will have a different character. What
I often say is that noone knows what will happen, but it almost always is the
best thing that could have happened. (Argh, this sounds preachy. Blech! :-(
Words don't cut it.) If someone feels that Quaker Meeting might be right for
them, go try it a few times. You can find out for yourself whether it's right
for you. (I don't believe that Quakerism is right for everyone.)
Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
Br'anArthur
Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
******************************************************************************
Newage is hypoallergenic spirituality--
it's for people who are allergic to the word religion.
--Jon Jay Obermark
B.A. Davis-Howe
>Our monthly meeting came to the realization that we were bound to
>recognize the ties that bind people together. Clearly, it is not
>required that children be produced, or that they can be - would
>we turn away elderly heterosexual couples because they cannot have
>children?
A historical point which Friends should consider when discussing marriage. The
first Quaker marriage was that of George Fox and Margaret Fell Fox. Margaret
was a widow with grown children. (The oldest wasn't all that far in age from
George.) George sent out an epistle making it clear to anyone who'd listen that
George and Margaret had no intention of having children and every intention of
sharing one bed. This was rather a radical idea in a culture which still was
convinced that the purpose of marriage was procreation. Go George and Margaret!
It is also relevant to discussion of same-sex marriage to point out that Quaker
marriages were *illegal* for about a century. We have tradition to back up
performing marriages which our culture disapproves of. Of course, I'm biased--
I'm much more likely to marry someone who happens to have the same genitalia as
mine, and I want my vows to begin, "In the presence of the Spirit, and these
Friends assembled here...."
EL...@purccvm.bitnet
I have been pondering the formalities of same-sex social bonds, and
have been trying to come up with some other word than 'marriage' to
describe the loving lifelong committment of two people who are of the
same sex. 'Marriage' has always implied procreation, and I think it
should be reserved for heterosexual ceremonies. So here are some
possibilities: CAREIAGE, SPOUSESHIP, SO (esso, for significant othered)
... actually, I would like to see a whole new line of titles: Sig to replace
Mr, Ms and Miss ("I'm a Significant, looking for an Other...'), SO to
replace Mr and Mrs, and possibly Fam for parents and children (whether
adopted or whatever). This would imply that after the children have left
the nest and become Sigs, the parents would revert to SOs (kind of romantic
for the golden years...).
John Hatten
>I have been pondering the formalities of same-sex social bonds, and
>have been trying to come up with some other word than 'marriage' to
>describe the loving lifelong committment of two people who are of the
>same sex. 'Marriage' has always implied procreation, and I think it
>should be reserved for heterosexual ceremonies.
>A historical point which Friends should consider when discussing marriage.
>The first Quaker marriage was that of George Fox and Margaret Fell Fox.
>Margaret was a widow with grown children. (The oldest wasn't all that far
>in age from George.) George sent out an epistle making it clear to anyone
>who'd listen that George and Margaret had no intention of having children
>and every intention of sharing one bed. This was rather a radical idea in a
>culture which still was convinced that the purpose of marriage was
procreation.
understand you to mean that _you_ imply procreation from marriage. There
are many of us (including George Fox) who use the term much more inclusivly.
But more importantly, it is not for you or I to insist on the term two
people choose for their ceremony of commitment. The term marriage carries
with it the weight of centuries of acceptance. That is understandably
important to those who are so often violently rejected. What is lost
by the inclusive use of marriage? What is gained (i.e. historical weight,
acceptance, legal status) is far greater as I'm able to see it.
Finally, regarding different ways of labeling lovers:
I kind of like S.O., but as above, I defer to the people so labeled for
their desires. (A friend of mine changed his name from Mark - a good,
respectible name - to Rowen. What kind of name is THAT! But I happily call
him by his chosen name, as often as I can remember...)!
In peace.
John Hatten
B.A. Davis-Howe
Marriage has not always meant procreation. It is, most fundamentally, an
economic contract. Margaret and George Fox are only one example of non-
precreative couples. Should George and Margaret have been something other
than married? Should they have been spoused? I doubt that this is plain
speaking.