I hope I didn’t leave you with the impression that the “no evangelism” thing means “we hang out in our own little solipsistic universe and let the rest of you do whatever” – the Quakers are huge on social justice issues, and always have been. American history buffs will recall that Quakers were among the most active participants in the Underground Railroad, for instance.
Some of you may be familiar with The American Friends Service Committee (main recipient of my charity dollars).
I had a comparitive religions teacher (who was athiest himself) say that if he was anything, he would be a Quaker, because they actively discourage people from joining.
I always believed him (being a Religions teacher, after all), but no one has said anything like that here.
Is there a certain sect that does this?
I think he was making a little joke. Quakers don’t discourage new members, but (in the East Coast version, at least) they don’t actively seek them out, either.
twicks, BA Religious Studies, MPhil, PhD Sociology of Religion 
And British history buffs will recall that Quakers were involved in the first above-ground railroad.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist this minor joke - not intending to make light of good anti-slavery activities. English Quakers helped fund the first railroad in northeast England that wound up carrying people. One participant was Stephenson, and a hall at our school was named after him.
This is from the “Our Meeting Community (PDF)” section of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Faith & Practice
I wouldn’t call it discouraging, but meetings (not churches) generally want to make sure that you’re really sure that you want to join.
How is marriage viewed with those whom are not Quakers? For instance, to be married in the Catholic Church, a non-RC would have to convert. In a Quaker meeting (am I using that term correctly?) would my being Catholic be a non-issue? It sounds like it but am curious now.
BTW, great thread.
Not a problem, usually. My sister is married to another Quaker, my brother is married to a Jew. (I’m not married, but the religion of the men I’ve dated has never been an issue.) My mother called herself a Quaker after marrying my dad but never went to meeting. Um, let me think. K is married to a Jew; when T (birthright Quaker) married S , she converted from something fairly mainstream (Methodist, maybe?) to Quakerism; M and H are both Quakers, M birthright and H I don’t know. C is married to an agnostic.
Since Quakerism is a matter of conscience, there tends to be a lot of tolerance of other people’s consciences (see above).
*“birthright” refers to people who are born to Quakers. My father was a convert, but I’m considered “birthright.”
Actually this is consistent in my experience with any church/meeting/non-profit-group that has membership rolls and voting rights. Most churches will discriminate between “attenders” and “members”. For example, in the Friends church where I went, you had to be a member to hold certain offices (elders, people who dealt with the money, etc.). It happened several times that people I knew became official members just before they took an office.
The fact that I am not a Quaker made absolutely no difference to the meeting. Since we were married in the care of the meeting (this basically means that the meeting cares about you and you can come to them anytime, I think), we did have to go through a meeting with someone from some sort of committee, but it wasn’t like the Catholic thing.
OK, thanks for the answers. I thought it would be something like that.
Very compelling philosophy to religion, though knowing myself I need rigid structure lest I stray. 
I attend meetings although I am not officially a Quaker and may never apply for membership.
My meetings follow much the same format that twickster describes.
What first attracted me to the Quakers was the long history of social service and the emphasis on listening to your inner voice rather than having the Bible explained to you in a sermon.
I’ve been in meeting were no one felt compelled to speak and I’ve been in meeting that were positively ‘chatty’-three or four people rose during the course of an hour.
For me, every speaker shared something that I needed to hear right then-whether they were questioning themselves or sharing an insight.
At the rise of meeting, after we shake hands and wish those sitting close to us a good morning, announcements are read by the folks involved in various activites outside the church.
I’ve learned about a lot of good causes that way.
I just came acroos a nice quote by the founder of the Society of Friends:
Those are some words worth living by, eh?
This may seem like the stupidest question ever, but is frequent prayer a significant part of a Quaker’s life? I understand about the still, small voice, and I wonder if that is found through daily individual prayer, or quiet reflection, or if it just happens when it happens.
Also, what exactly does it mean that one is “moved to speak”? That person had a sudden revelation from God, right that minute? Or that person had an experience with the inner voice recently that he or she wants to share?
Prayer, meditation – I’m not trying to be disingenuous here, but exactly what is the distinction in your mind? Prayer as a formal activity is pretty uncommon in the form of Quakerism I’m familiar with – for instance, instead of grace before dinner, we’re more apt to do a moment of silence, with or without linking hands around the table.
As far as what it means to be moved to speak – I’m not entirely sure, since I’ve never spoken in meeting. Well, meeting-meeting – I’ve spoken at weddings and memorial services, where the bar is generally set a little lower in terms of amount of inspiration expected. Thus I spoke at both my brother’s wedding and my father’s memorial service, in both cases specifically about my memories of the people involved.
People have described the feeling to me as an almost physical sensation – one person said he felt it as a push between the shoulder blades. “Revelation from God” – I’ve never heard anyone talk about anything particularly dramatic or visual – it’s more an internal sensation of the necessity of speaking.
Sorry – hopefully someone who’s had the experience will come along to describe it.
I wondered about the formal, traditional sort of prayer that is common in so many Protestant religions, as opposed to one’s own personal meditation, or communing with God, as I’ve heard some folks put it. I hadn’t even thought about saying grace before meals, but that’s an interesting illustration of the differences between, say, Baptists, for example, and Quakers. (It’s really difficult to express my point without offending anyone, so please forgive my awkwardness. I’m tiptoeing around religious issues, and I feel like I’m stepping on landmines.)
As for the amount of inspiration expected to speak, that sounds pretty subjective. If I feel the need, or if I have something I really want to say, I can do it? Does that apply to everyone, or only members of the meeting?
You can speak your mind, but elders have been known to gently remind people not to just yammer on about less-than-spiritual topics.
I’ve felt the urge to speak twice but , as everything I’ve read has indicated that you should wait and supress said urge until you feel * compelled*, I’ve remained silent.
Oddly enough, on both occasions, someone else has risen and said almost exactly what I was going to but far more elequently.
Then, IMHO, you’ve been in a good Meeting and you did exactly the right thing.
I’m a converted Quaker, to use twickster’s terminology, and my experience and philosphy of Meeting is pretty close to what {he/she?} has described.
My local Meeting is more than chatty, however, so I haven’t been there recently. It’s not uncommon for 7-10 people to speak during Meeting, and I have a very hard time with that. I much prefer the type of Meeting jlzania describes. The experience is amazing when it works, and I miss it when it doesn’t.