Non-Christian Information

THE SHAKERS/ONEDIA COMMUNITY
by Randall Hillebrand

The Shakers and the Oneida Community were contempories for
approximately ÿ31 ÿÿyears ÿfrom ÿ1848 ÿto 1880. ÿÿThis ÿwas ÿthe
approximate ÿlength ÿof ÿtime that the ÿOneida ÿCommunity ÿlasted
(1848-1881). ÿÿThe ÿShakers lasted the longest between ÿthe ÿtwo
groups, ÿÿfrom approximately 1774 ÿup until present, ÿ1830 ÿbeing
their peak year for membership, declining thereafter. I have been
told that there are about seven female Shakers still living today
by ÿa ÿwoman ÿnamed Jeannie Stine who is a history ÿbuff ÿof ÿthe
Shakers from Seattle, Washington (Stine).
Both the Shakers and the Oneida Community were striving ÿfor
the same thing: the bringing in of the millennial kingdom. ÿBut,
they both had different ways in which to do it. The Shakers felt
that sexual ÿintercourse was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of
Eden and that by elliminating it, God would bring in the kingdom.
The Oneida ÿCommunity on the other hand thought that by living as
if one where ÿin the millennial kingdom already, ÿÿwould bring it
in.So, ÿÿas a result of that, ÿthe Oneida Community lived a ÿlife
where "complex marriage" (where all men and all woman werejointly
married to each other), or as some call free sex, ÿwas practiced.
This was practiced since they believed that in the millenium this
would be the norm.
What ÿis ÿinteresting ÿabout ÿthe ÿShakers ÿand ÿthe ÿOneida
Community is the fact that even though they were at opposite ends
of ÿthe ÿpole ÿfrom ÿeach other, ÿthe ÿShakers ÿand ÿthe ÿOneida
Community ÿnot ÿonly ÿknew ÿof each other, ÿbut on ÿoccasion ÿthe
Shakers would come and ÿvisit the ÿOneida Community. ÿThey had ÿa
certian ÿamount ÿof respect ÿfor each other (Noyes ÿ144). ÿÿJohn
Humphrey Noyes, ÿthe founder of the Oneida ÿCommunity, ÿ"declared
that ÿhis approach and that ÿof ÿthe Shakers ÿwere ÿthe only ÿtwo
possible in the resurrected ÿstate." But he further stated that:
"If ÿI ÿbelieved in a Shaker heaven ÿI would be ÿa ÿShaker ÿnow."
(Foster 89).
Both ÿthe Shakers and the Oneida Community profited from the
revivals that were taking place during their time. " The revivals
left many people distraught and torn by anxiety; and having tried
without ÿsuccess ÿto ÿgain ÿa sense of ÿassurance ÿin ÿtheir ÿown
churches, they were in a receptive mood to listen to new prophets
who ÿoffered definite guarantees of spiritual security." ÿ(Hudson
183). So the revivals played a key role in their success because
of ÿthe ideas, ÿattitudes, ÿand hopes which they fostered (Hudson
183).
Another fact about the two groups was that they both adopted
"communism," ÿÿor in other words, ÿcommunal living. ÿBoth groups
lived ÿin a communal setting where large groups of ÿpeople ÿlived
corporately ÿin mansion-size living quarters. ÿThey ÿshared ÿthe
responsibilities as a group, where both men and women worked side
by side with total equality as their goal.
Also, both groups were persecuted for their faith. ÿThis is
quite ÿinteresting ÿwhen ÿwe ÿremember the fact ÿthat ÿone ÿgroup
believed ÿin no ÿsex and the other group believed in "free ÿsex."
The general population did not agree with either extreme. ÿThey
were ÿboth ÿextremist ÿgroups ÿthat ÿdid not fit in with the main
stream of society ÿat that time, ÿeven though both groups went as
far as isolating their communities from the general population.
The Shakers and the Oneida Community were in some ways
very similar, but in other ways very diverse.

THE SHAKERS

FOUNDER:
The founder of the Shakers was a woman by the name of Ann Lee
Standerin who is known as Ann Lee, ÿor Mother Ann. ÿShe was born
in Manchester, ÿEngland on February 29, 1736. It is said that as
a ÿchild she did not have much of a desire to play, ÿbut that she
was ÿa serious young girl that had a great interest in ÿreligious
things. ÿÿIt is even said that during this time of her life that
"she ÿwas ÿfavoured with heavenly visions, ÿand ÿbecame ÿstrongly
impressed ÿwith ÿa ÿsense ÿof the ÿdeep ÿdepravity ÿof ÿmankind."
(Holloway 55).
Ann ÿwas known to have begged her mother "piteously" ÿto ÿbe
kept ÿfrom having to get married (Fergusen 321). ÿBut on January
5, ÿ1762, she ÿwas finally married to a blacksmith by the name of
Abraham Standerin. Over the next four years Abraham and Ann had
four ÿchildren which all died in infancy. ÿAnn looked ÿat ÿthese
deaths "as a series of judgements on her 'concupiscence' ÿ(sexual
desire; lust)." (Andrews TPCS 7,8). So she began to stop sleeping
with her ÿhusband so as not to stir up his affections. ÿShe ÿwas
even afraid to sleep at night because she thought ÿthat she might
awaken ÿin ÿhell. ÿShe even used to pace the floor at ÿnight ÿin
anguish ÿabout her struggle against the flesh. ÿIt is said ÿthat
her ÿanguish was so great that "bloody sweat passed ÿthrough ÿthe
pores ÿof her skin, ÿtears flowed down her cheeks until the ÿskin
cleaved off, ÿand she wrung her hands until the blood gushed from
under her nails (Andrews TPCS 7,8).
Then ÿin ÿthe ÿsummer of 1758, ÿshe joined ÿthe ÿsociety ÿof
Shaking Quakers, a ÿsect in England under the control of Jane and
James ÿWardley. ÿÿ(The ÿShaking ÿQuakers are an offshoot of ÿthe
Camisards ÿwhich ÿare ÿotherwise known as the ÿFrench ÿProphets.)
(Ferguson 322).
In ÿthe summer of 1770, ÿAnn had been imprisoned for ÿtaking
part ÿin a noisy religious service in Manchester England. ÿWhile
in jail, at the ÿage ÿof ÿthirty-four, ÿÿAnn ÿhad ÿa ÿvision that
radically transformed her ÿlife. ÿShe had a vision of "Adam ÿand
Eve ÿin ÿcarnal intercourse". ÿ(Foster 21,22). ÿShe at last knew
without a shadow of a doubt that the very transgression which had
resulted ÿin ÿthe ÿfall of man in the Garden of Eden ÿwas ÿsexual
intercourse. ÿÿAfter this traumatic discovery, ÿAnn had ÿanother
vision where the Lord Jesus ÿappeared to her in all of His glory.
Jesus ÿthen ÿsupposedly comforted her and told her that ÿher ÿnew
mission was to spread her newfound knowledge to the world (Foster
21,22).

HISTORY OF MOVEMENT:

"AS LUST CONCEIVED BY THE FALL
HATH MORE OR LESS INFECTED ALL; ÿSO WE BELIEVE
'TIS ONLY THIS THAT KEEPETH SOULS FROM PERFECT
BLISS."
(Hudson 185)

As ÿseen ÿfrom ÿthis Shaker hymn, ÿthe Shakers held ÿto ÿthe
visions of Mother Ann, ÿand made it their purpose to spread their
newfound ÿmessage to the ends of the earth. ÿMother Ann ÿherself
prophesied that "This gospel will go to the end of the world, and
it ÿwill ÿnot be propagated so much by preaching, ÿas by the good
works of the people."(Morse xxii).
After Ann's release from jail, ÿshe shared her visions ÿwith
the group of Shaking ÿQuakers to which she belonged. ÿBecause of
these visions, John Wardley, the leader of this group, saw Ann as
the fulfillment to his prophecy. His prophecy was that "Christ's
spirit ÿwould ÿcome ÿagain and that the second time it ÿwould ÿbe
embodied in a woman."(Ferguson 323). ÿThe group then "hailed her
as ÿMother ÿin Christ and Bride of the Lamb; ÿand she ÿwas ÿknown
thereafter as Mother Ann or Ann the Word." (Holloway 57).
As ÿAnn developed her sense of overpowering conviction ÿthat
lust was the basis of all human corruption, her religious mission
increased ÿuntil ÿshe ÿfinally ÿtook over ÿleadership ÿfrom ÿJane
Wardley. Then Mother Ann, during this time, ÿadded a distinctive
element ÿto the group which was celibacy. ÿThis distinction ÿwas
what ÿmade the Shakers different from other revivalist groups ÿof
this time. At this time there were approximately thirty belivers
in her following (Foster 25,26).
For ÿa ÿtime ÿthe ÿgroup tried to live out ÿtheir ÿfaith ÿin
England, but ran into much social pressure (Gonzalez 244). Then,
when Mother Ann was examined by ÿfour scholars of the Established
Church ÿin ÿEngland ÿon ÿthe ÿcharge ÿof ÿblasphemy, ÿÿ"whom ÿshe
confounded ÿby ÿspeaking ÿin ÿseventy-two distinct ÿand ÿseperate
tongues, ÿÿÿit ÿwas ÿplain ÿto ÿher ÿthat ÿthe ÿÿMillennium ÿÿhad
begun."(Ferguson ÿ57). ÿFollowing this, ÿa vision came to either
Ann (Ferguson 57) or her associate James Whittaker (Foster 26) of
a tree that according to Ann talked to her, telling her that they
were ÿto ÿcome to America to set up their church (the ÿChurch ÿof
Christ's Second Appearing). ÿIn Whittaker's vision, ÿthe tree did
not ÿtalk to him, ÿbut he saw a tree ÿwith ever-burning leaves in
America which represented ÿthe Shakers' ÿchurch. ÿBecause of this
vision, ÿthe Shakers felt ÿit their divine call to go to America.
So ÿin the spring of ÿ1774, ÿwith all temporal ÿaffairs ÿsettled,
arrangements were made to ÿgo to the new world (Andrews TPCS 18).
In May of 1774, Ann Lee and eight followers sailed from Liverpool
for America (Andrews/Andrews 13). The band of nine sailed on the
Mariah, ÿÿa ÿÿship ÿheaded for New York. ÿIncluded in the ÿgroup
besides Mother Ann ÿherself were several of her family (Neal ÿ2):
"her husband, her brother William, ÿ..., James Wittaker, ... John
Hocknell ..., ÿhis son Richard, ÿJames Shepard, ÿMary Partington,
and ÿNancy ÿLee, ÿa ÿcousin." ÿ(Andrews/Andrews 14). ÿThe ÿearly
Shakers ÿbelieved that the ÿgospel of celibacy "could never ÿtake
hold in the old ÿworld, ÿwhere the stolid, ÿconservative minds of
the ÿcommon ÿpeople ÿdid not open readily to ÿthe ÿnew, ÿÿstrange
doctrine." They believed that in the new world, God was going to
flourish it (Sasson 4).
The story is told that while they were not yet very long out
to sea, the captain became ÿvery outraged by the Shakers' ÿmanner
of ÿworship. ÿÿHe disliked it so much that he told them that ÿif
they repeated the performance again, ÿÿthey ÿwould ÿall be thrown
overboard. ÿÿOn the following Sunday they did repeat it. ÿAs the
story ÿgoes, ÿÿwhen the captain attempted to put his threat ÿinto
action, almost at once, a ÿstorm of tremendous violence arose and
knocked ÿa plank lose whereby the ship started to take on ÿwater.
All ÿhands tried to pump out the water with no avail. ÿWhen ÿthe
captain ÿannounced that nothing could save the ship and that ÿthe
ship would sink by morning, to the contrary, ÿMother Ann told the
captain ÿthat ÿshe had seen two angels on the ship that told ÿher
that it would not sink. ÿIt is said that scarcely had she spoken
it ÿwhen a great wave arose, ÿthe last of its size, ÿthat knocked
against ÿthe ÿship so precisely that the loose plank ÿwas ÿforced
back into place. After this, ÿthe captain allowed the Shakers to
worship any way they pleased (Holloway 58).
On ÿAugust 6, ÿ1774, ÿMother Ann and her followers of ÿeight
arrived ÿin ÿNew York (Andrews/Andrews 14). ÿThe group split ÿup
into ÿsmaller groups in order to earn money (Sasson 6). Ann took
in ÿwork doing washing and ironing while her husband was ÿworking
as ÿa journeyman in ÿthe blacksmith trade (Neal 3,4). ÿBut ÿsoon
after arriving, Abraham became very sick. Ann had to support the
two of them as she nursed him back to health. After this, Shaker
history ÿreports ÿthat ÿAbraham got involved ÿin ÿwickedness ÿand
refused ÿto do anything ÿfor Ann unless she would decide to "live
in ÿthe ÿflesh with him, ÿand bear children." ÿ(Sasson 6). ÿÿShe
totally refused his proposition which is what caused ÿtheir final
separation. Then in September of 1776, ÿthe group reassembled in
Niskeyuna, ÿÿNew ÿYork, ÿon some land purchased by John ÿHocknell
(Sasson 6).
Over ÿthe next four years, ÿvery little success was made ÿin
spreading Ann's gospel. ÿBut finally, ÿin 1780, because of a New
Light ÿBaptist ÿrevival in New Lebanon, ÿNew York, ÿÿthe ÿShakers
received a number of new converts who felt that the Shakers had a
definite ÿway ÿto salvation which they themselves ÿwere ÿseeking.
"There they found a fellowship literally following the example of
the primitive apostolic church: ÿmen and women living together in
celibate ÿÿpurity, ÿÿÿholding ÿall ÿgoods ÿin ÿcommon, ÿÿÿworking
industriously ÿwith their hands, ÿspeaking and singing in unknown
tongues, worshiping joyfully, ÿpreaching that Christ had actually
come to lead believers to a perfect, ÿsinless, everlasting life -
the ÿlife ÿof ÿthe ÿspirit."(Andrews ÿTGTBS ÿ4). ÿÿIt ÿwas ÿeven
believed by the early Shaker converts that the Revolutionary ÿWar
was the beginning of a new age. And then on May 19, 1780 was the
day ÿthat Mother Ann knew that the time had come to proclaim ÿthe
gospel to the New World, because on that day, ÿNew England turned
black. This was due to a solar eclipse which Mother Ann knew was
a ÿsign ÿfrom God to proclaim her gospel (Sasson 7,8). ÿÿShortly
after, ÿÿAnn ÿand ÿher elders were imprisoned on ÿthe ÿcharge ÿof
pacifism and treason. ÿAfter their release, ÿthey left on a two-
year ÿmission through many parts of Massachusetts, ÿÿConnecticut,
and ÿNew ÿYork trying to convert people to their ÿfaith ÿ(Andrews
TGTBS ÿ4). ÿThey returned to Niskeyuna in August of 1783. ÿÿThe
following July, Mother Ann's closest companion died, ÿher brother
William. ÿÿNot long after that, ÿMother Ann's health started ÿto
decline, ÿand on September 8, ÿ1784, ÿat the age of ÿforty-eight,
Mother ÿAnn ÿdied. ÿÿAt ÿthe ÿtime ÿof ÿher ÿdeath ÿthere ÿÿwere
approximately ÿ1000 ÿÿconverts to Shakerism ÿwho ÿwere ÿscattered
throughout New England (Sasson 8). ÿIt is said that "at the time
of ÿher ÿdeath, ÿÿone of the elders who was ÿgreatly ÿ'gifted ÿin
vision' ÿÿtestified that when the breath left her body he saw ÿin
vision ÿ'a ÿgolden ÿchariot ÿdrawn by ÿfour ÿwhite ÿhorses ÿwhich
received and wafted her soul out of sight.'"(Neal 5).
After ÿAnn's death, ÿJames Wittaker "saved Ann's faith ÿfrom
passing with her."(Sprigg 7). ÿFor the next three years Wittaker
propagated the ÿfaith until his death in 1787. ÿThen ÿleadership
was ÿassumed by the first American by the name of Joseph ÿMeacham
from Enfield, Connecticut. ÿHe then ÿpicked ÿLucy ÿWright from a
town in Massachusetts ÿcalled ÿPittsfield ÿas the leader over the
women (Sprigg 7). This step of putting Lucy Wright in leadership
was ÿsomething ÿthat ÿwas just not done at this ÿtime ÿperiod ÿin
history. ÿEven ÿmany Shakers did not like this move (Foster 37).
At ÿthis ÿtime in the Shakers' ÿhistory, ÿJoseph Meacham ÿbrought
together ÿand organized ÿthe scattered and ÿdisorganized ÿmembers
into ÿan ÿordered union (Andrews/Andrews 23). ÿ"He ÿdrafted ÿthe
constitution of the United ÿSociety, ÿÿand ÿelaborated ÿand ÿsys-
tematized ÿShaker doctrine."(Hudson 185,186). ÿMeacham regulated
everything, ÿÿÿeven ÿthe ÿShakers' ÿÿviolence ÿof ÿthe ÿÿphysical
manifestations was subdued to ÿdance ÿand song (Hudson ÿ185,186).
He made the move from ÿa primarily ÿcharismatic organization to a
more ÿstable and ÿroutine fellowship. ÿDuring this year, ÿÿJoseph
Meacham ÿand ÿLucy Wright (who were known as the parents ÿof ÿthe
church) ÿÿdecided that it was now time ÿfor the true ÿShakers ÿto
separate ÿthemselves ÿfrom the ÿworld (Andrews TPCS ÿ56). ÿÿThis
separation ÿwas ÿdue ÿto ÿtwo things: ÿÿthe ÿfirst ÿwas ÿthat ÿof
"persecution and religious conviction," ÿÿand the ÿsecond reason
was ÿthat ÿonly with seperation from ÿa ÿsinful world ÿcould ÿone
"realize the hope of salvation ÿand ÿperfection, complete freedom
to ÿobey the laws of God." ÿ(Andrews/Andrews ÿ24). ÿÿSo ÿMeacham
decided ÿ"to ÿmake ÿNew ÿLebanon ÿthe ÿfirst ÿ'gathered' ÿÿShaker
community, ÿthe model upon which all subsequent communities would
be ÿpatterned." ÿIt was also made the first headquarters of ÿthe
English ÿShakers ÿ(Foster 36). ÿUnder Meacham's leadership, ÿÿthe
Shakers ÿexperienced a surge in membership with the onset of ÿthe
Second Great Awakening (Hudson 186). Within seven years, ÿeleven
communities ÿwith ÿover ÿ2000 ÿmembers had ÿbeen ÿformed. ÿÿThese
communities ÿwere ÿin Watervliet (Niskeyuna), ÿNew ÿYork ÿ(1787);
Mount Lebanon, ÿNew York (1787); ÿHancock, ÿMassachusetts (1790);
Harvord, ÿÿMassachusetts (1791); ÿEnfield, ÿÿConnecticut ÿ(1790);
Tyringham, ÿÿÿMassachusetts ÿÿ(1792); ÿÿAlfred, ÿÿMaine ÿÿ(1793);
Canterbury, New Hampshire (1792); Enfield, ÿNew Hampshire (1793);
Shirley, ÿMassachusetts (1793); and Sabbathday Lake, Maine (1794)
(Morse ÿxvii). ÿA ÿsecond period of growth started in 1805 ÿwhen
Shaker ÿmissionaries were sent out to the West to ÿreap ÿconverts
from ÿthe ÿKentucky revivals. ÿThroughout ÿthe ÿShaker ÿhistory,
twenty-four communities were be established. ÿOf the twenty-four
communities, ÿtwenty-one of them were established by 1826 ÿ(Morse
xvii), ÿÿwhich was the peak of Shaker membership totaling ÿaround
5000 ÿpeople (Sasson 10). The last Shaker community to go out of
existence ÿwas ÿthe third one to be founded ÿwhich ÿwas ÿHancock,
Massachusetts, ÿÿwhich ÿwent ÿout of existence in ÿ1960. ÿÿMount
Lebanon, New York (1947) and Watervliet, New York (1938) were the
first ÿtwo ÿcolonies established, ÿand two of the last ÿthree ÿto
close (Morse xvii).

WORSHIP:
The Shakers can be classified as charismatic in nature. The
earlier Shakers, up until the leadership was taken over by Joseph
Meacham, ÿwere a wild, ÿunorderly, unorganized free-for-all. ÿAn
average worship service was described as such:
"When ÿthey ÿmeet together for their worship, ÿthey ÿfall ÿa
groaning and trembling, ÿand everyone acts alone for himself; one
will ÿfall ÿprostrate on the floor, ÿanother on his knees and his
head ÿin ÿhis hands; ÿanother will be muttering ÿover ÿarticulate
sounds, ÿÿwhich neither they or any body else understand. ÿÿSome
will be singing, each one his own tune; some without words, in an
Indian tune, some sing jig tunes, some tunes of their own making,
in ÿan unknown mutter which they call new tongues; ÿsome will ÿbe
dancing, and others stand laughing, ÿheartily and loudly; ÿothers
will be druming on the floor with their feet, as though a pair of
drum sticks were beating the ruff on a drum-head; ÿothers will be
agonizing, ÿas though they were in great pain; ÿothers jumping up
and down; ÿothers fluttering over somebody, ÿand talking to them;
others will be shooing and hissing evil spirits out of the house,
till the different tunes, ÿgroaning, jumping, dancing, ÿdrumming,
laughing, ÿtalking and fluttering, ÿshooing and hissing, ÿmakes a
perfect bedlam; this they call the worship of God." (Andrews TPCS
28).

In ÿsuch ÿworship ÿit is said that the participants were ÿnot ÿin
control ÿof ÿthemselves, ÿbut were under ÿspirit ÿcontrol. ÿÿThe
Shakers ÿfelt that as they shook sin would be shaken right out of
their bodies.
After ÿMeacham's ÿtakeover ÿof leadership, ÿhe ÿchanged ÿthe
worship ÿfrom what ÿis mentioned above to an orderly, ÿÿorganized
type of dance with song. The dances were symbolic; upturned palms
represented the ÿreceiving of divine blessings through the hands,
where the shaking of downturned hands represented the shaking out
of sin and evil through the finger tips (Ferguson 335,336).

DOCTRINE:
1) ÿÿCELIBACY ÿ- ÿCelibacy ÿwas to ÿbe ÿfollowed ÿsince ÿsexual
intercourse was the root of all evil. As Ann saw in her vision in
prison, the forbidden fruit in the garden was carnal sexual
intercourse ÿbetween ÿAdam ÿand ÿEve. ÿThis ÿis ÿwhat ÿcorrupted
all ÿof ÿmankind, ÿÿand until it is stopped, ÿÿthere ÿcan ÿbe ÿno
triumph ÿover ÿsin. ÿÿThey used Luke 20:34-36 ÿto ÿjustify ÿthis
(Foster 16).

2) ÿÿCONFESSION - The first step toward spiritual progress ÿwas
the ÿconfession ÿof ÿsins which was done to either ÿan ÿElder ÿor
Eldress. ÿÿThis ÿwas an oral confession, ÿthe very first one ÿof
which ÿwas ÿdone ÿbefore ÿthe ÿleadership. ÿÿThis ÿwas ÿa ÿÿvery
serious ÿmatter ÿand ÿconfessions could take days or ÿeven ÿweeks
to ÿfinish ÿ(Sasson ÿ11), ÿÿand in ÿsome ÿcases ÿyears ÿ(Holloway
69).

3) ÿÿREGENERATION - Regeneration was obtained by works (Andrews
TPCS 20).

4) ÿSEPARATION - Only through separation could one "realize the
hope ÿof salvation and perfection, ÿcomplete freedom to obey the
laws of God." (Andrews/Andrews 24).

5) ÿÿREVELATION - Believed in continuous revelation to ÿmembers
(Andrews TPCS 97).

6) ÿÿDUAL DEITY - That there is a Father-Mother God, ÿor male
and female sides of God of equal deity (Andrews TPCS 158).

7) ÿDUAL MESSIAHSHIP - That "Christ became the second Adam and
Ann became the second Eve, ÿthus restoring the race, ÿboth ÿmale
and female, to perfect purity." (Ferguson 324). She was Christ
in ÿfemale ÿform. ÿÿ"She was the one in whom ÿdwelt ÿthe ÿDivine
Mother."(Ferguson ÿ324). ÿÿMother Ann called ÿherself ÿ"Ann ÿthe
Word" ÿÿand ÿsaid that she was married to the Lord ÿJesus ÿChrist
(Andrews TPCS 12).

8) ÿÿEQUALITY ÿOF THE SEXES - A logical attribute of ÿmale ÿand
female messiahship.

9) ÿÿMILLENNIAL KINGDOM - They believed that the millennium was
imminent ÿand ÿthat ÿtheir good works could further ÿthe ÿkingdom
(Sasson 10).

10) ÿMEMBERSHIP - New members had to follow the Millennial Laws.
People ÿseeking entrance were put into one of two groups, ÿeither
the ÿNovitiate ÿOrder ÿfor those who had ÿbeen ÿmarried ÿand ÿthe
Junior ÿOrder ÿfor those who had not been married. ÿA ÿone ÿyear
waiting ÿperiod ÿor ÿtrial ÿperiod ÿwas ÿrequired ÿto ÿsever ÿall
matrimonial ties by common consent, and to settle all debts.
Families ÿwere then separated from each other and parents of
the ÿchildren ÿcould ÿonly see them privately once a year ÿfor ÿa
brief time in the presence of an elder (Holloway 69).

(NOTE: ÿÿThe ÿforgoing doctrines are the more important ÿones ÿof
many. ÿÿThese ÿdoctrines were called by the Shakers ÿ"Millennial
Laws" ÿÿby ÿwhich ÿthey ÿwere ÿto live since ÿthey ÿwere ÿin ÿthe
millennial ÿkingdom. ÿThese Millennial Laws covered things ÿfrom
how to treat animals up to their gospel of celibacy.)

THE ONEIDA COMMUNITY

FOUNDER:
The founder of the Oneida Community was a man by the name of
John Humphrey ÿNoyes. ÿHe was born in Brattleboro, ÿVermont, ÿin
1811 (Cornish ÿ300). ÿJohn Humphrey came from a well established
home where his father, ÿalso named John, ÿwas ÿa congressman and
Dartmouth ÿgraduate. ÿHis mother Polly was sixteen years younger
than his father and was a very strong-willed and deeply religious
woman. She always taught her children "to fear the Lord."(Thomas
3-4). ÿShe even prayed before John Humphrey's birth that someday
he may become a devoted minister of the gospel (Thomas 3-4). ÿUp
until John Humphery's conversion, he was known as a rebel who had
little interest in theology or in his studies (Holloway 180). He
entered Dartmouth in 1826, the year that revival had hit its peak
under Charles Finney. ÿBut to no avail, John was not affected by
it and looked at religion with great cynicism. ÿFive years later
though, ÿÿat the request of his mother, ÿJohn attended a four-day
revival meeting in Putney, ÿVermont, ÿagain under the ministry of
Charles Finney. At first he was not moved by what he heard, "but
after ÿthe ÿmeeting he suffered a feverish cold which led him ÿto
think of death, and to humble himself before God."(Whitworth 89).
He ÿvigorously ÿembraced ÿthe faith and the ÿexpectation ÿof ÿthe
beginning ÿof the Millennial Kingdom (Whitworth 89). ÿÿLater ÿhe
studied ÿat ÿAndover ÿand Yale Divinity School with a ÿvision ÿof
going ÿinto the ministry. ÿWhile at Yale, ÿNoyes came to ÿa ÿnew
understanding ÿof ÿthe ÿway ÿof salvation ÿwhich ÿhe ÿlabeled ÿas
Perfectionism. ÿThis view did not hold to total depravity as did
the ÿCalvinists' ÿÿview, ÿbut it saw man as reaching a ÿstate ÿof
perfection ÿor sinnlessness at conversion (Muncy 161). ÿSo ÿwhen
Noyes ÿasserted ÿthis ÿdoctrine of complete release from ÿsin ÿat
conversion while studying at Yale Divinity School, ÿhe was denied
ordination (Hudson 187). It is said that one of the reasons that
Noyes ÿadopted ÿthis ÿdoctrine was the fact ÿthat ÿhe ÿcould ÿnot
believe that he was a sinner, ÿsince he could not summon up ÿfrom
within ÿany feeling of deep guilt and despair (Holloway 180-181).
For ÿwhatever ÿreason ÿhe ÿadopted this ÿdoctrine, ÿÿit ÿwas ÿthe
underlying foundation of his future endeavors.

HISTORY OF MOVEMENT:
In 1834, Humphrey Noyes started developing the theories that
would ÿlater ÿbecome ÿthe ÿfoundation ÿof ÿtruth ÿin ÿthe ÿOneida
Community. ÿOver the next three years, ÿJohn canvassed New ÿYork
state and New England trying ÿto make new converts with no avail.
Finally, ÿÿafter a tough three-week period in New York City, ÿÿhe
reached the verge ÿof ÿa complete mental and emotional breakdown.
To ÿtop things off, his first and most faithful follower, Abigail
Merwin, ÿÿleft him to marry another man (Foster 72-73). ÿÿShortly
after ÿthese events, ÿNoyes started writing articles ÿwhich ÿwere
published in a new periodical called the "Battle-Axe". His first
article was on the ÿdenunciation ÿof the institution of marriage.
Also, ÿin September of this year (1837), part of a letter written
by Noyes to a friend ÿwas ÿanonymously published by the editor in
the Battle-Axe. ÿThis letter ÿstated ÿthat ÿNoyes ÿfelt from his
interpretation ÿof ÿa ÿbiblical prophecy, ÿthat ÿhe ÿwas ÿclearly
convinced ÿhe ÿwas God's agent on earth. ÿThis article ÿdid ÿnot
bring ÿas much outrage by the people as did a later article ÿthat
outlined ÿhis ÿbeliefs on sexual relationships in ÿthe ÿspiritual
world and that would prevail in the millennial kingdom (Whitworth
95). Through the writing of these articles, a ÿwoman by the name
of Harriet Holton, ÿthe granddaughter of the ÿLieutenant-Governor
of ÿthe ÿstate, ÿÿbecame interested in Noyes and his ÿwork. ÿÿShe
started ÿto ÿfinancially support him, ÿand ÿlater, ÿÿafter ÿNoyes
realized that he would never get Abigail Merwin back, slowly came
to the point where he realized that Harriet was filling the ÿvoid
that ÿAbigail had left (Holloway 182). ÿThen, ÿin June of ÿ1838,
Noyes ÿwrote ÿHarriet ÿa ÿletter in which he propsed ÿin ÿa ÿvery
careful way. ÿHe explained to her that their marriage would be a
spiritual ÿone, ÿeven though for that time period it would ÿbe ÿa
carnal or earthly marriage. But, he felt that the marriage would
benefit ÿboth of them and that they, ÿaccording to his teachings,
would ÿnot selfishly possess one another (Thomas 92-93). ÿOne of
his ÿmain ÿreasons ÿfor ÿgetting married was ÿthat ÿhe ÿfelt ÿthe
marriage ÿwould advance the work of God in which he was ÿengaged.
Also, ÿÿit showed others who were criticizing him of his celibate
state that he was not for celibacy, ÿas were the Shakers. ÿNoyes
also said that, ÿ"By this marriage, ÿbesides herself, ÿand a good
social ÿposition, ÿÿwhich ÿshe held as ÿbelonging ÿto ÿthe ÿfirst
families of Vermont, ÿI ÿobtained money enough to buy a house and
printing-office, ÿand to buy a press and type."(Foster 84). ÿThe
press ÿwas ÿthen used to propagate Noyes' ÿÿteachings ÿthrough ÿa
publication ÿcalled "The Witness,"which he had to discontinue due
to ÿa lack of funds. ÿSo this marriage seems to have been ÿbased
mainly ÿon convenience (Foster 84). ÿAfter his marriage, ÿÿNoyes
then helped to arrange the marriages of his sisters to two of his
closest followers, ÿJohn L. Skinner and John R. Miller, ÿwho were
students from his Bible institute which he had started in 1836 in
Putney. He also gained the loyalty of his younger brother George
and ÿlater ÿdue ÿto much pressure, ÿhis own mother who ÿhad ÿbeen
previously ÿvery upset by the way in which he had been ÿusing ÿup
the family estate to finance his religious endeavors. So at this
point, ÿÿJohn and George Noyes, ÿSkinner, ÿMiller, ÿand ÿa ÿlater
addition ÿof ÿGeorge ÿCragin ÿbecame the center ÿof ÿan ÿinformal
governing group of the movement (Foster 84).
Finally, in 1840, ÿ"the Putney Association came into being -
as a purely religious body".(Robertson 3). ÿThen, ÿin 1844, ÿthe
group ÿformally ÿadopted ÿcommunism ÿby ÿwhich ÿto ÿlive. ÿÿThis
communism ÿ"included ÿall ÿproperty ÿand ÿof ÿfamily ÿliving ÿand
associations" ÿÿÿ(Robertson ÿÿ3). ÿÿAt ÿthis ÿtime ÿthere ÿÿwere
approximately ÿthirty-seven ÿmembers ÿthat were involved. ÿÿThey
lived in three houses, maintained a store, and worshiped together
in a ÿsmall chapel (Muncy 163). ÿThey also ran two farms at this
time, and because of the death of Noyes' ÿfather who left $20,000
each to four members who were in the community, they were able to
support themselves (Thomas 97).
Two ÿÿyears ÿÿlater, ÿÿin ÿ1846, ÿÿthe ÿÿcommunity ÿÿadopted
Noyes'teachings of "Mutual ÿCriticism," ÿ"Complex Marriage" ÿÿand
"Male ÿÿContinence" ÿÿÿ(Muncy ÿÿ167). ÿÿAt ÿthis ÿtime ÿÿin ÿÿthe
group'shistory, ÿÿthese practices were ÿonly practiced on a small
scale amoung leadership, ÿand not until 1848 in Oneida, New York,
would ÿthese ÿbe practiced by the whole ÿcommunity ÿ(Foster ÿ88).
Because ÿof ÿthese ÿpractices, ÿÿthe community ÿcame ÿunder ÿmuch
persecution, ÿÿeven ÿto the point ÿwhere Noyes was ÿindicted ÿfor
adultery. Noyes, not wanting to become a useless martyr, and who
by ÿthis ÿtime was viewed by the group as the ÿMoses of ÿthe ÿnew
dispensation ÿwho was going to lead them ÿto the ÿpromised ÿland,
quickly purchased twenty-three acres of land that contained ÿsome
buildings in Oneida, ÿNew York. ÿTheir "Promised Land" ÿwas near
the ÿCanadian border which would be very convenient ÿin ÿcase ÿof
future persecution. ÿThen in 1847, the Putney group agreed "that
the Kingdom of God had come."(Holloway 181,183). ÿÿThe community
could believe this because of two of Noyes' ÿteachings: one being
that Christ's second coming took place in A.D. ÿ70, and the other
being that they could bring ÿin the millennial kingdom themselves
(Holloway ÿ181,183). ÿÿForty-five of his followers ÿfrom ÿPutney
followed Noyes to Oneida and by the end of 1848, their membership
grew to eighty-seven (Muncy 167).
The ÿeconomic base of the Oneida Community was ÿagricultural
and industrial. ÿThey had approximately forty acres of partially
cleared ÿland on which to farm and an Indian sawmill in which ÿto
produce lumber. Over the next year, ÿthe community purchased and
cultivated additional land, ÿestablished a variety of minor craft
industries, ÿÿÿbuilt ÿa ÿcommunal ÿdwelling ÿÿhouse, ÿÿÿappointed
administrative ÿcommittes ÿand set up a pattern of ÿdaily ÿliving
which the community followed for the next thirty years (Whitworth
120). As stated earlier, Noyes' teachings were practiced here by
the ÿcommunity. ÿÿThe ÿmain teaching ÿwhich ÿreceived ÿthe ÿmost
criticism was that of "Complex Marriage." ÿIn Complex ÿMarriage,
every ÿman ÿwas ÿmarried to every woman and ÿvice ÿversa. ÿÿThis
practice ÿwas to stay only within the community and had ÿto ÿstay
within ÿtwo main guidelines. ÿThe first was that before the ÿman
and woman could cohabit, ÿthey had to obtain each other's consent
through a third person or persons. Secondly, no two people could
have ÿexclusive ÿattachment with each other because it ÿwould ÿbe
selfish ÿand ÿidolatrous. ÿÿAny ÿtwo people found ÿin ÿany ÿsuch
situation ÿwould be separated and not allowed to see ÿeach ÿother
for ÿa ÿcertain ÿlength of ÿtime ÿ(Holloway ÿ185-186). ÿÿAnother
teaching ÿpracticed ÿat ÿthe Oneida Community was that ÿof ÿ"Male
Continence," which was a type of birth control. ÿIn the practice
of ÿMale Continence, ÿ"a couple would engage in ÿsexual ÿcongress
without ÿthe man ever ejaculating, ÿeither during intercourse ÿor
after withdrawal."(Foster 93-94). ÿNoyes justified this practice
because his wife Harriet in the first six years of their marriage
had five difficult childbirths, ÿfour of which were premature and
resulted ÿin the deaths of the children. ÿSo Noyes came ÿto ÿthe
conclusion that where an unwanted pregnancy occurred, there was a
waste ÿof the mans seed and that it was no different in ÿpractice
to masturbation (Foster 93-94). ÿWith the implementation of Male
Continence, ÿwhich lasted from 1848 to 1868, ÿsome forty children
were ÿborn in the community of about two hundred and fifty people
(Whitworth ÿ126). ÿÿAnother teaching practiced along these ÿsame
lines ÿwas that of "Ascending Fellowship." ÿAscending Fellowship
was ÿset ÿup ÿto ÿproperly introduce ÿthe ÿvirgins ÿinto ÿComplex
Marriage. This practice also worked to prevent the young members
from ÿfalling ÿin ÿlove with each other and from ÿlimiting ÿtheir
range of affection to just the younger members. ÿThe main people
picked to care for the virgins were people who were considered to
be ÿcloser ÿto God. ÿThese people were of course older and had ÿa
special ÿtitle which was that of Central Member. ÿThese ÿCentral
Members ÿwere ÿallowed ÿtheir pick of a partner over ÿwhich ÿthey
would have the responsibility of spiritual guidance. ÿIt usually
worked ÿthat the male Central Member would pick any female virgin
of ÿhis choice. ÿDue to her lower order, ÿshe was ÿcompelled ÿto
accept. ÿÿIn ÿthe case of the female Central Member, ÿthey ÿwere
usually past the age of menopause, and when they chose their male
virgin, ÿÿthey were obligated to honor the request. ÿThe ÿreason
women ÿpast menopause were chosen was so that as they taught ÿthe
younger men Male Continence, ÿthey would not have to worry ÿabout
unwanted pregnancies (Muncy 176-177). ÿThe forth major ÿteaching
practiced was that of "Mutual Criticism." ÿMutual Criticism ÿwas
established ÿÿto ÿassure ÿthe ÿintegrity ÿof ÿthe ÿcommunity ÿÿby
conformity to Noyes' ÿmorality. The way in which Mutual Criticism
worked was that a member, ÿunder communal control, ÿwas subjected
to ÿcriticisms of either a committee or the whole ÿcommunity.
The ÿcriticisms ÿwere usually directed toward the ÿ"member's ÿbad
traits (those thoughts or acts that detracted from family unity),
and ÿan individual could be put through a shameful, ÿÿhumiliating
experience."(Thomas ÿ163). ÿÿOnly ÿNoyes himself ÿwould ÿnot ÿgo
through ÿthis ÿunless he decided to because he felt that a ÿgroup
should not criticize their leader (Thomas 163).
In the area of government of the Oneida Community there were
"twenty-one ÿstanding committees and ÿforty-eight ÿadministrative
departments. This organization covered every conceivable activity
and ÿinterest ÿfrom hair-cutting and dentistry to ÿeducation ÿand
silk-manufacture."(Holloway ÿ190-191). ÿThe Oneida Community had
no ÿdefinite rules restricting a member's time of rising ÿin ÿthe
morning ÿfor ÿwork, ÿbut they had very few problems ÿwith ÿpeople
taking advantage of it. ÿAlso at Oneida, ÿthe women had equality
with ÿthe ÿmen and served on these committees and shared ÿin ÿall
activities (Holloway 190-191).
In 1849, ÿa small branch community started at Brooklyn, ÿand
others followed "at Wallingford, Newark, ÿPutney, ÿCambridge, and
Manlius'. ÿBut in 1855, some of these communities were abandoned
so that a concentration of members would take place at Oneida and
Wallingford." ÿ(Holloway 187-188). ÿAlso by this time, ÿ"relative
tranquility ÿhad ÿbeen achieved and almost all the ÿtheories ÿand
practices ÿthat would make Oneida one of the most distinctive ÿof
all American ventures in religious and social reorganization ÿhad
been ÿat ÿleast provisionally established." ÿ(Foster ÿ74). ÿÿThe
Oneida Community never did become very large. In January of 1849
the community had 87 ÿmembers; ÿ172 ÿmembers by February of 1850,
and ÿby ÿFebruary of 1851 ÿthe number rose to ÿapproximately ÿ205
members (Foster 103). ÿThe records show that in 1875 ÿthere were
298 ÿÿmembers, ÿand by 1878, ÿthe beginning year of the ÿbreakup,
there ÿwere ÿ306 ÿmembers (Holloway 187). ÿFrom the original ÿ87
members ÿat ÿOneida in 1849, ÿthe totals from that year ÿon ÿwere
group totals from all of the communities combined (Foster 103).
Over ÿthe years from 1849 ÿto 1879, ÿ"the community remained
true to its original ideals" (Hudson 188). ÿBut problems started
to ÿoccur in 1876 ÿwhen Noyes tried to hand over leadership ÿto
his son, Dr. Theodore Noyes, ÿwho was an agnostic. ÿNot only was
the ÿfact ÿthat he ÿwas an agnostic bad enough, ÿbut he ÿran ÿthe
community with a tight fist which was resented by the people. It
got so bad that John Humphrey Noyes himself had to come back from
Wallingford where he was living to put things back in order. ÿBy
then it was too late, ÿfactions within the community had ÿalready
formed, ÿÿsome even with the opposition on the outside ÿ(Holloway
194). And then in 1879, due to the opposition and hostility from
the surrounding communities, ÿNoyes, ÿÿwho ÿhad already withdrawn
from active leadership, ÿfelt ÿcompelled to abandon the system of
Complex Marriage (Askew/Spellman 111). ÿEven though Noyes wanted
to ÿkeep the community together after this, ÿsome living ÿmarried
and others celibate (not preferred), ÿproblems occured. ÿMany of
the members quickly got ÿmarried, ÿbut since Complex Marriage was
such an integrated ÿpart of their lives, ÿthe community could not
settle ÿdown ÿto their normal style of living. ÿSo in ÿ1880, ÿÿa
committee ÿwas ÿappointed "to consider the ÿadvisability ÿof ÿre-
organising ÿupon a ÿjoint-stock basis." ÿThen in January of 1881
the joint-stock company, ÿcalled the "Oneida Community, Limited,"
was ÿset ÿup ÿ(Holloway 194-195) ÿand the ÿOneida ÿCommunity ÿwas
abandoned.

WORSHIP:
Noyes ÿdid ÿnot see the necessity of observing ÿthe ÿSabbath
(Whitworth 104). ÿBut they ÿdid ÿhave a Sunday chapel meeting in
which outsiders were allowed in. ÿAfter work in the evening they
would sing and pray and be taught such languages as Hebrew, Greek
and Latin (Holloway 183). Not much else is written on the topic.

DOCTRINES:
1) ÿCOMPLEX MARRIAGE - This is where every man and every ÿwoman
was ÿmarried ÿto ÿeach ÿother. ÿÿThey ÿcould ÿengage ÿin ÿsexual
intercourse, ÿÿbut ÿcould not be attached to each other as stated
earlier.

2) ÿÿMALE ÿCONTINENCE - This was a form of birth control ÿwhere
during and after sexual intercourse the man could not ejaculate.

3) ÿÿASCENDING FELLOWSHIP - This is where the young virgins ÿin
the ÿÿcommunity ÿwere ÿbrought ÿinto ÿthe ÿpractice ÿof ÿÿComplex
Marriage. ÿÿThe ÿolder ÿgodly ÿmembers who ÿwere ÿin ÿa ÿspecial
group ÿand ÿwere ÿcalled Central Members would pick a ÿvirgin ÿto
be ÿÿspiritually ÿresponible ÿfor. ÿÿThis ÿtook ÿplace ÿwhen ÿthe
young people were about fourteen years old.

4) ÿMUTUAL CRITICISM - In Mutual Criticism, ÿeach member of the
community that was being reprimanded was taken in front of either
a committee or sometimes the whole community to be criticized
for their action.

5) ÿÿCONFESSION - The members of the community, ÿÿaccording ÿto
Noyes, ÿwere sinless after conversion, ÿso no confession would be
needed.

6) ÿREGENERATION - That Christ's death was not for the sins ÿof
man, ÿbut was the first blow to Satan. ÿBut that by believing in
the death of Christ, one was released from sin, because Christ
destroyed ÿthe ÿcentral cause of sin. ÿBy believing ÿthen, ÿÿone
is regenerated (Whitworth 101-102).

7) SEPARATION - The members did separate into a community, ÿbut
their main separation was to be a sexual one.

8) ÿÿREVELATION ÿ- Noyes never said that ÿhe ÿreceived ÿspecial
revelation, ÿÿthough ÿhe did have some ÿtwisted ÿinterpretations.
Noyes once wrote an article in "The Berean" and emphasized the
credibility ÿof ÿscripture ÿand denounced those ÿwho ÿdenied ÿthe
validity and relevance of scripture (Whitworth 98).

8) ÿÿEQUALITY ÿOF THE SEXES - The Oneida Community beleived ÿin
equality of the sexes as stated earlier.

9) ÿÿMILLENNIAL KINGDOM - That the Millennial Kingdom had ÿbeen
introduced in A.D. 70 at which time Noyes thought Christ had made
His Second Coming (Hudson 186).

(NOTE: ÿÿAny doctrines listed above that are not referenced ÿhave
been ÿdiscussed in and referenced in the paper or are ÿof ÿcommon
knowledge.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, ÿÿEdward Deming. ÿThe Gift to be Simple. ÿÿNew ÿYork:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1940.

Andrews, ÿEdward Deming. ÿThe People Called Shakers. ÿNew York:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1963.

Andrews, ÿÿEdward Deming and Faith Andrews. ÿWork ÿand ÿWorship.
Greenwich: New York Graphic Society, Ltd., 1974.

Askew, Thomas A. and Peter W. Spellman. The Churches and
the ÿAmerican Experience. ÿGrand Rapids: ÿBaker Book House,
1984.

Ferguson, Charles W. The New Books of Revelations. Garden City:
Doubleday, Doran and Co., Inc., 1928.

Foster, Lawrence. Religion and Sexuality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1981.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 2
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

Holloway, Mark. Heavens on Earth. New York: Liberty Publishers,
1951.

Hudson, Winthrop S. Religion in America 3rd Ed. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981.

Morse, Flo. The Shakers and the World's People. New York:
Dodd, Mead & Company, 1980.

Muncy, Raymond Lee. Sex and Marriage in Utopian Communities:
19th ÿCentury ÿAmerica. ÿBloomington: ÿÿIndiana ÿUniversity
Press, 1973.

Neal, ÿJulia. By Their Fruits. ÿPhiladelphia: ÿPorcupine Press,
1975.

Noyes, Pierrepont. My Father's House: An Oneida Boyhood.
Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1966.

Robertson, Constance Noyes. Oneida Community: The Breakup,
1876-1881. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1972.

Sasson, Diane. The Shaker Spiritual Narrative. Knoxville:
The University of Tennessee Press, 1983.

Sprigg, June. By Shaker Hands. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
1975.

Stine, Jeanne. Telephone Interview. September 25, 1985.

Thomas, Robert David. The Man Who Would Be Perfect.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc., 1977.

Whitworth, John McKelvie. God's Blueprints. Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1975.

Wisbey, Herbert A., Jr. "Noyes, John Humphrey."
Encyclopedia International. 1967 ed.

From the S.O.N. BBS, WI