I got the Quaker tree maps. It is really a great piece of effort. I learned so much just looking at it for just 30 minutes.
I put one on the center table of our meetinghouse library, had a piece of table-top glass made, and covered the map with the table-top glass. The map is about an inch smaller than the table top. So it is really striking and neat to be at the table, and able to read the map.
Terrific job and service to Quakers for generations to come!
I think it would be of interest to all Friends to post the stats. I do wonder if the stats for FGC meetings is under stated though. Many FGC meetings in modern times do not emphasize membership. For example my meeting places no significance on membership. We have even had clerks of our monthly meeting who were not a member. I assume the stats only count members. I believe the other branches of Quakers place a lot of importance on membership.
Thanks Geoffrey for the info. I mailed you a check this morning for $25 for three $6 charts and the $7 mailing costs.
My meeting in Midlothian was started by Richmond Meeting some 25 years ago to alleviate their over-crowding. We purchased our meetinghouse in Midlothian 10 years ago. I was originally a member of Richmond and transferred my membership to Midlothian.
Midlothian is probably more liberal Quaker-wise than Richmond. The 25 years have caused our practice to diverge slightly. Midlothian is only affiliated with FGC, while Richmond is affiliated with both FGC and FUM (earlier in the 1900's they were entirely an FUM meeting until BYM meetings reunited). Even so, Richmond is more comfortable and relates more to FGC. Richmond is very definitive on the roles in the meeting open to members versus attenders. Midlothian makes no distinction between members and attenders. I've been told that Richmond "comes to its spirituality through Quakerism", whereas Midlothian "comes to its Quakerism through its spirituality". Midlothian is much smaller than Richmond, which is quite a large meeting by Quaker standards.
Other than these slight differences, the two meetings are fairly similar, and we often share events, etc. with each other.
I very much enjoyed what you posted. I have been obsessively interested in Quaker history since first becoming a Quaker in 1987.
Thanks again for your edifying work on making the maze of schisms understandable.