The Amish and Community

"Nobody sits on porches anymore," I've heard more than a few people, including myself, complain. "Nobody knows their own neighbors." "People don't trust each other." "No one cares about this town." "Local politics are a joke." Some people, particularly those of use who did grow up in small, tight-knit towns, sigh these statements occasionally in passing. "It's a shame, really," we think. But for all our sighs, we seem to think that these evidences of community deterioration are inevitable, unstoppable, natural progressions, and we ignore or justify our own role in said deterioration. Why? In my opinion, there are three reasons:
1. We don't realize the consequences of seemingly innocent individual actions on the larger community.
2. We don't immediately feel or recognize the results of a weakened community.
3. We value our own convenience and well-being over that of our family and/or community. Ouch.

After reading a book I bought my mother for Christmas (don't say you never do that) about the Amish, I've realized that if we truly believe in the importance of a strong community for us and our family, we should allow the health of our community (or our family, for that matter), to become a priority to us personally - that is, enough to influence our daily decisions. Because communities are often subjective, ill-defined and non-concrete, we may be tricked into believing that the health of a community is subjective and no concrete action on our individual part is required to maintain them. We are, in fact, neglecting a living thing.

The Amish are a beautiful example of people who make concrete, daily decisions for the benefit of their communities, and the results are astounding. The Amish form tight-knit but welcoming communities where everyone is known and looked out for. The small family farm environments encourage people to visit one another and exchange information, resources, and emotional, mental, financial, and physical support. The lack of materialism and religious values among the Amish promote reciprocity, and so they often donate time, an extra hand, or a hot meal to a neighbor in need, knowing that they themselves may have such a need someday.

In the 1920s, when telephone use became very widespread, the Amish decided as a community that they would not have telephones in their houses. They didn't want to risk the technology replacing the regular human interaction that fortified their lives. They can still use phones, but they are often located outdoors in an unheated shed or down the street and shared with several families. ERGO - they make a sacrifice of personal convenience in order to strengthen their community. The Amish don't find it pleasant to do without convenience. They simply decide that it is worth it. And indeed it is: one study found that compared with women in the general population, Amish women experienced less stress, fewer symptoms of depression, and better mental health. They reported low levels of domestic violence, high levels of social support, and had high fertility with fewer preterm babies (Miller K, Yost B, Flaherty S, Hillemeier MM, Chase GA, Weisman CS, Dyer AM).

While we may not have to sacrifice phones and cars, we have to recognize that our communities and families (and by logical implication, us individually) will only thrive if we are willing to sacrifice. Just as an environmentalist may encourage you to inconvenience yourself with a walk to save carbon emissions, I encourage you to walk in order to connect with the people who live on your street. The results of such actions, over time, will be worth it, even if it means missing your tv show or your nap today. Sacrifice should be expected, but the paradoxical return, as manifested by the Amish, is that such sacrifice for strong families and communities does in fact lead to greater individual well-being and satisfaction. Simply put, where family and communities are concerned, the investment is worth it.


Health status, health conditions, and health behaviors among Amish women. Results from the Central Pennsylvania Women's Health Study (CePAWHS). Womens Health Issues. 2007 May-Jun; 17(3): 162-71. Epub 2007 Apr 24

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17459726

Why Wait to Have Sex?

As a 26 year old virgin who is currently engaged to be married, I recognize that I am somewhat of an anomaly among my peers - a sort of relic of earlier, quainter times. Why have I waited to have sex until marriage? Is abstinence ridiculous or unhealthy or just not relevant? For a religion and a nation that have become so sectually (pardon the pun) diverse, it may be worth discussing why sexual abstinence - or chastity, as I refer to it, has any merit in today’s society for Christians and, well, everyone else.

The first commandment ever given was for Adam and Eve to “multiply and replenish the earth." Perhaps no other commandment has been so faithfully kept since. A few hundred years later, Moses was also told “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and in about ten other Biblical verses we are told specifically to avoid fornication, especially in the later New Testament (when, we can assume, converting Romans and Greeks made this a more pertinent issue). The implication of these scriptures is that God very much wants us to bring children into the world, and there is a certain way He wants it to happen.

While active Christians are quick to agree with some commandments, they seem less enthusiastic about others. Chastity before marriage is a difficult one to discuss, possibly because it is a difficult one to keep. One of the principle arguments is that abstinence before marriage is nice, but it’s not really that big of a deal any more. Now we know that having sex before marriage isn’t nearly as harmful because we have means of preventing both unwanted births and sexually transmitted disease. Others speak even more strongly and say, premarital sex is more beneficial than waiting, because sex is important for your health and emotional development and “trying it out” before marriage shows how compatible you are with your future spouse. My goal is not to address every argument for extramarital sex but to make a case for sex containment within marriage, supporting both prophetic revelation and social research.

Every society has some regulations about sex, whether formal or informal. Incest, for example, is almost universally prohibited, and in many countries any sexual relations outside of marriage are also illegal. Other than preventing unwanted pregnancies and disease, these kinds of laws protect children and provide stability for families. Significant research shows that children who grow up in intact, married families are significantly more likely to graduate from high school, find work and enjoy a stable family life. I am waiting to have sex in part because I respect such boundaries that we have created as a society to strengthen individuals, families, and communities. That's part of what marriage is - it’s the bounds that we have decided as a society to regulate when and with whom it is acceptable to have sex. Sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture of unregulated, casual, accidental sex which promotes widespread individual emotional and mental strain, weakens families and virtually every institution in society, and most importantly compromises the future by putting children at risk.,

Mindful of these implications, we desperately need to advocate a culture where those who choose to have sex make a commitment to each other that is recognized by the wider society, and are true to that commitment. Why does it have to be legally recognized? So the commitment is established in a safe, monitored way. Cops wear uniforms and carry badges to indicate their position. If everyone drove cars with sirens and carried badges lawlessness would ensue. A marriage certificate legally establishes your position in relation to your spouse, without misunderstanding or trickery. You sign the certificate along with them. A million worries are eliminated by this simple act. Again, this protects you as individuals, your relationship, and future children that may be born into it.

While the institution of marriage should not be seen as an exclusively sexual contract, it is a necessary component. The fact that many people do not, in fact, maintain sexual fidelity within their marriages is not an indication of a faulty rule, but a lack of self control. The toilet may be seen as restrictive and limiting for toddlers with natural and healthy body processes, but we would be silly to live with the mess and give up on the goal of potty training because it is difficult or unpleasant to do.

What are society's limits for personal sexual activity? There are few, legally speaking. Outside of incest and pedophilia, individuals are free to act according to their own code of ethics - whenever you want some, or whenever you’re in love, or as long as you know you’re going to make that commitment at some point. It should be clear though that there is something dangerously wrong with feeling that you alone are the expert of when and with whom you should have sex. Those who feel that subjective love or feelings of commitment are sufficient might want to step outside themselves for a moment and consider the countless numbers of people who have have made poor judgments acting on such logic. The proportion of children born outside of marriage has skyrocketed in the last 30 years from 13% to 44%, while the percentage of adults in intact first marriages dropped from 73% to 45%. The connection should be obvious.

Although legal recognition of marriage is essential, legally enforcing chastity may not be appropriate (although I would like to see a hefty fine slapped on cheating parents). The expectations of our society will gradually change however as we take the initiative to change our personal behavior. Will this be difficult? Will this require an enormous amount of thankless self-control? Absolutely, it will. I'm doing it! But why should this surprise us? Moral discipline is the foundation of a strong society. We have had to exercise self-control in virtually every area of our lives since we were potty trained. We require self control in our eating, our health, our cleanliness, our interactions with others, our spending habits. However, regarding sex, I have never yet encountered an issue about which Americans seem so averse to exercising discipline. Let’s put it in potty training language. Not knowing when and where to do what feels “natural” and “healthy” is irresponsible and gross and leaves messes for everyone else to clean up.

Society itself depends on our ability to exercise this moral discipline in relation to one another. We indicate the importance of sex as we exercise self-control in when and with whom we do it. We indicate the importance of marriage, society, and our future children as we commit to forming strong families, within the bonds of total fidelity and at no other time.

I am not having sex a single day before getting married, both because of my personal religious convictions, but also because of my love for my country, and my future children. Regardless of birth control and condoms, the welfare of future children will greatly depend on whether or not society encourages adults to make concrete, widely-recognized commitments to each other before having sex, encouraging them to fulfill their roles as spouses and parents and creating a happy, safe, peaceful haven for ourselves and our children.

See former Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Spears article about the marriage gap on CNN.com by clicking here

Are You Saved?

Mormons are often challenged with the question, particularly from born-again Christians, about whether or not we have been saved. It's always a little difficult to answer though; let me clarify why (this is taken directly from a seminary student manual):

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said: “As Latter-day Saints use the words saved and salvation, there are at least six different meanings. According to some of these, our salvation is assured—we are already saved. In others, salvation must be spoken of as a future event ... or as conditioned upon a future event. ... But in all of these meanings, or kinds of salvation, salvation is in and through Jesus Christ” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1998, 76; or Ensign, May 1998, 55 ). The following are summaries of the six different meanings of which Elder Oaks spoke:

1. We are saved from the permanent effects of death. Because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all mankind will be resurrected.

2. We are saved from sin through Christ’s Atonement and by following the gospel plan. Repentance is an important part of being saved from the consequences of our sins.

3. We are saved when we are “born again.” This happens when we enter into a covenant relationship with Christ by accepting baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and taking Christ’s name upon us. We must also faithfully keep and renew that covenant relationship.

4. We are saved from the darkness of ignorance as we learn about the gospel plan. The gospel of Jesus Christ brings light into our lives.

5. We are saved from the second death, which is final spiritual death, because of Christ’s Atonement. Everyone, except for those few who become sons of perdition, will be placed within God's heavenly kingdom.

6. Our hope is that we will be finally saved in the celestial kingdom (greatest degree of glory in heaven). In addition to the other requirements, this salvation, or exaltation, also requires that we make sacred covenants in God’s temples and remain faithful to them (see Conference Report, pp.76–78; or Ensign, pp.55–57 ).

So, am I saved? Well, yes, and not yet. Some of saving requires us to endure to the end (Matt 10:22, 24:13). This is what we hope for!

Homosexual Identity vs. Religious Identity

The argument for legitimizing same-sex relations, either morally or legally, is based on a number of assumptions. In order to help people better understand the argument and make more informed decisions, I will shed light on a few:

Assumption #1: Homosexual identity should be regarded just as highly as religious identity.

The identity we choose to represent us can be our gender, occupation, family, cultural background, sexual preference, religion, diet, team loyalty, or political affiliation, just to name a few. Are these categories equal, though, in import? Let's discuss just two.

How is sexual preference different from religious belief? The answer should be clear from the question itself. Your religion, or philosophy, is the template for your beliefs about the nature of reality -- people, God, the universe, etc. -- which dictates what behaviors are morally appropriate. A homosexual identity grows from thoughts and feelings concerning same-sex preference, or desire. Without trivializing the nature or intensity of these feelings, I would like to point out the difference between desire and belief.

I would love the euphoria that comes from doing ecstasy. If I have done drugs in the past, my craving is constant, innate, and overwhelming. I think about them often and rationalize using them again: Ecstasy is a party drug, right? It doesn't hurt anyone! However, because I know drugs will have a negative effect on my life and on society in the long run (and I know my mom would be disappointed in me), I choose to suppress these desires. In this case, my rationality (thoughts based on true belief), overcomes my rationalizations (thoughts driven by desire).

Belief, not appetite, should determine our personal code of morality. C.S. Lewis said, "If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy... then good would not deserve to be called good" (Mere Christianity, p. 34). Regardless of whether I call it religion or philosophy, my rational, moral beliefs (or we could even stretch that to FAITH) allow me to control my desires, master my appetites, and channel my energies to accomplish and become what is difficult and healthy and good. “Reason saves and strengthens my whole system, psychological and physical, whereas that whole system, by rebelling against Reason, destroys both Reason and itself ... Nature may be rebellious. But from observing what happens when Nature obeys it is almost impossible not to conclude that it is her very ‘nature’ to be a subject” (Miracles, 4.13).

At this point some may say, I am not driven by appetites any more than any other person is driven by theirs. Or, they may say, appetites are logical because they indicate what our bodies and minds need. This may be true. But if we allow that argument, we open a can of worms including pedophilia, bestiality, bigamy, adultery, incest, and many other things that as a society we still generally consider reprehensible. In order to avoid this dangerous spiral, we must clearly distinguish what is true from what we would like to be true merely because it accommodates what we want.

C.S. Lewis attests to the importance of distinguishing between desire and belief in choosing a denomination:

"The question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'"

I am not arguing that the choice to pursue same-sex attraction is irrational. Those who make the choice to "come out" with their feelings and live the lifestyle openly surely spend an enormous amount of time making the decision. However, no one would say that they chose to be homosexual for purely rational or moral reasons. The fact that the gay community claims it is not a choice (and we have no reason to doubt them) attests to the non-rational impetus of their decision to "live out"; it indicates that no one pursues a homosexual lifestyle solely because they feel it is the right thing to do. Their decision always begins with desire--usually unwanted. Whether people choose to remain in the proverbial closet or come out (and may have logical reasons for doing so) is not about who has the strongest feelings. It's about which individuals choose to allow their desires to influence their beliefs and which individuals allow their beliefs to control their desires.

So, in response to this assumption, beware of the false comparison between groups who have a faith-based identity and those that are desire-based. They may both be persecuted, but they are not the same. While beliefs most certainly can change, we must be brutal in our examination of these changes to be sure they are motivated by truth and faith, not by appetites and desire. If not, we risk rationalizing away both our sense of morality and our sense of reality, and losing our humanity in the process.

Zion and Social Capital: An Argument for Civic Society

We Americans have talked about families a lot. Religiously and socially, I think we all get that strong families are important. Beyond that, we as Christians been also been told to create strong communities - namely, Zion. If you're anything like me, Zion is not a concept I naturally gravitate to. I think this is because the idea of a society where everyone is of "one heart and one mind" and where there are "no poor among us" sounds like either a really exclusive club with no diversity, or a communistic society. Realizing that God is probably not a fan of either, I've decided to explore the religious concept of Zion a little more in depth from the perspective of a sociologist. I've decided to relate the principles of Zion to the concept of building strong communities in general. What is so important about building a strong community, how is it different than building a strong family, and what does it look like?

First of all, this discussion must begin with the concept of social capital. Just like financial capital (such as assets) human capital (such as a college education) or cultural capital (such as the ability to speak someone's language) have inherent value, so do the social networks created between people. In other words - community. Wikipedia: "Social capital is a collective mental disposition close to the spirit of community."

The creation of a Zion community, specifically, requires the proactive participation of Christians, not just their reactive presence. Furthermore, it requires that we take initiative to act on the principles we believe (like charity, compassion, consecration, sacrifice, and obedience), not merely cling to our Christian identity with bumper stickers, or react by abstinence from worldly things like sex, drugs, and kicking puppies.

Our participation in communities is therefore one of the commandments of God. The communities He has especially designated for our participation are our congregations, although I believe that any community can and should adopt Zion principles to strengthen the emotional, mental, physical, and financial resources of its members.

The book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam describes the deterioration of Zion and our need to strengthen it through individual action (this is taken from the review on Amazon): "He argued that civil society was breaking down as Americans became more disconnected from their families, neighbors, communities, and the republic itself. The organizations that gave life to democracy were fraying. Bowling became his driving metaphor. Years ago, he wrote, thousands of people belonged to bowling leagues. Today, however, they're more likely to bowl alone:
'Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values--these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness.'"

More and more, formal systems have replaced informal systems and policy is trying to compensate for what Putnam refers to as "social capital", or our social resources in the form of support, norms, and information. Here is an example of how informal support, which is the best kind of support, is being replaced in each category.

Support (structural -Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1973): A single mother has difficulty finding work because she has a child to take care of and can't leave him home alone. In some communities, the mother would have relatives or neighbors who would provide support. She will probably do the same for them later down the road. However, this mom usually does not have strong connections to her family or community. This can be because her family is broken and scattered, because her community is crime-ridden and neighbors don't trust each other, or because she personally does not participate in a church, club, PTA, or other informal organization that adopts these Zion-like principles of unity and love in a community-type setting.

To compensate, the government or other nonprofit organizations take on themselves the responsibility to provide or subsidize formalized childcare services external to a community context. Thus, without social capital, created naturally by the actions of members within a community, the individual or other organization is forced to rely on financial capital, which is a poor substitute indeed.

Norms (relational): A boy with no father joins a gang, does hard drugs, and gets a girl pregnant. In other societies, a lack of a father would be addressed by the role models of other strong and moral men in the community, who by their example and participation in the community teach what it means to be a "real man". The presence and participation of these moral agents reinforces positive social norms for the behavior of others. Additionally, when members of a community are invested in eachother's well-being and share frequent interaction, they create shared meaning about what behaviors are appropriate and pass those expectations on to their families and other community members. Finally, when people are invested in their communities, they take responsibility for actions that affect everyone, like graffiti, drug-dealing, or unfair political actions. They don't take advantage of their neighbors because they know their neighbors, and their love and investment is reflected in the way they behave as community members. In the absence of role models, frequent interaction of community members, and individual investment in community, financial capital is once again called on to compensate in the form of more police, more prisons, drug rehabilitation programs, welfare, etc.

Information (Cognitive): In order to be able to access and use this social capital, we have to be able to "exchange information, identify problems and solutions, and manage conflict." Who addresses the gang? Who knows where to find a job? Who has the chicken pox? Who needs help because they just got out of surgery? Who knows the kid that smashed my window last night? Who are the real leaders in the community? This is a form of social capital that craigslist and wikipedia can't compensate for. Real, applicable, direct information. In its absence, we create social networks online, look for information online, or do without. Most agencies provide lists of formalized resources but they do very little to provide the kind of informal, often unspoken information that makes communities strong and connected.

A happy, healthy community, in conclusion, requires social capital, which requires not merely participation but the kind of participation that is based on Christian values. Zion is not a holy clique - it's a format for creating happy individuals and families by fostering communities that are based on celestial principles of love, obedience, consecration and sacrifice.

I have seen bumper stickers lately that say "God bless EVERYONE" as though to turn their nose up at those who ask for His help just for America. The problem is, if you commit yourself to everyone, you tend to forget the people who belong to your community specifically. Frankly, I don't think it matters whether your community is a bowling league or Passaic New Jersey or the Orange County United Methodist church. Belong to a community. Be invested in one. Bring your resources and your wisdom and your time to your community and make it great. We can't keep pretending that strong families can develop and thrive without considering the strength of the community with which every member of the family interacts every day. Strong people both create and are created by strong families. Strong families both create and are created by strong communities.

God said, "If ye are not one ye are not mine" - regardless of your opinion about the proper level of government involvement,we can all agree that the best assurance of equality and prosperity is neither enforced nor ensured by external organizations, but by us as community members helping each other. God encouraged this, before sociology was invented. He knows, and I do too, that a strong community leads to safety, prosperity and happiness more effectively than any amount of financial capital, government power, or technology could ever hope to achieve.



Granovetter, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties", American Journal of Sociology 78 (6), pp 1360 - 1380.

Putnam, Robert. (2000), "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" (Simon and Schuster).