Theology on the Landscape: A Comparison of Mormon and Amish-Mennonite Land Use

Theology on the Landscape: A Comparison of Mormon and Amish-Mennonite Land Use

BY KARL B. RAITZ

THE BEHAVIORAL TRAITS possessed and maintained through time by a distinctive group of individuals are defined by anthropologists and geographers as "culture." This article is concerned with one particular aspect of behavioral traits, or culture: the method of land use and how two distinctive groups of people, or subcultures—the Mormons of Utah and the Amish-Mennonites of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania— have created contrasting urban and rural land use systems. The underlying motivational theological doctrine of each group has provided parameters for behavior which have shaped religious ideals and have also had a pronounced effect on the way each group utilizes its land resources. A map analysis of village morphology and field and building locations and sizes will show that each subculture has created a distinctive landscape—a landscape born out of theological edict.

Conrad M. Arensberg has noted that each American subculture has a distinctive community structure which remains discernible above the accidents of location, size, and function. The community is, in fact, a unit of cultural and social organization and transmission which provides human beings and their cultural adaptation to nature with the minimum personal, social, and psychological relationships through which the longevity of their culture is assured and the context of their culture can be preserved for the following generations. Arensberg holds that a single community of a subcultural group reflects an honest view of the whole culture of which it is a part and is, in effect, a functional microcosm.

The individual subculture community, whatever its location and regardless of the time of its existence, will occupy areal space and will utilize the contents of that space in the manner prescribed by its cultural mores. The settlements it creates may be delimited spatially and morphologically from those of other groups which use their space and environment differently. The subculture community may produce visual evidence of its characteristic behavior traits, such as particular house or barn types, road patterns, field size and fence arrangement, special crop associations, or innovative agricultural practices. Each community assigns parcels of space to individuals in a culturally defined manner, thereby producing distinct settlement patterns, land use, and property distributions on a "material landscape." It is significant that the material landscapes of ethnic or religious subcultures include landscape patterns and features which can be mapped on large scale topographic maps. These maps are, therefore, a valuable research tool in the differentiation of culture group landscapes.

MORMON DOCTRINE AND LAND USE

Mormonism was one of many experimental, communal, millennial movements of the early nineteenth century. A major difference between the Mormons and other groups is that while other millennial movements set a time of the Second Coming of Christ, the Mormons set a place. This meeting place was called "Zion" and the communities at the place were referred to as "gatherings." The theological doctrine of the gathering is one of Mormonism's oldest and most influential doctrines. It was a sign of a new and everlasting covenant which the Lord made with his followers. This doctrine reflected the ancient promises that were made to Israel and also the prophecy of a Second Coming as interpreted by the leaders of the movement. The gathering was an idea which was encouraged by divine will and sought after by individuals. Inspiration for the gathering came from a literal interpretation of the scriptures, from a providential reading of history, and from the circumstances of a free-land society in early nineteenthcentury America.

Joseph Smith, a native of New England, founded Mormonism in New York in 1830, and he made the gathering of the Saints, or followers, in Zion the great unifying theme and ultimate goal of Mormonism. By way of visions and revelations, he concluded that this common home of all Saints was to be in America. Under his dynamic leadership the influence of Mormonism spread to foreign countries. The response a Mormon made to fulfilling the prophecy of the ultimate gathering was to proselytize, and the belief in the gathering came to be regarded as a sign of one's faithfulness.

A second major doctrine, that of inheritance, was directly related to the gathering. The meek were to inherit the earth, and as part of the gathering, life here and in the hereafter was a continuum. Thus, the communities that were founded through the gathering were the prototype for the ultimate kingdom. Joseph Smith had conceived a city plan for Zion which was a four-square gridiron with wide streets intersecting at right angles and an idealized version of the New England town.

METHOD OF MORMON LAND USE

As the Mormons moved across the eastern part of the United States in the 1830s, the square-plot pattern was used at their major settlements at Kirtland, Ohio, and Nauvoo, Illinois. In the mid-1840s, Joseph Smith was killed at Nauvoo, an unfortunate tragedy, and the Mormons fled the Midwest and migrated to the Great Salt Lake Valley in what is now Utah. On arrival, church leaders established a rationale for settlement and exploitation of their new land based on the theological doctrine that Smith had espoused.

All settlements occupied by the Saints were to be "gathered together" in villages, according to custom, in the mountain valleys. By living in what amounted to farm villages, the people could retain their ecclesiastical organization, have regular meetings of the quorums of the priesthood, and establish and maintain day and Sunday schools, improvement associations, and relief societies. This method also allowed for the cooperation of all in financial and secular matters, in digging irrigation ditches and fencing fields, and in making other necessary domestic improvements. In addition, the village offered mutual protection and a source of refuge from cattle thieves and hostile Indians. A further advantage of the compact farm village was that it precluded the risk of loss of social and civic responsibilities and character which might otherwise have occurred on widely spaced farmsteads. Rather, intercommunication was simple, convenient, and inexpensive.

As settlement progressed down Utah mountain valleys, each favorable location was surveyed, and the land was divided into village lots and small and large farms. Each family head was allotted land according to his needs and his circumstances. Those persons who would be part-time farmers, such as blacksmiths and shopkeepers, were given small one to five acre lots near the center of the community. The men who lived by farming alone were given large lots of ten to eighty acres farther away from the village, with the size of a man's farm determined by the size of his family. In addition to field land, each man had a plot of ground in the village. Each block in the grid was divided into four even sized lots, on which each man built his house and his barn (see figure 1). There were no buildings, not even sheds or barns, in the fields. Everyone lived in town.

The farm work routine involved morning care of livestock and then a ride of up to five miles to the fields. In the evening after the ride back, farmers worked in their gardens, which occupied the remainder of the town plot. Every household had an orchard or a garden. The people were encouraged to cultivate vegetables and fruit, which would not only improve health conditions but also contribute to economic independency. After the garden work was completed, the farmer might attend the meeting house for worship, recreation, or business. The development of agricultural land and other resources was regarded as a religious as well as a secular function.

In spite of inroads into the area by Gentiles in the early years, this system of settlement and land use, as practiced by the Mormons, became so inveterate, that the church expanded when young people in need of arable land, together with experienced pioneers, established new colonies complete with a place of worship, a town plan, a lay ministry, and a treasury—in short, a full functional apparatus for nucleated community living patterned after the classic Mormon model.

Examination of a Mormon village, such as Escalante, on a topographic map reveals modern day evidence of the land use patterns conceived of by Joseph Smith (see figure 1). The gridiron street pattern has been established on an alluvial fan complex with direct access to a stream. The large square blocks still remain an outstanding feature, and many still have only four houses (houses are the small solid squares on the map) and four barns (barns and unoccupied outbuildings are symbolized by the open squares or rectangles). Many unimproved roads lead out of the village to fields, and it should be noted that very few houses or barns can be found outside the village. The focus of the village had traditionally been a centrally located meeting house, and the only commercial or church buildings in the village are in the center of the grid. Specific land use practices for the Mormons of Utah differ from the historic practices of Nauvoo in that the semiarid climate and the need for careful management of limited water resources have prompted the control of water through cooperative jurisdictions. Not only are towns located adjacent to streams, but efforts are made to gauge the flow and to store water for various uses, as the map illustrates. While these climatic restrictions have had a definite effect on the location of a settlement site, the relationships of man to the land are still regulated by traditional Mormon ideals.

AMISH-MENNONITE DOCTRINE AND LAND USE

The Amish-Mennonites live by a simple three-word formula— obedience, simplicity, and love. They believe that God is to be obeyed and not merely believed in. In 1525 the Mennonite founders, Menno Simons and Conrad Grebel, stated that a literal interpretation of the text of the Bible was a prerequisite for religious salvation. Because of their obedience to the biblical teaching, they not only rejected the efforts of other, more liberal Protestant churches of their day, but they also rejected the use of violence, the swearing of oaths, and governmental support of the church. In the seventeenth century, the Mennonites were driven into the hills and poor farmlands of western and central Europe by their persecutors where, for survival, they were forced to pursue scientific farming methods.

Many divisions have occurred in the original religious movement, resulting in twenty-one major groups today. The Amish-Mennonites, for example, are a branch of the Mennonite church that separated from the main body of churchmen in Bern, Switzerland, in 1693, on matters having to do with the strictness of discipline. Today, secularization of schools and higher education are avoided if possible, and the Amish are dominated by a proverbial, antiurban, Christian philosophy of life. The city is held to be the center of "worldly" progress, of laziness, of nonproductive spending, and, often, wickedness. Man occupies his right place in the universe only when he is caring for the things in "the garden," that is, the plants and animals created by God. The Amish farmer is wedded to his land, and farming is one of the tenets of the Amish religion.

METHOD OF AMISH LAND USE

When the Amish-Mennonites migrated to the United States in 1757, William Penn, who was aware of their industry and ability, invited them to settle in Pennsylvania. Their present dominance in Lancaster County results not from an initial advantage of earliest settlement but from a constant displacement of other groups in an area where the demand for contiguous farmland has forced land values to rise unusually high. The economy of the Amish-Mennonites is based on agriculture. In Lancaster County, the Grossbauer, or family farm (mixed, intensive agriculture), or some closely related occupation is a prerequisite for church membership. They also require plain living and complete abstention from worldliness. They recognize that if they lose their agricultural base they will probably disappear as a group in a few generations. Consequently, the Amish-Mennonites were the first farmers in this country to develop outstanding farming improvements. They were the first to build large barns as stock shelters, and they have used the latest and best farm machinery, with the exception of the tractor which may be used only for auxiliary belt power. They were among the first to understand the merits of diversification and such constructive farming practices as the use of legumes in a crop rotation and manure as fertilizer. They were small-farm minded and have historically avoided plantations and large-acreage commercial farms. Today they are largely self-sufficient in their food supply which includes an unusual variety of vegetables, cheeses, and meats. The Amish-Mennonites have become a more cohesive group than have other religious or ethnic subcultures of the region, and this has made possible a helpful program of mutual aid.

The sound farming practices and their willingness to work long hours have permitted the Amish to buy out less efficient non-Amish farmers living in the region. This process, together with the dependence on horses and buggies for transportation, has resulted in the formation of a small, spatially compact area of Amish farms which increases both the ease of social communication within the community and its isolation from the outside world. High land values result from this centripetal pressure on the land. The importance of farming and the rural environment in maintaining the religious disciplines of the Amish, combined with the financial difficulties of accumulating enough capital to purchase a farm at inflated prices, make a system of mutual aid a necessity if the young people are to be kept within the group. A primary objective of Amish agriculture is to accumulate enough money to keep all the offspring on farms. Extending aid to promising young farmers is considered one of the greatest virtues. Prestige among the Amish depends on competence and success in farming.

The village of Intercourse is located in the heart of the Amish- Mennonite region of Lancaster County (see figure 2). The areal pressure that the Amish have exerted as landowners is at once evident in the linear settlement pattern of the village. The road pattern is irregular, and houses and the larger commercial buildings are tightly packed together on narrow lots. Most of the village houses have been built on or near highway right-of-ways in linear strips along the roads within the village. Note that many of the village houses have large barns behind them, suggesting that while the occupants may operate some type of business or service such as wheelwright or blacksmith, they still maintain a link with the land. The Amish farmers live on individual farmsteads which, while separated, are in close proximity to each other. The farms are small, averaging less than sixty acres (see figure 2). Land values in this area are as much as three times higher than they are a few miles to the south. It should also be noted that the long rural buildings (symbolized by a narrow rectangle) are likely to be tobacco barns. Tobacco is a labor-intensive crop demanding skill, high capital investment, and a government allotment. It seems ironic that tobacco, a symbol of worldliness and government regulation, is the second-ranking cash crop of the Amish-Mennonites.

A COMPARISON OF AMISH AND MORMON VIEWS

Evidence obtained from the topographic maps and secondary sources shows a diversity of viewpoints toward land use by these two subculture groups. The Amish community must be dispersed in farms across the landscape, yet the farms must be concentrated together if the Amish are to preserve their way of life. The worldly influence of the town and city must be avoided, yet the town retains the function of providing needed services to the Amish farmer.

The Mormon community, on the other hand, is focused on the "gathering" or the farm village. Escalante, Utah, has a population of 638, about the same as Intercourse, Pennsylvania, at 600. Yet Escalante occupies more than twice as much land as Intercourse. The Mormon village grid plan lowers the density of community settlement while still providing all the desired communitarian qualities that were first outlined by Joseph Smith. It is interesting to note that, although both groups have placed much value in hard work and an orderly, quiet, and humble existence and both groups fear absorption into the society of the Gentile or of the world, their motivational theological doctrines have influenced the creation of two completely different landscape patterns.

One must conclude that the method of organizing and using land exercised by the Mormons is, to a great degree, a result of a distinctive theological doctrine. Environmental influences, such as a shortage of rainfall and poor soils, have not had an effect on the basic methods of land use organization. Only the specific techniques of irrigation and water management had to be adapted for the West. Mormon behavior may be a combination of many economic and theological factors, but it became institutionalized into the cultural fabric of the group. The result was a similar weaving of varied land use elements at each gathering. The Amish method of land use can also be isolated as an example

of distinct subculture behavior. Amish land use methods have been much the same since the seventeenth century when the Grossbauer, or family farm, was established on marginal farmland in western and central Europe. Amish motivations concerning the use of land are distinctive, and the resulting material landscape made up of intensive scientific agriculture on very small, individual farms is easily identified. While the Amish do enjoy a favorable local environment in southeastern Pennsylvania, historical evidence would not seem to support a hypothesis of dominant environmental influence on cultural behavior and land use.

A major difference in the two subcultures that seems to have resulted from their distinctive theological doctrines is that the Amish have developed a closed and introverted society, whereas the Mormons have evolved an open and extroverted society in which a real expansion and new members are desired. It seems ironic that the spatial pattern of land use, as seen on the topographic maps, would lead one to believe that the reverse were true.

It is indeed valuable for one to discover that his daily behavior, while it has significance for the historical and social chronicles, has also produced observable patterns on the landscape that reveal a visual geographical record which has both spatial and temporal dimensions. And a real appreciation of one's own culture-history can take place only when these patterns on the landscape are studied and compared with the patterns created by other culture groups.

For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.