Christopher_A_painting_in_the_style_of_Albert_Bierstadt_of_a_fa_ef64acfe-779e-412f-b89c-726e97c6df62 (3) (1)

Building Zion in the Backyard: Learning to Love Where You Are

Is it better to relocate for family or establish roots in a community? Fidelity to a community can come from weighing spiritual obligations, the benefits of community attachment, and family connections.

The last night of the family reunion, my husband, Quinn, and I were sitting around the fire pit discussing our plans for flying back home to Virginia when his brother said, “If you lived in Idaho, you’d already be home.” 

To be fair, he’d been upfront that his ulterior motive for hosting the family reunion near Boise was to display Idaho’s true glory and thus convince us, the East Coast holdouts, to move there. My 80-year-old mother-in-law’s plaintive requests have been even more straightforward: “When are you going to come back to Utah?” she regularly asks Quinn. “I want my son to live closer to me.”

Between us, my husband and I have a total of seven parents and siblings, all but one of whom are scattered across the West from Arizona to Utah, Idaho to Oregon—which makes us and our ridiculous insistence on living in Virginia the burr in the saddle of family togetherness. The longer we live here, the more galling it becomes to certain family members. Like, Come on, it was funny at first, but now the joke is over.

We fantasize about relocation as a swift solution.

We persist, irritatingly, in not moving.

Fidelity to a community can be a tough argument to make to Latter-day Saints. For starters, most of us feel a doctrinal pull to prioritize family over friendship or other kinds of community. According to the research, you’re more likely to stay put if you live within an hour or so of five family members.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ told his disciples, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” It wouldn’t be a leap to assume that our effort to follow Christ might require some nomadism; other Christian traditions have assumed as much. 

Then there’s our church’s history of geographic mobility. As soon as we got home from the family reunion in Idaho, our 16-year-old headed to trek, a Church-approved reenactment of the pioneers’ exodus to Utah, with its echoes of much earlier journeys—the Israelites leaving Egypt for a distant Promised Land, the Nephites and Jaredites from the Book of Mormon building their own boats to abandon a homeland they still loved. 

There are lessons to be learned from trek about perseverance through adversity, but perhaps another unspoken lesson is that we don’t much prioritize staying put. That following God may mean leaving behind a beloved community and going someplace new. Somehow we’re prepared for that kind of spiritual nudge, ready for the whisper that tells us to pack up. 

To be honest, I think about moving all the time. About being closer to family. Having more time together on a regular basis, not just at these biannual reunions. Seeing our mothers without paying roughly the cost of a plane ticket to Europe—a budgetary gut punch that I loudly decry every time I pay $600 to go to Mesa instead of Marseille. Fewer of those criminally expensive tickets for our older daughter, who now goes to college in Salt Lake City and shows every intention of staying there for a while.

To be honest, we’re most likely to talk about moving when we’re both at wit’s end with our work or on days when my husband’s calling requires twelve hours of church meetings and phone calls that threaten his faith in humanity. He’s the stake president, and we joke (is it really joking?) that one of the very few ways to get an early release from that calling is to move—probably more moral than taking up smoking. We fantasize about relocation as a swift solution to a party pack of problems.

Community drives spiritual growth.

So far, we’ve stayed.

Why do we stay? For starters, because we worked for it. 

When we moved to Blacksburg, Virginia, for Quinn’s job in 2012, to a town where we were not only family-less but friendless, Southwest Virginia was Mars, the residents like those alien life forms in Arrival who seem vaguely friendly but have their own impenetrable language. It was so obvious we didn’t belong that I immediately started wishing for a swift departure.

Then practicality won over. We would be here for at least the foreseeable future. Why be miserable? Why not try to make Blacksburg home? 

I conducted what I retroactively think of as Love Where You Live experiments—systematic exertions designed to help me fall in love with my new hometown. I walked the neighborhood. I showed up to the town festivals. I volunteered at the historic movie theater. 

Proactive behavioral changes along these lines nurtured place attachment, a feeling of community belonging that, research shows, enhances well-being, health, and longevity. (I wrote about it in my 2016 book This is Where You Belong.) And at the point when we’d stockpiled a prepper’s supply of place attachment, we loved it too much to ever want to move. 

You can see how it works in wards, a kind of quasi-neighborhood based on geography. We did all the right things to make the Blacksburg Ward our home: invited people over for dinner, arranged play dates for our kids, and showed up for the ward barbecue with a 9×13 of brownies. We accepted callings and did what we were asked. We started caring about people, and they started caring about us in return. 

Over time, the community of the ward turned into something cogent and life-giving, even more vital and necessary because we lived so far from family. We’ve spent Thanksgivings, Christmas Eves, and birthdays with ward friends. We got each other through COVID with outdoor lunches and Saturday evening Zoom trivia games. We’ve vacationed together, eaten dinner together, sat through a hundred book clubs, and taught each other’s kids. They are our people. It took time to get there, but we did.

According to a longitudinal study by Cigna, about 60 percent of Americans say they’re always or sometimes lonely. BYU professors Julianna Holt-Lunstad and Tim Smith have said that a lack of social connections can wallop your health as much as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Wards and branches are an effective, locally based loneliness prevention mechanism for those who want to take advantage of it. They’re also amazing drivers of place attachment.

I get asked a lot how adults, and particularly newcomers, can make friends in a community, and my best advice always is: Go to church.

But to really benefit from it, you have to stay.

Build Zion wherever we live.

Of course, the upside is the downside: You have to live side by side with these people and all their foibles and faults (and they have to live with yours). That can be deeply uncomfortable. When things are going poorly—good friends have moved, our callings chafe—we think more often and more longingly about moving as our best, easiest exit strategy.

But there’s a reason why a member who wants an out-of-unit assignment—to attend a ward that doesn’t correspond with where she lives—must seek seldom-granted permission from the First Presidency. We’re meant to stay together in communities. We’re meant to sit in the same chapel with the people we’re struggling to forgive or sustain or look in the eye or make civil conversation with. It’s how, together, we learn to work through minor social and spiritual injuries and antipathies and have our rough edges knocked off, and become a little more Christlike. 

It’s the community that drives spiritual growth. The tougher the community, the faster the growth.

Perhaps that’s why church leaders long ago stopped advocating for physical gathering and started telling us to build Zion wherever we live, whether London or Zanzibar or Blacksburg. Our best and most challenging service and sacrifice is to faithfully remain in the communities we already have, wherever they happen to be. It’s not a grand cross-continental relocation a la Nephi, yet “they also serve who only stand and wait.” 

In a time of high desire for mobility—nearly half of Americans at least contemplated moving during COVID—there are subtle benefits in staying put. Consider, for instance: 

  • Social capital. Because I’ve lived here for a long time (and, let’s be honest, because I’ve written a couple of books about place), the mayor knows me by name. The owner of the bookstore too. My husband’s church service means wherever he goes, he knows people, and people know him. That sort of knowing and being known takes years to develop. Moving resets your social capital meter to zero.
  • Opportunities for contribution. Knowing and being known also means being able to serve more effectively. Sometimes that’s exhausting—another one of those things the natural man in me would gladly leave behind in a relocation. But it’s also rewarding.
  • History and narrative. I wrote in This Is Where You Belong about building place attachment in happy memories. Think of your experiences in your community as pins in the map. The longer you’ve lived there, the more you have. 
  • Community trust. Health and well-being benefits accrue to those who not only know their neighbors and fellow community members but trust them, too—like when you ask the guy across the street to feed your cat while you’re on vacation. You can’t do that on Day 1 in a new place.
  • Place attachment. I love it here. If we moved to be closer to family, would we spend the rest of our lives trying to recapture the magic of this place?

I’m careful never to pledge that I’ll live in Blacksburg forever. Who knows if, in a couple of years, we too will feel those nudgings of the Spirit urging us elsewhere? My second book, If You Could Live Anywhere, outlines how to be wise about choosing a place to live; I’m not entirely opposed to the concept. And I know that I can use the same tools that helped me fall in love with Blacksburg to intentionally fall in love with somewhere else.

But sometimes I think I’d just like to stay here. We’ll keep flying to the family reunions out west. We’ll refuse our families’ entreaties. We’ll build the kingdom in Virginia. We’ll stay put.

About the author

Melody Warnick

Melody Warnick is the author of This is Where You Belong: Finding Home Wherever You Are. She has previously written for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Reader’s Digest among others.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Supreme Court’s Textualist Temptation

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Bostock v Clayton County may in fact tell us more about how courts decide what law is than what law says. It may also serve as an unexpected opportunity for judicial conservatives to move away from textualism and reclaim a more inclusive jurisprudential methodology. For over four decades the legal community has been arguing about first principles for interpreting our laws. In Bostock v Clayton County, a case about LGBTQ rights that the United States Supreme Court will decide this term, the central question involves an interpretation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which famously bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. The case is important because it will determine whether discrimination based upon “sexual orientation” is covered by the original prohibition in the statute against discrimination on the basis of “sex.” But the case may actually be more important for the ideas used by the court in how we interpret our laws. The case presents what may well become a textbook example of the application of textualism, and its related concept, originalism, to the interpretation of a landmark statute. Thus from the standpoint of how laws are interpreted, the case is fraught with meaning and symbolism.  That argument will take center stage in a highly ironic way. Judicial liberals will be arguing for textualism (typically the conservative position) and conservatives will be arguing for a much more broadly based contextual understanding (usually the liberal position). From my perspective as a judicial conservative, this is an opportunity to restore textualism to its traditional place in jurisprudence, which could also have the added benefit of reducing the tension between textualism and originalism, something that has received too little attention from conservatives. To understand the debate, some brief history is necessary.  Textualism, Orginalism, and the Rise of Judicial Activism For many decades the main complaint of conservatives focused on “judicial activism”—the idea that courts are reading into the language of our laws certain policies that the framers or the legislators did not address. This is typically done by using arguments based upon fairness, equality, and broad readings of the purpose of the language in question. Doing so, conservatives, argued, was to subvert democratic decision-making and turn republican government into rule by the judiciary. This further tends to foreclose the discussion, debate, give and take, and compromise that will address all the related implications of the decision. To deal with their concerns, many judicial conservatives argued for increased reliance on two particular methods of interpretation: originalism and textualism. Textualism focuses on the literal words being interpreted, their grammatical meaning and their dictionary definition, and largely, although not entirely, ignores other considerations if the meaning of the words is thought to be clear. Originalism focuses on the meaning of the words as they were understood at the time, usually in the sense of how they would have been understood by the public. Neither method was new, but various champions of these concepts who emphasized their application (particularly when it came to constitutional questions), rose to prominence. Several of them are now on the United States Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was especially associated with textualism, and current Justice Gorsuch has publicly associated himself with this same approach Scalia favored. Justice Thomas is a devoted originalist; and Justice Alito is sympathetic to both originalism and textualism. On the other hand, the so-called “liberals” on the court are much more in tune with what former Justice William Brennan called “living constitutionalism.” That approach takes the position that many of the provisions of constitutions are intended to have broad and evolving meanings. They are generally in favor of giving preference to judicially developed ideas of fairness, equality, and policy considerations that they believe are appropriate for the current times and circumstances. While not rejecting the ideas of originalism or textualism out of hand, they view the usual application of those concepts as too narrow —insisting that other approaches should be given equal or more weight, depending on the circumstances. In this way, what others might argue is plain, they often find ambiguous. It’s also the case that many of the tools that they would apply are broadly accepted by judicial conservatives and liberals alike, such as looking at the structure and purpose of the law, and related statutes, as well as somewhat more controversial but commonly used methods such as legislative history, or even weighing the consequences of a decision. By contrast, originalism emphasizes the long understood idea that a written constitution by definition was constructed by its framers to have fixed meaning. Constitutions provide for a means of amendment, and that process implicitly confirms that what was not amended should be understood as unchanged. The bedrock idea is that a constitution represents the will of the people, freely adopted by both representation and ratification, and not imposed by any other means. Although statutes can be freely changed by the legislature, originalists insist they should have the meaning that they had when enacted. This straightforward concept is eroded, however, by two hundred years of change, some obvious and some, as the great historian Gibbon would have said “insensible”—happening so gradually and imperceptibly that most hardly even noticed it. Major events like the Civil War and the amendments to the Constitution that it generated, introduced broadened concepts of due process and equal protection to the constitutional text and our way of thinking about laws more generally. The massive economic growth of the country also generated different ways of thinking about commerce, and how the state regulates behavior through a huge administrative process.  Together with these developments, a growing body of legal academics began to emphasize various sophisticated issues, such as the potential elasticity of some of the language of law, arguing that standards such as “cruel and unusual punishment” were intended to have an evolving meaning, not one fixed for all time unless amended. Finally, as judges and scholars have noted for over 150

Please Don’t Be My Ally – Allies vs. Advocates for Christ

Sit Down With Sky & Amanda: “Please Don’t Be My Ally – Allies vs. Advocates for Christ” In this compelling episode, our hosts delve into the multifaceted challenges surrounding LGBTQ+ issues within religious communities. The spotlight is on the limitations of moral relativism and the tendency for church members to adopt this approach. They explore vital questions, such as how church members should ideally handle LGBTQ+ issues and whether there’s an alternative to the term “ally”. Moreover, the episode dissects why so many individuals lean toward a relativistic approach to morality in these contexts and suggests ways to combat it. Consider alongside the article “The Illusion of Neutrality”