[moogleii]

>They aren't opposed to an experience changing them. And most things are guidelines to make choices, not absolutes. In this case, going on a mission was a higher priority, and the most effective way to get to the target was via air travel. If there was an alternative then they would take it.

It's not so much the experience change I'm pointing out, rather that that will bring foreign influence from outside (and obviously foreign influence has occurred because they are using tractors and diesel from the other comments.)

And if we're considering a decision matrix that tries to minimize outside influence, that still doesn't explain why the Philippines vs any where in North America, really.

[alistairSH]

Minimizing outside influence is only a portion of the decision matrix. They want to maintain their community and their religion. Minimizing outside influence might be part of that, or it might not. As said above, there is no absolute rule - the community decides are a group which technologies/changes they want to use or discourage.

Yes, that does lead to some oddities.

[jarfil]

I think going on a mission would be more about influencing the outside, than about outside influences.

Maybe they considered, quite correctly, that poorer people in disaster stricken areas are easier to influence.

[moogleii]

Sure, that is the explicit goal, but throughout history, missionaries/explorers have always brought something back with them, be it physical items or ideas. That's just part of the nature of "exploration". Unless someone impressed those laptops, cranes, and telephone poles upon the Amish, I imagine they saw them when they ventured out and decided the "goal posts" of their beliefs could be fiddled with to accommodate them.