Hospital Branch

I recently wrote responses to a few questions regarding my calling with the LDS branch at a state mental hospital:

1) What is special about the branch?
>
There are really two branches within the branch:
1. The adults in the main building and the youth and children
and
2. The people in the Forensics Ward.
Having church is very basic. Patients have to work pretty hard and overcome opposition to attend meetings and stay focused. Meetings tend to be shorter. The concerns of branch members are very real, very basic, sometimes harrowing, sometimes humorous. The gospel becomes very real and very practical. Spirituality is not an extra. It's not superstructure. Spirituality is something that many of our patients crave in a visceral way. They are reduced to a cathartic state for many reasons, including the large amount of self-reflection, the feeling that they are not in control of their lives and bodies because of the hospital's structures and because of medication. It brings to mind Alma 32: 6
6 And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.
In the forensics ward, many of our patients are visibly contrite and maybe a bit harrowed by things that they have done.
One of our principle duties is to escort patients from their units to the chapel or conference room (depending where the meeting is being held). This is sometimes a mildly tedious process, having to go through security checkpoints, convincing patients to join us, being told that certain patients have not "reached their levels" and therefore cannot leave the unit. Once they are off unit, we are technically responsible for them and for their safe return. Someone will sit at the back and maybe follow patients if they go out. The reason I mention this is that the volunteers in the branch are "shepherds" in a kind of literal way, leading groups of people here and there, preventing them from getting lost. The "quality of instruction" or discourse etc. in our worship services can vary, but we are more focused on creating an experience and environment for the patients that choose to and are able to attend.


> 2) What have your learned working there?

I have learned a lot, but I am still in the thick of it. I have learned that many of the formal aspects of the church don't matter that much, and that once those aspects are gone or are in flux, it can be very disorienting, yet liberating and uplifting. You get so that you focus on more basic things. I have been very interested as an artist lately in intimacy as a means to reach the unseen, as opposed to pageantry, which I think sometimes blinds us to the unseen by providing a kind of surrogate. Our meetings and interactions are intimate and basic. Our goals are certainly very basic, but I think this enables or forces us to encounter the unseen as a way to accomplish these very basic goals.
I have also learned how teach lessons in a more engaging and universal way. We have such a diversity of intellects and attention spans that it forces you as a teacher to come up with lessons and strategies that work for a wide variety of people.
I think the thing that I have learned most is not to judge other people. This is a hard fought lesson, because I have a problem with judging. This particularly comes up in the Forensics Ward where we have people who have killed people and committed sexual crimes. We also have people who have committed pretty minor offenses while a bit loopy, trespassing, petty theft, etc. Because of the unusual nature of our branch, we don't have disciplinary councils and we don't withhold the sacrament from anyone. At first it was a little strange, but then I came to find it very liberating and it helped me to realize that God is the only judge and that we don't need to worry about other people's worthiness. It's really not our concern, and thank heaven for that.
>
> 3) How has it shaped your ideas about forgiveness and accountability?
>
I remember someone asked me if I felt the spirit in the Forensics meetings, considering the nature of some of the attendees actions. I think I replied that it was hard not to feel the spirit there. The people that attend the Forensics meeting are very humble and often want to bear their testimony and express their gratitude. They are reaching out for deliverance from pain, and, I think, struggling with complex issues of accountability relating to their own actions vis a vis their mental illnesses and mistreatment they have gone through as children and adults. These are things that I have not had to deal with. It means that their search for redemption is much more urgent and heartfelt than anything I have experienced. It also means that they grapple with riddles more complex and yet more basic than the ones I grapple with. It has taught me that, while obedience is better than forgiveness, forgiveness is more miraculous than obedience.

> 4) What should people who have never attended a ward like this know?

Wards are too big to really do the kind of service for their members that is needed. It is hard not to shake someone's hand in our branch. If you have something to say, you will get a chance to say it. If you have a concern, it will be heard and answered by a friendly, helpful person. All of the fancy programs that are enabled by the economies of scale inherent in large wards are of little benefit, compared with the personal interaction afforded by a small unit.
"When 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there am I..." is literally true. That phrase says nothing about worthiness, only about multiple people gathered in the name of Jesus. That's it. And that's enough. There is inherent virtue in gathering in Christ's name at any time, with anybody, under any circumstances. Any time the accessories of these gatherings bog down the fact of gathering in Jesus' name, I think we have a problem. Any time we start to experience such gatherings as performances, concerts, lectures, programs, etc., I think we have a problem.
>
> 5) Describe three memorable experiences from your time there.

There are so many that it is hard to pin 3 down. We have given many blessings to people after meetings that have been very powerful. Fast and testimony was the first meeting I went to. Fast and testimony in any ward or branch is usually an opening for nuttiness. But maybe that's the way that God intends. Maybe the crazy run-on testimonies are what we need to hear. Well, as you can imagine, testimony meeting at a mental hospital is extra nutty, but I think it goes over the top to a new sort of transcendent level. We had two native american men in the Forensics Ward who really bore their souls and documented the kinds of mistreatment at the hands of people and institutions, including what can only be described as torture at the hands of the criminal justice system, as well as redemption and the reality of spiritual forces. I have noticed that our patients are apt to get up twice in a testimony if they feel they have forgotten something the first time. With some exceptions, they don't tend to go on very long, though. Their testimonies can be nutty but strangely put together. You know me. Not very strong on the narrative/story telling side. Prone to abstraction. I wish i could get some of your narrative mojo, make things come to life, show don't tell...

Electric Cars and the Detroit Bailout

I just sent this message to the White House:

Have you seen the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" This was an amazing all-electric car, the EV1, made by GM, that got more than 100 miles per charge, that was essentially destroyed by GM and, I suspect, the Bush administration in 2001. Electric cars have been around as long as gasoline cars. They are quieter, more efficient, non-polluting, etc.. They have many advantages over hybrids, in that they don't carry all the weight of a gasoline engine. Possibly the most important advantage is that they would generally be charged at night when most electricity gets wasted. Why not make GM bring back the EV1? This could completely change the equation for US automakers, if they created truly transformative vehicles that gave their brands more prestige. And, for heavens sake, why are our corporations paying for health care when the government covers it elsewhere. That has to be the main reason our companies can't compete in a global market.
Thank you for bringing sanity back to this country and for being so open.
Sincerely,
Christian Asplund
Associate Professor
Brigham Young University

Big Love/temple

I didn't see it, but I personally think it's an outrage. We don't get to decide what other people consider sacred and in an undertaken so incredibly capitalized, public, etc. as internationally distributed television, there is no ethical reason for something like this to happen. I just don't believe in giving these hacks a pass on everything for supposed aesthetic grounds.
I guess I currently don't view the medium of television as an art form, and thus am not willing to grant it a lot of leeway. As an artist, I am pretty saddened that what we used to consider to be mass-produced disposable popular culture designed to sell stuff has now substituted for art, simply because the sets, cameras, and editing are more sophisticated.

Everything's gonna be alright

I have to apologize for some negativity. After the elation of Obama's election, I was disheartened by some of his appointments, but maybe I was so inspired by the inauguration. What a beautiful man, and what a beautiful moment for this great country. I always kind of knew in the back of my mind that America would come through, although, as Churchill said, after they had tried everything else. The more I live in this country, the more I see racial shadings to almost everything that happens here. And they are much more complex that simple racism. And I am constantly amazed by what people will go through to try to save face. There are many reasons Obama won. After Bush, I figured that any democrat would be a shoe-in, but there was the nomination. People talked about the whatever-effect, you know, the African American candidate, I believe it was for mayor of L.A. who polled well but lost the election because white people either couldn't bring themselves to follow through when in the booth, or because they were embarassed to say what they really thought to pollsters. Of course, we were all scared that the election would be stolen as in 2000 and 2004. I think Katrina was the watershed moment in public distaste for Bush and all he and his era represented. To my mind it felt more tragic than 9/11. More people were killed on 9/11, but we did everything we could to help. Katrina was a tragedy of blatant disregard for the lives of poor people of color. I think it cast a mirror on the ugliest and most hidden racisms that were both institutional and personal in America. And I think that America didn't like what they saw and started coming around. And I think that elections have a bizarre way of expressing a collective unconscious, of communicating things that are difficult to articulate collectively. Obama is an incredible man, a poet, a statesman, a strategist, a man of faith. We have been assuming that his one-in-a-million qualities enabled him to overcome the racial biases of white voters. Can we interpret his election and his unprecended popularity as our collectively subconscious response to Katrina, and all of the ugly racism that led up to it. Electing Obama does not atone for atrocities committed against African-Americans since the 17th century, but it does represent something very hopeful. When Barack talks about the "unlikely story that is America," race is the undercurrent, the backstory, the hidden plot behind everything else. Like many great stories, this one has had its harrowing moments; the last 8 years stands out, but ultimately it looks very hopeful. I wish there could be an Obama for Israel, Russia, Africa, Iran.

Another item came up regarding race, this one having more to do with people of northern european descent. I was reading an article about white people being ashamed of their bodies. This is nothing new, but maybe something not explored sufficiently. White Americans hate their bodies. If you read fashion magazines, they have many articles describing how to hide or distort different parts of the body. Eating disorders are the ultimate body hating concept, trying to make the body disappear. We don't like like the body to have any shape or any features that protrude, buttocks, hips, breasts, nose, ears. Whenever the subject of singing or dancing come up, we are at pains to point out how awful we are at both, or how we are not professionals at either. I was listening to "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" this morning, and I found that most jokes were deprecating some physical aspect of white people. We basically don't sing, dance, dress up, or do anything that involves sharing our physicality with others. I know this goes back to the puritans, etc., but I have found this tendency growing geometrically since the 1980s. The article alluded to pointed out how African-American and hispanic-Americans are much more comfortable with their bodies, and more willing to show them off. Disparaging comments were made on "Wait Wait" about Aretha's hat, and Michelle's dress. It seemed like these white people were unable to relate to adornment in any kind of positive way. Critique was the only mode of discourse. There was Aretha, certainly over 300 lbs., pretty old by now. Her features were never classically pretty. Yet, how can you critique anything she does. It's not really possible. She's fascinating and beautiful and an artist, powerful and expressive, and wonderful to look at, listen to, and watch. Objectively the bow on her hat was absurdly large, but who cares.
There's too much picking apart, analyzing, not enough holistic experience, of process, of living. People should do a lot more singing, dancing, dressing up for each other, and less critiquing. We should start to enjoy our bodies, instead of trying to figure out how to hide, punish, or get rid of them. After all, we are in God's image.

President Kimball and War

I think Mormons aren't nearly radical enough. Every single page of the Book of Mormon preaches doctrines on the subjects of war and poverty that are more radical than anything discussed in any mainstream political discourse in America
We don't need to buy in to all the crap that's fed to us to justify running around the world killing and exploiting people. The endowment makes it pretty clear that most of the mischief in this world, on all sides, is the work of Satan and his minions.
The Nietzshean rascals that run things create a bizarre coalition by conning their evangelical dupes by throwing a few fake bones their way. Mormons think that, because they share a few trivialities with evangelicals they must swallow the hideous anti-human policies and the deathly philosophies that justify them. Mormons have the Book of Mormon, continual revelation, and personal revelation. We don't need to buy in to these lame and pernicious doctrines. The author of them certainly doesn't believe them.
The Bush Doctrine has roots in an older concept invented by you-know-who, a doctrine that he taught to Cain, that you can get gain by murdering.
Our role in this world is not to be the lapdogs of modern-day Gadianton robbers and murderers. We are supposed to be the salt of the earth, the leaven, the peculiar.
Am I pessimistic? We generally muddle along with good, bad, and mediocre governments. But the Kingdom of God continues to go forth "boldly, nobly, and independent" bringing freedom, democracy, etc. in its wake to every country it visits.
You have to read Pres. Kimball's talk all the way through to realize how radical he is.

Fred Ho

http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=5784

Here is a very interesting interview with baritone saxophonist, Fred Ho, in which he talks about the role of the avant garde in society.  The most interesting idea he talks about is that guerilla-type artists thrive when the mainstream is in disarray.  I have always felt this to be the case.  So there is cause for hope in the current turmoil.

Bailout

I am hearing various learned and rich defenders of capitalism saying how we don't have any evidence that government can solve blah blah blah.  Now we are giving them hundreds of billions.  All of their laissez-faire blather is starting to ring hollow.  When are we going to realize that there is a class of people that have simply found ways to game the system.  They are not interested in free exchange of goods and services.  They are interested in manipulating the markets to their advantage, getting government handouts, obtaining monopolies, etc.  Yet they self-righteously preach free market fundamentalism.  What a bunch of dupes we are.  They get us to buy into this system by giving us a bunch of shiny crap and gizmos--corian countertops, iCrap, cars, junk food, McMansions, energy drinks, giant tv screens, etc., and make us go into debt to get them and eventually we cling desperately to their lies, go without healthcare, education, arts, etc.  They somehow have used some deep-seated anti-communist feeling to cut off any discussion of how the private and public sphere should interact, as if the only options are extreme laissez-faire capitalism and totalitarian communism.  There are some countries that have established pretty decent balances between government expenditure and free markets.  Can you stinky post-Milton Frieburgites shut up already.  We're not interested in your false religion.  We don't need the super-rich on this planet.  All they do is hoard and hog and then con us unto believing that any little scrap (or crap) that we have is because of their largesse.  They corrupt our morals by making us covet their sick lifestyles, and forego any kind of happy productive life while we desperately try to ape them, dreaming of someday having "passive incomes" like them.