What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...

More
11 Jul 2017 19:31 #290351 by Tellahane

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: I think a church shouldn't force "bible study" on its members. But in totjo's case the IP isn't "doctrine study" (although maybe it ought to be), so I really do not see why members should have to go through it.


One could argue that the point of joining and becoming a member of the church is to study said "bible". In addition to being apart of its community of course.


The foundation of jediism is not the doctrine, we don't have a 'bible equivalent'. I would argue that jediism is more about learning from others, which requires no IP.


mmm I could say there is some to learn from others, but also plenty to learn from study, and then the majority of it involves learning from yourself.

Whether it be others, doctrine, ip, apprenticeship or so on, they are all just different ways of guiding to the same end point or material in the end.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
11 Jul 2017 19:34 #290352 by Edan

Tellahane wrote:

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: I think a church shouldn't force "bible study" on its members. But in totjo's case the IP isn't "doctrine study" (although maybe it ought to be), so I really do not see why members should have to go through it.


One could argue that the point of joining and becoming a member of the church is to study said "bible". In addition to being apart of its community of course.


The foundation of jediism is not the doctrine, we don't have a 'bible equivalent'. I would argue that jediism is more about learning from others, which requires no IP.


mmm I could say there is some to learn from others, but also plenty to learn from study, and then the majority of it involves learning from yourself.

Whether it be others, doctrine, ip, apprenticeship or so on, they are all just different ways of guiding to the same end point or material in the end.


That argument then doesn't support the requirement to have the IP, if everything leads to the same outcome.

QUESTION YOUR APATHY
The following user(s) said Thank You: Tellahane

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
11 Jul 2017 19:37 #290353 by Tellahane

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: I think a church shouldn't force "bible study" on its members. But in totjo's case the IP isn't "doctrine study" (although maybe it ought to be), so I really do not see why members should have to go through it.


One could argue that the point of joining and becoming a member of the church is to study said "bible". In addition to being apart of its community of course.


The foundation of jediism is not the doctrine, we don't have a 'bible equivalent'. I would argue that jediism is more about learning from others, which requires no IP.


mmm I could say there is some to learn from others, but also plenty to learn from study, and then the majority of it involves learning from yourself.

Whether it be others, doctrine, ip, apprenticeship or so on, they are all just different ways of guiding to the same end point or material in the end.


That argument then doesn't support the requirement to have the IP, if everything leads to the same outcome.


Let me rephrase, each "way" may lead to the same outcome, but not each way works for every person, having the options and availability best supports any given new member coming.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
11 Jul 2017 19:40 #290355 by ren
The doctrine is not the foundation of jediism, but most parts of the doctrine, specifically, the code, tenets, 21 maxims are the foundations of jediism. The teachings arrived a few years later in Jediism and have changed quite a lot since the originals. "Jedi believe" is totjo-only.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
11 Jul 2017 19:40 #290356 by Edan

Tellahane wrote:

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

Edan wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: I think a church shouldn't force "bible study" on its members. But in totjo's case the IP isn't "doctrine study" (although maybe it ought to be), so I really do not see why members should have to go through it.


One could argue that the point of joining and becoming a member of the church is to study said "bible". In addition to being apart of its community of course.


The foundation of jediism is not the doctrine, we don't have a 'bible equivalent'. I would argue that jediism is more about learning from others, which requires no IP.


mmm I could say there is some to learn from others, but also plenty to learn from study, and then the majority of it involves learning from yourself.

Whether it be others, doctrine, ip, apprenticeship or so on, they are all just different ways of guiding to the same end point or material in the end.


That argument then doesn't support the requirement to have the IP, if everything leads to the same outcome.


Let me rephrase, each "way" may lead to the same outcome, but not each way works for every person, having the options and availability best supports any given new member coming.


Forgive me, but that still doesn't sound like an argument that supports the IP requirement. The IP material may work best for some, but not for others.

QUESTION YOUR APATHY
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • tzb
  • tzb's Avatar
  • Guest
11 Jul 2017 19:42 #290358 by tzb
You make some good points Edan, which I hadn't considered.

I guess I do feel one would be a guest, of sorts, in a religious community, if they had not made the time to study their core beliefs. They may have very good reasons for that, like the ones you mention, but they wouldn't change the fact until you work at a thing, you don't really know it. For me, the reality is until someone really gets under the skin of something, they are a guest of sorts, and that's the status "Member" and to some extent "Novice" currently absorb - we just happen to have different names for them.

I wonder if we're only feeling "Guest" is a negative status of some kind because there are SO MANY ranks above it currently. Member, Novice, Initiate... all of these would be unnecessary is IP was required for being a full member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
11 Jul 2017 19:46 - 11 Jul 2017 20:00 #290360 by Avalon

Manu wrote:

Edan wrote: As an addendum to what Avalon has said, the people that would be excluded from membership were the IP a requirement would include:

- Anyone who works long hours with no little time to study
- Anyone with learning difficulties who struggles with study
- The kids whose reading level is not advanced enough to do the IP (most kids do not do the IP)
- Anyone for whom English is not a first language and they are not proficient in English...

Etc. etc... these are only examples.

Many established members of this temple took a long time to do the IP, would anyone for whom it takes long keep going if they knew that they may never get there and that they will be penalised for it?


What is the penalization?

Handing out membership as participation trophies sets a bad example, but that is of course my opinion.

I took over 6 years to complete the IP. I started in 2010, left, then came back and finished it in 2016.

There is no time limit on the IP. There is no way to fail it. Why shouldn't it be basic reading before becoming an official member of an organization? Unless of course, membership is meaningless. Then you can hand it out to anyone who wants to be "part" of something they haven't even taken time to understand.


The penalization is non-inclusion. When a person is seeking membership in order to be apart of, be included in, something, by saying "you can't be a member until you finish a long training program", we're telling them that we value an indoctrination procedure over them and their desire to find somewhere they feel they belong, with beliefs similar to their own. When that's all they want and not to obtain rank or advance, why would they want to do that training program that is designed explicitly towards advancement within the community?

There was a young, new member in chat today. Their application was finally accepted and status changed. They're actively engaged in the IP. And you know what they said: "I'm no longer on the outside." That speaks to something. There's an explicit sense of non-inclusion when one is told "you're just a guest"...

Further, what would you recommend we do about all the members who have not yet completed the IP, either because they haven't had the time or they're opting not to because they have no desire to obtain rank, and yet are all still very active, and contributing, members of the site?

I was a guest for almost two years on the site before I finally put in my membership application. I did so because, when I joined, the Simple Oath was still a membership requirement. We moved it back to post-IP because people were saying "why should I take an oath when I'm still learning." Because like you said, "pledging support of" something only makes sense after time and commitment have been made. But membership is not a "pledge of support". It's saying "I find something in this community which speaks to me and I'd like to be a part of it" and giving people the option to do so before any training program says "we value you as an individual and welcome you to our society so that you can grow within it as you choose." There's nothing meaningless in allowing people to do that.

(Addition)
Further, I know that if the application, oath, and IP had all been requirements for membership at the time of joining, I very likely never would have even began. Instead, the IP was an option I could engage in as a guest, but was not required to. In fact, one could take the opposite approach and say that membership is required in order to begin studying. To use an often drawn upon example, when you go looking for a dojo to study a new martial arts at, you may be allowed a few trial classes, but after a couple, you're very likely going to be you either need to join the dojo and enroll more formally, or that you need to find another dojo. A white belt is a member, and they have little to no prior teaching, training, or understanding before becoming a member. They're a novice, but they're still a member.

Not all those who wander are lost
Studies Journal | Personal Journal
Last edit: 11 Jul 2017 20:00 by Avalon.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ren

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • SamThift
  • SamThift's Avatar
  • Guest
11 Jul 2017 19:55 #290361 by SamThift
There is a Sufi center near me. I have considered looking into it because it seems somewhat interesting, or at least curious to me.

If I visit there a few times, talk with their imam, or a few general members, I'm likely to be considered a guest.

If I enjoy those conversations and decide to continue attending, they are rather likely to provide me some materials, instruct me in some basic practices, and such, before I would be considered a member.

The same applies for nearly every "religious" or "ideological" group throughout the history of man. I have attended Buddhist temples, Jewish synagogues, Baptist churches, Aikido dojos, Freemason lodges, a Kyudo school, and various other services or groups, sometimes on singular occasions, others on return visits here and there. Yet I would not consider myself to be a member of any of these groups, nor would I expect anyone (should the remember me) to consider me as such simply for having interacted with them several times, etc. I similarly would not feel comfortable donning the title of Buddhist, Baptist, Jew, Sufi, or otherwise, since I did not prescribe to them well enough to make that connection. Yet all their doors remain open to have me as a guest should I ever decide to go back and investigate what they have to offer further.

How/why would this Temple act differently?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Senan
  • Senan's Avatar
  • Guest
11 Jul 2017 20:15 #290363 by Senan

SamThift wrote: How/why would this Temple act differently?


The argument could be made that we would act differently because we are different. We tout Jediism as a syncretic faith that is inclusive. We say all the time that anyone can be a "Jedi" regardless of rank or membership and we purposely do not standardize our training beyond the IP because everyone "walks their own path". If we truly believe these things we say, then forcing people down our IP path to be a member is saying you are a Jedi, just not enough to be TOTJO Jedi. I wonder what benefit that would have to us.

Making someone a "member" does not negatively impact anyone else here except for those responsible for processing the applications feeling that they are wasting time. I would ask yourself, if a member never come back ever again, does it affect me? If not, why exclude them from membership? People who are committed will show it. People who aren't will not. The labels we put on each other won't change that. What is at stake is access and the ability to participate in a Temple that should be more open, not less.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Arisaig
  • Arisaig's Avatar
  • Guest
11 Jul 2017 20:19 - 11 Jul 2017 20:22 #290364 by Arisaig
I'm suprised more members of the military community haven't spoken up about this.

When I signed up for the Forces, I was put on a waiting list (akin to our 7 day waiting period). When I was accepted in, I became a member. I was given a rank (akin to our "member" rank). After that you have to earn it. I was a private, and any rank I wanted after that I had to earn. That would involve training (again akin to our IP).

I find this very much like what we have here. Anyone can become a member, yes. But its that acceptance that helps people move forward. Other ranks (novice and above) are only attainable by putting forward a valid effort and applying yourself to training.

Now perhaps I could put forward an idea?

Perhaps make certain places blocked off for even members. As it is, you must become a member to discuss in the Jediism sub-forum... perhaps it is time for that to change. Perhaps Novice's and above should only be allowed to be in there. Yes, Novice is an easy rank to attain... but yet we have many that become a member and teeter off. But in the end it would add something to attain, making more people want to participate in the IP.

I'm pretty sure this was also brought up... but perhaps also make journals only visible to the person writing it and Initiates and above. This would not only prevent copywrite, but also add security, as only people that had put forward a full effort into becoming part of this commuity would be able to view it.

We have the rank of Initiate for those that have completed the IP. That's why it's there. Blocking membership for those that don't finish the IP would be, well, unfair. What of those that already have Novice rank? would they lose that title?

In the end, ranks is just that... a jpeg underneath your avatar that signifies what you've done while here. Having ranks such as novice and member differentiates those that have DONE something here. It shows which have logged on once and didn't come back, or those that are on the fence about joining. It shows those that made the consious decision to become a member. It shows those that decided to take the bold and brave step to undertake the training.

If you want to consider those that finish the IP as "Members", then look to the Initates. Thats what the rank is there for.
Last edit: 11 Jul 2017 20:22 by Arisaig.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero