Knights Tenure

Once one becomes a Knight does that person remain a Knight forever? Is there a service/activity/continued education requirement to maintain Knight status? Do some become Knights never to heard from again? Thanks in advance.

As I understand it the answers are:

Yes (unless there are some other mitigating circumstances that may mean someone loses or rescinds their rank), no and there are knights who are not/rarely active.

The knights have debated this issue before.. though without resolution..

Rickie wrote: Once one becomes a Knight does that person remain a Knight forever? Is there a service/activity/continued education requirement to maintain Knight status? Do some become Knights never to heard from again? Thanks in advance.

Unless they renounce their oaths, yes. The same goes with ordained clergy.

Both of which have high numbers of inactive claimants to the titles. Something we should try to examine as a Temple.

Then I'm thinking requiring service or training to maintain rank & status may thin the ranks some at first but strengthen the ranks over time? Those that just want a title are a drain on resources and maybe shouldn't have one? Thus allowing the remaining to serve more effectively? Really if someone isn't active for a year or so without cause then why have the title? Just asking.

Rickie wrote: Then I'm thinking requiring service or training to maintain rank & status may thin the ranks some at first but strengthen the ranks over time? Those that just want a title are a drain on resources and maybe shouldn't have one? Thus allowing the remaining to serve more effectively? Really if someone isn't active for a year or so without cause then why have the title? Just asking.

It would probably be better just to keep a list of "Active" vs. "Inactive" Knights and Clergy. If someone is active, they don't need any kind of test or service or training to stay active. If someone is inactive, then their rights and privileges are suspended until they perform some task to the Council/Synod's liking, to put them back in good standing on the active list.

Except, of course, in the case of people who actively renounced their positions, ranks, titles, and oaths. They willingly put those things down; they shouldn't be allowed to pick them back up again without starting over in some fundamental regard.

Hopefully, by the time one reaches that point on their path they would want to continue training and being of service.

As was mentioned by others, unless they renounce their vows and/or do something to be stripped of title, they stay a Knight of Jediism.

Of course, we do not know what people do away from here. It could be very presumptuous on our part to assume that just because someone is not logged into TotJo that they are not being o service somewhere, or that they are not continuing their training on their own. I know that we have members that disappear for stints of time and it is not because they do not want to be active here but because they are doing something somewhere else where they cannot log on here.

Rickie wrote: Then I'm thinking requiring service or training to maintain rank & status may thin the ranks some at first but strengthen the ranks over time? Those that just want a title are a drain on resources and maybe shouldn't have one? Thus allowing the remaining to serve more effectively? Really if someone isn't active for a year or so without cause then why have the title? Just asking.

I agree that more should be required in terms of measurable action. Right now we have an imbalance of active Knights vs inactive knights, and their actual purpose for being is still somewhat mysterios to me. Aside from trainining initiates into Knighthood and conducting sermons, I haven't seen much else done from the active Knights.

This does not mean they aren't doing more I am unaware of, just that I'm not aware of it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Councilor, is it too much to ask that an individual check in from time to time if they're continuing their work elsewhere? The methods proposed above wouldn't be like weekly things, or an appointment to log in at exactly 3:57 UTC on February 30th, 10992, or the like.

Instead, it would be more like "Who haven't we heard from in 3-6 months that hasn't told us they're on a Leave of Absence?" And, obviously, the first step should be "Let's check up on them and see if they're okay." After that, or rather during that, it should be rather easy to determine if they've been "active" or not off-site. Perhaps if they haven't been, and life has been keeping them away, put them on a LoA so they're not expected to be active, and move along.

There are lots of ways we could keep track of this without actually getting in anyone's way. The reason I think that both of these things (inactive Knights and inactive Clergy) should be monitored is that, as long as they hold those titles from this Temple, they represent the Temple whether we want them to or not. At least if they're on an inactive list, or not in good standing, the Temple can say "Well, they earned that rank here, but they have done nothing to maintain it recently, and have been removed from the active roster. As such, their opinions do not represent the opinions of TOTJO" if it came down to it.

This is about accountability: both for the Temple and the Knights and Clergy who worked so hard to get those titles. I don't necessarily think that's such a poor thing.

This is the way I feel it should be (please understand this is just my unimportant opinion):

The academic education should be separate from the responsibilities of knighthood.

If somebody wants to study Jediism and the ways of the Force without a Knighthood track, they should be able to.

So, I believe I still have my A Division degree from the temple, which is 200 credits. I am glad this is that way. I wish I could also receive a B Division without becoming a Knight again. Is that possible?

I say this because:
The Knighthood track is one of responsibility to the temple.
You study here. You give back. And, you are part of the system. The oath you take binds you to this until you rescind it.

However, perhaps I never wanted to be a Knight (this is fiction!). What if I had done the IP, done an apprenticeship, gotten my A division, then continued to study to get the B Division?

This would solve some of the "rank grabbing" problems. We view training credentials as the same thing as taking on responsibility.

And, it should not be this way. We should allow for VERY separate views of this:

Academic Track:
Do IP.
Do Apprenticeship.
Get A Div.
Do More Independent Training. (possibly with another Knight, second mentorship?)
Get B Div.
Do more Independent Training/Research project.
Possibly Get M Div.
Do Dissertation and Extremely Advanced Coursework.
Possibly Get D Div.

Service/Knighthood Track:
Do IP.
Do Apprenticeship.
Get Knighted.
Service the temple through volunteer work.
Require Continuing Education Credits to Maintain Knighthood (check in once a year?)
Train Apprentices if desired.
Become Senior Knight.
Train others more and the self through independent study and apprenticeships.
Become Master.
Offer immense contributions to the Temple. Continue Training.
Other Honorary Titles.

Service/Clerical Track:
Do IP.
Go through Seminary.
Become Licensed Minister.
Continued service and growth through training and/or hold official service positions (clerical secretary, for example) to maintain Clerical Status.
(Become a Knight)
Continued service and growth through training.
Get Ordained and become a Deacon.
Continued service and growth required to maintain good standing with the Clerical Track.
Become a Bishop/Priest/Pastor/Synod Member/etc.

These tracks can overlap and happen simultaneously, of course.

Can you imagine how many people would do more training? I bet lots would. Especially if the Academic track required no spiritual oaths to the temple.

Sorry, that just makes me so excited to see it organized out like that.

Do you see what this would do?
It would allow for people who want to study and then leave to do so. Much like a college.
It would allow people who fall away from the Knighthood path to maintain their academic credentials (I know we do this already, but it would be nice to see it be a bigger thing).
It would require active participation from both the Knighthood and Clerical service paths. And, it would allow the academics to not have to fret about taking oaths to the temple while they're studying.

Aye aye aye.

From what I understand, isn't the Degree Scheme intended to specifically train Apprentices into Knighthood? And, as such, wouldn't it be very difficult to divide the "academics" from the responsibilities? How many people get medical degrees without any plans to go into a medical field? How many people go to a seminary just for the experience?