It's been real...it's been interesting just.,,,

I can kinda see both points of view...I don't think I'd have quit over 1 idiot in the training materials tho...I mean, I never quit over Campbell after all...I doubt there's anything worse than him.

You know, I think all this is moot at this point. he had a whole whooping 3 posts invested in the site and two of them were the same so yea, i would be surprised if we see this guy again.

Andy Spalding wrote: You know, I think all this is moot at this point. he had a whole whooping 3 posts invested in the site and two of them were the same so yea, i would be surprised if we see this guy again.

That is true but at the very least I hope someone else has seen this thread who had doubts. On top of that it can even be something to mention in the beginning sections maybe(?) thought that's for another topic discussion...

Hopefully he will come back and see. It is a shame when anyone chooses to leave regardless of how long they have been here in my opinion

Nowhere does it say (and nobody's ever said) the Initiates Program materials are here to be accepted and believed as Gospel. They are ideas by various people. The responses are for individual reactions which might be agreement, disagreement or some of both.

Maybe he'll see this but if not it's still here for the benefit of others.

In keeping with Br. John's sentiment, I write this for anyone who may find value in it.

In any difficult undertaking, there will be varying levels of disillusionment at some point. No reality is entirely accurate to the image we construct in the beginning. What each of us must do is find a way to reconcile the two. If you can't live with that difference...it may be time for a new adventure. Those who do reconcile often find that while the image may not hold up to the reality during the trying times, it resurrects in a different way down the road. One more based in the waking world...and the experience is much dearer to their heart for it.

The problem that occurred here that I see is, that you do either not declare clearly enough to a newcomer that your materials are to criticise or to believe. If it was more evident, that one's personal opinion is more valuable than the materials presented, the issue would perhaps not have occured.
On the other hand, the fact that you are uncertain about what is part of the Temple's "Gospel" and what is not up to a point where nothing is any longer, you end up having people register who are so different in their thinking that the Temple becomes no longer a community of people with something in common but merely a community of human beings with as many various personalities as there are members. This is fair enough, and yet one should be prepared for disagreement, people coming and going all the time and perhaps even worse issues occasionally.

...And this is a problem how? I kinda feel like one should not be so "flimsy" in his/her beliefs that they would be so easily shaken by an opposed view point. Not that I'm suggesting that we should all be "fully formed" and immutable upon arrival here, but that we should be capable of hearing opposing views and learn/gain from them...without being offended or having the foundation of our faith shaken. Also, I think it would be a mistake to assume that all information presented here must be canon of the Jedi faith. Part of what we do here is engage in studies of a "comparative religion" nature, and to facilitate that learning, we must provide information that is not necessarily tenets or components of Jediism or the Jedi philosophy.

I can't (and won't try to) speak for anyone else, but I didn't come here to not be challenged. I didn't come here to join a temple so much as I came to join a community. I'm happy to have common ground with the community to form the basis of discussion. I'm also happy to have differences with the community to form a purpose for discussion.

Okay, I'm 10 days behind the last post, so forgive me. However, I must speak up as a new person. It is the impression of someone "learning" to accept that what you're presented as "teaching material" represents the beliefs of the "whole" of the organization. After all, aren't we always taught: if you just don't accept what you're fed, you go to bed without dinner? (A metaphor for most organized religions: "accept our doctrine literally and verbatim or you're a heretic!")

The fact that the lessons are provided to make us think & feel SHOULD BE SPECIFIED so we don't feel guilty about rebutting anything. It fosters acceptance and gives us more of a sense of "acceptance (for thinking / feeling differently than the herd)."

After all, if you read some of the peoples' signatures, you'll know that quite a few (me, included) specifically LEFT the major organized religions: to come here / later found our way / were guided here.

While this may not have helped "Donkey," it would help others. After all, I'm only 1/2 way through my second lecture, but I must admit: after listening to the first lecture, I was full of "Is this guy off his rocker?!" comments. It wasn't until after reading other journals that I realized that it was okay to disagree and have my own revelations.

That's why I'm still here.

Just my 2¢. Please don't hate me.

Yes you are correct. It perhaps isn't as obvious a statement as it should be. We can look into changing that without much difficulty

I did however expect him to return and see what comments we had posted though

EDIT: Please also note that none of us here hate you

It would be nice if that change was made; it's more welcoming to self-discovery if we know we're free to "free think." (I used "free" twice in the same sentence so quickly! Egads! : )