Meeting of the Clergy August 28, 2022 7PM GMT/ 12 PM PST

Good Timezone,

I hope you are doing well. I am writing to check in with you and also to let you know that while seminary has been in a bit of a holding pattern, Synod has been working to draft bylaws for the Clergy. We’d like to get your view on the work that has been done thus far, not only in an individual sense, but also as a collective body. To this end, we’ll be having a meeting of the clergy on August 28, 2022 at 12:00 PM Pacific Time in discord #clergy_general as well as #clergy-voice for those who would prefer
We hope you will be able to attend the meeting, not only to discuss this important matter, but because we’d like to get back in the habit of having more regular meetings. If you cannot make the meeting, please post in this thread your thoughts

Here is the bylaws document for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OMm1m0O91kdvovPI3npsxswhRxC1K7zQBkMw-3oAtnI/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you and May the Force Be with You
Rosalyn J
V.P of Clerical Affairs

Rosalyn,

I will be unable to make this meeting due to previous plans. The bylaws seem general, which I like as I have noticed a good bit of flair in my review of the forums and chats. Tis good! diversity in teaching the same aspects are great.

I would question what are the goals of the bylaws. The highlighted sections appear to be attempting to put limits on what people say even outside of the Temple and without intent while not representing the Temple. While I do not agree with this, it would be worth giving examples or being specific with these things.

Beyond that, references to the specific needs of the clergy and links to the required documents would serve for ease of completion.

It looks good otherwise to me.

My thanks for soliciting feedback!

You're not the first to have concern about the limits with or without intent.
I think the main thrust is just to ensure that we are representing Jediism in the best way, particularly as members of the clergy.

I'm willing to hear how it may be better articulated. I understand it's broadness.

I agree that we should represent well, but it seems arbitrary. If we are going to limit, we should not have to worry about the metaphorical Doom of Damocles.

Clearly articulated limits such as: "do not post about *insert topic here*" or if a statement needs to be made when giving such opinions like: "I am speaking non ecclesia for the following statement" These should be known up front and well articulated by this body so all can easily follow them. So general enough to be remembered, but not arcane enough to be forgotten by the sheer amount.

Too much generalization creates fear to speak, speaking truth is a big deal IMHO. While others and my truth may not be the same, knowing specifically what we want to say is best. I would suggest guidelines be drawn up, specifically around the different aspects that come up, as we can not assume we can guess them all.

So first is exposure, "Hey we found this subject posted by "random person" we should have a stance/official statement about it."

Then review, "ok everyone, what are all your thoughts, lets see where this lands, then send it out."

Then send it out for all to see.

While I imagine doing this for EVERYTHING, would be taxing, but it would fit the broad language. To not do so, would be hypocrisy.

If we are not going to take it as they come or have a list of what our official stances are, then it is very ambiguous and fear of accidently stepping out of line would be rampant. As no one would know what would be offensive/going against the bylaws. I could technically be doing so right now, without knowledge and AM risking removal of status within the Temple.

So to Sum up: If we are going to be broad and general, it has a high likelihood of creating fear to speak truth or opinion to power, which is a trap many other religions/institutions have fallen into. We need to be specific about the things we want, otherwise, it is just a shadowy figure that could strike at any moment. It does not allow for people grow unrestricted and I aggressively do not recommended. From what Rosalyn has said, I am not alone in this.

I agree with your points.

Historically, people have used the specificity of rules to "bend" or otherwise get around them. I think balance between specificity and broadness is probably the best.

I did not know about the Doom of Domcles. Thank you for that.

The goal is not to inspire fear, so I suppose it's back to the drawing board there

Bump