ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

Alexandre is a wise old master who knows there are only questions.

Not everyone arrives as a wise old master, there are plenty of brash young would-be heroes who need answers to understand there are only questions.....

Short of being a sign with an arrow pointing left and the words "Go right" written on it, in order to be of any benefit to anyone, TotJO probably needs to have "some" answers - defined by committee or divine edict or otherwise, to be the groundwork for a Jeddiism based faith.

Rosalyn J wrote: Maitre is right. Saying we don't "need" a doctrine isn't the same as saying its not useful. However, what we need is experience. With the Force and with one another. We need relationship with the Force and one another, not just in TOTJO, but in the world. Our desire to create more laws as a society (I believe) is directly related to instagram and facebook friendships, snap chats and selfies and very few human bonds. We are more connected and paradoxally less connected then our parents and grandparents.

I don't really want to put doctrine in the same boat as law. And that's the only reason I disagree with you, I think. For me, doctrine is what you believe. It's not necessarily what you're commanded to do. Commandments in Christianity, for example, are mainly held to believers. While John the Baptist could chastise Herod Antipas that didn't really work out too well. Even if Herod felt morally convicted about his marital situation telling someone God hates x,y,z doesn't really mean much if that person doesn't believe in God. So I just think the belief should come first.

Anakin was definitely starting to disagree with the Jedi on doctrine (precepts and principle). And by the time they realized and understood this it was too late because that agreement on doctrine is what gave Anakin access to the Jedi temple. A Sith lord couldn't just walk in and murder younglings. The person who is able to do that is someone who flies under the radar of what the Jedi were trained to fight against. So at the very least, I would say that our doctrines should separate those who have access to the "temple" from those who ... idk.... might murder younglings (or the intellectual equivalent)?

One might say "hey but that was a fictional story. We don't have anyone like that." And I would say "exactly. The Jedi in the movies could have said the same exact thing."

What you said about the Jews going overboard with the law is true but part of that wasn't even the law but the traditions of the elders of the tribe of Judah that they were mixing in. Yeshua simplified and summarized the commandments, condensing them down to loving God and loving their fellow man. But... it never took away "one jot or tittle" from the law, as he said, "til heaven and earth are passed away". But this is important because it is easy to say "love each other" but that takes for granted that everyone agrees on what that actually means in practice. And before they had any law Moses was constantly overworked trying to decide who was right and wrong in individual situations. So it was very practical; even for those who had relationships because it is easy for two sides of an argument to both think they're right.

So we can condense everything down to the Jedi code but then how does everyone interpret it? That part may be highly subjective. For me, doctrines are more for outsiders looking in, so it needs to something that the non Jedi lay man can comprehend without being confused and thinking we're confused as a result. I'm not even talking about "thou shalt nots" at this point because I believe that always comes later, once a person is convinced of the belief part of it. But whether or not someone even IS a Jedi... that should be based on a clear understanding and application of Jedi Code which is expanded in the doctrine.

Beyond this you're always going to have people at different parts of the journey and so the same way that Paul said that the law is a schoolmaster, laws are necessary for people until they mature beyond that need. You, Ros, are no doubt beyond that point and should every master be. But the religion still has to accommodate those lower and even children. Of course, few children could actually follow the current IP and the level of academic thought it currently appeals to. But again... this is why I think organization and doctrine are important so that you can build around a solid and shared foundation. If this is something kids couldn't understand then we need to re-evaluate. Complexity and vagueness shouldn't be the goal. Understanding and enlightenment should be.

Always a pleasure, master Ros.

JamesSand wrote: Alexandre is a wise old master who knows there are only questions.

Not everyone arrives as a wise old master, there are plenty of brash young would-be heroes who need answers to understand there are only questions.....

Short of being a sign with an arrow pointing left and the words "Go right" written on it, in order to be of any benefit to anyone, TotJO probably needs to have "some" answers - defined by committee or divine edict or otherwise, to be the groundwork for a Jeddiism based faith.

I agree with the part about needing some answers. This also reminds me of Yeshua/Jesus in the NT.

Matthew 13
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

At the end of the day, 2+2=4. There are people who want 2+2 to equal 5. If we don't spell out 2+2=4 then some will think 4 and others 5, others 3, others 6. If it's a cold day and I ask you if its cold... you might ask "is it cold? Who decides if its cold or how cold is cold or at what degree cold becomes warm and warm becomes hot?" But if I ask you "are YOU cold"... the answer is either yes or no. I understand the whole maieutics thing. Socrates. But if you do that in the drive-through at Burger King you might end up with a whopper with a side of something else. So I would say it really just depends on the question.

Jediism has plenty of questions that lead to more questions. But doctrines aren't the place for that level of discussion. It's really just as simple as trying to explain to someone why you're a Jedi. And it helps to be clear and concise so that people understand you. Otherwise, they might not even think you qualify as a religion

I think doctrine or sacred texts are for both those looking in to see what the group is about but also for those on the inside to find deeper meaning and special ideas to enhance life. Jews spends a lifetime studying the bible old part and still they never seem to get the deepest parts understood as it is setup to be a path back to God. Jedi have the most basic level of Star Wars as the starting point to all wisdom and knoweldge for a Jedi. That should be the base then right? we are not budhists or christian or muslems or even hundus.. so why should we ignore our very sacred texts that started our paths?

Fyxe wrote: I have never seen a master here before today. please forgive me, but why are they absent?

Fyxe, I think it is safe to say that more senior members are here than you might think. The presence of masters (and many knights) isn't determined by how often they contribute in conversations. I believe they spend a great deal more time reading than posting. I don't know about you, but I find that admirable. That being said, the temple has felt a bit empty since I returned - but attendance ebbs and flows.


Is this still a debate to decide whether or not to change the doctrine? It feels like the argument has traveled to "Is Jediism a religion, what source should inspire it, and does it even require a doctrine?" I'm not passing judgement, these are just as important questions, and they should probably be asked before updating the doctrine.

I only have two opinions (and they are nothing more than opinions):

(1) Spirituality is too unique and complex for a unanimous agreement towards a "Jedi religion". If someone can devise a creed or doctrine that can unite atheists, orientalists, pagans, and those of the Abrahamic faiths under one religion, I would kiss their feet. However, I think it IS very possible to unite people under one philosophy. In other words, we can agree more on the actions that define Jedi, as opposed to belief.
(2) To that extent, the existing doctrine and the proposed one already accomplish this. Alethea did a good job making the doctrine more concise. I agree that a new doctrine is better, but I am in favor of whatever decision preserves the stability and integrity of the temple as a whole.

Zealot

First, hello. Good to see you. Second, let's examine some of your points.


“I don't really want to put doctrine in the same boat as law. And that's the only reason I disagree with you,” If that is the case then the doctrine should be much shorter should it not?

The Creed would need to be removed because look at the verbiage.
“Where there is...I shall bring” and “I shall never”. Those are directives. What happens when I don’t bring love where there is hatred, am I a Jedi? What about if I am more worried about being understood than being understanding? And who will hold me accountable? By what right? Would it be that because on this particular day, in this particular instance they are able to be understanding and loving? And what about all the other times where they royally fuck that shit up? (I’ve been there).

The Principles of Jediism would also have to be removed. The verbage reads
A jedi (insert action) or does not (insert action) and my question is how is this not a law?

“For me, doctrines are more for outsiders looking in, so it needs to something that the non Jedi lay man can comprehend without being confused and thinking we're confused as a result. “
This line doesn’t make any sense. Outsiders don’t really care about doctrine and as you said in your explenation of John the Baptist and Herod you cannot hold someone to your own standards if they do not believe in what you believe in.

“But this is important because it is easy to say "love each other" but that takes for granted that everyone agrees on what that actually means in practice.”

Right, which is why there is the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Not as you have had, and not as you interpret it as.

“So at the very least, I would say that our doctrines should separate those who have access to the "temple" from those who ... idk.... might murder younglings (or the intellectual equivalent)?”

You won’t reduce the number of radar flyers by doctrine. You will by relationship. By example. The doctrine is important, but it must be second to relationship.

To put it more succinctly, I can only hold YOU accountable if the relationship is two ways. I hold you accountable and you hold me accountable. But that relationship is...and has to be based on trust. If I don’t know you I don’t know you...ya know? I gotta know you before I ever wave the doctrine in front of your face. Because as you said, some people are on different parts of the journey. Every part of the journey has its measure of grace for the steps.

A great assumption is made as it concerns rank. That those with certain ranks “ought to be” here or there. Well maybe they are not. Irrespective of where they ought to be (in our minds), the fact is, they are human as we all are.

And I’ll tell you, I lived on a high horse as I moved up the ranks here. When I became a leader, my horse got stilts. The one thing that I remember is communicating with leaders and seeing their struggles and having them open up to me. One thing I feel like I lost was the ability to have open relationships with those who I was in community with.

Regardless of rank, we are one community. I just don’t want doctrine to get in the way. It doesn’t mean its not important. But it is priority 2

But 2cm + 2kg doesn't meaningfully equal 4 of anything. Unless you want to legalize what it means to be a Jedi to an exhaustive extent, ambiguity and the questions it poses are an important part of our beliefs.

I'm not convinced that everyone sees the difference (or even believes there is one) between inspiration and source.

Each of us can only speak from our own experiences, and so I'm always a bit hesitant in imposing my own views on a different individual. At this point, I'm worried by the confidence that you can.

Fyxe wrote: I think doctrine or sacred texts are for both those looking in to see what the group is about but also for those on the inside to find deeper meaning and special ideas to enhance life. Jews spends a lifetime studying the bible old part and still they never seem to get the deepest parts understood as it is setup to be a path back to God. Jedi have the most basic level of Star Wars as the starting point to all wisdom and knoweldge for a Jedi. That should be the base then right? we are not budhists or christian or muslems or even hundus.. so why should we ignore our very sacred texts that started our paths?

I agree but you have to be careful how you word things because even though what brings 99.99% of people to this site is Jedi/Star War culture, people are pretty scared of being, and I think rightfully so, pigeon holed as a Jedi or Lucas fanboy.

We do have to make some distinction between real Jediism and fan service. So they're correct to a large degree and they'll definitely give you push back if they haven't already. But at the same time, we can't shy away from something powerful just because the world doesn't see it, feel it, understand it the same way we do. And no, it doesn't mean (and I would probably present this as an addendum section to the public doctrines) that we think everything in Star Wars is real. Because people who want to make us look or sound ridiculous have enough ammunition already. So we just have to be careful in how we present ourselves. However, I do agree with what you're saying.

The New christian religion was mocked by the Jews and tortured by the romans. They thought jesus was a fake and his followers were just "fanboys". However the christians stood up for their beliefs and died for their convictions. I want to be willing to fight that hard, believe that much, act that completely, ya know, be proud Jedi! Im not pretending to pretend. Im pretending to not pretend I am Jedi. its fake it till you make it. I wonder what sort of potential would I be missing by not being proud of what I am and what I might become. I dont want to be a buddhist, I want to be a Jedi!

Rosalyn J wrote: If that is the case then the doctrine should be much shorter should it not?

um. EXACTLY. This is why, I, being verbosity incarnate, recommended a much more concise version.

Rosalyn J wrote: The Creed would need to be removed because look at the verbiage.
“Where there is...I shall bring” and “I shall never”. Those are directives. What happens when I don’t bring love where there is hatred, am I a Jedi? What about if I am more worried about being understood than being understanding? And who will hold me accountable? By what right? Would it be that because on this particular day, in this particular instance they are able to be understanding and loving? And what about all the other times where they royally fuck that shit up? (I’ve been there).

A creed, is more kinda targeted to what you do in the ideal. I would say, "A Jedi strives to....", etc. to indicate that we too have standards and that we too can miss the mark. But having standards is great. Imagine a world in which everyone is trying to be mediocre and every runner is training to come in 5th. Lol. There are things about Jediism I think we take for granted because the name Jedi implies a lot of things our minds are triggered to bring up. But we still need to spell those things out so that we have a common ground
foundation on which to build.

Rosalyn J wrote: The Principles of Jediism would also have to be removed. The verbage reads
A jedi (insert action) or does not (insert action) and my question is how is this not a law?

I agree. That is a belief about what a Jedi is. What qualifies a person to take on and maintain this title. Let's look at a couple verses in Romans and see if you agree that we need something similar.

Romans 2:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So in other words, I think he have to create BALANCE between what we say as being BOTH who we are and who we're trying to be.

“For me, doctrines are more for outsiders looking in, so it needs to something that the non Jedi lay man can comprehend without being confused and thinking we're confused as a result. “

Rosalyn J wrote: This line doesn’t make any sense. Outsiders don’t really care about doctrine and as you said in your explenation of John the Baptist and Herod you cannot hold someone to your own standards if they do not believe in what you believe in.

Actually, Herod liked John. Outsiders care in the sense that we all wear labels. Doctrines help define the Jedi label. If someone is interested in Jediism they're going to check themselves against the label to see how well they match up. If the label doesn't really describe anything in particular then it is meaningless because everyone can simply call themselves a Jedi. I didn't call myself a Jedi until I made it to a certain point according to what the site said. So outsiders are going to care if they have an interest. If they don't have an interest then well of course they're not going to care what your doctrines are. Now if they disagree with you, they might take an interest in what you believe as well. Interest is still interest whether positive or negative. When I read the article that mentioned TOTJO I was very pleased that they got it right and that it was fairly represented. And that's because what we have is still good. It's not bad by any stretch. And it should be written (primarily) for interested parties. Like I said before, it can use hyperlinks to explain concepts more fully. And internally this could lead to whole lessons and teachings surrounding each concept that we can go deeper on. That's why hyperlinks were invented. But with attention spans what they are, the public doctrine is something people should be able to parse through very quickly, almost like something designed for marketing. Because that's part of what it does. I definitely read the Doctrine page before I even thought about submitting an application to join. I wanted to take it seriously and I wanted to read a serious set of beliefs.

Rosalyn J wrote: “But this is important because it is easy to say "love each other" but that takes for granted that everyone agrees on what that actually means in practice.”

Right, which is why there is the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Not as you have had, and not as you interpret it as.

Bingo. If "love each other" was enough of a thing to say, Jesus wouldn't have had to explain it further. And recall what he said to the rich man who wanted to know what he needed to do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Yeshua's advice to him seemed extremely personal. YOU need to sell all your possessions. Compare this to the woman who only gave a little bit in offerings but it was all she had. So it is very relative and individualistic even though there are general commands. To the public we should offer the surface. But when we go deeper its about internalizing what Jedi means in a more narrow context. And this is where I always believed was the role of the training masters. Because, like Jesus, they could inspire and challenge their disciples based on their individual needs and personality. If I see someone is hot tempered I'm going to try to cool them down and get them to think more before they react and respond. But keep in mind that by the time Jesus came around there was already a well established religion and he was only trying to reform it. To do that involved trying to simplify and explain it to outsiders as well as Israelites who were misunderstanding it (or correctly understanding certain aspects) because of the complexity that had been heaped upon it with ritual cleaning and tzit tzit. That's why I think we need to separate stuff so that it's easier for the lay person to pick up. First you gotta pick the book up. Then you can start to read and understand it. But if no one can get through the summary on the back cover then why bother with reading every page to know what the book is about? People need to know what being a Jedi is about from reading our "cover".

Rosalyn J wrote: “So at the very least, I would say that our doctrines should separate those who have access to the "temple" from those who ... idk.... might murder younglings (or the intellectual equivalent)?”

You won’t reduce the number of radar flyers by doctrine. You will by relationship. By example. The doctrine is important, but it must be second to relationship.

True, but without law, you don't have a basis to snatch Anakin's key card. That was even part of Anakin's slide to the dark side; his belief that things weren't "fair". Imagine if someone just came at you and said, without any standards, guidelines, rules, regulations, "you can't do that." It would frustrate anyone because there would be too much subjective and biased judgment going on. It's better to have a cohesive point of reference (which is what the bible is) so that people can agree on the whys if not the hows. But if one person says "oh yeah that's a cool idea, Ros" and another person says "no, that's terrible" which do you go with? If we always get to choose then we'll always choose the opinion in our favor.

Rosalyn J wrote: To put it more succinctly, I can only hold YOU accountable if the relationship is two ways. I hold you accountable and you hold me accountable. But that relationship is...and has to be based on trust. If I don’t know you I don’t know you...ya know? I gotta know you before I ever wave the doctrine in front of your face. Because as you said, some people are on different parts of the journey. Every part of the journey has its measure of grace for the steps.

A great assumption is made as it concerns rank. That those with certain ranks “ought to be” here or there. Well maybe they are not. Irrespective of where they ought to be (in our minds), the fact is, they are human as we all are.

And I’ll tell you, I lived on a high horse as I moved up the ranks here. When I became a leader, my horse got stilts. The one thing that I remember is communicating with leaders and seeing their struggles and having them open up to me. One thing I feel like I lost was the ability to have open relationships with those who I was in community with.

Regardless of rank, we are one community. I just don’t want doctrine to get in the way. It doesn’t mean its not important. But it is priority 2

I agree with you. I try not to take for granted all the things that Christianity planted in my brain; which is why I still give it a lot of credit. One of those seeds is that the master is the greatest servant. The positions of higher authority exist in order to serve those underneath. Of course if we don't spell that out anywhere.... then it can also invite the idea that having power means those underneath are there to serve you. Rather, I think those underneath support leaders so that they can keep providing service to the greater community. If you were on a high horse, maybe that was before my time because remember you being accessible, present, and serving the community. You have to have a certain amount of confidence in order to utilize that kind of power but when balanced with some humility its mutually beneficial. I heard it said other masters are present but mostly read. I think that's cool but if they're present like ghosts are then it kind of sets a bad precedent.

You have to have a certain audacity (like Obama said) to take the reigns and really try to change things when others... don't. People like that are always needed and in short supply. They're more suited to be leaders. Not everyone is because not everyone has the same internal tools. Those things have to be cultivated. Like, you can't force someone who is anti-social to play a role better suited to a people person. That's not fair to them or to the people they need to deal with. That's why I like the idea (and I forgot who said it first) of having different classes like Jedi Consular vs Jedi Sentinel, etc. There is a way to do this in a more inclusive way while still having more directed/guided paths. I think rank is definitely a good thing, and although not everyone is going to handle it the same way, that's not necessarily the fault of the system. I would even recommend adding additional ranks. Everyone has a certain archetype that is a closer fit to who they are and could potentially be. You can then, beyond the novice level, have more specific instruction for each type. One could focus on research and study and help with the library/archives. And they can actually take quotes from different people and work with the IP team to extend the lessons into each classes. Another could focus on martial arts and health. They can write training manuals and train in VR simulations like Vader Immortal. We could have another class that delves more fully into meditation and philosophy and political and social sciences.

A lot of this does in fact depend on relationships like you were saying. At the same time, relationships will be strained without the balance of organization and rules so that we can meet and reset, if need be, expectations.