- Posts: 1039
What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
11 Jul 2017 14:56 #290284
by
Replied by on topic What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...
I don't disagree. It has been, at least in some cases, a conscious decision to leave the instructions for assignments past the IP somewhat vague in order to give the apprentice or seminarian room to innovate and come up with their own way of engaging with the material. But there is ambiguity, and then there is unintentionally misleading, and if the Krishnamurti is the latter, let's fix that. Thank you for bringing this to light, Rick.Rick D wrote: Everyone says that Krishnamurti is a tough assignment, and maybe it is, but but assignment as spelled out may be part of the problem, and a clearer understanding of what is being asked may make it easier.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
11 Jul 2017 15:38 - 11 Jul 2017 15:41 #290293
by
Hmm wonder whose journal that was??
Your absolutely right though. Information in the form of general guidelines, definitions, processes, procedures and expectations on the AP and IP process (and the seminary for that matter) should be publicly and clearly communicated to the community in an ongoing consistent basis by the council. Beyond that details of any individual journey and that journeys progress need not be necessarily made public but it should at least be clearly and openly communicated by the council to the apprentice
When an apprentice goes through the entire process, gets praise from his knight, goes through the Jedi trials (conducted by the council) and then the final evaluation is simply
"well you have completed the degree but still not a Knight - do more lessons"
Its very confusing and quite frankly kills any motivation to continue. This is a direct result of lack of communication and direct interaction or intervention by the council on behalf of the apprentice. It clearly shows that the council has not spent the time to truly get to know the apprentices they are evaluating enough to give them any sort of valid critique of their work or suggestions for directions forward.
Maybe a halfway point review process needs to be implemented where the council reviews journals and discusses with the Knight and the apprentice progress made and expectations for the second half of the apprenticeship or something like that. This would be a place for the council to get to know the apprentice in question as well as get feedback from the apprentice that will give the council better insight into the apprentices individual path. This will allow the council to give the apprentice and his Knight detailed and valid critiques, suggestions and expectations toward the pursuit of future knighthood.
Replied by on topic What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...
steamboat28 wrote: One of the problems, Brenna, is that so much goes on out of our sight that we don't really have a way of giving the examples you seek. For example, I was reading a journal entry recently where someone was denied knighthood without giving them pointers on how to fix whatever problems existed. The idea that "we'll know it when we see it" is bunk when it comes to knighthood, in my opinion, and there should at the very least be a rubric of examples to better prepare the wildly disparate teaching methods for their students.
We're in a position where we know things are happening, but we aren't sure exactly what because that transparency we've asked for doesn't exist. Hence the asking.
Hmm wonder whose journal that was??
Your absolutely right though. Information in the form of general guidelines, definitions, processes, procedures and expectations on the AP and IP process (and the seminary for that matter) should be publicly and clearly communicated to the community in an ongoing consistent basis by the council. Beyond that details of any individual journey and that journeys progress need not be necessarily made public but it should at least be clearly and openly communicated by the council to the apprentice
When an apprentice goes through the entire process, gets praise from his knight, goes through the Jedi trials (conducted by the council) and then the final evaluation is simply
"well you have completed the degree but still not a Knight - do more lessons"
Its very confusing and quite frankly kills any motivation to continue. This is a direct result of lack of communication and direct interaction or intervention by the council on behalf of the apprentice. It clearly shows that the council has not spent the time to truly get to know the apprentices they are evaluating enough to give them any sort of valid critique of their work or suggestions for directions forward.
Maybe a halfway point review process needs to be implemented where the council reviews journals and discusses with the Knight and the apprentice progress made and expectations for the second half of the apprenticeship or something like that. This would be a place for the council to get to know the apprentice in question as well as get feedback from the apprentice that will give the council better insight into the apprentices individual path. This will allow the council to give the apprentice and his Knight detailed and valid critiques, suggestions and expectations toward the pursuit of future knighthood.
Last edit: 11 Jul 2017 15:41 by .
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
11 Jul 2017 16:47 #290309
by Avalon
"Membership" means something different to everyone, but it's important to remember first and foremost that this is a "church" (for all we're also discussing if 'church' is in fact the right word or not in a different thread). If a person comes through, is serious about the beliefs (IE - homepage) and the Doctrine speaks to them, why should they not be allowed to join because they simply haven't got the time currently to engage in a training program (children, school, work, deployed, etc etc etc)? And again, the IP is an extensive program. Yes, some people are able to get through it in a few months, but others - myself included - take a year or two to get to that point, and some even longer still. The membership is a membership to the 'church' not to the ranks; the IP program is a step towards the ranks. We've never even required someone to obtain rank before. If someone comes along and says "look I believe in this and it speaks to me, but I don't want to be a knight or a senior member, so I'm just going to be a regular member" then they should be able to do that.
Remember, for some, 'membership' is simply about a sense of belonging where they feel a common connection. Start requiring a training program just to be a member, and you deprive some of that belonging. We've never taken a punitive or exclusionary stances towards those who cannot make the commitment to that training program, or simply would rather be participants within the 'church' rather than moving through the ranks of the 'church'. I honestly feel like doing so would be a step in the wrong direction. Doing so could also begin to appear like we're moving in a cult-like direction, at the risk of potentially soundly overly and unnecessarily alarmist. But of all of this is just my opinion. I simply don't want us to move towards a pattern of excluding people, and that's my bigger worry of them all when it comes to this suggestion.
[hr]
@Connor, I know I was just throwing out thoughts to keep in mind when considering such a program. Figured the random questions would get people thinking about how it might look, if we ever decided to include that.
Replied by Avalon on topic What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...
Manu wrote:
Avalonslight wrote: Regarding IP Completion Before Membership:
I'll reiterate what I've said before. We've never required obtaining rank in order to be a member of the Temple and I don't think we should start doing so now. Like someone else said, the only thing that that stands to do is turn away legitimate potential members who just currently don't have the time to finish a rather extensive training program. And further, if this is decided upon, then there are boards which are currently restricted to members only that need to be reopened back up to guests, because that would take away a lot of conversations that generalized members take place in, and would no longer be able to. So no, I don't think this is the best course of action.
For the person joining, what meaning does it hold to become an official member if they have not done the IP, which helps understand the basics of what this site is? A flashy "Jedi" title?
For TOTJO as an organization, what meaning does it hold to have virtual strangers pledging to be a Jedi and a member, if the person joining has not gone through the basics to see if they are serious about it. Are we trying to artificially inflate our numbers for some reason?
I agree with opening up the forums to Guests. There is no reason to drive away input from newcomers. Just don't let then commit to membership until they prove they actually want it, and it means something to them.
By the way, I do not consider "Initiate" a rank. It simply states you know what Jediism is about.
A long time ago the Simple Vow was required for membership. I did it back then, but I found it odd that they would request my personal information so soon. In hindsight, it seems odd how overly eager I was to pledge to being a Jedi as well. I know the Simple Vow is gone now, but the principle remains: why pledge to being a member if you haven't done the prep work?
"Membership" means something different to everyone, but it's important to remember first and foremost that this is a "church" (for all we're also discussing if 'church' is in fact the right word or not in a different thread). If a person comes through, is serious about the beliefs (IE - homepage) and the Doctrine speaks to them, why should they not be allowed to join because they simply haven't got the time currently to engage in a training program (children, school, work, deployed, etc etc etc)? And again, the IP is an extensive program. Yes, some people are able to get through it in a few months, but others - myself included - take a year or two to get to that point, and some even longer still. The membership is a membership to the 'church' not to the ranks; the IP program is a step towards the ranks. We've never even required someone to obtain rank before. If someone comes along and says "look I believe in this and it speaks to me, but I don't want to be a knight or a senior member, so I'm just going to be a regular member" then they should be able to do that.
Remember, for some, 'membership' is simply about a sense of belonging where they feel a common connection. Start requiring a training program just to be a member, and you deprive some of that belonging. We've never taken a punitive or exclusionary stances towards those who cannot make the commitment to that training program, or simply would rather be participants within the 'church' rather than moving through the ranks of the 'church'. I honestly feel like doing so would be a step in the wrong direction. Doing so could also begin to appear like we're moving in a cult-like direction, at the risk of potentially soundly overly and unnecessarily alarmist. But of all of this is just my opinion. I simply don't want us to move towards a pattern of excluding people, and that's my bigger worry of them all when it comes to this suggestion.
[hr]
@Connor, I know
I was just throwing out thoughts to keep in mind when considering such a program. Figured the random questions would get people thinking about how it might look, if we ever decided to include that.
Not all those who wander are lost
Studies Journal | Personal Journal
Studies Journal | Personal Journal
Please Log in to join the conversation.
