Changes to the Simple Oath

steamboat28 wrote:

Goken wrote: I do also see how changing that almost nullifies the forum access changes from a while ago.

I'm going to disagree with this point, because the "oath" taken here has no more enforcability than the application does; it relies on the person who swore it to keep it. Because of that, if people really wanted to troll, it would be easy enough to before these changes. Since most of the "troublemakers" that caused the change were guests, and the changes to the oath regard membership, one can assume that they really didn't want the membership to start with, as it was plenty easy to get before if you don't really hold stock in oaths.

Which is why I later said:

Although the process of becoming a member has only been made easier by one step that was very simple to start with.

What I should have said was:

I do also see how changing that could make it seem like it almost nullifies the forum access changes from a while ago.

I was trying to address any such concerns as it seemed like there were a few along those lines. I see how it could seem that way but I do agree with you Steam, it didn't really change much if the trolling person wasn't honest about the oath or application process.

This means that to become an official member of our Temple one only needs to fill in a membership application.

I think I did that? Can anyone confirm that?

Groovy change.

Its been way too long since I did the application, was there a "I agree to abide by the rules of use" type thing?

Brenna wrote: Its been way too long since I did the application, was there a "I agree to abide by the rules of use" type thing?

I havn't yet submitted the application but no not as far as i can see. By being a guest here you must abide by the website rules listed in the FAQ. I think that is what your after.

steamboat28 wrote: There are lots of very good reasons to move the Oath, many of which have been explained here. It is unethical to ask someone to swear an oath on something they know nothing about, and if you want that to be the foundation of this place, why are we trying to be above-board at all?

Thanks for taking such an interest in my opinion. In all sincerity I think I've answered that in depth already in this thread. Please note I'm not trying to reverse the decision, so am not acting to agitate contrary to your preferred outcome, which is now manifest.

To reiterate for you, hopefully in more clear language, I disagree, as stated there is nothing stopping anyone from making an assessment of, or completing, the IP material without taking the Oath - but I guess it really depends what the Oath might mean for someone, because for me it's value lies in its transformational power.... not it's interpretation as some type of roadblock or chain. Also I think some people have gone through the program and only taken the Oath towards the end so it was never a real problem, only a perceived problem.

Further I indicated that the Oath, at least to me, represented something much more (completely different) then agreement to Temple rules/doctrine, it was actually a higher standard implied by the rules/doctrine etc, where the IP was the first chance to demonstrate/experience/try that new view on life. All this was explained in a previous post here and was intended to indicate a different opinion about the ideal placement of the Oath. I understand your point, always did, its just I disagreed with it. I don't need you to understand mine, but I'm happy to answer your questions or offer that there are alternate views to yours, and in that regard nothing you've said indicates to me the new system is better. As I said in my first post it doesn't worry me that its slightly worse IMO.

steamboat28 wrote: Of the many "mistakes of other faith's", open membership has never been one. To bar access to a spiritual path goes against every universal human right I can think of, and I honestly do believe the oath to be an impediment when placed as the gatekeeper for "Member" level access.

I think those things are irrelevant to the discussion, at least from my view. I understand that is what the Oath might mean to some, but the path was never closed to anyone. The path to me is Jediism, not the Temple program or rank structure. As I said before, for me the purpose of TOTJO was not to make members but to welcome and support Jedi - to help people who were already on the path but mostly did not know it - no gatekeeping required. I sort of view the change as membership (Temple) centric rather then Jedi (member) centric.... and the only reason I've heard is people felt compelled to take an Oath at a point in time when they were not ready. I understand the obvious solution is to give people more time but the unintended consequence is it redefines the IP and the Oath, in my eyes. Originally all the Oath did for me was confirm ones personal commitment to something inside that person, which is outside the Temple. I could ramble on about my opinions but I'm not sure your really that interested, especially since I disagree with your own opinion!!

steamboat28 wrote: No. If we're discussing legalities in regards to church membership, we're discussing shareholding in a corporation. (Since this is a non-profit corporatoin, "shareholder" is actually "member" in this case.) As such, the corporation, via the board of directors (in our case the Council, according to the paperwork), gets to set the requirements for shareholding or, in our case, membership. Any member is then legally sheltered from liability for TOTJO's corporate actions. That's it. That's the "legal benefit." A corporation is adjudicated based on the law of the land of its incorporation, and in Texas, US, the First Amendment, the RFRA of 1993, and a crap-ton of other state and federal laws, really prevent "legality" from pestering churches except over secular affairs, which are then leveled at the corporate body instead of the membership.

Again, I'm not sure how relevant that is. I was not referring to liability. In simple terms, previously, the structure (IMO) had the Oath as a commitment to the Temple that a person was an legal individual who had a commitment to being a Jedi, as they defined it so long as it did not contradict the Jedi doctrine. Yes, I'm sure all that could be taken care of with application forms etc, but that is not my point...

Of importance here is I took this view because I used the language of the terms "Jedi teachings" to mean any suitable lesson in any form and not specific to TOTJO teachings. As stated earlier this made sense because it allowed any Jedi from anywhere to join the 'church' without the requirement to undergo any TOTJO 'teachings'. Somewhere along the way I think people decided to interpret the Oath language of 'Jedi teachings' to mean 'Temple teachings' and then realized they had not finished those teachings therefore could not take the Oath. That I think is the root difference in our views of the most useful placement of the Oath. As I said originally, its move might be practically irrelevant, which is why I'm not fussed about it, as anyone can become a Temple Member - but to me previously the Oath had value, while now I'm still trying to work out the value of the Oath with its new placement.... and as has already been discussed wording will replace it in the application/membership documentation which I might add has to be done at the beginning anyway
:S :side:

Akkarin wrote: Adder are you saying that because Jedi here ought to be held to higher standards (i.e the forum access changes), it seems to you quite odd that we are "lowering" the standards for what constitutes a Jedi here by saying that they no longer need to take an Oath?

In regards to the forum changes, basically yea, because I never viewed membership as making me a Jedi, rather the sworn public commitment to myself (ie the Oath) did. At least that is how I view an Oath versus a Vow. Which is funny because I took a private Oath!!!

And as a result I thought that was why member only area's were made, to reduce "non-Jedi" like posting in those areas which were otherwise within the site rules. I'm speaking loosely here, LOL but you get my drift I hope! You'll have to forgive me, I sorta feel like someone just kicked out the crystal in the lightsaber for no good reason, but I'll get used to it. I do understand the change might have no noticeable change anyway
:lol:

I think if it keeps the trolls at bay, cuts down on the BS and the rules get enforced it would be a very good thing.

Enforcment is key. Leaderhip should be tough, fair and consistant with their enforcment.

Jestor wrote:

ren wrote: .... So, now people who don't even promise to study the ways of jediism can be members?

Where does it say that they promise to study the ways of Jediism?

In the Oath, it is wrote: I profess before all my fellow Jedi that I, ........... born on ........, without reservation, choose the Jedi path, until I am ready for Jedi Knighthood or I otherwise decide, with all its duties and responsibilities. I shall do that which is right and profess my allegiance to the Force. During that time I promise to do my utmost to uphold the Jedi teachings, and to live a life as is worthy of a Jedi

".... uphold the Jedi teachings [for this organization ive just joined, and whose teachings I havent yet studied] and to live a life as is worthy of a Jedi. [As I see it? As this organization sees it?]

Yes. A promise to uphold the jedi teachings necessarily means they will first be learned.

ren wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: .... So, now people who don't even promise to study the ways of jediism can be members?

These concerns can be addressed by implementing changes to the app: http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/jediapplication

The problem isn't in people saying that they wish to be Jedi, it's more that people have to actually swear an oath to something they don't even know anything about. This would be different to, say, changing the App to saying that by declaring oneself a Jedi we expect them to have a basic understanding and broad agreement with the Doctrine. The training here is for furthering one's understanding of what it means to be a Jedi, we can't expect people right out the bat to already know what that means...

There was also talk of having some kind of Forum Agreement of some sort where people on the forum to agree to abide by our rules.

So swearing an oath to study the prominently-placed teachings is confusing, but submitting the application, full with private details, to individuals/corporation they know nothing about is totally cool?

Isn't there some kind of logical fallacy about using one thing to make another look bad?

The Application and Oath, while currently required for membership, are not tied together, and I find the fact you would do this, slightly amusing... :lol:....

The oath says nothing about studying the IP...

Nor did we say it was confusing.... ...

We said "it made more sense" to take an Oath after understooding it, that to swear it blindly, and cheapen it for those of us who do take it with a complete understanding (we hope, lol)...

In no way does the IP help anyone understand the oath. The oath or the vows have never prevented anyone here from making empty promises or even follow the doctrine to the letter. You should know that. I never claimed the oath meant someone would study the IP. I claimed that the oath meant someone would promise to study the jedi ways. As you know I don't even find the IP all that relevant to Jediism. There are your fallacies. The oath and App are currently (still) linked to membership. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Ren wrote: Not to mention, totjo does not require oath, application or anything else to study the IP. Those who take the oath and send the app as soon as they have created an account do so of their own free will.

Everything here at TOTJO is "of their/your own free will...

Exactly. No-one told them to fill in an application they did not want to, or take an oath they did not understand. Those who felt they needed to would reaffirm their oath (and vows) in the past. there's nothing preventing masters from requesting some kind of custom oath from their apprentice (or a promise to do a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time, etc).

I discussed sticky points of the Doctrine with TC before taking the oath, and this happened after being put on the board of directors.

Yep...

And decisions made at the time were good for the time...

As times change, so do decisions...

Sorry you disagree...

I kinda thought you'd agree here... Thinking back to conversations on "elitism"...

What I'd agree with is the opposite: Become a member of the religion first, then the order. I can't imagine a christian church asking potential converts to fill in an application first, leaving "accepting Jesus" as something that can be done later on.... What totjo is doing with this is make membership to the order as meaningless as registering an account on the website.

Adder wrote: Further I indicated that the Oath, at least to me, represented something much more (completely different) then agreement to Temple rules/doctrine, it was actually a higher standard implied by the rules/doctrine etc, where the IP was the first chance to demonstrate/experience/try that new view on life.

I dig your point...

I am always asking my apprentices "what did you learn?" becasue as a Jedi, and knowing that there are lessons everywhere...

I ask one of them, one time, to: "watch the movie as a Jedi"... They ask me what I meant...

When I do things, I am (always) trying to see it from as many facets as possible.. to see the possible outcomes, lessons, and meanings...

SO, when I right this sentence, I wonder should I misspell the word "write" for fun, or spell it correctly to get my point accross, and not detract from my point...

Trust me, I do it all the time...

The point is, that (to me) as we walk through life, we should be paying attention, and MOST who join here are not yet doing that... They are hurrying along, checking off boxes to make sure that the requirements are met, or goals accomplished... and then they move on...

Anyway, like the christian WWJD, what would jesus do.... I think "WWJD" what would a JEdi do" becasue if I am going to live in this image that I have, I need to make sure that: I do what they would do, I think as they would think, say what I think they would say, and consider like I think they would consider...

IN every aspect, and the majority who take the oath, and fill out the application, do not do that...

Maybe a dislcaiimer that says "If you consider yourself a Jedi, act like it, study like it, be like it"...

:lol:...

ren wrote: What I'd agree with is the opposite: Become a member of the religion first, then the order. I can't imagine a christian church asking potential converts to fill in an application first, leaving "accepting Jesus" as something that can be done later on.... What totjo is doing with this is make membership to the order as meaningless as registering an account on the website.

That's understandable, but one of the major groups in which church (instead of religious) membership "matters" is Protestant Christianity. This is because congregations aren't decided by your locality, or anything else--you pick a church and you go there.

Protestant Christianity, across all its denominations, has maybe 2 initiatory moments (some denominations combine them):

1. salvation ("accepting Jesus")
2. baptism (which, depending on the denomination, may or may not be required or separate)

and almost always in that order.

The significance of this to this argument is that those two initiatory rites usher you into the denomination (the religion), but not the church (as an independent organization). In order to join a church, you fill out a membership application. It may or may not ask if you've undergone these initiatory rites.

It will, regardless, understand that you cannot undergo these initiatory rites unless you're welcome into some church somewhere--meaning that none of these congregations closes their doors to non-members at any time. This is one of the very good things about Evangelical Christianity; they do want to "save your soul" (by convincing you to undergo these initiatory rites and joining the faith), but they're perfectly content to let you sit on the back pew and learn the teachings until or unless you decide to do that.

Member or not, you're exposed to the teachings. It's the same here. I don't see how we can, how anyone can, exclude people from the basic teachings of this Temple, whether or not they are members, and expect them to know what's going on. This isn't just a Temple for people who've been on the path solo for years. It's a place for people who didn't know this path existed. It's a place for people who follow other paths, and notice things they can learn about themselves here. It's about all kinds of things--if we're a "religion of no religion", then we have to be open to everyone, at least at the bottom-most rungs. We have to give them enough of a sample to see if they like the pie. If they do, they may join. If they don't, they won't.

This is especially true in Temple Jediism, because so much of the "advanced learning" is hidden behind other walls: you can't be an apprentice or join the seminary until you finish the IP. But you can't do the IP until you're a member. And you can't join as a member unless...

And that's where the trouble starts. If you ask people to do the oath before the IP, you are definitely going to get at least a few that have no idea what this is about, because we don't spread the majority of our teachings (outside of sermons) around for non-members to view. Which, in my opinion, is also kind of dumb, but that's another topic. Keeping the oath before the IP suggests that these people either actively start the IP before they're allowed to (and really, that's a heckuva way to start, don't you think?), or to read through the whole thing twice--once before the oath so they're informed of what they're promising, and once after to actually "count" for studies.

Why?

Because, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, "We're not those Jedi." And those Jedi are the ones that people are familiar with. If we're not what they're familiar with, how can they know they're on the same path?