——Church——

ZealotX wrote: By the time Jesus appeared on the scene real bad ideas had already become accepted into mainstream Judaism. And the damage was great because, according to him, they weren't allowing people to get into heaven and they weren't even going in themselves. So translation: their lust for power and authority and letter of the law thinking was moving people away from spirituality and enlightenment and causing people to be lost. Jesus's whole mission was an effort to reform Judaism back to its more spiritual roots. And they killed him for it.

No, Kyrin isn't Jesus. But we sometimes forget that Jesus was hostile towards those who were corrupt and holding on to their own bad ideas. Jesus even called them names. But we often see only the "nice guy" side of him and imagine that any revolution or any reformation effort must be full of flower petals and bear hugs. Jesus said be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. He also said he came to bring emnity between family members. He had no illusions that not everyone was going to accept his gospel.

So the point is, while I understand the desire to be more welcoming and appealing and perhaps deal with people's issues later, it's not that simple. It's never that simple. And in reality I think you need both. You need the "watchmen on the walls"... as well as the Walmart greeters that catch people as they come in the door, not knowing why they came. I certainly didn't always agree with Kyrin's methodology but Kyrin gave no slack. If you got an idea through Kyrin it was because it was a good idea. If you took your ball and went home it's mostly because you were emotionally tied to that idea and therefore felt rebuffed as your idea was rebuffed. Kyrin was a watchman on the walls.

In all due fairness, without knowing Kyrin offline, using Jesus as a reference as to why her presence here is of value, is a bit of a stretch...

But I do agree, "watchmen" are needed, and we have several (more will pop up most certainly) and will serve that purpose more effectively without their words being expressed in an overly abrasive manner while standing in direct conflict with the Doctrine and what this Temple represents...

The problem with "Watchmen" as I've witnessed firsthand, is the sense of entitlement such individuals usually exhibit, which is where this behaviour becomes abrasive and often toxic...

The individuals who often play these roles, are doing so online, and have issues with their offline life. Using such sites and forums as a "identity crutch" to compensate for problems in their real life...

To all those who are protesting Kyrins banning, have you ever interact with this individual offline, or even on their personal social media pages?

I can attest from observation, Kyrin was indeed using this site and Church as an identity crutch. I say that without insult, or malice. We as a church were enabling her behavior...

I myself voiced concern about this, and suggested we as a Temple provide training/guidence off-site over the course of a year in attempts to see her become more productive here, as well as help her deal with her life offline. Apparently we'd already attempted this during a previous ban, and we know how she turned out...

People need to remember we are a church FIRST, before we are a open forum. If we take this seriously, then we must accept we as a church have a certain level of responsibility towards the well-being of this church and the people who come here, to some extent or another...

I hope Kyrin does return one day, she reminds me quite a bit of myself in my early years spent here, when I too served as an abrasive "watchmen."

Zenchi wrote: [green]
I can attest from observation, Kyrin was indeed using this site and Church as an identity crutch. I say that without insult, or malice. We as a church were enabling her behavior...

I myself voiced concern about this, and suggested we as a Temple provide training/guidence off-site over the course of a year in attempts to see her become more productive here, as well as help her deal with her life offline. Apparently we'd already attempted this during a previous ban, and we know how she turned out...

People need to remember we are a church FIRST, before we are a open forum. If we take this seriously, then we must accept we as a church have a certain level of responsibility towards the well-being of this church and the people who come here, to some extent or another...

I hope Kyrin does return one day, she reminds me quite a bit of myself in my early years spent here, when I too served as an abrasive "watchmen."

I do not know about any of the personal details or outside of this place. Within this place I have to say that I have to back up Zenchi on this 100%, on the patterns of Kyrin's discussions. I have previously in the discussion of Kyrin admitted to sparring with her often with malice. Admittedly I began to see my emotional attachment to those topics as I have grown and became less agitated from her abrasiveness. The thing is and this is why I back Zenchi 100% on this observation. It was a pattern that had been approached before in a way that could have been considered a reasonable compromise. As I mentioned in the vote thread I remember her being paired with Senan and working on some strategies to have more civil conversations. After I tried to PM her once in a bit when I saw her cross lines, sadly this did not change the pattern. Does it have to be permanent, no, it has been stated it's not.

I really really hate banning, I have almost always taken the side of the individual being banned, but there is logic behind this action which is why you don't see my voice raised (though I still want to know where we are drawing the line now and how that effects people under previous actions) but that's a personal interest.

When I was a kid I was a "Catholic" via my Mother and Grandfather. Church to me was just listening to an old guy read give me some wafers and a swig of wine, until I could spend time talking and playing with my friends after the service. In time as I moved further away from the church and was allowed to grasp my own beliefs, I would still occasionally go to church with my family in order to be part of that community. I would go to talk to people in a place where the possibility of getting my ass kicked was minimal. As I moved further from the beliefs I did realize in this setting after the service I could be myself to people that say when I saw at school wouldn't really talk to the "punk-ass skater kid". That is in some way, is how I see this place though, we are not teenagers I doubt anyone would see me in person and turn their nose up and walk away. Remember we still hold services here and you know we are all allowed to chill afterword and discuss whatever is on our mind. I like that a lot, thing is, they would have called the police if a person was yelling at people and children for disagreeing with them or because their logic did not fit the model to be correct.

Just 2 cents on the situation and the OP's question.

Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
Kobos

Just wondering ... can we post anything NOT about KYRIN? Is that at all possible here lately ? Can we post about - I don’t know - maybe a question about let’s say -
OP
What type of church do you want the Temple to be? What type of services, subjects - ways - ideas -flows - what do you have in mind ? What encourages you? Think we can accommodate every one? Let’s put this to the masses. I really want to hear what ya think and how you feel about this.
Not about what Kyrin did or said ... got any actual ... ideas of your own ? Try - try for me ? Can we try ...

Kobos wrote:

Zenchi wrote: [green]
I can attest from observation, Kyrin was indeed using this site and Church as an identity crutch. I say that without insult, or malice. We as a church were enabling her behavior...

I myself voiced concern about this, and suggested we as a Temple provide training/guidence off-site over the course of a year in attempts to see her become more productive here, as well as help her deal with her life offline. Apparently we'd already attempted this during a previous ban, and we know how she turned out...

People need to remember we are a church FIRST, before we are a open forum. If we take this seriously, then we must accept we as a church have a certain level of responsibility towards the well-being of this church and the people who come here, to some extent or another...

I hope Kyrin does return one day, she reminds me quite a bit of myself in my early years spent here, when I too served as an abrasive "watchmen."

I do not know about any of the personal details or outside of this place. Within this place I have to say that I have to back up Zenchi on this 100%, on the patterns of Kyrin's discussions. I have previously in the discussion of Kyrin admitted to sparring with her often with malice. Admittedly I began to see my emotional attachment to those topics as I have grown and became less agitated from her abrasiveness. The thing is and this is why I back Zenchi 100% on this observation. It was a pattern that had been approached before in a way that could have been considered a reasonable compromise. As I mentioned in the vote thread I remember her being paired with Senan and working on some strategies to have more civil conversations. After I tried to PM her once in a bit when I saw her cross lines, sadly this did not change the pattern. Does it have to be permanent, no, it has been stated it's not.

I really really hate banning, I have almost always taken the side of the individual being banned, but there is logic behind this action which is why you don't see my voice raised (though I still want to know where we are drawing the line now and how that effects people under previous actions) but that's a personal interest.

When I was a kid I was a "Catholic" via my Mother and Grandfather. Church to me was just listening to an old guy read give me some wafers and a swig of wine, until I could spend time talking and playing with my friends after the service. In time as I moved further away from the church and was allowed to grasp my own beliefs, I would still occasionally go to church with my family in order to be part of that community. I would go to talk to people in a place where the possibility of getting my ass kicked was minimal. As I moved further from the beliefs I did realize in this setting after the service I could be myself to people that say when I saw at school wouldn't really talk to the "punk-ass skater kid". That is in some way, is how I see this place though, we are not teenagers I doubt anyone would see me in person and turn their nose up and walk away. Remember we still hold services here and you know we are all allowed to chill afterword and discuss whatever is on our mind. I like that a lot, thing is, they would have called the police if a person was yelling at people and children for disagreeing with them or because their logic did not fit the model to be correct.

Just 2 cents on the situation and the OP's question.

Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
Kobos

So ... how do we get that sit in a chair backwards type of feeling with each other? We don’t pot luck too often if you know why I mean. I dig chats for this. Discord especially- I feel like the trendy type using it... truthfully. I’ve got a place there called the pastors room I hope gets more and more use as the days go by. There are many neat ways to reach out to people nowadays. Can we have days maybe where you can reach out .... like say a Monday when you can actually contact a live operator ... lol or a real person? Would that help? Just thinking along with ya Kobos. Thanks for posting
If anyone likes I can meet on any day at any time for as long as you like. Not too long but you know what I mean I hope. There’s always possibility’s !

ZealotX Wrote: Very well spoken, Proteus, as usual.

There are different aspects of any religion. The church tends to be the "congregation" while the temple is a building in which a congregation meets. But there is also the business and administration of the congregation conducted by chosen members. In all of our actions we have to be caution of extremes. I fundamentally disagree with the Inquisition however I recognize the right of the church to protect its message and identity from being usurped.

If I may use Christianity to make a point, look what happened with LDS? Mormons have such a large and influential population that they can run their own presidents. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but from the perspective of Christianity it is a sect that never should have existed based almost solely on lies from a con artist who said Jesus came to America.

And now it is a system of good and evil where people are supported and all the rainbows and unicorns hug fairies and its all beautiful and at the same time children are abused, married to preachers as second or third wives and it essentially operates as a massive cult.

What about the prosperity cults? What about the pastors/bible pimps with golden toilets and those who complain about having only one private jet? Can anyone argue that this isn't corruption on a massive scale? And yet, surely they're making people feel better so it's all good, right? On the flip side there's the Amish who live like they are stuck in the 1800s. While many mean perfectly well I cannot imagine how so many children stay in it without being either brainwashed to a large degree or forced in order to avoid getting cut off by family. Let's just have a big tent so everyone can come in.

All of these things and more started as bad ideas and were allowed by good people. People supported those bad ideas and underestimated them. Many of these ideas seem good from one perspective while there are hidden parts that can cause serious emotional and psychological damage. What was also missed, imo, was the power that invariably comes with being the investor or catalyst for a new idea such as these. That person becomes a gatekeeper of knowledge and thus power. The more people follow their idea the more people follow them. And absolutely, all these people are not nefarious. But their ideas, like seeds, are looking for fertile ground. There is a way to protect new people while still protecting the community (including the new people who might be impressionable) from bad ideas.

CHURCH noun
\ ˈchərch \
Definition of church (Entry 1 of 4)
1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
the word church … is put for the persons that are ordained for the ministry of the Gospel, that is to say, the clergy
— J. Ayliffe
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: such as
a : the whole body of Christians
the one church is the whole body gathered together from all ages
— J. H. Newman
b : DENOMINATION
the Presbyterian church
c : CONGREGATION
they had appointed elders for them in every church
— Acts 14:23 (Revised Standard Version)
4 : a public divine worship
goes to church every Sunday
5 : the clerical profession
considered the church as a possible career
church adjective
Definition of church (Entry 2 of 4)
1 : of or relating to a church
church government
2 chiefly British : of or relating to the established church
church verb
churched; churching; churches
Definition of church (Entry 3 of 4)
transitive verb

: to bring to church to receive one of its rites


TEMPLE noun (1)
tem·​ple | \ ˈtem-pəl \
Definition of temple (Entry 1 of 7)
1 : a building for religious practice: such as
a often capitalized : either of two successive national sanctuaries in ancient Jerusalem
b : a building for Mormon sacred ordinances
c : the house of worship of Reform and some Conservative Jewish congregations
2 : a local lodge of any of various fraternal orders
also : the building housing it
3 : a place devoted to a special purpose
a temple of cuisine
temple noun (2)
Definition of temple (Entry 2 of 7)
1 : the flattened space on each side of the forehead of some mammals including humans
2 : one of the side supports of a pair of glasses jointed to the bows and passing on each side of the head


Temple, edifice constructed for religious worship. Most of Christianity calls its places of worship churches; many religions use temple, a word derived in English from the Latin word for time, because of the importance to the Romans of the proper time of sacrifices. The name synagogue, which is from the Greek for a place of assembly, is often interchangeable with Jewish temple. Mosque is roughly an Arabic equivalent for temple. The Church of the Latter-day Saints, or Mormon, temples are not places of worship but centres for sacred ordinances to and for the living and for the dead.

Because of the importance of temples in a society, temple architecture often represents the best of a culture’s design and craftsmanship, and, because of ritual requirements, temple architecture varies widely between one religion and another. The ziggurats of the Mesopotamian culture were elaborately designed and decorated, and their “stair-step” style ascended to a point where a god or gods could dwell and where only special priests were allowed. Ancient Egypt had temples to gods, but because the primary concern of its religion was the afterlife of souls, its pyramidal tombs became its primary shrines and most familiar architectural heritage.

In the ancient Greek religion the various gods were the most important focus, and Classical Greek temple architecture created structures that emphasized that focus. An inner, windowless room, or cella, housed an image of a god, and an altar stood outside the temple, usually at the eastern end and often enclosed. Most Greek temples were built of marble or other stone, richly carved and polychromed, situated on a hill or stepped platform (stylobate) and having sloping roofs supported on a portico by columns in a variety of styles (see order) and placements. The design and decoration of Greek temples had a profound effect on architecture of later eras in the West, beginning with the Roman.

During the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, Roman temples began to evince Greek influence, using the Greek decorative style but placing the altar within the temple and eventually creating entire forums, or meeting places, of which the temple was the centre. In Roman temple architecture, the columns, in their various styles, soon became engaged rather than freestanding, and circular as well as rectangular temples were built. Byzantine and Western church architecture developed from these bases in the Hellenistic styles, and the names and designs of this style of temple architecture still survive in the West.

In the East and Middle East, too, temple design expresses the nature of the religion. For example, the asceticism and rich symbolism of Jainism is reflected in that religion’s beautifully decorated monastery-like structures in India, both above the ground in simple cloisters and below the ground in caves. Other Indian temple architecture, although it tends to follow the pattern of a simple floor plan with a richly decorated facade, differs according to the ritual. Hindu temples, which vary regionally in style, usually consist of a towering shrine and a columned hall surrounded by an elaborate wall. Buddhist temples range from half-buried sanctuaries with richly carved entrances to single, carved towers or statues. Muslim temples in India, as elsewhere, are usually domed structures decorated with coloured tiles on the outside and covering a large central sanctuary and arcaded courtyards within.

The Chinese (and later, Japanese) version of the Buddhist temple tends to be a one-story building of richly carved, painted, or tiled timber constructed around an atrium used for worship, although pagodas, which were sometimes built as temples, were towering stacks of brightly coloured, wing-roofed stories over a small shrine. By contrast, the Shintō temples of Japan are almost huts, so simple and rustic are their design.

In the Americas, Incan and Mayan temples were constructed of stone and were often highly carved. In general, because of the available technology as well as the religious belief, they were stair-stepped pyramids, with the shrine at the top. Chichén Itzá, the ruins of which remain in the Yucatán Peninsula, has excellent examples of this type of pre-Columbian temple architecture.
Modern temple architecture, especially in North America but elsewhere in the world as well, is for the most part eclectic, with both traditional and modern designs being used to accommodate the needs of the religion for which the temple is designed.
[hr]

Though I enjoy discussions of Religion, ZealotX, your LDS quote is a Tad off coming from a Mormon.... Don't mind if you think he's a con artist but the timeline of the Book of Mormon is off.. That "Coming to America" is a small part of the what is written and is referred to in the belief that Jesus visited all of the World, not just coming to America... Many overlook the fact that the Book of Mormon is a Companion to the Bible, not the other way around...

One thing I have learned in my own Lifetime and coming from a primarily Irish Roman Catholic and Irish Protestant Families, before becoming Mormon, is that no matter what it really is, it isn't about a building... It's a Term used in the Face of Religion, have debated this numerous times with Bishops and won that discussion, not because I'm right, because everything started in Gatherings, Tents and such before Temples and Churches were built. A building can burn down be destroyed by Natural forces or decrepitude but you can have it anywhere people gather. Some have said and If I am not mistaken and is referred to many times, the internet is look upon with invisible walls with in the Law World Wide...

In that simplistic form, that's a view I have of TOTJO. We all come from many places yet we are here. A Church, A Temple, A gathering of people... semantics in this modern world of Technology erased the old views of "The Building" being the only view...

I know that I base my idea of church, and my idea of Temple on the Creed. As you may know, I value the Creed quite a lot. It's one of my favorite parts of the Doctrine.
I think that if the doctrine is the Bedrock, we could have tough conversations, we could have debates, or more accurately, dialogue. I think perhaps we have misplaced the doctrine in favor of creating a more open environment. if the doctrine could come to the Forefront, I think we'd have a better Temple all around

So ... how do we get that sit in a chair backwards type of feeling with each other?

Easy. You can sit like that, someone can scream at you for being an evil chaunvinistic manspreader, others can join in the debate, everyone involved will have some sort of feeling associated with the issue... well except for the 'just another repeat of the same old stuff' feeling... point is someone will be unhappy about it, no matter how good your intentions were.

ren wrote:

So ... how do we get that sit in a chair backwards type of feeling with each other?

Easy. You can sit like that, someone can scream at you for being an evil chaunvinistic manspreader, others can join in the debate, everyone involved will have some sort of feeling associated with the issue... well except for the 'just another repeat of the same old stuff' feeling... point is someone will be unhappy about it, no matter how good your intentions were.

Some days Ren, your the lemon in my lemonade.

When I think of a Church (or Temple, I use them interchangeably), I always think of the following common elements:

1. It is a place especially designed for a purpose (spiritual practice, worship)
2. The purpose is always regarded as THE most important thing above all else (held up on a pedestal, so to speak).
3. What is held up on a pedestal, is, for all intents and purposes, sacred (all structure revolves around this ideal).
4. The activity carried out in this space is designated to re-connect each person to this ideal.
5. The intended result is that the exercise of re-connection should allow each person to incorporate the ideal into their daily lives, so it informs their actions outside of the church.

So, in other words, a Church is a place where people go to carry out an activity that psychologically re-connects them to the ideal the community/religion holds to be Most Desirable, with the intended purpose of allowing people to live in accord with this Most Desirable end in mind.

The question, then, becomes... what is that which is deemed Most Desirable at TotJO?

Ros certainly favors the Jedi Creed, as she clarified in an earlier post, which would be easy to guess based on her behavior. I'm sure she is not the only one.

Others might differ... some slightly, some wildly. I know of a few people that have told me they would rather eliminate the Creed altogether from Doctrine.

For some people, The Jedi Code might reign supreme, which would mean they favor: Peace, Knowledge, Serenity, Harmony, The Force.

Others, such as our recently evicted guest, very obviously favored Knowledge and Rationality over anything else (to what extent she was successful at it is another debate).

I am happy to be a part of this community. Despite our various differences in what "Most Desirable" we put up on that pedestal, the fact that we are all constantly and actively seeking for some ideal does make me feel a part of something bigger.

I am quite sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that nowhere in the many facets of this Temple, does it state that we are following an Abrahamic guideline of what defines a church...all of the conditioned respiratory ses and dictionary definitions are based around the Abrahamic faiths...."a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."