The Priesthood can serve the movement by cultivating study, contemplative attention, ethical literacy, practical competence and peer accountability. Its purpose is not to establish a new intermediary between humanity and God. The priest is a participant under obligation, not an owner of God-given access. If the role is formalised, appointment should concern a defined scope of service, not a declaration of metaphysical superiority.

A possible structure begins with local circles that elect or select facilitators for limited terms and clear responsibilities. Circles can affiliate with a coordinating body for resources, training, safeguarding and common standards. A separate independent mechanism should receive complaints about leaders and organisational conduct. Participants should know how to appeal decisions, inspect financial summaries and leave without punitive consequences.

A founding figure may provide language and direction without holding permanent unchecked control. Founders should be subject to the same restitution process as other participants. The movement's charter should define who can authorise spending, speak on its behalf, approve programmes, handle personal information and investigate misconduct. Charisma is not an adequate decision-making system.

Theology and governance should remain distinguishable. A participant's disagreement about Logos, Adam or pre-existence should not automatically be treated as a disciplinary matter. Harmful conduct, safeguarding failures and misuse of funds are governance concerns requiring appropriate process. Conflating doctrinal disagreement with misconduct is one route through which movements become coercive.

The Priesthood should regard its success as the development of capable, independent Restorers-including those who eventually work outside its structures. The healthiest sign of formation may be a person who no longer needs a teacher's approval to do the right thing.