Women leaders ordered off the stand

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The idea of the bishopric sitting on the stand is to show and establish who is presiding and conducting.  Again, absent a person A) presiding or conducting, or B) having business to present to the congregation, individuals are part of the congregation, and ought to sit with the congregation.

I respectfully disagree.  None of the "presidents" in the ward organization can "preside" in Sacrament Meeting (apart from the EQP, whom the SP can designate to preside the absence of the Bishopric).  So unless they have business to present to the congregation, they ought to sit with the congregation.

And then there's the logistical headache arising from 20+ "presidents" and their counselors all sitting on the stand every week.  

And then there's the fairly strong whiff of usurpative activism coming off this proposal.

I think it does.  

The dozens taking turns?  Seems like a big waste of time and effort.  And it has no meaningful purpose.  And it seems pretty arbitrary.  And then there's the "usurpative activism" thing.

Because they they are part of the Bishopric, and because bishopric members typically take turns conducting.

In a courtroom, the court staff - the court clerk, the bailiff, the court reporter (in federal courts) have particularized roles to play court proceedings, and so sit near the judge, facing the attorneys and the gallery.  It would make little sense to have the clerk sit on the judge's bench, or an attorney stand where the bailiff stands, or a litigant setting at the clerk's desk.  Having City Council members and support staff scattered hither and yon, and attendees randomly and arbitrarily invited to sit at the front of the meeting facing the audience, would likewise make little sense.  "Why not?"-style musings about distorting, for no particular purpose, what is presently a practical and sensible layout and structure don't make sense to me.

Again, I am not seeing much interaction with Chesterton's Fence.  

Again, the usurpative activism aspect of this is, to me, bothersome.

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding Chesterton's Fence, we have some explanations as to how the practice came to be (I've suggested it was handed down from the times of Moses' congregational assemblies, acknowledged by Jesus who taught in synagogues, transmitted into house churches and larger Christian meeting places by the Jewish converts, carrying with it analogous symbolism to focus worship meetings on God and not on recognition of the persons in leadership positions), but not exactly why in relation to the Lord's justification of it (as with a lack of explanation as to why there is no ordination of women), other than this is how the Lord and His servants have determined it to be. I think the why would have to come by revelation, which hasn't to my knowledge been claimed. Maybe a good rule of thumb is, "Until you know why, complwhy."

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.  The lengths to which usurpative activism will go...

Sigh.  The lengths to which some will go to maintain that only men sit on the stand. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Mostly authority, I suppose.  

What authority, exactly, is gained by having the bishopric sit with their families, or by having other leadership sit on the stand?  Serious question.  You don't seem to be able to articulate what is being usurped here exactly.  Maybe because there is nothing!  Maybe it is more about getting rid of unnecessary tradition (like only having men pray in conference) then it is about usurping anything.   

I doesn't seem that you understand the issue, or even care to try with your dismissive "usurpative authority", "tokenism", "pandering", and "performative virtue signaling" accusations.  Your basically just name calling like a 5 year old but with more grown up words. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, that's a really good example of when Chesterton's Fence should be torn down.

But not through activism.  Not through rebellion, defiance, disobedience, fault-finding, backbiting, etc.

If you think that women are praying in conference now because of something other than activism, you are kidding yourself. 

Making a suggestion to solve a perception issue that many have is not "rebellion, defiance, disobedience, backbiting" etc.   You seem to be the one fault finding and name calling here.  Geesh.  Take a chill pill brother.   No one is here to usurp your authority, a great male man.  

Edited November 28, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Durangout said:

They are pushing for women’s ordination to the priesthood—obviously.

Not in the least.  I have stated a number of times in the past I am hoping the Lord has something else in mind for priestesses.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, the usurpative activism aspect of this is, to me, bothersome.

 

Discussing the idea and why it is attractive is hardly protesting on temple square.  This is the only place I will be mentioning it unless someone asked me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And then there's the logistical headache arising from 20+ "presidents" and their counselors all sitting on the stand every week. 

You saying this makes it clear you haven’t been paying attention to what I have proposed.  There is no way you could have missed the fact I think it best to rotate so there are only 3 additional people on the stand each week if you were actually reading my posts.  This is not a good faith effort to understand someone.  I am very, very disappointed, Smac.  
 

The fact that you engage with the idea later while still leaving in an accusation condemning a misrepresentation of my idea initially is a very poor argument.  This is a habit of yours I have commented about before.  You make a false conclusion about someone’s idea, argue against it; later (as in the next sentence or two) realize that wasn’t the position, but still do not delete your mistake.

Read the whole post first, Smac, if you aren’t going to correct your misrepresentations if you don’t want your credibility to suffer…or give me one good reason why it makes sense to put effort into arguing something that is incorrect and then refusing to take even a few seconds to go back and delete the comment when you find out that you are wrong.

Seriously, Smac.  Think of how this looks to others.  You are willing to argue but not willing to be accurate in your argument?  What do you think that says about your priorities?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The dozens taking turns?  Seems like a big waste of time and effort.  And it has no meaningful purpose.

In your view.  I have explained multiple times why I see it would be contributing to the sense of unity in the ward, help people make connections with other leadership beyond just the bishopric…and since being one is a commandment of the Lord, that seems like a very meaningful purpose to me.

Argue if you want that it would not be effective, but don’t misrepresent that the reason for doing such is not meaningful.  That is false.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Sigh.  The lengths to which some will go to maintain that only men sit on the stand. 

Sigh.  The lengths to which some will go to impute falsehoods into the minds of others.

As I have said previously, my qualms with this proposal apply with equal utility to any of the "presidents" in a ward organization, male or female.  Unless they have business to present to the congregation, they ought to sit with the congregation.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

What authority, exactly, is gained by having the bishopric sit with their families, or by having other leadership sit on the stand?  Serious question. 

It's a matter of authority being usurped, or an attempt at it.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to be able to articulate what is being usurped here exactly. 

Except . . . I did:

Quote

Mostly authority, I suppose.  

Ours is, or is supposed to be, "a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God."  (D&C 88:119.)

Activism, whether of the in-your-face (e.g., Kate Kelly, Sam Young) variety or the more passive/oblique/underhanded styles (lending out a TR, misusing ward lists, publicizing mundane controversies, encouraging others to set aside or depart from prophetic counsel (including, it seems, ignoring or disputing mundane and normative administrative/procedural policies and procedures)) should not be a part of the Latter-day Saint community.  See, e.g., then-Elder Oaks excellent 1987 article, Criticism and, more recently, Bro. Ahmad Corbitt's talk, Activism v. Discipleship.

And here:

Quote

I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

By way of example, see here:...

Activism is advanced by people who lack standing and/or stewardship to affect change in the Church's policies and procedures.  Such activism typically involves adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Maybe because there is nothing! 

Well, there's obviously something going on, hence the article in the OP and the attendant pearl-clutching histrionics.

Again, I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Maybe it is more about getting rid of unnecessary tradition (like only having men pray in conference) then it is about usurping anything.

Maybe so.  But the means and methods by which we seek to improve and change the Church matter.  A lot.  A lot.

And those means and methods ought not be adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactics / etc.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I doesn't seem that you understand the issue,

Ad hominem.  

1 minute ago, pogi said:

or even care to try

Appeal to motive.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

with your dismissive "usurpative authority", "tokenism", "pandering", and "performative virtue signaling" accusations. 

I am not "dismissing" the proposal by characterizing it using the above descriptions.  I am disputing and disagreeing with it.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Your basically just name calling like a 5 year old but with more grown up words. 

I found the article in the OP to be overwrought, emotional, melodramatic twaddle.  I proceeded to explain my reasoning and rationale, and then conveyed my conclusions about this, the most recent entry in the "First World Problems Dressed Up as 'News' by the Salt Lake Tribune" hit parade.

It's an unserious grievance.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

If you think that women are praying in conference now because of something other than activism, you are kidding yourself.

Would it be fair to say that you have a "The Ends Justify the Means" posture relative to affecting change in the Church?  As long as the ends are achieved, you don't care about the particular means used?

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Making a suggestion to solve a problem that many have is not "rebellion, defiance, disobedience, backbiting" etc.

Taking this mundane issue to the Salt Lake Tribune is not "{m}aking a suggestion."  

Carping about and denigrating the Church is not "{m}aking a suggestion."  

Falsely imputing sexist/misogynist motives onto people you disagree with is not "{m}aking a suggestion."

Again, I think ongoing activist efforts to push boundaries, tear down Chesterton's Fence, etc., often regarding relatively minor and mundane matters, are not helpful in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Again, I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

1 minute ago, pogi said:

You seem to be the one fault finding and name calling here.  Geesh.  Take a chill pill brother.   No one is here to usurp your authority, a great male man.  

More ad hominem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Bishop so-and-so from the Normal, IL 3rd ward? Not so much. 

If a bishop is hard to recognize without him sitting on the stand every week instead of once every three months, seems like this is a good argument for making other leaders in the ward easier to recognize and seek out, interact with, etc given most have much less visibility than the bishop for ward members not directly lead by them.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well said.  This is why I think ongoing activist efforts to push boundaries, tear down Chesterton's Fence, etc., often regarding relatively minor and mundane matters, are not helpful in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

I don't live in the SF Bay Area (thankfully), so I'm not really well positioned to comment about whether or not the practice was intended to be "adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / [etc.]."

If that was the intent then I think the area authority was absolutely right to put a stop to it. Otherwise, I think it was merely within his rights to have done so.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Having City Council members and support staff scattered hither and yon, and attendees randomly and arbitrarily invited to sit at the front of the meeting facing the audience, would likewise make little sense.  "Why not?"-style musings about distorting, for no particular purpose, what is presently a practical and sensible layout and structure don't make sense to me.

The City Council do not operate under the commandment to be one.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/09/be-one?lang=eng

Quote

The Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, said of those who would be part of His Church: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).

Check out “leader visibility” if you don’t think it is a concern for organizations and how it improves a business or community’s culture, especially on how much leaders can influence those under them.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Again, the usurpative activism aspect of this is, to me, bothersome.

Discussing the idea and why it is attractive is hardly protesting on temple square.  

I agree.  But the article in the OP is a difference of degree, not kind, with the sort of pressure tactics Kate Kelly and Sam Young used.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is the only place I will be mentioning it unless someone asked me.

Again, see then-Elder Oaks excellent 1987 article, Criticism and, more recently, Bro. Ahmad Corbitt's talk, Activism v. Discipleship.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't bother wearing it.  If it does...

I find the article in the OP, and much of the commentary in this thread, inimical to and in conflict with then-Elder Oaks excellent 1987 article, Criticism.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)
...

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.
...
The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female. ...

From the Trib article in the OP:

• "'A slap in the face’"
• "LDS Relief Society leaders ordered off the stand"
• "Area president puts an end to this Bay Area tradition. Many women are asking: Why?"
• "But to many women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the public presence of women, sitting side by side with male ecclesiastical authorities, sent a powerful signal they were an important and essential part of the community’s leadership.  Apparently, though, even that small symbol was too much for some of the faith’s male leaders."
• "The heartbreaking edict, Latter-day Saint observers in the region say, was handed down to male leaders without any input from the women affected or explanation for the change."
• "In response, members in at least three stakes (regional clusters of congregations] surrounding San Francisco have expressed their concerns to lay bishops and stake presidents, while also conducting surveys and launching a letter-writing campaign to church headquarters in Salt Lake City."

See, I just don't see the article, and corollary efforts to advance the agenda of the disgruntled members referenced in it, and the means being used by those disgruntled members and those who sympathize with them, are compatible with the counsel provided by then-Elder Oaks.  Instead, the article, and much of this thread, smacks much more of the "activism" in the Church against which Bro. Corbitt recently warned us in this talk, Activism v. Discipleship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Regarding Chesterton's Fence, we have some explanations as to how the practice came to be (I've suggested it was handed down from the times of Moses' congregational assemblies, acknowledged by Jesus who taught in synagogues, transmitted into house churches and larger Christian meeting places by the Jewish converts, carrying with it analogous symbolism to focus worship meetings on God and not on recognition of the persons in leadership positions), but not exactly why in relation to the Lord's justification of it (as with a lack of explanation as to why there is no ordination of women), other than this is how the Lord and His servants have determined it to be. I think the why would have to come by revelation, which hasn't to my knowledge been claimed. Maybe a good rule of thumb is, "Until you know why, complwhy."

Or perhaps not even "revelation" as much as "policies and procedures developed over time and through long experience, and implemented via reasonably-exercised discretion and authority of those who have it."

As opposed to, say, resorting to pressure tactics, including taking such mundane grievances to sympathetic ears at the Salt Lake Tribune, who are quite willing to dress this up as being "newsworthy."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

Women did not “give blessings” by the laying on of hands through the authority of the priesthood.  Their husbands did however.  They simply placed their hands on the FAMILY member’s head as an expression of faith in the blessing that was being given through the authority of the priesthood by the husband.

Regarding your comment “had some women ordained to the fullness of the priesthood”  you’d have to provide linked proof of that so that I could see the situation in context to understand what was going on there.  I expect it doesn’t mean what you think it means.  For example when a woman is sealed to her husband, she does enter into the patriarchal order of the priesthood which is the highest order of the priesthood.  I suspect that is to what you are referring.

 

Women did actually give blessings of healing for a time, without any men present and to more than just family members. 

But you are right that they did not exercise the priesthood to do them.  However, since both Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks have taught in GC that there is no other power than priesthood power, some could argue that that's semantics and a moot point.

Regardless, if I understand correctly the practice was basically phased out in 1946.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Calm.

There is a sermon and readings. The priest does face the people for this. The focus, however, is always on the altar and the ritual. For example, the sermon may last 15 minutes out of an 1+ hour long mass. The sermon is giving from a lectern on the side. When the priest, deacons, and altar boys are not actively involved in the Mass, they sit on chairs that are facing sideways. This happens during the sermon and during parts of the Mass when they are finished with their activities at the altar but the Gregorian chant has not yet finished.

Here's a picture I found with a quick google search. It is a requiem (funeral) mass. I don't mean to be morbid, but it was an easy image to find to show what I'm talking about:

The priest also faces the people when they are receiving communion. They kneel and he and a deacon or altar boy go side to side placing it on the people's tongues. Here's an example:

For the rest of the Mass, the priest is facing the altar. Here is a picture taking from the pews at the time of the consecration:

Thank you for explaining this.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sigh.  The lengths to which some will go to maintain that only men sit on the stand. 

 

I've never seen a stand with only men present but I'm guessing it does happen occasionally (when there are no female speakers and the chorister and organist both happen to be male).  Still, I don't think Smac is advocating for men only up in front.

(and for the record, I don't think you are advocating for everything Smac is implying you are either).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

A girl passing it to a mother nursing a baby is the same as passing it to the person next to you.

I pretty much agree.  As does, it seems, the Church.

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

But the Sacrament is a priesthood ordinance and should be completely handled by the priesthood where possible.

Okay.  How does the "completely handled by the priesthood" work vis-à-vis distributing the Sacrament?  What is the difference between (A) "{a} girl passing it to a mother nursing a baby" or "passing it to the person next to you" and (B) the Deacons handing the tray to the person at the far end of a pew?

There are scriptural instructions for the preparation and blessing of the Sacrament, but Brunson is claiming - perhaps correctly - that there is no scriptural instruction about the distribution/passing of the Sacrament.  

If I was interested in affecting change on this topic, I would not go about it as Brunson has.  I would, instead, follow the counsel in then-Elder Oaks 1987 article, Criticism, which lays out "at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders," such as:

Quote

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.
...
A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference.
...
The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
...
A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
...
There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

I think a combination of the 3rd and 4th options would be appropriate.  I could write a letter to my bishop outlining my thoughts, and ask him to pass the letter on to the stake president and so on.

I would not run to the Salt Lake Tribune, air the proverbial dirty laundry, obliquely badmouth the Lord's anointed, etc.  That's just not the way things ought to be done in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The lengths to which usurpative activism will go...

And this one. Repeated over and over and over......

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

agree.  But the article in the OP is a difference of degree, not kind, with the sort of pressure tactics Kate Kelly and Sam Young used.

I am not the writer or people referred to in the opening post.  How about responding to me in a post that you attach my name to instead of using me as a springboard for your criticisms of others, at least if you don’t state that is what you are doing as in “in regards to the OP…” or whoever else you are critiquing in a post you start by responding to me.  Separate the conversation to avoid confusion and the waste of both of our efforts.

If you want to respond to the opening post, then do so.  Don’t use me as an opener and then have nothing to actually say to me for your post.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or perhaps not even "revelation" as much as "policies and procedures developed over time and through long experience, and implemented via reasonably-exercised discretion and authority of those who have it."

As opposed to, say, resorting to pressure tactics, including taking such mundane grievances to sympathetic ears at the Salt Lake Tribune, who are quite willing to dress this up as being "newsworthy."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that I find that consistent with what the scriptures teach. I recommend taking the high road always, and any other beatitude-like approach.

I personally don't regard the SLT very highly because eh journalism isn't very good (maybe this was just an opinion piece which has a place in any paper), which is why I check out several news sources on the same topic. Is this addressed independently in other papers?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Women did actually give blessings of healing for a time, without any men present and to more than just family members. 

But you are right that they did not exercise the priesthood to do them.  However, since both Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks have taught in GC that there is no other power than priesthood power, some could argue that that's semantics and a moot point.

Regardless, if I understand correctly the practice was basically phased out in 1946.

My great greatgrandmother was called to do so and it included training as a midwife iirc.  After she received the training she was set apart by the laying on of hands by two, maybe three men (may have been a stake calling, has been awhile since I read about it) to give blessings to pregnant women and women in labour.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And "usurpative activism" as well.

Alas, many of our discussions on this board have been reduced to petty grievances, trivialities, and other First World Problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes and noted. You did not disappoint. 😁

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

My great greatgrandmother was called to do so and it included training as a midwife iirc.  After she received the training she was set apart by the laying on of hands by two men (may have been a stake calling, has been awhile since I read about it) to give blessings to pregnant women and women in labour.

It sounds wonderful to me in such a time when home births and "confinement" were the norm.  I don't know I personally would think of it now being applied to me and happening in a hospital setting.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad I got to experience things outside of my own church life. My sister married a Catholic and I experienced my niece's wedding in a beautiful place called St. Mary's Hall & School of Religion in Northern California. I also experienced two Catholic funerals for my brother in law's parents. And in my dating years I dated a Catholic and attended his church once. 

I really pushed for my friend to take me to mass when I was a teen, but other than that I haven’t been to any service besides a wedding. I am jealous.  I wish I hadn’t been so shy about it before it became difficult. It was always something I planned to do when….

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

I really pushed for my friend to take me to mass when I was a teen, but other than that I haven’t been to any service besides a wedding. I am jealous.  I wish I hadn’t been so shy about it before it became difficult. It was always something I planned to do when….

I got to go to a feast for our Lady of Guadalupe (I think that's how you say it) when I was in college and it was really cool (even though it was in spanish and I didn't understand very much of it).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

When Joseph Smith said to the Relief Society he was going to "make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day", he was talking about the whole Church and not just the Relief Society.
Joseph Smith had, on other occasions, used the word "Society" when talking about the whole Church.

Do we know he didn’t use “Society” for other groups?  It would help pinpoint his intent was almost for sure the Church.  I do think it is the most likely reading.

I wonder at times what the Church would be like if Joseph had been able to live another year or two or even just 6 months.