Redemption of Zion, Led By Joseph Smith (D&C 101:55-60)

[Gillebre]

My friends I've been studying these verses and was hoping to hear your thoughts and insights.

Let me provide the verses in question.

55 And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;
56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.
57 Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen.
58 And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.
59 And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be?
60 And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

We are also informed by footnote 55a under "servants" from D&C 103:21 that this is speaking about the Prophet Joseph Smith as the one charged to organize the redemption of Zion (to my understanding).

Setting aside the Zion's camp exercise (because even though this part of the parable is taught as at least partly referring to Zion's camp) since those persons did not complete the prophesied redemption of Zion in the last days do you find it reasonable to say that Joseph Smith will return to the Church to complete this assignment?

I ask this because I've read a few assertions in my studies that Joseph Smith will return to the Church in the last days and this parable is one of their chief evidences which they feel supports the idea. There are other things they point to, but to me this seemed to be the easiest one to tackle for now.

In summary: since we know the Lord gives this parable as His will concerning Zion's promised redemption, and it wasn't completed by Zion's camp, should we be not surprised when Brother Joseph comes back to finish the job?

Edited November 5, 2021 by Gillebre

[The Nehor]

The idea that Joseph Smith would (resurrected or in spirit form) come back to lead a group of saints to redeem the center place of Zion goes back to the early apostles after Joseph died.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Gillebre said:

My friends I've been studying these verses and was hoping to hear your thoughts and insights.

Let me provide the verses in question.

55 And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;
56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.
57 Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen.
58 And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.
59 And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be?
60 And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

We are also informed by footnote 55a under "servants" from D&C 103:21 that this is speaking about the Prophet Joseph Smith as the one charged to organize the redemption of Zion (to my understanding).

Setting aside the Zion's camp exercise (because even though this part of the parable is taught as at least partly referring to Zion's camp) since those persons did not complete the prophesied redemption of Zion in the last days do you find it reasonable to say that Joseph Smith will return to the Church to complete this assignment?

I ask this because I've read a few assertions in my studies that Joseph Smith will return to the Church in the last days and this parable is one of their chief evidences which they feel supports the idea. There are other things they point to, but to me this seemed to be the easiest one to tackle for now.

In summary: since we know the Lord gives this parable as His will concerning Zion's promised redemption, and it wasn't completed by Zion's camp, should we be not surprised when Brother Joseph comes back to finish the job?

I wouldn't be surprised either way, but I tend to think the redemption of Zion in this literal fashion is not to be, since it was rescinded in later revelation. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised that Joseph Smith remains involved with the redemption of Zion, whether he is resurrected or not. I think if Joseph Smith were to come on the scene again to lead, the transfer of keys and presidency and so forth would be attended by common consent at some level of governance, general to the highest Quorum.

[Gillebre]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that Joseph Smith would (resurrected or in spirit form) come back to lead a group of saints to redeem the center place of Zion goes back to the early apostles after Joseph died.

So this doesn't come so far out of left field for you as to be laughable? It's not something I seriously considered before, but in light of this parable and Zion's eventual redemption I'm inclined to explore it more.

You're someone I'd expect to tear it down if you thought the idea was a heaping pile of garbage. Any heaping garbage here that you can warn me about, my friend?

I'm also considering any connection to D&C 85:7.

"7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;"

It would make sense that a resurrected and possibly exalted or glorified being would be holding a scepter of power and wear light as his covering while also uttering eternal words.

 

[Gillebre]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't be surprised either way, but I tend to think the redemption of Zion in this literal fashion is not to be, since it was rescinded in later revelation. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised that Joseph Smith remains involved with the redemption of Zion, whether he is resurrected or not. I think if Joseph Smith were to come on the scene again to lead, the transfer of keys and presidency and so forth would be attended by common consent at some level of governance, general to the highest Quorum.

Rescinded in later revelation? Could you please point me to where you find that when you have a minute?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

So this doesn't come so far out of left field for you as to be laughable? It's not something I seriously considered before, but in light of this parable and Zion's eventual redemption I'm inclined to explore it more.

You're someone I'd expect to tear it down if you thought the idea was a heaping pile of garbage. Any heaping garbage here that you can warn me about, my friend?

I'm also considering any connection to D&C 85:7.

"7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;"

It would make sense that a resurrected and possibly exalted or glorified being would be holding a scepter of power and wear light as his covering while also uttering eternal words.

 

I think that while D&C 85:7 and 101: 55-60 both refer to Joseph Smith, the former may well be a designee of Joseph's who would do what what was needed at the time, since there was some balking and resistance to the purchase of land in Independence by some leaders.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

Rescinded in later revelation? Could you please point me to where you find that when you have a minute?

Yes, see D&C 105.

"9 Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion—

10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.

***

13 Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.

14 For behold, I do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles."

It may well be the Lord Himself is the one mighty and strong, etc., but typically His designated servants as the case may require.

[Gillebre]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, see D&C 105.

"9 Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion—

10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.

***

13 Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.

14 For behold, I do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles."

It may well be the Lord Himself is the one mighty and strong, etc., but typically His designated servants as the case may require.

These verses definitely clarify the Lord's intention that the Saints in the early days of the Church are to wait for a time, depending on their prepation as Zion people, before Zion itself will formally be redeemed.

I wonder then if that invalidates verses 55-60 of section 101 as still being the pattern the Lord will use to eventually redeem Zion "after a little season."

What do you think? There's no doubt about the delay, and even in the parable the Lord says it will all be fulfilled "when I will." Is it reasonable then to still expect the pattern of this parable to hold true in our day/a future day since it wasn't all fulfilled back then by Zion's camp?

Edited November 5, 2021 by Gillebre

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gillebre said:

I'm also considering any connection to D&C 85:7.

"7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;"

It would make sense that a resurrected and possibly exalted or glorified being would be holding a scepter of power and wear light as his covering while also uttering eternal words.

In light of this verse being the resurrected Joseph consider this statement to Joseph shortly after -

D&C 90:16 And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.

Edited November 5, 2021 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gillebre said:

These verses definitely clarify the Lord's intention that the Saints in the early days of the Church are to wait for a time, depending on their prepation as Zion people, before Zion itself will formally be redeemed.

I wonder then if that invalidates verses 55-60 of section 101 as still being the pattern the Lord will use to eventually redeem Zion "after a little season."

What do you think? There's no doubt about the delay, and even in the parable the Lord says it will all be fulfilled "when I will." Is it reasonable then to still expect the pattern of this parable to hold true in our day/a future day since it wasn't all fulfilled back then by Zion's camp?

I wouldn't say invalidate, but perhaps pivot, since the new instruction was to purchase lands.

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In light of this verse being the resurrected Joseph consider this statement to Joseph shortly after -

D&C 90:16 And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.

It seems the plural "lives" is in reference to the members of the First Presidency and leadership:

16 And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.

17 Be not ashamed, neither confounded; but be admonished in all your high-mindedness and pride, for it bringeth a snare upon your souls.

18 Set in order your houses; keep slothfulness and uncleanness far from you.

[Gillebre]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't say invalidate, but perhaps pivot, since the new instruction was to purchase lands.

I thought that instruction was part of the pattern and parable so that the Saints would be justified in taking it back someday, assuming they couldn't get it back by appealing to the law of the land in their day, as in verse 56: "And go ye straightway into the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mind; I have bought it with money."

[Navidad]

You repeatedly refer to it as a parable. I have never heard of a parable being interpreted as a literal event, either in the past or the future? Is interpreting parables as literal events, either in the past or the future a teaching within LDS hermeneutics?

[Gillebre]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You repeatedly refer to it as a parable. I have never heard of a parable being interpreted as a literal event, either in the past or the future? Is interpreting parables as literal events, either in the past or the future a teaching within LDS hermeneutics?

You make an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

I know that the Church points us towards Zion's Camp in relation to this parable as at least a partial fulfillment of what the Lord says is His will regarding the redemption of Zion. I'm not familiar with other parables as having ties to literal events, but I can't say that I think it impossible for parables to prefigure specific events. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Gillebre

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

I thought that instruction was part of the pattern and parable so that the Saints would be justified in taking it back someday, assuming they couldn't get it back by appealing to the law of the land in their day, as in verse 56: "And go ye straightway into the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mind; I have bought it with money."

My take is these verses in D&C 105 pertain to continued or future purchases to be made. The redemption (seemingly through direct divine intervention, verse 15) will follow the community’s repentance (vs. 9, 10) the endowment of power (vs. 11-13) and the spiritual strengthening of the “armies of Israel” (e.g., vs. 31-33, 35-37). In the meantime, yet to begin in the seemingly, fairly immediate future, we have the Lord softening the hearts of the enemies of the saints (vs. 18-27) and the purchasing of land (vs. 28-30).

“And I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did the heart of Pharaoh, from time to time, until my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and mine elders, whom I have appointed, shall have time to gather up the strength of my house, And to have sent wise men, to fulfil that which I have commanded concerning the purchasing of all the lands in Jackson county that can be purchased, and in the adjoining counties round about. For it is my will that these lands should be purchased; and after they are purchased that my saints should possess them according to the laws of consecration which I have given. And after these lands are purchased, I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless in taking possession of their own lands, which they have previously purchased with their moneys, and of throwing down the towers of mine enemies that may be upon them, and scattering their watchmen, and avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” (vs. 27-30) This promise does not seem to pertain to the lands purchased in the failed, transgression-sabotaged effort to establish Zion to date.

“And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (v. 34).

The last verses (vs. 38-41) are all about making peace in the situation.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You repeatedly refer to it as a parable. I have never heard of a parable being interpreted as a literal event, either in the past or the future? Is interpreting parables as literal events, either in the past or the future a teaching within LDS hermeneutics?

Verse 43 introduces the parable, and inspired instructions on how to apply it in this instance follows.

[mrmarklin]

I think we can safely assume that any references to JS redeeming Zion will be accomplished by his successors.  They have the same power and authority.

[Olmec Donald]

This thought occurs to me:  The LDS church has a large investment portfolio (for which they are criticized by many), AND "redeeming Zion" by real estate transaction seems more promising than by powder and ball, so maybe the one is in anticipation of the other?

*  *  *  *

14 hours ago, Gillebre said:

I've read a few assertions in my studies that Joseph Smith will return to the Church in the last days and this parable is one of their chief evidences which they feel supports the idea.

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't be surprised that Joseph Smith remains involved with the redemption of Zion, whether he is resurrected or not.

I've seen reincarnation argued to be the lesser of the two types of "resurrection" mentioned by Jesus in John 5:29, reincarnation being a "resurrection" into a Telestial world.  Here is how that verse reads with the Greek word "krisis" correctly translated, instead of mistranslated as "damnation":

"... they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of crisis." 

As for Joseph Smith continuing the work he started, that seems plausible to me.  Quoting Heber C. Kimball: 

"What I do not today, when the sun goes down, I lay down to sleep, which is typical of death; and in the morning I rise and commence my work where I left it yesterday. That course is typical of the probations we take."

"Who have you now in your midst? Have you Abraham and Isaac, and the Apostles Peter, James and John? Yes, you have them right in your midst—they are talking to you all the time. Do you believe it?"

These links go into more depth on the subject.  The second one even has a section entitled "The second coming of Joseph Smith".

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/2019/probations.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/135909617/JJ-Dewey-Reincarnation-and-Mormonism

Personally I'm not sure that reincarnation is necessarily a useful concept.  I am aware of at least one Mormon splinter group who seems to be all caught up in what great person they were in some past life, as if their group is the reunion of superheroes, when they are not doing diddly in this one. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Gillebre said:

So this doesn't come so far out of left field for you as to be laughable? It's not something I seriously considered before, but in light of this parable and Zion's eventual redemption I'm inclined to explore it more.

You're someone I'd expect to tear it down if you thought the idea was a heaping pile of garbage. Any heaping garbage here that you can warn me about, my friend?

I'm also considering any connection to D&C 85:7.

"7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;"

It would make sense that a resurrected and possibly exalted or glorified being would be holding a scepter of power and wear light as his covering while also uttering eternal words.

 

No, it was suggested by several leaders.

"God’s arm is not shortened that he cannot raise him [Joseph Smith] up even from the tomb. We are living in the dispensation of the resurrection, and there may be some who will wake from their tombs for certain purposes and to bring to pass certain transactions on the earth decreed by the Great Jehovah; and if the Lord sees proper to bring forth that man [Joseph] just before the winding up scene to lead forth the army of Israel, he will do so." - Orson Pratt

“I am pretty sure of one thing---we shall go to Jackson County, Missouri; that is, those who do right and honor their calling, doing what they have been told to do. You will be blessed, and you will see the day when Presidents [Brigham] Young, [Heber C.] Kimball, and [Daniel H.] Wells, and the Twelve Apostles will be in Jackson County, Missouri, laying out your inheritances. In the flesh? Of course. We should look well without being in the flesh! We shall be there in the flesh, and all our enemies cannot prevent it. Brother Wells, you may write that. You will be there, and Willard [Richards] will be there, and also Jedediah [M. Grant], and Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and David [W. Patten], and Parley [P. Pratt]." -Heber C. Kimball

There was another quote that I vaguely remember that talked of Joseph Smith leading the group that would redeem Zion and it took a position that Joseph could do this as a spirit or resurrected.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Gillebre said:

My friends I've been studying these verses and was hoping to hear your thoughts and insights.

Let me provide the verses in question.

55 And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;
56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.
57 Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen.
58 And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.
59 And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be?
60 And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

We are also informed by footnote 55a under "servants" from D&C 103:21 that this is speaking about the Prophet Joseph Smith as the one charged to organize the redemption of Zion (to my understanding).

Setting aside the Zion's camp exercise (because even though this part of the parable is taught as at least partly referring to Zion's camp) since those persons did not complete the prophesied redemption of Zion in the last days do you find it reasonable to say that Joseph Smith will return to the Church to complete this assignment?

I doubt it.  The Lord's pattern seems to be to use angels, including resurrected persons, as messengers to the mortal actors on the earth.  Moroni counseled Joseph, but Joseph translated the plates.  John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph and Oliver, but Joseph performed the first baptisms.  Peter, James and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph and Oliver, but Joseph ordained everyone else.  Temple work is performed by mere mortals, not by angels.  

If there is a temporal assignment to be done, the pattern seems to be that it must be accomplished by those still in their mortal state.  That's my view, anyway.

16 hours ago, Gillebre said:

I ask this because I've read a few assertions in my studies that Joseph Smith will return to the Church in the last days and this parable is one of their chief evidences which they feel supports the idea. There are other things they point to, but to me this seemed to be the easiest one to tackle for now.

I wonder if you are thinking of the meeting at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, described here:

Quote

According to Joseph Smith, Adam-ondi-Ahman is where God talked with Adam and the place where Adam offered up sacrifices to the Lord. At Adam-ondi-Ahman, Adam called his family together before he died so he could bless them (see D&C 107:53–56).

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

The emphasized part above would obviously include Joseph Smith as the head of this dispensation.  So he along with "all the {other} prophets" will return.

16 hours ago, Gillebre said:

In summary: since we know the Lord gives this parable as His will concerning Zion's promised redemption, and it wasn't completed by Zion's camp, should we be not surprised when Brother Joseph comes back to finish the job?

I dunno.  D&C 105:9 speaks prospectively regarding the redemption of Zion.  Also, D&C 103:15-16 states that "the redemption of Zion must needs come by power," and that God "will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel."  From the church's D&C manual:

Quote

D&C 103:16. Who Is the Man Who Will Lead the Saints As Moses Led Israel?

Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “There have been many conjectures concerning [the leader referred to in verse 16]. There have even been misguided men who have declared themselves to be this man ‘like as Moses.’

“Yet, the meaning as set forth in the scriptures, is very simple. In modern revelation the President of the Church is frequently compared to Moses. Soon after the organization of the Church, the Lord said, ‘no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses’ (D. & C. 28:2) In one of the great revelations upon Priesthood, this is more specifically expressed: ‘the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses’ (D&C 107:91). …

“The man like unto Moses in the Church is the President of the Church.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:197.)

I think that's probably correct.

I think there is a temptation for people to reject modern prophets in favor of older ones.  This even happened to Jesus Christ.  I think the whole point of living prophets and apostles is to maintain conduits of revelation and guidance.  I think it would go against the Lord's order of things for Him to, in the vernacular, pull a prophet out of retirement and send him in to replace the current pitcher.  I think the pitcher on the mound will be tasked with the job of redeeming Zion.  Joseph will be watching from afar, cheering him on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2021 by smac97

[ProphetShiloh]

On 11/5/2021 at 6:22 AM, CV75 said:

I wouldn't be surprised either way, but I tend to think the redemption of Zion in this literal fashion is not to be, since it was rescinded in later revelation. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised that Joseph Smith remains involved with the redemption of Zion, whether he is resurrected or not. I think if Joseph Smith were to come on the scene again to lead, the transfer of keys and presidency and so forth would be attended by common consent at some level of governance, general to the highest Quorum.

If Joseph Smith, Jun., returned via resurrection, he would yet hold the keys of the kingdom because these were promised to remain with him even in the world to come.  (D&C 90:3-5)

However, where the Church is concerned, it would indeed eventually have to culminate in the members of the Church taking action and appointing him as the president of the Church in place of whoever is its president.  This is because the Church President is "chosen by the body", as opposed to being the "Lord's Anointed".  These mantles of authority are not one and the same, as many LDS seem to believe.

If Joseph Smith, Jun., is to be the Lord's Anointed Prophet, then the law that the Lord established in D&C 43:3-5 would need to be complied with.  He would have to show a clear trail of "thus saith the Lord" revelation that appoints him as the prophet chosen of God by his own voice.  Who the people sustain as the president of the Church has nothing to do with who is the Lord's Anointed Prophet.

[ProphetShiloh]

On 11/5/2021 at 11:48 AM, mrmarklin said:

I think we can safely assume that any references to JS redeeming Zion will be accomplished by his successors.  They have the same power and authority.

Successors in what capacity?

The President of the Church is "chosen by the body" (D&C 107) so this puts the membership in full control of whoever is the president.  This is why God requested that the saints appoint Joseph as the President of the Church.  He deferred to them, because he gave them this responsibility.

The President of the Priesthood is strictly chosen by God alone, which is why he is referred to as the Lord's Anointed Prophet.  There can be many prophets and apostles, but there is only ever one who is the Lord's Anointed.  The law of the succession of this mantle of authority is very clearly explained to be in accordance with the voice of the Lord only.  Unless it is a "thus saith the Lord" revelation, it has no bearing on the succession of this mantle of authority.

Where things git a little convoluted is the Lord appointed the Church (in its entirety) as the successor of Joseph Smith, Jr., in D&C 90:3-5.  This means that the President of the Church, after Joseph's passing, presides over the Church's responsibility to shoulder this mantle as a body of flesh and bone.  The LDS Church became the "woman clothed with the sun".  She is Eve of the new world in America.  She passes her "garment of glory" to her Firstborn, who is the Son of Man.

The Son of Man was appointed as the successor of the Church in the revelation given to junior apostle Wilford Woodruff in 1880.  It says that the apostles are whom God chose to lead the people Israel until the Son of Man come.  This implies that when the Son of Man comes that the mantle of leadership of Israel, which belongs to the Priesthood, would be removed from the Church and placed upon him at his coming.

Many prophecies exist that posit the time of the coming of the Son of Man to be circa 1890.  Scriptures, council meeting minutes, and patriarchal blessings by Joseph Smith, Sr., all pointed to this time, without conditions.  What people have not been able to see is that the Son of Man is in fact also a flesh-and-bone being like the Church.  If the Church is Eve then her Firstborn is the School of the Prophets that the Lord commanded to have organized in the 1880's.  The keys of the Priesthood indeed went from Adam/Eve (conjoined as a body of "one flesh") to their Firstborn, who was Abel.  However, Abel is murdered by the brother who fancied that he was the Firstborn instead of Abel.

All of this pattern can be observed in the history of the Latter-day Saints.  It is something that should not continue to be overlooked or ignored.