The FLDS church and mainstream Mormonism

Unless you live under a rock, you have either heard of or read about the raid on the polygamist compound in Texas. Over 400 kids were taken, many of whom were sexually abused. Any time something like this happens, everyone I know asks me about it and I have always wondered why. Having put distance between me and the Mormon church, I am beginning to understand.

When Mormons hear about the FLDS practices, they usually dismiss them because they do not consider that religious group part of Mormonism. I know that because I did it myself for many years. My canned response to such questions would always go something like this.

“While the LDS church once practiced polygamy, they no longer condone it and anyone that is found practicing it is excommunicated. So, the “Mormons” spoken of in this case are not really Mormon and have nothing to do with the church I belong to.”

That would be the end of the conversation and I would think nothing of it. Since then, I have become a bit more enlightened on the subject and have realized that this kind of attitude is dangerous. LDS members seem to ignore the fact that those in the FLDS religion are actually following the teachings of Joseph Smith very closely. They believe that he was a prophet, and they follow the Book of Mormon and other revelations, just like mainstream Mormons do. They have the same roots and their basic tenets come from the mouths of early LDS leaders. They have chosen to stay with those doctrines while mainstream Mormonism has, in many cases, gone in a different direction.

If Joseph Smith lived today, would Mormons think the same way about him as they do Warren Jeffs? If you compare the actions of the two men, they are very similar. They both forced women and underage girls, through coercion, to marry them. They provided the same service to other men who proved their loyalty to them. They both had sex with those women against their will and held their victims hostage through threats of eternal damnation and physical punishment if they were not obedient.

While the church stopped the practice of polygamy back in 1890, there were actually still other plural marriages that were permitted by the prophet up until around 1904. The belief in plural marriage still exists in the Morg and it is my contention that if they had not received so much social and political pressure to change, they would still be practicing it today.

Here’s the question that comes to mind when I think about this topic. If the Mormon church had not stopped the practice of polygamy, would I have ended up like one of those poor kids? As a grown man, would I have been a participant in something so degrading and hurtful to women and children? It is a question worth thinking about because it is my opinion that most Mormons don’t understand how close they were to being put into the same situation.

Which one of these is not like the others?

Let’s play a game!

Which one of these is not like the others?





Having a hard time? I’ll give you a hint. It is the picture featured in most church magazines and lesson manuals. The correct answer is, picture number 3.

Why is it so out of place in this line-up? Well, it is the one that does not depict how the Book of Mormon was actually translated. For years, the church has shown images like this, leading its members and investigators to believe that this was how Joseph translated the golden plates. They depict Joseph intensely focused on the plates themselves, taking the translated words directly from them. This is what the church wants you to believe but it is not in synch with actual accounts of the translation process.

Emma Smith was the first person to act as a scribe for Joseph and she had the following to say about it.

“In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

David Whitmer offered up the use of his house for the translation and this is his account:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear."

He also said that:

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
~An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer

Of course, this brings us to the question of why is the church not forthcoming with the true method used to translate the plates. I would imagine that they are rather embarrassed by it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an investigator. When the missionaries tell you about the coming forth of the BoM, instead of showing you a nice picture of Joseph using the plates in the translation, they tell you that he put a stone in a hat and then covered his face with it to make the words appear to him. Which account would you be more likely to believe?

For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none

So, for years I defended the idea of early Mormons practicing polygamy by saying that they only did it to take care of those poor pioneer women whose husbands died on the plains. Or that it was something that was practiced by those in the Bible as well so why not now. After all, God does not change, right? These were ideas that I was taught by various church leaders but they never seemed to sit too well with me. I was reading yesterday and came upon an interesting passage in the Book of Mormon that talks about those who practiced it in the early days.

Jacob 2:22-28
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Now, I think I probably read this section 20+ times in my life but never really stopped to think about how it relates to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other men in the early days of the church. Joseph himself “translated” the BoM so you would think he would know about how God felt concerning the idea of having more then one wife. After all, it was the translation work that brought up questions about baptism and the priesthood so why would he have just skipped over this part?

I have not found a passage that states so clearly the disdain God has towards those who have more then one wife and take away the chastity of women. Now, why then would God command Joseph to implement the principle of plural marriage if he was so displeased with David, Solomon and the Nephites for doing the same thing? If there is a God, I do not think he would. I especially don’t think he would have compelled Joseph to do it by sending an angel with a flaming sword to him threatening to take his life. I also do not think that God would command his prophets to take other men’s wives for their own while they are still married and even pregnant. If what Joseph claims is true about plural marriage, then his God is not one I care to believe in. I believe that Joseph, thinking of his own need for power, did this knowing it was wrong. Why else would he have hid it from Emma, his first wife, as well as others for so long? Why would he send men off on missions and then only months later, take their wives as his own? That practice, in any time in history, would not be looked upon with favorable eyes.

For those of you who doubt that Joseph practiced polygamy and polyandry, go to familysearch.org yourself, just like I have done, and do a search for Joseph Smith marriage records from 1827 and on. I will make it easy on you, just…click here. What will you find? On a church run website, you will find the records of the majority if not all of his marriages, including those women he married while they were still faithfully married to another man.

D&C 132:61-63
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed…

So, according to the revelation given above, as long as the second wife is a virgin and the first wife gives her consent, the marriage is ok. While I disagree with the principle, I am willing to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt up to this point. The problem for me comes next. If the woman is not a virgin and or is vowed to another man, the one trying to marry her is not justified. By that note, anyone who Joseph and others married that were previously married, they did unjustly and committed adultery because of it. Now, it is believed by those brethren that they were not committing adultery but what of the women how already had a husband? According to verse 63, they did commit adultery by being espoused but also being with another man. That is quite the double standard.

I leave you with the words of one of the late Apostles of the LDS church…

"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

I think that statement just about sums it all up. Now I think I’m going to be sick!

Book of Abraham Sounds Like a Sham

It is common knowledge that Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Abraham came from his translation of some papyri acquired along with some mummies from a traveling show that passed through his town. What I think is not very well known are the details of that translation.

At the time in which Joseph Smith lived, there was very little knowledge regarding Ancient Egypt and everything that surrounded it was a mystery that intrigued many in the US. There was at that time, no real expert in reading Egyptian hieroglyphics but some were beginning to make small strides in understanding that civilization. When Joseph Smith saw the scrolls he had some of the members put together enough money to buy the mummies and scrolls for the sum of $2,400 which was a very large sum at the time. Joseph began translating the writings but it would take him many years to finish it.

As science has progressed, our knowledge of the Egyptians has increased substantially since the 1830’s. The discovery of the Rosetta Stone helped linguists discover the true meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics. With the knowledge of today in both ancient writings and time dating, scientists have been able to evaluate the scrolls Joseph Smith used to create the Book of Abraham. The scrolls were believed to have been destroyed in the “great Chicago fire” of 1871 but in 1966 they were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Many experts in Egyptology, from various parts of the world, have since inspected and reviewed the scrolls along with the three facsimiles found in the Pearl of Great Price and they have come to a very different conclusion regarding their origin and content. For the sake of time, I am not going to go into great detail on the specifics because they are too numerous to put here and I do not want to bore you all to death. There are many great books and web sites that do a good job of putting all of the information together for you. With a quick click on one of the links found on this blog you can read bout it in greater detail. 20 Truths About Mormonism has a very good accout of this and it also has the Mormon response to the issues surrounding the BoA.

Joseph claimed that the BoA was the writings of Abraham but according to those that have since reviewed the scrolls; the name of Abraham is not mentioned. The conclusion they all came to was that the scrolls were actually common Egyptian funerary documents for a man named Horus and that Joseph’s interpretations were far from accurate. The BoA has been identified as the Book of Breathings and time dating of the scrolls puts their creation at around the time of Christ which was approximately 2,000 years later then the time of Abraham. What Joseph Smith claimed to be the Book of Joseph was actually the pagan Egyptian Book of the Dead which dates to at least 1,500 years after the time of the biblical Joseph so it is not possible that he wrote it.

After reading all of the facts regarding the Book of Abraham, I have come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith did not know how to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics nor did he ever think that others would be able to, so he made up his own translation because no one would know the difference. His interpretation of the scrolls has been found to be no where close to the actual text by the scholars of today. Joseph has deceived the church regarding the Book of Abraham and the current leaders of the church choose to ignore the evidence against it.

If the Book of Abraham has been found to be a fraud, then could that same thing be said about the Book of Mormon? Unfortunately, without the actual plates, it would be impossible to make that assumption based on actual translation records alone but there are other issues in the Book of Mormon that I will get into later that lead me to believe it is no more accurate then the Book of Abraham.

Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?

D&C Section 89
1 A WORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom

I was doing some reading about the Word of Wisdom and came upon something interesting. Before I get to my main point, I feel the need to give a little back story.

Now, after I graduated high School, I went to live with a former bishop of mine whose family had moved to Seattle. It was a chance to get away from Texas for a while and hopefully point my life in the right direction. While living up there, I was asked to speak at a fireside where different topics were being addressed. My topic was the WoW. In preparation, I asked Bishop for some insight on the subject. He asked me one question…”Is the WoW a commandment?” I thought about it for a second then I replied, “Yes”. He opened to section 89 and had me read the passage I quoted above. I was surprised to see that it says in very clear language, “not by commandment or constraint”. He explained to me how the revelation came about and that it was, at the time, a suggestion to the brethren. He left it at that and let me formulate my own opinions about it. I decided to ask his question to the group of youth there and they answered just like I had. I explained to them the same thing as best I could and then got into the traditional aspects of the revelation.

Over the years since, I have thought about that experience a lot. I could feel at the time how uncomfortable the leaders in the room felt when I told them that it was not a commandment. No one spoke to me about it but I always ask myself if I was right in saying that. After all, in the church today, you are asked very specific questions regarding the WoW and you must follow it to be considered a “member in good standing”.

Now, back to my current reading on the topic. I was again asking myself if I was right in teaching that so I began to read in Mormon Doctrine to see what McConkie had to say about it. I found what I expected. He states that it was not originally a commandment but was made one by Brigham Young. I then stumbled upon a quote by Joseph Smith made on April 7, 1838. The quote reads:

“No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the Word of Wisdom properly taught him, and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it.” (Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith p117)

The reason this quote struck me is because I read an account from History of the Church where, even up to the night before he was killed, Joseph Smith did not obey the WoW. The following account is from the night before his murder at Carthage Jail.

"The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail…Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor…" (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 616)

At the time, the use of wine as part of the Sacrament was generally accepted but this was not the use here as confirmed by john Taylor.

"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent to revive us." (History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 101)

Based on this account as well as others, and the quote by Joseph Smith in 1838, he himself should not have been worthy to hold the calling and office of Prophet.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. I find it odd that in “worthiness interviews”, the only aspect of the WoW spoken of is abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco. They completely ignore the revelation that speaks of the good and healthy foods to eat and put no importance in being healthy as a requirement of worthiness. They choose to only follow/require the part of the revelation they want to enforce and the rest is just an afterthought in the last 2 minutes a Sunday school lesson. I have found that this is a typical practice of the church. They change their own doctrine to suit their needs at the time or to rationalize a behavior and then change it back at their convenience, acting as if nothing ever happened.

If some are of God, some are of men and some are of the Devil, then how do we know which is which?

In my studies, one story that I read has constantly bothered me. The story is about how Joseph Smith received a revelation sending some of the brethren on a trip to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. They went as they were told but were not able to complete the task. The explanation they received from Joseph Smith as to why is what concerns me. It is better to hear the whole story from the source, so here is the account of the revelation as told by David Whitmer in a book he wrote in 1887 called, An Address To All Believers In Christ, by a witness to the Devine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I hope it is not too long for you to take the time to read it. The last part is important to the point I am trying to make.

“When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm, in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice. Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue. He was wrong in thus judging Bro. Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land. (Page 30)

"Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord." (Page 31)

Now, ok, first I have to comment briefly on the whole stone in the hat thing. For years, I heard non-Mormons talk about how Joseph received revelation by putting a stone in a hat and putting it over his face. This sounded so absurd that I could not bring myself to believe it, especially since I had never heard that in all my years in Sunday school and other church classes. Some might ask if that is a significant omission and I have to say that it is. My reason for thinking that it is something that the church leaders do not want to talk about is the topic of my next blogs where I will talk more about the early life of Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

To the point I would like to focus on. When Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Toronto empty handed and disillusioned, questioning the revelation. The answer they received from Joseph was one that should have been alarming to them and one that should send up a red flag to everyone that hears it. "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

What I find so troubling about this statement is that at this point in his life; Joseph Smith already had many “experiences” with revelation and visions and was the prophet. He claimed to have seen God, Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John amongst others, not to mention the revelation needed to actually translate the golden plates. If all that is true, then how is it that he, as the prophet, could not tell the difference between a revelation from God or Satan? Shouldn’t he know the difference by now? If he could not tell one from the other, then how can we trust that anything he claims to be revelation actually came from God and not the devil?

My wife reminded me of this scripture that I thought was appropriate for this situation.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I also found this one…
2 Nephi 9:9
9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

I can’t help but question Joseph’s ability to discern revelation from God from that of Satan. If he himself had been deceived by the devil on something relatively small like the Toronto revelation, how do we know he was not deceived on other occasions as well?

Some of his visions and revelations relate to these scriptures. He refers to the first vision as seeing an angel in a pillar of light and Moroni was surrounded by light. Could these possibly be the “angel of light” spoken of in these passages? Could the “secret combinations” be what is practiced in the temple? What about the “murder” and “secret works of darkness” mentioned in 2 Nephi? I can find many accounts in early Mormon history that speak of these types of things. The Meadow Mountain Massacre, Blood Atonement and others are documented proof that Mormon leaders sanctioned and condoned these types of practices. Is it possible that Satan, disguised as the “angel of light”, used Joseph Smith to lead away millions of people and destroy the salvation of their loved ones for generations to come?

These questions have plagued my mind for a while now and I don’t expect I will get an answer for them any time in this life. I remember being taught, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Personally, I have seen all the fruits I need to see from Joseph Smith to know that he was nothing close to what he claimed to be.

"Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start."

I know, singing songs from The Sound of Music entitles me to give up my man card but I have always loved musical and this one seemed to fit nicely into the theme of this post.

Last night I was trying to collect my thoughts regarding my disaffection with the Mormon Church and it became rather clear that what I need to do is start from the very beginning. Where is the beginning of the LDS Church? Joseph Smith, the First Vision and the books of scripture he translated. So, the focus of my next couple of posts will be on those subjects.

On my mission, one of the first things I learned in Spanish was the account of the first vision. For weeks it was the only thing I could say so I got really good at it. It has always been kind of special to me and I still have it memorized. While studying the topic of the first vision in the recent past, I was very surprised to find out that the official account we read in Joseph Smith History was written in 1838 but was not actually published until 1842 in Times and Season. I was always taught that the vision happened in 1820 so that would mean that 18 years passed before our version of the account was written and 22 years from when it was published. There were many accounts written before that and they all contradict each other in some way.

The fist time Joseph wrote about the account was in 1832.

"… thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind...my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ…Therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me"

Joseph makes a few statements that are different then the "official" version we know. He states that he had already come to the conclusion that there were no denominations teaching the true gospel of Jesus Chris. He also says that he saw the Lord but there is no mention of him seeing God.

Another account was written in 1835 in Joseph Smiths diary.

"“being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord … I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay … I called on the Lord in mightly prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication."

In this account, he no longer knows that there was not a true church on the earth. He mentions that the personage testified that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but he does not say that he saw Jesus or God. He also talks about seeing many angels but that is not part of the "official" account.

Later in 1835, Joseph gave another account to Erastus Holmes that was published in Deseret News and History of the Church.

"This afternoon, Erastus Holmes, of Newbury, Ohio, called on me to inquire about the establishment of the church, and to be instructed in doctrine more perfectly. I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date.”

Again Joseph only talks about seeing angels and there is no mention of God and Jesus.

In 1844 Joseph wrote a chapter on Mormonism in a book called An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States.

"I retired to a secret place in a grove, and began to call upon the Lord. While fervently engaged in supplication, my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enrapt in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light, which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His Church and Kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to "go not after them," at the same time receiving a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."

As in other accounts, Joseph does not specifically say that he saw God and Jesus and only refers to them here as personages. i find Josephs accounts puzzling. When talking about an experience so important and great, why was he so vague? Would he not be more specific in telling who it was he saw? If this is such an important event in Mormonism, why then are there so many different accounts?
I think it is hard to believe that an event so important to the world and the center of the LDS Church could have been told in so many different ways. Why could they not get the story straight and which one am aI supposed to believe? The "official" account is obviously the one the Church teaches but it appears to only be a compilation of different facts from the various accounts.
A fellow blogger has a great blog about this as well that also has many quotes from Brigham Young and other church leaders that clearly state that the first vision was the visitation of Angles and not God and Jesus. You can read it here.

The accounts of the first vision were taken from a web site called Mormons in Transition and it has the sources listed there if you would like to research further.