Rethinking the "Two Personages" in Joseph Smith's First Vision

In the last post I mentioned Joseph Smith's first known account of what became known of the First Vision.  There are multiple versions, with some differences among them in terms of what is emphasized, excluded, or even mentioned (See link below for the Joseph Smith Papers site that catalogues the accounts).

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision

For example, in the first version, only one being is mentioned as communicating with Joseph, whereas in ensuing versions the presence of two beings is consistently mentioned.

It is these two 'personages' as they are called in the most well known version (found in the LDS church's Pearl of Great Price account) that I am rethinking and will simply say that we may be taking too great a liberty in assuming that these two personages are 'God the Father and Jesus Christ'.

I guess "who else would they be?" would be the best question to that thought, and there is, I think, pretty good evidence that the assumption that has been made is correct.  For example, in Joseph's 1932 version, he specifically states the being introduces himself as the one who was crucified.  Additionally, in the accounts including at least two personages, only the Wentworth letter does not have the explicit reference of one being introducing by the other being as their 'beloved son'.  This would seem to match pretty well with how Jesus was introduced at Bountiful, and thus add support that the beings are who Mormons have always assumed them to be.

But what if they aren't?

The first tip-off that there might be something different going on here is the general reference to 'personages'.  Joseph had no problem using Jesus' name in other stories, lectures, sermons, etc.  Why not just come out and say that it was Jesus who spoke to him?  He seems to be deliberately not doing so - why?  Maybe he didn't know who they were, in fact?  Or maybe, to go into who they were would be confusing for everybody else, and so let everyone infer what they wanted to, and if that meant God the Father and Jesus then so be it.   Or perhaps he wasn't allowed to tell?  We do know that the glorious beings spoke many things to Joseph that he was not allowed to convey - perhaps their identities and purposes, and how that all fit in the story was one of those things?

If we are honest with ourselves, while we know there is a father and son relationship between the beings, we are making an assumption in defining who the father and son are.  Again, to be clear, the traditional reading may be right but it is an assumed reading, and that should be remembered.

Yes, there is the first account which has the heavenly being introducing themselves as the one who was crucified.  Is that proof?  I say no.  We do have other examples of beings speaking for and in place of other beings, including Jesus, having their authority to do so.  The being might have been delivering a message from Jesus, using those words, or even speaking as if he were Jesus, having been sent and authorized by him.

As support for this line of thinking, I would bring up in the other First Vision versions, the beings speak of God and Jesus seemingly in the 3rd person.  In the 1835 account, after the 2nd individual is introduced he then proceeds to forgive Joseph's sins and testified 'that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'.  It is an account that was written down by someone else, granted, but if taken at face value we see the 2nd individual (the one introduced as the son) having the power to forgive sins but also speaking of Jesus as someone not himself - testifying of another.

Further, in the Wentworth letter, the two beings tell Joseph that none of the churches were acknowledged by God as his church and kingdom.  Again, we have the beings speaking of God as someone else - not them.  I will grant that it could be a matter of using different perspectives or pronouns when recounting or recording their advice.  The beings could have said that none of the churches were approved by them, and it was summarized in the the 3rd person as told in the story.  That is highly possible.

But - I think there is enough here to at least support someone who is looking for or believes in an alternative interpretation of the story to not be dissuaded in exploring that further.  It is, in my opinion, not as definitive as assumed as to the identity of the two individuals.

I don't have any special knowledge, and have thus been sworn to no secrecy, so I don't mind hazarding a guess at least as to the identity of the "son" mentioned if it turns out that it is indeed not Jesus (and stress that this is fairly speculative, even by my standards).  I will also state that I believe this being has been known by other names, as I have indicated is the case for many beings (see my earlier post on reincarnation).

From the accounts we have of the Vision, this being can forgive sins, testifies of Jesus, is a son of somebody, can potentially even speak for and as Jesus, and is someone that Joseph needs to hearken to.  With this information, combined with other thoughts, references, and insights looping around in my mind, my guess for the 2nd personage is:

The Holy Ghost

It is the Holy Ghost that Joseph is perhaps introduced to in the grove that morning and given instructions to listen to; and not just to listen to during that morning's discussion, but throughout Joseph's mission.  I therefore also suggest that it is the Holy Ghost who is the primary speaker, and the one Joseph is listening to, in the various revelations he would go on to receive.