Does or does not Christ run this church? Who is at the head, Christ or Hinkley and the Twelve?
The church is run by men, I sustain the 15 as our leaders because there is no other alternative to sustain and someone's got to do it. However, the lack of revelations pertinent to our lives today is directly related to their lack of discernment based on their unwillingness to interact with the members and current events, and in more than one case, pride. I don't say this to be mean-spirited or cavalier. It's simply a fact of life that as people age, they lose brain cells and spark. It's also a fact of life that as we are given more, we become full of pride. Most of our leaders are simply too old and too proud to run an operation of this size efficiently and for the best for the members. Virtually all of the top 15 should be released with a vote of thanks, and get some younger blood, some people who don't think of themselves as "entitled" to run the church. Even Pres Monson is coming to end of his effective service. Let them rest; they've earned it.
I doubt that Christ or HF have been directly involved in the church at all, even at the beginning. The First Vision is a cobbled together account which may or may not have taken place. Their involvement is a given though, through answering prayers and bestowing blessings and trying to get these stubborn proud men to listen to their counsel. However, I see no reason to accept a story of their involvement, fabricated and cobbled together years after the fact in response to challenges of the day. Joseph was a gifted storyteller; I see no reason to believe he received a visit from God himself, although I can believe he told a story about such a visit though. Something happened to him, but I don't think it was a heavenly vision, at least not as he related it later. I no longer believe in Joseph's supposed divine calling as prophet. I think his divine calling was to bring forth the Book of Mormon and everything he did after that, he did on his own. I think the Book of Mormon is scripture in the same way and for the same reason I think the Bible is scripture, but I don't think either is completely God-breathed. I see man's hands all over both of them.
I believe in the restoration, but not as most LDS assume. I think that there are many things that have been lost over the ages. I don't think Joseph had a handle on most of them, though, and I think the changes the church has made since his time are blatant manifestations of his personal lack of discernment. I think he tried, but I think he traded his divine calling for sex, and we still pay for his lack of restraint today. He didn't understand who he was or what he had or what he was supposed to do, and like any immature creature, reached far beyond his capacity... and fell.
Witnesses that see through "spiritual eyes" aren't witnesses of actual events at all. Witnesses that have a vested interest in the enterprise aren't exactly unbiased observers. I don't trust the witnesses at all and I've yet to see any reason to do so. The only way I'm going to believe the church's official story about the origins of the Book of Mormon is for them to put the golden plates on display. Otherwise, I'm going with the idea that Joseph was inspired to write it, just like Peter or Paul of old.
With that in mind, why are you so choosey in the doctrines you accept and decline?
I accept doctrines for which I receive personal validation of their inspired foundation. I reject doctrines that do not pass that test. I understand the process for canonization, and feel no need to blindly accept that which is canonized, simply because some people living in the 1800's thought they were seeing valid revelation. I test everything the same way. It has never failed me yet.