I think there is a tremendous value in understanding the voice of the prophet. Instead of it being a two-dimensional flat work, it becomes a rich three dimensional body with contours and dynamism. It becomes to us, what it was to those who received them from the mouth of the prophet.

As per the translation of the Book of Mormon, I think that if we consider all the pieces that Joseph “translated” we have to consider that translate = received by revelation.

I think however that one of the points of Joseph’s different voices was to teach us that divine knowledge and teaching doesn’t have to come strictly through voice #1; it can be through more intimate, personal voices.

1) The voice of the Lord would seem, under some versions of the expansion theory, to be concepts given from the Lord to Joseph’s mind and then given in his voice. This would certianly seem to challenge the thesis that those “thus saith the Lord…” passages are really God’s actual words. This reminds me of the passage in D&C 1:24 as well as section 67, both revelation given at about the same time.

2) The voice of prophets past would seem to be really complex. Take for instance the BoM: most expansionists would agree that the words of past prophets are there, however there is an awful lot of Joseph in there as well. One also wonders how much, if any, of the voice of the Lord is there as well. Does God simply “butt out” and let the ancient prophet be responsible for the entire content originating outside of Joseph? This would seem to double the amount of fallibility which COULD creep into such revelations.

3) The voice of Joseph doesn’t seem to be too effected by the expansionist theory. One does, however, have to wonder whether Joseph simply saying something without attributing revelation to it should really count as revelation. Of course he could simply be relating a revelation he received in the past, but by then lots and lots of inferential interpretation and corruption is likely to have crept in.

Recognizing these differences is important, if only to recognize what types and amounts of human fallibility could have crept into any given scriptural passage. It also helps to better understand the context in which the revelations were given and should therefore be understood.

I believe that’s the reason why some people recognized when Joseph Smith spoke/wrote with divine authority and others didn’t.

Even today, when people read the Book of Mormon, some people recognize those prophetic voices whispering from the dust with divine authority, and others just get bored.

It is why, when people read 3rd Nephi chapters 11 through 26, some recogize that the Savior actually spoke those words to those people back then, and some just say “It’s copied from the Bible.”

I am of the opinion that all revelation comes through same variation on the theme of “pure knowledge to the mind”. Therefore, the words “thus saith the Lord” are simply rhetorical devices and not sure markers of God’s own personal language choices. Many of you have had experiences of receiving clear revelation — things like “stop now, turn around and go to place X and say Y”. That is pure knowledge to the mind and whether one later records it with the preface “thus saith the Lord” is completely irrelevant — either God said it or he didn’t.

I believe all revelation must pass through language filter of the person/prophet that delivers it to us. That means the processes of your 1-3 are probably all variations on the same thing. They are all pure knowledge to Joseph’s mind that he then describes in English. Yes, I recognize that some of those revelations also entailed visions, but I don’t think that fact changes the basics of the process.

This model I believe puts more revelatory responsibility on each of us as well. We need to get revelation ourselves concerning the pure knowledge Joseph received to ensure we understand the message properly. I think we need to be more like Nephi in this respect – when he heard the dream/vision his father had he went to the source to get the same thing himself.

It is hard to know where to begin responding to this interesting question. I think the first thing I would say is to agree that Steve’s third category is important and worth thinking about. Because although it is certainly true on some theoretical level that “none of these categorizations matter” when it comes to what Latter-day Saints can consider revelation, I think differences in prophetic linguistic and personal styles _are_ highly important to many of us on a personal level. A couple of instances:
1) Some of the most moving and oft-cited passages from the D&C are those given voice by Joseph Smith, often before he has even received any revelation (“And where is the pavilion that coverth thy hiding place?” [D&C 121: 1 - etc]: are the first six verses a prelude to revelation in that they are the prayer that results in revelation? Or are they themselves revelation since they are part of the D&C?) Thus, Joseph’s unique voice seems to stand out to us and connect with us in some important way.

2) It is hard to argue that there isn’t real power in individual contemporary prophets/apostles communicating in unique ways to different people: although we will certainly have more great prophets able to say “thus sayeth the Lord” after Pres. Hinckley is gone, surely no other prophet will be able to bring the same unique combination of humor and optimism that Pres. Hinckley does (I guess in this regard I disagree w/ J. Stapley’s suggestion that the days of “thus saith the Lord” are past).

I guess if I were to cross into speculation, I’d say that there is some unique principle that I/we might _only_ be able to learn from revelation given _through_ Pres. Hinckley, or through Joseph Smith, etc, and that one way that uniqueness is evident is in their distinctive language choices.

I’ll be interested to see where the thread goes and hope to check in again soon.