I've read many apologists argue against some critical comment by saying that JS didn't actually write something, his scribes did. So, we can't prove anything based on some particular document.

For example, the Eqyptian Alphabet, is brushed aside by apologists because a scribe wrote it. The Times and Seasons can be discarded because someone else wrote the article. JS journal can be ignored because Phelps or someone wrote it.

So, I say that since a scribe wrote the entire Book of Mormon, that too must be discarded as heresay and not translated by JS. Same would be true for most of the church "scriptures". The whole church is heresay and should be ignored, thanks to apologist "logic."

I agree that it should be ignored, but not because of their illogic.

Plus there are so many quotes out there by those involved in the "translation" process about how it was an exact word for word translation.

why can't we?
True or false, that is what the Prophet of the Restoration said and commanded to be written down.

On the other hand, it has been shown that aproximately 60% of the History of the Church by JSjr was actually written after his death. He also did not anticipate that D&C 121,122, and 123 would become scripture, since they were excerpts of a letter he wrote from jail. Not only were they excerpts but they were chopped and added upon before their publication in the Utah D&C.

So even though the apologists find it convenient to cover church embarrassments with claims of careless scribes, it should be remembered that a majority of the official history was invented in Utah and that many of the later D&C scriptures attributed to Joseph Smith were not scribes errors, but intentionally created after his death and without his approval.

Agreed. For them to argue that something added later isn't attributable is one thing. But to dismiss something written during his life, by his scribe, at his direction, is another. When they use the argument for the latter, they destroy the whole basis of the BoM and everything else that follows.

The LDS Church is running like crazy away from it's own scriptures, and past. The problem they know they have, is without the Book of Mormon, nad their special 19-21st Century Prophets, they are not unique, and have no claims to authourity or superiority over other churches.

But you've got it nailed as far as the role apologists assign it. I think I recall things like "Zelph the White Lamanite" and the "Moon Quaker" story were explained by some in this fashion.

It certainly offers a lot of wiggle room for the revisionists.

Will Bagley mentioned to me that Brigham Young "learned" the practice of having scribes from Joseph Smith. That gave the "prophet" a lot of wiggle room as well; he could say something and then tell the scribe to write something else down.

Joseph's critics would attempt to pin something on him, and he would bring forth a scribe's statement and discredit what they said.

See D&C 24:1, where God says to Joseph:

"Behold, thou wast called and chosen to WRITE the Book of Mormon..." [emphasis added]

What? Apologetics torpedoing doctrine? Surely it can't be?

Apologists make the best anti-mormons.